The URL can be used to link to this page

06-08-99 Special & WorkshopDEL~Y B~CH NI-Amei~C~ SPECIAL MEETING & WORKSHOP - JUNE 8, 1999 - 6:00 P.M. 1993 FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services to afford an indi- vidual with a disability an opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127 (voice) or 243-7199 (TDD), 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA (1) RESOLUTION NO. 29-99 (CRA REDEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS): Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Delray Beach to issue Redevelopment Revenue Bonds in the principal amount not to exceed Four Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,700,000) . (PUBLIC HEARING ITEM) (2) RESOLUTION NO. 33-99 (NOTE AGREEMENT WITH SUNTRUST): Consid- er approval of a resolution authorizing the City to execute a Note Agreement with SunTrust Bank in the amount of $3,500,000 for the purpose of financing the implementation of the small water meter replacement program. WORKSHOP AGENDA (1) Presentation by Rich and Associates of the Parking Study/ Analysis completed for east of the Intracoastal Waterway. (2) Presentation by Professional Engineering Consultants (PEC) relative to a city-wide capital infrastructure needs assess- ment and integrated capital plan, including project prioriti- zation, estimates of costs, and potential bond issue consider- ations. (3) Presentation concerning the concept of and design parameters for proposed roundabouts within the City. (4) Commission comments. 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. DIRECTION REGARDING CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP OF JUNE 8, 1999 WS(1) PRESENTATION BY RICH AND ASSOCIATES OF THE PARKING STUDY ANALYSIS COMPLETED FOR EAST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATER- WAY Mayor Alperin reviewed the options as provided in section 5 of the parking study: 1) Do noting: Ail of the Commission responded this was not an option. 2) Provide a shuttle from a remote, under-utilized parking area: Commission felt this was not viable and employees would have difficulty enforcing it. Archer noted however, it might encourage employees to use a shuttle if there was metered parking vs free parking with a shuttle. 3) Provide extensive valet service: Commission felt this was also not a viable solution. The problem with this option is who would pay for the service. Businesses were not receptive without having control of the valet service. 4) Create additional surface parking in a public lot. Commission agreed that we should provide parking surfaces as they become available. 5) Build a parking structure. Ail agreed they felt uncomfortable asking the citizens to pay for a parking garage, although they felt it would be needed in the future to avoid parking in residential areas. Also it was mentioned that both the east and west areas should be considered to avoid two parking structures and to accommodate the business area also. Again there was a concern as to who should pay for the parking structure. Bruce Gimmy mentioned that when Commission discussed revenue from surface parking it means meters. He mentioned that about six years ago PMT recommended that meters should be in- stalled east of the intracoastal as a partial solution to the problem. It would turn over vehicles sooner and create some revenue. He felt that meters are paramount in bring in monies and vehicle turn over. garage we have to put meters on the street, there's no question in my mind. And if we put meters on the street they have to be a higher price then for the off street parking or west of the intracoastal. Mayor Alperin, the consensus is that we should be looking at surface parking. Is there a consensus that we should be looking to support a parking garage? Commissioner Archer, I think we should keep it in mind along with other options, including meters. Commissioner Schmidt, not right now. Mayor Alperin, I feel by delaying this way we are not fixing ...... This Commission has been very proactive about trying to plan for the future and we're struggling to catch-up with the past and we're falling further behind. By not telling staff to look at building a garage we're falling further behind, perhaps we do need a separate taxing district to subsidize the expense. Commissioner Wright questioned what kind of demand are we looking at? Will we be increasing our population that much or are we talking about the number of people who want to use our beaches and restaurants? Personally he goes to the beach once a week and he hunts around but finds a parking place. City Manager, I would like staff to do a more vigorous analysis of the report. Commissioner Randolph, even with the surface parking, that would not be adequate if we continue to advance the City with the popularity it has now. How much of a sacrifice are we willing to make. We need to explore the surface parking we have now to provide for the needs of private and public parking. We need to watch our growth very closely. Mayor Alperin, direction to staff is we need to empha- size surface parking, look at the 28 spaces at the Marriott and the Church parking. Commissioner Archer, and no-one wants to look at meter- ing spaces? Mayor Alperin, were only talking about metering spaces on East Atlantic at this point. To the City Commissioners. Progressive Resident's of Delray have voted unanimously at the June 7, 1999 board meeting the following: We have reviewed the results of the Parking study and definitely agree with the first two recommendations. We do not agree with the recommendation for a Parking Garage on the Beach for the following reasons: 1. We do not believe that the study has proved the need for such a garage. There has yet to be any factual evidence that someone has lost business because of parking. 2. We do not believe that a bond issue for the garage is in the best interests of city even if it were self-sustaining. The total indebtedness of the city would be increased for something that is not a priority which could impede the sale of other issues for things that are more critical. 3. The garage would not pay for itself and would be a drain on the city. We have learned that this seems to be the case where other cities have ventured into these projects. 4. We also feel that such a garage would be an eyesore and not compatible with the area. We hope that you will consider the feelings of the voters in this matter. Sincerely, ~ Jean Beer, Pres. £1TY aF I ELAAY BEACH DELRAY BEACH ~ 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE - DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444. 561/243-7000 1993 TO: David. T. Harden, City Manager FROM: ~rRobert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager DATE: June 2, 1999 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP JUNE 8, 1999 PARKING STUDY~ANALYSIS ACTION Mr. Rick Rich of Rich and Associates will be making a presentation to City Commission on the Parking Study/Analysis completed for east of the intracoastal waterway. After the presentation he will be available to answer questions. Staff is seeking direction from City Commission, as to which recommendations presented in the report, that should be pursued for additional analysis and research. Based on Commission direction, staff would then prepare any ordinances, proposals and/or agreements that may be needed. BACKGROUND A contract with Rich and Associates was executed in January 1999. The scope of work to be completed was as follows: 1. Determine parking needs and if there is a need for a parking garage. 2. If the need for a parking garage is recommended, provide cost estimates. 3. If a parking garage is needed, provide a recommendation for the best alternative sites. 4. Provide alternatives/options for financing a parking garage if the need is determined. 5. Make recommendations for parking options to consider, if feasible, other than a garage. A presentation of the completed report was made by Mr. Rich to the Parking Management Advisory Board at their May 25, 1999 meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Wheat and seconded by Mr. Gimmy "To accept the report and recommend to City Commission to consider recommendations stated in Section THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Agenda Item City Commission Workshop June 8, 1999 Parking Study/Analysis Page #2 #4 of the report and the three recommendations contained in Section 5, pages 5- 20 through 5-25." The vote was 5-1, Mr. Dahlem dissenting, disagreeing with recommendation #3, Section 5 because he did not feel that the parking need justified a parking garage. The recommendations stated in Section 4 are as follows: 1. Review and revise Parking Standards by land use. 2. Consider implementing a resident parking permit program when conditions warrant it. 3. Develop a marketing program for business and on-street parking. 4. Add one (1) volunteer parking enforcement patrol during peak season. 5. Improve and add signage for parking similar to signage installed west of the Intracoastal. 6. Add where needed and repaint faded parking stalls. The three (3) recommendations stated in Section 5 are as follows: 1. Make the City-owned meter spaces on the north side of the Marriott available at night until 11:00 p.m. for valet parking. 2. Proceed with discussions with the First Presbyterian Church to create a 95-space surface lot, as well as with Nations Bank to add surface parking. 3. Begin planning for a future parking structure to be completed within the next two to three years. The intent of the maker of the motion was to get these recommendations before City Commission to provide staff direction as to which recommendations contained in the report to pursue. Staff would then have to conduct additional research, determine which recommendations are feasible, and then prepare any ordinances, agreements or proposals needed for future action by the Commission. RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that recommendations 1 through 6, Section 4, are viable recommendations that should be pursued. In general, we did not disagree with recommendations 1-3 Section 5, but feel that these recommendations need more analysis and development of specific proposals for future action. We do have reservations about a parking structure due to the deficit projected. This specific recommendation needs further analysis and staff would have to develop funding alternatives to offset the deficit. RAB/tas File: u:sweeney/agenda Doc:060299a.doc CITY MANAGER Delray Parking Garage Solutions Here are two solutions to the heated four-story parking garage debate between business owners, beach property owners and the City Council. Forget a four-story garage on Andrews or Gleason Streets. Recognize the 175 + parking spots which could be made available on AIA beach front by eliminating parallel parking. With 24' between parking meters, each parallel parking could be made into two spaces (9' x 23'). This would pick up about 75 parking spaces between spaces B1-B77. Head-in parking is visually demonstrated from B78-B96 along with disabled head-in parking. Fl-om Atlantic Avenue to the last meter north B 198 are a very feasible extra 100 parking spaces - total 175 +. What are the problems which will present themselves when the State, legal, E.P.P~ and politidans get in the discussion? Enough to k/ll a very sensible and low cost solution when compared to a 5.5 mill/on dollar garage with a 9 million dollar bond obligation over 20 years. ~- A Condominium Garage This Plan, I presented to council last year without much discussion, questions or apparent interest. The only difference is, I am not just thinking Plan II is a good one, I've done it. In Columbus, Ohio, as a real estate broker, I bought and converted over 1500 units to condominiums. Many units were inside and outside condominium parking spaces. Easily sold. To spare the details, I recommended instead of one large garage, 3 or 4 from the beach back across the Intracoastal up to Old School. Demolition, Eminent Domain, etc., would make sites available. The parking spaces would be sold by Realtors to merchants, investors with a guaranteed return of say 70/0/8% net/net/net/- no taxes/no insurance/no maintenance. The City collects all parking revenues. I can assure the Delray Beach Tax Payers, the cost of serving condo parking space owners will never be anywhere near the 9 million currently being considered being paid to bond holders. When push comes to shove - why not use Plan I and Plan II. cc: Frank Devine, 2200 S. Ocean Blvd., Delray Beach, FL 33483 Chuck DiMassio, 30 Andrews Ave., Delray Beach, FL 33483 David Harden, 100 N.W. 1st Ave., Delray Beach, FL 3~!!! Ted n3u~ Hobson, Sr. 426 N.E. 7th Ave Apt 1-F Delray Beach, FL (561) 276-3527 -2- A SUGGESTED CONDOMINIUM GARAGE CONCEPT The City of Delray Beach, Florida was considering building a 300 parking space garage. Financing was one of the problems contemplated. Using the condorninittm development technique discussed previously this is an alternative plan submitted for future consideration. AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR THE DELRAY BEACH 300 UNTT PARKING GARAGE 1. Instead of building 300 units in one location - consider three - 100 unit garages in three diversified locations. Possible advantages: (a) Congestion reduction. (b) Merchants served better. (c) Better use by auto owners. (d) Land cost reduction (by buying deteriorated buildings to be demolished for land use?) (e)Might fit zoning requirements without amendments. {f)Reduce neighborhood resistance. because of better appearance and size. (g) Make building sites available by leasing vs. purchasing. 2. Consider building condominium garages and sell units to local merchants and investors. At cost (per paper) to build $9,000 per unit plus estimated unit land cost - say $3,000 - Total $12.000. Sales could be made in advance. 3. Instead of paying cash for land held for profit, negotiate long term leases. This type of financing is called 'splitting the fee ' or fee simple. In this manner, with land subordinated to mortgagee for loan with construction approval in lease, garage is built (100 unit) for $900,000 and capital is not ~frozen' in land. 4. Assuming investors buying condominium garage space would need some guarantee in order to sell, City can guarantee say 6% - 7°/6 - 8% net/net/net* lease adjusted by cost of living index. *No real estate tax/no insurance costs/no maintenance. 5. City collects all revenues, insures, and maintains garage under net/net/net lease. Revenue retained after lease payments insurance, maintenance and on-site management is profit, if any. Under this scenario, if the City has no profit or can break even with a paid for garage and leases saving a cash outlay of say $300,000 or more for land, the plan is justified. 6. It is recognized building up reduces unit cost and reduces land area requirement but perhaps one 300 unit garage won't compliment the merchant location and parking location. A HYPOTHETICAL LOCATION OF SITE CONSTRUCTION AND SAI.F. OF 100 UNIT GARAGE {a) Site: Parking lot at Manor House which -2- they won't sell but will lease. Based on an estimate of a lot size of 14,500 S.F. - a lease is negotiated with owners with a $3,000 value per unit or a land value of say $300,000 for 100 units - 7% net/net/net - $21,000 a year for 50 years with cost of~ inde~ Also land is subordinated to mortgagee with construction privileges and parking for Manor House. (b) City builds 100 unit garage and pays $900,000 in cash or from borrowed funds as built with draws to contractor during construction. {c} Unit sales start immediately by REALTORS - 6% commission - total sales $12,000 per unit - $1,200,000 - commissions $72,000 - net to City $1,128,000 -Less $900,000 to mortgagee or note repaid leaves $228,000 for City. (d) ~ payments - to landowner say 7% net/net/net - $21,000 a year - $84,000 to condo unit owners* Total lease payments $105,000 - reduced by net garage revenues. *Condo owners get Warranty Deed Title Insurance and Mortgages if needed. -3- I believe with over 1,500 condominium unit sales of apartments, offices, garage spaces and outdoor parking spaces, this plan will benefit the City of Delray Beach if a 300 unit due diligence report is accurate. -4- DATE: May 25, 1999 TO: Delray Beach Parking Management Advisory Board FROM: Kevin Warner 248 Venetian Drive RE: "Parking Demand Analysis," prepared by Rich and Associates; May, 1999 My comments are organized by topic, with various language quoted directly from the report and the appropriate page citation to assist the reader. On/Off Season - is there a difference or not ? · Page 2-7: "From interviews with key business individuals we concluded that parking demand increases during the peak season... Some business owners indicated that their particular business experienced no seasonality." How many business owners? Are they a large enough portion of the overall business community to reflect a fair representation of this group's opinion ? · Also on 2-7: "Residents in the area suggested that during the non-peak season parking demand was not as high as during the peak season." On March 18, 1999 Mr. Rich hosted the general public to discuss concerns they had about garages. In virtual unison, residents at this meeting did not suggest, but stated categorically that there is a significant difference between the peak and non-peak seasons. · 3-14: "Using the Rich and Assoc. model, the.., summary of the peak and non-peak season projected parking needs" show a difference of over 300 parking spaces, for both the current and projected parking needs. That's a large difference. Later, on 5-1: "The conclusion is that additional public parking should be provided.., although in non-peak season these spaces ~ay not be needed." Parking Space Turnover/Occupancy Data · 2-6: "56% of both the on-street and off-street parking stalls had average occupancies in excess of 85%." This is noted as significant, since "... occupancies in excess of 85% appear to be fully occupied to motorists seeking parking." Rich & Assoc. staff told me that the 56% was an arithmetic average of the number of blocks having peak occupancies greater than 85%. This was not a count of individual parking spaces and not their average occupancies, but peak occupancies and only the number of blocks with peak occupancies greater than 85%. · In fact, using the repoffs approach, but merely changing the type occupancy tabulated from peak to average, it can be determined that only 21% of the parking stalls had occupancies in excess of 85%, not the 56% identified in this section of the report. · To add another statistic to this huge pile of numbers, and again, using the report's approach of tabulating blocks rather than individual spaces--based on average occupancy figures, 41% of the parking spaces had occupancies less than -- 50%. · And lastly, by counting and tabulating individual parking spaces, the average occupancy in the study area is 53%. Manager/Employee Surveys · 2-13: "Rich and Assoc. staff visited over 70 % of the business in the east Delray Beach area. 17 businesses completed and returned the manager surveys." There is no mention in the report of information gathered in these "staffvisits" with businesses in the study area. And according to the Chamber of Commerce, the 17 survey respondents represent only 19 % of the businesses in the study area. How legitimate is it for the report to formulate conclusions that are based on the views of only 19 % of the business community ? Especially in light of the fact that there were absolutely no formal opinions gathered from any of the residents in the study area. Daytime/Evening / Nightime · 2-6: "Evening and nighttime turnover and occupancy studies were not formally undertaken. Informal occupancy counts were taken at night on several nights.., revealing that the on- street parking stalls along A1A were fully occupied from East Atlantic Avenue south well beyond the study area boundaries." Resident surveys and anecdotal evidence, also informal, indicates quite the opposite. · 3-1: "The firm carefully examined the daytime and evening activity." Not according to language above on page 2-6. Local Citizen Input Not Discussed · 2-7 In discussing peak/non-peak season demand conclusions in the report: "Residents in the area suggested (how about 'argued unanimously' ?) that during the non-peak season parking demand was not as high as during the peak season." · 5-5 Options section: Regarding the Presbyterian Church recommendation, there is no discussion at all reflecting how local residents view the abandonment of Bronson Avenue, or the site demolition work needed, or the impact on their neighborhood of almost doubling the number of parking spaces at this location. · 5-7: Regarding the recommendation to build a garage in the study area, the report notes that one criterion for the site selection is that "... the structure had to impact residential areas as little as possible," and that regarding the option for the comer of Atlantic and Andrews, there would be "... light and noise concerns on the north, south, and west sides of the structure that must be addressed." This barely addresses all the issues about this recommendation that residents expressed in the March meeting with Mr. Rich, and in other public forums. · Further, page 5-21 notes that "Vehicles exiting the structure on Block 7 (this location) will be required to make a right hand mm onto Andrews Avenue," which subsequently dumps all these cars onto Atlantic, a short distance away and where serious congestion frequently occurs. The report mentions nothing about what impact this will have on the immediate neighborhood traffic flows of Andrews and Atlantic Avenue. Based on the extremely emotional opposition to a garage voiced by citizens at Mr. Rich's March 18 meeting, there will be considerable and certainly heated discussion about whether or not a garage will in fact "impact a residential area as little as possible," to quote from the report. Misleading Statements · Page 1 of the report identifies 5 questions that the report is designed to answer, one of which is "What impacts, if any, would additional.., parking have on the economics of the parking system and the viability of Delray Beach east of the Intracoastal?" Their is virtually no discussion or argument on this issue, although it is hinted at vaguely in a few areas. There appears to be no direct answer in the report to this question, as noted in the "Local Citizen Input Not Discussed" section of this critique. · 2-7 Methodology section: Regarding the difference between peak and non-peak season parking conditions, the report notes interviews with "key business individuals" and "some business owners." How many were involved ? Is this a large enough group to qualify their opinions as representative of the greater business community ? And further, residents views on peak vs. non-peak "suggested" that non-peak was not as high, as if to imply that maybe the difference was insignificant. On the contrary, evidence placed on the record in the last 12 months from residents overwhelmingly argues that there is a significant dropoff in demand during the non-peak season. · 2-6 of the Methodology section and 3-1 of the Demand Analysis section present contradicting views of the reports approach to evening/nighttime study: "Evening and nighttime tumover and occupancy studies were not formally undertaken." (2-6). "The firm carefully examined the daytime and evening activity." (3-1). Which is correct ? Conclusions in the Report · 3-16 of the Demand Analysis section: "The question then is, does Delray Beach have a parking problem ? The answer we believe is yes." The reasons given in the report for this answer do not substantiate its claim: 1. "There is no true public parking:" and "Many of the businesses do not have available off-street parking." SO WHAT ? The report notes a few sentences earlier, that certain adjustments to its analysis argue that there is not a current deficit of parking spaces. 2. The report's discussion about City parking requirements that have been waived, and the in-lieu parking process are irrelevant to the repoffs conclusion about whether or not a parking problem exists and does nothing to support this conclusion. 3, The report notes that having 3 large land uses (the Marriott, Spanish River, and First Presbyterian Church) with a relatively large parking supply that "do not allow (in general) the public to park there" and its associated influence, "is a very unusual situation for a downtown area." Again, SO WHAT ? And it would have been helpful to readers to understand what the report meant by this statement and what experiences elsewhere prompted the report to come to this conclusion. · 3-15 of the Analysis section notes that regarding vacant space in the study area, the report "... assumed that 80 % of that space would be reoccupied'" which would generate an increase in the parking deficit by 125 spaces. Why doesn't the report recommend that any new development provide all needed parking as determined by the project's land use ? Why must this burden fall upon Delray Beach taxpayers to pay for problems that are directly attributable to individual development projects ? · More on the re-occupancy topic appears on 5-1 in the Options section suggests that under the "Do Nothing" option, "It will be difficult to promote re-occupancy of vacant building space." The report provides no substantiation for this claim. And besides, the presumption in this statement is directly contradicted by many of the successes the City and the CRA have enjoyed recently and continue to enjoy as developer after developer has chosen to initiate a new project in the downtown area of Delray Beach. This critique is not arguing for the "Do Nothing" option, it merely hopes to point out the difficulty in understanding why the report presents certain conclusions. · The report continues with its confusing presentation on page 5-1 when it states that "The lack of public parking may, over time,.., cause a downturn in customer and visitor activity, and building vacancies may increase." This is serious stuffto present to the City. As noted in the previous bullet item, solid development activity in the City seems to contradict the implications the report offers about "downtums" and "building vacancies." I have considerable more faith in the private sector's view of future development potential in the City; and less faith in the view held by consultants whose professional and financial success is not based upon deciding where and when to pursue new development in Delray Beach. Model Predictions vs Observed - contradictions · The model's view of existing occupancy and demand (3-14) is decidedly different from the information based on survey field data, as noted in the report on page 3-16. Costs · 5-21 regarding the 2 parking garage options: the report notes, in rather casual language, that "The financial feasibility is a problem on either site." No kidding, since there is an annual deficit of more than $400,000 for the first 10 years that bonds are outstanding, and we presume, continues into the remaining 10 years. · 5-21 presents a possible solution to this problem: "... to fund the deficit using an assessment district." It would be helpful to digest a hypothetical example of the cost to individual business owners under this suggestion, but the report offers no such information or discussion. Imagine how difficult it will be to market this possibility to land owners in the study area, in light of their strongly voiced opposition to private sector financing for downtown parking, as displayed in the Analysis' Manager Opinion Survey (pg 2-13). · Continuing this theme of soft-pedaling who actually should pay for parking deficits, the report recommends (4-2) that the City "update the land development requirements for study area's Parking Standards." And why ? Because, as the report notes, "Current parking requirements are higher than necessary for the land uses in this area." 1. On what does the report base this conclusion ? 2. And more importantly, how can the consultants possibly justify reducing the amount of parking currently required for various land uses, in the face of recommending a new parking garage that will generate an annual deficit of over $400,000 for the next 10 years and beyond ? Isn't there more fairness in requiring that new developments provide their parking at their own expense, rather than holding their hand out and expecting Delray Beach taxpayers to fork over the money ? 3.And let's not forget that this $400,000 annual hole in the City's pocket comes after the City borrows approx. $5 ½ million to build a garage ! " B ACH, PROPERTY OWNERS' ;iufi'F--! 9 ASSOCIATION, II IF .EIVEE' JUN O 2 1999 ASSISTANT C,TY ~ANAG~. .J~-'-~ 1999 To: Mayor Jay Alperin and Membe~ of the Ci~ Comm~sion ~ . Sin~ 1~ D~m~r, ~h ~ ~so~iates, ~o. ~ been ~nduo~g ~e "F~ibili~ Smdy for a New P~g S~e E~t of~e ~o~ Wa~y". On M~h 18, beach r~sidenm m~t at ~i~ ~11 M~ ~. ~d A. ~ Ex~ve Director of ~t fi~ to ~onwy to Nm ~ir hput for ~ ongoing study. ~omm~n~ were ~o~ed ~ ~g by o~ Beach ~o~ ~ers' ~iation to ~h ~ ~sooiat~s, h~., ~d subsequently ~onveyed also to all members of ~e Ci~'s P~ng M~gem~nt Ad~so~ Bo~d ~). Sin~e the~ ~d despite ~e ~pN~ ~o~e~ brou~t to im a~enfion, ~e P~ h~ approved refe~M to fie Ci~ ~ommission of Fe~ibili~ Study ~olu~g i~ re~en~tion to ~ piing for a h~e ~ng As ~e P~ reoomm~n~fion moves fo~d, w~ enclose for yo~ i~o~afion ~d ~o~id~rafion a ~opy of o~ pr~o~ l~er reflecting ~ ~ews expressed by ~h r~siden~. We ho~ ~t you Mll ~d ~s h~lp~l at such ~e ~ ~e ~i~ ~o~ission deMs ~ ~s ma~er. ~ ques~on of b~l~g a g~age e~t of ~e h~a~ Wate~ay vc~ ~re~tly residen~ of ~s ~em For ~t re,on, we request ~t it be ad~ssed at a majofi~ of such r~siden~ ~e h~re. To ~omc to ~y decision d~ng ~ s~r when m~y of ~em ~ away wo~d be ~air to pro~ o~em who ~e so le~fima~ly sensitive to ~s issue. ~1~ p~g ~ obwo~ly become a ~jor ~d ~rsist~nt problem, it ~an ~dly be Wewed in isolation. ~le ~ im~t dem~L it is oNy one el~ment in ~e ~ded evolu~on of o~ ci~ ~d im do~to~ ~ea. ~ long-time r~sid~nm ~d si~fi~t Mve~o~, beach pro~ o~e~ have a W~I hterest in Delmy B~h. We wo~d wel~ome a ~o~ndingly a~five voi~e ~d role ~ ~ diMo~e ~d de~ision-m~ing pro~ess, ~d to~d ~t end MI1 in ~e ~e~a~ ~ offer for yo~ ~o~idem~on some ~ou~ ho~ly ~on~bmo~ towed a bal~d ~d opfim~ vision for o~ ~i~'s Enclos~e: Copy of Aphl 20 Le~er to P~ -~'. ~.--- '_ ~: :_ ~~- - A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT ASSIOCIATION, INC. --_-~F'~- P.O. BOX 375 .~ ',N-' -,~ - DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33447 April 20, 1999 TO: Assistant City Manager Robert Bareinski for All Members of The Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) O'n March 18, beach property owners met at City Hall with Mr. Richard A. Rich, Executive Director of Rich & Associates, Inc. to convey to him their input for the ongoing "Feasibility Study for a New Parking Structure East of thc Intracoas~al Waterway". At the March 23 meeting of the Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB), Mr. Barcinski provided a ten-point memorandum summarizing major comments voiced at that meeting, Since then, on March 31 and on behalf of our Beach Property Owners' Association, President Franklin M. Boyar wrote to Rich & Associates, Inc. to express our understanding of the tenor of the March 18 meeting and the net opinion expressed there. In the thought that it may be helpful as you review recommendations of the consulting firm, please find enclosed a copy of Dr. Boyar's letter. Sincerely yours, Frank J. Devine Executive Director Enclosure: Copy of BPOA Letter of 3/31/99 CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT March 31, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Rich Rich & Associates, Inc. 25240 Lahser Road, Suite 2 Southfield, MI 48034 Dear Mr. Rich: We certainly appreciate the opportunity you afforded the beach property owners to express their concerns regarding a potential parking garage and to give you their input as to the parking situation and the future of commercial development on the island. You made a list of 24 points expressed at the meeting and we though~ that our recollection of some of the most discussed points might be of help to you since there was no recording secretary at the meeting and we know that often brief notes made on a slide projector can leave one scratching his head attempting to recall exactly what the concern was. We were anxious to learn the broad scope of the problem: how many square feet of retail are there in the study area and how many parking places. Many expressed the opinion that the ob]ective should be aimed at ~how do we solve the parking problem in downtown Delray Beach (east and west), and would a parking garage be an operational and' economic solution?' The focus should not be east of the intracoastal waterway only! It was stated further that the so- called parking problem is very seasonal-limited to 3 or 4 months a year making a parking garage a questionable economic solution. The general tone of the meeting (except ]'or one individual present who owns a restaurant on Ocean Blvd.) was that a parking garage was not needed and not wanted. Traffic concerns were primary. A special point was made noting the long line of cars waiting for the bridge to come down two to three times an hour, which would be further lengthened, and the increased inteference with emergency vehicles. The collective thought was that there was no "parking problem" except for the restaurants. Particular note was made of the parking squeeze for customers of the merchants in the Waterway East Plaza during the lunch hour since the Calypso restaurant-opened. It was mentioned that the Sandoway, Ingraham and Anchor parking areas could be opened in the evening to alleviate the problem ]br the restaurants, however (rammed(ate neighbors pointed out that there was a big difference in daytime parking and nighttime parking with the ensuing noise during sleeping hours. Fear of drugs and crime were associated with a parking garage. · ~.-- · -.~:..'~....~ ~ --'----- A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT ,~ ,-'-. .... ,,:,.?.'. ...... .__~--;-~..'----~-----._.~ .. Owners .expressed concerns about the height of a garage in '~hat it 'would obstruct pleasant views of greenery and of the ocean for some condo dwellers in high rise buildings depending on how high the garage is. It was noted that the Marriott permits public parking in their garage except on days that they have a sizable meeting. However, not many use the parking be- cause it costs $5. This could well be true of garage parking. You queried as to concerns of those in attendance about possible store closings because of lack of parking and found none expressed. It was particularly noted that in the study area that there are only two commercial vacancies. And that the shops in the area all were loaded with merchandise for sale and looked fresh, giving a certain look of optimism in stark contrast to the sparseness of merchandise for sale prevalent in stores anticipating going out of business. It was pointed out that this area of Delray Beach has developed an interesting ambiance, not unlike a small European city with nooks and crannies to be ex- plored, apartments above shops right on the main street, small side walk cafes, varying but indigenous design of buildings with interesting little courtyards and an unusual compatability of commercial used with residential uses. These are all characteristics which cities across the land would give their eye teeth for, in con- trast to the typical situation of run down, non-owner-occupied rental property immediately adjacent to commercial property. Should a parking garage be built it must be buffered with a good distance of green area to maintain this wonderful compatability that has developed in Delray. Nobody wants to live next. to a parking garage. Very truly yours, Franklin M. Boyar President, Beach Property Owners' Association from the desk of FRANK DEVINE June 3, 1999 Alison: In view of your expressed interest in receiving information copies, here is another. This letter, too, has been submitted for the Mayor and all Members of the City Commission. This letter is a follow-up to the previous one which was dated June 1. ASSOCIATION, INC. ~-~J- ~ ~- - P,O. BOX 375 ~ "~-" '~ '~' DELRAY B~CH, FLORIDA 33447 J~e 3, 1999 To: Mayor Jay Alperin and Members of the City Commission Follo~ng up on my previous le~er regarding ~ssible cons~ction of a garage ~t of the Intracoasml Wate~ay, our Beach Pro~ Omers' Association would f~her like to present to you a vision for the ~t~e development of this area of o~ ci~. We have not made an e~ausfive study to answer eve~ detail, but ra~er seek to present a concept which we would like to see studied by professionals. Since each of you is well acqminted with o~ ci~, we ~I1 dispense ~th prelminmes. However, if you have not recently walked ~om Mark Fore ~d Sthke to the beth and a few doors south and then back on the o~er side of Atl~fic to Nations B~, you mi~t like to ~fore conclu~ng yo~ thou~ts about ~is concept. ~d on yo~ way, be sure to explore, as a stronger might, ~e areas behnd ~d look up and notice the upper levels of the stores as you walk. T~ it at about nine in the momng ~d again in the afternoon. We t~ you ~11 notice some~ing quite ~que. It h~ a character ve~ much all its om. The mix is incre~ble but com~tible. It is a s~en~ of Delray Beach which not only must be prese~ed, it must be built upon. The cMracter is not one of storefronts comprising a shopping center or even a ~ical domtom streetscape. It is suggestive of a small se~ide E~o~ village ~at enco~ages walhng, explohng small shops, stopping for something m eat or ~, loohng back behind things, all M~out the rash of eve~day life that makes one wish for a vacmion where these things c~ be forgo~en for a w~le. The ~mework has been set ~th the palm ~ees, brick sidewalks ~d s~eet lmps. The ~iqueness is already be~ on the sou~ side of Atlantic ~om Gleason eas~d. ~d there ~e other are~ tMt are primed ~d ready for developmem. We suggest that your co~ideration of all ~re development along this comdor be held within this theme. We reco~end thru no additional prope~ be zoned commemifl and that parhng be continued along the established ~em of small parking areas at ~ade, readily accessible between b~ldings at frequent inte~als ~ the e~sting is. ~d that the "in lieu" of p~king fee policy east of the In~acoas~l be ceded i~ediately. We res~ctfully submit to you that this concept be explored fully as a logical next step in making and keeping Delray Beach a ve~ special and tuque ciW ~d the en~ of all not so fo~ate as we to live here. Sin~ yours, / Fr~lin M. Boyar President . ----~--- A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT RECEIVED JUN O 7 1999 t 37/~eabrer~e l rnue ~el[rap ~ear~, ~L 33483-7017 c~w ~^.^s~ 4 June 1999 Mr. David Harden City Manager City Hall 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 334~.~. Dear Mr. Harden: Enclosed please find on more parking petition sheet, which only just surfaced. The eight signatures thereon raise the total number of signatures to 339. I would appreciate your bringing these additional signatures to the attention of the Mayor and Commissioners. I apologize for bothering you a second time with an additional petition sheet, I do not believe there are any more outstanding. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, TO THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH A PETITION CONCERNING BEACH AREA PARKING WE THE UNDERSIGNED BEACH AREA RESIDENTS, DESIRING TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN, THE BEACH AREA OF DELRAY BEACH, ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSEDTO EITHER A PARKING GARAGE EAST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY OR THE NIGHT-TIME USE OF THE CITY'S BEACH PARKING LOTS. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY COMMISSION NOT AUTHORIZE EITHER COURSE OF ACTION. SMnature ~N.a.m.e_ A_ddress L~~~L~'~..i'[.gua, '- , ,-, ....... :°7 ~0. ~§. ~?. 20. from the desk of FRANK DEVINE JUne 2, 1999 Alison: Here is the information copy which you requested. Five originals and one extra copy have been submitted for the Members of the City Commission. ASSOCIATION, INC. A' ,, -~-~J ~- - P.O. BOX 375 ' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33447 June 1, 1999 To: Mayor Jay Alperin and Members of the City Commission Since last December, Rich 8,: Associates, Inc. has been conducting the "Feasibility Study for a New Parking Structure East of the Intracoastal Waterway". On March 18, beach residents met at City Hall with Mr. Richard A. Rich, Executive Director of that finn, to convey to him their input for the ongoing study. Those comments were confirmed in writing by our Beach Property Owners' Association to Rich & Associates, Inc., and subsequently conveyed also to all members of the City's Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB). Since then, and despite the popular consensus brought to its attention, the PMAB has approved referral to the City Commission of the Feasibility Study including its recommendation to begin planning for a future parking structure. As the PMAB recommendation moves forward, we enclose for your information and consideration a copy of our previous letter reflecting the views expressed by beach residents. We hope that you will find this helpful at such time as the City Commission deals with this matter. The question of building a garage east of the Intracoastal Waterway very directly affects residents of th/s area. For that reason, we request that it be addressed at a time when the majority of such residents are here. To come to any decision during the summer when many of them are away would be unfair to property owners who are so legitimately sensitive to this issue. While parking has obviously become a major and persistent problem, it can hardly be viewed in isolation. While an important element, it is only one element in the guided evolution of our city and its downtown area. As long-time residents and significant investors, beach property owners have a vital interest in Delray Beach. We would welcome a correspondingly active voice and role in the dialogue and decision-making process, and toward that end will in the immediate future offer for your consideration some thoughts hopefully contributory toward a balanced and optimal vision for our city's future. Res~ge. ,~(~lly yours, ~ra/fiklin M. Boyar Pr4sident Enclosure: Copy of April 20 Letter to PMAB ' ~-- · '~ .~__'~_.-~-.. - ~----'~;--- A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT ~., -,.,-- ....,>.,¢ .... % ----.___.. ,'ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. BOX 375 ~ '~-~'"4~- - ' ' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33447 April 2O, 1999 TO: Assistant City Manager Robert Barcinski for All Members of The Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) On March 18, beach property owners met at City Hall with Mr. Richard A. Rich, Executive Director of Rich & Associates, Inc. to convey to him their input for the ongoing "Feasibility Study for a New Parking Structure East of the Intracoastal Waterway". At the March 23 meeting of the Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB), Mr. Barcinski provided a ten-point memorandum summarizing major cormnents voiced at that meeting, Since then, on March 31 and on behalf of our Beach Property Owners' Association, President Franklin M. Boyar wrote to Rich & Associates, Inc. to express our understanding of the tenor of the March 18 meeting and the net opinion expressed there. In the thought that it may be helpful as you review recommendations of the consuIting firm, please find enclosed a copy of Dr. Boyar's letter. Sincerely yours, Frank J. Devine Executive Director Enclosure: Copy of BPOA Letter of 3/31/99 "~ ;~'~~~ -~: ~- -- ' ' ~: -~ ACORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT · ACH PROPERTY OWNERS' ,.- SSOCIATION, INC. P.O. sox 37s ' DELRAY BEA.CH, FLORIDA 33447 March 31, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Rich Rich & Associates, Inc. 25240 Lahser Road, Suite 2 Southfield, MI 48034 Dear Mr. Rich: We certainly appreciate the opportunity you afforded the beach property owners to express their concerns regarding a potential parking garage and to give you their input as to the parking situation and the future of commercial development on the island. You made a list of 24 points expressed at the meeting and we though~ that our recollection of some of the most discussed points might be of help to you since there was no recording secretary at the meeting and we know that often brief notes made on a slide projector can leave one scratching his head attempting to recall exactly what the concern was. We were anxious to learn the broad scope of the problem: how many square feet of retail are there in the study area and how many parking places. Many expressed the opinion that the objective should be aimed at 'how do we solve the parking problem in downtown Delray Beach (east and west), and would a parking garage be an operational and economic solution?' The focus should not be east of the intracoastal waterway only: It was stated further that the so- called parking problem is very seasonal-limited to 3 or 4 months a year making a parking garage a questionable economic solution. The general tone of the meeting (except for one individual present who owns a restaurant on Ocean Blvd.) was that a parking garage was not needed and not wanted. Traffic concerns were primary. A special point was made noting the long line of cars waiting for the bridge to come down two to three times an hour, which would be further lengthened, and the increased inteference with emergency vehicles. The collective thought was that there was no "parking problem" except for the restaurants. Particular note was made of the parking squeeze for customers of the merchants in the Waterway East Plaza during the lunch hour since the Calypso restaurant opened. It was mentioned that the Sandoway, Ingraham and Anchor parking areas could be opened in the evening to alleviate the problem for the restaurants, however immmediate neighbors pointed out that there was a big difference in daytime parking and nighttime parking with the ensuing noise during sleeping hours. Fear of drugs and crime were associated with a parking garage. · . .-"~..~ .~_..~____ ~ __ _ ' -'"'...~ . ~~.-.-~.... - -~~--:~~ "'~--~-~' A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT Owners~expressed concerns about the height of a garage in ihat it 'would obstruct pleasant views of greenery and of the ocean for some condo dwellers in high rise buildings depending on how high the garage is. It was noted that the Marriott permits public parking in their garage except on days that they have a sizable meeting. However, not many use the parking be- cause it costs $5. This could well be true of garage parking. You queried as to concerns of those in attendance about possible store closings because of lack of parking and found none expressed. It was particularly noted that in the study area that there are only two commercial vacancies. And that the shops in the area all were loaded with merchandise for sale and looked fresh, giving a certain look of optimism in stark contrast to the sparseness of merchandise for sale prevalent in stores anticipating going out of business. It was pointed out that this area of Delray Beach has developed an interesting ambiance, not unlike a small European city with nooks and crannies to be ex- plored, apartments above shops right on the main street, small side walk cafes, varying but indigenous design of buildings with interesting little courtyards and an unusual comparability of commercial used with residential uses. These are all characteristics which cities across the land would give their eye teeth for, in con- trast to the typical situation of run down, non-owner-occupied rental property immediately adjacent to commercial property. Should a parking garage be built it must be buffered with a good distance of green area to maintain this wonderful comparability that has developed in DeIray. Nobody wants to live next to a parking garage. Very truly yours, Franklin M. Boyar President, Beach Property Owners' Association City ' gDemand £ Our reference 9925 RICH ANDASSOCIATES Your reference 6?635 Mr. Robert A. Barcinski Assistant City Manager City of Deiray Beach 100 N. W. Ist Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Mr. Barcinski: The consulting firm of Rich and Associates would like to present this Parking Study to the City of Delray Beach. The study summarizes the findings of research conducted by the firm and includes a set of recommendations that have been developed as a result of that research. The report begins by summarizing Delray Beach's current situation, the opinions of downtown patrons, employees and managers. The fieldwork conducted by the firm led to a numerical analysis and modeling of parking demand patterns within the downtown area east of the [ntracoastal Waterway. The model and subsequent adjustments made to that model, which reflect consumer preference and habits are contained in the report. From our analysis and through consultation with municipal officials, stakeholder groups and local citizens through public consultation, we have prepared a comprehensive set of recommendations. The recommendations that come from the analysis are; 1. Revise the parking requirements in the zoning code. 2. Implement a marketing and educational campaign for the on-street parking. 3. During peak season, another volunteer for enforcement in a golf cart is needed. 4. With respect to adding parking supply; a. consider an employee shuttle from City Hall, b. negotiate with First Presbyterian Church for expansion of parking lot for public parking, c. contact Nations Bank concerning the abandoned drive-through bank and associated property for an employee lot, d. begin planning for a parking structure on Block #7, corner of Atlantic and Andrews Avenues, and e. with the parking structure, add on-street meters on Atlantic Avenue and implement residential parking permit program if needed. Rich and Associates, Inc. ernall: 25240 Lsh~er Road, Suite 2 Orisndo, Florida Tampa, Florida Parking Consultants parking(~RichAssoc.com Southfleld, Michigan 40034 (407) 667-8990 (813) 879-0987 ArchRects web site: (248) 353-5080 Fax (407) 667°8988 Fax (813) 875-5724 Engineers http:l/ww~ ParkingDesign.eom Fsx (248) 353-3~30 Planners R C RICH P E R A RICH D W BURR R W K IN'NELL. AIA D P BUCH.P E M J ~IN.AIA Mr. Robert A. Barcinski May 17, 1999 ~-- The final report includes all of the tabulated field research data, the Delray Beach model and a plan for the improvement of Delray Beach's eastern downtown parking situation. We hope that this report meets with your approval and that we can form a long-term client/consultant relationship. Rich and Associates would also like to extend sincere gratitude to those individuals that have participated and assisted in the preparation of this report. Their insight and patience have contributed significantly to the final product. Sincerely, Rich and Associates, Inc. Richard A. Rich, John C. Revell Executive Director Project Manager RAR:sc Enclosure file: F: DELRAY/REPORT/*.dOC East Delray Beach Introduction Table of Contents Letter Of Transmittal i Table of Contents iii List of Maps viii List of Figures viii List of Tables viii Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Parking Study Introduction I. 1 Background page 1-1 1.2 Purpose page 1-1 1.3 Study Area page 1-2 1.4 Scope of Services page 1-4 1.5 Methodologies page 1-5 Section 2 - Data Gathering Techniques and Survey Results 2.1 Methodology and Survey Results page 2-1 2.1.1 Definitions page 2-1 2.2 Parking Inventory page 2-1 2.3 Parking Supply Breakdown Charts page 2-2 2.4 On-Street Parking Inventory page 2-6 2.4.1 Summary of the T&O Study 2.5 Reserved 2.6 Manager Surveys page 2-13 2.7 Employee Surveys page 2-14 2.8 Comments form Surveys page 2-17 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants vi East Delray Beach Introduction Section 3 - Parking Demand 3. ! Parking Demand and Zone Analysis page 3-1 3.2 Methodology page 3-1 3.2.1 Parking Demand Parameters page 3-10 3.3 Parking Demand Analysis Assumptions page 3-! 0 3.4 Parking Needs page 3-14 3.4.1 Analysis of Current Conditions page 3-16 Section 4 - Recommendations A Revised Parking Zoning Standards page 4-1 B Meters page 4-2 C Marketing of Parking page 4-3 D Enforcement page 4-4 E Signage page 4-5 Section 5 - Parking Supply Options 5.1 Do Nothing page 5-1 5.2 Provide a Shuttle from Remote Parking Areas page 5-2 5.3 Provide Extensive Valet Service page 5-3 5.4 Create Additional Surface Parking page 5-5 5.5 Build a Parking Structure page 5-7 5.5.a Project and Finance Costs page 5-15 5.5.b Revenue and Expense Projections page 5-18 5.5.c Recommendations to Parking Supply Options page 5-20 5.5.d Meters page 5-22 Section 6 - Appendix Manager Survey page 6-1 Employee Survey page 6-2 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants vii East Delray Beach Introduction List of Maps 1. Study Area page 1-3 2. Parking Supply Map - West page 2-3 3. Parking Supply Map - East page 2-4 4. Peak Occupancy Achieved - West page 2-11 5. Peak Occupancy Achieved - East page 2-12 6. Peak Season Surplus/Deficit page 3-12 7. Non-Peak Season Surplus/Deficit page 3-13 List of Figures 1. Interrelationship of Parking Study Methodologies page 1-6 2. Beach Census/Trendlines/Projections page 3-7 Conceptual Parking Structure Designs Scheme for Surface Parking Lot page 5-6 Scheme for Block #1 page 5-8 Scheme for Block #7 page 5-12 Pro Forma and Analysis Charts Block #1 -Financial Analysis page 5-16 Block #7 -Financial Analysis page 5-17 Pro Forma page 5-19 List of Tables 2A On and Off Street Parking Inventory by Zone page 2-5 2B Turnover and Occupancy Data (on street) page 2-8 2C Turnover and Occupancy Data (off street) page 2-9 2D Turnover and Occupancy Data (off street) page 2-10 2F Manager Opinion Survey Results page 2-13 2G Employee Opinion Survey Results (full-time) page 2-14 2H Employee Opinion Survey Results (part-time) page 2-16 3A Parking Demand Generation Rates Comparison page 3-3 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants viii East Delray Beach Introduction 3B Peak Parking Demand (Rich and Associates Model) page 3-4 3C Non-Peak Parking Demand (Rich and Associates Model) page 3-7 3E Parking Demand Comparison page 3-8 3F Surplus/Deficit Comparison page 3-9 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants ix East Delray Beach Section I - Purpose and Scope of Study Section 1 1.1 - Background This study, prepared by Rich and Associates for Delray Beach, serves to examine the parking characteristics of the Downtown area east of the Intmcoastal Waterway by evalUating current and long range parking needs. Rich and Associates undertook a comprehensive parking analysis that involved the modeling of demand, identification of economic factors and the quantifying of development intensity, as well as studying opportunities for shared parking as subscribed by the Urban Land Institute. Throughout this report Rich and Associates has referred to the study area as east Delray Beach. As with all of our studies, Rich and Associates initiated the process of this study with a series of meetings, public surveys and field studies. Data collected as background material for the parking study was analyzed using proven methods established by Rich and Associates. The study drew on parking standards developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, as modified according to the recommendations of our senior partners to suit the circumstances unique to east Delray Beach. 1.2 - Purpose The east Delray Beach parking study was undertaken to analyze the parking needs unique to this part of Delray Beach's downtown and the forces that have created those needs. By examining existing city policies, current situations and predicted future development, we have prepared a set of recommendations for parking standards that should provide the optimal level of parking provision for the east Delray Area. This parking planning study is designed to answer many vital questions about the condition and adequacy of parking in east Delray Beach: · What is the nature and magnitude of the present parking needs and supply? · Are there parking areas with sufficient capacities to satisfy peak parking needs? · What impacts, if any, would additional privately or publicly developed parking have on the economics of the parking system and the viability of Delray Beach (east of the Intracoastal Waterway)? · What level of demand will be experienced from increased usage of the public beach areas of Delray Beach? · Can infrastructural parking improvements be f'manced by surpluses in current and future parking demands? Rich ~nd Associates, Inc.- Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 East Deli.ay Beach Section I - Purpose and Scope of Study 1.3 - Study Area The study area is bounded on the north by Lowry Street, on the east by A 1 A, on the south by Miramar Drive and on the west by the Intracoastal Waterway. Map 1: "Delray Beach, On- Street Parking Study", located on page I-3, shows the total study area, the on-street parking inventory and identifies the reference block numbers assigned by Rich and Associates. The types of land uses contained in the study area included retail, service, restaurant, office, residential, and mixed use. These categories, while appearing relatively general in scope, encompass the key uses when considering parking demand generators. By subdividing the uses into categories, we are able to develop a computer model of the area's parking demand. Other considerations that are incorporated into the study, are the presence of a church with private parking and a publicly accessible beach, both land uses which, in the case of Delray Beach, present strong influences on the parking system. The scope of study taken into consideration by Rich and Associates goes beyond geographic boundaries and building uses to include community characteristics. Unique to this area of Delray Beach is the presence of divergent urban characteristics in the form of an established residential area combined with strong commercialization pressure. A second characteristic is the growth in popularity of the local public beaches. The third consideration is the desired direction of future urban redevelopment being promoted by the city. Delray Beach is a community that has experienced a period of transition as the downtown has undergone urban redevelopment. With that redevelopment, has come increased popularity in the form of commercial demand, increasing property values and a greater number of visitors. In light of these many factors, Rich and Associates has been very careful to study Delray Beach's parking issues from all of the stakeholders' positions. Rich md Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants '1-2 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study 1.4 - Scope of Services The scope of services performed by Rich and Associates for Delray Beach is listed below. Services included studies, analyses and surveys that were conducted in order to develop answers and solutions to the parking questions and issues listed previously in the Purpose Section. · The firm conducted an employee survey to determine the parking habits of individuals who work in east Delray Beach. The parking habits or characteristics sought included: =~ Parking locations utilized by employees of the area. ~ Perception regarding current parking conditions. ~ Opinions on possible solutions, which can be used to improve parking. =~ Modal split by classification (i.e., drive and park or carpool). Business owners and managers were surveyed to provide parking characteristic data and to discover their perceptions and opinions of the existing parking system. A Turnover and occupancy study was performed to evaluate the utilization of east Delray Beach's on-street and off-street parking areas. A block by block evaluation of parking characteristics, by land use type, was completed. Rich and Associates staff based much of the information in terms of square footage of existing downtown structures on field observations and information provided by the Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce and the City Planning Department. This information was used to calculate building square footage related to land use types. · A public meeting was held with the local residents' association, from which their issues and concerns regarding parking where expressed and taken into consideration for this report. · A conceptual parking scenario was developed. · Recommendations regarding revised zoning parking standards, use and development, residential parking permits, enforcement, meters and signage have been included with this report. Rich and AssociaIes, Inc. - Padcing Consultants Final Report, May 1999 East Delmy Beach Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study 1.5 - Methodologies The parking study methodologies developed by Rich and Associates are effective and accurate tools for quantifying current and future parking characteristics exclusive to east Delray Beach. Our methodology involves computer modeling of parking demand based on land-use. Specifically, an inventory of buildings and their uses is compiled and a demand factor is assigned to each use category. The demand factors are based on a parking demand model developed by Rich and Associates for Delray Beach. The model is derived from research by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Urban Land institute, field research prepared by R&A and experience with similarly sized communities that have common characteristics with Delray Beach. Additional modifications are made in accordance with the recommendations of Rich and Associates' senior parmers, who take into consideration the unique characteristics and situations specific to the east Intracoastal area. It has been the frans' experience that parking characteristics unique to a city must ultimately be determined by collecting and analyzing data specific to the study area. Once the block by block demand has been calculated for both current and future circumstances, a comparison with the existing supply of parking is made. The resultant figures are parking surplus and demand estimates for each block. The methodologies applied by the firm include an analysis and examination of the previously mentioned parking space and land use inventories, a parking utilization analyses and employee and business manager surveys. The parking utilization analysis and the results from the surveys are explained in Section 2. The data for these Sections of the analysis were collected on January 26, 1999 and again on January 29, 1999. On page 1-6 Figure 1: "Interrelationship of Parking Study Methodologies" graphically shows the interrelationships among the various parking methodologies employed to evaluate Delray Beach's parking system. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 East Delmy Beach Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study Figure 1: Interrelationship of Parking Study Methodologies IOCCUPAI'qCY :~I'-IJDY tffiliTJ~i~l, levels J MANAGER SURVEYS imiqu~ to tt~ City .... Data Gathering Techniques & S~vey Results .... Parking Demand Analysis-- --- Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 '[-6 East Delray Beach Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results Section 2 2.1 - Methodology' and Survey Results The Methodology and Survey results section of this report offers an assessment of the results of the on-street and off-street parking space inventories, on-street and off-street turnover and occupancy studies and the employee and manager surveys. The results of the studies, surveys and inventories are important to the determination of east Delray Beach's current and future parking needs. 2.1.1 - Definitions Route - The roadways and parking areas along which Rich and Associates staff travel for the purpose of studying use and occupancy of parking spaces during a circuit. Turnover - Turnover is the number of cars that occupied a parking space in a particular period. For example, if a parking lot has 100 spaces and during the course of the day 250 different vehicles occupied the lot, then the turnover is two and a half times (2.5). Occupancy - the length of time a parking space is occupied by a vehicle. Circuit - A circuit refers to the two-hour time period between observances of any one particular parking space. For the turnover and occupancy study, a defmed route was developed for each survey vehicle. One circuit of the route took approximately 2 hours to complete and each space was observed once during that circuit. Block Face - A number was assigned to each block within the study area. Each block is then referenced by its block number and by a letter (A, B, C or D). The letter refers to the cardinal face of the block; with A being the north face, B the east face, C the south face and D the west face. Therefore, a block designated as lA would refer to the north face of block 1. 2.2 - Parking Inventory In the study area, there are a total of 110 on-street parking spaces and 1487 off-street spaces within the study area for a total of 1597 parking stalls. Rich and Associates also inventoried beachfront parking adjacent to the study area, consisting of 199 parking stalls along A1A and at Sandoway Park, which is included in the above figures. The on-street spaces consist of 5 types, which include free parking - no limit, 15 minute, 2 hour free, 4 hour free, loading zone, handicap and metered parking. Only beach access parking was metered, the remainder of the study area consists of non- metered, posted parking stalls. Parking enforcement is carried out by volunteer parking enforcement personal that use a motorized vehicle and tire chalking method of patrolling both on-street and public off-street lots. Parking enforcement officers also regulate city owned off-street lots. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 2-1 i East Delray Beach Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results Parkine Supply Breakdown (Se0aratin~ Out AIA-Beach Parkin~ ) AIA Balance of Study Total Area On-Street 57 53 110 Off-Street 172 1315 1487 Total 229 1368 1597 Parkin~ Su~D _Iv Breakdown (Public Vs. Private) AIA (Beach Parking) Balance of Study Area Public Private Public Private On-Street 57 0 53 0 Off-Street 142 30' 0 1315 Total 199 30 53 1315 The on-street and off-street parking inventory is presented by block in Table 2-~1 on page 2-5. The chart offers an inventory breakdown of each off-street lot and the on-street inventory by block face, as well as a parking supply summary. When calculating the supply and demand figures for the parking demand model, the private church lots, condominiums and condominium parking were intentionally omitted. These demand generators have parking supplies equal to their own demand, asserting little or no impact on the surrounding study area. Likewise, the parking supply controlled by the church and condominiums are not available as public parking to offset demand created by other sources. The church lots (identified in the following chart) have been omitted from the supply available to satisfy demand specific to the study area. Other parking areas that have been omitted correspond with the condominiums adjacent to the study area. Parkin~ Supi~b Breakdown {Omitted Lots) Lot Description Estimated Capacity 2B (Church Lot) 7 3C (Church Lot) 6 3D (Church Lot) 5 3G (Church Lot) 3 3I (Church Lot) 42 Total 56 ! Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 2-2 ! ,Y-(f.') ~C,~ ,'-~,~ H~-~,'~ ,'It!~ ~" ~-~ ;-{£i 313N3AV OLLN¥'IJ.V 1 Table 2A: Parking Supply Inventory Block Lot Regular HandiCap CaPacity Total, Block, Face free 15-min 2-hour 4-hour~ Total Stalls Stalls I A I lA 5 5 B 4 lB 10 10 C lC 9 9 D 4 1D 12 12 2 A 1 E 27 27 B 2 3 1F 18 18 C 1G 2' 2 4 D 5 1H 9 9 3 A 2 2 11 7 7 101 .B 3 2 3 2 2E 8 8 C 2F 4 4 D 12 2G 12 1 13 4 A 3 2H 5 5 B 8 21 4 4 C 2J 20 20 54 D 11 3 3A 6 6 5 A 3B 3 3 B 3E 12 12 C 7 3F 28 28 49 D 7 4 4A 9 I 10 6 A 4B 18 18 B 4C 38 38 C 4E 37 2 39 D 0 4F 10 1 11 7 A 4G 3 0 3 B 4H 8 2 10 C 41 8 0 8 D 9 9 4J 26 0 26 8 A 4K 10 0 10 B 4L 7 7 C 4M 6 6 D 5 5 4N 5 0 5 191 9 A 5 5B 148 8 156 156 B 6 '6A 27 27 C 6B 11 1 12 D 0 6D 30 30 Beach 43 14 57 6E 32 32 Sum 5 4 87 14 110 6F 348 3 351 452 7 7A 10 10 7B 28 28 7C 39 39 7E 20 20 SUM~RY 7D 20 20 Block Supply Supply Supply 7F 6 6 (on-street) (off-street) Total 7G 8 8 I 4 101 105 7H 91 2 93 224 2 5 54 59 8 8A 42 42 3 12 49 61 8B 12 12 4 11 191 202 8C 7 1 8 5 7 156 163 8D 5 5 6 0 452 452' 8E 16 16 7 9 224 233 8F 34 I 35 118 8 5 118 123 Beach i 136 6 142 142 Beach 57 142 ~99 Sum 1441 31 1487 Total 110 1487 1597 R!ch and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 2-5 East Delray Beach Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results 2.4 - Turnover and Occupancy Study for On-street Parking A turnover and occupancy study was undertaken for the entire "primary" study area during the January fieldwork (Tuesday, January 26, 1999). A second comparative turnover and occupancy study was undertaken on Friday, January 29, 1999 and a third informal occupancy count was taken March 1 $, 1999. The intent of the preliminary analysis was to determine the number of times on- street spaCes were "turning over", or being used by different vehicles, and the occupancy of on and off-street spaces by time of day. The second comparative analysis provided a benchmark to which the first study was compared using a different peak time and day of the week with regard to parking demand. The results of this study can be ftund graphically on Map $ - "East Delray Beach - Peah Occupancy Parking Study~ on pages 2-11 & 12 and numerically in Tables 2-B through C on pages 2-$, 9 & 10. Manager and employee survey forms were distributed throughout the entire study area. The surveys were used to calculate current demand and project future demand by land use, as well as asCertain opinions regarding parking. The manager and employee surveys were also used to evaluate parking accessibility, convenience, maintenance and security issues. 2.4.1 - Summary of the Turnover and Occupancy Study · The second comparative study undertaken on Friday afternoon and evening (January 29, 1999) revealed a higher overall occupancy and was subsequently used as the peak occupancy data for the occupancy maps. · The third informal count undertaken during a return visit in March of 1999 revealed a higher occupancy than the two previously observed occupancies in key parking areas of east Delray Beach. Lots that served the strip malls in block four and five reached 95% occupancies. The Sandoway lot reached 85% occupancy and the metered on-street beach parking was 100% occupied throughout the day. Other lots in blocks seven and eight achieved 95% occupancy and higher. These observations have assisted Rich and Associates in assessing east Delray Beach and in establishing a set of parking improvement recommendations. · Evening and nighttime turnover and occupancy studies were not formally undertaken. However, informal occupancy counts were taken at night on several different nights, both in the early evening and again around 11:00pm. These informal counts revealed that the on-street parking stalls along AIA were fully occupied from East Atlantic Avenue south well beyond the study area boundaries. · Fifty six percent of both the on-street and off-street parking stalls had average occupancies in excess of 85%. Eighty five percent is a significant figure in parking accessibility terms, as occupancies equal to or in excess of 85% appear to be fully occupie, d to motorists seeking a parking stall. Although, there may be available stalls it may be necessary for a motorist to "circle the block" or park in a place that is some distance from their destination. A number of parking lots were observed to be 100% occupied or even over 100% occupied as vehicles were stacked in. This was especially notable in block one. Rich and Associates, lac. - Parking Consultants Final Repo~ May 1999 2-43 East Delray Beach Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results The daytime activity in the study area was consistently high throughout the day and into the evening in both occupancy studies. · From interviews with key business individuals we concluded that parking demand increases during the "peak season", however, demand remains high throughout the year. Some business owners indicated that their particular business experienced no seasonality. The consensus among those that were interviewed was that parking is often in short supply along east Atlantic Avenue. Residents in the area suggested that during the non-peak season parking demand was not as high as during the peak seasorl. · Rich and Associates' turnover study revealed that only a limited number of vehicles were staying beyond the allotted time for the on-street parking stalls. Approximately ten vehicles had been moved forward or backward to a different stall during the day. This practice is referred to as a two-hour shuffle, as the parker will move their vehicle periodically throughout the day in order to avoid an overtime fine. Compared to other cities of similar size and usage mix, Delray Beach has a low incidence of the two-hour shuffle, additionally an average turnover of 2.53 was noted during route two. Compared to other cities, Delray Beach has a desirable turnover rate indicating that the majority of vehicles are not occupying parking stalls for the duration of the posted time limit. A high turnover is a desirable and necessary component of an area's economic vitality. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants FinaJ Report, May 1999 2-7 Table 2C: Off-Street Turnover and Occupancy · Block Description Cap. ~ Oee. % Oee. % Oee. % Oct. % Otc % Occ. % 2C 60 20 33% 34 5?%. 33 i55% 16 26 ~:~ 34 3 3C(church) 6 3 :~/* 4 67% 3 ?::.l~dl~%:: 3 3 ;~*'/, 4 3D(ehureh) :5 1 2~' 4 I ~i~0%: 3 2 !~% 4 3F 28 27 96%1 16 :$7%:i 15 ~% 13 i~%' 18 63% 27 3G(church) 3 2 ~7% 2 367%1. 2 67% 2 :::67'~ 2 :67% 2 6/%5 4G 3 0 0% 3 Ii~% 1 $3%2 ,$'/% 2 ~% 3 5 5B 155 47 30% 76 ~%:: 133 ~:.~%' 92 ,.59%, .. 87 :~%' 133 7B 28 10 36% 10 10 ~%: 9 ~ 32~::~ 10 3~%:: 10 Tu~er - Tu~ver ~ ~ numar of ~ ~t ~ a ~ spa~ in a ~r ~. ~or exa~, ff a pa~ing ~t has 1 ~ and du~ ~ mu~ of ~ day 2~ d~mnt ~h~ ~p~ ~e I~ ~n ~ ~mover ~ ~o a~ a haft ti~s (2.5). a~mx~ate~ 2 hou~ to ~ a~ ea~ sp~ w~ ~ on~ dufi~ ~st B~ Fa~ - A numar was ~ to ~ bl~ ~ ~ ~ ama. ~ bl~ ~ ~n ~mn~ by ~ bl~ numar and by a ~er (A, B, C or D). ~ ~er m~m to ~ mffiinal ~ ~ ~ b~; ~ A ~ no~ ~, B t~ east ~, C ~ so~ f ~ and D ~ ~t ~m. ~m~m, a bl~ des~n~ as lA wou~ m~r to ~e no~ ~ of bl~ 1. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 2-9 Table 2D: Off-Street Turnover and Occupancy ~y~!!~la~H~29, t~i 11:00-1:00 1:00-3:00 3:00-5:00 5:00-7:00 Average Peak Block Description Cap. Oee. % Oce. % Occ. % Occ, % Occ. % Occ. % 2C 60 56 ::193%:.i 55 :.iii~/~: 56 ~:: 55 56 56 i93% 6 6~6A 59 36 ::~1%: 37 31 33 34 ::~ 37 . : ~.: 7 7D 20 20 20 19 17 19 ~98~:~ 20 8F 35 35 35 ;i~ 34 '~: 32 ~9I% 34 35 ~ a~ du~ng ~ ~u~ ~ ~ day 2~ d~mflt vehi~ ~p~ ~ lot, ~en ~ ~m~r b ~ a~ a ha~ ~s (2.5). ~nw - ~ ~ ~ U~ a ~ng s~ ~ ~ by a vehi~. Ci~R - A ~ m~m ~ ~ ~our U~ ~ ~n ~wan~ of any ~ ~lar ~i~ ~. F~ ~ ~mo~r and a~~ 2 houm to ~m aM ea~ ~ was ~w~ on~ dudng ~ ~R. ~ Fa~ - A numar was ~ to ea~ b~ ~in ~ s~ ama. Ea~ b~ ~ ~n m~mn~ by ~ b~ numar and by a k~er (A, B, C or D). ~ ~er m~m to ~ ~inal ~ of ~e bl~; ~ A ~e no~ ~, B ~ ~ ~, C ~e ~uth ~ a~ D ~ ~st ~. ~m~m, a b~ ~nat~ as lA wou~ m~r to ~ no~h ~ ~ blo~ 1. Rich and ~iates, Inc. - Pa~ing Consul~nts 2-10 I m _l I JI I II ~ L L L 3nN~¥ East Delray Beach Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results 2.6 - Manager Surveys Rich and Associates staff visited over 70% of the businesses in the east Delray Beach area. Seventeen businesses completed and returned the manager surveys. All of the businesses in east Delray Beach were contacted by mail with information pertaining to the study and with the manager and employee surveys. The Delray Beach Joint Venture Group undertook this task. Data obtained from the manager surveys was used in projecting short and long-term parking supply and demand. Managers were also asked the number of full and part-time employees employed at their business, the average number of customers or visitors that shop at their business and the percentage of those customers or visitors who are in the area for other purposes (i.e., employed in the downtown). A copy of the survey form is included in the Appendix Section of the report. Below is a summary of the surveys, received by the firm. Table 2-F: Manager Opinion Survey Results A) Parking meters should be installed to generate revenue, which will b~ ~ to improve downtown parking. ~ 2 ,3 4 Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree B) Parking improvements should be paid for by the city only. I I I 4 Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree C) It should be left to the private sector to provide parking downtown Strongly Neither A~ree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagr~ D) The cost for providing n~w parking downtown should be shared by the City, private s~tor and users Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree E) I would support a special assessment to improve parking downtown. - I I Strongly Neither Ague nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagr~ F) The current fineTor overtime parking is $20 this is too (high/Iow). I 2 3 4 5 Too Low Too High Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Rcpor~ May 1.999 2-13 East Delray Beach Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results G) I would encourage my employees to park outside the downtown core and use a shuttle bus to leave more parking for customers/visitors. I 2 3 4 ~ Strongly Neither Agr~ nor Strongly Agr~ Disagree Disagree Average Cost Recommended By Mangers a) Off-street parking for customer/visitor use should be no more than $1.23/hour. b) If meters were installed to generate revenue, the rates should be no more than $0.94/hour. 2.7 - Employee Surveys A representative sample of all business types within the study area received employee survey forms to distribute to their employees. A total of over 150 forms were distributed, and 69 employees completed and returned the surveys to the firm. The employees of east Delray Beach were asked: Their employment status (full-time or part-time) Type of transportation used to commute to downtown Location of where they parked if they drive Table 2-G: Full-Time Employee Survey Results A) Parking meters should be installed to generat~ revenue, which will be used to impwve downtown parking. ~ 2 3 4 s~5 Strongly Neither Agr~ nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagr~ B) Parking improvements should be paid for by the city only. -- I I " Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree C) Thc current fine for ow,'rtdm¢ parking is $20 this is too (high [5] / low [1]). - I I I ,- I~ 2 3 4 ~'~S Too Low ~ Too High Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Ma~ 1999 2-14 East Delray Beach Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results D) If free parking outside the cenual business district was provided and serviced by a convenient shuttle system I would use it. Suongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree E) If I leave my parking space during the day for a short time, I can't find parking when I return. I I" Il . Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree F) Downtown parking isn't safe. -, I . I I I 2 3 4 Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree G) I would pay more to park close to work versus less cost to park farther away. I 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree H) I would be willing to pay more for pm'king if the revenue were used to improve the parking. I 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Average Cost Recommended By Full-Time Employees a) Off-street parking for customer/visitor use should be no more than ~2.67/hour. b) If meters were installed to generate revenue, the rates should be no more than $2.82/hour. c) Monthly parking for employees should be no more than $14.73/month. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 2-15 East Delray Beach Section 2 -Methodology and Survey Results Table 2-H: Part-Time Employee Survey Results A) P~'king metcr~ should b~ installed to gen~rat~ revenue, which will ~ ~ to improve do~m~ p~g. 1~ 2 3 4 S~ngly Nei~ A~ nor S~ngly A~ B) P~ing ~pmv~ should ~ p~d for by ~ ci~ only:- ~ ~ 3 4 S~ngly Nei~cr ~ nor S~ngly Di~ Di~ C) ~e ~nt fine for ov~ime p~ing is $20 ~is is t~ (hi~ IS] / low [1]). I I I T~ Low T~ Hi~ D) If free parking outside the central business district was provided and serviced by a convenient shuttle system I would use it. Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree E) Ifl leave my parking space during the day for a short time, I can't find parking when I return. lT 2 3 4 Strongly Neither Agree nor Slxongly Agree Disagree Disagree F) Downtown parking isn't safe. I 2 ~ 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagr~ Disagree G) I would pay more to park close to work versus less cost to park farther away. Strongly Neither Agree nor Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 2-16 East Delray Beach Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results H) I would bc willing to pay more for parking if thc r~vcnue wcrc used to impwve the parking. · I I I I 2 3 4 Slrongly Neither Agr~ nor Strongly Ag~c Average Cost Recommended By Part-Time Employees a) Off-street parking for customer/visitor usc should be no more than $2.67/hour. b) If meters were installed to generate revenue, the rates should be no mora than $2.$2/hour. c) Monthly parking for employees should be no mom than $14.73/month. 2.8 - Comments From The Manager and Employee Surveys o (I would encourage my employees to use a shuttle system) as long as the shuttle hms on time so they (employees) would be on time. (I park) anywhere I can! - 5 similar comments, mainly from restaurant employees. I would never use a shuttle system. I would like a parking area for employees only, with some kind of surveillance or protection for the cars. My car has been banged up and some minor vandalism has occurred. ia The current irme for overtime parking is ok for employees, however tourists should be exempt. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 2-17 East Delray Beach Section 3 - Parking Demand Analysis Section 3 3.1 - Parking Demand and Zone Analyses Analyses were performed to determine the current and future parking demands and needs for the study area. The data collected and compiled by the finn to calculate the parking demand included: l) an inventory of the study area's on- and off-street parking supplies; 2) turnover and occupancy studies for public and private on- and off-street parking areas; 3) a block-by-block analysis of the square footage and use of every building in the study area; 4) the results ora statistical beach census analysis and, 4) results from the downtown employee and manager surveys. The results of the fieldwork are discussed in Section 2 of this report. 3.2 - Methodology Parking demand was calculated for the current and future time periods. The future demand projection is based on an estimated increase in occupancy. Rich and Associates have assumed an 80% re-occupancy of all vacant space within the downtown area. In order to project demand we assume the re-occupancy to be in the form of mixed-use. In addition to our future project we have supplied charts that reflect parking demand based on the density projections of the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area plan prepared by the Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Deparhnent. The demand projection charts can be found in the appendix section of this report. The current and future parking demands were calculated by applying a parking generation factor (the east Delray Beach model) per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area as categorized by land use. The land use types in Delray Beach include retail, service, restaurant, office, residential, mixed use and institutional. The firm carefully examined the daytime and evening activity, parking characteristics and land use patterns to derive accurate and realistic demand generation rates to apply to the calculation of the city's parking demand. Evening parking demand characteristics were calculated separately, in order to fully incorporate shared parking principles. Demand analysis projections were also completed for Delray Beach's peak tourism season and again for the non-peak tourism season. The results of these two analyses revealed that parking demand remained at elevated levels year round. This can be expected since Delray Beach is a popular destination for people that reside in and around the community, as well as from abroad. The key differences between the peak season charts and the non-peak season charts are the demand factor changes for retail and restaurant and the demand variation for the beach. Both retail and restaurant are increased slightly for the peak season. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 3-1 East Delray Beach Section 3 - Parking Demand Analysis Table 3-A: "Current and Future Demand Generation Rates", provides a listing of the parking generation rates (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or as indicated) by land use type. The Rich and Associates' demand generation rates were derived based on the results of the studies, surveys and interviews conducted during the fieldwork phase of the study and from demand generation rates developed by Rich and Associates for neighborhoods of similar size and characteristics to east Delray Beach. Demand generation rates from the Delray Beach Zoning Ordinance, Institute of Transportation Engineers demand factors and New Urbanism characteristics are provided to allow the reader a comparison to the demand generation rates developed by Rich and Associates. Parking demand was computed for each block within the study area. The Rich and Associates' parking generation rates were multiplied by the total amount of gross square footage, by land use, to derive the number of parking spaces demanded for each block. Tables $-B and C: "Parking Demand Projection - a~ich and Associates Models" provides a listing of each block's gross square footage and the calculated parking demand for the current and future time period, as well as peak daytime and peak evening demands. Table 03) is a demand model for peak tourism season and table (C) is a demand model for the non-peak tourism season. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final RcporL May 1999 3-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I East Delray Beach Section 3 - Parking Demand Analysis Projections for beach demand is calculated from a regression analysis of beach census data provided by Delray Beach Ocean Rescue. The census data was plotted on a scatter diagram and four regression lines were calculated to correspond with the mean, the mean plus one standard deviation, the mean plus two standard deviations and the mean less one standard deviation (see Table 3D). To derive an average peak and non-peak demand for a current scenario and a future scenario the regression lines were projected approximately 5 years into the future. The current census was calculated as of January 1999 from the regression lines, while the future scenario was calculated from the regression lines for January 2004. The non-peak demand was assumed to be the mean and the peak demand was calculated as the mean plus two standard deviations. By using the mean plus two standard deviations we are able to account for and plan on a maximum demand of 93% of the projected absolute peak occupancy. Rich and Associates has found from previous beach occupancy studies that when 93% of peak is exceeded, it generally occurs on a weekend or holiday and the extra demand can be accommodated by surplus parking in the commercial areas of Delray's east downtown area. Benchmark comparison charts have also been provided in order to allow for a comparison between Rich and Associates' Model for east Delray Beach, nationally accepted standards and current zoning requirements for parking provision. Table 3E provides a current, peak season demand analysis using both Delray Beach's existing parking standards and nationally accepted standards set out by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The demand factors calculated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers is based on surveys that have been collected by the Institute for the last decade. Essentially, these standards represent national averages for parking demand and they are extensively used by consultants, developers and municipalities for forecasting parking demand. Rich and Associates utilizes these standards as a basis from which we develop parking factors for the study area. The factors are modified in accordance with the results of our research and according to the shared parking principles developed by the Urban Land Institute. The shared parking principles are a form of demand modeling that examines how parking stalls can and are used by a variety of users throughout the day, serving different needs in tandem. As demonstrated in Table 3F, Rich and Associates model for Delray Beach forecasts a lower number of needed parking stalls than either the existing parking standards used in Delray Beach or the nationally accepted standards developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report May 1999 ~, ~m m m ,,,m m m mm m mmm m m m m m m Table 3F: Surplus/Deficit Comparison Summary " ' ~ Non-Peak Seaeon Rich and Associates Model Current -188 486 134 502 Future -314 483 9 500 Institute of Transportation Engineers Current -642 235 n/a n/a Future n/a n/a n/a n/a Delm¥ Beach Zoning Requirements (for parking) Current ' -238 535 r~a n/a Future fda n/a n/a n/a Peak Season - January to May Non-Peak Season - April to December Daytime - 9:00am to 5:00 pm Evening - 5:00 pm onward Current - January 1999 Future - January 2004 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 3-9 East Delray Beach Section 3 - Parking Demand Analysis 3.2.1 - Parking Demand Parameters Building size, purpose and special use conditions. Socioeconomic characteristics of the downtown population and population expected to visit the downtown. Alternative modes of transportation, which includes availability, use attractiveness and policy impacts. · Proportion of the downtown trips that are multiple use; · Traffic accessibility. Cost of parking. Parking enforcement policies. · Location, quality and congestion of parking areas. · Pedestrian traffic patterns and wayf'mding. · Supply and demand boundaries. · Impact of significant amenities and demand generators such as Delray's beach. 3.3 - Parking Demand Analysis Assumptions · Assumption 1: It was assumed that parking demand per block was dependent only on the block's gross floor area. Each block's demand was calculated individually and shared parking characteristics were taken into consideration in both the demand factors and in the demand model, which separates day and evening demand. · Assumption 2: The parking demand calculations were derived under the assumption that currently occupied properties would remain occupied at the existing level into the future. ·Assumption 3: Parking demand is not affected by parking availability, use, location and price. · Additional site specific assumptions are examined in section five of this report as they relate to Rich and Associates specific recommendations and supply options. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Pm-king Consultants Final Report, May 1999 3oq 0 East Delray Beach Section 3 - Parking Demand Analysis [Parking demand assumes that all parking is free, and that there are no parking charges, user restrictions, locational factors or time limitations. Parking need represents the number of parkers who need to be accommodated in a given parking area after the uses of alternative parking areas are considered. Price, use, accessibility and location influence parking need. The parking demand and need definitions were obtained from the Urban Land Institute (1983).] The current and future parking surplus and deficit map for east Delray Beach during the peak and non-peak seasons, as calculated by Rich and Associates, are graphically depicted in Maps 3&4: "East Deiray Beach - Surplus and Deficit" on pages 3-12 and 13. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Repo~c May 1999 3nN3,,V vanvs III II -- _ IE I '1 East Delray Beach Section 3 - Parking Demand Analysis 3.4 - Parking Needs The City of Delray Beach in the past has experienced observable seasonality with respect to activity in the downtown, and specifically in the study area east of the Intracoastal Waterway. Rich and Associates interviewed many of the businesses in the study area, the consensus was that the peak season, and non-peak season is fluctuating. First, the weather patterns in 1998 caused changes in the tourist patterns. This was borne out to some extent by comparing counts made on the beach (counts are done twice a month). There appears to be more tourists coming to Delray Beach during months that were once considered off- season. Second, the business types in the study area are changing. There are more restaurants in the study area than ever before. Restaurant representatives stated that "ai~ter the peak season, (which caters to tourists,) that there has been an increase in sales (number of tickets), which appear to result from residents (permanent and temporary) coming to Delray Beach". These residents come not only from Delray Beach, but also from surrounding cities. Additionally, the Marriott reported that the seasonality factor for their operation is not as prominent. Rich and Associates conducted a turnover and occupancy count on Tuesday, January 26, and Friday, January 29 and at the time, it was felt that this would be a peak time. On March 18, a representative from Rich and Associates did an informal count of most of the off street parking areas. The staff found that the off street locations had higher occupancies during this count. The models used to project current and future demand parking were run for three parking generation bases; ITE Parking Generation, city requirements- and finally, parking generation based on Rich and Associates surveys and fieldwork in Delray Beach. The Rich and Associate model projected the lowest number of parking spaces required. A. The non peak season demand was projected using several sources: · Information provided by businesses in the study area, and · Data from surveys done in similar cities with tourist seasons: Fort Pierce, Sarasota, Wilmington (North Carolina) and Prescott (Arizona). The projection of in season/out of season demand in these cities shows differences ranging from 30% to 50% i.e., out of season demand is 30% to 50% less than in season demand. Using the Rich and Associates model, the following is a summary of the peak and non-peak season projected parking needs: Peak Season Oanuary through May) Non-Peak Season (April through December) Peak Season Non Peak Season Current Parking Need - 188 + 134 Future Parking Need -314 - 9 Rich and A~sociales, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report May 1999 3-14 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options Site on Block #7 This site eliminates two building on the comer of Atlantic and Andrews Avenues (Prudential Reality et., al and the Shell Game / Barbershop). The plan does show approximately 11,000 square feet that would accommodate these businesses after construction. Entry and exit would be from Andrews Avenue. On four supported floors, the capacity would be 304 spaces. There are presently about 48 spaces on the site, resulting in a net add of 256 spaces. If we reduced the structure to three supported floors, the new add would be 180 spaces. There is an obvious concern for residents to the north of the site. The north side of the parking structure is set back from the property line at least 15 feet, and would ,be about 25 feet from the nearest building. The height of the parking structure would be 4-/-49 feet from Atlantic Avenue. This north side of the building will have to be architecturally treated to account for the light and noise factor, and the view of this side of the structure. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-11 Final Report, May 1999 East Deiray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options 5(a) - Project and Finance Costs The project and finance costs for these two sites are shown on the following pages. For both sites, the costs reflect the additional expense of the express ramp that is needed to rise up to elevation +/- 15 feet. The express ramp is necessary to allow vehicular access to parking above the public space and restroom space on Block # 1 and to rise above the commercial space on Block #7. The construction costs do reflect added costs for additional noise and dust control during construction and higher costs for light and noise abatement and facade treatment in the parking structure. The costs do include demolition and in thc core of Block #7, the shell commercial space. , The project costs also show land and acquisition costs that were estimated based on assessed values. Included in the soft costs are design fees, legal fees and a 10% contingency. Financing was based on a 20-year amortization term at 5.5% interest. The construction time was estimated at nine months. Other finance costs include interest during construction, interest income on the running balance of the funds borrowed, legal and accounting, financing fees and cost of issuance. Since a revenue bond would not be used, we did not pre-fund a debt service reserve. The total project cost and debt service for each site are shown below. Proiect Cost Debt Service Block #1 $5,407,500 $453,000 Block #7 $5,489,000 $459,000 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-15 Final Report, May 1999 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 1 PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS 1 Construction Cost $3,706,500 2 Professional Fees (~.v~m~n.~n; ~ ~,~mb,r~ $304,000 3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Land Costs $720,000 5 Legal $45,000 6 Contingency $37t,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $5,076,500 8 Financing Term 20 Years 9 Intsmst Rate 5.5 % 10 Term of Construction 9 Months 11 Interest During Construction $223,000 12 Interest Income 4o% @ s% ($81,000) 13 Legal & Accounting Fees $54,000 t4 Debt Service Reserve None 15 Financing Fees (Points) $108,000 16 Cost of Issuance $27,000 u 17 Total Financing Costs $331,000 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed $5.076.500 19 Total Amount of Bonds $$,407,500 20 Debt Service ~2.000 Asociates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-16 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 7 PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS I Construction Cost $3,591,000 2 Professional Fees (*r=~,ur~..~...~ & ~m~.r~) $198,000 3 Geotech and Surveys $30,000 4 land Cost $930,000 5 Legal $45,000 6 Contigency $359,000 7 Proiect Coat to be Financed $5,153,000 8 Financing Term 20 Years 9 Interest Rate 5.5 % 10 Term of Construction 9 Months 11 Interest During Construction $226,000 12 Interest Income 40% @ s% ($82,000) 13 Legal & Accounting Fees {~ 1.oo% $55,000 14 Debt Service Reserve None 15 Financing Fees (Points) g} ~.00./. $t10,000 16 Cost of Issuance $27,000 17 Total Financing Costs $336,000 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed $5.163.000 19 Total Amount of Bonds $5,489,000 20 Debt Service $4~9.000 Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-17 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options 5(b) - Revenue and Expense Projections The revenues and expenses were projected for a parking structure on Block #1 and #7 (Chart on page 5-20). The total revenue included the projected parking structure and new meters on Atlantic Avenue east of the lntracoastal Waterway. From this, we deducted the operating costs. This number represents the net revenue available for debt service. From this, the debt service is applied. In both cases, the parking structures do not break even and there is a deficit. There are two different means of operating the proposed parking structure; multi- space meters or cashier. The multi-space meters would not require an attendant, but would require enforcement. Instead of having an individual meter at each space, each stall would be numbered. The parker would remember their space number and proceed to the multi-space meter. At the machine they will enter their space number and put in the money for their anticipated stay. The parker would receive a receipt with a stall number and expiration time. They could add more time to their space. The second option is an attendant. A parker would pull a ticket (or if an employee, use a card) upon entry and pay the cashier at the exit (or use their card to exit if an employee). The attendant provides a sense of securi~, can handle merchant validations for free parking and provide a face to face transaction. Because of the large number of tourists, the face to face transaction is better. The use of multi-space meter may be intimidating for some people and is not as user friendly. Assumptions 1. For either site, assume approximately 75% monthly space and 25% hourly spaces during the day. At night and on weekends the allocation will be 30% monthly spaces and 70% hourly parkers. 2. Revenue will be peak for five months per year. Other months will have reduced usage. 3. Parking rates will be as follows for the first three years: Monthly: $30.00 per month Hourly: $0.35 per hour 4. Parking rates will increase every three years. 5. To maximize revenue, on street meters along Atlantic Avenue must be added, at $0.35 per hour. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-18 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options 6. In order to meet the revenue projections, the on-street parking on Atlantic Avenue must be metered. Meters are discussed on page 5-23. Additionally, the meters must be enforced. 7. Expenses were estimated assuming a cashier operation Monday through Saturday, including Friday and Saturday nights. During non-peak season, these days and times would vary. 8. Meter maintenance and related costs are included in the operating expenses. 9. Operating expenses were increased at 5% per year. 10. Revenue projections assume that the current demand in any season will at least remain the same as it is now. It also assumes that the vacant space will be 80% occupied and that additional parking demand will result. 5(c) - Recommendations to Parking Supply Options Rich and Associates have reviewed the five options, and have ruled out Option #1, "Do Nothing". There are critical parking problems during peak season and from reports, parking demands are increasing during the offseason. Even if there is no re- occupancy of vacancies, there is still a need for additional close, convenient and consistent public parking. Option #2, shuttle employees, is a reasonable option that would have little capital cost but would have an operating cost. The shuttling of employees may only be needed during the peak season but could be expanded as needs change. While this option would open up spaces to the public, it would require a great deal of cooperation among businesses with parking lots and those without. Because of the coordination and cooperation required, we do not feel that this option will work because; 1) it will require businesses to compel employees to park off-site and 2) the level of cooperation and coordination required. Option #3, valet parking, can realistically not be accomplished by the city, and any increase in valet parking operations would require parking spaces be made available. Recommendation #1: Rich and Assoeiates strongly recommends that the metered spaces near the Marriott (on the north) be made available for valet parking. The valet operation should not extend beyond 11:00 p.m. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-20 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options Option ~4, surface lots should be completed if at all possible. This will add 44 spaces and will open up 80 spaces to the public. These spaces should be signed as two-hour spaces and strictly enforced or they should be metered. Additionally, the city should investigate the acquisition of the abandoned Nations Bank drive-in and the associated parking. This too could be made into a public parking lot. While this lot is not close to the core of the study area, it could be used by employees. We have estimated that this could be a 25 space lot. Recommendation #2: Proceed with discussions with First Presbyterian Church and create a 95 space lot. Begin talk with Nations Bank about this site. Option tt5, parking structure, should be considered as a short-term to mid-term solution. There are several reasons for implementing a public parking structure; 1 ) even with proceeding with the public parking lot in Option 4, there is still the need for additional parking spaces in the peak season, 2) there are no additional public parking lots that could be built, 3) a parking structure could provide centralized public parking that could also be used for valet at night, and 4) there is the need for centralized additional parking for future demand from vacant space and for any redevelopment in this area. Of the two sites, Rich and Associates favors the one on Block 7 because it has a cleaner design (not covering the alley) and replaces the commercial space to create a streetscape. From a height standpoint, it will sit between the Spanish River and the Marriott, which are the highest structures in the study area. Vehicle access to and from Block #7 is better in our opinion than Block gl. The entrance/exit path for Block 1 structure is too close to AIA in our opinion. Vehicles exiting the structure on Block 7 will be required to make a right hand turn onto Andrews Avenue. Pedestrian access is not as clean since the majority of parkers will be going to the south side of Atlantic Avenue. The financial feasibility is a problem on either site. It may be possible to get State or Federal funds for the project, but these opportunities are limited. Another possibility is to fund the deficit using an assessment district. The assessment district would incorporate property owners, land uses in buildings and the calculated number of spaces for that land use. Each building would have its parking demand calculated and credit would be given to buildings that provide their own parking. The deficit would be divided by the number of parking spaces needed. Each year the assessment would change based on the projected deficit. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-2 ! Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options Recommendation 03 Begin planning for a future parking structure to be completed within the next two to three years. $(d) - Meters (Recommended if a parking structure is constructed) The following is an explanation of the on-street meter recommendations. On-street meters will definitely be required ifa parking structure is developed. The installation of on-street meters along East Atlantic Avenue should be considered if a parking structure is constructed. The meters could potentially contribute , significantly to the parking fund, helping to pay for a residential permit program or the parking structure. Additionally, meters would aid in creating a higher turnover in this important commercial area. The drawback to this option is that meters are not used elsewhere in downtown Delray Beach and there would be an initial negative reaction by local commerce and residents to the placement of the meters. As a part of our research into this parking study, we have included the experiences of other cities that installed parking meters in areas where there previously were none. The following summaries regarding the impact that the newly installed meters had on their communities are included for consideration by council. Cities with recently installed individual on-street meters. · Charlotte, North Carolina · Atlantic Beach, North Carolina · Columbus, Ohio · Athens, Georgia Cities with recently installed multi-space meters. · Tempe, Arizona · Aspen, Colorado · Fort Lauderdale, Florida The following is a summary of our findings: Municipalities that did not use any marketing or publicity to inform the public of the new meters experienced some initial resistance. U Where marketing strategies were used, there was little or no resistance to the use of on-street meters. t2 In cases where marketing was used, local merchants and businesses became important supporters and advocates of the use of the meters. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-22 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section S: Parking Supply Options Individual space meters are easier to use in on-street applications, as they are more common and people are familiar with their operation. There is a growing trend towards the use of multi-space meters for aesthetic and flexibility in operation reasons. Additionally, multi-space meters have a higher revenue generating potential. Coastal communities have a tendency to choose multi-space meters over individual, again for aesthetic and flexibility in operation reasons. Once on-street meters were in place, all of the municipalities reported increases in ability to control and manage their on-street parking. Typically, the new equipment paid for itself within months of installation. Charlotte, North Carolina had no meters before installing its 2000 parking meters. Within the first year, they had generated $500,000 in revenue. Tempe, Arizona worked with the multi-space meter manufacturer (Ventec) in developing a very successful marketing scheme with local retailers. Recommendation Metering of East Atlantic Ave. For primarily control and secondarily revenue generation, the recommendation is to meter on-street parking stalls. In implementing this recommendation there are three options to be considered. · Option 1 - individualmeters · Option 2 - multi-space meters · Option 3 - rub-off permits Individual meters have been improved dramatically through technological innovation. Meters can be purchased that are networked together and provide data on revenue generation, time duration and space occupancy. These meters can also be equipped with debit card capabilities. However, the debit card is inflexible from a minimum or maximum-charge capability standpoint, debiting a fixed amount with each use. Multi-space meters use a central meter, which serves a number of parking stalls. These meters offer all of the features of stand alone systems with the added advantage of flexible time options (i.e., customer can select duration of stay and the charge or debit card is billed appropriately). Generally, there are two types of multi-space meters, those that provide a receipt, which are displayed in the car Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-23 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options (Pay and Display). Those where a stall number is entered by the customer and those with time added to the space similar to a stand-alone meter. Finally, there is the option of rub-off permits. These permits are easy to use and provide a great deal of flexibility at low cost (the parking customer simply scratches offthe appropriate areas of the permit and leaves the card in the vehicle). Enforcement officers can easily see the validation time and date of the permit. The draw back to this method is access, as the customer would have to purchase permits from some central location before parking downtown. The advantage to this method, cost aside, is the potential for a Marketing Scheme, which can be implemented in partnership with local commerce. In this scenario, the city would sell parking permits to the merchants at face value. The merchants could then give the permits away to customers as a promotion or value-added feature to their service or product. In general, we would recommend two-hour meters along Atlantic Avenue where there is commercial development, with the possible exception of the ends of the blocks. These spaces (possibly one at each end) should be one hour meters to allow for higher turnover. In order to make meters work, the city will have to enact an ordinance that prohibits meter feeding. If people feel that more time is needed, then the city could allow one two-hour addition at a maximum. Meter Color Coding, We would also recommend that a color-coding scheme with appropriate signage be implemented if meters are installed. By color coding parking meter poles according to individual time limits, parkers would be able to familiarize themselves with the maximum allowable duration of a given stall more readily. A possible alternative is to paint the curb according to the stall time limits. This alternative does however require more maintenance. In conjunction with this recommendation, we would also advise each individual on-street parking stall be demarcated with paint strips. Maintaining the striping would improve the efficiency of east Delray Beach's Parking. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants $-24 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options 5(d)- I Metering of Additional Street Action Time: Short term, if council feels meters are acceptable. Financial Impact: $36,000 5(d)-2 Meter Color Coding Action Time: Short term, again if meters are installed. Financial Impact: $720 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants $-25 Final Report, May 1999 City of Delray Beach Manager Survey In order to a.~ th~ Cit~ with pluming it~ I~'kiag ~ we ask for your coop~r~ion in completing this brief Survey. Please the suryey to Mr. Run itoggard, Delray ~each Planning Department when completed. 1. Busiaess Name 2. Business Address H¢urs Oven 3. Type of BusinmHours From: To: a) Retail Mon b) Office Tue ¢) Commercial Wed d) Hotel Thur e) Public UsdGovemmental Fri 0 Other Sat Sun 40wu or Le~e this Locmtiou 5 Square Foo~ge: Primary Selling / Office Space: .sq.fc. Storage Space .sq.fc. Total: __.sq.fc. 6. Parking Avaihbility. For Employees For.CustomersNisito~'s a) Number of Owned Parking Spaces: b) Number of Leased Pm~Ang Spaces: 7. Number of Employees: Full-time Purr-time: & Number of l~i[y Customers or Visitors: In Seazon(to~.~ason): Day-time: .. Night-Time:.. Out-of-Sea, on: Day-time: . Night-Time: 9. In your estimation, what pereent~ge of your customers or visitors are people already downtown for another purpo~ such L~ work, shopping, business etc. % 10 Ple~e indicate your feelings regarding the following ~tements using the following 1 2 3 4 Too low Abo~t ltlgkt I'oo ifiglt Score a) P~'king m~rs should be insmll~cl to ~ revenue which will be used to improve downtown parking ................ b) Pm'king improvements should be l~id for only by. the City .......................................................................................... c) It should be left to thc private sc~or to provide pm'king downtown ............................................................................ d) The ¢os~ for providing n~w p~ztcin$ downtown should be shar~ by. the City, priv~e, sector and us~s. .................... e) I would support a spociai assessmant to improve p~q~ing downto~ .......................................................................... f) Off-smut p~king for customer/visitor use should charge no more than ....................................... ~ ............................... $ per hour g) If metes ~ ins~led to generate revenue, tl~ rates should be no more than ............................................................ $ per hour h) Monthly p~rking roi' cmploy~ should be no more th~n ............................................................................................. $ P~ hour i) The current fmc for ovmime parking is S ~.0 this is ftoo h~gh/Iow ) .................................................................... j) I would ~ncourage my employees to p~rk outside the downtown core mui use ~ shuttle bus to leave more parking for custom~r/visitors. ............................................................................................................. City of Delray Beach Employee Parking Survey In order to assist the City in planning to insure the vitality of the downtown, we ask for your cooperation in completing this brief parking survey. Please answer the questions as honestly and completely as possible. Please feel free to make any additional comments on the back of the survey form. Please return this survey to your manager or supervisor and have them returned to Mr. Ron Hoggard, Delray Beach Planning Department. 1. Employment Status: a) Full-time (more than J0 noun/er w~./0 b) Part-time t~.~ #,on Jo nounmr ~.k) 2. Employment Classification: a) Professional c) Retail b) T6chnical d) Clerical e) Other:. 3. How do you generally come to work downtown? a) Drive and Park c) Use Public Transportation e) Ride Motorcycle b) Ride with f~end or relative d) Ride Bicycle 0 Dropped off g) Walk 4. If you drive when you come downtown to work where do you usually park? a) Public Lot c) Privately Owned Lot b) Parking Structure d) On-street 5. Who pays for your parking: Employer pays I pay, a) If you pay for pad. g, how much de you pay?. Pay $ Monthly b) Pay $__ Daily 6. Please indicate your response to the following statements using the following scale: ~ I 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neithea, Agree or Disagree Strongly Agree Too Low About Right Too High Score a) Parking meters should be installed to generate revenue which will be used to improve downtown parking ................ b) Parking improvements should be paid for only by the City .......................................................................................... c) If meters were installed to generate revenue, the rates should be no more than ............................................................ $ ocr day d) Daily parking rates in off-street lots or parking decks should cost no more than .......................................................... $ per day e) Monthly parking for employees working downtown should cost no more than ........................................................... $ per month 0 The current fine for overtime parking is $ ,~ - this is - too high~Iow (see sca~e above) ....................................... g) If free parking outside the central business district were provided and served by a convenient shuttle system. I would use it ....................... ........................... h) If I leave my parking space during the day for a short time, I can't find parking when I return ................................... i) I must move my vehicle periodically during the day to avoid getting a parking ticket ................................................. j) I would pay more to park close to work versus less cost to park farther away .............................................................. k) I would be willing to pay more for parking if the revenue were used to improve the parking ...................................... East Delray Beach Section 3 - parl~ng Demand Analysis The parking demand projections for the current condition peak-season show a deficit of - 488 spaces for the total study area. This projection had the following assumptions: Marriott Hotel is at 100% bed occupancy and all meeting space is occupied (with hotel and non- hotel guest). Church parking demand is not shown, nor is the Church parking supply. · Spanish River occupancy is assumed to be at 100%. Condominiums that have parking lots are not included (either supply or demand) because their supply is only available for their use (although at times others may park here). · Beach parking demand assumes peak time (January through May) that is two standard deviations from the mean to reflect 93% of the observed peak. The remaining 7%, or absolute observed peak occupancy, would most likely occur on a weekend or holiday and would be satisfied by available parking throughout the downtown area. The parking demand projections for the current condition non-peak-season show a surplus of 134 spaces for the total study area. This projection had the following assumptions. · Marriott Hotel is at 100% bed occupancy and all meeting space is occupied (with hotel and non hotel guest) · Church parking demand is not shown, nor is the Church parking supply. · Spanish River occupancy is assumed to be at 100% · Condominiums that have parking lots are not shown with either their parking supply or demand. Their parking is assumed for only their use. · Beach parking demand assumes a non-peak time, which is the mean. · The parking demand generation factor for retail and restaurant land uses were reduced to reflect a reduction in employees and/or visitor and customers. In the study area, there is about 39,000 square feet of vacant space. For the future condition, we assumed that 80% of that space would be reoccupied. In the peak season, this increased the deficit to -314 spaces and in the non-peak season, it created a small surplus of 9 spaces. Rich and Associates. Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 3 - Parking Demand Analysis 3.4.1 - Analysis of Current Condition In peak season, there is a calculated deficit of-1 $8 spaces and in the non-peak season a surplus of 134 spaces. First, the peak season deficit needs to be compared to the turnover and occupancy counts done in late January and observed again in late March. The maximum peak occupancy of all parking in the study area was estimated at about 70% at peak time. Why was the occupancy different from the projected deficit? 1. The Marriott Hotel was not at 100% occupancy during any of the counts for either the rooms or meeting space. 2. Spanish River was not 100% occupied. 3. Beach usage may not have been at peak. If we make adjustments for the above points, the deficit in peak season would go from a deficit of -210 space to a surplus of+67 spaces. This does not correlate with the parking supply occupancy observed on the peak day in March. The difference from the recalculated (surplus of 67 spaces) and the observed is only about 10%. The question then is, does Delray Beach have a parking problem? The answer we believe is yes. First, there is no true public parking except for the on street and the two beach lots (Sandoway and the lot by the Marriott). Every other parking area in the study area is designated for customers, visitors or employees for individual buildings or businesses. Many of the businesses do not have available off-street parking supply. Second, there is a parking problem because at one time parking requirements were waived for this area. As a result, buildings or businesses were not required to provide parking. This resulted is land uses not having sufficient parking. Today, there is a parking requirement, which can be made-up by a fee in lieu of payment. The fee in lieu of payment normally means that the municipality will somehow provide additional parking. Third, there are three large property owners/land uses with a relatively large parking supply that do not allow (in general) the public to park there. The Spanish River has +109 spaces, the Marriott has +348 spaces and the First Presbyterian Church has 141 spaces. This means that of the 1,597 parking spaces accounted for, at least 250 spaces are purposely unavailable to public access (Church and Spanish River); and up to 598 may be unavailable. Consequently, the only true public spaces are on street and in the Sandoway and Marriott metered lot. This is a very unusual situation for a downtown area. Finally, unless a no growth stance is taken by the city, other changes could impact this area. Even with the collection of "in lieu" fees, additional parking may be required. In our opinion, the projection of peak-season parker needs represents the maximum spaces required. The city may choose not to provide for the peak need, but we are confident that there is a lack of convenient public parking in this area at normal periods during the peak season. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, May 1999 3-16 East Delray Beach Section 4: Recommendations Section 4 Section 4 of the report contains parking recommendations, which are intended to enhance the parking characteristics of east Delray Beach. In addition to the following operational recommendations, Rich and Associates has a number options that are intended to address the real and perceived need for additional parking supply in east Delray Beach. Section 5 of this report deals with these, the recommended options. Recommendations have been developed for several categories. These are: A - Revised Parking Zoning Standards B - Residential Parking Permit Program C - Marketing D - Enforcement E - Signage A - Revised Parking Zoning Standards Rich and Associates staff, through the process of preparing this report, have had the opportunity to develop a parking demand model for east Delray Beach. The specific demand factors used to determine block by block parking demand are based on use and occupancy and are designed to be applied to a building gross floor area. Being developed from established and widely accepted standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute, the demand model is a statistically based criterion. Further refining of the model, to meet the specific demands of east Delray Beach, involved the inclusion of factors such as the results of our turnover and occupancy study, the manager/employee surveys, interviews and a regression analysis of the beach visitor traffic to Delray Beach. Additionally, as a part of this study, Rich and Associates undertook an examination of New Urbanism development standards as requested by the Delray Beach Homeowners Association. Parking requirements called for in New Urbanism redevelopment plans used in other communities throughout Florida (as published by the firm ofDuany, Plater-Zyberk and Company) are higher than necessary for the level of intensity and use characteristics promoted within east Delray Beach. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 4- l Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 4: Recommendations Update the land development requirements for east De[ray Beach's Parking Standards. Current parking requirements are higher than necessary for the land uses in this area. The City should continue the policy of in lieu fees for parking when a property or land use can not meet the calculated requirements. Land-Use Recommended Parking Ratio (per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area) Office 2.60 Retail 3.00 Service 3.00 Restaurant 12.50 1 & 2 Bedroom Condominiums 1.28 3 Bedroom Condos and Single Family 1.50 (minimum) Mixed Use 3.00 Hotel (per room) 1.00 Meeting Space 8.75 A-1 Amend Parking Requirements Action Time: As Development Takes Place Financial Impact: Cost Estimate: N/A B - Residential Parking Permit Pro_m-am In order to address future concerns about encroachment of employee, customer or business visitor parking on residential streets, A Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) should be considered at such time that a problem begins. There was no one who addresses this as a current problem. Conditions that would potentially cause a problem with residential streets would be: ·metering on-street spaces on Atlantic Avenue, · building a significant amount of off-street spaces and charging for them, · having private parking lot owners enforce who parks in their lots. An RPPP would work as follows. If the residents on a given block face feel that an RPPP is necessary they would petition City Council or other governing body. A public hearing is usually held and the decision made. In other instances, a simple majority vote of the property owners on that block face would be held. In either case there may be some property owners on a block who did not want the RPPP. The majority will rule in this ease. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 4-2 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 4: Recommendations In almost all cases the property owner or resident is charged for the permit to defer the costs. Costs include signage, administration and enforcement. Where RPPP's have worked well, there is a restriction of non-resident parking in effect from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. From 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. one or two hour parking may be allowed without a permit, but definitely not all day parking without a permit. Recommendation Consider a Residential Parking Permit Program when conditions warrant. C - Marketing of Parkine Marketing is necessary to aid merchants and business owners in understanding the role that convenient parking play in the minds of their customers. Marketing may consist of the development of maps and coupons to be placed in business and tourism brochures and magazines. There are many benefits to coordinating the marketing efforts with the local Chamber of Commerce. Marketing programs are important not only for increasing parking in off-street lots but also for increasing shopping at downtown stores. Recommendation Marketing Pro~ram for Businesses and On-street Parking Businesses and their employees need to be informed of the impact of employees parking on street. First, the businesses in general must buy into the concept. This may involve public meetings with the local Chamber of Commerce, and possibly media reports in print, radio and television broadcasts. In conjunction with other public relation efforts, a monthly or quarterly flyer/newsletter circulated to all businesses may be considered. The flyer/newsletter could be devoted to "What's going on Downtown" (i.e. general interest) and could also include parking issues. C-1 Marketing and Informational Program Action Time: Immediate and on going Financial Impact: $4,000 - $6,000 annually Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 4-3 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 4: Recommendations D - Enforcement Adequate and consistent parking enforcement is a crucial element for a successful parking system. The city's residents, employees, memhants and officials should now the objectives of the enforcement policies. The level of enforcement should be fair but consistent. The result of the lack of consistent enforcement efforts results in a disregard of parking regulation. Consistent enforcement is also important to maintain parking allocation. Maintaining consistent turnover of on-street spaces is important in this regard. Finally, enforcement is particularly important during peak season. The current fmc structure for parking violations is consistent with the average of similar Florida cities. The current system consists of volunteers in a golf cart. This one patrol is responsible for the four metered lots along A1A, the meters on A2A and on-street spaces on Atlantic Avenue. In general, an enforcement person in a cart can cover about 600 to 800 spaces every two hours if metered, or 400 to 600 if time controlled. The distance between lots is also a factor. Based on the number of off-street meter spaces and the location of the lots, our opinion is that an additional team is needed to patrol down Atlantic Avenue and to assist with patron along A1A. Recommendations Add one volunteer patrol during peak season: In order to ensure consistent enforcement, Rich and Associates recommends that one volunteer patrol be added during peak season. The two enforcement routes should be coordinated to provide reasonable coverage of spaces every two hours. D-1 Add one volunteer patrol during peak season. Action Time: Implement in 1999 Financial Impact: Capital costs +$8,000 plus annual costs for maintenance and volunteer supplies. Rich and Associates. Inc. - Parking Consultants 4-4 Final Rcpor~ May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 4: Recommendations E - Signage If additional public parking is provided, additional signage should be included. Ther, are four types of parking signs that should be considered. The new sign design on the west side works well. Introduction: Introduction parking signage alerts drivers approaching the downtown of the locations of the publicly, owned, off-street parking lots. This type of signage is distinctive in color and size, and it can be characterized by unique logos. The signs display the names of the off-street parking lots and the names of their streets. The signs are located on the street, and are mounted on poles of s~andard heights. Directional: Directional-parking signage is distinct in color, size and logo and directs drivers to off-street parking areas. The signs are mounted on poles at standard heights, on the streets. Locational: Parking locational signage complements the directional parking signage. The signs have arrows pointing to the off-street lots. The signs are mounted on poles at standard heights and located on street. Identification: Identification signage is placed at the entry of each parking lot. The name of the parking area is identified and the type of parking available at the parking area is listed on the signage. The identification signage is distinctive in color and size, and it is located on a pole at a lower height. Recommendation Add Signage The signs outlined above are reflector types. The sign design used on the west side will work well. E-1 Install appropriate signage to the extent that new public off-street parking is added. Action Time: As required. Financial Impact: To be determined Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consul~nts 4-5 Final Report, May 1999 . East Dekay Beach Section 4: Recommendations I. Painting of On-Street Parking Stalls In addition to the recommendations of adding signage, Rich and Associates recommends that the on-street parking stalls be markedwith paint stripes where there are none or where the paint strips have faded. Key to this recommendation is the efficiency, which can be acquired by having motorists park in the stall as opposed to simply parking where their car will fit. A second benefit is the ability to enforce parking regulations with a greater degree of accuracy. E-2 Strip all on-street parking stalls. Action Time: Short Term Financial Impact: $500 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 4-6 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options Section 5 Section 5 of this report contains options for increasing the parking supply of east Delray Beach. As detailed in Section 3, there is .a shortage of parking in the current peak season and a larger projected deficit in the future There is a lack of consistent public parking available to customers, visitors and employees in the study area. While the Marriott offers pay public parking, it is not signed as such. Therefore, someone must know that public parking is available. Availability is not always guaranteed. If there is a major meeting or banquet and the hotel is full, the Marriott does not open up its parking. The conclusion is that additional public parking should be provided in some form, although in non-peak season these spaces may not be needed. The following are possible options to accomplish th~: 1. Do nothing 2. Provide a shuttle from a remote, underutilized parking area 3. Provide extensive valet service 4. Create additional surface parking in a public lot 5. Build a parking structure 1. Do Nothing Option This option could be considered since the argument can be made that the additional spaces aren't needed year round. This would possibly have the following effect: a. it will be difficult to promote re-occupancy of vacant building space, b. as the number of customers and visitors increase, there will be further problems will parking in residential areas, streets and private lots, c. the lack of public parking may, over time, change use patterns and cause a downturn in customer and visitor activity, and d. building vacancies may increase. There are very few land uses that require little if any parking. Even practicing shared use (which is possible with restaurants) there is still insufficient public parking. In order to implement the recommendations of this report for increasing overall enforcement, additional parking must be found. This option has no long-term financial benefits. In the short-term, the only benefit is that there would be no capital costs. Doing nothing will at best keep the condition "status quo", however the potential exists of forcing businesses away and possibly pushing the area back to what it was. By addressing the current and short-term future parking needs now, the inflationary costs of delaying a solution are minimized. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-1 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options The Pro's and Con's of this option are: Pro Con 1. Will not experience capital costs 1. Does not help solve parking problem. 2. Lack of additional parking may effect vitality of area. 2. Provide a Shuttle from Remote Parking Areas This option would use a trolley that would travel fi.om a large parking area or new parking structure to east Delray Beach. As the trolley would make periodic stops along the way, it would serve as a people mover as well. A local business owner initiated the operation of a publicly accessible trolley between the City Hall parking lot on the west side and the east side. Rich and Associates reviewed the marketing material and it appeared to be consistent with what is needed to make a service like this work. Unfortunately, the trolley service did not receive high use and was discontinued (even though it operated in peak season). One possible use for remote shuttle parking would be for employees. In Delray Beach's case it would be difficult to make a remote system work, since the city does not control off street parking in the study area, which is where employees currently park. In order to make the system work, a majority of the businesses would have to agree to restrict employee parking in their own lots and compel staffto park in a remote lot. Additionally, these businesses would then have to open up their lots to public parking. Depending on conditions during non-peak seasons, the shuttle operation may only have to operate in peak season. This option does increase the number of public spaces available in the area, especially short term parking. Several conditions must be met, to make this work: a. A majority of the property owners/businesses must participate. At least 150 spaces must be opened up. b. Some employee parking must remain for those who are "in and out" during the day. c. Property owners and businesses must agree to open their lots for public short- term parking. d. Property owners and businesses would have to pay for the shuttle e. Restricted employee parking must be enforced. f. Private lots open to the public would have to be signed appropriately. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants $-2 Final Report, May 1999 t. Delray Parking Supply Options East Beach Section 5: .I While conceptually this may work, it would require a great deal of compromise and unity among property owners and businesses. The estimated cost for the shuttle for six months, not including the parking lot use, would be approximately $$0,000. The pros and cons of this option are: Pros Cons 1. Use existing parking lot- low capital 1. Shuttle systems are difficult to make work costs, in a small city with similar land area to Delray Beach. 2. Would not require a parking structure 2. People must find a lot (in all probability'on or additional parking to be built in the the west side) and take the shuttle to their east lntracoastal area. destination. Marketing will be difficult. 3. The shuttle could also move people 3. Security will be a concern (remote lot who were originally in the west side to parking causes more concern). the east side of the Intracoastal area. 4. Shuttle may only have to operate 4. The transient nature of visitor and during peak season, customer traffic makes a shuttle difficult to market and difficult for visitors and customers to find. 3. Provide Extensive Valet Service Valet parking is used in a number of locations both east and west of the Intracoastal. East of the Intracoastal, a greater use ora valet service would provide these functions. a. Provide curbside identification for public parking (both night and day considering the season). b. Utilize private lots that are not easy for the customer or visitor to find. c. Tandem parking to increase the number of spaces available. d. Ideally, be flexible to use several parking areas (i.e. if the Marriott is not having an event use their parking and if they are, use another area). Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-3 Final Report, May 1999 · East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options The Valet Company, with the city's assistance, would negotiate agreements on use. Payment for parking area usage and insurance to the parking lot owner may come from part of the valet revenue and/or an assessment of businesses. This system, to a lesser extent has been tried before with the city taking the lead. There has been discussion of using the Sandoway and Marriott metered lots for valet at night. Presently, these lots are closed at night. There is a concern by nearby residents that there would be significant noise and light in these lots if they were opened up to valet parking. The Marriott metered lot is closed at night, yet the Marriott is able to use it. It seems reasonable to open these spaces at night to valet parking if there is a limit to how late the lot can be used. The pros and cons of this option are: Pros Cons 1. Maximize use of all parking areas 1. Requires agreement of certain parking area (if agreements can be struck). Owners i.e. Marriott, First Presbyterian Church, etc. 2. Positive marketing tool for area. 2. If someone does not want to give up their vehicle, there still are very few options. 3. Eliminates parker lrmding a "public" 3. Requires agreement on assessment of place to park. some costs among businesses. 4. Adds spaces if tandem parking is 4. Can not use Sandoway Park lot for valet possible. (noise, light etc. at night). 5. May increase actual parking 5. City has tried to take the lead before and it supply, has not worked. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-4 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options 4. Create Additional Surface Parkino Rich and Associates reviewed several possible sites to create additional public parking. In discussions with the First Presbyterian Church, a possibility was offered for creating a surface parking lot. This option occurs on block #3 and is shown on the following page. This lot would require the following: a. The owner of lot 3F (see page 2-4) would have to agree to an easement and/or long term lease of their property. b. The First Presbyterian Church would have to demolish or remove two buildings and provide a long-term lease to the city. c. The city would have to meet some conditions of the Church, such as' abandoning Bronson Avenue at a certain point, allowing the Church to restrict access, and allowing use of the new lot on Sundays. d. The Church would allow the city to incorporate the south part of lot 2C and all of lot 3D in the overall combined lot. The lot would have 95 spaces not including handicapped. This represents an add of 44 spaces (there are approximately 51 on three lots now). The cost to build the lot (exclusive of demolition or moving costs) would be approximately $171,000. This cost includes relocation of utilities, surfacing the lot, lighting and drainage. The pros and cons of this option are. Pro..s. Cons 1. Provides at least 80 spaces open to the 1. Requires an agreement with property public (15 stalls in lot 3F would be owner(s) and Church. reserved for that owner). 2. Access to the lot from Palm Ave. and 2. Does not provide all of the new spaces Gleason Street with an exit on Bronson that are needed. Ave. creates a desirable one-way flow. 3. Low capital cost. ! Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-5 Final Report, May 1999 East Delray Beach Section 5: Parking Supply Options 5. Build a Parking Structure Option Two sites were identified for a parking structure, one on Block #1 and one on Block #7. A parking structure was considered because; a. it would provide true public parking, b. it would provide at least 200 net add spaces, and on a permanent basis c. it would provide sufficient parking for at least the peak season. These two sites were considered because the stronger need for public parking is in the blocks east of Gleason Street and Andrews Avenue. As previously identified, the current need in the area is 210 spaces. The criteria for the sites were that: 1) the parking structures had to impact residential areas as little as possible, 2) the structure could not exceed four supported floors, 3) vehicle access could not cause traffic congestion and 4) the ground floor space should be occupied by something other than parking. Site on Block #1 This site places a parking structure on the corner of Atlantic and Salina Avenues. In order to provide an efficient parking structure, the facility must span Salina Avenue, and occupy the space currently occupied by the police station, rest rooms, existing parking lots and the apartment building just west of Boston's Restaurant. The structure would rise above Salina Avenue so that vehicle access would be maintained (over the road tracks may not be able to make tums). About 3,000 square feet of new restrooms and public space would be developed. About 68 spaces would be lost at grade on this site. A parking structure with grade and four supported floors would contain 353 spaces, for a net add of 285 spaces. If one level was eliminated, it would reduce the net add to 201 spaces. This structure would be ~-/- 49 feet in height. There will be light and noise concerns on the north, south, and west sides of the suucture that must be addressed. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 5-7 Final Report, May 1999 m m m m m m mm mm m m mm m m ~, m m m m m MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #57.1.- SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 29-99 (CRA REDEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS) DATE: JUNE 4, 1999 At the regular meeting on June 1, 1999, the City Commission voted to continue consideration of Resolution No. 29-99 concerning the CRA Redevelopment Revenue Bonds to the date certain of June 8th at 6:00 p.m. in the First Floor Conference Room. This item requires a public hearing and, hence, it must appear on the agenda. However, additional issues have come up which will necessitate a further postponement of this item. Also it will be necessary to readvertise and renotify the affected special taxing districts. The new schedule is proposed as follows: On June 8th, the Commission will again be asked to continue this item, this time to the date certain of June 22, 1999, at a special meeting to be held in the City Manager's conference room at 5:00 p.m. In the interim, the required notification and advertising can be achieved (15 days notice to the taxing districts is required). The CRA also plans to make a presentation to the City Commission at the June 15th regular meeting to clarify any issues before final consideration by the City Commission on June 22nd. For your information, attached is a letter from Christine Carrion, CRA Controller, which provides additional information. I recommend the City Commission postpone consideration of Resolution No. 29-99 to the date certain of June 22, 1999, for consideration at a special meeting to be held at 5:00 p.m. in the City Manager's conference room, and accept the schedule outlined above. Ref:agmemol8.CRA.Bonds . ,fi ~ ~[~ Community Redevelopment Agency Delray Beach jUne 4, 1999 Alison Harty City Clerk City of Delray Beach 100N.W. First Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Ms. Harry: Please send notice to taxing districts by June 7, 1999 regarding our $4,700,000 bond issue and the rate modification on $7,120,000 of our existing debt. The specifics are listed below. Series 1999A (Bank .Qualified, Tax-Exempt) $3,700,000 Series 1999B (Taxable) $1,000,000 Series 1997A (Bank Qualified, Tax-Exempt) $6,015,000 Series 1997B (Taxable) $1,105,000 As discussed with Barbara firom your office, please request a continuance at the June 8t~ City Conmaission meeting. We will do our presentation on June 15e and request approval fi.om the Commission on June 22, 1999. Thank you once again for your assistance. Please call me at the number below ff you need additional information_ Sincererly, Controller CC: Chl~s Brown, CRA Executive l)Irector Robert Federsplel, Esq., Attorney for CRA Steven Sanford, Esq., Attorney for CRA D,,vid Harden, City Manager Susa~ Ruby, City Attorney 24 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 276-8640 / Fax (561) 276-8558 NE. 'I~T AVENUE ~ ~ 0 < c~ ~ o ~ 0 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~I SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # '- WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 8~ 1999 PROPOSED ROUNDABOUTS WITHIN THE CITY DATE: JUNE 4, 1999 Environmental Services advises that additional study is underway concerning the concept of and design parameters for proposed roundabouts within the City. It is anticipated that staff will have the presentation ready for Tuesday's meeting, along with relevant information on design parameters and potential locations for the use of roundabouts. ref: agmemol2, roundabouts J. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # - WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 8r 1999 PROPOSED ROUNDABOUTS WITHIN THE CITY DATE: JUNE 4, 1999 Environmental Services advises that additional study is underway concerning the concept of and design parameters for proposed roundabouts within the City. It is anticipated that staff will have the presentation ready for Tuesday's meeting, along with relevant information on design parameters and potential locations for the use of roundabouts. ref: agmemol2, roundabouts MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # - WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 8~ 1999 PRESENTATION BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM) DATE: JUNE 4, 1999 Environmental Services advises Professional Engineering Consultants (PEC) is still is the process of finalizing its presentation to the City Commission on the comprehensive citywide capital improvement program. It is expected that PEC will make the full presentation on the meeting on Tuesday evening. Ref: agmemol2. PEC MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER~/ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # - WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 8r 1999 PRESENTATION BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM) DATE: JUNE 4, 1999 Environmental Services advises Professional Engineering Consultants (PEC) is still is the process of finalizing its presentation to the City Commission on the comprehensive citywide capital improvement program. It is expected that PEC will make the full presentation on the meeting on Tuesday evening. Ref: agmemol2. PEC MEMORANDUM To: City Commission From: David T. Harden, City Manage~ Subject: Proposed Water and Sewer Note ($3,500,000), Series 1999 A Date: May 20, 1999 The attached resolution authorizes the City to execute a Note Agreement with SunTrust in the amount of $3,500,000 at a rate of 4.256% for the purpose of financing the cost of equipping and implementing an Automated Meter ReadingFFouchread System. The Finance Department has provided an analysis of bids received and a recommendation to approve the agreement with SunTrust. The agreement will allow for prepayment at any time without penalty and protect the City against rate changes caused by amendments to the tax laws. I concur with their recommendation. c: R.S. O'Connor, Treasurer RESOLUTION NO. 33-99 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $3,500,000 IN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SUBORDINATE SERIES 1999, OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF A TOUCHREAD METERING SYSTEM AND INCIDENTAL COSTS RELATING THERETO; DETERMINING THE NEED FOR A NEGOTIATED SALE OF SUCH BONDS TO SUNTRUST BANK, SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A.; PROVIDING FOR THE TERMS AND PAYMENT OF SAID WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SUBORDINATE SERIES 1999, AND THE RIGHTS, REMEDIES AND SECURITY OF THE OWNERS THEREOF; MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF SAID WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SUBORDINATE SERIES 1999; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT WITH SUNTRUST BANK, SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A.; DESIGNATING THE WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SUBORDINATE SERIES 1999 AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 265(b) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED; AUTHORIZING THE PROPER OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO DO ALL OTHER THINGS DEEMED NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida (the "City Commission"), hereby determines that it is in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach, Florida (the "City"), to finance the cost of acquiring and implementing an automated meter reading system, as further described on Exhibit C attached hereto, together all incidental and necessary costs relating thereto (collectively, the "1999 Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Resolution, the City shall issue at one time or from time to time obligati.ons known as "City of Delray Beach, Florida Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series 1999" (herein, the "1999 Bonds") to finance the costs of the 1999 Project including the costs of issuing such 1999 Bonds; and WHEREAS, the principal amount of the 1999 Bond authorized under this Resolution shall not exceed $3,500,000; and WHEREAS, the 1999 Bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and lien on the Pledged Revenues (as such term is defined below); and WHEREAS, City staff has previously solicited bids from qualified lending institutions to provide a line of credit or term loan as the vehicle by which the 1999 Bonds are to be issued and the 1999 Project is to be financed; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined and the City Commission hereby concurs that SunTrust Bank, South Florida, N.A., a national banking association with its designated office in West Palm Beach, Florida (herein, the "Bank") has provided the best overall bid to the City; and WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds that in light of present market conditions, the aforementioned bid provided by the Bank, the subordinate nature of the 1999 Bonds, and other factors described herein, it would be in the best interest of the City to sell the 1999 Bonds to the Bank on a negotiated basis pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Resolution and that certain Line of Credit Agreement dated as of June 1, 1999 (herein, the "Agreement") by and between the City and the Bank in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City does not expect to issue more than $10,000,000 of its tax-exempt obligations in calendar year 1999, and based upon the advice of its Bond Counsel, the City Commission shall designate the 1999 Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b) of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as follows: ARTICLE I STATUTORY AUTHORITY; FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 1.1 AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as amended and supplemented, the Florida Constitution, Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, as amended and supplemented, and other applicable provisions of law (collectively, the "Act"). SECTION 1.2. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared: (a) That the City hereby authorizes that the 1999 Project be financed from all or a part of the proceeds derived from the 1999 Bonds issued pursuant to this Resolution, together with all incidental and necessary coSts and expenses associated therewith, as more fully set forth in Section 1.2(d) hereof. (b) That it is necessary to acquire and implement the 1999 Project in order to increase the Gross Revenues of the System collected by the City and that such 1999 Project will be in the best economic interest of the City. (c) That the 1999 Project will serve a valid municipal purpose. (d) That the cost of the 1999 Project shall' be deemed to include, but not be limited to, the cost of acquisition, construction, improving, renovating and equipping all or a portion of the 1999 Project, the cost of any real or personal property necessary therefor; administrative expenses; design, engineering and legal expenses; the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel; the fees and reasonable expenses of counsel for the Bank; expenses for estimates of costs; expenses for plans, specifications and licenses; and such other expenses as may be necessary or incidental to the 1999 Project and the issuance of the 1999 Bonds herein authorized. (e) That pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Original Resolution (as herein defined), the City has heretofore issued and has now outstanding its Water and Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1991 A and Series 1991 B, its Water and Sewer Revenue WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4s5xO3LDOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 2 Refunding Bonds, Series 1993 A and Series 1993 B and its Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1997 A (herein collectively, the "Prior Senior Obligations"). (f) That the principal of and interest on the 1999 Bonds shall be secured solely by and paid from the Pledged Revenues (as herein defined); and the ad valorem taxing power of the City will never be necessary or authorized to pay the principal of and interest on the 1999 Bonds, and the 1999 Bonds issued pursuant to this Resolution shall not constitute a lien upon any other property whatsoever of or in the City. (g) That the City, having previously solicited bids for the sale of the 1999 Bonds, has determined that the best qualified bid for the 1999 Bonds was delivered by the Bank. (h) That the negotiated sale of the 1999 Bonds to the Bank is in the best interest of the City by reason of the nature of and schedule for the completion of the 1999 Project, the aforementioned solicitation of bids, present market conditions and the subordinate nature of the 1999 Bonds. (i) That the Agreement, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved, with such omissions, insertions and variations as may be necessary and desirable, as evidenced by the City's execution thereof and the Mayor (or in his absence, the Vice Mayor) and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City. (j) The City hereby designates the 1999 Bonds to be "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b) of the Code. (k) That pursuant to the provisions of the Original Resolution and this Resolution, the City may issue obligations on parity with the Prior Senior Obligations. (I) That any capitalized term not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Original Resolution. SECTION 1.3 DEFINITIONS. That, in addition to terms defined elsewhere in this Resolution, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless the context otherwise clearly requires: "Act" shall mean the Florida Constitution, Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, as amended and supplemented, the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as amended and supplemented, and other applicable provisions of the law. "Amortization Assumption" shall mean with respect to any Senior Obligation or Parity Obligation issued pursuant to the provisions of the Original Resolution, this Resolution or any other resolution of the City, that does not have scheduled amortization, the assumption that the principal amount of such Senior Obligation or Parity Obligation is payable in substantially equal amounts each year over the term of each Parity Obligation. "Authorized Investments" shall mean any of the following: (1) U.S. Obligations; WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4s5xO3LDOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 3 (2) bonds, debentures, notes or other evidences of indebtedness payable in cash issued by any one or a combination of any of the following federal agencies: Farmer's Home Administration (or its successor), Federal Housing Administration, Maritime Administration, Public Housing Authority, Government National Mortgage Association; (3) the following investments fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") (i) certificates of deposit, (ii) savings account, (iii) deposit accounts, or (iv) depository receipts of a bank, savings and loan associations and mutual savings bank; (4) certificates of deposit, either in excess of FDIC insurance or without FDIC insurance, properly secured at all times, by collateral security described in clause (1) and (2) above or secured as required for a "qualified public depository" under the Florida Security for Public Deposits Act, being Chapter 280, Florida Statutes, as amended, or any successor statute. Such agreements are only acceptable with commercial banks, savings and loan associations and mutual savings banks or other "qualified public depository"; (5) commercial paper rated in one of the two highest rating categories by at least two nationally recognized rating agencies or commercial paper backed by a letter of credit or line of credit rated in one of the two highest rating categories; (6) written repurchase agreements with any bank, savings institution or trust company which is insured by the FDIC or with any broker dealer with retail customers which falls under Securities Investors Protection Corporation protection, provided that such repurchase agreements are fully secured by collateral security described in clause (1) above, and provided further that (i) such collateral is held by the City or any agent acting solely for the City during the term of such' repurchase agreement, (ii) such collateral is not subject to lien or claims of third parties, (iii) such collateral has a market value (determined at least once every 14 days) at least equal to the amount invested in the repurchase agreement, (iv) the City has a perfected first security interest in the collateral, (v) the agreement shall be for a term not longer than 270 days, and (vi) the failure to maintain such collateral at the level required in (iii) above will require the City to liquidate the collateral; (7) money market funds rated in the highest rating category of either Standard & Poor's or Moody's Investors Service, or any successor thereto; (8) investments in the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund established pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 218, Florida Statutes, as amended, or any successor trust fund established for the investment of surplus municipal funds; and (9) any other investments permitted under Florida law and acceptable to the Bank. "Bank" shall mean SunTrust Bank, South Florida, N.A., the initial Bondholder. WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4s5xO3i.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 4 "Bond Counsel" shall mean Greenberg Traudg, P.A. or any other firm of nationally recognized bond counsel selected by the City. "City" shall mean the City of Delray Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation in the County of Palm Beach, State of Florida, and its successors and assigns. "City Commission"" shall mean the duly constituted governing body of the City. "Code" shall mean the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder and any administrative or judicial interpretations of the same published in a form on which the City may rely as a matter of law. "Combined Public Utility" shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in Article I, Section 3 of Part 1 of the Original Resolution. "Debt Service Fund" shall mean the Delray Beach Subordinated Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Debt Service Fund, created and established in this Resolution and which is the fund in which the Pledged Revenues shall be deposited by the City for the payment of the 1999 Bonds in accordance with the provisions hereof. "Defeasance Obligations" shall mean, to the extent permitted by law, the following securities: (1) U.S. Obligations which are not callable prior to maturity; (2) Any bonds or other obligations of any state of the United States of America or of any agency, instrumentality or local governmental unit of any such state (i) which are not callable prior to maturity or as to which irrevocable instructions have been given to the trustee of such bonds or other obligations by the obligor to give due notice of redemption and to call such bonds for redemption on the date or dates specified in such instructions, (ii) which are secured as to principal and interest and redemption premium, if any, by a fund consisting only of cash or bonds or other obligations of the character described in clause (1) hereof which fund may be applied only to the payment of such principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on such bonds or other obligations on the maturity date or dates thereof or the redemption date or dates specified in the irrevocable instructions referred to in subclause (i) of this clause (2), as appropriate, and (iii) as to which the principal of and interest on the bonds and obligations of the character described in clause (1) hereof which have been deposited in such fund along with any cash on deposit in such fund are sufficient to pay principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the bonds or other obligations described in this clause (2) to and including the maturity date or dates thereof or to and including the redemption date or dates specified in the irrevocable instructions referred to in subclause (i) of this clause (2), as appropriate; (3) Evidences of indebtedness issued by the Federal Home Loan Banks, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (including participation certificates), Federal Financing Banks, or any other agency or instrumentality of the United States of America created by an act of Congress provided that .the obligations of such agency or instrumentality are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America or any WPB/SA NFORDS/223125/ 4sSxO3L DOC/ 6/03/99 /99999. 42659 4 5 other agency or instrumentality of the United States of America or of any corporation wholly-owned by the United States of America; and (4) Evidences of ownership of proportionate interests in future interest and principal payments on obligations described in clause (1) above held by a bank or trust company as custodian. "Interest Rate" shall mean the rate of interest on the 1999 Bonds which, when calculated on an actual 360-day year basis, shall be equal to four and two hundred fifty-six hundredths percent (4.256%) per annum. "Maturity Date" shall mean, with respect to the unpaid principal of and interest on the 1999 Bonds, October 1, 2008. "1999 Bonds" shall mean the not to exceed $3,500,000 aggregate principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series 1999, authorized by this Resolution. "Owner," "Bondholder" or "registered holder" or any similar term shall mean the Bank or, subject to the provisions of Section 2.4 hereof, any successor registered holder of the 1999 Bonds; provided no Bondholder may be the registered owner of less than $1,000,000 in the aggregate principal amount of the 1999 Bonds. "Original Resolution" shall mean Resolution No. 39-88, adopted by the City Commission on July 12, 1988, as amended and supplemented. "Parity Obligations" shall mean any notes, bonds or other forms of indebtedness, payable from the Pledged Revenues on parity with the 1999 Bonds, whether or not such obligations are issued under this Resolution. "Paying Agent" shall mean the City's Finance Department or, if the City Commission shall so determine by subsequent proceeding, any bank or trust company and any successor bank or trust company appointed by the City to act as Paying Agent hereunder. "Payment Date" shall mean, with respect to interest on the 1999 Bonds, each April 1 and October 1, commencing October 1, 1999 and with respect to scheduled principal on the 1999 Bonds each October 1, commencing October 1, 2000, and on any date the principal of the 1999 Bonds is optionally prepaid in whole or in part, provided that if such date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in Palm Beach County, Florida, the payment shall be made on the next preceding business day for the period ending on the day prior to such Payment Date. "Pledged Revenues" shall mean the Revenues of the Combined Public Utility remaining each month after the deposits required by Article III, Section 4.D, Paragraphs 1 through 6 (but with respect to Paragraph 6, only after repayment of any obligations owed to the providers of any Reserve Account Credit Facility Substitute) of Part I of the Original Resolution have been made by the City, subject in all respects to the prior lien on such moneys for the payment of Senior Obligations, including moneys on deposit in the Debt Service Fund. "Prior Senior Obligations" shall mean the City's outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1991 A and Series 1991 B, its Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding WPB/SANFORDS/2'23125/4s5xO3!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 6 Bonds, Series 1993 A and Series 1993 B and its Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1997 A. "Registrar" shall mean the City's Finance Department or, if the City Commission shall so determine by subsequent proceeding, any bank or trust company and any successor bank or trust company appointed by the City to act as Registrar hereunder. "Reserve Account Credit Facility Substitute" shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in Article III, Section 4.D.4 of Part I of the Original Resolution. "Resolution" shall mean this Resolution as the same may from time to time be amended and supplemented in accordance with the terms hereof. "Revenues" shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in Article I, Section 3 of Part 1 of the Original Resolution. "Senior Obligations" shall mean the Prior Senior Obligations and any .Dad passu additional Bonds issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.G of Article III of Part I of the Original Resolution, subject to the provisions of Section 3.8 of this Resolution. "Tax Certificate" shall mean the Arbitrage Certificate of the City executed on the date of initial delivery of the 1999 Bonds. "U. S. Obligations" shall mean the direct obligations of, or obligations on which the timely payment of principal and interest are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America. Words importing singular number shall include the plural number and vice versa, as the case may be, and words importing persons shall include firms and corporations. SECTION 1.4 RESOLUTION CONSTITUTES CONTRACT. In consideration of the acceptance of the 1999 Bonds authorized to be issued hereunder by those who shall own the same from time to time, this Resolution shall be deemed to be and shall constitute a contract between the City and the Bondholders and the covenants and agreements herein and therein set forth to be performed by said City shall be for the benefit, protection and security of the Bondholders. ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION, TERMS, EXECUTION AND REGISTRATION OF 1999 BONDS SECTION 2.1 AUTHORIZATION OF 1999 BONDS. Subject and pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution, obligations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be known as "Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series 1999" are hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of not exceeding Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,500,000) for the purpose of financing the costs of the 1999 Project. WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4s5xO3!,DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 7 SECTION 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF 1999 BONDS. The text of the 1999 Bonds shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B with such omissions, insertions and variations as may be necessary and desirable, as evidenced by the City's execution thereof. The 1999 Bonds (initially issued in one (1) typewritten certificate) shall be dated the date of initial issuance. The 1999 Bonds shall bear interest on the outstanding principal amount of the 1999 Bonds from time to time at the Interest Rate and shall be payable on each Payment Date, commencing October 1, 1999. Principal of the 1999 Bonds shall be payable on each October 1 commencing October 1,2000, in the amounts set forth below, if $3,500,000 in 1999 Bonds are issued. All unpaid principal of the 1999 Bonds and all accrued and unpaid interest on the 1999 Bonds shall be payable on the Maturity Date. The 1999 Bonds shall be issued in registered form. Date Amount 2000 $ 270,000 2001 405,000 2002 420,000 2003 360,000 2004 375,000 2005 390,000 2006 410,000 2007 425,000 2008 445~000 TOTAL $3.500.000 Principal and interest on the 1999 Bonds shall be payable at the office of the Paying Agent (the designated corporate trust office of the Paying Agent if the City's Finance Department is not the Paying Agent). The 1999 Bonds shall be numbered in such manner as may be prescribed by the Registrar. The 1999 Bonds shall be payable, with respect to interest and principal, in any coin or currency of the United States of America which at the time of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and Private debts. The City may prepay the 1999 Bonds in whole or in part, at any time or from time to time, without penalty or premium, by paying to the registered holder all or part of the principal amount of the 1999 Bonds, together with the unpaid interest accrued on the amount of principal so prepaid to the date of such prepayment. Each prepayment shall be made on such date and in such principal amount as shall be specified by the City in a written notice delivered to the registered owner not less than two (2) business days prior thereto. If such prepayment shall be for only a portion of the unpaid principal balance of the 1999 Bonds, the City shall provide in such written notice, which future amortization installments shall be reduced as a result of such prepayment. Notice having been given as aforesaid, the principal amount stated in such notice or the whole thereof, as the case may be, shall become due and payable on the prepayment date stated in such notice; and the amount of principal shall be paid (i) in case the entire unpaid balance of the principal of the 1999 Bonds is to be paid, upon presentation and surrender of the WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4s5x03!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 8 1999 Bond or 1999 Bonds to the office of the Paying Agent (the designated corporate trust office, if the Paying Agent is not the City's Finance Department), and (ii) in case only part of the unpaid balance of principal of the 1999 Bonds is to be paid, upon presentation of such 1999 Bond or 1999 Bonds at the office of the Paying Agent (the designated corporate trust office, if the Paying Agent is not the City's Finance Department) for notation thereon of the amount of principal then paid or for issuance of a replacement 1999 Bond in the principal amount not redeemed. Notwithstanding the provisions of clause (ii) above, if all of the 1999 Bonds are registered in the name of the Bank, a partial prepayment may be effected by payment to the Bank of the principal, together with unpaid interest accrued thereon, without surrender of the 1999 Bonds. If, on the prepayment date, funds for the payment of the principal amount to be prepaid, together with unpaid interest accrued thereon, shall not have been provided to the Paying Agent, as above provided, the principal amount of the 1999 Bonds shall continue to be outstanding and to bear interest until payment thereof at the Interest Rate. SECTION 2.3 EXECUTION OF THE 1999 BONDS. The 1999 Bonds shall be executed in the name of the City by the signature of the Mayor or Vice Mayor of the City and its official seal shall be affixed thereto or imprinted or reproduced thereon and attested by the City Clerk. The signatures of the Mayor or Vice Mayor of the City and City Clerk on the 1999 Bonds may be manual or facsimile signatures. In case any one or more of the officers who shall have signed or sealed the 1999 Bonds shall cease to be such officer of the City before the 1999 Bonds so signed and sealed shall have been actually sold and delivered, such 1999 Bonds may nevertheless be sold and delivered as herein provided and may be issued as if the person who signed or sealed such 1999 Bonds had not ceased to hold such office. The 1999 Bonds may be signed and sealed on behalf of the City by such person who at the actual time of the execution of the 1999 Bonds shall hold the proper office, although at the date the 1999 Bonds shall be actually delivered such person may not have held such office or may not have been so authorized. The 1999 Bonds shall bear thereon a certificate of authentication, in the form set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto, executed manually by the Registrar (when the City's Finance Department shall act as Registrar, the certificate of authentication shall be manually executed by the City's Finance Director). Only the 1999 Bonds as shall bear thereon such certificate of authentication shall be entitled to any right or benefit under this Resolution and no 1999 Bonds shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose until such certificate of authentication shall have been duly executed by. the Registrar. The certificate of authentication of the Registrar upon the 1999 Bonds executed on behalf of the City shall be conclusive evidence that the 1999 Bonds so authenticated have been duly authenticated and delivered under this Resolution and that the Owner thereof is entitled to the benefits of this Resolution. SECTION2.4 NEGOTIABILITY. REGISTRATION AND CANCELLATION. The Registrar shall keep books for the registration of the 1999 Bonds and for the registration of transfers of the 1999 Bonds. The 1999 Bonds shall be transferable at the option of the registered Owner thereof to an institutional holder, but subject to the prior written approval of the City's Director of Finance (which shall not be unreasonably withheld if the intended transferee provides a suitability letter addressed to the City as to the sophistication of the investor) unless such institutional holder is a bank or trust company, or unless such institutional holder, which is not a bank or trust company, certifies in writing to the City prior to the transfer that it is an accredited investor within the meaning of Rule 501 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and supplemented, in which case such approval shall not be required, and upon WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4sSxO31.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 9 surrender thereof at the office of the Registrar (the designated corporate trust office of the Registrar if the City's Finance Department is not the Registrar) with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar duly executed by the registered Owner or his duly authorized attorney. Upon the transfer of such 1999 Bond, the City shall issue in the name of the transferee a new 1999 Bond. The City, the Paying Agent and the Registrar shall deem and treat the person in whose name the 1999 Bonds shall be registered upon the books kept by the Registrar as the absolute Owner of such 1999 Bonds, whether such 1999 Bonds shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such 1999 Bonds as the same become due and for all other purposes. All such payments so made to any such Owner or upon his/her order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon such 1999 Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid, and neither the City, the Paying Agent nor the Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. In all cases in which the privilege of transferring the 1999 Bonds is exercised, the City shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver the 1999 Bonds in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. The 1999 Bonds surrendered in any such transfers shall forthwith be delivered to the Registrar and canceled by the Registrar in the manner provided in this Section. The City or the Registrar (if not the City's Finance Department) may require the payment of a sum sufficient to pay any tax, fee or other governmental charges required to be paid with respect to such transfer. The 1999 Bonds paid or redeemed, in whole, either at or before maturity, shall be delivered to the Registrar when the payment or redemption is made, and such 1999 Bonds shall thereupon be promptly canceled. The 1999 Bonds so canceled may at any time be destroyed by the Registrar, who shall execute a certificate of destruction in duplicate by the signature of one of its authorized officers describing the 1999 Bonds, and one executed certificate shall be filed with the City and the other executed certificate shall be retained by the Registrar (if not the City's Finance Department). SECTION 2.5 MUTILATED. DESTROYED. STOLEN OR LOST 1999 Bonds. In case any 1999 Bond shall become mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost, the City shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver a new 1999 Bond of like date, maturity and denomination as the 1999 Bond so mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost; provided that, in the case of any mutilated 1999 Bond, such mutilated 1999 Bond shall first be surrendered to the City and, in the case of any lost, stolen or destroyed 1999 Bond, there shall first be furnished to the City and the Registrar (if not the City's Finance Department) evidence of such loss, theft, or destruction satisfactory to the City and the Registrar, together with indemnity satisfactory to them. In the event the 1999 Bonds shall be about to mature or have matured, instead of issuing a duplicate 1999 Bond, the City may pay the same without surrender thereof. The City and the Registrar (if not the City's Finance Department) may charge the Owner of such 1999 Bond their reasonable fees and expenses in connection with this transaction. Any 1999 Bonds surrendered for replacement shall be canceled in the same manner as provided in Section 2.4 hereof. Any such duplicate 1999 Bond issued pursuant to this Section shall constitute additional contractual obligations on the part of the City, whether or not the lost, stolen or destroyed 1999 Bond be at any time found by anyone, and such duplicate 1999 Bonds shall be entitled to equal WPB/$ANFORDS/223125/4s5xO3LDOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 1 0 proportionate benefits and rights as to lien on the source and security for payment from Pledged Revenues with the 1999 Bond issued hereunder. SECTION 2.6 CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF THE 1999 BONDS. Prior to the issuance of the 1999 Bonds, the City shall comply with the following conditions: (a) Deliver to the Bank a fully executed Tax Certificate; and (b) Deliver to the Bank a copy of a completed and executed Form 8038-G to be filed by the City with the Internal Revenue Service; and (c) Deliver to the Bank an opinion of Bond Counsel, satisfactory to the Bank, regarding the due authorization, execution, delivery, validity and enforceability of the 1999 Bonds and the due adoption of this Resolution (enforceability of such instruments may be subject to standard bankruptcy exceptions and the like) and the exclusion of interest on the 1999 Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes, that the 1999 Bonds are not specified "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Section 57(a)(5) of the Code and, therefore, the interest on the 1999 Bonds will not be treated as a preference item for purposes of computing the alternative minimum tax imposed by Section 55 of the Code (however, a portion of the interest on the 1999 Bonds owned by corporations may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax which is based in part on adjusted current earnings). Such opinion shall also state that the 1999 Bonds are "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b) of the Code; and (d) Deliver to the Bank an opinion of the City Attorney, satisfactory to the Bank, regarding the due authorization, execution, delivery, validity and enforceability of the 1999 Bonds, the Agreement and the due adoption of this Resolution (enforceability may be subject to standard bankruptcy exceptions and the like); and (e) Deliver to the Bank one or more certificates of the City in form satisfactory to the Bank certifying, among other things, that the City is in compliance with the term of the Original Resolution. To the extent that the City does not issue all of the $3,500,000 in principal amount of 1999 Bonds at the time of initial issuance, the City shall provide written notice to the Bank (signed by the City Manager, Finance Director or Treasurer of the City) of the City's intention to draw additional amounts under the Agreement at least two (2) business days prior to the date the City intends to receive the funds. Such notice shall confirm that the City is in compliance with terms and provisions of this Resolution and the Original Resolution. Such additional amounts drawn under the Agreement shall constitute additional principal amount of 1999 Bonds without any further action required. WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4sSxO3!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 1 1 ARTICLE III COVENANTS, FUNDS AND APPLICATION THEREOF SECTION 3.1 1999 BONDS NOT TO BE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY. The 1999 Bonds shall not be or constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory or other limitation of indebtedness, but shall be secured solely by and payable from the Pledged Revenues. No Bondholder shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the ad valorem taxing power of the City, or taxation in any form of any real property therein, to pay said 1999 Bonds or the interest thereon. The pledge of the Pledged Revenues will not constitute a lien upon any property of the City. SECTION 3.2 1999 BONDS JUNIOR AND SUBORDINATE TO SENIOR OBLIGATIONS. The lien of the 1999 Bonds on the Pledged Revenues shall be junior and subordinate, as to the lien of the Senior Obligations on the Revenues of the Combined Public Utility and in all other respects, to the pledge and lien granted to the Senior Obligations. SECTION 3.3 1999 BONDS SECURED BY PLEDGE OF PLEDGED REVENUES. From and after the issuance of any of the 1999 Bonds, and continuing until the payment of all 1999 Bonds as to principal and interest, the Pledged Revenues shall continue to be pledged for the prompt payment of principal of and interest on said 1999 Bonds. SECTION 3.4 COVENANTS OF THE CITY. As long as any of the principal of or interest on any of the 1999 Bonds shall be outstanding and unpaid, or until there shall have been set apart in the Debt Service Fund in accordance with Section 3.7 hereof a sum sufficient to pay, when due, the entire principal of the 1999 Bonds remaining unpaid, together with interest accrued and to accrue thereon, the City covenants with the Bondholders as follows: (f) Tax Covenants Relating to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. (1) In order to maintain the exclusion from gross income for purposes of federal income taxation of interest on the 1999 Bonds, the City covenants to comply with each requirement of the Code. In furtherance of the covenant contained in the preceding sentence, the City agrees to continually comply with the provisions of the Tax Certificate, as such certificate may be amended from time to time, as a source of guidance for achieving compliance with the Code. (2) The City covenants and agrees with the Bondholders that the City shall not take any action or omit to take any action, which action or omission, if reasonably expected on the date of initial issuance and delivery of the 1999 Bonds, would cause any of the 1999 Bonds to be "private activity bonds" or "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Sections 141(a) and 148(a), respectively, of the Code. (3) The City shall make any and all payments required to be made to the United States Department of the Treasury in connection with the 1999 Bonds pursuant to Section 148(f) of the Code. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as necessary in order to maintain the exclusion from gross income for purposes of federal income taxation of interest on the 1999 Bonds, the covenants contained in this Section shall WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4sSxO3!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 12 survive the payment of the 1999 Bonds and' the interest thereon, including any payment or discharge thereof pursuant to Section 3.7 of this Resolution. (g) Creation of Debt Service Fund. The City hereby creates and establishes the "Delray Beach Subordinate Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Debt Service Fund" (hereinafter referred to as the "Debt Service Fund"). The Debt Service Fund shall constitute a trust fund for the benefit of the Bondholder and shall be held by the City and shall be kept separate and distinct from all other funds of the City, and shall be used only for the purpose and in the manner provided in this Resolution. Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding sentence, the City may deposit the Net Revenues (as such term is defined in the Original Resolution) in a single bank account for the City, provided that adequate accounting procedures are maintained to reflect and control the restricted allocations of the funds on deposit therein for the various purposes of such funds. The designation and establishment of the Debt Service Fund in and by this Resolution shall not be construed to require the establishment of any completely independent self-balancing fund, as such term is commonly defined and used in governmental accounting, but rather is intended solely to constitute an allocation of certain revenues of the City for certain purposes and to establish certain priorities for application of such revenues as provided herein. Any excess amounts remaining in the Debt Service Fund after payment has been made on the 1999 Bonds on any Payment Date, may be withdrawn and deposited at the direction of the City to be used for any lawful municipal purpose provided for in the Original Resolution. Moneys on deposit in the Debt Service Fund may be invested in Authorized Investments, provided such investments mature not later than the next succeeding Payment Date. Subject to the terms and provisions of the Code, all income and earnings received from the investment and reinvestment of the moneys on deposit in the Debt Service Fund shall remain on deposit in the Debt Service Fund and be used in the same manner as other moneys on deposit therein. (h) Disposition of Pledged Revenues. Not later than the fifteenth day of each month commencing July 15, 1999, the City shall deposit in the Debt Service Fund Revenues, subject to and dependent upon satisfaction of all current deposit requirements of such Revenues set forth in Article III, SectiOn 4.D, Paragraphs 1 through 6 (but with respect to Paragraph 6, only after repayment of any obligations owed to the providers of a Reserve Account Credit Facility Substitute) of Part I of the Original Resolution, in an amount equal to one-third (1/3rd) of the interest becoming due on the 1999 Bonds on October 1, 1999 and commencing on October 15, 1999, an amount equal to one-sixth (1/6th) of the interest becoming due on the 1999 Bonds on the next Payment Date and commencing on October 15, 1999, an amount equal to one-twelfth (1/12th) of an amount sufficient to pay the principal becoming due on the 1999 Bonds on the next October 1 Payment Date, and shall further deposit into the Debt Service Fund one business day prior to each Payment Date Revenues in an amount necessary to satisfy any deficiency in the Debt Service Fund on such date; provided, however, that such deposit of the interest and principal amount shall not be required to be made to the extent that moneys on deposit in the Debt Service Fund are sufficient for such purpose. The City covenants to deposit, on the business day prior to the Maturity Date, Revenues (or other legally available moneys) into the Debt Service Fund in an amount sufficient to pay the outstanding .principal of and interest on the 1999 Bonds. WPB/SANFORDS/223125/ 4sSxO3!.DOC/ 6/03/99 /99999. 42659 4 13 (il Revenues. The City will not repeal, amend or modify any resolution or ordinance relating to the collection of Revenues from its operations of the Combined Public Utility in any manner so as to (il impair or adversely affect the power and obligation of the City to collect the rates, fees, rentals and charges which generate such Revenues, (ii) impair or adversely affect in any manner the pledge of the Pledged Revenues made herein, or (iii) reduce the rates, fees, rentals and charges from persons from whom such rates, fees, rentals and charges are collected. (j) Enforcement of Collections. The City will diligently enforce and collect Revenues, will take steps, actions and proceedings for the enforcement and collection of such Revenues as shall become delinquent to the full extent permitted under the Original Resolution or authorized by law, and will maintain accurate records with respect thereof. (k) Budget and Other Financial Information. The City shall demonstrate in each annual budget that there are sufficient Net Revenues to pay the principal of and interest on the 1999 Bonds and Senior Obligations coming due in such fiscal year and to comply with the rate covenant set forth in Section 3.9 hereof. The City shall, upon the request of the Bank, provide the Bank with a copy of its annual budget within thirty (30) days of adoption, a copy of its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, when available and, upon the request of the Bank, such other financial information regarding the City as the Bank may reasonably request. (I) The City shall comply with the terms of the Original Resolution. SECTION 3.5 REMEDIES OF BONDHOLDER. Subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Agreement and the prior rights of the holders of the Senior Obligations, should the City default in any obligation created by this Resolution, the Bondholders may, in addition to any remedy set forth in this Resolution, either at law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus or other proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction, protect and enforce any and all rights under the laws of the State of Florida, or granted and contained in this Resolution, and may enforce and compel the performance of all duties required by this Resolution, or by any applicable statutes to be performed by the City or by any officer thereof. The City hereby agrees with the Bondholders that the filing of any bankruptcy or insolvency under any federal or state law by or against the City which is not dismissed with prejudice within thirty (30) days of such filing shall give the Bondholders the right to exercise any of the remedies provided to them under this Section 3.5, subject in all cases to the prior rights of the holder of the Senior Obligations. In addition, if the City shall breach any of its obligations set forth in the Original Resolution the Bondholders will have the right to exercise any of the remedies provided to them under this Section 3.5. Notwithstanding anything in this Section 3.5 to the contrary the Bondholders' right to exercise any remedy permitted hereunder shall be .subordinate in all respect to the rights of the owners of the Senior Obligations. SECTION 3.6 APPLICATION OF 1999 BONDS PROCEEDS. The proceeds of the 1999 Bonds shall be used to finance the costs of the 1999 Project. The City may replace all or a portion of the 1999 Project for any other capital project permitted under the Act; provided that Bond Counsel shall first deliver to the City and the Bank an opinion to the effect that such substitution will not adversely affect the exclusion of interest on the 1999 Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes and the Bank consents to such substitution. WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4sSxO3!.DOC./6/03/99/99999.426594 14 SECTION3.7 DISCHARGE AND SATISFACTION OF .1999 BONDS. The covenants, liens and pledges entered into, created or imposed pursuant to this Resolution may be fully discharged and satisfied with respect to the 1999 Bonds in any one or more of the following ways: (a) by paying the principal of and interest on the 1999 Bonds when the same shall become due and payable; or (b) by depositing in the Debt Service Fund or such other accounts as the City may hereafter create and establish by resolution moneys sufficient at the time of such deposit to pay the 1999 Bonds and all interest thereon as the same become due on said 1999 Bonds on or prior to the matudty date thereof; or (c) by depositing in the Debt Service Fund or such other accounts as the City may hereafter create and establish by resolution (which Debt Service Fund or other account and all moneys and securities deposited therein shell be irrevocably pledged to the Bondholders for the payment of the 1999 Bonds and all interest thereon) moneys which, when invested in Defeasance Obligations, will provide moneys which shall be sufficient to pay the 1000 Bonds and, all interest thereon as the same shall become due on said 1999 Bonds on or prior to the Maturity Date thereof. Upon such payment or deposit in the amount and manner provided in this 8action 3.7, the 1000 Bonds shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding for the purposes of this Resolution and all liability of the City with respect to the payment of the principal of or interest on the 1999 Bond=~ from Pledged Revenues shall cease, terminate and be completely discharged and extinguished, and the Bondholders shall be entitled for payment solely out of the moneys or securities so deposited. SECTION3.8 ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS. The City covenants with the Bondholders that as tong as tho lggg Bonds issued under this Resolution are outstanding, it will not issue any Senior Obligations or any Parity Obligations (collectively referred to as "Water and Sewer Debt") unless the following conditions ere complied with. (a) The City must be current in all deposits Into the various funds and accounts and all payments required to have been theretofore deposited or made by it under the provisions of the Original Resolution and this Resolution, and any supplemental resolutions hereafter adopted for the issuance of Water and Sawer Debt. and has complied with the covenants and provisions of the Original Resolution and this Resolution, and any supplemental resolutions hereafter adopted for the Issuance of Water and Sewer Debt. (b) The Revenues callected by the City 1'rom the operation of its Combined Public Utility during any twelve (12) consecutive months of the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding the issuance of said Water and Sewer Debt, as evidenced by a certificate executed by the Finance Director of the City and as may be adjusted, as hereinafter provided, will be equal to one hundred twenty per centum (120%) of the maximum annual debt service on (1) the Senior Obligations issued pursuant to the Original Resolution then out~tanding. (2) the outstanding 1999 Bonds heretofore issued, less any repayments of principal made by the City, and (3) the Water and Sewer Debt then proposed to be Issued; provided that for the purpose of determining the maximum annual debt service under this Section, the interest rate on vadable or adjustable rate Water and Sewer Debt then outstanding shall be the greater of (i) the average daily interest rate on such variable or adjustable rate Water and Sewer Debt during the WPBJ~ANt=C~DS/223t 2514~Q31'DOCI6J04199199999'426594 15 preceding Fiscal Year, or (ii) the actual rate of interest applicable to such variable or adjustable rate Water and Sewer Debt on the date of issuance of such variable or adjustable rate Water and Sewer Debt; and provided further, that if vadable or adjustable rate Water and Sewer Debt is to be issued, the interest rate thereon for purposes of this paragraph shall be calculated in accordance with the 30-year Revenue Bond Index, as published by The Bond Buyer as of the last week of the month preceding the date of issuance of such vadable or adjustable rate Water and Sewer Debt. or if that index is no longer published, the interest rate as of the last week of such month, as published in an index that is deemed to be substantially equivalent. If the CRy, prior to the issuance of the proposed Water and Sewer Debt shall have, by amendment or supplement to the Original Resolution increased its rates, fees and charges to be collected, the Revenues for the twelve (12) consecutive months immediately preceding the issuance of the Water and Sewer Debt shall be adjusted to include the Revenues which Would have been collected by the City in such twelve (12) consecutive months as if such increase in the rates, fees and charges have bean in effect during all of such twelve (12) consecutive months. (c) In the event any Water and Sewer Debt is issued for the purpose of refunding any Water and Sewer Debt then outstanding, the condition of paragraph (b) above shall not apply, provided that the issuance of such Water and Etcwer Debt shall result in a reduction or shall not increase the annual debt service payments in any year over the life of the Water and Sewer Debt so refunded. For purposes of paragraph (b) set forth above, the principal component of the maximum annual debt service on any outstanding Water and Sewer Debt or Water and Sewer Debt proposed to be issued where principal is payable only at final maturity shall be determined by using the AmortizaUon Assumption. SECTION 3.9. RATE COVENANT. Notwithstanding any provision in Article Ill, ~3ection 4. B of Part I of the Original Resolution, the City covenants, for as long as the 1999 Bonds remain outstanding, to fix, establish and maintain such rates and collect such fees, rentals or other charges for the services and facilities of its Combined Public Utility, and review the same from time to time whenever necessary, as will always provide in each fiscal year of the City, commencing October 1, 1999, Net Revenues which shall be adequate to pay at least one hundred ten percent (110%) of the Annual Debt Service (as such term is defined in the Original Resolution) on any Senior Bonds, the 1999 Bonds and any Parity Obligations. ARTICLE IV MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SECTION 4.1 MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT. No modification or amendment of this Resolution or of any resolution amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, may be made without the consent in writing of all of the Bondholders. SECTION 4.2. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION. The Mayor. the Vice-Mayor, the City Manager, the Finance Director, the Treasurer and any other proper official of the City, be and each of them is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all documents and instruments and to do and cause to be done any and all acts and things necessary or proper for carrying out the transactions contemplated by this Resolution. WPBISANFOI~OS122312.SI4~3~031.OOCI~I04199ig~99.42b5~4 16 SECTION 4.3 SEVERABILITY OF INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions of this Resolution should be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separate from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions, and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions of this Resolution or of the 1999 Bonds issued hereunder. SECTION 4.4 REPEALER. All resolutions and orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed, and this Resolution shall take effect upon its passage in the manner provided by law. SECTION 4.5 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED IN regular session on this 8th day of June, 1999. Attest: Mayor City Clerk The foregoing resolution and the form of 1999 Bond therein contained are hereby approved by me as to form, language and execution this 8th day of June, 1999. City Attorney WPB/SA NFORDS/223125/4sSx03!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 1 7 EXHIBIT A LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT Dated as of June 1, 1999 WHEREAS, SunTrust Bank, South Florida, N.A. (the "Bank"), has offered to make a closed-end line of credit (the "Line of Credit') available to the City of Delray Beach, Florida (the "City"), in the principal amount of not exceeding $3,500,000 under which the City may, from time to time, make drawings; and WHEREAS, the City of Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida on June 8, 1999, adopted Resolution No. 33-99 (the "1999 Bond Resolution") authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $3,500,000 in aggregate principal amount of City of Delray Beach, Florida Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series 1999 (the "1999 Bonds") which 1999 Bonds shall represent the City's obligation to reimburse the Bank for drawings made under the Line of Credit; and WHEREAS, the City and the Bank find it necessary to enter into this Agreement, to acknowledge the terms and provisions of the 1999 Bond Resolution adopted by the City and the extension of the Line of Credit by the Bank. NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Bank hereby agree as follows: 1. That the Bank shall make immediately available to the City, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the 1999 Bond Resolution, the Line of Credit in an aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $3,500,000 which shall be available to the City in one or more drawings prior to September 1, 1999. 2. That the Line of Credit shall expire on August 31, 1999. The outstanding principal amount of all drawings with interest thereon, shall become due and payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of the 1999 Bond Resolution. 3. That the Bank hereby accepts the terms and conditions set forth in the 1999 Bond Resolution applicable to the Line of Credit. 4. The City and the Bank, for mutual consideration, each acknowledged to be received by the other party hereto, mutually and willingly waive the right to a trial by a jury in connection with any and all claims by any party hereto against the other arising from or in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or the 1999 Bond Resolution. WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4sSxO3!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 A-1 5. The Bank represents to the City that it is not purchasing the 1999 Bonds with a view to distributing the 1999 Bonds; provided, however, that the Bank, in its sole discretion, shall be permitted to assign or participate all or a portion of the 1999 Bonds to any other financial institution or accredited investor (subject to the requirements of Section 2.4 of the 1999 Bond Resolution). SUNTRUST BANK, SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A. By: Title:. Date: June ,, ,1999 (SEAL) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: Title: Dated: June. ,1999 Attest City Clerk WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4sSxO3!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 A-2 EXHIBIT B FORM OF 1999 BOND No. R-_ $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF FLORIDA CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA Water and Sewer Revenue Bond, Subordinate Series 1999 Interest Rate Matudty_J)~te Dated Date 4.256% October 1, 2008 June ,1999 REGISTERED OWNER: ................ SUNTRUST BANK, SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A.- ................. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:-THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,500,000)- KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the City of Delray Beach (the "City") in Palm Beach County, Florida, for value received, hereby promises to pay from the sources herein mentioned, to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns on the Maturity Date specified above or earlier upon mandatory prepayment as provided below, upon the presentation and surrender hereof at the City's Finance Department or (if so determined by the City) the designated trust office of the bank or trust company appointed by the City to act as paying agent (said City's Finance Department or such bank or trust company and any bank or trust company becoming successor paying agent being herein called the "Paying Agent"), the Principal Amount stated above with interest thereon at the Interest Rate specified above in the manner provided in the Bond Resolution) calculated on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed in a 360-day year, on each Payment Date in the manner specified in the within described Resolution to the registered owner. The Principal Amount and accrued interest thereon is payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America, which, on the date of payment thereof, shall be legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. This Bond is authorized to be issued in a principal amount of $3,500,000 under the authority of and in full compliance with the Constitution and statutes of the State of Florida, including, particularly, Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, as amended and supplemented, the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as amended and supplemented, and other applicable provisions of law (the "Act"), and Resolution No. 33-99, duly adopted on June 8, 1999 (the "Bond Resolution"), as such resolution may be further amended and supplemented from time to time, and is subject to all terms and conditions of said resolution. Any term used in this Bond and not otherwise defined, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Bond Resolution. It is hereby certified and recited that all acts, conditions and things required to exist, to happen, and to be performed, precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form and time as required by the Laws WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4s5xO3!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 B- 1 and Constitution of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City applicable thereto, and that the issuance of this Bond, is in full compliance with all constitutional or statutory limitations or provisions. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Bond Resolution until the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been signed by an authorized officer of the Registrar. This Bond shall bear interest at the Interest Rate stated above. Interest shall be payable on October 1, 1999, and each April 1 and October 1 thereafter and principal on the Bonds shall be payable each October 1 commencing October 1, 2000 in the amounts set forth below as such amounts may be adjusted as provided in the Bond Resolution until the outstanding principal of the Bonds have been paid; provided that if such date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in Palm Beach County, Flodda, the payment shall be made on the'next preceding day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in Palm County, Florida (each a "Payment Date") as provided in the Bond Resolution. The principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be secured solely by and payable from the Pledged Revenues (as defined below). Date Amount 2000 $ 270,000 2001 405,000 2002 420,000 2003 360,000 2004 375,000 2005 390,000 2006 410,000 2007 425,000 2008 445.000 TOTAL $3.500.000 "Original Resolution" shall mean Resolution No. 39-88, adopted by the City Commission on July 12, 1988, as amended and supplemented. "Pledged Revenues" shall mean the Revenues of the Combined Public Utility remaining each month after the deposits required by Article III, Section 4.D, Paragraphs 1 through 6 (but with respect to Paragraph 6, only after repayment of any obligations owed to the providers of any Reserve Account Credit Facility Substitute) of Part I of the Original Resolution have been made by the City, subject in all respects to the prior lien on such moneys for the payment of Senior Obligations including moneys on deposit in the Debt Service Fund. The City may prepay this Bond in whole or in part, at any time or from time to time, without penalty or premium, by paying to the registered holder all or part of the principal amount of this Bond, together with the unpaid interest accrued on the amount of principal so prepaid to WPB/$A NFORDS/223 ! 25/4s5xO3!,DOC/6/03/99/99999.42~594 B-2 the date of such prepayment. Each prepayment shall be made on such date and in such principal amount as shall be specified by the City in a wdtten notice delivered to the registered owner not less than two (2) business days prior thereto. Notice having been given as aforesaid, the principal amount stated in such notice or the whole thereof, as the case may be, shall become due and payable on the prepayment date stated in such notice; and the amount of principal shall be paid (i) in case the entire unpaid balance of the principal of this Bond is to be paid, upon presentation and surrender of the Bond to the office of the Paying Agent (designated corporate trust office, if the Paying Agent is not the City's Finance Department), and (ii) in case only part of the unpaid balance of principal of this Bond is to be paid, upon presentation of such Bond at the office of the Paying Agent (designated corporate trust office, if the Paying Agent is not the City's Finance Department) for notation thereon of the amount of principal then paid or for issuance of a replacement Bond in the principal amount not redeemed. Notwithstanding the provisions of clause (ii) above, if all of the Bonds are registered in the name of the Bank, a partial prepayment may be effected by payment to the Bank of the principal amount to be redeemed without surrender of this Bond. If, on the prepayment date, funds for the payment of the principal amount to be prepaid, together with unpaid interest accrued thereon, shall not have been provided to the Paying Agent, as above provided, the principal amount of this Bond shall continue to be outstanding and to bear interest until payment thereof at the Interest Rate provided for herein. This Bond shall not be and shall not constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory, charter or other limitations of indebtedness but shall be secured solely by and payable from the Pledged Revenues. No Holder of this Bond shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of ad valorem taxing power of the City, or taxation in any form of any real property therein to pay the Bond or the interest thereon. The terms and provisions of the Bond Resolution are incorporated in this Bond as though such terms and provisions have been set out in full herein. THE LIEN GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THIS BOND ON THE NET REVENUES (AS SUCH TERM IS DEFINED IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION) SHALL BE JUNIOR AND SUBORDINATE AS TO THE LIEN GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE HOLDERS OF THE SENIOR OBLIGATIONS ON THE NET REVENUES AND IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS TO THE PLEDGE AND LIEN GRANTED TO SUCH HOLDERS OF THE SENIOR OBLIGATIONS. WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4sSxO3LDOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 B-3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, has caused this Bond to be signed by its Mayor, either manually or with his facsimile signature, and the seal of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed hereto or imprinted or reproduced hereon, and attested by the Clerk of the City, either manually or with her facsimile signature, and this Bond to be dated the Dated Date set forth above. (SEAL) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ATTEST: By: Mayor Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4s5x031.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 B-4 FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION Date of Authentication: June ,1999 This Bond is the Bond delivered pursuant to the within mentioned Resolution. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Finance Department, as Registrar By:, Authorized Officer WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4sSxO3LDOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 B-5 ASSIGNMENT' FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (please print or typewrite name, address and tax identification number of assignee) the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints , Attorney to transfer the within Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed: In the presence of: NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever. WPB/SANFORDS/223125/4s5xO3LDOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 B-6 EXHIBIT C 1999 Project (1) Approximately 16,000 new water meters (2) Approximately 2,500 radio-read handheld units to read touch pad system (3) Conversion of approximately 970 existing meters to "touchread system" (4) Update current software system to accommodate touchread system (5) Labor, contingency and costs of issuing 1999 Bonds WPB/SAN FORDS/223125/4s5x03!.DOC/6/03/99/99999.426594 C- 1