Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12-13-11 Regular Meeting
City of Delray Beach Regular Commission Meeting RULES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Tuesday, December 13, 2011 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. Delray Beach City Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT : The public is encouraged to offer comments with t he order of presentation being as follows: City Staff, publi c comments, Commission discussion and official action. City Commission meetings are b usiness meetings and the right to limit discussion rests with the Commission. Generally, remarks by an individual will be limited to three minutes or less . The Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to adjust the amount of time allocated. A.Public Hearings: Any citizen is entitled to speak o n items under this section. B.Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public: Any citizen is entitled to be heard concerning any matter within t he scope of jurisdiction of the Commission under this section. The Commission may w ithhold comment or direct the City Manager to take action on requests or comments. C.Regular Agenda and First Reading Items: Public inpu t on agendaed items, other than those that are specifically set for a formal p ublic hearing, shall be allowed when agreed by consensus of the City Commission. 2. SIGN IN SHEET : Prior to the start of the Commission Meeting, ind ividuals wishing to address public hearing or non-agendaed items should sign in on the sheet located on the right side of the dais. If you are n ot able to do so prior to the start of the meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The primary purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Th erefore, when you come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet if you have not already done so. 3. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION : At the appropriate time, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. All comments must be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to in dividuals. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes bo isterous while addressing the Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speaking further, unless permission to continue or again address the Commiss ion is granted by a majority vote of the Commission members present. APPELLATE PROCEDURES Please be advised that if a person decides to appea l any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phone: (561) 243-7000 Fax: (561) 243-3774 The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services t o afford an individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in and enj oy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Smith at 243-7010, 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to a ccommondate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetin gs in the Commission Chambers. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG A.NONE 4. AGENDA APPROVAL 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A.November 8, 2011 - Workshop Meeting B.November 29, 2011 - Special Meeting 6. PROCLAMATIONS: A.NONE 7. PRESENTATIONS: A.RESOLUTION NO. 55 -11: Approve Resolution No. 55 -11 recognizing and commending Joanna M. Weaver for 30 years of dedicat ed service to the City of Delray Beach. B.RESOLUTION NO.56 -11: Approve Resolution No. 56 -11 recognizing and commending Gail Vanhove for 30 years of dedicated s ervice to the City of Delray Beach . C.Planet Footprint Environmental Metrics and Scorecard – Richard Reade D.The Plastridge Insurance Agency – Connor Lynch (ADDENDUM) 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval A. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/DECK 84:Approve a Landscape Maintenance Agreement between the City and Delray B each Associates, Inc. for Deck 84 located at 840 East Atlantic Avenue. B. ADDITIONAL SCOPE/INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC.: Approve an additional scope of services with Intercounty Engin eering, Inc. for the removal of 2,000 linear feet of 2" water main and approval for the a mount of $16,000.00 to be paid from the Contract's Utility Allowance for the Osceola Pa rk Water Main Phase 2 Project. C. CHANGE ORDER NO. 2/MURRAY LOGAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.: Approve Change Order No. 2 with Murray Logan Construction, Inc. for a contract time extension of thirty (30) days due to unexpected job site conditions for the Mangrove Park Boat Ramp Reconstruction. D. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMEN T PLAN PENSION FUND INVESTMENT POLICY : Approve proposed changes to the General Employees Retirement Plan Pension Fund Inve stment Policy. E. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMEN T (JPA)/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT): Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Participation Agreemen t (JPA) with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to extend the current expiration date to December 31, 2012 to be consistent with the time al lotted for the one -year maintenance of the project associated with the West Atlantic Av enue Landscape Median Project. F. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)/OFF -DUTY DETAIL PROGRAM: Approve the RFP Selection Committee ’s recommendation of the Delray Beach Public Library to administer the Police Department ’s Off -Duty Detail program. G. FY 2012 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES:Approve the City's proposed 2012 State Legislative Priorities. H. BONUS PAYMENT TO JCD SPORTS GROUP, INC.: Approve FY 2010/2011 bonus payments to JCD Sports Group, Inc. for golf course operations in the amount of $16,620.00 and for Tennis Center operations in the amount of $6,909.00. Funding is available from 445 -4711 -572 -34.90 (Delray Beach Municipal Golf Course Fund: Oth er Contractual Service), 446 -4711 -572 -34.90 (Lakeview Golf Course: Other Contractual Service), 001 -4215 -575 -34.90 (General Fund: Operating Expenses - Miscellaneous/Other Contractual Service) and 001 -4210 -575 -34.90 (General Fund: Operating Expenses -Misc/Other Contractual Service). I. CONTRACT ADDITION (CHANGE ORDER NO. 2)/BRANG CONSTR UCTION, INC.: Approve Contract Addition (Change Order No. 2) with Brang C onstruction, Inc. in the amount of $15,471.00 for one (1) additi onal bus shelter as requested by Palm Tran and for a contract time extension of 208 days for the ARRA Bus Shelters Project. Funding is available from 101 -3163 -544 -65.70 (ARRA Economic Stimulus FD: Other Improvements/Transit Stop Bus Shelters). J. AMENDMENT TO THE THIRD ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE/310 SOUTHRIDGE ROAD: Approve an Amendment of the third addendum to the contract to sell/transfer one (1) N SP property to the Delray Beach Community Land Trust (DBCLT) for the benefit and re sale of the unit to a household with an income less than one -hundred percent (120%) of Area Median Income (AMI) as determined by HUD. K. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS : Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Developm ent Boards for the period December 5, 2011 through December 9, 2011. L.AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1.Contract award to Duraclean Restoration and Remedia tion in the amount of $24,884.73 to abate the mold and asbestos inside the building at 80 Depot Avenue. Funding is available from 334 -6111 -521 -46.90 (General Construction Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/Other Repair/Maintena nce Costs). 2.Purchase award to Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, Inc. at an annual estimated cost of $750,000.00 for the purchase of b ulk quicklime via the City of Boynton Beach Bid No. 005 -2821 -09/JA. Funding is available from 441 -5122 -536 - 52.21 (Water and Sewer Fund: Operating Supplies/Che micals). 9. REGULAR AGENDA: A.APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW APPEARANCE BOARD ’S DECISION: BOSTON ’S RESTAURANT: Consider an appeal of a Site Plan Review Appeara nce Board ’s Decision to approve the Class V site plan, landsc ape plan and architectural elevations for the proposed Boston ’s Restaurant expansion located at 40 South Ocean Boulevard . (Quasi -Judicial Hearing) B.APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/BOSTON ’S RESTAURANT: Consider the appeal of an administrative interpre tation by the Director of Planning and Zoning that a conditional use approval is required for the outdoor entertainment component to be located on the Boston ’s Restaurant expansion area located at 40 South Ocean Boulevard . (Quasi -Judicial Hearing) C.WAIVER REQUEST/302 N.E. 7 TH AVENUE:Consider a waiver request to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.7(E)(7), “Design Standards Matrix ”, which requires signs be located at least 10 ’ from any property line , to permit the sign to be located 5 ’ from the front and side street property lines for 302 N.E. 7 th Avenue. (Quasi -Judicial Hearing) D.ALLEY NAMING REQUEST: Consider a request to name the alley east of N.E. 3 rd Avenue, running between N.E. 3 rd Street on the south; and N.E. 4 th Street on the north, as "Artists Alley". E.HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANT/CONTRACT AWARD: Award one (1) Housing Rehabilitation contract to the second lowest responsive bidder, All Phase Roofing & Construction, through the Disaster Recove ry Initiative (DRI) Program for 401 S.W. 10 th Street in the amount of $32,422.65. Funding is ava ilable from 118 -1960 - 554 -49.19 (Neighborhood Services: Other Current Charges /Housing Rehabilitation). F.REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) RESPONSES FOR ENGI NEERING CONSULTANTS/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP): Consider approval of the Engineering RFQ (RFQ# 2012 -06) short list and authorization for staff to negotiate contracts with each firm on the short list. Project #12 -057. G.REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) RESPONSES FOR LAND SURVEYING CONSULTING SERVICES/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP):Consider approval of the Land Surveying Consulting Services RFQ (RFQ# 2012 -07) responses short list and authorization to negot iate contracts with each of the five (5) companies on the short list. Project #12 -058. H.REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) RESPONSES FOR LOCA L ENERGY ASSURANCE PLANNING (LEAP) & TRAINING: Consider approval of the ranking of respondents to Request for Qualifications (RFQ) #2011 -16 for Local Energy Assurance Planning & Training and authorization for staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm. I.CONTRACT AWARD/O.T. SERVICES:Consider a contract award to O.T. Services in the amount of $31,920.00 annually for janitorial services at the Delray Beach Golf Course. Funding is available from 445 -4711 -572 -34.90 (D B Municipal Golf Course: Other Contractual Services). J.ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY/CITIZEN'S ROUNDTABLE MEETI NG: Discuss options related to the Annual State of the City and Citizen's Roundtable Meetings. K.PROPOSAL FOR A CONGRESS CORRIDOR MARKETING PLAN : Consider accepting a proposal for creating a strategic marke ting plan for the Congress Avenue Corridor . 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A.ORDINANCE NO. 47 -11 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING):City - initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulat ions (LDR) Sections 4.4.6 “Medium Density Residential (RM) District ”, 4.4.9 “General Commercial (GC) district ”, 4.4.12 Planned Commercial (PC) District, 4.4.13 “Central Business (CBD) District ” and 4.4.28 Central Business District –Railroad Corridor, to provide that assisted living facilities will be allowed in the s ame manner as multiple family residential developments with respect to the number of units and density. If passed, a second public hearing will be held on January 3, 20 12 . B.ORDINANCE NO. 48 -11 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING):Consider a city -initiated amendment to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 4.3.3, “Special Requirements for Specific Uses ”, by enacting a new Subsection 4.3.3(AAAA), “Simulated Gambling Devices ”, in order to prohibit use of same and to enact a new definition of, “Simulated Gambling Devices ”. If passed, a second public hearing will be held on January 3, 2012. 11. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC- IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS: A.City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. B.From the Public. 12. FIRST READINGS: A.ORDINANCE NO. 50 -11: Consider an amendment to Chapter 34, “Elections ”, by amending Section 34.16, “Filing of Nominating Petitions ”, to modify the number of registered voters required to sign a petition to gr ant eligibility of a candidate to qualify to run for office . If passed, a public hearing will be held on January 3, 2012. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: A.City Manager B.City Attorney C.City Commission WORKSHOP MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 2011 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the Ci ty of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the First Floo r Conference Room at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, November 8, 2011. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie called the workshop meetin g to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. However, he stated that before starting with the agenda, Commissioner Gray has asked to have opening remarks. Mrs. Gray stated after reading the newspaper and sp eaking to some of her constituents, through her enthusiasm to inform the public, she may have misus ed the influence of the office of the City Commission and stated she would like to take this o pportunity to apologize to the City Manager, City Attorney, this Commission, and citizens of Del ray Beach. Mrs. Gray stated since the beginning of taking office, she has been committed to the cit izens of Delray Beach and will continue to focus her energy on bringing programs and opportunities f or the betterment of Delray’s citizens. Mrs. Gray stated that she loves being a Delray Beach Commissione r and loves the city. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Update on Village Academy School Mrs. Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director, i ntroduced Mr. Guarn Sims, Principal of Village of Academy, and stated staff has asked him to present because the city has submitted a Letter of Intent to apply for the Campaign for Scho ol Readiness offered by the National Civic League; and Village Academy will be the pilot site. Mr. Sims discussed Delray Beach Facts regarding poverty, low birth weight, school/college readiness, etc. and pooling resources. Mr. Sims presented his comprehensive plan (The Village Promise Alliance Proposal). He defined the Village Promise Alliance, its purpose and goal. He discussed the Educational, Family Social, Social Services, Health Services and Community Serv ices Components of the Alliance. In addition, Mr. Sims discussed the existing advantages and ne xt steps. Mrs. Gray thanked Principal Sims for everything he is doing and asked how he proposes to have the Delray Full Service Center removed. Mrs. Butler discussed this issue. Mrs. Gray asked if and how the Neighborhood Resource Center fits into this plan. 2 November 8, 2011 Mr. Frankel stated Principal Sims has great enthusi asm and goals. He commended Mr. Sims on the presentation. Mr. Carney stated these are very ambitious goals an d this is a great effort. He also stated Mr. Sims has great enthusiasm regarding getting this done. Dr. Alperin stated aiming high has gotten the city to where we are today. He asked about the Delray Full Service Center. Mrs. Gray asked how long Toussaint L’Ouverture’s le ase is. Principal Sims stated it is a one year lease. Dr. Alperin stated Mr. Sims is looking for conceptual endors ement from the city. Mayor McDuffie asked about the December 7, 2011 Mee ting and stated the sum will be much greater than the parts regarding partners. He stat ed there are alot of great bullet points for them to review. Mrs. Butler provided comments regarding the Reading Readiness Program and All America City’s 3 rd Grade Reading Program. She stated Village Academy is what they are focusing on. In addition, Mrs. Butler provided an update on the Chi ldren’s Services Council. Dr. Debra Kaiser, Education Board, reiterated statistics for 3 rd grade students. Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, stated we will l ook into what the County wants from the city. 2. Fire Assessment Study Mr. Mike Burton, Burton & Associates, provided an o verview of Burton & Associates, discussed statutory exemptions and presented the preliminary results of the study to determine the cost of fire protection services in Delray Beach. He discus sed how that cost can be assessed to property owners in the City. He also discussed two different methods for the assessment: a fixed amount or block rate structures. Mr. Burton discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the options. He suggested the city review its assessments period ically to insure it is recovering the proper portion of costs as we move forward. Dr. Alperin stated although he is not crazy about t his whole concept, the fairest way to proceed with this is the tiered rate. Mr. Carney stated he concurs with Dr. Alperin. Mrs. Gray stated she agrees with having a tiered st ructure for both residential and non- residential. Mr. Frankel stated he disagrees with the tiered str ucture because everyone is entitled to the same fire service regardless of who they are. He stated it is fairer to charge everyone the same for the service. Mr. Frankel stated regarding residential, everyone should pay the same amount; and the non-residential can be a tiered structure. 3 November 8, 2011 Mayor McDuffie stated he has been an opponent of th is for a long time and this is a tax even though we call it a fee. He wants to make sure the city pays attention to th e non-ad valorem assessment to keep it at a rate so that this fee does not result in double tax ation. He stated there is inequity in charging for fire service based upon the ad valorem values due t o exemptions, etc. He feels the tiered rate structure is the more equitable way for citizens to pay for fi re service. Mr. Carney discussed the dwelling units and square footage as well as impact to residents. He stated he went with the tiered rate structure because it seem s to be a fairer approach. Mr. Harden discussed the rates based on the same sq uare footage. Mr. Burton mentioned the dates of the public hearings. The City Manager stat ed we will proceed with the tiered rate approach. 3. National Auto Parts Association (NAPA) Warehouse Prop osal Mr. Harden introduced this item stating he had seen the presentation at the Transforming Local Government Conference earlier this year and it was very interesting. The proposal is ready for Commission consideration. Mr. Richard Hasko, Enviro nmental Services Director, stated staff is excited about this concept and stated NAPA’s propos al is based on specific Delray Beach information that staff provided to them regarding i nventory rates, different parts, typical expenditures, etc. This shows some fairly signific ant potential annual cost savings not only in dollar amount but increased efficiency regarding st aff time. He introduced Mr. Doug Bryant from NAPA and Mr. Kevin Rummell from the ESD Fleet Division who was present for any questions Commission may have. Mr. Doug Bryant, IBS Area Manager/Miami District/Ge nuine Parts Company/NAPA Auto Parts, reviewed the Integrated Business Solutions (IBS) via PowerPoint. He stated it is a vendor managed inventory system structure. He discussed ho w the system works and technician training. They partner with municipalities, open a parts store in the city’s location and operate it on behalf of the municipality. Mr. Bryant provided information regarding their distribution centers, nationwide operations, parts and other services/products they provide. Mr. Frankel stated he has no objections to this. Mrs. Gray stated she is fine with this. Mr. Carney stated this sounds favorable and asked i f there have been any issues regarding contracts with municipalities. He stated he is generally in support of this. Mr. Brad Crawford, NAPA Auto Parts/Southern Divisio n of IBS/Atlanta, Georgia stated the financial analysis they perform is the first step t o see if this system works for a particular municipality. Dr. Alperin stated conceptually he really likes the idea. He asked if NAPA will utilize our storage facility, if this is an exclusive contract or can the city order from other vendors. In addition, he asked are we in jeopardy if we do not go out to bid and settle into an agreement with NAPA. The City Manager explained the process regarding the national organization who will actually bid this out for us. 4 November 8, 2011 Mr. Harden stated he would like for NAPA to manage our Utility Billing and small engine inventory for Parks and Recreation. Mayor McDuffie discussed reducing the cost of servi ce delivery to the community. He stated this relationship would work well for the city. Mr. Harden stated staff will develop a contract and bring i t back to Commission. 4. Review of Design Concepts for the City Website Mr. Douglas Smith, Assistant City Manager, stated u pdating the website was previously discussed at a workshop and staff will provide an u pdate of where the city is in the process; with a draft sample page for the Commission to review. Tracy Miller, Alliance for Innovation Regional and Technology Director, has been assistin g us in the design process for the home page and with the focus groups. She will provide ba ckground of what came out of that as far as the vision and goals for what we want the website t o be. Ms. Miller, Information Technology (IT) Division, and staff have looked at other websi tes for the development of our homepage. Paul Fleetwood, IT, navigated though the sample web page and Tracy Miller guided the presentation and provided comments of what has been developed at this point. Ms. Miller explained how we arrived at the guiding principles. She stated readability and search capability are what people are looking for. Mr. Frankel stated it is important to have the prin t of the website in a format that the elderly can read. He stated drop down boxes are one of his con cerns. He referenced the City of Plantation’s website and stated he likes that layou t. He stated this sample webpage that has been designed for our city is much better than what we currently ha ve. Mr. Carney stated he does not like the city’s websi te and finds it cumbersome regarding navigation. However, he does like the online monthly calen dar. Mayor McDuffie stated this sample webpage is much b etter and he likes having the tabs across the top of the page. Mrs. Gray asked about contact numbers or information for the various departments and staff. Mr. Smith thanked everyone who has been working on this. 5. Art in Public Places Presentation (ADDENDUM) This item was removed from the agenda. 6. ICMA Police Operations and Data Analysis Chief Strianese provided Commission a comprehensive review of the operations of the Police Department. He discussed the International City/Co unty Management Association (ICMA) Final Report of Police Operations and Data Analysis and how the Police Department is moving forward. He reviewed the areas of concentration th e department is focusing on and the action plan for those areas; highlighting five key strateg ies that have been targeted for evaluation: Strategic Plan, Calls for Service, Community Respon se/Investigative Division Reorganization, Review of current Police/Youth Initiative Programs and Com munications. 5 November 8, 2011 In addition, he also discussed the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) findings, a staff overview, city comparison of adjacent municipalitie s, and the city’s service population. Chief Strianese invited Commission to meet with the Polic e Department and participate in ride-a- longs. Dr. Alperin stated he is very impressed. Mr. Carney stated he looks forward to participating in some o f the meetings and ride-a-longs. Mrs. Gray thanked Chief Strianese and the staff for all they do and stated she will participate in a ride-a-long. Mr. Frankel encouraged everyone to visit the Police Department Training Facility and discussed the meetings he has had with the department and their upcomin g meetings. He stated the Police Department always responds when there is an issue in our city . Mayor McDuffie stated that he has been participatin g in ride-a-longs for five years now. He has seen the fruits of Community Policing. Mayor McDuff ie state the Police Department does an incredible job and he is impressed with what they do. The City Manager stated a couple of the recommendat ions from the study have been implemented and have resulted in savings that have exceede d the cost of the study itself. 7. Discuss State Legislative Priorities for 2012 Mr. Smith stated staff wanted to bring this before Commission to receive any input they may have on key state legislative issues coming up for the 2012 session. The legislative session starts on January 10, 2012 due to redistricting and staff has to get t his ready before we normally would. We normally review information from the Florida Lea gue of Cities and they have not set their official legislative priorities yet. Staff will co ntinue to review FLC after the legislative conference. Mr. Rich Reade, Sustainability/Public I nformation Officer, reviewed the proposed legislative priorities with Commission. He stated we have spoken to the Palm Beach County League of Cities and a number of committees to receive input. Mr. Harden stated we received letters from the Metr opolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regarding the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority. We may want to add to this to our policy-proposed efforts to change the governmen t structure for the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority in effect transfer the maj ority to state control as opposed to local control. Dr. Alperin stated we are losing more and more cont rol of our own responsibilities and have to deal with the consequences because of that and it i s not fair. It would be helpful, if each one of these items came about as legislation, to find out how our legislators voted regarding these specific items. Mayor McDuffie commented that sometimes as an elect ed official legislators look for endorsements from him during election time. As a r esult, it is important to know how they voted before they are endorsed. Mr. Carney asked how some of these bills passed. 6 November 8, 2011 Mr. Frankel suggested that we send a letter to our legislators regarding how they voted on certain situations. In addition, he mentioned the r ed light cameras and stated in most cases you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Mayor McDuffie stated he is concerned about red light camera s as well. Commission thanked staff for the presentation and s tated they would like to sign the letter to the legislators. 8. Proposed Change to Commission Terms Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, presented the item and discussed the previous ordinance proposed last year regarding changing Commission te rms. He stated he has created Ordinance No. 44-11 and staff is looking for direction as to how Commission would like to proceed. If the ordinance is adopted, it will be effective for Marc h 2013. Mr. Shutt explained how it would affect elections thereafter. Mr. Frankel referenced the chart regarding municipa lities’ election fees, council/commission terms, term lengths/limits and salaries/expenses. He stated it is important to make this change in order to save dollars regarding elections. He s uggested changing the length of term from two (2) years to three (3) years and leave the term limits the same . Mrs. Gray stated regarding a 3 year term length, it may allow us to have better representation on boards such as the Palm Beach County League of Citi es or National League of Cities, etc. Mr. Harden discussed this further. Mr. Carney stated he had not thought of this point previously but feels this is very relevant and now he leans toward Mr. Frankel’s suggestion. Dr. Alperin stated he was here when they passed ter m limits and he was against it at that time and still is against term limits. He thinks a thre e (3) year term length is a much better idea and feels this is reasonable. He mentioned the petitio n process and the number of signatures required for qualification. He suggested that Comm ission set a number such as 250 regarding the signatures required. Mr. Carney stated a number could be set as opposed to the 1% req uirement. Mayor McDuffie discussed the salary of the position. Mr. Frankel stated 24 out of 38 cities have zero si gnature requirements. He stated he supports 250 as the required number of signatures. Mayor McDuffie stated he supports 250 as well. Mr. Carney stated he would like to have the three y ear term length and reduce the number of signatures to 250. Discussion ensued between staff and Commission regarding t he term length and limits. The City Attorney reiterated it will be voted on March 13, 201 2 to take effect in 2013. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 9:05 p.m. ________________________________ City Clerk 7 November 8, 2011 ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of De lray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meet ing of the City Commission held on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, which Minutes were formally appro ved and adopted by the City Commission on December 13, 2011. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indica ted above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may i nvolve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2011 A Special Meeting of the City Commission of the Cit y of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the Conference Room at 1801 North Congress Avenue at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, November 29, 2011. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie called the special meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. Non-Residential Fire Assessment Fees: Reconsideration of the fee structure for non- resident fire assessment fees. Mr. Carney stated he would like to discuss certain aspects of the residential fee to raise additional points for consideration. Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, stated we have a rate structure that the Commission tentatively approved, that we w ill base our notices on, that treats all non- residential uses the same. Objections were raised b y Ms. Pearce that the value on a per square foot basis for industrial and warehouse buildings a re less and most cities charge less for those types of uses and she would like to see us do the s ame thing. The simplest thing to do would be to keep the structure the way we have proposed. Mr . Harden stated the consultant recommends looking at the average per square foot value for ot her non-residential uses compared to per square foot value for industrial and warehouses; an d set up a fee structure that would be different based on those two averages. It would ta ke them 4 or 5 days to write the numbers for that approach. Mr. Harden reiterated that we need to send out notices to every property owner of what their assessment will be and we need to kno w what kind of fee structure to use on the notice. Commission will not actually vote on the fe es until we have the public hearing and everyone has received their notice. Dr. Alperin asked if we reduce the amount for indus trial where are we going to make it up. Mr. Harden stated other cities charge more for office a nd commercial uses and charge less for industrial and warehouse. Mayor McDuffie stated that point is well taken sinc e we have to come up with $3.1 million; and what you take away from one will have to go to some one else when you change the rate structure. 2 November 29, 2011 Dr. Alperin asked if our industrial is comparable to Boynton and Boca. Mrs. Gray stated the commercial would be more. Mr. Frankel stated he is in agreement with Commissi oner Alperin in that to keep it the same would be in line with our neighbors to the north an d south; and this is the fairest way to go forward. Mrs. Gray stated we need to stay competitive with our neighb oring cities. Mr. Carney stated he is struggling with why the dis tinction between industrial and commercial. He is reluctant to impose a higher burden on commer cial since we are trying to attract both commercial and industrial. He stated he read the em ails but agrees with Dr. Alperin and Mrs. Gray; and he is not convinced that we should do any thing else other than what has been established. Mr. Harden stated in dealing with indu strial and warehouse fires you encounter hazards that you would not encounter with other uses. Interim Fire Chief Danielle Connor stated the fires present extreme hazards and explained this further. Mr. Carney thanked Mr. Harden for the information. He spoke regarding how we have determined what the assessment will be regarding re sidential properties. He stated as a general observation that are more calls and more potential for fires in some of the older neighborhoods versus newer neighborhoods. He commented regarding the tiered structure and feels the set fee for everyone is a better way to go. Mayor McDuffie stated we have to be careful that we do not mak e this too complicated. Mr. Frankel stated fire service is the same for eve ryone regardless of where you live. He feels that having everyone pay the same fee is the most equitable wa y to do this. Discussion continued between staff and Commission regardi ng the rate structure. It was the consensus of Commission to proceed with the tiered rate structure. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. ________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR 3 November 29, 2011 The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of De lray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meet ing of the City Commission held on Tuesday, November 29, 2011, which Minutes were formally appr oved and adopted by the City Commission on December 13, 2011. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indica ted above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may i nvolve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Dot Bast, Training and Development Manager THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 22, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 7.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 55 -11/JOANNA M. WEAVER ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Resolution No. 55-11 honoring Joanna Weaver for her 30 years of service. BACKGROUND In accordance with the City’s service award policy, employees with 30 years of continuous full-time service are to be honored by the City Commission wi th a resolution and plaque. Joanna Weaver, Paralegal will achieve this milestone on December 1 4, 2011. RESOLUTION NO. 55-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING JOANNA M. WEAVER FOR THIRTY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. WHEREAS, Joanna M. Weaver was hired by the City of Delray B each as a Legal Secretary on December 14, 1981 and on December 14, 2011 will reach a milestone in her career, having achieved thirty years of full-time service with the City; an d WHEREAS, Joanna M. Weaver has served this community with ho nor and distinction as Legal Secretary and Paralegal; and WHEREAS, Joanna is a dedicated and extraordinarily reliable employee whose work ethic is above reproach, and who has approached her dutie s with a positive attitude, always striving for excellence; and WHEREAS, we acknowledge Joanna’s contribution to the City A ttorney’s Office through her hard work, dedication and invaluable experience; and WHEREAS, she has the highest standards for customer service, teamwork, resourcefulness, and stewardship of department resources; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach and the Delray Beach City Attorney’s Office are honored to have had Joanna M. Weaver as a valued me mber of the municipal team over the past 30 years and she is greatly appreciated by her co-workers and th e entire city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISS ION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Be ach hereby recognizes and commends Joanna M. Weaver for thirty years of dedicated and faithful public service. Section 2. That the City Commission hereby congratulates and expresses sincere thanks and appreciation to Joanna M. Weaver for her many years of service, and wishes her the b est of health and happiness in her continued employment. 2 Res No. 55-11 PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 13 th day of December 2011. ________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: __________________________________ CITY CLERK 3 Res No. 55-11 PRESENTED TO Joanna M. Weaver As a token of our esteem and gratitude for your 30 years of outstanding contributions and distinguished service to The City of Delray Beach City Attorney’s Office December 14, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Dot Bast, Training and Development Manager THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 22, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 7.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 56 -11/GAIL VANHOVE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Resolution No. 56-11 honoring Gail Vanhove for 30 y ears of service. BACKGROUND In accordance with the City’s service award policy, employees with 30 years of continuous full-time service are to be honored by the City Commission wi th a resolution and plaque. Gail Vanhove, Administrative Assistant, achieved this milestone o n December 9, 2011. RESOLUTION NO. 56-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING GAIL VANHOVE FOR THIRTY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. WHEREAS, Gail Vanhove was hired by the City of Delray Beach as a Clerk-Typist on December 9, 1981 and on December 9, 2011, reached a milestone in her career, having achieved thirty years of full-time service with the City; and WHEREAS, Gail has served this community with honor and dist inction as a Clerk-Typist, Secretary I, Staff Assistant I and Administrative Assistan t; and WHEREAS, Gail has made it a point to go above and beyond wi th any request for assistance from the public or her co-workers and puts her hea rt and soul into every assignment; and WHEREAS, we acknowledge Gail’s dedication to the City in co ordinating the new hire process, change of status reports, evaluation distr ibution, sailboat registration, and incident and injury reports; and, in general, Gail is a great source of inf ormation for others in her department; and WHEREAS, she always reaches toward her goal of making every one feel welcome and is effective in meeting their needs; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach and the Delray Beach Park s and Recreation Department are honored to have had Gail Vanhove as a valued member of the municipal team over the past 30 years and she is greatly appreciated by her co-wor kers and the entire city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISS ION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Be ach hereby recognizes and commends Gail Vanhove for thirty years of dedicated and faithful public service. Section 2. That the City Commission hereby congratulates and expresses sincere thanks and appreciation to Gail Vanhove for her many years of service, and wishes her the b est of health and happiness in her continued employment. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 13th day of Decembe r 2011. ___________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: __________________________________ CITY CLERK PRESENTED TO Gail Vanhove As a token of our esteem and gratitude for your 30 years of outstanding contributions and distinguished service to The City of Delray Beach Parks and Recreation Department December 9, 2011 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Richard J. Reade, Sustainability Officer THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 8, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 7.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PLANET FOOTPRINT - ENVIRONMENTAL METRICS & SCORECARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Presentation of the City's newly developed Environm ental Metrics and Scorecard. BACKGROUND During a recent conference, the City Manager identi fied a private company, Planet Footprint, that collected various environmental data for local gove rnments. This data is utilized to develop environmental metrics and environmental scorecards that monitor and report energy, water, fleet, wast e and greenhouse performance to improve the efficienc y and effectiveness of the organization, including lower operational costs. By working with Planet Footprint, the City is able to: Monitor performance: Continuously measure the City's energy, water and greenhouse performance, including consumption, costs, and emis sions. This process flags potential problems and identifies possible trends/anomalies (too high, too low, or if they don't change over time) that may require staff attention and possibly save money. Report information: Present the City's performance in independent reports and graphs/charts that are updated quarterly and made available to staff a nd the public on-line. The information can be custom tailored to meet the City's budgeting, progr am and facility management needs, for planning purposes and for funding compliance. Compare performance: Shows the City's quarterly pe rformance trends over time, based on the past 2 to 3 years. The City's performance is bench marked, nationally and internationally, with similar properties and climates. Save money and avoid waste: Helps to develop infor mation to enable the City to target the best opportunities for improvement. The City's various metrics and environmental scorec ard can be viewed online at www.planetfootprint.us/delraybeachflorida . The City has been working with Planet Footprint as a Showcase Community - the first city in Florida to work with this organization and utilize this import ant environmental and cost savings program. Planet Footprint is responsible for collecting all requisi te data in raw form and converting it into a usable metric that can assist in reducing the City's expen ditures as well as lowing the City's environmental impact. Many of the metrics include data from the past 3 years. Funding for this project is provided under the City 's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program that is allocated by the Department of Ener gy and under the federal government's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus fun ding). Please Note : This type of environmental scorecard was included within the Green Task Force's 2009 Recommendaions to the City. Environmental Scorecard DelrayBeachisusingmetricsasa meanstotrackOrganizational& CommunityEnvironmentalProgress –Annual reclaimed water usage –Average daily water usage per capita –Annual average residential recycled materials –Annual City facility recycled materials –Annual average solid waste collected –Annual kWh of electricity used in City facilities –Annual cost of electricity in City facilities –Carbon footprint from City facilities/operations Green &Sustainability Successes Green &Sustainability Successes Tracking Environmental Resources MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:December 7, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/DECK 84 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is appr oval of a Landscape Maintenance Agreement between the City and the property located at 840 Ea st Atlantic Avenue, Deck 84. BACKGROUND On September 21, 2001, the Historic Preservation Bo ard approved a Class I Site Plan Modification request for 840 East Atlantic Avenue, Deck 84, loca ted within the Marina Historic District. The approval was subject to conditions which included t he approval of a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for landscaping to be insta lled within an existing planter located both on the subject property and within the City right of way. The planter is located on the north side of the property, adjacent to the building improvements for which the City Commission recently approved a waiver (sliding window encroachment into the setbac k). The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement for legal sufficiency and form, and determined it t o be acceptable. RECOMMENDATION By motion, accept the Landscape Maintenance Agreeme nt for 840 East Atlantic Avenue, Deck 84. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construc tion Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental S ervices THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 2, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ADDITIONAL SCOPE/INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve addit ional scope for the removal of 2,000 linear feet of 2" water main in the amount of $16,000.00; and appr oval for the amount to be paid from the contract's Utility Allowance; for the Osceola Park WM PH2 Proj ect #2010-082. BACKGROUND On June 7, 2011, Commission approved a Contract Awa rd to Intercounty Engineering, Inc. The scope of the project generally consists of installing app roximately 5,340 linear feet of 8 inch Ductile Iron Pipe water main, connection of water services, and insta llation of fire hydrants. This project also include s clearing and grubbing, sodded swale, asphalt trench repair, driveway apron replacement, drainage, and maintenance of traffic. On October 4, 2011, Commission approved Change Orde r No. 1 for a contract time extension of seven (7) days; additional scope for the installation of the water main in a different location due to a con flict with an existing sewer main, in the amount of $11,1 77.47; installation of a reverse tap to resolve an unforeseen conflict with a duct bank, in the amount of $6,413.59; and the repair of an existing 2" mai n, which was damaged during excavation, and was unknow n to exist at its location, in the amount of $730.76; for a total amount of $18,321.82 to be pai d out of the contract's Utility Allowance Line Item . This additional scope request is for the removal of 2,000 additional linear feet of 2" water main in t he amount of $16,000.00 (2,000 x $8.00/LF). Staff is requesting removal of additional water main, more than indicated on the construction plans, in lieu o f abandonment in place to prevent conflicts with potential future capital project design and co nstruction activities; detailed on the attached Exhibit "A". Also attached are copies of the Contract's Al lowances Spreadsheet, and a Location Map. FUNDING SOURCE Cost to be funded out of the contract's Utility All owance; available balance is $31,678.18. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of additional scope for t he removal of 2,000 additional linear feet of 2" water main in the amount of $16,000.00; and approva l for the amount to be paid from the contract's Utility Allowance; for the Osceola Park WM PH2 Proj ect. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construc tion Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental S ervices THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 2, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2/MURRAY LOGAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve Chang e Order No. 2 (CO #2) for a contract time extension of thirty (30) days to Murray Logan Const ruction, Inc., due to unexpected job site conditions, for the Mangrove Park Boat Ramp Reconst ruction Project #10-106. BACKGROUND On August 16, 2011, Commission approved a bid award to Murray Logan Construction, Inc. for modifications to the Mangrove Park boat ramp to include: removal of the existing boat ramps and floating dock; re-grading to a lesser slope, with an arced break poin t between high and low tide levels; reconstruction of the existing floating dock to a l ower profile; and lowering the staging dock at the east of the ramp. The improvements will make it easier to launch and retrieve vessels. On August 16, 2011, Commission also approved Change Order No. 1 to reduce the undefined conditions allowance by ($6,270) to $13,730.00, th ereby reducing the contract amount to $188,240 for the bid awarded to Murray Logan Construction, Inc. Funding for the construction project is provided b y grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Spo rt Fish Restoration-Boat Access Program ($102,500) and Florida Inland Navigation District ($85,740) in the total amount of $188,240. CO #2 is for a contract time extension of thirty (3 0) days. During construction the contractor encountered stiff rock formations; which required t wenty-one (21) days to excavate the top layer and break up the lower layer. In addition seven (7) ad ditional days were required to install the tempora ry sheet pile coferdam. Exhibit "A" to CO #2 is attac hed for your reference. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 2 for a contract time extension of thirty (30) days to Murray Logan Construction, Inc., due to unexpected job site conditions, for the Mangrove Park Boat Ramp Reconstruction Project. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Karen Schell, Pension Administrator David Boyd, Finance Director THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 22, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN PENSION FUND INVESTMENT POLICY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of proposed changes to the General Employe es Retirement Plan Pension Fund Investment Policy. BACKGROUND The General Employees Pension Board approved change s to the General Employees Retirement Plan Pension Fund Investment Policy (GERPPFIP) to allow Intermediate Duration Fixed Income Investments. This is designed to help mitigate the negative effects of a rising interest rate environm ent. To allow Intermediate Duration Fixed Income Investm ents, the following GERPPFIP changes are necessary: Page 1 - Add Denver Investment Advisors to the list of Money Mangers. Page 4 - Fixed Income - add "mortgage-related securities or asset-backed securities not issued by the U.S. government or an agency or instrumentality the reof, obligations of the U.S. Government and its agencies, and other securities contained in the spe cified index." Page 4, item 7 - "With respect to Denver Investment Advisors, mortgage-related securities and asset- backed securities will be limited to 15% of the mar ket value of the portfolio". Page 6 - The Target Asset Mix Table is updated to i nclude the Intermediate Fixed Income classification . Page 10 - The Benchmark Peer Group listing is updated to inc lude the Barclays Capital Int. Government Credit index. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of changes. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:December 7, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.E. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA)/F LORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the Commission is for the approval of Amendment #1 to the existing Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with the Florida Department of Tran sportation (FDOT) associated with the West Atlantic Avenue Landscape Median Project. The amen dment will extend the current expiration date to December 31, 2012 to be consistent with the time al lotted for the one-year maintenance of the project. BACKGROUND On May 12, 2009, the City of Delray Beach was award ed a $200,000 landscape beautification grant through the Keep Palm Beach County Beautiful progra m. Construction of this project was completed in July 2011, inspected and approved by FDOT in Novemb er of 2011. The grant also provided funds for maintenance costs for up to one year from the proje ct completion date. The existing JPA with FDOT expires on December 31, 2011. The proposed amendme nt covers the one-year maintenance and provides for additional language requiring the City to participate in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security E-Verify system for new employees hired by the City a ssociated with the project and/or employees of subcontractors hired to perform the ma intenance work. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Commission approve Amendm ent #1 as proposed. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Sharon L'Herrou, Administrative Officer Anthony W. Strianese, Chief of Police THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 7, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.F. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)/OFF -DUTY DETAIL PROGRAM ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Police Department requests Commission approval of the Selection Committee’s decision in the matter of the Detail Outsourcing, RFP 2012-13. The vendor recommended by the Selection Committ ee is the Delray Beach Public Library. BACKGROUND The Police Department currently contracts with the vendor, Command Security, to provide administration of our off-duty police security details. This includes managin g the detail approval process, scheduling for both City-sponsored and Non -City sponsored details, invoicing clients, and providing payments to officers. This agreement prov ides for a rate structure where the cost of the det ail includes the payments to the detail officer, a fee paid to the City, and a fee paid to the administeri ng vendor. This system has worked extremely well since its inception. Not only does it free up staff resources for the City, but it also generates a sma ll amount of revenue (approximately $20,000 during FY 10-11). Command Security, our current vendor, notified the Department on August 29, 2011 that they would no longer be providing this service. They have decided to get out of that side of the business. For our convenience, they agreed to continue providing serv ices until January 2012. Upon receipt of this notice, we began researching o ptions for alternative vendors (see attached “research notes”). A Request for Proposal (RFP) was drafted, based on the terms of the current contract and issued out. Despite a significant amount of researc h, only one bid was received, which was from the Delray Beach Public Library. A selection committee was convened, which consisted of Assistant Chief Joseph Milenkovic, Captain Tina Heysler, and Accreditation Manager Maria Marin o-Bollan. A publicly noticed meeting was held on December 1, 2011 (meeting minutes attached). The selection committee reviewed the selection criteria, the Request for Proposal, and the bid sub mitted by the Library. The committee questioned the library representatives on their ability to fulfill the contract requirements. They reviewed their cur rent infrastructure, capacity to do the work required, a nd experience in areas such as payroll, scheduling, and customer service. The Library’s proposal did not change the current rate structur e agreement. Based on the review, the Selection Committee recommends gran ting the contract to the Library (meeting minutes attached). RECOMMENDATION The Police Department recommends accepting the Delr ay Beach Public Library's proposal for administration of the Police Department’s Off-Duty Detail program. DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Outsourcing of Off-Duty Details Research Notes On 8/29/11, the current vendor, Command Security pro vided written notice that they would be terminating our contract, as they are getti ng out of this business. Outline of Research into Potential Vendors • Contacted the current vendor, 8/30/11, to inquire i f they are aware of any other business providing this service. They are not. • Googled the service and made contact with the only ve ndor that appeared to be a match (Off Duty Officers, Inc. on 8/30/11). They are based out of California and provide mostly security but do not do the administrative po rtion alone. However, they expressed interest and were invited to email additio nal information. No information has been received to date. • Sent out an email to a list-serve of Law Enforcement professionals’ nation-wide (8/31/11). No response was received from this inquiry. • A local non-profit expressed interest previously in pi cking up a service like this. We inquired if they are still interested and they confir med they are interested in exploring the idea (September). • Obtained information about a possible vendor “Police D.M.S.” Contacted them, 10/12/11. This is a software system to facilitate in-hou se management of this process, not a vendor who administers the process themselves. • RFP issued November 9 th , due 11/28/11. • On 11/08/2011, 32 advertisements of the RFP were ma iled to City of Delray Beach registered vendors. • Three (3) calls of interest were received by the Purch asing office and bid documents were emailed to those callers. • The Purchasing office established contact with 4 other municipal Police Departments to inquire about their process. They admin ister in-house, so none had a vendor that they could recommend. Minutes taken by: smd Revised and approved by: SL DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Selection Committee Meeting RFP 2012-13 Detail Outsourcing Thursday, December 1, 2011 1500 hours Investigative Conference Room SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Asst. Chief Mil enkovic, Capt. Heysler, Accreditation Mgr. M. Marino-Bollan OTHERS PRESENT: Adm. Officer S. L’Herrou, and Pur chasing Mgr. Patsy Nadal Introductions Purpose of the Selection Committee Meeting – • To discuss RFP 2012-13, Outsourcing of the Off-Duty Deta ils of the Police Department and to determine whether to accept the bid . (Only one bid received). • The current contractor of this duty has given us notice t hat they will no longer be performing this service for us; subsequently w e are looking for a new contractor. The RFP2012-13 was distributed, and the one bid rece ived was opened and verified by Patsy Nadal on 11/28/11 at a public bid o pening. The bid received was from the Library, and the Libra ry Director, Alan Kornblau and Asst. Director, Karen Evanson were in attendance at the meeting to answer questions, but not to actively participate in the meeti ng. Materials provided to committee members in advance in cluded: • RFP2012-13 • The bid received from the library • Check List (Will become public record) Patsy Nadal – Reiterated that the code of silence is in effect until the recommendation goes before the Commission. If clarifica tion is needed on any issue, please email or call purchasing, and she will obta in the information and distribute it to all committee members. Asst. Chief Milenkovic – • In regards to security, if the library is awarded the contract who will we be dealing with; one person and one back up? Mr. Kornblau – One person with Karen as the back-up, with a separate phone line and computer. Minutes taken by: smd Revised and approved by: SL • Discussion took place in that our background investigation is more extensive than the libraries and would they have a pr oblem with it? Mr. Kornblau – No. • S. L’Herrou – Based on this question regarding backgro unds, there is an Addendum, which clarifies background investigations being conducted by the police department, which is available to all parti es. The addendum will be reviewed by all parties and signed by the selected v endor prior to contract execution. Discussion took place regarding our Accreditation process in that we have written directives that the contractor is required to follow and adhered to. This would mean access to the person coordinating the details to retr ieve information, which would be required on a regular basis. Mr. Kornblau – agreed and expected that from time to time they would be in contact. Discussion took place regarding whether they had a comput er program in mind or in place already for this project. It was learned t hat they would like to talk with Command Security and see what they use/recommend as they do not have one in place at this time. Command Security has stated that they would answer / help with any questions the new contractor may have. P. Nadal – All paperwork was in order, all documents w ere submitted as requested, signatures, and insurance was in order by the submitting vendor. An updated insurance policy would be required before the contract is signed. Discussion took place regarding where the Command Securi ty employee is currently stationed and that the close proximity of an employee at the library location would be accepted. Also, it was reiterated t hat consistent contact between the Police Department and the contractor will be necessary to make this successful. Discussion took place regarding the maintaining of repor ts and data. Currently, Command Security submits monthly reports, and we have the authority to audit their books. Discussion took place regarding if the library had a system for approving vendors for details and it was noted that there currently is a system in place for the detail approval process. Once the vendor completes all required paperwork, it is then submitted to the Special Operations Commander for appr oval. If the library’s bid is accepted, it was mentioned that they should probably have a separate name for the Off-Duty Detail process rather t han just referring to it as the “library”. This would be needed for the final co ntract, but not required prior to the Commission Meeting on December 13. Minutes taken by: smd Revised and approved by: SL Mr. Kornblau stated that if they were awarded the co ntract it would be about 6 weeks before they were up and running. The addendum was distributed and will be revised befo re it is signed regarding clarifying the wording of the employee(s) working with police information, the dedicated computer, and certification of the hard-drive wiping for security purposes. Discussion took place regarding the contractor’s capabilit y/ capacity today to perform this service. The contractor explained their cu rrently ability to run this type of service by listing their current responsibilitie s/ activities: • Send invoices from their offices • Cut Checks • Complete their own payroll in house • Distribute 1099 forms • Customer service infrastructure is in place, as they rout inely deal with the public and customers. • Schedule library employee’s hours, auditorium usage a nd the Life Long Learning Center activities. Based on the discussion and information provided all C ommittee members agreed to move forward with the selection of the Libr ary as the contractor for the Off-Duty Details. The Selection Committee Meeting concluded at 1545 hour s, same date. ./DRUGFREEWORKPLACECERTIFICATION RFPNo.2012-13 ADMINISTRATIONOFOFF-DUTYPOLICEDETAILS .i l Ifidenticaltiebidsexist,preferencewillbegiventothevendorswhosubmitacertificationwiththeir bid/proposalcertifyingtheyhaveadrug-freeworkplaceinaccordancewithSection287.087,Florida Statutes.Thedrug-freeworkplacepreferenceisappliedasfollows: IDENTICALTIEBIDS:Preferenceshallbegiventobusinesseswithdrug-freeworkplaceprograms. Whenevertwoormorebidswhichareequalwith'respecttoprice,quality,andservicearereceivedby theStateofbyanypoliticalsubdivisionfortheprocurementofcommoditiesorcontractualservices,a bidreceivedfromabusinessthatcertifiesthatithasimplementedadrug-freeworkplaceprogram shallbegivenpreferenceintheawardprocess.Establishedproc~duresforprocessingtiebidswill befollowedifnoneofthetiedvendorshaveadrug-freeworkplaceprogram. Asthepersonauthorizedtosignthisstatement,Icertifythatthisfirmcompliesfullywiththefollowing requirements: 1)Thisfirmpublishesastatementnotifyingemployeesthattheunlawfulmanufacture, distribution,dispensing,possession,oruseofacontrolledsubstanceisprohibitedinthe workplaceandspecifyingtheactionsthatwillbetakenagainstemployeesforviolationsof suchprohibition. 2)Thisfirminformsemployeesaboutthedangersofdrugabuseintheworkplace,thebusiness's policyofmaintainingadrug-freeworkplace,anyavaifabledrugcounseling,rehabilitation,and employeeassistanceprograms,andthepenaltiesthatmaybeimposeduponemployeesfor drugabuseviolations. 3)Thisfirmgiveseachemployeeengagedinprovidingthecommoditiesorcontractualservices thatareunderbidacopyofthestatementspecifiedinsubsection(1). 4)Inthestatementspecifiedinsubsection(1),thisfirmnotifiestheemployeesthat,asa conditionofworkingonthecommoditiesorcontractualservicesthatareunderbid,the employeewillabidebythetermsofthestatementandwillabidebythetermsofthestatement andwillnotifytheemployerofanyconvictionof,orpleaofguiltyornolbcontendereto,any violationofchapter893orofanycontrolledsubstancelawoftheUnitedStatesoranystate, foraviolationoccurringintheworkplacenolaterthanfive(5)daysaftersuchconviction. 5)Thisfirmimposesasanctiononorrequiresthesatisfactoryparticipationinadrugabuse assistanceorrehabilitationprogramifsuchisavailableintheemployee'scommunity,byany employeewhoissoconvicted. 6)Thisfirmwillcontinuetomakeagoodfaithefforttomaintainadrug-freeworkplacethrough implementationofthissection. DelrayBeachPublicLibrary Contractor'sName Pag~I1 f) CITYOFDELRAYBEACH PROPOSEDSCHEDULEOFRATES ADMINISTRATIONOFOFF·DUTYPOLICEDETAILS RFPNo.2012-13 Off-dutyCityofDelrayBeachPoliceOfficersprovidingoff-dutyservicesarerequiredtoobservethe Department'snormalstandardsofconduct,rulesregulations,policesandproceduresduringsuch details,andmustnotberestrictedfromdischargingtheirprimarylawenforcementresponsibilitiesof preventinganddetectingcrime. 1. 2. Non-premiumperhourrate: Distributionsofperhourchargeto: $33.20 perhour DetailOfficer $28.00 perhour 1.Premium perhourrate: CityofDelrayBeach $2.00 /hr Contractor $3.2 a /hr $49.79 perhour 2.Distributionsofperhourchargeto:DetailOfficer $42.00 perhour CityofDelrayBeach $3.aa Ihr Contractor $4.79/hr VendorName:De1 ri'3YBpi'!r11PlJh 1;r I,;hri'!ry Pagel20 :l' .t""I REFERENCES-RFP#2012-13 ADMINISTRATIONOFOFF-DUTYPOLICEDETAILS *Pleasecompletethispage.QLattachyourreferencepagetothissheet. Aoencv/Company MerrillLynch Address 777 EastAtlanticAvenue City.State.Zip DelrayBeach,FL33483 ContactPerson Donpfiel Telephone (561)276-1649 Date(s)ofService July1995 - TypeofService FinancialManagement Comments: Aoeney/Comoany ParadiseBank Address 1351NorthFederalHighway City.State,liD DelrayBeach,FL33483 ContactPerson AnneEnnis Teleehone (561)243-3033 Date(s)ofService March2010 - TypeofService Bankinq Comments: , Aoeney/Comeany Weekes &Callaway Address 3945WestAtlanticAvenue City,State,Zip DelrayBeach,FL33445 ContactPerson RoseMcEwen Telephone (561)278-0448 Date(s)ofService June 1996 - TyeeofService Insurance Comments: DelrayBeachPublicLibraryAssn.,Inc. Contractor'sName Page I 22 ; RFPSIGNATUREFORM ADMINISTRATIONOFOFF-DUTYPOLICEDETAILS RFP No.2012-13 PLEASEAFFIXSIGNATUREWHEREINDICATED (FAILURETODOSOSHALLBECAUSEFORREJECTIONOFYOURPROPOSAL) OpeningDate:MONDAY,NOVEMBER28,2011 @ 10:00A.M. COMPANYNAME:DelrayBeachPublicLibrary NAMEITITLE:AlanKornblau,LibraryDirector ADDRESS:100WestAtlanticAvenue DATE:11/23/11. CITY DelrayBeach STATE FL ZIPCODE 33444 FEDERALTAXI.D.#:59-0217683 TELEPHONE: FACSIMILE: r.561 r.561 ) ) 266-9488 266-9457 EMAILADDRESS:alan.kornblau@delraylibrary.orq *VENDORSERVICEREPRESENTATIVEFORPLACEMENTOFORDER: CONTACTNAME:~A~l.=:!oa=-=n--=-=K~o=-rn=-=b~l~a~u_ TELEPHONE:(561 )266-9488 EMAILADDRESS:alan.kornblau@delraylibrary.orq Page I 23 ••".Jo.•.::'..CONTRACTOR'SADDITIONALINFORMATION RFPNo.2012~13 EXHIBIT"6" Pleaseprovideanyadditionalinformationonyourservices/companyafterthispage. TheDelrayBeachPublicLibrarybeganin1913withasmallcollectionofbooks gatheredbyagroupofwomeninterestedintheeducational,cultural,and recreationalneedsofthecommunity.In1939,the-DelrayBeachPublicLibrary Association,Inc.,a501(c)3non-profitcorporation,wasformedtogovernthe managementofthelibrary.Foroverseventyyears,theCityofDelrayBeachhas providedanannualoperatinggranttothelibrarywhiletheDelrayBeachPublic LibraryAssociation,Inc.hasraisedfundsfor-itscapitalexpenses.Thislong standingarrangementhasbeenfundamental.tothegrowthandsuccessofthe library._ Sincemovingtoourlocationat100WestAtlanticAvenue,theDelrayBeachPublic LibraryhasreceivedaBusinessRecognitionAward(2006)fromtheGreaterDelray BeachChamberofCommerceandwasrecentlyrecognizedastheir2011-2012Non- ProfitOrganizationoftheYear.TheDelrayBeachPublicLibraryisproudofits accomplishmentsandpartnerships. Asauseroftheservice,theDelrayBeachPublicLibraryisfamiliarwiththe proceduresinvolvedintheadministrationoftheCityofDelrayBeachoff-dutypolice detailsincludingscheduling,worksheets,andbilling.Welookforwardtoworking withthecityandourcommunityinfutureendeavorsandcontinueddevelopment. Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration. )®CERTIFICATEOFLIABILITYINSURANCE I DATE(MM/DDIYYYY) - 11/23/2011 THISCERTIFICATEISISSUEDASAMATTEROFINFORMATIONONLYANDCONFERSNORIGHTSUPONTHECERTIFICATEHOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATEDOESNOTAFFIRMATIVELYORNEGATIVELYAMEND,EXTENDORALTERTHECOVERAGEAFFORDEDBYTHEPOLICIES BELOW.THISCERTIFICATEOFINSURANCEDOESNOTCONSTITUTEACONTRACTBETWEENTHEISSUINGINSURER(S),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVEORPRODUCER,ANDTHECERTIFICATEHOLDER.IMPORTANT:IfthecertificateholderisanADDITIONALINSURED,thepolicy(ies)mustbeendorsed.IfSUBROGATIONISWAIVED,subjectto thetermsandconditionsofthepolicy,certainpoliciesmayrequireanendorsement.Astatementonthiscertificatedoesnotconferrightstothe certificateholderinlieuofsuchendorsement(s).PRODUCER ~R~~~CTEveJ.ynAmbJ.er,AAI Weekes &Callaway, Inc.~~g~~FY'"(561)278-0448 I rt;~Nol:(561)276-2391 3945 WestAtlanticAvenue ~n~J~"".eambJ.er@"eekescalla'~ay.com INSURER(S)AFFORDINGCOVERAGE NAIC# DelrayBeach FL 33445-3902 INSURERA:PhiladelphiaInsuranceCO. INSURED INSURERB:ContinentalCasualty :)0443 DelrayBeachPublicLibraryAssociation, Inc.INSURERc: 100 W.AtlanticAvenue INSURERD: INSURERE:DelravBeach FL 33444 INSURERF: COVERAGES CERTIFICATENUMBER:CLll1l2302024 REVISIONNUMBER: THISISTOCERTIFYTHATTHEPOLICIESOFINSURANCELISTEDBELOWHAVEBEENISSUEDTOTHEINSUREDNAMEDABOVEFORTHEPOLICYPERIOD INDICATED.NOTWITHSTANDINGANYREQUIREMENT,TERMORCONDITIONOFANYCONTRACTOROTHERDOCUMENTWITHRESPECTTOWHICHTHIS CERTIFICATEMAYBEISSUEDORMAYPERTAIN,THEINSURANCEAFFORDEDBYTHEPOLICIESDESCRIBEDHEREINISSUBJECTTOALLTHETERMS,EXCLUSIONSANDCONDITIONSOFSUCHPOLICIES.LIMITSSHOWNMAYHAVEBEENREDUCEDBYPAIDCLAIMS.INSR TYPEOFINSURANCE ADDL SUBR (~2Mgiv~POLICYEXP LIMITS LTR II",,,,,Iwvn POLICYNUMBER I(MMIDD/YYVYI GENERALLIABILITY EACHOCCURRENCE $1,000,000 -DAMAGETORENTED ~ :=fMERCIALGENERALLIABILITY PREMISES(Eaoccurrence)$100,000 A CLAIMS-MADE W OCCUR IPHPK7B6025 10/20/2011 .0/20/2012 MEDEXP(Anyoneperson)$10,000 -PERSONAL &ADVINJURY $1,000,000 GENERALAGGREGATE $2,000,000 ~'LAGG~nELIMITAPnSPER: PRODUCTS-COM~OPAGG $2,000,000 X POLICY ~b',Q,:LOC $ AUTOMOBILELlABIUTY I~~~~~~~t\SINGLELIMIT ~1000000 f-- A ANYAUTO BODILYINJURY(Perperson)$I--ALLO'MJED -SCHEDULED PHPK786025 10/20/2012 10/20/2011 80DILYINJURY(Peraccident)$I--AUTOS -AUTOS X X NON-0WNED ip~~~;~d~tPAMAGE $I--HIREDAUTOS -AUTOS $X UMBRELLALIAB H OCCUR EACHOCCURRENCE $2,000,000 f--A EXCESSLlAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $2,000,000 DED I X I RETENTION $ lO,OOC IPHUB362496 10/20/2011 10/20/2012 $B WORKERSCOMPENSATION X IT~~$TtJI¥SI IOJ~-ANDEMPLOYERS'LIABILITY Y/N ANYPROPRIETORIPARTNERlEXECUTIVE D N/A E.L.EACHACCIDENT $500000 OFFICER/MEMBEREXCLUDED?we 248538724 1/1/2011 /1/2012 (MandatoryInNH)E.L.DISEASE-EAEMPLOYEE $500000 gm~~ir8~'g'~~PERATIONSbelow E.L.DISEASE-POLICYLIMIT $500000 DESCRIPTIONOFOPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES(AttachACORD101,AdditionalRemar1<sSchedule,if morespaceisrequired) FJ.oridastatuterequiresTen (10)DaysNoticeofCanceJ.J.ationforNonPaymentofPremium. CERTIFICATEHOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULDANYOFTHEABOVEDESCRIBEDPOLICIESBECANCELLEDBEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN PROOFOFINSURANCE ACCORDANCEWITHTHEPOLICYPROVISIONS. AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE RoseMcEwen, CIC/JDS ~~~/Z~.,.../ ACORD25 (2010/05)©1988-2010ACORDCORPORATION.Allrightsreserved. T&...•.•.A1"'I""\On••.•1••:_.•.••.•11__~A""''''Of'''\ Drug-FreeWorkplace BecausetheLibraryiscommittedtoasafeandhealthyworkplace,weherebyannounceour Drug-FreeWorkplaceProgramandadoptthefollowingpolicyondrugandalcoholabuse. TheLibraryisdoingthisbecauseitrecognizesthatdrugandalcoholabuseinthe workplaceincreasestheriskofaccidentstoallemployeesandisasignificantfactorleading todecreasedproductivity,highturnover,anddecreasedmorale.Thispolicyconformswith F.A.C.38F.9.005(2)(a). Policy TheDelrayBeachPublicLibrarywillnottoleratetheuseofillegaldrugsbyit employees,eitheronoroffthejob,ortheuseofalcoholonthejob. ~Therefore,theLibrarywilltest,attheLibrary'sexpense,alljobapplicantsfordrug oralcoholuseasoutlinedinthisPolicy.Further,ifareasonablesuspicionexists thatacurrentemployeeisinviolationofthisPolicy,theLibrarywilltest,atthe Library'sexpense,anysuchemployeefordrugoralcoholuse.Suchtestingmaytake placeasaregularpartoffitnessfordutyexaminations,afterawork-relatedinjury, and/orasafollow-upproceduretoanydrugoralcoholtreatmentprogram. ~Apositivedrugtestcanleadtowithdrawalofanofferofemploymenttoanapplicant orterminationofanemployee.Anycurrentemployeewhotestspositiveforillegal drugsoralcoholwillbereferredtotheEmployeeAssistanceProgram(EAP).All drugtestingwillconformtotherequirementsofthisPolicyandtoStateandFederal law. Possessionofillegaldrugsandalcoholonpremises: Employeeswhobringillegaldrugsoralcoholtoworkaresubjecttoimmediate EmployeeAssistanceProgramreferral. ~Drugsandalcoholwillnotbepermittedintheworkplace.Anyemployeein possessionoforusingalcoholorillegaldrugsontheLibrary'spremisesduring workinghourswillbesubjecttoimmediatereferraltotheEmployeeAssistance Program(EAP),aprogramtohelpemployeesovercomedrugand/oralcohol addiction.TheLibrary'spremisesincludeparkinglotsandotheroutlyingareas. ~Asecondincidentinvolvingpossessionofdrugsand/oralcoholontheLibrary's premisesduringworkinghoursshallresultinimmediatetermination.Asecond incidentofuseofalcoholorillegaldrugsontheLibrary'spremisesduringworking hoursshallresultinimmediatetermination.Suchuseorpossessionofalcohol and/orillegaldrugsforasecondtimeontheLibrary'spremiseswillbereportedtoa supervisorwhowillverifyandreporttheincidenttothepersonresponsiblefor terminatingemployees. VisibleImpairment: Employeeswillnotbeallowedtoworkwhileundertheinfluenceofdrugsor alcohol. ~Anyemployeewhoreportstoworkvisiblyimpairedorbecomesvisiblyimpaired whileatworkwillnotbeallowedtocontinuework.Anemployeeorothersupervisor whoobservesanotheremployeewhoappearstobevisiblyimpairedshouldseekthe opinionofasupervisororcompetentco-workerregardingthenatureanddegreeof theemployee'simpairment.Thesupervisorofthevisiblyimpairedemployeeshould consultprivatelywiththatemployeetodeterminethereasonfortheimpairment.If, intheopinionoftwosupervisorsorasupervisorandanadditionalcompetentco- worker,theemployee'svisibleimpairmentistheresultofalcoholorillegaldrugs, theaffectedemployeewillberequiredtosubmittodrugtestingasoutlinedinthe reasonablesuspicionportionoftheActiveEmployeeDrugTestingsectionofthis policy.Ontheoccasionwhenthevisibleimpairmentisobservedandemployeeisnot requiredtosubmittodrugtesting.Theemployeewillbesenthomeimmediatelyby taxiorothersafetransportationincludingtransportationbyanotheremployee,if necessary. Pre-EmploymentDrugTesting: Joboffersareconditionalpendingpre-employmentdrug-testresults. ~OffersofemploymenttoajobapplicantswhomeettheLibrary'sstandardsfor employment,willbeconditionaluponthejobapplicantsubmittingtoadrugtestto determinethepresenceofillegaldrugsoralcoholabuse.Thistestwillbe administeredincompliancewithbothstateandfederallawsandwillbeconducted onlybyatestingalaboratoryapprovedtheFloridaAgencyforHealthCare Administration. ~Jobapplicantsshallreceivealistofcommonmedicationswhichmayalteroraffecta drugtest.Thislistwillincludetheindexofsuchmedicationsasdevelopedand updatedperiodicallybytheFloridaAgencyforHealthCareAdministrationorthe DepartmentofLaborandEmploymentSecurity.Inaddition,jobapplicantswillbe giventhenames,addresses,andtelephonenumbersofapprovedlocalalcoholand drugrehabilitationprograms. ~Personsreceivingaconditionaljobofferwillhaveanopportunitytoconfidentially reporttotheMedicalReviewOfficer(MRO)concerningtheuseofanyprescriptionor non-prescriptionmedicationsbothbeforeandafterbeingtested. Adrugtestindicatingtheuseofillegaldrugsoralcoholabusewillresultinrevocationofan offerofemployment.Jobapplicantswillhavetherighttochallengeanydrugtestor requestaretestatthejobapplicant'sexpense.Theproceduresforchallengingadrugtest orrequestingaretestareoutlinedundertheReviewofTestResultssectionofthisPolicy. ActiveEmployeeDrugTesting: TheDelrayBeachPublicLibraryreservestherighttoaskanyemployeeto submittodrugtestingunderthefollowingconditions: 1.Whenanemployeeisinvolvedinanaccidentwhichcausesinjurytohimselforto anyotherpersonordamagetoanyproperty.If,becauseoftheaccident,an employeeisunabletosubmittodrugtestingimmediately,theemployeewill authorizethereleaseofanymedicalreportsordocumentationtotheMROregarding thepresenceofillegaldrugsoralcoholintheemployee'sbodyatthetimeofthe accident.Refusaltoagreetothisreleaseofinformationwillresultinterminationof theemployee. 2.When,intheopinionoftwosupervisorsorasupervisorandanadditionalcompetent co-worker,areasonablesuspicionexiststhatanemployeemaybeabusingorunder theinfluenceofillegaldrugsoralcohol.Insuchcircumstances,thesupervisory 2 personnelwilldocument,inwriting,thebasisfortheirreasonablesuspicion.Ifthe reasonablesuspicionisbasedonareportbyanotherperson,thisreportmustbe confirmedbyasupervisor. 3.Whenanemployeehassoldorotherwisesolicitedanyotherpersontoobtain,use,or purchaseillegaldrugsoralcoholduringworkinghours,orthereisareasonable suspicionbyasupervisorthatsuchactivitieshavetakenplace.Insuch circumstances,thesupervisorypersonnelwilldocument,inwriting,thebasisforthe reasonablesuspicion.Ifthereasonablesuspicionisbasedonareportbyanother person,thisreportmustbeconfirmedbyasupervisor.Nothinghereinshallprevent theLibraryfromimmediatelyterminatinganyemployeewhosellsorotherwise solicitsillegaldrugsorprovidesorsellsalcoholtoanyotherpersonduringworking hoursuponareportbythesupervisortothepersoninchargeofterminating employees. 4.Whenitisaroutinepartofanyrequiredemployeefitnessfordutyexamination. 5.Whenitisafollow-upprocedurethatispartofareferraltotheEmployeeAssistance Programorenrollmentinadrugoralcoholabuseprogram.Thisfollow-uptesting willcontinueatrandomfortwoyearsafterreferraltoanEmployeeAssistance Programorenrollmentinadrugoralcoholabuseprogram.TheLibraryreserves therighttowaivefollow-uptestingintheeventanemployeevoluntarilysubmitsto anEmployeeAssistanceProgramorsubstanceabuseprogram. LossofWorkers'CompensationBenefits-DrugRuleStatement: Employeeswhoareinjuredonthejobwillbedrugtested.Resultsthatindicate theuseofillegaldrugsoralcoholmaycauselossofworkers'compensation benefits. ~Ifanemployeeisinjuredinthescopeofhisorheremploymentanddrugstestsor othermedicalevidenceindicatesthepresenceofdrugsoralcoholintheemployee's bodyatthetimeoftheaccident,theemployeemayberequiredtoforfeitanymedical orindemnitybenefitsavailableundertheFloridaWorkers'CompensationStatute (F.S.400.101(2».Thispenaltyisinadditiontoanyothersthatmightapplyeither underthispolicyorunderapplicablelaw. ConfidentialityStatement: Alldrugtestresultsarestrictlyconfidential. ~Alltestresultsofactiveemployeeswillbestrictlyconfidential,exceptinthe followingcircumstances: 1.Whentheemployeehasgivenconsenttomaketestresultsknown;or 2.Whenplacedatissuebytheemployeeinanylegal,administrative,orother proceedingtodeterminecompensabilityofaworkers;compensationclaimor asotherwiseprovidedbylaw. 3.Anytestresultthatindicatestheuseofillegaldrugsoralcoholabusewill resultinterminationasprovidedherein. MedicationDisclosureProcedure: DisclosureoftheuseofmedicationstotheMROisconfidential. ~Anemployeewillhaveanopportunitytoconfidentiallyreporttheuseofprescription ornon-prescriptionmedicationstothemedicalreviewofficer(MRO)atthedrug- testinglaboratorybothbeforeandafterbeingtested.Suchreportsbyanemployee willnotbecomeapartoftheemployee'spersonnelfile.Eachemployeewillalso receivealistofcommonmedicationswhichmayalteroraffectadrugtest.Thislist willincludetheindexofsuchmedicationsasdevelopedandupdatedperiodicallyby theFloridaAgencyforHealthCareAdministrationortheDepartmentofLaborand EmploymentSecurity.Inaddition,anemployeewillbegiventhenames,addresses, andtelephonenumbersofapproved,localalcoholanddrugrehabilitationprograms andwillbegivenaccesstoanEmployeeAssistanceProgram. ~Further,anemployeehastherighttochallengeanydrugtestorrequestaretestat theemployee'sexpense.Theproceduresforchallengingadrugtestorrequestinga retestareoutlinedundertheReviewofTestResultssectionofthisPolicy. ConsequencesofRefusingaDrugTestorTreatment: Refusaltocooperatewillresultintermination. 1.RefusaltoCooperate: JobApplicants: ~Anypersonreceivingaconditionalofferofemploymentwhorefusestosubmitto drugandalcoholtesting,orwhoalters,changesinanyway,orotherwiseinterferes withdrug-testingcolleCtion,samples,oranalysis,isimmediatelydisqualifiedfrom employmentbytheLibrary. Employees: ~Anyemployeewhorefusestosubmittodrugandalcoholtestingwhenrequiredwill bereferredtotheEmployeeAssistanceProgram.Anemployeewhoalters,changes inanyway,orotherwiseinterfereswithdrug-testingcollection,samples,oranalysis, willbeimmediatelyterminatedandmayforfeitanymedicalorindemnitybenefits availableundertheworkers'compensationregulations(F.S.440.101(2». ~AnemployeereferredtotheEmployeeAssistanceProgramforrefusaltosubmitto drugtestingwillberequiredtosubmittofollow-updrugtestingsixtydaysafterthe firstrefusaltosubmittodrugtestingasoutlinedinthefollow-upprovisionsofthe ActiveEmployeeDrugTestingsectionofthispolicy.Asecondrefusaltosubmitto drugtestingorarefusaltosubmittotestingafteranypreviouspositivetestor treatmentforalcoholorillegaldrugswillresultinterminationofemployment. 2)RefusaltoAcceptTreatmentorFailuretoRehabilitate: ~AnyemployeewhorejectsatreatmentprogramofferedthroughtheEmployee AssistanceProgramorwholeavesatreatmentprogrampriortobeingproperly dischargedwillbeimmediatelyterminatedfromemploymentwiththeLibrary.This sanctionappliesregardlessofwhethertheLibraryreferredtoemployeetothe treatmentprogramorEmployeeAssistanceProgramorwhethertheemployee voluntarilysoughttreatment. 4 3)LimitationsonReferraltoEmployeeAssistanceProgram: ~TheLibrarywishestomakeeveryefforttorehabilitateanemployeewhomaybe experiencingdrugand/oralcoholproblems.Therefore,theLibrarywillnotretaliate inanymanneragainstanemployeewhoisreferredtoanEmployeeAssistance Programortreatmentprogramorwhovoluntarilyrefershimself/herselftothe EmployeeAssistanceProgramorsubmitstotreatmentinadrugoralcoholabuse program.However,shouldanemployeebereferredtoanEmployeeAssistance Programfordrugoralcoholtreatmentorenrollinadrugoralcoholtreatment programtwotimeswithinathree-yearperiod,thatemployeewillbeimmediately terminated. EmployeeAssistanceProgram Nameofprovider: Phonenumber: WebAccess: CompanyName: Password: Hours: EmergencyAccess: TheGuardianLifeInsuranceCompany Work-LifeMatters 1-800-386-7055 www.ibhworklife.com Matters wlm70101 9am-5pm,M-F(EST) 24/7 Reviewofdrug-testresultsandemployeerighttocontestorexplaindrug-test results: Anemployeehastherighttocontestresults. ReviewofTestResults: Alltestresultsofeitherjobapplicantsoremployeeswillbereviewedbythe MedicalReviewOfficer(MRO). VerificationofTestResults: ~TheMROshallevaluatethedrugtestresultsofanemployeeorjobapplicantand verifythatthespecimenswerecollected,transported,andanalyzedunderproper procedures.TheMROshallmakethisdeterminationbycheckinganychainof custodyformsforrequiredsignatures,procedures,andinformation.Ifanemployee orjobapplicantfailsadrugtest,theMROshallalsodetermineifanyalternative medicalexplanationcausedtheemployeeorjobapplicanttofail.TheMROshall maintaintheconfidentialityofanyinformationreceivedfromdrugtests,except:as authorizedbytheemployeeorjobapplicant;asotherwiseprovidedbylaw;or,if placedatissuebytheemployeeorjobapplicantinanylegal,administrativeorother proceeding. ContactwithEmployeeorJobApplicant: ~Intheeventajobapplicantoremployeefailsadrugtest,theMROwillinformthe employeeorjobapplicantoftheresultwithinthreedaysafterMROreceivesthetest resultfromthetestinglaboratoryorclinic.Theemployeeorjobapplicantwillhave 5 fivedaysafternotificationfromtheMROtodiscussthetestresultswiththeMRO, submitdocumentationofanyprescriptiondrugsrelevanttothetestresulttothe MRO,orrequestaretestattheemployeeorjobapplicant'sexpense. MROInabilitytoContactEmployee/JobApplicant: MROcontactwithemployee/jobapplicant. >-IftheMROisunabletocontactanemployeeorjobapplicantwithinthreedays,the MROshallcontacttheLibraryandrequestthattheLibrarydirecttheemployeeor jobapplicanttocontacttheMROassoonaspossible.Iftheemployeeorjob applicantdoesnotcontacttheMROwithintwodaysfromthedateofrequestbythe Library,theMROshallverifythatthejobapplicantoremployeefailedthedrugtest. Shouldthejobapplicantoremployeepresentsatisfactorydocumentationthat seriousillness,injury,orothercircumstancesunavoidablypreventedcontactwith theMROwithinthespecifiedtimelimitandprovidelegitimateexplanationsforthe failureofthedrugtest,theMROmaychangethetestresult.If,however,thejob applicantoremployeerefusestotalkwiththeMROregardingadrug-testfailure, theMROshallvalidatethefailureandrecordtherefusaltodiscussthefailurein theremarkssectionoftheverificationform. ExplanationforDrugTestResults: TheMROwillreviewallresultscarefully. >-Mter contactinganemployeeorjobapplicant,theMROwillinquirewhether prescriptionorover-the-countermedicationsweretakenthatcouldcauseapositive testresult.IftheMROdeterminesthattheemployee'sinformationisnota legitimatemedicalexplanationforthepositivetestresult,theMROwill,within15 days,giveawrittenexplanationofthetestfindingstotheemployer. >-IftheMROdeterminesthatalegitimatemedicalexplanationexistsforthetest result,theMROshallreporttotheLibrarythattheemployeeorjobapplicant passedthedrugtest.If,however,thelegitimatemedicalexplanationiscausedby legaluseofaprescriptionorover-the-countermedicationandtheMROfeelsthat thelegaluseofthedrugwouldendangertheemployeeorjobapplicant,orifthe employeeorjobapplicantisinasafety-sensitiveorspecial-riskposition,theMRO mayrecommendthattheemployeeorjobapplicantpassedthedrugtest;however, theMROshallrequestthattheLibraryplacetheemployeeorjobapplicantina positionwhichwouldnotthreatenthesafetyoftheemployeeorjobapplicant. 6 RetestRequests: Retestingconductedafterwrittentestresultsreceived. RetestRequestsbyanEmployeeorJobApplicant »Shouldanemployeeorjobapplicantrequestaretestofanoriginalspecimen,the MRO willprocessthisrequestwithin180daysaftertheoriginaltest.Theretest willconformtoallthesamerequirementsandproceduresapplicabletotheoriginal test.TheretestwilloccuratanotherlaboratoryapprovedbytheFloridaAgencyfor HealthCareAdministrationandbeselectedbytheemployeeorjobapplicant.The employeeorjobapplicantshallbearthecostofthisretest.Anyretestmustbedone ontheoriginalspecimenbecausetheoriginaltestresultscannotbeverifiedusinga newspeCImen. RetestRequestsbytheMRO: »Shouldthe MRO questionthevalidityofthetestingprocedure,the MRO may,athis orhersolediscretion,(1)orderare-analysisoftheoriginalsampleatanylaboratory orclinicapprovedbytheFloridaAgencyforHealthCareAdministration;or(2) requestadditionalsamplesfromtheemployeeorjobapplicantfortesting. TypesofTestsConducted: Thetypesofdrugtestsrequiredbylaw. »Initialtestsforalldrugsotherthanalcoholshalluseanimmunoassaymethod. Initialtestsforalcoholshalluseanenzymeoxidationmethod.Allteststoconfirm aninitialpositiveresultfordrugsotherthanalcoholshallusea'gas chromatography/massspectrometrymethod.Allteststoconfirmpositiveresultsfor alcoholshalluseagaschromatographymethod. NotificationoftheDelrayBeachPublicLibrary: HowandwhentheLibraryisnotifiedofresults. »Mtercontactingtheemployeeorjobapplicant,asoutlinedinthissection,and conductinganyretests,the MRO willnotifytheLibrary,inwriting,oftheverified testresults,whethernegative,positive,orinvalid.Ifthe MRO,employee,orjob applicantrequestsaretest,the MRO willreportonlytheverifiedresultsofthe retesttotheLibrary.The MRO willfileanyrequiredchainofcustodyformsunder confidentialprocedures.The MRO willmaintaintheseformsforfiveyearsfromthe dateofthetest. HowEmployerNotifiesEmployeeofPositiveTestResults: »Withinfiveworkingdaysafterthereceiptofthepositiveconfirmedtestresultsfrom the MRO,theemployershallinformtheemployeeinwritingofsuchpositivetest results,theconsequencesofsuchresults,andtheoptionsavailabletotheemployee includingtherighttofileanadministrativeorlegalchallenge.(F.A.C.38F- 9.008(3».(Asampleletterisenclosed.) Employee'sDutytoNotifyLaboratoryofLegalActionConcerningTestResults: Employeemustnotify30daysinadvanceoflegalaction. »AnemployeeisrequiredtonotifytheLibraryandthedrug-testinglaboratorythirty dayspriortobringinganylegalactionconcerningtheresultsofadrugtest.Such notificationshallbeaconditionprecedenttoanysuchlegalaction.(38F-9.005(2)(h). 7 CompleteListofDrugsTested: TheDelrayBeachPublicLibrarymaytestforthefollowingdrugs: Alcohol(beer,wine,booze,liquor,etc.) Amphetamines(speed,eve,Biphetamine,Desoxyn,Dexedrineetc.) Cannabinoids(marijuana,hashish,hash,hashoil,pot,joint,reefer,roach,spleaf,grass, weed,etc.) Cocaine(coke,blow,snow,flake,crack,etc.) Phencyclidine(PCP,angeldust,hog,etc.) Hallucinogens(LSD,acid,mushrooms,shrooms,etc.) Methaqualone(Quaaludes,ludes,etc.) Opiates(heroin,codeine,morphine,opium,Dover'spowder,paregoric,parepectolin,etc.) Barbiturates(Phenobarbital,butabarbital,secobarbital,tuinal,amytal,etc.) Benzodiazepine(Librium,Valium,Ativan,Azene,Clonopin,Dalmone,Diazepam, Halcyon,Poxipam,Restoril,Serax,Transene,Vertron,Xanax,etc. Syntheticnarcotics,includingmethadone(dolophine,methodose,etc.) Designerdrugs(ecstasy,etc.) TheLibraryreservestherighttoexpandorotherwisemodifythenumberortypesof drugstestedatanytime. TheLibrarywillprovideemployeeswithsixtydayswrittennoticeofanyexpansionor modificationofthedrugstestedundertheLibrary'sPolicy. CollectiveBargainingStatement: NothinginthisPolicyisintendedtoaffectthoserightsprovidedforbyanycollective bargainingagreementbetweentheLibraryanditsemployees. Employee'sRighttoConsultLaboratory: Employeelegalrights ~AllemployeesmayconsultwiththetestinglaboratoryorMROfortechnical informationregardingtheeffectsofprescriptionandnon-prescriptionmedications ondrugtesting.Anyconsultationbyanemployeewiththetestinglaboratoryor MROforthepurposeofgainingtechnicalinformationshallbeconfidential.An MROmustsupplytechnicalinformationtoanyemployeewhofailsadrugtest. ReportofDrugConvictions: ~EmployeesshallreportanydrugconvictiontotheLibrarywithinfivedaysfromthe dateofconviction.TheLibrarywillreporttheconvictiontoanyFederalagencywith whichtheLibraryhasacontract,orifotherwiserequiredbyFederallaw,withinten daysfromthenotificationoftheconvictionbytheemployee.Theemployeewillbe referredtotheEmployeeAssistanceProgramimmediatelyuponnotificationofthe conviction.AfailuretoreportadrugconvictiontotheLibrarywithintheapplicable timeperiodswillresultinimmediateterminationoftheemployee,unlessgoodcause existsfortheemployee'sfailuretoreporttheconvictiontotheLibrary.Arrestfora drugoralcoholoffenseshallbeconsideredreasonablesuspicion,allowingthe Librarytotestthearrestedemployeeforthepresenceofalcoholand/orillegaldrugs. 8 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Doug Smith, Assistant City Manager Richard J. Reade, Sustainability Officer/PIO THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 8, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.G. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 2012 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a request for approva l of the proposed 2012 State Legislative Priorities . BACKGROUND This year, the State Legislature is meeting earlier than usual (beginning January 10, 2012) due to its requirement to complete the redistricting (redrawin g of Florida's political boundary lines to reflect changes in population). Thus, the City has develope d a list of "Key Issues" to be considered and approved by the City Commission. During the City Commission's Workshop meeting on No vember 8th, 2011, staff presented a draft of the 2012 Legislative Priorities for the Commission's re view and comment. The Legislative Priorities outlined the City's position on various Key Issues, including: Tax Reform, Finance & Other Budget Related Issues, Home Rule, Public Safety Issues, Tr ansportation Issues, Planning Related Issues, Environmental Issues, Voting & Public Information a nd Appropriation Issues. Since this Workshop staff has incorporated one new issue into the proposed Priorities that is related to a proposed change in the South Florida Regional Trans portation Authority (SFRTA) board member selection process. The suggested City position is t hat the SFRTA should maintain its independent authority to appoint three (3) local citizen board members and the board's statutory authority to expe nd local funding. Please Note : Following the Commission’s November 2011 Workshop meeting and as requested b y the Commission, a letter was sent to each member of the City’s State Legislative Delegation requesting their position on each of the items that were inclu ded within the City’s draft Legislative Priorities. To date, the City has received one response (See Attac hed). The City's 2012 Legislative Priorities, if approved , will be forwarded to each member of the City's St ate Legislative Delegation, the Florida League of Citie s, the Palm Beach County League of Cities, the media, staff and the public. In addition, staff wil l create a tri-fold brochure that can be easily distributed to members of the State Legislature, the media and the public as needed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the City's 2012 State Legislative Priorities document. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 2012 KEY STATE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES TAX REFORM, FINANCE & OTHER BUDGET RELATED ISSUES Develop Fair and Equitable Tax Structure: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides a fair and equitable tax structure and allows municipalities the flexibility to provide th e level of services desired by their citizens. Legislation should be developed tha t SUPPORTS simplifying and stabilizing Florida’s state and local tax revenue s tructure in a manner that provides fairness for both citizens and businesses of our state, while addressing the realities that the current statewide constituti onal taxing structure imposes on all levels of government. Arbitrary caps on propert y assessments, municipal expenditures or municipal revenues should be OPPOSED . Revenue & Expenditure Caps – TABOR: The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES artificial or “one size fits all” caps on revenues and expenditures through legislation and/or Constitutional restrictions on t he City’s authority to determine local tax burden and/or financial commitments to se rvices or quality of life such as Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Unfunded Mandates to Local Governments: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that strengthens the prohibition on ex isting and new unfunded mandates, requires enhanced staff analyses and quantification of the costs to cities and ensures full funding sources be assigned whenever unfunded mandates are identified. The legislature should SUPPORT revisions to the current unfunded mandates provision of the Florida Constitution that would eliminate unnecessary exemptions. The revision shou ld also ensure that any proposed law which contains an unfunded mandate con tain only a single subject matter and be enacted by three-fourths vote of each house of the Legislature, only after a duly noticed public hearing at which a current fiscal analysis is available. Municipal Pension Plans: The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES legislation that diminishes municipal control over municipal employe e pension plan management and funding or that increases municipal funding lia bilities. The City will Page 2 version #2 – 12/8/11 SUPPORT legislation that provides comprehensive municipal f irefighter and police officer pension reform and any comprehensive pension reform package should address the issue of the insurance premium t ax revenues and the requirement that additional revenues be used for ne w, “extra” pension benefits. The City will SUPPORT legislation that would: • Allow the purchase of past service credit at the 3% rate, rather than the current law’s 2% rate, for cities that join the Flo rida Retirement System; • Restrain the Florida Division of Retirement’s non-r ule-based administrative activities and restrict the division’s broad interp retations of the provisions in Chapters 112, 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, tha t result in increased costs to pension plan sponsors; • Allow deviation from state requirements if agreed t o by the employees or their union; • Require that determinations of average final compen sation in defined- benefit pension plans include salary only, and do n ot include pay for overtime or any other additional payments; and • Allow recipients (cities and special districts) of insurance premium tax revenues under Chapters 175 or 185, Florida Statute s, to use these funds to pay for the costs of current plans and to lower required plan contributions from the plan sponsor. • Current law should be changed so that if a firefigh ter or police officer pension plan does not accept insurance premium tax revenues, then the insurance premium tax should not be charged in that jurisdiction. • Prohibit increases in employer contributions. • Provide for accountability of police and fire pensi on boards of trustees. Police Officer and Firefighter Disability Presumpti ons: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that modifies the current statutory di sability presumptions for firefighters and law enforcement o fficers relating to tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension, inclu ding HB 365 (which also incorporates changes to police and fire pension pla ns). HOME RULE Public Officers/Severance Pay: The City SUPPORTS the repeal of SB 88, passed in 2011, that restricts severance pay for an y public officer, agent, employee or contractor. The bill removes Home Rule authority over severance pay by creating a limit of up to 20 weeks of severa nce pay. Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition: The City SUPPORTS the repeal of HB 45, passed in 2011, which prohibits the City fro m implementing enforcement action policies regarding firearms and ammunition r egulation. Page 3 version #2 – 12/8/11 PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES Fireworks Regulation: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that strengthens state and local regulations on the sale of fireworks and their illegal use. The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES legislation that limits local regulation, or enforcement, of illegal fireworks. Pain Management Clinics: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS implementation of a mandatory Prescription Drug Mon itoring Program with full funding provided by the State. The City also SUPPORTS legislation that increases the ability of law enforcement to address prescription drug abuse and that limits ownership relationships between pain cl inics and pharmacies. Texting While Driving: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS the modification of traffic statutes to include texting while drivin g as an element of careless driving. Sober Houses: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS full enforcement of existing state regulations on substance abuse provi der licensing. Pursuant to 65D-30.003, Florida Administrative Code, all substa nce abuse components must be provided by persons or entities that are license d by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), unless otherwise exemp t from licensing. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Transportation Funding: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides proportionate, dedicated and recurring rev enue sources for multi-modal municipal and regional transportation projects to e nsure that local conditions and needs are addressed. The City will SUPPORT legislation that: • Authorizes the Florida Department of Transportation to increase funding to support local and regional transportation and trans it alternatives, including “complete street” programs • Prohibits the transfer of State Transportation Trus t Funds for non- transportation purposes South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SF RTA): The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES any changes to the membership of the SFRTA that would remove the SFRTA’s independent authority to a ppoint three (3) local citizen appointees. The City also OPPOSES any changes to the SFRTA’s statutory authority to expend local funding that is provided to the SFRTA. Red Light Cameras: The City OPPOSES legislation that repeals the current authorization in the Florida Statutes for red light camera programs. Page 4 version #2 – 12/8/11 PLANNING RELATED ISSUES Growth Management: The City of Delray Beach will continue to monitor the effects of the Growth Management legislation passed during the 2011 session. Internet Cafes: The City SUPPORTS legislation that will either regulate businesses operating internet “sweepstakes” gaming activities under the gaming commission, or find them in violation of Florida St atues - Chapter 849 and prosecuted accordingly. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Beach Renourishment: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation preserving funding within the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund , to support beach restoration projects throughout the State. This funding is important to the City of Delray Beach due to the on going renourishment project for our 2.65 mile beach. Both State & Federal Fund ing for this project are critical to this important, ongoing project. Reclaimed Water: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation clarifying that reclaimed water is an integral component of th e City’s water supply plan and permitted discharge strategy that should not be subject to additional regulatory actions by the water management district s. Furthermore the City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that prohibits water management distri cts from reducing currently permitted raw water withdra wal rates and quantities from water utility consumptive use permits if deman d reductions occur resulting from reclaimed water use, irrigation restrictions, or any other water conservation measure. The City also SUPPORTS legislation which provides that any quantities of water made available by the use and/o r generation of reclaimed water should be allocated to the reclaimed water pr ovider, and which supports the home rule powers of a municipality to create "m andatory reuse zones" within its jurisdiction. Water Management District Governance and Authority: The City of Delray Beach will support legislation that amends the powe rs and duties of the water management districts. Such legislation should: • Require legislative ratification of any proposed ru le change proposed by a water management district that imposes a financial impact on a local government; • Clarify that water management districts lack author ity over reclaimed water; and Page 5 version #2 – 12/8/11 • Specify that water management districts have no aut hority to require local government adoption or repeal of ordinances or to m andate the review or approval of any ordinance. Total Maximum Daily Loads – Florida Department of E nvironmental Protection Allocation Methodology: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that strengthens existing law to requir e that water quality pollution reduction standards be based on the best available valid data applicable to the specific impaired water body. This legislation shou ld require that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) forma lly integrate the considerations required by Section 403.067(6)(b), F lorida Statutes, into its process when establishing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and incorporate this information into the written record whenever i t proposes and or adopts a TMDL. VOTING & PUBLIC INFORMATION Referendum Campaign Involvement: The City of Delray Beach will SUPPORT legislation to remove restrictions in F.S. 106.113 that prohibit a local government, or any person on the local government’s behalf, from spending public money to advocate for the passage or defeat of any issue, referendum, or amendment going to a public vote. Early Voting Sites: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation which would permit the Supervisor of Elections with the o ption to designate any permanent public facility as an early voting site. Public Notices: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that would authorize municipalities to provide public notice a nd advertising by means other than newspapers (i.e. Internet posting and other su itable alternatives). APPROPRIATION ISSUES Judicial System Funding: The City of Delray Beach strongly SUPPORTS the full funding of the State Attorney, Public Defender offices and the Judiciary. Reduced court funding has a significant impact on p ublic safety due to the inability to complete the processing of cases. The City makes arrests, but the court system is so overwhelmed due to reductions in funding that cases are “no filed” or “nolle prossed” by the State Attorney’s o ffice or lost in court due to speedy trial requirements. Thus, full funding of t he court system to include the Juvenile Assessment Centers statewide is critical t o public safety. The City also SUPPORTS the following revenue enhancements for the court s ystem: • Expansion of the $65 mandatory court fee to be appl ied to civil cases in addition to the already allowed criminal cases. Thi s fee would allow for additional revenue to fund the state court system. Page 6 version #2 – 12/8/11 • Continuation and enhancement of the $2.00 recording fee to be distributed to counties to fund court-related technology needs. • Full funding for statewide traffic hearing officer programs. EMS Grants: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS continued funding of the Florida Emergency Medical Services’ (EMS) matching grant programs provided by the Florida Department of Health - Bureau of Eme rgency Medical Services. The programs are authorized to improve and expand E MS statewide. Parks and Recreation Funding: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS expanded funding of the Florida Recreation Developm ent Assistance Program (FRDAP) under the Florida Department of Environment al Protection (FDEP). This program provides important financial assistance to local governments for development and/or acquisition of land for public o utdoor recreational purposes. 2012 Key Dates November 2011 14-18 House/Senate Interim Committee Meetings 17-18 Florida League of Cities Legislative Conference – H yatt Regency, Orlando International Airport Hotel, Orlando, Florida December 2011 5-9 House/Senate Interim Committee Meetings January 2012 10 Opening Day of the 2012 Regular Legislative Sessio n 11-12 Florida League of Mayors Tallahassee Fly-In – Tall ahassee, Florida 25 Florida League of Cities Legislative Action Day - Leon County Civic Center, Tallahassee, Florida March 2012 9 Last Day of the 2012 Regular Legislative Session 12-16 National League of Cities Congressional City Confe rence - Washington, D.C. Page 7 version #2 – 12/8/11 August 2012 23-25 Florida League of Cites Annual Conference - Westin Diplomat, Hollywood, Florida November 2012 15-16 Florida League of Cities Legislative Conference – Hyatt Regency, Orlando International Airport Hotel, Orlando, Florida Nov.27- National League of Cities Annual Congress of Cities and Exposition - Boston, Dec.1 Massachusetts *All dates subject to change* Tax Reform, Finance & Other Budget Related Issues Fair & Equitable Tax Structure • I support a fair and equitable tax structure. Addi tionally, I support the constitutional amendment (HJR 381) that will be on the 2012 ballot , which places a cap on property insurance for non-homestead increases from 5% to 10 %. TABOR • In this past Legislative session, I did not support TABOR (SJR 958), as the measure would limit the growth of state revenues by the combined rate of inflation and population growth. Unfunded Mandates to Local Government • I am against unfunded mandates. Municipal Pension Plans • I believe it is important to ensure the equitable d istribution of “extra” pension benefits to municipal employees’ pensions. Home Rule Public Officers/Severance Pay • I voted against this SB 88 in the 2011 session and would also like to see it repealed as it restricts severance pay for any public officer, age nt or contractor. Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition: • I support the repeal of HB 45, which prohibits the City from implementing enforcement action policies regarding firearms and ammunition r egulation. As such, I will be filing legislation that would reinstate daycare facilities as well as government buildings (including school board, municipal, county, city an d state offices in addition to constitutional officer’s or special district) into the Florida Statutes as places where guns are banned. Public Safety Fireworks Regulation • I support regulations that strengthen state and loc al regulations on the sale of fireworks and their illegal use. Pain Management Clinics • I support continuation of the database and continui ng to address the limitation of unscrupulous pain management clinics. Texting While Driving • Driving is an activity that requires full concentra tion and composing, reading, and sending text messages will compromise this concentr ation. Therefore, I am a cosponsor of HB 187 the “Minor Traffic Safety Act” a measure to prohibit the use of handheld cellular telephones & other electronic communicatio ns devices by drivers under 18 years of age & persons driving school buses. Sober Houses • I agree that the state of Florida should license so ber homes. Transportation Funding • I support the City’s funding request for transporta tion projects to ensure local conditions and needs are addressed. SFRTA • I believe SFRTA should maintain independent authori ty. Red Light Cameras • I believe we need to keep the red light cameras in place as they currently function. Planning Related Issues Internet Cafes • I agree with the regulation of internet cafes. Environmental Issues Beach Renourishment • I support preserving the Ecosystem Management and R estoration Trust funding to aid in the projects associated with beach renourishment. Reclaimed Water • I support local governments’ efforts to protect our region’s fresh water supply through implementation of best management practices, conser vation strategies, and use of reclaimed water where safe and appropriate. Local governments who proactively conserve fresh water through use of these strategies should not be penal ized for their good efforts by having utility consumptive use permit amounts restricted. Water Management District Governance & Authority • I am researching this issue and will be happy to sh are with you my thoughts on this when I have more information. Total Maximum Daily Loads • I agree that pollution reduction standards must be based on best available scientific data. Voting and Public Information Early Voting Sites • I support permitting the Supervisor of Elections to designate more voting sites as needed. Public Notice • I feel it is good to go beyond the newspapers given our technological society, but do not feel we should forego newspapers altogether. Appropriation Issues Judicial System Funding • I support the funding necessary to support the Stat e Attorney, Public Defender and the Judiciary. EMS Grants • I support state funding for the Florida Emergency Medical Services program to improve and expand EMS services statewide. Parks & Recreation Funding • I support state funding to local governments for de velopment and/or acquisition of land for public outdoor recreational purposes. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 5, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.H. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 BONUS PAYMENT TO JCD SPORTS GROUP, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is being requested to consider bonu s payments to JCD Sports Group for FY10-11. BACKGROUND Per our contracts with JCD Sports Group for golf an d tennis operations, they could receive up to 15% o f the annual base fee for meeting annual performance measures as approved by City Commission. Performance measures are weighted by po ints with a 100 point total and the ability to receive an additional 25 bonus points for special p rojects such as hurricane clean up and other action s. Attached is the bonus payment request received from JCD Sports Group for FY10-11 with point totals they feel should be assigned for each performance m easure in the following amounts: Delray Beach Golf Club $13,335.00 Lakeview Golf Club $ 2,925.00 Tennis Operations $ 6,909.00 Staff concurs with the calculations and this reques t. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available in account 445-4711-572-34.90 for Delray Beach Golf Club, 446-4711-572-34.90 for the Lakeview Golf Club and 001-4215-575-34.90 a nd 001-4210-575-34.90 for Tennis Operations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of bonus payments to JCD Sports Group for golf and tennis operations as requested. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construc tion Richard C. Hasko, Environmental Services Director THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 3, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.I. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 CONTRACT ADDITION (C.O. NO. 2)/BRANG CONSTRUCTION, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Con tract Addition (CO #2) in the amount of $15,471.00 to Brang Construction, Inc. for one (1) additional bus shelter as requested by Palm Tran; a nd for a contract time extension of 208 days; for the ARRA Bus Shelters Project #2009-055. BACKGROUND On February 1, 2011, the Commission awarded a Contr act to Brang Construction, Inc. to install 23 bus shelters throughout the City. The project is funde d through an ARRA grant received by Palm Tran. On July 5, 2011, the City Manager approved an amoun t of $11,166.70, to be paid out of the contract's Contingency Allowance, for the cost of additional w ork required to comply with ADA requirements per Palm Tran. On September 20, 2011, Commission approved Change O rder No. 1 (CO#1) to Brang Construction, Inc. for a contract time extension of fourteen (14) days. In addition, Commission approved an additional amount of $1,548.30 to be paid out of th e contract's Contingency Allowance for additional excavation and flatwork required at Bus Stop #8 (lo cated on Old Germantown Road, west of Homewood Boulevard), to meet ADA requirements. Thi s amount was previously excluded in the total additional cost amount by Brang. Contract Addition (CO #2) is for the purchase and i nstallation of one (1) additional bus shelter at SW 10th Street; which was requested by Palm Tran (high lighted on attached shelter list). CO #2 also includes a contract time extension of 208 days to a ccommodate manufacturing and delivery time; as detailed on the attached Exhibit "A". FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from 101-3163-544-65.70 (ARRA Economic Stimulus Fund/Other Improvements/Transit Stop Bus Shelters). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Contract Addition (CO #2) in the amount of $15,471.00 to Brang Construction, Inc. for one (1) additional bus shelt er as requested by Palm Tran; and for a contract ti me extension of 208 days; for the ARRA Bus Shelters Pr oject. PALM TRAN GRANT Shelter # Palm Tran Route Bus Stop Address / IntersectionNotesFacing DIRPLAN SHEET# Yes7427 Lindell Blvd Is no part of this application NWRmv 1 Yes1112Military Trail @ Atlantic Ave. Gramecy Square SW 1 2 Yes 7429 West Atlantic Ave @ Whatley Road Colony Palms SE 2 New 3 Yes 287 federal Hwy @Mongrove Park Harbourside Rd NE 3 4 Yes 7703 Atlantic Ave @ Congress Square SW 4 New 5 Yes 7618 NE 1st Street @ NE 2nd Ave. (PGW)Astor - Pad instslled SW 5 6 Yes 7352 Old Germantown Rd @ San Bernadino Dr. Pad instslled NW 6 7 Yes 7351 Old Germantown Rd @ SW 36Th Ave. Pad instslled NW 7 8 Yes 7349 Old Germantown Rd @Via Verona Pad instslled NW 8 9 Yes 7428 SW 22nd Ave. @ Germantown SW 9 10 Yes 7346SW 22nd Ave. @ GermantownOriginal Discretionary GrantS E10 11 Yes 220Federal Hwy @Delray PlazaFDOT VarianceSW11New 12 Yes 7409SW 29th St @SW20TH Terr NE12 13 Yes 7362SW 10th Ave In front of TargetSW13 14 Yes 6427 Linton Blvd@ Linton Squares Oaks SE 14 281 SR-5 Is no part of this application NE 16 Rmv 15 Yes222SR-5Transportation Ln.NW 15 16Yes282SR-5 Ave G NE 16 17Yes221SR-5 Fladells Way NW 17 New 18Yes224SR-5 Lindell Blvd-Latitude NW 18 19Yes284SR-5 Delray Plaza SE 19 20Yes219SR-5 Tropic Blvd SW 20 New 21Yes283SR-5Formerly Ralph Buick NE 21 22 Yes 7626 2605 WestAtlanticAve@NW24th Ave Atlantic High School SW 22 23 Yes 7670 2605 WestAtlanticAve@NW24th Ave Atlantic High School NW 23 New 24 Yes 793 10th Ave@Congress Ave NEW ADDITION NE 24 New PROPOSE BUS SHELTERS ARRA BUS SHELTERS MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:P. Nigel Roberts, Neighborhood Services Admini strator Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 9, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.J. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 AMENDMENT TO THE THIRD ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE/310 SOUTHRIDGE ROAD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff request City Commission approval of Amendment of the third addendum to the contract to sell/transfer one (1) NSP property to the Delray Be ach Community Land Trust (DBCLT) for the benefit and resale of the unit to a household with an incom e less than one-hundred percent (120%) of Area Median Income (AMI) as determined by HUD. BACKGROUND The original contract for sale was approved by the Commission at the regular meeting of October 18, 2011. The repayment from the sale of the property f rom the DBCLT to the City has changed from $65,380 to $65,000 based on the new appraised value . The closing of this sale is scheduled for December 28, 2011. The revised addendum is attached for your reference. This item is for the sale/transfer of the property addressed as 310 Southridge Road, Delray Beach, FL 33444. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the third addendum of the contract that revised the amount of repayment back to the City from $65,380 t o $65,000. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:December 8, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.K. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is revi ew of appealable actions which were taken by various Boards during the period of December 5, 201 1 through December 9, 2011. BACKGROUND This is the method of informing the City Commission of the land use actions, taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed to the City Commissio n. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day appeal period has not occ urred). Section 2.4.7(E), Appeals, of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Comm ission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Com mission may file an appeal. To do so: · The item must be raised by a Commission member. · By motion, an action must be taken to place the ite m on the next meeting of the Commission as an appealed item. REVIEW BY OTHERS Historic Preservation Board Meeting of December 7, 2011 A. Approved with conditions (5 to 0, Ana Aponte and An nette Smith absent), a Certificate of Appropriateness for an existing freestanding sign i nstalled without approvals or permits at the individually designated property located at 302 NE 7 th Avenue (Hartman House Bed & Breakfast). Concurrently, the Board recommended approval of a waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7), to locate the sign within the required 10’ setback area. B. Approved (4 to 0, Tom Stanley stepped down), a Cert ificate of Appropriateness for additions and alterations to a contributing structure and other a ssociated site improvements for a single family residence located at 65 Palm Square. Concurrently, the Board approved the following vari ances. These variances are not appealable to the City Comm ission. i. Approve on 3 to 1 vote (Samuel Spear, Jr. dissentin g), a variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) toreduce the side yard (south) setback req uirement from 7’6” to 2’. ii. Approve on a 4 to 0 vote a variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the side yard (north) setback from 7’6” to 4’4”. iii. Approve on a 4 to 0 vote a variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4(K) to reduce the rear setback from 10’ to 4’7”. iv. Approve on a 4 to 0 vote a variance to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(2) to permit a parking space within the front yard setback of 25’. v. Approve on a 4 to 0 vote a variance request to LDR Section 4.6.15(G)(1) to reduce the rear (east) setback requirement for a swimming pool from 10’ to 7’4”. C. Approved with conditions (4 to 0, Iris McDonald lef t the meeting), a Certificate of Appropriateness for additions and alterations to a contributing structure, including demolition of a circa 1961 non-contributing addition and other as sociated site improvements at 55 SE 7 th Avenue . Concurrently, the Board recommended approval of a waiver request to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(b)4.,for the proposed second story to e ncroach into the Building Height Plane. Also, the Board approved a variance request to LDR Sectio n 4.6.15(G)(1), to reduce the rear (east) setback requirement for a swimming pool from 10’ to 5’. The variance is not appealable to the City Commission. Other Items:The following item considered by the Historic Prese rvation Board is not appealable to the City Commission as it only involved a variance requ est. 1. Approved (5 to 0), a variance request to reduce the open space req uirement from 25% to 14.9% on a parcel approved to be developed as a valet parking lot at 104 SE 1 st Avenue. The attendant site plan was previously approved as a part of the Swinton So cial project. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Danielle Connor, Acting Fire-Rescue Chief THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 4, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.L.1 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 CONTRACT AWARD/DURACLEAN RESTORATION AND REMEDIATIO N ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Award a contract to Duraclean Restoration and Remed iation to abate the mold and asbestos inside the building at 80 Depot Avenue. BACKGROUND The City facility at 80 Depot Avenue has been used by various City Departments for a variety of uses, including the Fire-Rescue Department for training purposes. In 2004 an d 2005, the roof was severely damaged during the hurricanes which subsequently al lowed water to leak into the building for some time, creating an unsafe mold condition in the ceil ing and walls. The roof has since been replaced. However, both the ceiling and drywall con tain mold and asbestos that has created a potential health risk to all using this building. The contrac tor, Duraclean, has worked extensively in the City. Most recently, this company was used to remed iate mold in the Fire Safety Division and the main lobby at Fire Headquarters. Without a formal training center, the department is limited by logistics and geography as to where training can take place. The Fire-Rescue’s Training and Safety Division has been utilizing t he grounds at this site for ongoing training and operational e volutions, although indoor use at the facility for training purposes has been prohibited. While futur e development as a training center at this particu lar site remains unclear, the need to rectify the matte r of mold and asbestos has remained. These funds wi ll ensure that the building complies with health stand ards for future development or resale. The attached proposal from Duraclean, in the amount of $24,884.73, is priced at or below applicable competitively bid contract rates awarded to Duracle an by the Palm Beach County School District. REP Associates, who performed the initial study on the building, will provide supervision, monitoring, and administration services during the remediation work . The work by REP (not included as part of this agenda item) is estimated to cost $4,800, and can b e approved administratively. FUNDING SOURCE 334-6111-521-46.90 (Public Safety repair/maintenanc e) Duraclean per estimate $24,884.73 RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommends approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: December 8, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.L.2 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PURCHASE AWARD/CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY OF ALABAMA, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to approve the award for the purchase of bulk quicklime from Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, Inc. via Boynton Beach Co-op Bid #005-2821-09/JA at an estimated annual cost of $750,000.00 for the period of 12/16/2011 through 12/15/2012. BACKGROUND Quicklime is needed to adjust the pH of the raw water, preparing the water for treatment and to remove hardness which in turn, prevents scaling in the pipelines. The City of Boynton Beach is the lead agency for this cooperative bid. On December 06, 2011 the City of Boynton Beach Commission approved an extension of the current contract with Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, Inc. and participating governmental entities with Delray Beach, Lake Worth, Riviera Beach and West Palm Beach agreeing to the 1.4% increase. The provision of this bid allows three (3) one (1) year extensions at the same terms, conditions and prices subject to vendor acceptance, satisfactory performance and determination that the renewal is in the best interest of the City. This is the third and final extension for this bid. FUNDING SOURCE 441-5122-536.52-21 (Water and Sewer Fund: Operating Supplies/Chemicals) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends award to Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, Inc. for the purchase and delivery of bulk quicklime via the City of Boynton Beach Bid No. #005-2821-09/JA, at an estimated cost of $750,000. from December 16, 2011 through December 15, 2012. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: CANDI N. JEFFERSON, SENIOR PLANNER PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: December 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 APPEAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD'S DECISION/BOSTON'S RESTAURANT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION On November 23, 2011, Attorney George W. Brannen and his wife Pat Brannen, owners of Unit #1 of Bahama House (immediately to the south), filed an appeal to the Boston’s Restaurant Expansion approval granted by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) at their November 9, 2011 meeting. The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approval of the site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations included the demolition of the motel property (Bermuda Inn) and the provision of a new outside bar, new outdoor seating and dining areas and on-site parking (southerly expansion of Boston’s Restaurant). BACKGROUND On October 26, 2011, SPRAB approved a Class II site plan modification which included changes to the landscape islands, relocation of the trash enclosure, removal of the 2nd floor roof canopy from the existing Boston’s Restaurant, alignment of the entry and exit driveways, six new valet parking spaces and one additional standard parking space. Parking improvements, including replenishing existing landscaping, repaving and restriping have also been completed to the existing forty-five (45) space parking lot. On November 9, 2011, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved a Class V site plan (Phase 2) associated with provision of additional on-site parking, construction of three (3) new accessory structures for storage, men and women’s restrooms, construction of a new outdoor bar, platform deck, lobster cooker hut and outdoor seating and dining areas on property previously occupied by Bermuda Inn (south of existing Boston’s Restaurant). These improvements associated with the Class V site plan approval (Phase 2) are the subject of this appeal. APPEAL On November 23, 2011, Attorney George W. Brannen and his wife Pat Brannen, owners of Unit #1 of Bahama House immediately to the south, filed an appeal of the Boston’s Restaurant Expansion approval. The appeal lists the following grounds for overturning the SPRAB approval: "1. Notice was inadequate or inadvertently not delivered by the developer’s representative. 2. The idea of a commercial lobster cooker on our property line within feet of our residential unit is preposterous and should not be allowed at any time of day. It is unreasonable to conclude that this use would be “compatible and harmonious with adjacent nearby properties”. There is no way to prevent the noxious odors from blowing into the adjacent units just west of the cooker. 3. An open air bar/restaurant should not be allowed adjacent to residential property and will cause substantial hardship and damage to residential property values. The plan proposes dining tables within feet of the adjacent residential units. This will result in noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns that will negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of adjacent and surrounding residential areas. 4. Outdoor entertainment should never be allowed next to residential. Doors to the outside patio should be tightly closed and soundproof whenever there is entertainment inside. 5. An open air, stand-alone bar should never be allowed and is sure to be a disturbance." The appellant also suggest the following remedial steps for consideration by the Commission: "a. An east to west wall should be erected between the Bahama House property line and the proposed driveway to prevent excessive noise and lights, gas fumes and other disturbances from cars entering and exiting the parking lot. The developers are building a wall to shield their restaurant patrons and it is essential they build one to protect the adjacent residential units. b. No motorcycles should be allowed in the driveway or parking lot. c. Any outdoor restaurant/bar should close at a time no later than the Code allows (currently 12:00am). Subsequent approvals for late night hours should be subject to conditional use approval and not supported by the City. Also steps should be taken to assure that the outdoor use area doesn’t operate independently as a stand-alone bar. Ceasing outdoor restaurant/bar use at 10:00pm is suggested as a condition of approval. d. Outdoor restrooms should not be allowed next to a residence. There should not be access to restrooms from the parking lot. Patrons should use the restrooms inside Boston’s. e. Liquor should not be served outside or in the new south facing second floor deck at any time longer than the Code allows (currently 12:00am). Ceasing liquor consumption at 10:00pm is suggested as a condition of approval. f. Steps should be taken to insure Boston’s customers do not enter or park in the Bahama House parking lot (i.e. posted signage and towing policy). g. Vehicular access should not be allowed from State Route A1A (South Ocean Boulevard)." The appellant raises concerns over the compatibility of this use with adjacent residential properties. It is noted that while the property immediately to the north was a residential use (Bermuda Inn), the property has been zoned CBD (Central Business District) for many years. Compatibility of the improvements on adjacent residential properties was discussed in the staff report and a positive finding was made. However, particular concern was raised with respect to outside live entertainment aspects of the development. This will require a separate conditional use approval and appropriate mitigating measures (i.e. hours of operation, sound levels, etc.) would be considered at that time. It is noted that this conditional use requirement is being appealed by the applicant (appeal of administrative interpretation) and is the subject of a separate agenda item. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold SPRAB’s approval. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ON THE APPEAL OF THE SPRAB 11/9/11 APPROVAL OF A CLASS V SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BOSTON’S RESTAURANT 1. This is an appeal of the November 9, 2011 decision by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (“SPRAB”) approving the Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations associated with Boston’s Restaurant which came before the City Commission at its meeting on December 13, 2011. 2. The Appellants, Appellee and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the appeal of the approval of a Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations associated with Boston’s Restaurant. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsections I, II, III, and IV. I. LDR REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS V SITE PLAN APPROVAL: A. LDR Section 4.4.5(F)(5), “Findings”: The approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The following table identifies the zoning designations and uses that are adjacent to the subject property: Zoning: Use: North Central Business District (CBD) Mixed-Use Building (Condominiums, Retail & Restaurant) South RM (Medium Density Residential) Condominiums East OS (Opens Space) Atlantic Ocean/Public Beach West RM (Medium Density Residential) Condominium and Single Family Residence and LDR Section 3.1.1, “Required Findings”, prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan Consistency, 2 Concurrency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. At its meeting of November 9, 2011, the City Commission made positive findings with respect to the Future Land Use Map, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Concurrency provided conditions of approval are addressed; and Central core area of the Central Business District Zoning District provided in Exhibit “A”. Are these guidelines met? Yes ______ No ______ II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A. Future Land Use Map/Future Land Use Element Objective A-1: Is the property developed/redeveloped so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs and is consistent with the Land Use Map? Yes ______ No ______ B. Concurrency: Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan requires that development not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas. Are the concurrency requirements met with respect to water, sewer, drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, solid waste and schools? Yes ______ No ______ C. Consistency: Will the granting of the Waivers, the Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations be consistent with and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes ______ No ______ 3 III. ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS PURSUANT TO LDR SECTION 4.6.18(E): A. The plan or the proposed structure is in conformity with good taste, good design, and in general, contributes to the image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, harmony, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality. B. The proposed structure, or project, is in its exterior design and appearance of quality such as not to cause the nature of the local environment of evolving environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. C. The proposed structure, or project, is in harmony with the proposed developments in the general area, with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the supplemental criteria which may be set forth for the Board from time to time. Have the overall requirements of LDR Section 4.6.18(E) been met? Yes ______ No ______ IV. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H), “Minimum Landscape Requirements”, Subsection 4.6.16(H)(3), “New Multiple Family, Commercial and Industrial Development”, provides requirements set forth in Exhibit “B”. Are the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16 met? Yes ______ No ______ 4. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted. 5. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves ____ denies ____ the appeal, subject to the following conditions set forth in Exhibits “C” and “D”. 4 The City Commission hereby adopts this Order this 13th day of December, 2011, by a vote of _____ in favor and _____ opposed. ATTEST: ________________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ____________________________ Chevelle Nubin City Clerk EXHIBIT “A” S I T E P L A N A N A L Y S I S COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development application/request. LDR Section 4.4.13 (F) — Central Business District Design Guidelines: The following table indicates that the development proposal does meet the requirement of LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(4)(b), as they pertain to the Central Core area of the CBD zoning district design guidelines. Road/Building Side Building Height % Building Frontage (min/max) Required Setback Required Building Frontage at Setback Proposed Building Frontage Comply w/LDR? Y N SR A1A (South Ocean Blvd.) Finished grade to 37’ 70% /90% 10’ max. 70’/90’ 85’6” (85%) * 100’ Lot Frontage Remaining length 15’ min. 30’ 10’ 0’ * Required: Provided: Building Height: Open Space: Min. 25’ /Max. 48’ 0% 14’/27’2” 11% The building height in BOLD font does not meet the minimum requirements per LDR Section 4.4.13F.1.a. The applicant has requested a waiver to the twenty-five foot (25’) minimum height. *The site has an existing nonconformity with respect to the percentage of building frontage located at a minimum of fifteen feet (15’). The current proposal does not increase the nonconformity. On-site Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(1)(d), the parking requirement for the creation of new restaurant use area is established at six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. As explained in the background history section of the report, there is ninety-one (91) square feet available for restaurant expansion, before additional parking is assessed. The applicant has indicated that there is 6,431 sq. ft. of proposed new restaurant use area. However, the square footage breakdown of the new use areas included in the calculation of the parking requirement has not been provided. Thus, as a condition of approval, this data shall be provided on the site plan prior to site plan certification. Based upon the cumulative total of new use area, 6,340 sq. ft. (6,431 — 91 = 6,340) must have on-site parking accommodations. Thus, there is a requirement for an additional 38 parking spaces. There are 34 spaces required for the existing restaurant. Thus, the overall site requirement is 72 spaces (38 + 34 =72). Seventy-three (73) spaces have been provided. Therefore, positive findings with respect to this section of the LDRs can be made. LDR Article 4.6 -Supplemental District Regulations: Handicap Accessible Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(b), special parking spaces designed for use by the handicapped shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction. Pursuant to the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, two percent (2%) of the parking spaces serving the restaurant must be handicap accessible. Based upon the seventy-three (73) parking spaces required, the development needs to provide a minimum of one (1) handicap accessible parking space and three (3) handicap accessible parking spaces have been provided. Thus, this LDR requirement has been met. Bicycle Parking: LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c) and Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that a bicycle parking facility be provided. The proposed location of a bicycle rack has not been identified. At least one (1) bike rack is provided on-site. Thus, this LDR requirement is met. Lighting: A photometric plan must meet the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.8. The maximum height for freestanding light poles is twenty-five feet (25') and eighteen feet (18') light poles are proposed, so the site complies with the maximum height requirement. The proposed photometric plan has a maximum foot candle emittance of 5.0 and a minimum foot candle emittance of 1.0. Accordingly, the maximum allowance for commercial sites is 12.0 and the minimum allowance is 1.0. Thus, the minimum and maximum foot candle requirements have been met. Building Height: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(1)(a), all proposed structures must meet the minimum and maximum building height requirement of twenty-five feet (25') and fortyeight feet (48') respectively. The tallest existing structure meets the maximum 48' height requirement at 27'2". EXHIBIT “B” (3) New Multiple Family, Commercial, and Industrial Development: Multifamily, commercial, industrial and all other uses are required to comply with the minimum requirements for off-street parking. On the site of a building or open-lot use providing an off-street parking, storage or other vehicular use area, where such an area will not be screened visually by an intervening building or structure from an abutting right-of-way or dedicated alley, there shall be provided landscaping as follows: Perimeter requirements adjacent to public and private rights-of-way: (a) A strip of land at least five (5) feet in depth located between the offstreet parking area or other vehicular use area and the right-of-way shall be landscaped, provided, however, that should the zoning code of the Delray Code of Ordinances require additional perimeter depths, that the provisions of the zoning code shall prevail. The landscaping shall consist of at least one tree for each thirty (30) linear feet or fraction thereof. The trees shall be located between the right-of-way line and the off-street parking or vehicular use area. Where the depth of the perimeter landscape strip adjacent to the right-of-way exceeds fifteen (15) feet, shade trees may be planted in clusters, but the maximum spacing shall not exceed fifty (50) feet. The remainder of the landscape area shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other landscape treatment excluding pavement. Additionally, a hedge, wall or other durable landscape area shall be placed along the interior perimeter of the landscape strip. If a hedge is used, it must be a minimum of two (2) feet in height at the time of planting and attain a minimum height of three (3) feet above the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use or off-street parking area within one year of planting. If a nonliving barrier is used, it shall be a minimum of three (3) feet above the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use. Nonliving barriers shall require additional landscaping to soften them and enhance their appearance. For each ten (10) feet of nonliving barrier, a shrub or vine shall be planted along the street side of the barrier, in addition to tree requirements. Earth berms may be used only when installed in conjunction with sufficient plant materials to satisfy the screening requirements. The slope of the berm shall not exceed a 3:1 ratio. Hedges for multi-family projects which are used to separate a residential use from an adjacent arterial or collector road right-of way may attain a height of eight (8) feet to mitigate the impact of the adjacent roadway Perimeter hedging installed to effect screening of storage areas must be a minimum of four (4) feet in height at the time of installation and be permitted to grow to a height to conceal the materials being stored. Perimeter shade trees are required to be planted every thirty (30) feet and are not permitted to be clustered. (b) The unpaved portion of the right-of-way adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped with sod and provided with irrigation and maintenance. (c) The width of accessways which provide access to a site or vehicular use areas may be subtracted from the linear dimensions used to determine the number of trees required. Perimeter landscaping requirements relating to abutting properties: (d) A landscaped barrier shall be provided between the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area and abutting properties. The landscape barrier may be two (2) feet at the time of planting and achieve and be maintained at not less than three (3) nor greater than six (6) feet in height to form a continuous screen between the off-street parking area or vehicular use area and such abutting property. This landscape barrier shall be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area in a planting strip of not less than five (5) feet in width. Duplexes may be permitted to reduce the perimeter planting strip to two and one-half (2 1/2) feet in width in cases where lot frontage is less than fifty-five (55) feet. In addition, one (1) tree shall be provided for every thirty (30) linear feet of such landscaped barrier or fraction thereof. (e) Where any commercial or industrial areas abut a residential zoning district or properties in residential use, in addition to requirements established for district boundary line separators in the zoning code, one (1) tree shall be planted every twenty-five (25) feet to form a solid tree line. (f) The provisions for perimeter landscape requirements relating to abutting properties shall not be applicable where a proposed parking area or other vehicular use area abuts an existing hedge or established tree line, the existing hedge and trees may be used to satisfy the landscape requirements provided the existing material meets all applicable standards. The landscape strip, a minimum of five (5) feet in depth, however, is still required, and must be landscaped with sod or ground cover. If the existing landscaping does not meet the standards of this article, additional landscaping shall be required as necessary to meet the standards. In the event that the landscaping provided by the adjacent property which has been used to satisfy the landscaping requirements for the property making application is ever removed, the property heretofore using the existing vegetation to satisfy landscaping requirements, must then install landscaping as required to comply with the provisions of this code. Interior landscape requirements for parking and other vehicular use areas: (g) The amount of interior landscaping within off-street parking areas shall amount to no less than ten percent (10%) of the total area used for parking and accessways. (h) There shall be a group of palms or a shade tree for every one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of required interior landscaping. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of these required trees shall be palms. (i) Landscape islands which contain a minimum of seventy-five (75) square feet of plantable area, with a minimum dimension of five (5) feet, exclusive of the required curb, shall be placed at intervals of no less than one landscaped island for every ten (10) parking spaces. One shade tree or equivalent number of palm trees shall be planted in every interior island. Where approval for the use of compact parking has be approved, islands may be placed at intervals of no less than one (1) island for every thirteen (13) parking spaces. (j) Each row of parking spaces shall be terminated by landscape islands with dimensions as indicated above, An exception to this requirement is when a landscaped area exists at the end of the parking row. (k) Whenever parking tiers abut, they shall be separated by a minimum five (5) foot wide landscape strip. This strip shall be in addition to the parking stall. Non-mountable curbs are not required for these landscaping strips, providing carstops are provided. (l) Perimeter landscape strips which are required to be created by this code or requirements of the zoning code shall not be credited to satisfy any interior landscaping requirements; however, the gross area of perimeter landscape strips which exceed minimum requirements may be credited to satisfy the interior landscape requirements of this section. (m) Interior landscaping in both parking areas and other vehicular use areas shall, insofar as possible, be used to delineate and guide major traffic movement within the parking area so as to prevent cross-space driving wherever possible. A portion of the landscaping for interior parking spaces, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total requirement, may be relocated so as to emphasize corridors or special landscape areas within the general parking area or adjacent to buildings located on the site, if helpful in achieving greater overall aesthetic effect. Such relocated landscaping shall be in addition to the perimeter landscaping requirements. (n) All dumpster and refuse areas and all ground level air-conditioning units and mechanical equipment shall be screened. (o) Landscaping may be permitted in easements only with the written permission of the easement holder. Written permission shall be submitted as part of the site plan or landscape plan review. EXHIBIT “C” SITE PLAN CONDITIONS 1. A digital copy of the revised plans shall be provided on CD. The digital copy must be in a PDF format and shall be prepared at a size of 8½” x 11” or 11”x 17”, depending upon legibility. This item is required and shall be provided with the submittal of revisions. 2. On the site plan, provide the square footage breakdown of the new use areas included in the calculation of the parking requirement. 3. Clearly label and indicate in BOLD font the location of the property line on all of the plans (i.e. specifically for the floor plan, roof plan, composite overlay plan, photometric plan and site plan). 4. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9.D.6.e., Parking Space Striping Details, all surfaced and resurfaced parking lots shall provide double-striped lines between spaces measuring one foot on center for compact and standard spaces and two feet on center for handicap spaces. The double-striped area shall measure no less than two feet between all parking spaces. The repaving of the existing parking lot does not comply. Redesign the parking stalls to comply. Otherwise, acquire written consent from the City Engineer to provide or continue single striping. 5. LDR Section 4.3.3(VV)(2)(a)(Conditional Use) states that any 24-Hour or late night business located or proposed to be located within a three hundred foot (300’) straight line route from any residentially-zoned property shall obtain a conditional use permit from the City for the operation of such use. The property is bordered on the west and south sides by residentially-zoned properties. It is noted that the new outdoor dining courtyard area will close at 12:00am midnight. No 24-Hour or late night operation hours for the new outdoor courtyard area will be permitted with the processing and approval of this Class V Site Plan application. 6. Include a bicycle rack detail to accompany the site plan. 7. The proposed architectural elevations for the accessory structures do not calculate the mean building height for the shortest elevations pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4.J. The mean roof height for the shortest structures shall be labeled on the architectural drawings. 8. Provide revised civil plans addressing the preliminary engineering technical items identified in Appendix A, prior to site plan certification. 9. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. A note to this effect shall be placed on the site and civil plans. 10. With the installation of new lighting for the proposed new parking areas, glare and compliance with City Ordinance (Sections 91.50, 91.51, 91.52 and 91.99) shall be maintained. 11. Provide a traffic statement indicating that the addition of the 6,431 sq. ft. outdoor courtyard and new use area will not negatively impact the surrounding roadway network. This will have to be provided prior to site plan certification. 12. Apply decorative features to enhance the aesthetics of the wall running along the south side of the enclosed outdoor courtyard area. Consider elements suggested for the treatment of blank walls in LDR Section 4.6.18.B.14.ii.3.b. (i.e. vertical trellis, control and expansion points, small indentations, pilasters, medallions, public art, etc.). EXHIBIT “D” LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS 1. For the perimeter landscape buffer along the south property line use a ten foot (10’) Greywood Hedge instead of Coconut Palms. 2. Along the south wall of the outdoor dining area, the plant materials shall be a minimum of one half (50%) of the height of the wall. 3. Along the west wall of the outdoor dining area, the plant materials shall be a minimum of one half (50%) of the height of the wall, as well as, include additional vertical elements (i.e. referenced in condition #12 of the site plan approval). MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: December 9, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/BOSTON'S RESTAURANT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director’s interpretation that a conditional use approval is required for the outside entertainment (platform deck) for Boston’s Restaurant Phase II expansion. BACKGROUND On November 9, 2011, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved a Class V site plan (Phase 2) associated with provision of additional on-site parking, construction of three (3) new accessory structures for storage and men and women’s restrooms, construction of a new outdoor bar, platform deck, lobster cooker hut and outdoor seating and dining areas on property previously occupied by Bermuda Inn (south of existing Boston’s Restaurant). These improvements include an outside entertainment stage (platform deck) that will provide opportunities for outside entertainment. On December 5, 2011, Attorney Alan J. Ciklin Esq. of Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens & O'Connell law firm located in West Palm Beach, Florida, filed an appeal of the Planning & Zoning Department Director’s Interpretation that the Land Development Regulations require a conditional use for the outside entertainment (platform deck) proposed for Boston’s Restaurant expansion area. This requirement was initially identified as a condition of approval and referenced in the staff report. While SPRAB removed it as a condition of approval, it is staff’s position that this LDR requirement continues to apply. The applicant disagrees with this interpretation, which is the subject of the appeal. The determination that a conditional use approval is required is consistent with how this type of outdoor entertainment venue has been handled in the past. The only legally established outside venue of this type is the approval received as part of the redevelopment of Block 85 formally known as Grove Square. This outside stage area was approved in conjunction with City Limits restaurant (currently known as IL Bacio) as a Conditional use pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(A)(2) [attached] which states that, “Certain conditional uses that are allowed within commercial, industrial and mixed use districts can be characterized as outside uses. Such operations may be conducted outside when specifically determined through the conditional use process that the outside aspects of the use are appropriate. Conditions may be applied to mitigate visual and other impacts”. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(A) (1), all commercial and industrial uses are to be conducted within a completely enclosed building, rather than outside, regardless of zoning district. However, certain aspects of a use may be conducted outside and these are identified in LDR Section 4.6.6(B). This section has several categories (including outside dining), but does not include outside entertainment. However, it does include a catch-all reference to “activities associated with outside conditional uses pursuant to 4.6.6(A)(2)“, which would include uses not specifically listed including outdoor entertainment. While the applicant may argue that the outside entertainment is an accessory use to the restaurant, such use is not listed as an accessory use in LDR Section 4.4.13 (C) (accessory uses allowed in the CBD). Further, to assume that all restaurant uses may include accessory outside entertainment would set a dangerous precedent. APPEAL While SPRAB removed the conditional use requirement for the outside entertainment (platform deck) as a condition of approval, it is staff’s position that the conditional use approval is still required (not under Section 4.4.13 (D) (9), as referenced in the original staff report, but under Section 4.6.6 [outside uses]). The applicant disagrees with this interpretation (under either LDR section), and this is the subject of the appeal. The appeal of the Director’s interpretation of LDR Section 4.4.13.(D) (9), lists the following grounds for overturning the Planning & Zoning Director’s interpretation: The reason for SPRAB’s elimination of this condition is that they believed, as does the appellant/property owner, that this section does not apply to accessory entertainment provided at Boston’s. In the CBD District, restaurants, outdoor cafes, and cocktail lounges are permitted uses. However playhouses, dinner theaters, and places of assembly for commercial entertainment purposes (e.g., concerts, live performances) require conditional uses. Boston’s Restaurant does not fall within the categories outlined above, thus the appellant/property owner requests that this condition be stricken from the approval as not being applicable. In closing, the appellant proclaims that providing music at a restaurant is similar to other establishments on Atlantic Avenue which presumably are permitted without conditional use approval. The accessory music that will be provided at Boston’s Restaurant is not a “playhouse”, “dinner theater”, or “place[s] of assembly for commercial entertainment purposes”. It is clear to the appellant/property owner and to SPRAB that this conditional use requirement meant what it said and it does not apply to accessory music at a restaurant similar to other establishments on Atlantic Avenue. While staff would agree that the initially referenced LDR section may not apply to this outdoor entertainment function, a conditional use approval would still be required to comply with the above referenced LDR Section (4.6.6) relating to outside uses. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and require the applicant to comply with the Land Development Regulations with respect to Section 4.6.6, requiring a conditional use for the outside entertainment function for Boston’s Restaurant. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA OF THE APPLICANT’S APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR’S INTERPRETATION REGARDING THE OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT FUNCTION OF PHASE II OF BOSTON’S RESTAURANT 1. This appeal of the Planning Director’s interpretation regarding the outdoor entertainment function of Phase II of Boston’s Restaurant came before the City Commission on December 13, 2011. 2. The City staff, applicant, and other persons have presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the appeal of the Planning Director’s interpretation regarding the outdoor entertainment function of Phase II of Boston’s Restaurant. All of the evidence is part of the record in this case. 3. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed” within the Central Business District, Subsection (9): (9) Playhouses, dinner theaters, and places of assembly for commercial entertainment purposes (e.g., concerts, live performances). Is a conditional use required per LDR Section 4.4.13(D)(9) for the outside deck at Boston’s Restaurant? Yes _______ No ________ 4. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6, “Commercial and Industrial Uses to Operate within a Building”, Subsections (A), “Intent” and (B) “Allowable Outside Usage”: Section 4.6.6 Commercial and Industrial Uses to Operate Within a Building: (A) Intent: (1) All commercial and industrial uses shall conduct within a completely enclosed building rather than outside regardless of the zoning district. However, certain aspects of a use may be conducted outside and such aspects are identified in (B) below. 2 (2) Certain conditional uses that are allowed within commercial, industrial, and mixed use districts can be characterized as outside uses. Such operations may be conducted outside when it is specifically determined through the conditional use process that the outside aspects of the use are appropriate. Conditions may be applied to mitigate visual and other impacts. (3) Commercial and industrial uses may be allowed outside on a temporary basis for special events pursuant to Section 2.4.6(F). (B) Allowable Outside Usage: The following aspects of a use may be conducted outside, pursuant to the restrictions listed in Section 4.6.6(C) below. (1) Off-street parking (2) Refuse and service areas (3) Storage of nursery plants (4) Fruit and vegetable displays (5) Signage (6) Outside dining areas (7) Loading and unloading of materials (8) Outside storage where specifically permitted within a zoning district (9) Activities associated with outside conditional uses, pursuant to (A)(2) above (10) Retail displays Is a conditional use required per LDR Section 4.6.6 for the outside deck at Boston’s Restaurant? Yes ______ No______ 5. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted. 6. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained 3 in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses which supports the findings set forth in this Order. 7. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves ____ denies ____ the applicant’s appeal of the Planning Director’s interpretation regarding the outdoor entertainment function of Phase II of Boston’s Restaurant and hereby adopts this Order this _13th___ day of December, 2011, by a vote of _____ in favor and _____ opposed. ________________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Chevelle Nubin City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: December 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 WAIVER REQUEST/302 N.E. 7TH AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is approval of a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(e)(7), to permit a business sign within ten feet (10’) of both the front (east) and side street (south) property lines. BACKGROUND At its meeting of December 7, 2011, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved with conditions a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the installation of a new freestanding sign. It is noted that the sign currently exists on site in this location. WAIVER ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7), signage for residential zoning districts, which includes RM, shall be located at least 10’ from any property line. The proposal is to locate a freestanding sign approximately five feet from both the front (east) and side street (south) property lines. In consideration of the criteria above, the subject waiver can be supported in that it will not adversely affect the neighboring area given the small size of the sign, which is only six (6) square feet, as opposed to the maximum twenty (20) square feet that is permitted; provision of public facilities will not be impacted; it will not create an unsafe situation as NE 3rd Street dead-ends adjacent to the subject property thereby limiting the amount of traffic impacted by the sign’s location closer to the property lines; and, the granting of the waiver will not result in a special privilege in that under similar circumstance of the property configuration and existing conditions, the waiver would be supported for another applicant or owner. REVIEW BY OTHERS The HPB considered the subject waiver request concurrently with the COA and recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. RECOMMENDATION Approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7), to allowa sign to be located five feet (5’) from the front and side street property lines, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). 1 IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WAIVER REQUEST FOR 302 NE 7TH AVENUE 1. This waiver request came before the City Commission on December 13th, 2011. 2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the waiver request for 302 NE 7th Avenue. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsection I. I. WAIVERS: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. A. Waiver to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7): Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7), signage for residential zoning districts, which includes RM, shall be located at least ten feet (10’) from any property line. The proposal includes the location of a freestanding sign located approximately five feet (5’) from both the front (east) and side street (south) property lines. Should the waiver to allow a freestanding sign within five feet (5’) from the front and side street property lines be granted? Yes _______ No _______ 3. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original development application was 2 submitted and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves ___ denies ___ the waiver requests. 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission hereby adopts this Order this 13th day of December, 2011, by a vote of _____ in favor and ____ opposed. ________________________________ ATTEST: Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ________________________________ Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: December 5, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ALLEY NAMING REQUEST ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION A request for Commission approval to name the alley east of NE 3rd Ave running between NE 3rd St on the south; and NE 4th St on the north, as "Artists Alley". BACKGROUND Staff has received a request to name an alley in Pineapple Grove as "Artists Alley". The alley is a north-south alley located east of NE 3rd Ave and running between NE 3rd St on the south; and NE 4th St on the north. This alley borders the west side of the recently opened "artists garage" in the 300 Block of NE 3rd St. There are several parcels that the only have access from the alley, but these parcels have a NE 4th St address. Attached is the email received requesting this name change. The City has a general policy to not rename streets. However, most alleys, including this one, do not have names. This alley is unusual in that a large number of platted lots front on the alley and a number of separate businesses depend on this alley for access. Also unlike other alleys in the City, this alley does not line up with any other alleys to the north or south. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion. 1 Krejcarek, Randal From: Dole <gelod3@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 12:24 PM To: Krejcarek, Randal Subject: Question Randal, There is an ally between NE 3rd Avenue and the railroad tracks from NE 3rd Street to NE 4th Street. There are warehouses on the east side of the ally, and they now have 4th Street addresses. Several artists have moved into the warehouses, and it is becoming what Pineapple Grove was supposed to be: an arts disctrict. The artists would like to name the ally: Artists Ally. I believe this would give a big boost to the area, and would help surrounding development. The CRA has recently helped build two new parking areas, one of them on the alley itself. I don't know who to ask, so I turn to you. How does one go about getting an alley officially named? Many thanks for your guidance. Vince Dole Pineapple Grove Alley Request N NE 4th St 12/5/2011 Delray Beach GIS NE 3rd St Alley MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: December 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANT/CONTRACT AWARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval is requested for one (1) Housing Rehabilitation bid to be awarded to the second lowest responsive bidder. Funding for the project is through the DRI Housing Rehabilitation grant. BACKGROUND A Housing Rehabilitation bid is proposed to be awarded to the second lowest responsive bidder for 401 SW 10th Street to All Phase Roofing & Construction $30,243.00 = Total Rehab Cost: $32,422.65 Grant awards are based on the actual cost of the rehabilitation, as determined by the low responsive bidder(s), plus a 5% contingency. Included with the costs of rehab are lead-based paint inspection, lead abatement, lead clearance, termite inspection, termite treatment, and recording fees. Additional cost may be incurred for lead clearance test(s). The contingency may be used for change orders and all unused funds will remain with the DRI Housing Rehabilitation program. Inspection of work is done by the Department of Community Improvement’s Building Inspection and Neighborhood Services Divisions. Contracts are executed between the building contractor and the property owner. The City remains the agent and this office monitors all work performed by the contractor, ensuring compliance according to specifications and program guidelines. Pay request forms require both contractor and homeowner’s signatures. Grant recipients have met all eligibility requirements, as specified in the approved Policies and Procedures. The rehabilitation activities will bring the homes to minimum code requirements by repairing the roof, electric and plumbing systems and correcting other incipient code violations. Detailed work write-ups and individual case files are available for review in the Neighborhood Services Division Office. The Neighborhood Services Division is responsible for ensuring that the housing rehabilitation contracts are awarded to the lowest responsive bidder, as a result of a formal bid process. Therefore, an in-house policy was created to limit awards to the lowest responsive bidder as it relates to the Division’s professional in-house estimate. This serves to disqualify unreasonably low bids and therefore, protect against the resulting change order requests. The lowest bidder is at 25% below the second low bid and 38% below the in-house estimate. Staff has concerns that the contractor could not perform the job at the submitted price. Palm Beach County, Housing & Community Development agrees and has approved the request to allow CJ Contracting, LLC to withdraw his bid. Per the Neighborhood Services Bid Policy Statement, all bids received shall fall within a 10% range of our In-house Estimate. Neighborhood Services Division reserves the right to award any bid not within the 10% range to the next lowest bidder within the 10% range, after consultation with the low bidder. FUNDING SOURCE Disaster Recovery Initiative 118-1960-554-49.19 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends awarding one (1) Housing Rehabilitation bid for $32,422.65 to the second lowest responsive bidder, All Phase Roofing & Construction.. BID/QUOTE #: BID # 17-2011NS APPLICANT: PROJECT ADDRESS: DATE OF BID LETTERS: August 9, 2011 DATE OF BID OPENING: September 6, 2011 GENERAL CONTRACTORS BID AMOUNT BID BOND Abisset Corporation $ -All Phase Roofing $ 29,243.00 All-Site Construction, Inc. $ -ARZ Builders, Inc. $ -Built Solid Construction, LLC $ -Citywide Construction Services, Inc. $ -CJ Contracting, LLC $ 21,813.00 Cordoba Construction Co. $ 34,713.00 Jemstone Construction Group, Inc. $ -JIJ Construction Corp. $ -KM Construction Inc. $ -MacDonald Construction Company of Palm Beach $ -Ray Graeve & Sons Construction, Inc. $ -South Florida Construction Services, Inc. $ 55,108.00 Sunband Builders Construction Inc. $ -In-House Estimate: $ 35,407.00 RECOMMENDED CONTRACTOR: All Phase Roofing & Construction BID/CONTRACT AMOUNT : $ 29,243.00 Contingency $ 1,000.00 $ 30,243.00 Lead Inspection 325.00 Lead Clearance 80.00 Termite Inspection -Termite Treatment 1,685.45 Recording Fees 89.20 GRANT CONTRACT AMOUNT 32,422.65 FUNDING SOURCE: Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Account # COMMENTS: all bids received shall fall within a 10% range of our In-house Estimate. Neighborhoood Services reserves the right to award any bid not within the 10% range to the next lowest bidder within the 10% range after consulting with the lowest bidder. the work at the submitted price. Staff recommends awarding bid to the next responsive bidder. Per the Neighborhood Services Bid Policy Statement, Lowest bidder is at 38% under the In-house Estimate. Staff is concerned that contractor wil not be able to perform CITY OF DELRAY BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIVISION HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM BID INFORMATION SHEET Lillie Harris 401 SW 10th Street 118-1960-554-49.19 BID /QUOTE NUMBER: BID # 17-2011NS OWNER: ADDRESS: 401 SW 10th Street BID ADVERTISEMENT DATE: August 9, 2011 BID OPENING DATE: September 6, 2011 Lillie Harris In-House All Phase Roofing CJ Contracting, LLC. Cordoba Construction Company, Inc. SunBand Builders Construction Inc. 1 Global Encasement $ 17,000.00 $ 9,960.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 9,850.00 $ 6,000.00 2 Remove Attic Vent and Garage Door Trim $ 1,500.00 $ 990.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,300.00 3 Remove Cabinet $ 150.00 $ 450.00 $ 260.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,900.00 4 Remove Exterior Doors $ 500.00 $ 1,040.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,950.00 5 Remove Interior Doors $ 4,950.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 900.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 11,400.00 6 Remove Paint Around Window Openings $ 1,200.00 $ 1,920.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 1,950.00 7 Remove Windows $ 800.00 $ 1,345.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 3,100.00 8 Remove Wood Base $ 160.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 2,500.00 9 Hurricane Shutters $ 3,835.00 $ 4,940.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 6,000.00 10 Install Exterior Door $ 1,450.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,475.00 11 Install New Windows $ 1,300.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,080.00 $ 7,000.00 12 Connect Washer to Sanitary System (Reduce item by 167.00) $ 178.00 $ 1,393.00 $ 383.00 $ 283.00 $ 1,733.00 13 Install Base Trim $ 184.00 $ 335.00 $ 320.00 $ 450.00 $ 2,800.00 14 Install Interior Door $ 2,200.00 $ 2,145.00 $ 850.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 5,000.00 15 Repair Drywall (Deleted) $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TOTAL $ 35,407.00 $ 29,243.00 $ 21,813.00 $ 34,713.00 $ 55,108.00 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 16, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 RFQ FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission for approval of the Engineering RFQ (RFQ# 2012-06) short list of responses and authorization to negotiate contracts with each firm on the short list. Project #12-057. BACKGROUND On 2 Oct 2011 a Request for Qualifications was issued for engineering firms for capital improvement projects contained in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Thirty-four firms responded and were reviewed by the selection committee. Based on the number of projects in the CIP the selection committee agreed that five firms should be selected. The committee unanimously agreed on the following five firms: Mathews Consulting, Kimley-Horn & Associates and Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson Salman, and Wantman Group. After successfully negotiating each contract, the contracts will be brought back to commission for approval to execute. Attached is a copy of the rating sheets for all firms that submitted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the short list and authorization to negotiate contracts with the short listed firms. Printed: 12/1/2011 ENGINEERING RFQ Individual Score By Rank Weighted Overall Overall Total Individual Score By Points Firm Grieve Costello Majtenyi Ballestero Krejcarek Score Rank Rank Points Grieve Costello Majtenyi Ballestero Krejcarek A & B Engineering, Inc. 23 13 23 17 25 74 26 22 314 62 80 51 66 55 A.D.A Engineering, Inc. 9 16 31 21 6 92 18 28 293 73 79 4 61 76 AECOM Technical Services, Inc 23 16 5 3 22 106 13 9 369 62 79 84 85 59 Alan Gerwiz & Associates 20 21 27 23 29 55 27 25 308 67 78 54 59 50 American Consulting Engineers 16 16 10 33 8 92 18 17 339 69 79 73 44 74 BCC Engineering, Inc. 32 21 17 27 23 55 27 27 307 53 78 66 52 58 Calvin, Giordano & Associates 5 11 5 2 15 137 3 3 405 77 83 84 91 70 Caulfield & Wheeler 13 31 30 34 30 37 31 31 267 70 59 48 42 48 CDM 22 6 9 24 7 107 12 12 357 63 86 76 57 75 Chen-Moore & Associates 16 4 20 15 4 116 9 24 313 16 87 63 69 78 CIMA Engineering Corporation DBA CIMA 34 29 33 15 34 30 33 33 240 34 61 34 69 42 Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson Salman 7 9 3 18 3 135 4 4 393 75 84 86 65 83 CPH Engineers, Inc. 9 27 20 24 8 87 21 19 333 73 66 63 57 74 Craig A. Smith & Associates, Inc. 19 9 23 8 15 101 15 13 356 68 84 60 74 70 Craven Thompson & Associates 11 4 4 24 26 131 6 15 355 72 87 85 57 54 Dredging & Marine Consultants, LLC 33 26 34 29 33 45 30 33 240 46 68 31 51 44 DRMP, Inc. 13 27 14 29 8 84 23 20 330 70 66 69 51 74 Eckler Engineering 8 16 27 12 18 94 16 16 343 74 79 54 70 66 Erdman Anthony 25 13 18 11 21 87 21 18 338 60 80 65 71 62 GAI Consultants 13 21 7 20 8 106 13 10 365 70 78 81 62 74 Gannett Fleming 30 16 25 12 26 91 20 22 314 54 79 57 70 54 HBC Engineering 30 32 22 27 32 32 32 30 268 54 55 61 52 46 Keith and Schnars 16 21 24 7 13 94 16 13 356 69 78 59 78 72 Keshavarz & Associates 25 6 13 4 14 113 11 8 371 60 86 71 83 71 Kimley-Horn & Associates 3 1 2 6 2 161 2 2 435 89 94 89 79 84 Last Devenport, Inc. 27 33 26 32 18 47 29 29 270 59 44 56 45 66 Mathews Consulting 2 2 1 1 1 168 1 1 456 92 89 93 95 87 McMahon Transportation 20 33 12 18 17 75 25 21 324 67 53 72 65 67 Michael B. Schorah & Associates 29 25 16 21 26 83 24 25 308 55 71 67 61 54 Mock*Roos & Associates, Inc. 6 13 8 12 8 128 7 6 377 76 80 77 70 74 Pillar Consultants 28 29 32 31 31 24 34 32 251 58 61 38 47 47 R.J. Behar & Company, Inc. 11 11 19 5 5 124 8 7 376 72 83 64 80 77 URS 4 8 14 10 24 115 10 11 360 78 85 69 72 56 Wantman Group 1 3 10 8 20 133 5 4 393 94 88 73 74 64 S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2012\12-057\LETTERS\RFQEvalMasterEngr.xls City of Delray Beach General Engineering Consulting Services Page | 4 III. EVALUATION AND SCORING: Selection will be in accordance with the Consultant‟s Competitive Negotiations Act, as amended, Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. The selection process consists of evaluation and scoring by the Selection Committee. Each category will be scored and when the scores awarded for all categories are totaled, the scores will be tabulated and added to achieve the Total Points and Weighted Score awarded to each firm. Both criteria will be used to rank each firm 1,2,3,4, etc. The ranking of each firm will be tabulated from each Committee Member and combined with other Committee Members to determine the total score and weighted score for the firm. 1. Firm experience in south Florida. 2. Firm‟s personnel qualifications. 3. Firm‟s governmental experience. 4. Firm‟s approach to project management. 5. Firm‟s resources, personnel availability and commitment. Failure to respond to all the items listed above will result in a lower overall score and may hinder your chances of being selected. The Scoring Criteria is made up of the categories above that collectively represent a Grand Total Point Value of 100 points, as described herein. The points indicated below as "Points Possible" are the maximum that can be allocated for each category. The point value shall be the basis of establishing a finalist list of the top ranking RFQ submittals. Firm Experience: The firm will be expected to demonstrate its experience with projects similar to those listed in Exhibit A. Particular attention should be given to projects completed with other local government agencies. This information must be included on SF 330. Firm‟s Personnel Qualifications: The firm shall name the actual Project Manager assigned to the City and other key staff to be assigned to projects, describe their ability and experience and indicate the function of each individual within the organization and their proposed role on City projects. This information must be included on SF 330 Firm‟s Governmental Experience: The firm shall detail experience with other governmental agencies. This information must be included on SF 330 Firm‟s Approach to Project Management: The firm shall detail approach to be utilized in managing projects including, but not limited to, coordination with other governmental agencies and coordination with other utility companies. Firm‟s Resources, Personnel Availability and Commitment: The firm shall demonstrate a commitment to completing project on time and within budget. Firm must also demonstrate flexibility to complete projects per client‟s specifications. City of Delray Beach General Engineering Consulting Services Page | 5 EVALUATION CATEGORIES POINTS POSSIBLE 1. Firm experience in south Florida 25 2. Firm‟s personnel qualifications 30 3. Firm‟s governmental experience 20 4. Firm‟s approach to project management 15 5. Firm‟s resources, personnel availability and commitment 10 GRAND TOTAL OF POINTS 100 POINTS If you have any questions concerning the Qualification Package or these instructions, please submit your questions in writing or email only to Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., City Engineer, 434 South Swinton Avenue, City of Delray Beach, Florida, 33444. Fax number (561) 243-7314. Email krejcarek@MyDelrayBeach.com IV. AWARD OF CONTRACT Based on final rankings resulting from the above described process, the Selection Committee will make a recommendation to the City Commission for the award of the contract to a minimum of three firms. The City intends to initially award two (2) year contracts with an option to renew annually for three (3) additional years, up to a total of five (5) years (2 year contract plus 3 one year renewals). MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: William A. Grieve, P.E, Assisant City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: December 6, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 RFQ FOR LAND SURVEYING CONSULTING SERVICES/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission for approval of the Land Surveying Consulting Services RFQ (RFQ# 2012-07) responses short list and authorization to negotiate contracts with each of the five companies on the short list. Project #12-058. BACKGROUND On October 2, 2011, a Request for Qualifications was issued for Land Surveying companies for capital improvement projects contained in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Twenty-two (22) surveying companies responded and were reviewed by the selection committee. Based on the number of projects in the CIP the selection committee agreed that five firms should be selected. The committee unanimously agreed on the following five (5) companies: Avirom & Associates, Inc., Bruce Carter & Associates, Inc., Dennis J. Leavy & Associates, Inc., Wantman Group, Inc. and Caulfield & Wheeler, Inc. After successfully negotiating each contract, the contracts will be brought back to commission for approval to execute. Attached is a copy of the rating sheet for all firms that submitted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the short list and authorization to negotiate contracts with the short listed firms. Printed: 12/6/2011 Sort By Overall Rankings Sort By Point Totals AVIROM & ASSOCIATES, INC 1 1 AVIROM & ASSOCIATES, INC BRUCE CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC 2 2 DENNIS J. LEAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. DENNIS J. LEAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 3 BRUCE CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC WANTMAN GROUP, INC. 4 4 WANTMAN GROUP, INC. CAULFIELD & WHEELER, INC. 5 5 CAULFIELD & WHEELER, INC. CRAVEN THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC. 6 5 CRAVEN THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC. O'BRIEN, SUITER & O'BRIEN, INC, 7 7 O'BRIEN, SUITER & O'BRIEN, INC, GREENHORNE & O'MARA 8 8 GREENHORNE & O'MARA MILLER LEGG 9 9 FRS & ASSOCIATES KEITH ASSOCIATES INC. 10 10 KEITH ASSOCIATES INC. KEITH & SCHNARS, P.A. 11 11 ENGENUITY GROUP, INC. ENGENUITY GROUP, INC. 12 12 CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC. CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC. 13 12 KEITH & SCHNARS, P.A. FRS & ASSOCIATES 14 14 MILLER LEGG CONSUL-TECH ENTERPRISES, INC. 15 15 CONSUL-TECH ENTERPRISES, INC. HELLER-WEAVER & SHEREMETA, INC. 16 16 HELLER-WEAVER & SHEREMETA, INC. JOHN A. GRANT, JR., INC 17 17 A & B ENGINEERING, INC. CRAIG A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 18 17 CRAIG A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. A & B ENGINEERING, INC. 19 19 JOHN A. GRANT, JR., INC COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 20 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. DRMP, INC 21 21 DRMP, INC PAUL E. BREWER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 22 22 PAUL E. BREWER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Surveying RFQ S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2012\12-058\RFQ Submittals\RFQEvalMasterSurveying.xls Printed: 12/6/2011 Surveying RFQ Individual Score By Rank Weighted Overall Overall Total Individual Score By Points Firm Grieve Costello Majtenyi Ballestero Krejcarek Score Rank Rank Points Grieve Costello Majtenyi Ballestero Krejcarek A & B ENGINEERING, INC. 18 16 17 21 14 29 19 17 301 60 78 61 47 55 AVIROM & ASSOCIATES, INC 2 4 4 4 1 100 1 1 401 83 82 81 76 79 BRUCE CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC 4 2 13 3 4 89 2 3 385 78 84 70 77 76 CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC. 14 15 16 5 5 60 13 12 347 63 79 62 73 70 CAULFIELD & WHEELER, INC. 1 1 10 16 5 82 5 5 371 86 85 75 55 70 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC 14 21 18 20 16 26 20 20 287 63 65 56 49 54 CONSUL-TECH ENTERPRISES, INC. 17 5 15 12 11 55 15 15 335 62 81 65 65 62 CRAIG A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 18 19 6 18 34 18 17 301 50 77 54 69 51 CRAVEN THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC. 9 5 12 2 8 79 6 5 371 69 81 71 81 69 DENNIS J. LEAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12 5 3 1 5 89 2 2 386 67 81 82 86 70 DRMP, INC 19 19 20 18 17 22 21 21 284 52 75 52 52 53 ENGENUITY GROUP, INC. 13 12 7 19 3 61 12 11 348 65 80 76 50 77 FRS & ASSOCIATES 3 16 6 10 21 59 14 9 353 81 78 79 67 48 GREENHORNE & O'MARA 9 5 1 6 18 76 8 8 355 69 81 85 69 51 HELLER-WEAVER & SHEREMETA, INC. 14 19 2 15 14 51 16 16 333 63 75 84 56 55 JOHN A. GRANT, JR., INC 21 12 21 10 13 38 17 19 293 48 80 42 67 56 KEITH & SCHNARS, P.A. 7 12 7 9 18 62 11 12 347 72 80 76 68 51 KEITH ASSOCIATES INC. 11 5 11 13 10 65 10 10 350 68 81 73 63 65 MILLER LEGG 8 5 7 17 12 66 9 14 341 71 81 76 54 59 O'BRIEN, SUITER & O'BRIEN, INC, 5 3 14 14 2 77 7 7 361 76 83 66 58 78 PAUL E. BREWER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 22 22 22 22 22 5 22 22 124 30 14 21 25 34 WANTMAN GROUP, INC. 6 5 5 6 9 84 4 4 372 74 81 80 69 68 S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2012\12-058\RFQ Submittals\RFQEvalMasterSurveying.xls MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Douglas E. Smith, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: December 9, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 RFQ FOR LOCAL ENERGY ASSURANCE PLANNING AND TRAINING ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is approval of the ranking of respondents to Request for Qualifications (RFQ)# 2011-16 for Local Energy Assurance Planning & Training and authorization for staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm. BACKGROUND The City was previously awarded a Local Energy Assurance Plan (LEAP) grant from the U.S. Department of Energy in the amount of $130,000 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The main focus of the LEAP initiative is to build regional energy assurance capabilities that will allow the city to better communicate and coordinate responses on a regional and state level as it relates to energy security, reliability, assurance planning, and emergency issues regarding energy disruptions. The objectives of the initiative are to develop, strengthen, and/or expand local government energy assurance planning and resiliency, reduce the impacts from energy supply disruptions, and create and save jobs in energy assurance planning at the city level. The City issued RFQ# 2011-16 for consulting services to assist with plan preparation, training, and grant reporting related to the LEAP grant. The City received two responses: EMC Engineers, Inc. (a subsidiary of Eaton Corporation) and Langton Associate, Inc. Both firms are scheduled to make presentations to the staff ranking committee for this RFQ on Monday, December 12. Following that meeting, the staff committee will determine a recommendation for ranking the respondents. The staff committee's recommeded ranking will be reviewed at the December 13 Commission meeting for Commission's consideration to approve the ranking and potentially authorize staff to enter into negotiations with the top ranked firm. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Commission approval of the ranking of respondents to RFQ# 2011-16 for Local Energy Assurance Planning & Training and authorization for staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commission FROM: Douglas E. Smith, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: December 13, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.H. – RFQ FOR LOCAL ENERGY ASSURANCE PLANNING & TRAINING – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This item is on the agenda for tonight’s Commission Meeting (Item 9.H.) for approval of the ranking of respondents to Request for Qualifications (RFQ)# 2011 16 for Local Energy Assurance Planning & Training and authorization for staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm. In the Commission agenda memo for this item it was noted that the staff recommendation for the RFQ ranking would be reviewed at the December 13 Commission Meeting. Two firms responded to the RFQ: EMC Engineers, Inc. (a subsidiary of Eaton Corporation) and Langton Associate, Inc. The Staff RFQ Ranking Committee met today and their rankings are shown on the attached table resulting in an overall ranking as follows: 1. Langton Associates, Inc. 2. EMC Engineers, Inc. (Eaton Corporation) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Commission approval of the Staff RFQ Committee’s Rankings for RFQ # 2011 16 as follows: 1. Langton Associates, Inc. 2. EMC Engineers, Inc. (Eaton Corporation) The Staff Ranking Committee recommends Commission authorization for staff to enter negotiations first with Langton Associates, Inc. and second with EMC Engineers, Inc. (Eaton Corporation) if an agreement is not reached with Langton Associates, Inc. December 13, 2011 LEAP RFQ Committee Rankings Individual Score By Points Total Firm Krejcarek Majtenyi Reade Smith Williams Points Langton Associates 48 56 71 70 53 298 EMC Engineers (Eaton) 62 61 65 53 49 290 Individual Score By Rank Overall Firm Krejcarek Majtenyi Reade Smith Williams Rank Langton Associates 2 2 1 1 1 1 EMC Engineers (Eaton) 1 1 2 2 2 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: December 8, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.I. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 CONTRACT AWARD/O.T. SERVICES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to award the annual janitorial services contract for the Delray Beach Golf Course to O.T. Services in the amount of $31,920.00 annually/$2,660.00 per month, per RFP# 2011-26. BACKGROUND Proposals were received from eleven (11) vendors in response to RFP Specification #2011-26, for Janitorial Services for Delray Beach Golf Course on Wednesday, September 07, 2011. On September 15, 2011 after review, rankings were submitted to Purchasing as follows; OT Services, Premier Building Services, Perm A Care, Sunshine Cleaning and Customs Cleaning. On Tuesday October 04, 2011 a meeting was scheduled for the top three (3) ranking vendors, Perm A Care, Premiere Building Services and O.T. Services. Premiere Building Services declined. Vendor rankings were based on bid submittals, experience, verified references and vendor presentations on October 4th. This bid is very complicated due to the required hours that this service must be rendered. All cleaning activities must be performed between the hours of 11:00 pm and 6:00 am with no exceptions due the operations of the Golf Course. The pricing corresponds to the estimated time involved to complete the various duties required. Comments from the RFP committee regarding the five lowest bids are attached which outline some concerns with the bidders who submitted lower pricing than O.T. services. FUNDING SOURCE 445-4711-572.34-90 D B MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends award of annual janitorial services contract for the Delray Beach Golf Course to OT Services in the amount of $31,920.00 annually/$2,660.00 per month per RFP #2011-26. RFP #2011 26 Janitorial Services RFP Committee follow up comments Bid Proposals Little Clean Giant $25,920.00 West Palm Beach Marriot listed on references however only do vacuuming of floors Main focus on health care environments Small staff Personally feel that going with low bid again would have same result as last year REBID Not enough information in bid packet to determine personnel assignment to DBGC and hours\ scope of work of each individual, management follow through, etc. Premier Building Services $26,928.00 *Declined follow up presentation meeting Oct. 04, 2011 Many corporate offices and buildings, only minor restaurants on experience Big on quality control procedures according to bid packet see highlighted in bid packet 2 person team assigned to DBGC up to 6 hours per night Called and left messages with references no responses La Belle Cleaning $31,548.00 No restaurants listed on references No information on size\ quality of cleaning crew to be assigned to DBGC No statement on scope of work, follow up NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION Jani King $31,810.68 Last Cleaning company to be removed from DBGC Would assign same manager as in past O.T Services $31,920.00 3 4 Cleaning personnel attached to cleaning crew of DBGC Per bid packet excellent management\supervisor follow up proposals see highlighted portion of bid packet Very good references 10 years with Hospice food Service Current scope of work includes many Delray Beach Facilities as confirmed by Purchasing. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Richard J. Reade, Sustainability Officer THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: December 9, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.J. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 STATE OF THE CITY & CITIZEN'S ROUNDTABLE MEETINGS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Discuss options related to the Annual State of the City and Citizen's Roundtable Meetings. BACKGROUND Annually, the City has held a publicly attended State of the City Meeting, which included a presentation by the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Chair, the City's Planning and Zoning Board Chair and the City Manager, outlining the various accomplishments that have been achieved throughout the past year as well as where each of the agencies expect to go during the upcoming year. In addition and immediately following the State of the City event, the City has hosted a Citizen's Roundtable event to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in their community by providing input on the various services and programs that are being provided well, identifying and discussing where there are challenges and developing possible resolutions, ensuring that the City remains responsive to the needs of our citizens, businesses, property owners and visitors and provides the highest quality of services. This year's events have been tentatively scheduled to be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at Old School Square Crest Theatre and the Gymnasium. However, as evidenced from recent meetings, attendance is low, possibly due to the length of the meetings, the day and/or time that the events are held and/or the fact that the State of the City is provided on numerous occasions at various benevolent and community organization meetings. As a result, staff is requesting that the City Commission discuss and provide direction on these meetings and whether they should be continued in the same format or modified. In addition, staff will present the Commission with an innovative on-line tool, Peak Democracy -Open Town Hall, that would provide the City with the opportunity to continue communicating and receiving input from the community on issues that would normally be discussed during the Citizen's Roundtable. This new approach provides local governments with an independently monitored, on-line forum that allows authenticated members (name and address -no anonymous posters) of the Delray Beach community to provide their input on various issues and/or programs. Additional information on Peak Democracy can be viewed on-line at www.peakdemocracy.com. If this approach is utilized as a possible alternative or supplement to the Roundtable event, the proposed annual cost would be $3,780 for an unlimited number of topics or $720 for a single topic, which can be utilized as a PILOT. These prices are discounted due to the City's membership with the Alliance for Innovation. RECOMMENDATION Provide direction on the State of the City and Citizen's Roundtable events as well as possible alternative options to continue communicating with the Delray Beach community. Online Public Comment Forums with the Order & Decorum of a Government Meeting– Civil, Legal, Insightful, Inexpensive Peak Democracy Inc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or the latest stats on the Peak Democracy Network, go to http://www.PeakDemocracy.com F%(G>%2.0-(04*0.2" !5HIH!!" Local Govs • Salt Lake City UT • South Salt Lake UT* • Palo Alto CA • Yucca Valley CA* • Vacaville CA* • Colma CA* • Santa Clara CA* • Ashland OR • Lake Oswego OR • Alpharetta GA • Decatur GA • Blue Ash OH • Montgomery OH • Arlington VA* • Hampton VA • Norfolk VA • Junction City KS • Clayton MO * • Ferguson MO • Williamsburg PA • State College PA** • Tempe AZ* • Payson AZ • Rock Hill SC • Germantown TN • Middletown RI • Washoe County NV • Beltline GA • Fort Collins CO* • Airway Heights WA* Elected Officials • Berkeley CA • Sacramento CA • Eureka CA • Arcata CA • Trinidad CA • Penticton BC * Client established but forums not publicly launched yet ** Client use periodic (not ongoing) forums K&9:&%"V.-/28)"@)49-"A)B'%2)0)&(*"C"D'>-%=":EF)=(937&*" A" F%(G>%2.0-(04*0.2" !5HIH!!" Low High Public Expectations • Online forums frequently infected with the 3Ps: Profanity, Personal Attacks, Impertinent SPAM • Some people dominate forums by multiple postings • Many people intimidated by vitriol • Many people frustrated by misinformation b frustrate Individuals (i.e. bloggers) Atta Companies Low Legal Requirements High • First Amendment Freedom of Speech Rights • Freedom of Information Public Records Act • Records Retention Requirements • Sunshine Ordinances Government K&9:&%"V.-/28)"@)49-"A)B'%2)0)&(*"C"D'>-%=":EF)=(937&*" C" F%(G>%2.0-(04*0.2" !5HIH!!" Low High Public Expectations High Low Legal Requirements • First Amendment Freedom of Speech Rights • Freedom of Information Public Records Act • Records Retention Requirements • Sunshine Ordinances Government Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd /mob-sourcing online public comment forms: civil, legal, insightful K-'%-"@">%0.-/2"K&9:&%"R!".<"CT)""G7H"I7&(27-*"(J)"K72'0"N" F%(G>%2.0-(04*0.2" !5HIH!!" Low High Public Expectations High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd /mob-sourcing • Forum appears on gov website (but powered by Peak Democracy servers) • Agenda & topics set by gov • Background info set by gov (when applicable, gov staff report inserted in forum) • Forum options set by gov (duration, open-ended, Y/N, option A/B, show name, support, tally, civic points & rewards) • Forums can integrate gov Fb wall & Twitter feed K-'%-"@">%0.-/2"K&9:&%"R5".<"CT)""D'>-%="D7*("I700)&(*" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""+&7("924'0)&(*/" I" F%(G>%2.0-(04*0.2" !5HIH!!" Low High Public Expectations High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd /mob-sourcing • Commenters register name, address & email (not anonymous, but gov can allow post with name-not-shown) • Structure is parallel to a public hearing • 1 comment per topic (but can change comment) • Can’t dominate forum via multiple comments • Can’t argue back-&-forth & intimidate others • Can’t hijack forum with off-topic thread K-'%-"@">%0.-/2"K&9:&%"R=".<"CT)"L)"$7&%(72"D923=%F9&(*" !!" F%(G>%2.0-(04*0.2" !5HIH!!" Low High Public Expectations High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd /mob-sourcing • We confirm email valid via email confirmation • We check street address via geo-coding • We note IP address & browser cookie • We monitor participants for multiple comments • We prevent systematic abuse & fraud • You don’t utilize gov staff time K-'%-"@">%0.-/2"K&9:&%"RA".<"CT)""L)"$7&%(72"I700)&(*"!=" F%(G>%2.0-(04*0.2" !5HIH!!" Low High Public Expectations High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd /mob-sourcing • We handle user support issues & questions • We resolve disruptive comments • We notify gov contact if problem occurs • We move problem comment to special web page • We diplomatically inform commenter via email • We never delete or edit comments • We maintain freedom of speech rights • You don’t utilize gov staff time K-'%-"@">%0.-/2"K&9:&%"RC".<"CT)"G7H"M&9-;N)O"A)F72(O"<)=%.)" !A" F%(G>%2.0-(04*0.2" !5HIH!!" Low High Public Expectations High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd /mob-sourcing • You can archive digital & paper copy of forum • You only use minor staff time for public records • You can analyze feedback (by city, district, neighborhood & distance to a project) • You retain decision-making authority (no use of the “v” word; no Referendum Effect) • You can assess citizen satisfaction MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: City Manager DATE: December 9, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.K. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PROPOSAL FOR A CONGRESS CORRIDOR MARKETING PLAN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consider accepting a proposal for creating a strategic marketing plan for the Congress Avenue Corridor. BACKGROUND In May, through the Palm Beach County League of Cities, I was introduced to Mr. David Wilk. He is the National Director of Corporate Real Estate and Advisory Services for Sperry Van Ness Commercial Real Estate Advisors and Corporate Valuation Advisors. One of the services Mr. Wilk provides in his position is economic development strategies for municipalities through repositioning key properties, and marketing /branding strategies that optimize challenging real estate assets. The Mayor and I met with Mr. Wilk at that time to get to know him and learn more about what he might be able to do to help us market the Congress Corridor. This fall I contacted Mr. Wilk again to discuss the Congress Corridor with him further. When he was here, he also spent some time with Vin Nolan. Based on our meetings and what I have been able to learn about Mr. Wilk, I believe he will be able to provide invaluable advice on the kinds of businesses most likely to be interested in the Congress Corridor, and the Office Depot property in particular, and how we should market ourselves to them. After our last meeting I asked Mr. Wilk to provide us with a proposal, which you will find attached. I believe that implementation of this proposal would be a significant step in jump starting development/redevelopment of the Congress Corridor. Vin Nolan has reviewed the proposal and agrees that it is a comprehensive, valuable approach. While the Marketing Plan is being developed, City staff will work closely with Mr. Nolan to develop appropriate incentives to make available in this corridor. With a Marketing Plan and a package of incentives we should be well positioned to attract investment to the corridor. The proposed fee of $7,500 to $10,000 seems reasonable considering the scope of the proposal. The cost is within administrative approval limits, but considering the fact that this is in support of one of our major goals, I wanted to be sure the Commission agreed with this approach. FUNDING SOURCE City Manager's contingency. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Commission accept the proposal from Sperry Van Ness for Creating a Strategic Marketing Plan for the Congress Avenue Corridor. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: December 6, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 47-11 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to add assisted living facilities to the list of allowed uses in the same manner as multiple family residential usesin order to bring consistency between the Land Development Regulations and State and Federal Laws. BACKGROUND Recently amendments to the Land Development Regulations have been adopted on April 15, 2008 (Ordinance 20-08) and on January 19, 2010 (Ordinance 01-10) to allow assisted living facilities to be accommodated similarly (with respect to the number of residents and units) to either single family, duplex, or multi-family uses in the zoning districts in which those uses were allowed. Subsequently it was discovered that assisted living facilities were not accommodated in the same manner as other multifamily residential uses under two certain situations where special regulations allowed increased densities and in certain overlay districts where residential uses are permitted. Under the proposed ordinance, additional provisions are made to allow assisted living facilities where increased densities are permitted through the conditional use provisions and within certain overlay districts which allows residential uses. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment will further Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. A positive finding can be made that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval on a 6 to 1 vote (Gerry Franciosa dissenting) at its November 21, 2011 meeting. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Ordinance No. 47-11 on first reading for a City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. Attachments: -Proposed Ordinance No. 47-11 -Planning and Zoning Staff Report of November 21, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 47-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.6, “MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (D), “CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED”, SECTION 4.4.9, “GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION (B), “PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED”, SECTION 4.4.9, “GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION (G)(3)(4), “MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS”, SECTION 4.4.12, “PLANNED COMMERCIAL (PC) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION (G), “SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS”, SECTION 4.4.13, “CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION (D), “CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED”, SECTION 4.4.28, “CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT-RAILROAD CORRIDOR (CBD-RC)”, SUBSECTION (D), “CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED, TO ADD ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES TO THE LIST OF ALLOWED USES IN THE SAME MANNER AS MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES IN ORDER TO BRING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on November 21, 2011, and voted 6 to 1 to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2 ORD. NO. 47-11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 4.4.6, "Medium Density Residential (RM) District", subsection (D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.6. Medium Density Residential (RM) District: (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following uses are allowed as conditional uses within the RM District. (1) Child care and adult day care. (2) Private educational facilities subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(HHH). (3) Churches, or places of worship, and their attendant educational, nursery, Sunday school, recreational, and columbarium facilities. The foregoing does not allow establishment of educational and care uses such as elementary school and general day care; however, such uses may be established by a separate conditional use application for child care or rezoning to CF, as appropriate. (4) The use of common recreational facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and golf courses (associated with a subdivision) for club or commercial purposes. (5) Single family detached residences in zero lot developments. (6) Yacht club with facilities. (7) Dock master facilities when associated with a multi-family development which has a marina. (8) Private beach clubs with attendant recreational, dining, and related accessory facilities within one of the following areas: (a) the area lying south of Atlantic Dunes Park and east of State Road A1A, or (b) south of Casurina Road, north of Bucida road, and east of State Road A1A. (9) Multiple family residential development, including residential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, may exceed twelve (12) units per acre, up to a maximum 3 ORD. NO. 47-11 of twenty-four (24) units per acre within the Southwest Neighborhood Overlay District defined in Section 4.5.9, subject to the provisions of Section 4.4.6(I), Article 4.7, and based upon the development’s conformance with the applicable standards and criteria described within the adopted Southwest Area Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. (10) Multiple family residential development, including residential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, may exceed twelve (12) units per acre, up to a maximum of twenty-four (24) units per acre within the Carver Estates Overlay District as defined in Section 4.5.11 and up to a maximum of eighteen (18) units per acre within the Infill Workforce Housing Area, subject to the provisions of Section 4.4.6(l), and Article 4.7. Section 3. That Section 4.4.9, "General Commercial (GC) District", subsection (B), “Principal Uses and Structures Permitted”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.9 General Commercial (GC) District: (B) Principal Uses and Structures Permitted: The following are allowed within the GC District as permitted uses, except as modified in the Four Corners Overlay District by Section 4.4.9(G)(3)(a). (1) General retail uses and/or facilities, including, but not limited to: (a) Antiques, arts and crafts, automotive parts, baked goods, books, carpet and floor covering, cheeses, beer, wine, liquor, confectioneries, cosmetics, meats, draperies and slipcovers, pharmacies, electrical fixtures and supplies, fabrics, fish, flowers and plants, fruits and vegetables, food, garden supplies, gifts, glassware, hardware and paints, home furnishings, ice cream, lawn care equipment, leather goods, luggage, medical and surgical equipment, music and musical instruments, nautical supplies, office furniture equipment and supplies, pets and pet supplies, photographic equipment and supplies, sewing supplies, sporting goods, toys, wearing apparel and accessories, appliances, bicycles, business machines, jewelry. (2) Business, Professional, and Medical uses including, but not limited to: 4 ORD. NO. 47-11 (a) Interior decorating, medical and dental clinics, medical and dental laboratories, photographic studios, printing and publishing, business offices, professional offices, and medical offices. (3) Contractor's Offices, including but not limited to: (a) Air conditioning, general contractor, electrical, painting, and plumbing; however, any outside storage of materials is prohibited. (4) Services and Facilities including, but not limited to: (a) Auctions, barber and beauty shops and salons, caterers, dry cleaning limited to on-site processing for customer pickup only, dry cleaning and laundry pickup stations, financing e.g. banks and similar institutions including drive-through facilities, laundromats limited to self-service facilities, pet grooming, restaurants including drive-in and drive-through, tailoring, tobacconist, vocational schools limited to arts and crafts, business, beauty, dancing, driving, gymnastics, photography, modeling, and karate-judo, small item repair, and rental of sporting goods and equipment (such as but not limited to bicycles, skates, boogie boards). With the exception of bicycles with an electric-helper motor as defined in Section 72.02, Delray Beach Code of Ordinances, all rented sporting goods must be non-motorized. (b) Abused spouse residence with forty (40) or fewer residents, galleries, broadcast studios, butcher shops, cocktail lounges, exercise facilities e.g. gyms and clubs, indoor shooting ranges, museums, libraries, newsstands, commercial or public parking lots and parking garages, theaters excluding drive-ins. (5) Dwelling units, and residential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, in the same structure as commercial uses provided that: commercial uses must be provided on the ground floor; commercial uses on the ground floor must occupy no less than 25% of the total structure excluding square footage devoted to vehicular use; residential uses are not located on the ground level; residential uses and non-residential uses are physically separated and have separate accessways; and the residential density does not exceed 12 units per acre, except the Four Corners District which may have a free standing residential building as part of a multi-building unified master plan or the residential component may be a part of a single mixed use building. The density of the Four Corners 5 ORD. NO. 47-11 Master Plan shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre and is subject to the provisions under Section 4.4.9 (G)(3)(d)(4). Section 4. That Section 4.4.9, "General Commercial (GC) District", subsection (D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following are allowed as conditional uses within the GC District, except as modified in the North Federal Highway Overlay District by Section 4.4.9(G)(2) and except as modified in the Four Corners Overlay District by Section 4.4.9(G)(3)(c). (1) Amusement game facilities. (2) Wash establishments or facilities for vehicles. (3) Child Care and Adult Day Care. (4) Clubs and Lodges; social, fraternal, and recreational not exceeding 3,500 sq. ft. of gross floor area. (5) Drive-in Theaters. (6) Flea Markets, bazaars, merchandise marts, and similar retail uses. (7) Funeral Homes. (8) Gasoline Stations or the dispensing of gasoline directly into vehicles. (9) Hotels and Motels. (10) Free-standing multiple-family housing, including residential licensed service provider facilities, subject to the requirements of the RM District except for setback and height requirements which shall be pursuant to this Section. (11) Recreational establishments such as bowling alleys, gymnasiums, health spas, miniature golf courses, skating rinks. (12) Sales and service of All Terrain Vehicles and personal watercraft (waverunners, jet skis), with no outside display, outside storage or outside service. (13) Vehicle care limited to the changing of oil and filters, and lubrication with no mechanical work or outside storage of vehicles except as a part of a gasoline station. (14) Veterinary Clinics. 6 ORD. NO. 47-11 (15) (Group Home, Type 2 and Community Residential Homes, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(I). (16) Adult Gaming Centers. (17) Churches or places of worship, and their attendant Sunday school, recreational and columbarium facilities not exceeding 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. The foregoing does not allow establishment of educational and care uses such as elementary school and general day care. (18) Multiple family residential development, including residential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, may exceed twelve (12) units per acre, up to a maximum of eighteen (18) units per acre within the Infill Workforce Housing Area, subject to the provisions of Section 4.4.6(l), and Article 4.7, and subject to the requirements of the RM District except for setback and height requirements, which shall be pursuant to this Section. (19) Assisted Living Facilities, Nursing Homes, and Continuing Care Facilities subject to the requirements of the RM District except for setback and height requirements which shall be pursuant to this Section. (20) Large Family Child Care Home, subject to Section 4.3.3(TT). Section 5. That Section 4.4.9, “General Commercial (GC) District”, subsection 4.4.9(G)(3), “Four Corners Overlay District”, paragraph 4, “Multi-Family Dwelling Units”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.9(G)(3) (3) Four Corners Overlay District: The following supplemental district regulations apply to the Four Corners Overlay District, as defined in Section 4.5.14. (a) The permitted uses shall be those uses listed in Sections 4.4.9(B)(1,2,4,5). (b) The accessory uses shall be those uses listed in Section (C). (c) The conditional uses shall be those uses listed in Sections (D)(1,3,4,10,12,15, 20 and 21). (d) Standards Pertaining to Allocation of Uses: 1. Office uses can encompass up to one hundred percent (100%) of the total building square footage within a Four Corners Overlay master development plan. 7 ORD. NO. 47-11 2. Retail uses shall not encompass more than one hundred percent (100%) of the total building area square footage of the Four Corners Overlay master development plan. 3. Hotels, motels, and residential all suite lodging shall not encompass more than 20% of the total building area square footage of the Four Corners Overlay master development plan. Notwithstanding the above, hotels, motels and residential all suite lodging can comprise 100% of the floor area of an individual building within a MDP containing multiple buildings. 4. Multi-family Dwelling Units: Multi-family uses and assisted living facilities, but excluding duplexes subject to (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) below, ranging in density not to exceed 30 units per acre subject to the following: a. Residential units may comprise 75% of the total floor area of the development master plan at a maximum density of (30) units per acre and only when proposed as part of a mixed-use development containing office and/or commercial uses. b. Residential developments must include a minimum of 20% workforce units consisting of moderate income workforce units as defined by Article 4.7 Family/Workforce Housing. c. Workforce units shall be subject to general provisions of Article 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.7.8, 4.7.9, and 4.7.10. d. For mixed-use developments, the shared parking provisions of LDR Section 4.6.9. (C)(8) shall be allowed. e. All residential developments shall be subject to the Performance Standards of 4.4.13(l)(2) Section 6. That Section 4.4.12, “Planned Commercial (PC) District”, subsection (G), “Supplemental District Regulations”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.12 Planned Commercial (PC) District (G) Supplemental District Regulations: In addition to the supplemental district regulations set forth in Article 4.6, the following shall apply. (1) Development within the Lindell/Federal Redevelopment Area Overlay District (Redevelopment Area #6) shall be consistent with the provisions contained within the adopted 8 ORD. NO. 47-11 Redevelopment Plan for the area, as particularly described under the chapter entitled “Section 4: Plan for Future Development.” (2) Within the portion of the Redevelopment Area that is bounded by Dixie Highway on the west, the C-15 canal on the south, Federal Highway on the east, and Avenue K (extended) on the north, multiple family residential development and assisted living facilities with densities of up to 16 units per acre is are allowed as a conditional use, subject to the provisions of LDR Section 4.4.6 RM (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subsection (I), Performance Standards, and based upon the development’s conformance with the applicable standards and criteria described within the adopted Redevelopment Plan. (3) Dwelling units are permitted within the same structure as commercial uses with no restriction on the percentage of each use allowed. In the event that residential and nonresidential uses are located in the same structure, residential uses and nonresidential uses must be physically separated and have separate accessways. (4) All development within the Four Corners Overlay District shall also comply with the provisions of Section 4.4.9(G)(3)(d) and (e). (5) Within the Silver Terrace Courtyards Overlay District, as defined by Section 4.5.17, multi-family residential, assisted living facilities and mixed-use development with residential densities up to 22 units per acre is are allowed as a conditional use, subject to the provisions of LDR Section 4.4.6 RM (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subsection (I), Performance Standards, provided at least 20 % of the units are workforce units which comply with the provisions of Article 4.7, “Family/Workforce Housing”. The maximum nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within the overlay district is 0.75. Section 7. That Section 4.4.13, “Central Business (CBD) District”, subsection (D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.13 Central Business (CBD) District: (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following uses are allowed as conditional uses within the CBD District: (1) Amusement game facilities limited to such uses as pinball, air hockey, electronic games, and other similar coin operated games when an attendant is on duty. (2) Child care and adult day care. (3) Financial institutions, e.g., banks and similar institutions including drive through facilities pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.4.13(H)(1). 9 ORD. NO. 47-11 (4) Funeral homes including accessory uses, such as, a chapel, crematory, and the like. (5) Gasoline stations or the dispensing of gasoline directly into vehicles, except that such use shall not be allowed in the West Atlantic Neighborhood, the Beach District, nor on lots which front along Atlantic Avenue or N.E. 2nd Avenue (a/k/a Pineapple Grove Way), beginning at a point 105’ south of N.E. 4th Street. (6) Recreational establishments such as bowling alleys, gymnasiums, health spas, miniature golf courses, skating rinks. (7) Veterinary clinics. (8) Movie theaters, excluding drive-ins. (9) Playhouses, dinner theaters, and places of assembly for commercial entertainment purposes (e.g., concerts, live performances). (10) Flea markets, bazaars, merchandise marts, and similar retail uses. (11) Wash establishment, with automatic/mechanical systems only, for vehicles, except that such use shall not be located east of the Intracoastal Waterway or on lots which front along Atlantic Avenue. Further, this use must be established on property with a minimum lot area of 20,000 sq.ft. (12) Multi-family dwelling units, including residential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, but excluding duplexes, at a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre, on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and north of S.E. 2nd Street, subject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I). (13) Group Home, Type 2 and Community Residential Homes, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(I). (14) Restaurants, Cocktail Lounges, Hotels, and Residential Type Inns may provide their required parking as valet parking, subject to the provisions of Section 4.6.9(F)(3 (15) Drive-in or drive-through restaurants on property located within the West Atlantic Neighborhood. (16) Hotels, motels, and residential-type inns on property located within the West Atlantic Neighborhood. (17) Free standing or mixed-use residential development, including residential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities at a density greater than twelve (12) units per acre, but not exceeding 30 units per acre, on property located within the West Atlantic Neighborhood, subject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I). (18) Bed and Breakfast Inns within the West Atlantic Neighborhood, subject to the provisions of LDR Section 4.3.3(Y) (19) Live/Work Unit, subject to Section 4.3.3 (KKK). 10 ORD. NO. 47-11 (20) Large Family Child Care Home subject to Section 4.3.3(TT). (21) Segway Tours and Segway Sales pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(ZZZZ). Section 8. That Section 4.4.28, “Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (CBD-RC)”, subsection (D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.28 Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (CBD-RC) (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following uses are allowed as conditional uses within the CBD-RC zoning district: (1) All uses allowed as such within the CBD [Section 4.4.13(D) ]. (2) Automobile repair and automobile detailing. However, such facilities may not be located north of S.E. 1st Street or south of S.E. 6th Street, extended. Conditional use approval may not be granted for a new automobile repair facility, nor for the expansion of an existing facility, unless it is specifically demonstrated that off-street parking is available in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.6.9. (3) Food preparation and/or processing, including but not limited to bakeries and catering operations. (4) Dry cleaning processing plants. (5) Multi-family dwelling units, and assisted living facilities, but excluding duplexes, at a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre, in the area located west of the FEC Railroad, north of N.E. 2nd Street and south of N.E. 3rd Street, subject to the standards and limitations of LDR Section 4.4.13 (I). In addition, development must be consistent with the Design Guidelines contained within the Pineapple Grove Main Street Neighborhood Plan. The Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee shall review the project for consistency with the Performance Standards and compliance with the Pineapple Grove Neighborhood Plan prior to consideration of the Conditional Use by the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 9. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. 11 ORD. NO. 47-11 Section 10. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 11. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of ___________________, 200___. _____________________ _______________ ATTEST M A Y O R _______________________________ City Clerk First Reading__________________ Second Reading________________ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2011 AGENDA NO: IV.B AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTIONS 4.4.6 “MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) DISTRICT”, 4.4.9 “GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT”, 4.4.12 PLANNED COMMERCIAL (PC) DISTRICT, 4.4.13 “CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT” AND SECTION 4.4.28 “CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT–RAILROAD CORRIDOR (CBD-RC) DISTRICT”, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE SAME MANNER AS MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND DENSITY ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations pertaining to Assisted Living Facilities. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS On April 15, 2008, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 20-08, pertaining to Assisted Living Facilities and Continuing Care Facilities to comport with State Statues and achieve compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Law. The Ordinance added Assisted Living Facilities and Continuing Care Facilities to certain zoning districts in the same manner in which multiple-family residential uses were allowed within those districts. In order to achieve compliance with State Laws, a subsequent LDR text amendment was adopted by the City Commission on January 19, 2010 (Ordinance 01-10). This amendment allowed assisted living facilities to be accommodated similarly (with respect to the number of residents and units) to either single family, duplex, or multi-family uses in the zoning districts in which those uses were allowed. Recently, a public inquiry was received pertaining to the establishment of an assisted living facility at the 5th Avenue at Delray property, located on the east side of NE 5th Avenue, between NE 1st Street and NE 2nd Street. This property is located within the CBD and was developed at a density in excess of 30 units per acre with a conditional use approval. Assisted living facilities are allowed as a permitted use in the CBD (up to a maximum density of 30 units per acre) however, they were not listed as conditional uses with densities in excess of 30 units per acre. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, November 21, 2011 Amendment to LDRs Regarding Assisted Living Facilities Page 2 It was subsequently discovered that assisted living facilities were not accommodated in the same manner as other multi-family residential uses under two certain situations where special regulations allowed increased densities and in certain overlay districts where residential uses are permitted. Under the proposed ordinance, additional provisions are made to allow assisted living facilities where increased densities are permitted through the conditional use provisions and within certain overlay districts which allows residential uses. Pursuant to LDR Appendix “A” Assisted Living Facilities” are defined as: “Any building or buildings, section of building, or distinct part of a building, private home, boarding home, home for the aged, or other residential facility, whether operated for profit or not, which undertakes through its ownership or management to provide housing, meals, and one or more personal services for a period exceeding 24 hours to one or more adults who are not relatives of the owner or administration. “Personal services” means direct physical assistance with or supervision of the activities of daily living and the self-administration of medication and other similar services which the Department of Elderly Affairs may define by rule. “Personal services” shall not be construed to mean the provision of medical, nursing, dental, or mental health services. Assisted Living Facilities shall be accommodated in the same manner with respect to the number of residents and the number of units as required for the respective structures of either a single family unit, duplex unit or multi-family unit in the zoning districts where allowed. Requests for exemptions to the number of residents can be requested through a reasonable accommodation request pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(G)” LDR SECTIONS AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE: The following overlay districts, Infill Workforce Housing Areas and Redevelopment Areas allow for multiple family developments under certain criteria and do not allow assisted living facilities under similar circumstances. This ordinance adds assisted living facilities to these districts and areas to maintain consistency. Section 4.4.6 “Medium Density Residential (RM) District: Ø Within the RM district multiple family residential developments may exceed 12 units per acre, up to a maximum of 24 units per acre within the Southwest Neighborhood Overlay district and the Carver Estates Overlay district subject to approval of a conditional use and the provisions of Section 4.4.6(I), Article 4.7 and conformance with the criteria setforth in their respective re-development plan. Section 4.4.9 “General Commercial (GC) District”: Ø Within the GC district multiple family residential developments may exceed 12 units per acre, up to a maximum of 18 units per acre within the Infill Workforce Housing Area subject to approval of a conditional use and the provisions of Section 4.4.6(I), Article 4.7 and conformance with the requirements of the RM district except for setback and height requirements (which shall be per the GC district standards). Section 4.4.12 “Planned Commercial (PC) District”: Ø Within the PC district multiple family residential developments may exceed 12 units per acre, up to a maximum of 18 units per acre within the Infill Workforce Housing Area subject to approval of a conditional use and the provisions of Section 4.4.6(I), Article 4.7 and Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, November 21, 2011 Amendment to LDRs Regarding Assisted Living Facilities Page 3 conformance with the requirements of the RM district except for setback and height requirements (which shall be per the PC district standards). Additionally, varying density increases are allowed for multiple family developments within several overlay areas which would also be applicable to assisted living facilities. (i) Within the portion of the Redevelopment Area that is bounded by Dixie Highway on the west, the C-15 canal on the south, Federal Highway on the east, and Avenue K (extended) on the north, multiple family residential development with densities of up to 16 units per acre is allowed as a conditional use, subject to the provisions of LDR Section 4.4.6 RM (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subsection (I), Performance Standards, and based upon the development’s conformance with the applicable standards and criteria described within the adopted Redevelopment Plan. (ii) Within the Silver Terrace Courtyards Overlay District, as defined by Section 4.5.17, multi-family residential and mixed-use development with residential densities up to 22 units per acre is allowed as a conditional use, subject to the provisions of LDR Section 4.4.6 RM (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subsection (I), Performance Standards, provided at least 20 % of the units are workforce units which comply with the provisions of Article 4.7, “Family/Workforce Housing”. The maximum nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within the overlay district is 0.75. (iii) Within the “Four Corners Overlay District” of the PC district, multiple-family uses are allowed not to exceed a density of 30 units per acre subject to the following: a. Residential units may comprise 75% of the total floor area of the development master plan at a maximum density of (30) units per acre and only when proposed as part of a mixed-use development containing office and/or commercial uses. b. Residential developments must include a minimum of 20% workforce units consisting of moderate income workforce units as defined by Article 4.7 Family/Workforce Housing. c. Workforce units shall be subject to general provisions of Article 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.7.8, 4.7.9, and 4.7.10. d. For mixed-use developments, the shared parking provisions of LDR Section 4.6.9. (C)(8) shall be allowed. e. All residential developments shall be subject to the Performance Standards of 4.4.13(l)(2) Section 4.4.13 “Central Business District (CBD) District”: Ø Within the CBD district, multi-family dwelling units (excluding duplexes) are allowed as a conditional use at a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre, on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and north of S.E. 2nd Street, subject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I). In addition, development within the Pineapple Grove Main Street Area must be consistent with the Design Guidelines contained within the Pineapple Grove Main Street Neighborhood Plan. The Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee shall review the project for consistency with the Performance Standards and compliance with the Pineapple Grove Neighborhood Plan prior to consideration of the Conditional Use by the Planning and Zoning Board. Ø Additionally, for that area located with the West Atlantic Redevelopment Area, free standing or mixed-use residential developments are allowed as a conditional use at a density greater than twelve (12) units per acre, but not exceeding 30 units per acre, on property located Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, November 21, 2011 Amendment to LDRs Regarding Assisted Living Facilities Page 4 within the West Atlantic Neighborhood, subject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I). Section 4.4.24 “Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (CBD-RC) District: Ø Within the CBD-RC district, multi-family dwelling units (excluding duplexes) are allowed as a conditional use at a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre, on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and north of S.E. 2nd Street, subject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I). In addition, development within the Pineapple Grove Main Street Area must be consistent with the Design Guidelines contained within the Pineapple Grove Main Street Neighborhood Plan. The Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee shall review the project for consistency with the Performance Standards and compliance with the Pineapple Grove Neighborhood Plan prior to consideration of the Conditional Use by the Planning and Zoning Board. As stated above, assisted living facilities are to be accommodated in the same manner as multiple family residential uses. REQUIRED FINDINGS LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings): Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings), in addition to LDR Section 1.1.6(A), the City Commission must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were reviewed and the following applicable objective was noted: Housing Element Objective B-2 states, “Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types and other amenities (i.e. bike trails, parks, sidewalks) to accommodate the diverse economic makeup of the City’s demographic profile, and meet the housing needs of all residents. Policies which will implement this objective include:” The proposed amendment will further this policy. A positive finding can be made that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street committee reviewed the amendment at their November 2, 2011 meeting and recommended approval. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the amendment at their November 15, 2011 meeting and recommended approval. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the amendment at their November 15, 2011 meeting and recommended approval. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, November 21, 2011 Amendment to LDRs Regarding Assisted Living Facilities Page 5 The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the amendment at their November 10, 2011 meeting and recommended approval. Courtesy Notices: Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner and civic associations: § Neighborhood Advisory Council § Delray Citizen’s Coalition Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this City-initiated LDR text amendment is to bring consistency between the Land Development Regulations and Florida Statues. Positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). RECOMMENDED ACTION Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for a city-initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations as reflected in the attached Ordinance, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). Attachment: Proposed Ordinance MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: December 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 48-11 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will prohibit simulated gambling devices and their related places of business sometimes referred to as “internet or sweepstake cafes”. BACKGROUND The businesses that utilize simulated gambling devices are known by several names including Cyber cafes, Sweepstake cafes, or Internet cafes. These businesses can range from storefront locations which install fold out tables, add a few decorations and put out laptop computers with internet access to much larger facilities that install many computers, big screen TVs and have sitting and snack areas. These facilities sell internet access or telephone cards which allow customers to enter a sweepstakes system on computers at the business. Customers then enter games where they can win cash prizes. This circumvents the current gambling laws, because the purchase of computer time or phone cards to enter sweepstakes on a gaming web site is technically not paying to play a game to win money. After players “buy time”, they can win credits in various online sweepstakes that can then be transferred back to cash. These businesses have been popping up across the nation, including more recently in Florida, thereby creating concerns that it will increase crime rates, contribute to the financial hardships for low income customers, and lower property values. Many communities are now considering some type of limitation on this use. These cafes differ from regular internet cafes which charge a fee for computer use and are usually associated with the sale of drinks and snacks, but do not offer or promote sweepstakes as their primary business. They also differ from “adult gaming facilities”, which are allowed in certain zoning districts as a conditional use in the following way: Cyber cafes, Sweepstake cafes, or Internet cafes utilize web based games connected with sweepstake winnings with significantly higher payouts than adult gaming facilities, where the maximum retail value of individual prizes is limited to 75 cents per game and no cash awards, gift certificates, gift cards, credit cards or other cash substitutes are allowed. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item at their November 21, 2011 meeting and recommended approval on a 7-0 vote. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Ordinance No. 48-11 on first reading for a city-initiated amendment to Section 4.3.3 and Appendix ‘A’ of the Land Development Regulations, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. ORDINANCE NO. 48 -11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, “SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES”; BY ENACTING A NEW SUBSECTION 4.3.3(AAAA), “SIMULATED GAMBLING DEVICES”, IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT USE OF SAME AND AMENDING APPENDIX “A” TO ENACT A NEW DEFINITION OF “SIMULATED GAMBLING DEVICES”; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on November 21, 2011 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 7 of the 1968 Florida Constitution prohibits lotteries within Florida, other than the types of pari-mutuel pools authorized by law as of the effective date of the 1968 Florida Constitution; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 23, of the Florida Constitution, as adopted in a 2004 Amendment to the Florida Constitution, authorizes slot machine gaming only in certain eligible licensed facilities in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, and such authorization is subject to the requirements and conditions set forth in Article X, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and the extensive regulatory requirements of Chapter 551, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, computer or video displays of spinning reels or other simulations of a game or games ordinarily played on a gambling device or in a casino and which show the results of raffles, sweepstakes, contests or other promotions (hereinafter collectively referred to in these recitals as “simulated gambling devices”) were not among the types of pari-mutual pools authorized by law as of the effective date of the 1968 Florida Constitution; and WHEREAS, the technology necessary to facilitate simulated gambling devices effectively did not even generally exist in 1968; and WHEREAS, under no circumstances does the Florida Constitution or the Florida Statutes authorize or permit casino gambling or any activity resembling casino gambling in the City of Delray Beach, Florida; and 2 ORD. NO. 48-11 WHEREAS, no vote of the electorate of the City of Delray Beach authorizing casino gambling in the City of Delray Beach has taken place; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City Delray Beach, Florida (the “Commission”), desiring to protect individual rights, while at the same time affording opportunity for the fullest development of the individual and promoting the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people, including the elderly and economically disadvantaged, and the children of the City of Delray Beach who are our most precious and valuable resource, finds that the City of Delray Beach has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens, and in particular its elderly, economically disadvantaged, and children from certain activities and influences which can result in irreparable harm, including simulated gambling devices; and WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes that while the State of Florida has authorized slot machine gaming at licensed facilities in certain areas outside of the City of Delray Beach, it also recognizes that establishments that utilize simulated gambling devices can deceive members of the public, including the elderly, the economically disadvantaged, and children, into believing that they are engaging in a lawfully permitted gaming activity; and WHEREAS, the use of simulated gambling devices is therefore inherently deceptive; and WHEREAS, due to their inherently deceptive nature, establishments that utilize simulated gambling devices are adverse to the quality of life, tone of commerce, and total community environment in the City of Delray Beach, and have an unreasonable adverse effect upon the elderly, the economically disadvantaged, and other citizens of the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, the Commission is also charged with the responsibility of protecting and assisting its citizens who suffer from compulsive or problem gambling behavior; and WHEREAS, there is often a correlation between establishments that utilize simulated gambling devices and disturbances of the peace and good order of the community, and the concurrency of these activities is hazardous to the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure the uniform enforcement of existing laws, to preserve the public peace and good order, and to safeguard the health, safety, morals and welfare of the community and citizens thereof, it is necessary and advisable to prohibit the use of simulated gambling devices, unless otherwise exempted by law or ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. 3 ORD. NO. 48-11 Section 2. That Section 4.3.3, “Special Requirements for Specific Uses”, Subsection (AAAA), “Simulated Gambling Devices”, of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, shall hereby be enacted to read as follows: (AAAA) Simulated Gambling Devices: (1) Purpose: It is the intent of this section to prohibit the use of simulated gambling devices, including any related activity or behavior which can be reasonably construed to be the use of simulated gambling devices. (2) Prohibition of Simulated Gambling Devices: It shall be unlawful for any person to manage, supervise, maintain, provide, produce or use one or multiple simulated gambling devices. Each individual act to manage, supervise, maintain, provide, produce, or use a simulated gambling device constitutes a separate violation of this section. (3) Exemptions: (a) This section does not prohibit the personal, recreational, non-commercial ownership, play, operation or use of a device which could be construed to be a simulated gambling device, provided such ownership, play, operation or use is not otherwise prohibited by Florida law and provided such ownership, play, operation or use does not constitute a lottery under Article X, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution. (b) This section does not prohibit the ownership, play, operation, or use of any device expressly permitted by the Florida Statutes and not otherwise prohibited by the Florida Constitution, except that devices permitted by Article X, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 551, Florida Statutes, in Broward and Miami-Dade County only are not permitted by this section. c. This section does not prohibit Adult Gaming Centers, which are regulated by LDR Section 4.3.3(AAA). (4) Conflict with State Law: Nothing in this section is intended to conflict with the provisions of the Florida Constitution or Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, concerning gambling. In the event of a conflict between this section and either the Florida Constitution or Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, then the provisions of the Florida Constitution or Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, as applicable, control. (5) Penalty: Any person who violates this section is subject to the provisions of Section 10.99, “General Penalty”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. Each simulated 4 ORD. NO. 48-11 gambling device, possession or use thereof constitutes an individual offense for purposes of Section 10.99. Section 3. That Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to enact a new definition of “Simulated Gambling Device” to read as follows: SIMULATED GAMBLING DEVICE Means any mechanical or electrical device, computer, terminal, video or other equipment that may or may not be capable of downloading games from a central server system, machine, computer or other equipment upon connection with or the insertion of, swiping, passing in range, or any other technical means of physically or electromagnetically connecting to a coin, bill, ticket, token, card, or similar object, including entering a password obtained directly or indirectly through payment of consideration or obtained as a bonus or supplement to another transaction involving the payment of consideration, which makes the device available to play (by skill, chance, or both) or operate a computer or video simulation of any game such as slot machines, bingo, poker, keno, craps, or any other type of game ordinarily played in a casino, including a game involving the display of the results of a raffle, sweepstakes, drawing, contest, lottery, or other promotion, and which may deliver or entitle the person or persons playing or operating the device to a payoff of cash, money, or other credit, billets, tickets, tokens, or electronic credits to be exchanged for cash or merchandise, or any other thing of value, whether made automatically from the machine or manually. Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 6. That this ordinance shall become effective upon its passage on second and final reading. 5 ORD. NO. 48-11 PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of ____________________, 2011. ____________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk First Reading__________________ Second Reading________________ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2011 AGENDA NO: V.C AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), BY ENACTING A NEW SUBSECTION 4.3.3 (AAAA) TO PROHIBIT SIMULATED GAMBLING DEVICES, AND AMENDING APPENDIX “A” TO ENACT A NEW DEFINITION FOR THE SAME. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a cityinitiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will enact a new subsection to Section 4.3.3, “Special Requirements for Specific Uses”, to prohibit simulated gambling devices and the related places of business sometimes referred to as “internet or sweepstake cafes”. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The businesses that utilize these simulated gambling devices are known by several names including Cyber cafes, Sweepstake cafes, or Internet cafes. These businesses can range from storefront locations which install fold out tables, add a few decorations and put out laptop computers with internet access to much larger facilities that install many computers, big screen TVs and have sitting and snack areas. These facilities sell internet access or telephone cards which allow customers to enter a sweepstakes system on computers at the business. Customers then enter games where they can win cash prizes. This circumvents the current gambling laws, because the purchase of computer time or phone cards to enter sweepstakes on a gaming web site is technically not paying to play a game to win money. After players “buy time”, they can win credits in various online sweepstakes that can then be transferred back to cash. These businesses have been popping up across the nation, including more recently in Florida, thereby creating concerns that it will increase crime rates, contribute to the financial hardships for low income customers, and lower property values. Many communities are now considering some type of limitation on this use. These cafes differ from regular internet cafes which charge a fee for computer use and are usually associated with the sale of drinks and snacks, but do not offer or promote sweepstakes as their primary business. They also differ from “adult gaming facilities”, which are allowed in certain zoning districts as a conditional use in the following way: Cyber cafes, Sweepstake cafes, or Internet cafes utilize web based games connected with sweepstake winnings with significantly higher payouts than adult gaming facilities, where the maximum retail value of individual prizes is limited to 75 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 2011 LDR Amendment-Prohibition of Simulated Gambling Devices 2 cents per game and no cash awards, gift certificates, gift cards, credit cards or other cash substitutes are allowed. REQUIRED FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan Conformance LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the City Commission make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. While there were no specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan to support the proposed amendment, it is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS Courtesy Notices Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner and civic associations: § Neighborhood Advisory Council § Citizens Coalition § Chamber of Commerce § Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD) Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The proposed ordinance will prohibit simulated gambling devices and the related places of business sometimes referred to as “internet or sweepstake cafes”. While the amendment does not specifically further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and is not inconsistent with them. Further a positive finding can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (5). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of an amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by enacting a new subsection 4.3.3 (AAAA) to prohibit Simulated Gambling Devices, and amending “Appendix A” to enact a new definition for the same, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of an amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by enacting a new subsection 4.3.3 (AAAA) to prohibit Simulated Gambling Devices, and amending “Appendix A” to enact a new definition for the same, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative). Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 2011 LDR Amendment-Prohibition of Simulated Gambling Devices 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend approval of an amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by enacting a new subsection 4.3.3 (AAAA) to prohibit Simulated Gambling Devices, and amending “Appendix A” to enact a new definition for the same, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Attachment: § Proposed Ordinance MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE: December 7, 2011 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 50-11 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Adoption of Ordinance 50-11 regarding a proposed change to the number of signatures required to qualify as a candidate for election. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the direction given by Commission, at its November 8, 2011 workshop meeting, the following Ordinance has been prepared, which changes the required number of signatures needed on nominating petition from 1% of the registered voters to a set number of 250. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion. ORDINANCE NO. 50-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 34, “ELECTIONS”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING SECTION 34.16, “FILING OF NOMINATING PETITIONS”, TO MODIFY THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS REQUIRED TO SIGN A PETITION TO GRANT ELIGIBILITY OF A CANDIDATE TO QUALIFY TO RUN FOR OFFICE, PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach desires to modify the number of registered voters required to sign a petition to grant eligibility of a candidate to qualify to run for office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 34, “Elections”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach is amended by amending Section 34.16, “Filing of Nominating Petition”, to read as follows: Sec. 34.16. FILING OF NOMINATING PETITION (A) To qualify as a candidate for election, the candidate must file the documents set forth in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2). The documents shall be filed with the City Clerk no earlier than noon on the last Tuesday in January nor later than noon on the second Tuesday in February of the calendar year in which the election is to be held, or to qualify as a candidate for Mayor if a special election is called to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor, the candidate must file with the City Clerk no earlier than noon on the first Tuesday in April nor later than noon on the third Tuesday in April provided, however, all those who qualified previously for Mayor for the previous regular election will be deemed to have qualified as a candidate for the special election without additional petitions being filed or additional monies being paid or to qualify as a candidate in a special recall election called for the purpose of filling a vacancy pursuant to F.S. Section 100.361, the candidate must file with the City Clerk, no earlier than 8:00 a.m. two (2) days after the circuit court judge, pursuant to F.S. Section 100.361(2), has set the date for the special recall election and no later than 5:00 p.m. on the eighth day after the judge has set the date for the special recall election. The following documents must be filed: (1) A statement in writing under oath stating that the nominee is: (a) Qualified as an elector in the City and has been one since on or before September 1 preceding the election for which he or she is qualifying. (b) A candidate for the office for which he is qualifying. (2) A petition signed by the electors of the City not less in number than one percent of at least 250 of the Registered voters of the City as determined on January 1 of the year of the election, and payment of fifty dollars ($50.00) to cover the cost of validating the signatures on the petition. (B) (1) The petitions shall be on a form prescribed by the City Clerk, which shall not be released nor 2 ORD. NO. 50-11 distributed by the City Clerk until 8:00 a.m. on the first business day in the month of December preceding the month of qualification, or in the event of a special election to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor, the petition shall be released and distributed by the City Clerk no earlier than the second Tuesday in March proceeding the special election, or in the case of a special recall election at 8:00 a.m. on the day after the Circuit Court Judge, pursuant to F.S. Section 100.361(2), has set the date for the special recall election unless that date falls on a weekend or holiday, in which case a petition may be obtained on the next regular business day. (2) Signatures may be obtained on the petition between the time the City Clerk is authorized to release and distribute the petition and the deadline for qualification. The signatures to a nominating petition need not all be affixed to one paper, but to each separate paper of a petition there shall be attached an affidavit executed by its circulator stating the number of signers of the paper, that each signature on it was affixed in his presence, and that he believes each signature to be the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. The signatures shall be executed in ink or indelible pencil. Each petition shall have next to the signature the date of signing, the place of residence, and precinct number. (C) The names of all candidates and the office for which they have filed shall be received by the Supervisor of Elections from the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the first Friday after the close of qualifying, or in the event of a special election to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor or in the case of a special recall election by 5:00 p.m. on the day following the close of qualifying except that if said day falls on a weekend or holiday, the City Clerk shall transmit the names of all candidates and the office for which they have filed on the next working day. Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective after the March 13, 2012 Municipal election. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of ___________________, 2011. ______________________________________ ATTEST: M A Y O R _______________________________ City Clerk First Reading____________________ Second Reading_________________ _ MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:December 8, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.L.2 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PURCHASE AWARD/CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY OF ALABAMA, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to approve the award f or the purchase of bulk quicklime from Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, Inc. via Boynton Beach Co-op Bid #005-2821-09/JA at an estimated annual cost of $750,000.00 for the period of 12/16/2011 through 12/15/2012. BACKGROUND Quicklime is needed to adjust the pH of the raw wat er, preparing the water for treatment and to remove hardness which in turn, prevents scaling in the pip elines. The City of Boynton Beach is the lead agency for th is cooperative bid. On December 06, 2011 the City of Boynton Beach Commission approved an extension o f the current contract with Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, Inc. and participating governme ntal entities with Delray Beach, Lake Worth, Riviera Beach and West Palm Beach agreeing to the 1 .4% increase. The provision of this bid allows three (3) one (1) year extensions at the same terms, conditions and prices subject to vendor acceptance, satisfactory p erformance and determination that the renewal is in the best interest of the City. This is the third an d final extension for this bid. FUNDING SOURCE 441-5122-536.52-21 (Water and Sewer Fund: Operating Supplies/Chemicals) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends award to Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, Inc. for the purchase and delivery of bulk quicklime via the City of Boynton Beach Bid No . #005-2821-09/JA, at an estimated cost of $750,000. from December 16, 2011 through December 1 5, 2012. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:CANDI N. JEFFERSON, SENIOR PLANNER PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH:CITY MANAGER DATE:December 7, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 APPEAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD'S DECISION/BOSTON'S RESTAURANT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION On November 23, 2011, Attorney George W. Brannen an d his wife Pat Brannen, owners of Unit #1 of Bahama House (immediately to the south), filed an a ppeal to the Boston’s Restaurant Expansion approval granted by the Site Plan Review and Appear ance Board (SPRAB) at their November 9, 2011 meeting. The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approval of the site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations included the dem olition of the motel property (Bermuda Inn) and the provision of a new outside bar, new outdoor seating and dining areas and on-site parking (southerly expansion of Boston’s Restaurant). BACKGROUND On October 26, 2011, SPRAB approved a Class II site plan modification which included changes to the landscape islands, relocation of the trash enclosur e, removal of the 2nd floor roof canopy from the existing Boston’s Restaurant, alignment of the entry and exit drive ways, six new valet parking spaces and one additional standard parking space. Parking improvements, including replenishing existing landscaping, repaving and restriping have also been completed to the existing forty-five (45) space parking lot. On November 9, 2011, the Site Plan Review and Appea rance Board approved a Class V site plan (Phase 2) associated with provision of additional on-site parking, construction of three (3) new accesso ry structures for storage, men and women’s restrooms, construction of a new outdoor bar, pla tform deck, lobster cooker hut and outdoor seating and dining a reas on property previously occupied by Bermuda Inn (south of existing Boston’s Restaurant). These improvements associated with the Class V site plan approval (Phase 2) are the subject of this appeal. APPEAL On November 23, 2011, Attorney George W. Brannen an d his wife Pat Brannen, owners of Unit #1 of Bahama House immediately to the south, filed an app eal of the Boston’s Restaurant Expansion approval. The appeal lists the following grounds f or overturning the SPRAB approval: "1. Notice was inadequate or inadvertently not deli vered by the developer’s representative. 2. The idea of a commercial lobster cooker on our p roperty line within feet of our residential unit is preposterous and should not be allowed at any time of day. It is unreasonable to conclude that this u se would be “compatible and harmonious with adjacent n earby properties”. There is no way to prevent the noxious odors from blowing into the adjacent un its just west of the cooker. 3. An open air bar/restaurant should not be allowed adjacent to residential property and will cause substantial hardship and damage to residential prop erty values. The plan proposes dining tables withi n feet of the adjacent residential units. This will result in noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns that will negatively impact th e safety, habitability and stability of adjacent an d surrounding residential areas. 4. Outdoor entertainment should never be allowed ne xt to residential. Doors to the outside patio shou ld be tightly closed and soundproof whenever there is entertainment inside. 5. An open air, stand-alone bar should never be all owed and is sure to be a disturbance." The appellant also suggest the following remedial s teps for consideration by the Commission: "a. An east to west wall should be erected between the Bahama House property line and the proposed driveway to prevent excessive noise and lights, gas fumes and other disturbances from cars entering an d exiting the parking lot. The developers are buildi ng a wall to shield their restaurant patrons and it is essential they build one to protect the adjacent re sidential units. b. No motorcycles should be allowed in the driveway or parking lot. c. Any outdoor restaurant/bar should close at a tim e no later than the Code allows (currently 12:00am). Subsequent approvals for late night hours should be subject to conditional use approval and not supported by the City. Also steps should be taken to assure that the outdoor use area doesn’t operate independently as a stand-alone bar. Ceasing outdoor restaurant/bar use at 10 :00pm is suggested as a condition of approval. d. Outdoor restrooms should not be allowed next to a residence. There should not be access to restrooms from the parking lot. Patrons should use the restrooms inside Boston’s. e. Liquor should not be served outside or in the ne w south facing second floor deck at any time longer than the Code allows (currently 12:00am). Ceasing liquor consumption at 10:00pm is suggested as a condition of approval. f. Steps should be taken to insure Boston ’s customers do not enter or park in the Bahama Hous e parking lot (i.e. posted signage and towing policy). g. Vehicular access should not be allowed from Stat e Route A1A (South Ocean Boulevard)." The appellant raises concerns over the compatibilit y of this use with adjacent residential properties. It is noted that while the property immediately to the no rth was a residential use (Bermuda Inn), the proper ty has been zoned CBD (Central Business District) for many years. Compatibility of the improvements on adjacent residential properties was discussed in th e staff report and a positive finding was made. However, particular concern was raised with respect to outside live entertainment aspects of the development. This will require a separate conditio nal use approval and appropriate mitigating measure s (i.e. hours of operation, sound levels, etc.) would be considered at that time. It is noted that this conditional use requirement is being appealed by th e applicant (appeal of administrative interpretatio n) and is the subject of a separate agenda item. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold SPRAB’s approval. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ON THE APPEAL OF THE SPRAB 11/9/11 APPROVAL OF A CL ASS V SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BOSTON’S RESTAURANT 1. This is an appeal of the November 9, 2011 decision by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (“SPRAB”) approving the Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations associated with Boston’s Restaurant which came before the City Commission at its meeting on December 1 3, 2011. 2. The Appellants, Appellee and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the appeal of the approval of a Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elev ations associated with Boston’s Restaurant. Required findings are made in accord ance with Subsections I, II, III, and IV. I. LDR REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS V SITE PLAN APPROVAL: A. LDR Section 4.4.5(F)(5), “Findings”: The approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The following table identifies the zoning designation s and uses that are adjacent to the subject property: Zoning: Use: North Central Business District (CBD) Mixed-Use Bui lding (Condominiums, Retail & Restaurant) South RM (Medium Density Residential) Condominiums East OS (Opens Space) Atlantic Ocean/Public Beach West RM (Medium Density Residential) Condominium an d Single Family Residence and LDR Section 3.1.1 , “Required Findings”, prior to the approval of deve lopment applications, certain findings must be made in a form wh ich is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the appli cation, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minut es. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the d evelopment application. These findings relate to the Future Land Use Map and Compre hensive Plan Consistency, 2 Concurrency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. At its meeting of November 9, 2011, the City Commission made positive findings with respect to the Future Land Use Map, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Concurrency provided conditions of approval are addressed; and Central core area of the Central Business District Zoning District provided in Exhibit “A”. Are these guidelines met? Yes ______ No ______ II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A. Future Land Use Map/Future Land Use Element Objecti ve A-1 : Is the property developed/redeveloped so that the f uture use and intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topograp hic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complementar y to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs an d is consistent with the Land Use Map? Yes ______ No ______ B. Concurrency : Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan requires that development not excee d the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, ne eded capital improvements for the following areas. Are the concurrency requirements met with respect t o water, sewer, drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, s olid waste and schools? Yes ______ No ______ C. Consistency : Will the granting of the Waivers, the Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations be consistent wit h and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes ______ No ______ 3 III. ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS PURSUANT TO LDR SECTI ON 4.6.18(E): A. The plan or the proposed structure is in conformity w ith good taste, good design, and in general, contributes to the image of th e City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, harmony, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality. B. The proposed structure, or project, is in its exterior design and appearance of quality such as not to cause the nature of the local environment of evolving environment to materially d epreciate in appearance and value. C. The proposed structure, or project, is in harmony wit h the proposed developments in the general area, with the Comprehen sive Plan, and with the supplemental criteria which may be set forth for th e Board from time to time. Have the overall requirements of LDR Section 4.6.18 (E) been met? Yes ______ No ______ IV. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.16(H), “Minimum Landscape Requirements”, Subsection 4.6.16(H)(3), “New Multiple Family, Commer cial and Industrial Development”, provides requirements set forth in Exhib it “B”. Are the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.16 met? Yes ______ No ______ 4. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive P lan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted. 5. The City Commission finds there is ample and compete nt substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff r eports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Co mmission approves ____ denies ____ the appeal, subject to the following condit ions set forth in Exhibits “C” and “D”. 4 The City Commission hereby adopts this Order this 13th d ay of December, 2011, by a vote of _____ in favor and _____ opposed. ATTEST: ________________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ____________________________ Chevelle Nubin City Clerk EXHIBIT “A” S I T E P L A N A N A L Y S I S COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and developme nt application/request. LDR Section 4.4.13 (F) — Central Business District Design Guidelines: The following table indicates that the development proposal does meet the requirement of LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(4)(b), as they pertain to the Central Core area of the CBD zoning district design guidelines. Road/ Building Side Building Height % Building Frontage (min/max) Required Setback Required Building Frontage at Setback Proposed Building Frontage Comply w/ LDR? Y N SR A1A (South Ocean Blvd.) Finished grade to 37’ 70% / 90% 10’ max. 70’/ 90’ 85’6” (85%) * 100’ Lot Frontage Remaining length 15’ min. 30’ 10’ 0’ * Required: Provided: Building Height: Open Space: Min. 25’ / Max. 48’ 0% 14’/27’2” 11% The building height in BOLD font does not meet the m inimum requirements per LDR Section 4.4.13F.1.a. The applicant has requested a wai ver to the twenty-five foot (25’) minimum height. *The site has an existing nonconformity with respect to t he percentage of building frontage located at a minimum of fifteen feet (15’). The current proposal does not increase the nonconformity. On-site Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(1)(d), the parking requirement for the creation of new restaurant use area is established at six (6) spaces pe r 1,000 square feet of floor area. As explained in the background history section of the rep ort, there is ninety-one (91) square feet available for restaurant expansion, before additional parking is assessed. The applicant has indicated that there is 6,431 sq. ft. of proposed new restaurant use area. However, the square footage breakdown of the ne w use areas included in the calculation of the parking requirement has not been pro vided. Thus, as a condition of approval, this data shall be provided on the site plan prior to site plan certification. Based upon the cumulative total of new use area, 6,340 sq. ft. (6,431 — 91 = 6,340) must have on-site parking accommodations. Thus, there is a requirement for an additional 38 parking spaces. There are 34 spaces required for the existing restaurant. Thus, the overall site requirement is 72 spaces (38 + 34 =72). Seventy-three (73) spaces have been provided. Therefore, positive findings with respect to this section of the LDRs can be made. LDR Article 4.6 - Supplemental District Regulations : Handicap Accessible Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(b), special parking spaces designed for use by the handicapped shall be provided pursuant to the provision s of Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction. Pursuant to the Florida Accessi bility Code for Building Construction, two percent (2%) of the parking spaces servin g the restaurant must be handicap accessible. Based upon the seventy-three (73) par king spaces required, the development needs to provide a minimum of one (1) ha ndicap accessible parking space and three (3) handicap accessible parking spaces have be en provided. Thus, this LDR requirement has been met. Bicycle Parking: LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c) and Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that a bicycle parking facil ity be provided. The proposed location of a bicycle rack has not been identifie d. At least one (1) bike rack is provided on-site. Thus, this LDR requirement is met. Lighting: A photometric plan must meet the requirements of LDR S ection 4.6.8. The maximum height for freestanding light poles is twenty-five fee t (25') and eighteen feet (18') light poles are proposed, so the site complies with the maximum height requirement. The proposed photometric plan has a maximum foot candle emi ttance of 5.0 and a minimum foot candle emittance of 1.0. Accordingly, the maximum allowance for commercial sites is 12.0 and the minimum allowance is 1.0. Thus, the minimum and maximum foot candle requirements have been met. Building Height: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13 (F)(1)(a), all proposed structures must meet the minimum and maximum building height requirement of twenty-five feet (25') and forty- eight feet (48') respectively. The tallest existing stru cture meets the maximum 48' height requirement at 27'2". EXHIBIT “B” (3) New Multiple Family, Commercial, and Industrial Dev elopment : Multi- family, commercial, industrial and all other uses are re quired to comply with the minimum requirements for off-street parking. On the si te of a building or open-lot use providing an off-street parking, storage or other vehi cular use area, where such an area will not be screened visually by an intervening buildi ng or structure from an abutting right-of-way or dedicated alley, there shall be provi ded landscaping as follows: Perimeter requirements adjacent to public and private rights-of-way: (a) A strip of land at least five (5) feet in depth l ocated between the off- street parking area or other vehicular use area and the right-of-way shall be landscaped, provided, however, that should the zoning code of the Delray Code of Ordinances require addition al perimeter depths, that the provisions of the zoning code shall pre vail. The landscaping shall consist of at least one tree for each thi rty (30) linear feet or fraction thereof. The trees shall be l ocated between the right-of-way line and the off-street parking or v ehicular use area. Where the depth of the perimeter landscape stri p adjacent to the right-of-way exceeds fifteen (15) feet, shade tree s may be planted in clusters, but the maximum spacing shall not ex ceed fifty (50) feet. The remainder of the landscape area shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other landscape tr eatment excluding pavement. Additionally, a hedge, wall or other durable landscap e area shall be placed along the interior perimeter of the landscape st rip. If a hedge is used, it must be a minimum of two (2) feet in height at the time of planting and attain a minimum height of thr ee (3) feet above the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use or off -street parking area within one year of planting. If a nonliving barrier is used, it shall be a minimum of three (3) feet above the finished grade of the adjacent vehicular use. Nonliving barriers shall require additional landscaping to soften them and enhance their appearance. For each ten (10) feet of n onliving barrier, a shrub or vine shall be planted along the st reet side of the barrier, in addition to tree requirements. Earth berms may be used only when installed in conjuncti on with sufficient plant materials to satisfy the screening requir ements. The slope of the berm shall not exceed a 3:1 ratio. Hedges for multi-family projects which are used to separa te a residential use from an adjacent arterial or collector r oad right-of- way may attain a height of eight (8) feet to mitiga te the impact of the adjacent roadway Perimeter hedging installed to effect screening of stora ge areas must be a minimum of four (4) feet in height at the time of installation and be permitted to grow to a height to conceal the materials being stored. Perimeter shade trees are requ ired to be planted every thirty (30) feet and are not permitte d to be clustered. (b) The unpaved portion of the right-of-way adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped with sod and provided with irr igation and maintenance. (c) The width of accessways which provide access to a site or vehicular use areas may be subtracted from the linear di mensions used to determine the number of trees required. Perimeter landscaping requirements relating to abuttin g properties: (d) A landscaped barrier shall be provided between the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area and abutting properties. The landscape barrier may be two (2) feet at the time of planting and achieve and be maintained at not less than three (3) nor greater than six (6) feet in height to form a continu ous screen between the off-street parking area or vehicular use ar ea and such abutting property. This landscape barrier shall be loca ted between the common lot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area in a planting strip of not less than five (5) feet in width. Duplexes may be permitted to reduce the perim eter planting strip to two and one-half (2 1/2) feet in width in ca ses where lot frontage is less than fifty-five (55) feet. In additi on, one (1) tree shall be provided for every thirty (30) linear feet of such landscaped barrier or fraction thereof. (e) Where any commercial or industrial areas abut a resi dential zoning district or properties in residential use, in addition t o requirements established for district boundary line separators in the zoning code, one (1) tree shall be planted every twenty-five (25) feet to form a solid tree line. (f) The provisions for perimeter landscape requirements relating to abutting properties shall not be applicable where a pr oposed parking area or other vehicular use area abuts an existi ng hedge or established tree line, the existing hedge and trees may be used to satisfy the landscape requirements provided the existing material meets all applicable standards. The landscape strip, a mi nimum of five (5) feet in depth, however, is still required, a nd must be landscaped with sod or ground cover. If the existing la ndscaping does not meet the standards of this article, additional landscaping shall be required as necessary to meet the standards. In the event that the landscaping provided by the adjacent property which has been used to satisfy the landscaping requirements for the property making application is ever removed, the property heret ofore using the existing vegetation to satisfy landscaping requireme nts, must then install landscaping as required to comply with the provisions of this code. Interior landscape requirements for parking a nd other vehicular use areas : (g) The amount of interior landscaping within off-stre et parking areas shall amount to no less than ten percent (10%) of the t otal area used for parking and accessways. (h) There shall be a group of palms or a shade tree fo r every one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of required in terior landscaping. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) o f these required trees shall be palms. (i) Landscape islands which contain a minimum of seventy-f ive (75) square feet of plantable area, with a minimum dimensi on of five (5) feet, exclusive of the required curb, shall be placed at intervals of no less than one landscaped island for every ten (10) pa rking spaces. One shade tree or equivalent number of palm tr ees shall be planted in every interior island. Where approval for the use of compact parking has be approved, islands may be placed at intervals of no less than one (1) island for every thir teen (13) parking spaces. (j) Each row of parking spaces shall be terminated by lan dscape islands with dimensions as indicated above, An exception to this requirement is when a landscaped area exists at the end of the parking row. (k) Whenever parking tiers abut, they shall be separated by a minimum five (5) foot wide landscape strip. This strip shall be in addition to the parking stall. Non-mountable curbs are not required for these landscaping strips, providing carstops are provid ed. (l) Perimeter landscape strips which are required to be created by this code or requirements of the zoning code shall not be cre dited to satisfy any interior landscaping requirements; however, the gross area of perimeter landscape strips which exceed minimum requirements may be credited to satisfy the interior la ndscape requirements of this section. (m) Interior landscaping in both parking areas and othe r vehicular use areas shall, insofar as possible, be used to delineate and guide major traffic movement within the parking area so as to prevent cross-space driving wherever possible. A portion of the landscaping for interior parking spaces, not to exceed twenty-five p ercent (25%) of the total requirement, may be relocated so as to em phasize corridors or special landscape areas within the general pa rking area or adjacent to buildings located on the site, if h elpful in achieving greater overall aesthetic effect. Such relocat ed landscaping shall be in addition to the perimeter land scaping requirements. (n) All dumpster and refuse areas and all ground level air-conditioning units and mechanical equipment shall be screened. (o) Landscaping may be permitted in easements only with the written permission of the easement holder. Written permission sh all be submitted as part of the site plan or landscape plan rev iew. EXHIBIT “C” SITE PLAN CONDITIONS 1. A digital copy of the revised plans shall be provide d on CD. The digital copy must be in a PDF format and shall be prepared at a size of 8½” x 11” or 11”x 17”, depending upon legibility. This item is required and shall be provided with the submittal of revisions. 2. On the site plan, provide the square footage break down of the new use areas included in the calculation of the parking requirement . 3. Clearly label and indicate in BOLD font the location of the property line on all of th e plans (i.e. specifically for the floor plan, roof plan, composite overlay plan, photometric plan and site plan). 4. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9.D.6.e., Parking Space Striping Details, all surfaced and resurfaced parking lots shall provide double-striped lines between spaces measuring one foot on center for compact and standard spa ces and two feet on center for handicap spaces. The double-striped area shall measure no less than two feet between all parking spaces. The repaving of the existing parking lot does not comply. Redesign the parking stalls to comply. Otherwise , acquire written consent from the City Engineer to provide or continue single striping. 5. LDR Section 4.3.3(VV)(2)(a)(Conditional Use) states that any 24-Hour or late night business located or proposed to be located within a three hundred foot (300’) straight line route from any residentially-zoned prop erty shall obtain a conditional use permit from the City for the operation of such use. T he property is bordered on the west and south sides by residentially-zoned properties. I t is noted that the new outdoor dining courtyard area will close at 12:00am mi dnight. No 24-Hour or late night operation hours for the new outdoor courtyard a rea will be permitted with the processing and approval of this Class V Site Plan applicat ion. 6. Include a bicycle rack detail to accompany the site pla n. 7. The proposed architectural elevations for the accessory structures do not calculate the mean building height for the shortest elevations p ursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4.J. The mean roof height for the shortest structures shall be labeled on the architectural drawings. 8. Provide revised civil plans addressing the preliminar y engineering technical items identified in Appendix A, prior to site plan certifica tion. 9. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities ser ving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. A n ote to this effect shall be placed on the site and civil plans. 10. With the installation of new lighting for the pr oposed new parking areas, glare and compliance with City Ordinance (Sections 91.50, 91.51, 9 1.52 and 91.99) shall be maintained. 11. Provide a traffic statement indicating that the ad dition of the 6,431 sq. ft. outdoor courtyard and new use area will not negatively impact the surrounding roadway network. This will have to be provided prior to site plan certification. 12. Apply decorative features to enhance the aesthetics o f the wall running along the south side of the enclosed outdoor courtyard area. Consid er elements suggested for the treatment of blank walls in LDR Section 4.6.18.B.14.ii.3.b. (i.e. vertical trellis, control and expansion points, small indentations, pilaste rs, medallions, public art, etc.). EXHIBIT “D” LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS 1. For the perimeter landscape buffer along the south property line use a ten foot (10’) Greywood Hedge instead of Coconut Palms. 2. Along the south wall of the outdoor dining area, the plant materials shall be a minimum of one half (50%) of the height of the wall . 3. Along the west wall of the outdoor dining area, t he plant materials shall be a minimum of one half (50%) of the height of the wall , as well as, include additional vertical elements (i.e. referenced in condition #12 of the site plan approval). MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Z oning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:December 9, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION/ BOSTON'S RESTAU RANT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is an appeal of the Plan ning and Zoning Director’s interpretation that a conditional use approval is required for the outsid e entertainment (platform deck) for Boston’s Restaurant Phase II expansion. BACKGROUND On November 9, 2011, the Site Plan Review and Appea rance Board approved a Class V site plan (Phase 2) associated with provision of additional on-site parking, construction of three (3) new accesso ry structures for storage and men and women’s restrooms, construction of a new outdoor bar, pla tform deck, lobster cooker hut and outdoor seating and di ning areas on property previously occupied by Bermuda Inn (south of existing Boston’s Restaurant). These improvements include an outsid e entertainment stage (platform deck) that will provi de opportunities for outside entertainment. On December 5, 2011, Attorney Alan J. Ciklin Esq. o f Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens & O'Connell law firm located in West Palm Beach, Florida, filed an appeal of the Planning & Zoning Department Director’s Interpretation that the Land Development Regulati ons require a conditional use for the outside entertainment (platform deck) proposed for Boston’s Restaurant expansion area. This requirement was initially identified as a condition of approval and referenced in the staff report. Wh ile SPRAB removed it as a condition of approval, it is staff’s position that this LDR requirement continues to apply. The applicant disagrees with this interpr etation, which is the subject of the appeal. The determination that a conditional use approval i s required is consistent with how this type of outd oor entertainment venue has been handled in the past. T he only legally established outside venue of this type is the approval received as part of the redeve lopment of Block 85 formally known as Grove Square. This outside stage area was approved in con junction with City Limits restaurant (currently known as IL Bacio) as a Conditional use pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(A)(2) [attached] which states that, “Certain conditional uses that are allowed within co mmercial, industrial and mixed use districts can be characterized as outside uses. Such operatio ns may be conducted outside when specifically determined through the conditional use process that the outside aspects of the use are appropriate. Conditions may be applied to mitigate visual and ot her impacts”. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(A) (1), all commercia l and industrial uses are to be conducted within a completely enclosed building, rather than outside, regardless of zoning district. However, certain aspects of a use may be conducted outside and these are identified in LDR Section 4.6.6(B). This section has several categories (including outside d ining), but does not include outside entertainment. However, it does include a catch-all reference to “activities associated with outside conditional uses pursuant to 4.6.6(A)(2)“, which would include uses not specifically listed in cluding outdoor entertainment. While the applicant may argue that the outside ente rtainment is an accessory use to the restaurant, su ch use is not listed as an accessory use in LDR Sectio n 4.4.13 (C) (accessory uses allowed in the CBD). Further, to assume that all restaurant uses may inc lude accessory outside entertainment would set a dangerous precedent. APPEAL While SPRAB removed the conditional use requirement for the outside entertainment (platform deck) as a condition of approval, it is staff’s position that the conditional use approval is sti ll required (not under Section 4.4.13 (D) (9), as referenced in the original staff report, but under Section 4.6.6 [outside uses]). The applicant disagrees with this interpret ation (under either LDR section), and this is the subject of the appeal. The appeal of the Director’s interpretation of LDR Section 4.4.13.(D) (9), lis ts the following grounds for overturning the Planning & Zoning Director’s in terpretation: The reason for SPRAB’s elimination of this condition is that they believ ed, as does the appellant/property owner, that this section does no t apply to accessory entertainment provided at Boston’s. In the CBD District, restaurants, outdoor caf es, and cocktail lounges are permitted uses. However playhouses, dinner theaters, and plac es of assembly for commercial entertainment purposes (e.g., concerts, live performances) requir e conditional uses. Boston ’s Restaurant does not fall within the categories outlined above, thus the appe llant/property owner requests that this condition b e stricken from the approval as not being applicable. In closing, the appellant proclaims that providi ng music at a restaurant is similar to other establish ments on Atlantic Avenue which presumably are permitted without conditional use approval. The acc essory music that will be provided at Boston ’s Restaurant is not a “playhouse”, “dinner theater”, or “place[s] of assembly for commercial entertainment purposes”. It is clear to the appellant/property owner and to SPRAB that this conditional use requirement meant what it said and it does not apply to accessory music at a restaurant similar to other establishments on Atlantic Avenue. While staff would agree that the initially referenc ed LDR section may not apply to this outdoor entertainment function, a conditional use approval would still be required to comply with the above referenced LDR Section (4.6.6) relating to outside uses. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and require the applicant to comply with the Land Development Regulations with respect to Section 4.6.6, requiring a conditional u se for the outside entertainment function for Bosto n’s Restaurant. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA OF THE APPLICANT’S APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR’S INTERPRETATION REGARDING THE OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT FUNCTION OF PHASE II OF BOSTON’S REST AURANT 1. This appeal of the Planning Director’s interpretat ion regarding the outdoor entertainment function of Phase II of Boston’s Restauran t came before the City Commission on December 13, 2011. 2. The City staff, applicant, and other persons have p resented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertainin g to the appeal of the Planning Director’s interpretation regarding the outdoor entert ainment function of Phase II of Boston’s Restaurant. All of the evidence is part of the record in this case. 3. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(D), “Conditional U ses and Structures Allowed” within the Central Business District, Subsection (9): (9) Playhouses, dinner theaters, and places of assembly fo r commercial entertainment purposes (e.g., concerts, live pe rformances). Is a conditional use required per LDR Section 4.4.1 3(D)(9) for the outside deck at Boston’s Restaurant? Yes _______ No ________ 4. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6, “Commercial and Ind ustrial Uses to Operate within a Building”, Subsections (A), “Intent” and (B) “Allowable Outside Usage”: Section 4.6.6 Commercial and Industrial Uses to Op erate Within a Building : (A) Intent : (1) All commercial and industrial uses shall conduct with in a completely enclosed building rather than outside regard less of the zoning district. However, certain aspects of a use may be conducted outside and such aspects are identified in (B) below. 2 (2) Certain conditional uses that are allowed withi n commercial, industrial, and mixed use districts can be characterized as outside uses. Such operations may be conducted outside when it is specifically determined through the conditional use process that the outside aspects of the use are appropriate. Conditions may be applied to mitigate visual and othe r impacts. (3) Commercial and industrial uses may be allowed out side on a temporary basis for special events pursuant to Section 2.4 .6(F). (B) Allowable Outside Usage : The following aspects of a use may be conducted outside, pursuant to the restrictions listed in S ection 4.6.6(C) below. (1) Off-street parking (2) Refuse and service areas (3) Storage of nursery plants (4) Fruit and vegetable displays (5) Signage (6) Outside dining areas (7) Loading and unloading of materials (8) Outside storage where specifically permitted withi n a zoning district (9) Activities associated with outside conditional uses, p ursuant to (A)(2) above (10) Retail displays Is a conditional use required per LDR Section 4.6.6 for the outside deck at Boston’s Restaurant? Yes ______ No______ 5. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive P lan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted. 6. The City Commission finds there is ample and compete nt substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained 3 in the record including but not limited to the staff r eports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses which supports the findings set forth in this Order. 7. Based on the entire record before it, the City Co mmission approves ____ denies ____ the applicant’s appeal of the Planning Dir ector’s interpretation regarding the outdoor entertainment function of Phase II of Bost on’s Restaurant and hereby adopts this Order this _13th ___ day of December, 2011, by a vote of _____ in fav or and _____ opposed. ________________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Chevelle Nubin City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:December 7, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 WAIVER REQUEST/302 N.E. 7TH AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is appr oval of a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(e)(7), to permit a business sign within ten feet (10’) of bot h the front (east) and side street (south) property lines. BACKGROUND At its meeting of December 7, 2011, the Historic Pr eservation Board (HPB) approved with conditions a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the instal lation of a new freestanding sign. It is noted that the sign currently exists on site in this location. WAIVER ANALYSIS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to grant ing a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighbori ng area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the pro vision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; an d (d) Does not result in the grant of a specia l privilege in that the same waiver would be grante d under similar circumstances on other property for a nother applicant or owner. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7), signage for re sidential zoning districts, which includes RM, shal l be located at least 10’ from any property line. The proposal is to locate a freestanding sign approximately five feet from both the front (east) and side street (south) property lines. In consideration of the criteria above, the subject waiver can be supported in that it will not advers ely affect the neighboring area given the small size of the sign, which is only six (6) square feet, as op posed to the maximum twenty (20) square feet that is perm itted; provision of public facilities will not be impacted; it will not create an unsafe situation as NE 3rd Street dead-ends adjacent to the subject property thereby limiting the amount of traffic imp acted by the sign’s location closer to the property lines; and, the granting of the waiver will not res ult in a special privilege in that under similar circumstance of the property configuration and exis ting conditions, the waiver would be supported for another applicant or owner. REVIEW BY OTHERS The HPB considered the subject waiver request concu rrently with the COA and recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. RECOMMENDATION Approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7), to a llowa sign to be located five feet (5’) from the front and side street property lines, based upon positive findings with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). 1 IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WAIVER REQUEST FOR 302 NE 7TH AVENUE 1. This waiver request came before the City Commission on December 13th, 2011. 2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the wai ver request for 302 NE 7 th Avenue. All of the evidence is a part of the record i n this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsection I. I. WAIVERS: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to grantin g a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of p ublic facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on ot her property for another applicant or owner. A. Waiver to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7): Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.7(E)(7), signage for reside ntial zoning districts, which includes RM, shall be located at least ten feet (10’) from any property line. The proposal includes the location of a freestanding sign located approximately five feet (5’) from both t he front (east) and side street (south) property lines. Should the waiver to allow a freestanding sign with in five feet (5’) from the front and side street property lines be granted? Yes _______ No _______ 3. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive P lan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original dev elopment application was 2 submitted and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The City Commission finds there is ample and compete nt substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff r eports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Co mmission approves ___ denies ___ the waiver requests. 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City C ommission hereby adopts this Order this 13th day of December, 2011, by a vote of _____ in favor and ____ opposed. ________________________________ ATTEST: Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ________________________________ Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Direct or THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 5, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ALLEY NAMING REQUEST ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION A request for Commission approval to name the alley east of NE 3rd Ave running between NE 3rd St on the south; and NE 4th St on the north, as "Artis ts Alley". BACKGROUND Staff has received a request to name an alley in Pi neapple Grove as "Artists Alley". The alley is a north-south alley located east of NE 3rd Ave and running between NE 3rd St on the south; and NE 4th St on the north. This alley borders the west side of the recently opened "artists garage" in the 300 Block of NE 3rd St. There are several parcels that the on ly have access from the alley, but these parcels ha ve a NE 4th St address. Attached is the email received requesting this name change. The City has a general policy to not rename streets . However, most alleys, including this one, do not have names. This alley is unusual in that a large number of platted lots front on the alley and a num ber of separate businesses depend on this alley for acc ess. Also unlike other alleys in the City, this al ley does not line up with any other alleys to the north or south. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion. 1 Krejcarek, Randal From:Dole <gelod3@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 28, 2011 12:24 PM To:Krejcarek, Randal Subject:Question Randal, There is an ally between NE 3rd Avenue and the railroad tracks from NE 3rd Street to NE 4th Street. There are warehouses on the east side of the ally , and they now have 4th Street addresses. Several artists have moved into the warehouses, and it is becoming what Pineapple Grove was supposed to be: an arts disctrict. The artists would like to name t he ally: Artists Ally. I believe this would give a big boo st to the area, and wo uld help surrounding development. The CRA has recently helped b uild two new parking areas, one of them on the alley itself. I don't know who to ask, so I turn to you. How does one g o about getting an alley officially named? Many thanks for your guidance. Vince Dole Pineapple Grove Alley Request N NE 4 th St 12/5/2011Delray Beach GIS NE 3 rd St Alley MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:December 7, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.E. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANT/CONTRACT AWARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval is requested for one (1) Housing Rehabilit ation bid to be awarded to the second lowest responsive bidder. Funding for the project is throu gh the DRI Housing Rehabilitation grant. BACKGROUND A Housing Rehabilitation bid is proposed to be awar ded to the second lowest responsive bidder for 401 SW 10 th Street to All Phase Roofing & Construction $30,243 .00 = Total Rehab Cost: $32,422.65 Grant awards are based on the actual cost of the re habilitation, as determined by the low responsive bidder(s), plus a 5% contingency. Included with the costs of rehab are lead-based paint inspection, lead abatement, lead clearance, termite inspection, term ite treatment, and recording fees. Additional cost may be incurred for lead clearance test(s). The con tingency may be used for change orders and all unused funds will remain with the DRI Housing Rehab ilitation program. Inspection of work is done by the Department of Community Improvement’s Building Inspection and Neighborhood Services Divisions. Contracts are executed between the build ing contractor and the property owner. The City remains the agent and this office monitors all work performed by the contractor, ensuring compliance according to specifications and program guidelines. Pay request forms require both contractor and homeowner’s signatures. Grant recipients have met all eligibi lity requirements, as specified in the approved Policies and Procedures. The rehabilitatio n activities will bring the homes to minimum code requirements by repairing the roof, electric and pl umbing systems and correcting other incipient code violations. Detailed work write-ups and individual case files are available for rev iew in the Neighborhood Services Division Office. The Neighborhood Services Division is responsible f or ensuring that the housing rehabilitation contrac ts are awarded to the lowest responsive bidder, as a r esult of a formal bid process. Therefore, an in-house policy was created to limit awards to the lowest re sponsive bidder as it relates to the Division’s professional in-house estimate. This serves to disqualify unreasona bly low bids and therefore, protect against the resulting change order requests. The lowest bidder is at 25% below the second low bi d and 38% below the in-house estimate. Staff has concerns that the contractor could not perform the job at the submitted price. Palm Beach County, Housing & Community Development agrees and has appr oved the request to allow CJ Contracting, LLC to withdraw his bid. Per the Neighborhood Services Bid Policy Statement, all bids received shall fall within a 10% range of our In-house Estimate. Neighborhood Services Division rese rves the right to award any bid not within the 10% range to the next lowest bidder within the 10% range, after consultation with the low bidder. FUNDING SOURCE Disaster Recovery Initiative 118-1960-554-49.19 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends awarding one (1) Housing Rehabilit ation bid for $32,422.65 to the second lowest responsive bidder, All Phase Roofing & Construction .. BID/QUOTE #: BID # 17-2011NS APPLICANT: PROJECT ADDRESS: DATE OF BID LETTERS: August 9, 2011 DATE OF BID OPENING: September 6, 2011 GENERAL CONTRACTORS BID AMOUNT BID BOND Abisset Corporation -$ All Phase Roofing 29,243.00 $ All-Site Construction, Inc.-$ ARZ Builders, Inc.-$ Built Solid Construction, LLC -$ Citywide Construction Services, Inc.-$ CJ Contracting, LLC 21,813.00 $ Cordoba Construction Co. 34,713.00 $ Jemstone Construction Group, Inc.-$ JIJ Construction Corp.-$ KM Construction Inc.-$ MacDonald Construction Company of Palm Beach-$ Ray Graeve & Sons Construction, Inc.-$ South Florida Construction Services, Inc.55,108.00 $ Sunband Builders Construction Inc.-$ In-House Estimate:35,407.00 $ RECOMMENDED CONTRACTOR: All Phase Roofing & Construction BID/CONTRACT AMOUNT :29,243.00 $ Contingency 1,000.00 $ 30,243.00 $ Lead Inspection 325.00 Lead Clearance 80.00 Termite Inspection - Termite Treatment 1,685.45 Recording Fees 89.20 GRANT CONTRACT AMOUNT 32,422.65 FUNDING SOURCE:Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Account # COMMENTS: all bids received shall fall within a 10% range of our In-house Estimate. Neighborhoood Services reserves the right to award any bid not within the 10% range to the next lowest bidder within the 10% range after consulting with the lowest bidder. the work at the submitted price. Staff recommends aw arding bid to the next responsive bidder. Per the Nei ghborhood Services Bid Policy Statement, Lowest bidder is at 38% under the In-house Estimate. Staff is concerned that contractor wil not be able to perform CITY OF DELRAY BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIVISION HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM BID INFORMATION SHEET Lillie Harris 401 SW 10th Street 118-1960-554-49.19 BID /QUOTE NUMBER:BID # 17-2011NS OWNER: ADDRESS: 401 SW 10th Street BID ADVERTISEMENT DATE:August 9, 2011 BID OPENING DATE:September 6, 2011 Lillie Harris In- H o u s e All P h a s e R o o f i n g CJ C o n t r a c t i n g , LLC . Cor d o b a Con s t r u c t i o n Com p a n y , I n c . Sun B a n d B u i l d e r s Con s t r u c t i o n I n c . 1 Global Encasement 17,000.00 $ 9,960.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 9,850.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 2 Remove Attic Vent and Garage Door Trim 1,500.00 $ 990.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 3 Remove Cabinet 150.00 $ 450.00 $ 260.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 4 Remove Exterior Doors 500.00 $ 1,040.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,950.00 $ 5 Remove Interior Doors 4,950.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 900.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 6 Remove Paint Around Window Openings 1,200.00 $ 1,920.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 7 Remove Windows 800.00 $ 1,345.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 8 Remove Wood Base 160.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 9 Hurricane Shutters 3,835.00 $ 4,940.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 10 Install Exterior Door 1,450.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,475.00 $ 11 Install New Windows 1,300.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,080.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 12 Connect Washer to Sanitary System (Reduce item by 167 .00)178.00 $ 1,393.00 $ 383.00 $ 283.00 $ 1,733.00 $ 13 Install Base Trim 184.00 $ 335.00 $ 320.00 $ 450.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 14 Install Interior Door 2,200.00 $ 2,145.00 $ 850.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 15 Repair Drywall (Deleted)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TOTAL 35,407.00 $ 29,243.00 $ 21,813.00 $ 34,713.00 $ 55,108.00 $ MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Direct or THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 16, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.F. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 RFQ FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission for approval of the Engineering RFQ (RFQ# 2012-06) short list of responses and authorization to negotiate contracts with each firm on the short list. Project #12-057. BACKGROUND On 2 Oct 2011 a Request for Qualifications was issu ed for engineering firms for capital improvement projects contained in the City’s Capital Improvemen t Program (CIP). Thirty-four firms responded and were reviewed by the selection committee. Based on the number of projects in the CIP the selection committee agreed that five firms should be selected . The committee unanimously agreed on the following five firms: Mathews Consulting, Kimley-Horn & Associates and Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson Salman , and Wantman Group. After successfully negotiating each contract, the c ontracts will be brought back to commission for approval to execute. Attached is a copy of the rating sheets for all fir ms that submitted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the short list and aut horization to negotiate contracts with the short li sted firms. Printed: 12/1/2011 ENGINEERING RFQ Individual Score By RankWeightedOverallOverallTotalIn dividual Score By Points FirmGrieveCostelloMajtenyiBallesteroKrejcarekScoreRankR ankPointsGrieveCostelloMajtenyiBallesteroKrejcarek A & B Engineering, Inc.23132317257426223146280516655 A.D.A Engineering, Inc.91631216921828293737946176 AECOM Technical Services, Inc 231653221061393696279848559 Alan Gerwiz & Associates 20212723295527253086778545950 American Consulting Engineers 1616103389218173396979734474 BCC Engineering, Inc.32211727235527273075378665258 Calvin, Giordano & Associates 5115215137334057783849170 Caulfield & Wheeler 13313034303731312677059484248 CDM 226924710712123576386765775 Chen-Moore & Associates 164201541169243131687636978 CIMA Engineering Corporation DBA CIMA 34293315343033332403461346942 Corzo Castella Carballo Thompson Salman 793183135443937584866583 CPH Engineers, Inc.927202488721193337366635774 Craig A. Smith & Associates, Inc.1992381510115133566884607470 Craven Thompson & Associates 114424261316153557287855754 Dredging & Marine Consultants, LLC 33263429334530332404668315144 DRMP, Inc.1327142988423203307066695174 Eckler Engineering 8162712189416163437479547066 Erdman Anthony 25131811218721183386080657162 GAI Consultants 1321720810613103657078816274 Gannett Fleming 30162512269120223145479577054 HBC Engineering 30322227323232302685455615246 Keith and Schnars 1621247139416133566978597872 Keshavarz & Associates 256134141131183716086718371 Kimley-Horn & Associates 312621 6 1 224 3 5 8 99 48 97 98 4 Last Devenport, Inc.27332632184729292705944564566 Mathews Consulting 221111 6 8 114 5 6 9 28 99 39 58 7 McMahon Transportation 20331218177525213246753726567 Michael B. Schorah & Associates 29251621268324253085571676154 Mock*Roos & Associates, Inc.6138128128763777680777074 Pillar Consultants 28293231312434322515861384747 R.J. Behar & Company, Inc.11111955124873767283648077 URS 4814102411510113607885697256 Wantman Group 1310820133543939488737464 S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2012\12-057\LETTERS\RFQEvalMasterEngr.x ls City of Delray Beach General Engineering Consulting Services Page | 4 III. EVALUATION AND SCORING: S HOHFWLRQZLOOEHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH&RQVXOWDQW¶V&RPSHWLWLYH1HJ RWLDWLRQV$FWDVDPHQGHG6HFWLRQ 287.055, Florida Statutes. The selection process consists of evaluation and scoring by the Selection Committee. Each category will be scored and when the scores awarded for all categories are totaled, the scor es will be tabulated and added to achieve the Total Points and Weighted Score awarded to each firm. Both criteria will be used to rank each firm 1,2,3,4, etc. The ranking of each firm will be tabulated from each Committee Member and combined with other Committee Members to determine the total score and weighted score for the firm. 1. Firm experience in south Florida. 2. )LUP¶VSHUVRQQHOTXDOLILFDWLRQV 3. )LUP¶VJRYHUQPHQWDOH[SHULHQFH 4. )LUP¶VDSSURDFKWRS roject management. 5. )LUP¶VUHVRXUFHVSHUVRQQHODYDLODELOLW\DQGFRPPLWPHQW Failure to respond to all the items listed above will result in a lower overall score and may hinder your cha nces of being selected. The Scoring Criteria is made up of the categories above that collectively represent a Grand Total Point Va lue of 100 points, as described herein. The points indicated below as "Points Possible" are the maximum that can be allocated for each category. The point value shall be the basis of establishing a finalist list of the top ranking RFQ submittals. Firm Experience: The firm will be expected to demonstrate its experience with projects similar to those listed in Exhibit A. Particular attention should be given to projects completed with other local government agencies. This information must be included on SF 330. )LUP¶V3HUVRQQHO4XDOLILFDWLRQV : The firm shall name the actual Project Manager assigned to the City and other key staff to be assigned to projects, describe their ability and experience and indicate the function of each individual within the organization and their proposed role on City projects. This information must be included on SF 330 )LUP¶V*RYHUQPHQWDO([SHULHQFH 7KHILUPVKDOOGHWDLOexperience with other governmental agencies. This information must be included on SF 330 )LUP¶V$SSURDFKWR3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQW 7KHILUPVKDOOGHWDLOapproach to be utilized in managing projects including, but not limited to, coordination with other governmental agencies and coordination with other utility companies. )LUP¶VResources, Personnel Availability and Commitment: The firm shall demonstrate a commitment to completing project on time and within budget. Firm must also demonstrate flexibility to complete projects per FOLHQW¶VVSHFLILFDWL ons. City of Delray Beach General Engineering Consulting Services Page | 5 EVALUATION CATEGORIES POINTS POSSIBLE 1. Firm experience in south Florida 25 2. )LUP¶VSHUVRQQHOTXDOLILFDWLRQV 30 3. )LUP¶VJRYHUQPHQWDOH[SHULHQFH 20 4. )LUP¶VDSSURDFKWRS roject management 15 5. )LUP¶VUHVRXUFHVSHUVRQQHODYDLODELOLW\DQGFRPPLWPHQW 10 GRAND TOTAL OF POINTS 100 POINTS If you have any questions concerning the Qualification Package or these instructions, please submit your questions in writing or email only to Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., C ity Engineer, 434 South Swinton Avenue, City of Delray Beach, Florida, 33444. Fax number (561) 243-7314. Email krejcarek@MyDelrayBeach.com IV. AWARD OF CONTRACT Based on final rankings resulting from the above described process, the Selection Committee will make a recommendation to the City Commission for the award of the contract to a minimum of three firm s. The City intends to initially award two (2) year contracts with an option to renew annually for three (3) addition al years, up to a total of five (5) years (2 year contract plus 3 one year renewals). MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:William A. Grieve, P.E, Assisant City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Dire ctor THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 6, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.G. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 RFQ FOR LAND SURVEYING CONSULTING SERVICES/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission for approval of the Land Surveying Consulting Services RFQ (RFQ# 2012-07) responses short list and authorization to negot iate contracts with each of the five companies on the short list. Project #12-058. BACKGROUND On October 2, 2011, a Request for Qualifications wa s issued for Land Surveying companies for capital improvement projects contained in the city’s Capita l Improvement Program (CIP). Twenty-two (22) surveying companies responded and were reviewed by the selection committee. Based on the number of projects in the CIP the selection committee agreed that five firms should be selected. The committee unanimously agreed on the following five (5) compan ies: Avirom & Associates, Inc., Bruce Carter & Associates, Inc., Dennis J. Leavy & Associates, Inc ., Wantman Group, Inc. and Caulfield & Wheeler, Inc. After successfully negotiating each contract, the c ontracts will be brought back to commission for approval to execute. Attached is a copy of the rating sheet for all firm s that submitted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the short list and aut horization to negotiate contracts with the short li sted firms. Printed: 12/6/2011 Sort By Overall Rankings Sort By Point Totals AVIROM & ASSOCIATES, INC11AVIROM & ASSOCIATES, INC BRUCE CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC22DENNIS J. LEAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. DENNIS J. LEAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC.23BRUCE CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC WANTMAN GROUP, INC.44WANTMAN GROUP, INC. CAULFIELD & WHEELER, INC.55CAULFIELD & WHEELER, INC. CRAVEN THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC.65CRAVEN THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC. O'BRIEN, SUITER & O'BRIEN, INC,77O'BRIEN, SUITER & O'BRIEN, INC, GREENHORNE & O'MARA88GREENHORNE & O'MARA MILLER LEGG 99FRS & ASSOCIATES KEITH ASSOCIATES INC.1010KEITH ASSOCIATES INC. KEITH & SCHNARS, P.A.1111ENGENUITY GROUP, INC. ENGENUITY GROUP, INC.1212CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC. CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC.1312KEITH & SCHNARS, P.A. FRS & ASSOCIATES 1414MILLER LEGG CONSUL-TECH ENTERPRISES, INC.1515CONSUL-TECH ENTERPRISES, INC. HELLER-WEAVER & SHEREMETA, INC.1616HELLER-WEAVER & SHEREMETA, INC. JOHN A. GRANT, JR., INC1717A & B ENGINEERING, INC. CRAIG A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.1817CRAIG A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. A & B ENGINEERING, INC.1919JOHN A. GRANT, JR., INC COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.2020COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERIN G, INC. DRMP, INC 2121DRMP, INC PAUL E. BREWER & ASSOCIATES, INC.2222PAUL E. BREWER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Surveying RFQ S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2012\12-058\RFQ Submittals\RFQEvalMasterSurveying.xl s Printed: 12/6/2011 Surveying RFQ Individual Score By RankWeightedOverallOverallTotalInd ividual Score By Points FirmGrieveCostelloMajtenyiBallesteroKrejcare k ScoreRankRankPointsGrieveCostelloMajtenyiBallesteroKrejcar e k A & B ENGINEERING, INC.18161721142919173016078614755 AVIROM & ASSOCIATES, INC 244411 0 0114 0 1 8 38 28 17 67 9 BRUCE CARTER & ASSOCIATES, INC 42133489233857884707776 CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC.141516556013123476379627370 CAULFIELD & WHEELER, INC.111016582553718685755570 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, IN C 14211820162620202876365564954 CONSUL-TECH ENTERPRISES, INC.1751512115515153356281656562 CRAIG A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.2018196183418173015077546951 CRAVEN THOMPSON & ASSOC., INC.95122879653716981718169 DENNIS J. LEAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC.1 253158 9223 8 6 6 78 18 28 67 0 DRMP, INC 19192018172221212845275525253 ENGENUITY GROUP, INC.131271936112113486580765077 FRS & ASSOCIATES 31661021591493538178796748 GREENHORNE & O'MARA 95161 87 6883 5 5 6 98 18 56 95 1 HELLER-WEAVER & SHEREMETA, INC.1419215145116163336375845655 JOHN A. GRANT, JR., INC 21122110133817192934880426756 KEITH & SCHNARS, P.A.71279186211123477280766851 KEITH ASSOCIATES INC.1151113106510103506881736365 MILLER LEGG 8571712669143417181765459 O'BRIEN, SUITER & O'BRIEN, INC,531414277773617683665878 PAUL E. BREWER & ASSOCIATES, INC.2222222222522221243014212534 WANTMAN GROUP, INC.655698 4443 7 2 7 48 18 06 96 8 S:\EngAdmin\Projects\2012\12-058\RFQ Submittals\RFQEvalMasterSurveying.xl s MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Douglas E. Smith, Assistant City Manager THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 9, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.H. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 RFQ FOR LOCAL ENERGY ASSURANCE PLANNING AND TRAINING ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is approval of the ranki ng of respondents to Request for Qualifications (RFQ)# 2011-16 for Local Energy Assurance Planning & Training a nd authorization for staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm. BACKGROUND The City was previously awarded a Local Energy Assu rance Plan (LEAP) grant from the U.S. Department of Energy in the amount of $130,000 thro ugh the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The main focus of the LEAP initiative is to build regional energy assurance capabilities that will allow the city to better communicate and coordinate responses on a regional and state level as it relates to energy security, reliability, assurance planning, and emergency issues regarding energy disruptions. The objectives of the initiative are t o develop, strengthen, and/or expand local governme nt energy assurance planning and resiliency, reduce th e impacts from energy supply disruptions, and creat e and save jobs in energy assurance planning at the c ity level. The City issued RFQ# 2011-16 for consulting services to assist with plan prep aration, training, and grant reporting related to the LEAP grant. The Cit y received two responses: EMC Engineers, Inc. (a subsidiary of Eaton Corporation) and Langton Associ ate, Inc. Both firms are scheduled to make presentations to the staff ranking committee for th is RFQ on Monday, December 12. Following that meeting, the staff committee will determine a recom mendation for ranking the respondents. The staff committee's recommeded ranking will be reviewed at the December 13 Commission meeting for Commission's consideration to approve the ranking a nd potentially authorize staff to enter into negotiations with the top ranked firm. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Commission approval of the ranking of respondents to RFQ# 2011-16 for Local Energy Assurance Planning & Training and authorizat ion for staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commission FROM:Douglas E.Smith,Assistant City Manager THROUGH:David T.Harden,City Manager DATE:December 13,2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.H.–RFQ FOR LOCAL ENERGY ASSURANCE PLANNING & TRAINING –ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This item is on the agenda for tonight’s Commission Meeting (Item 9.H.)for approval of the ranking of respondents to Request for Qualifications (RFQ)#2011 December 13,2011 LEAP RFQ Committee Rankings Individual Score By PointsTotal FirmKrejcarekMajtenyiReadeSmithWilliamsPoints Langton Associates4856717053298 EMC Engineers (Eaton)6261655349290 Individual Score By RankOverall FirmKrejcarekMajtenyiReadeSmithWilliamsRank Langton Associates2 21111 EMC Engineers (Eaton)1 12222 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:December 8, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.I. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 CONTRACT AWARD/O.T. SERVICES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to award the annual ja nitorial services contract for the Delray Beach Gol f Course to O.T. Services in the amount of $31,920.00 annually/$2,660.00 per month, per RFP# 2011-26. BACKGROUND Proposals were received from eleven (11) vendors in response to RFP Specification #2011-26, for Janitorial Services for Delray Beach Golf Course on Wednesday, September 07, 2011. On September 15, 2011 after review, rankings were s ubmitted to Purchasing as follows; OT Services, Premier Building Services, Perm A Care, Sunshine Cl eaning and Customs Cleaning. On Tuesday October 04, 2011 a meeting was scheduled for the to p three (3) ranking vendors, Perm A Care, Premiere Building Services and O.T. Services. Premiere Build ing Services declined. Vendor rankings were based on bid submittals, experience, verified references and vendor presentations on October 4 th . This bid is very complicated due to the required ho urs that this service must be rendered. All cleanin g activities must be performed between the hours of 1 1:00 pm and 6:00 am with no exceptions due the operations of the Golf Course. The pricing correspo nds to the estimated time involved to complete the various duties required. Comments from the RFP committee regarding the five lowest bids are attached which outline some concerns with the bidders who submitted lower prici ng than O.T. services. FUNDING SOURCE 445-4711-572.34-90 D B MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends award of annual janitorial service s contract for the Delray Beach Golf Course to OT Services in the amount of $31,920.00 annually/$2,66 0.00 per month per RFP #2011-26. RFP #2011 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Richard J. Reade, Sustainability Officer THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:December 9, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.J. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 STATE OF THE CITY & CITIZEN'S ROUNDTABLE MEETINGS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Discuss options related to the Annual State of the City and Citizen's Roundtable Meetings. BACKGROUND Annually, the City has held a publicly attended Sta te of the City Meeting, which included a presentati on by the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Chair, the City's Planning and Zoning Board Chair and the City Manager, outlining the various a ccomplishments that have been achieved throughout the past year as well as where each of the agencies expect to go during the upcoming year. In addition and immediately following the State of the City event, the City has hosted a Citizen's Roundtable event to provide the public with an oppo rtunity to participate in their community by providing input on the various services and program s that are being provided well, identifying and discussing where there are challenges and developin g possible resolutions, ensuring that the City remains responsive to the needs of our citizen s, businesses, property owners and visitors and provides the highest quality of services. This year's events have been tentatively scheduled to be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at Old School Square Crest Theatre and the Gymnasium. However, as evidenced from recent meetings, attendance is low, possibly due to the length of th e meetings, the day and/or time that the events are held and/or the fact that the State of the City is provided on numerous occasions at various benevolen t and community organization meetings. As a result, staff is requesting that the City Comm ission discuss and provide direction on these meeti ngs and whether they should be continued in the same fo rmat or modified. In addition, staff will present the Commission with an innovative on-line tool, Peak De mocracy - Open Town Hall, that would provide the City with the opportunity to continue communica ting and receiving input from the community on issues that would normally be discussed during the Citizen's Roundtable. This new approach provides local governments with an independently monitored, on-line forum that allows authenticated members (name and address - no anonymous posters) of the Delray Beach communit y to provide their input on various issues and/or programs. Additional information on Peak Democracy can be vie wed on-line at www.peakdemocracy.com . If this approach is utilized as a possible alternat ive or supplement to the Roundtable event, the prop osed annual cost would be $3,780 for an unlimited numbe r of topics or $720 for a single topic, which can b e utilized as a PILOT. These prices are discounted d ue to the City's membership with the Alliance for Innovation. RECOMMENDATION Provide direction on the State of the City and Citi zen's Roundtable events as well as possible alterna tive options to continue communicating with the Delray B each community. Online Public Comment Forums with the Order & Decorum of a Government Meeting– Civil, Legal, Insightful, Inexpensive Peak Democracy Inc * For the latest stats on the Peak Democracy Network, go to http://www.PeakDemocracy.com Local Govs • Salt Lake City UT • South Salt Lake UT* • Palo Alto CA • Yucca Valley CA* • Vacaville CA* • Colma CA* • Santa Clara CA* • Ashland OR • Lake Oswego OR • Alpharetta GA • Decatur GA • Blue Ash OH • Montgomery OH • Arlington VA* • Hampton VA • Norfolk VA • Junction City KS • Clayton MO * • Ferguson MO • Williamsburg PA • State College PA** • Tempe AZ* • Payson AZ • Rock Hill SC • Germantown TN • Middletown RI • Washoe County NV • Beltline GA • Fort Collins CO* • Airway Heights WA* Elected Officials • Berkeley CA • Sacramento CA • Eureka CA • Arcata CA • Trinidad CA • Penticton BC * Client established but forums not publicly launched yet ** Client use periodic (not ongoing) forums Low High Pu b l i c E x p e c t a t i o n s • Online forums frequently infected with the 3Ps: Profanity, Personal Attacks, Impertinent SPAM • Some people dominate forums by multiple postings • Many people intimidated by vitriol • Many people frustrated by misinformation Some people dominate Many people intimidated b Many people frustrate Individuals (i.e. bloggers) Online forums frequently Profanity, Personal Atta Companies High Low Legal Requirements • First Amendment Freedom of Speech Rights • Freedom of Information Public Records Act • Records Retention Requirements • Sunshine Ordinances First Amendment Freedom of Speech Rights •Freedom of Information Public Records Act •Records Retention Requirements •Sunshine Ordinances Government Low High Pu b l i c E x p e c t a t i o n s High Low Legal Requirements • First Amendment Freedom of Speech Rights • Freedom of Information Public Records Act • Records Retention Requirements • Sunshine Ordinances First Amendment Freedom of Speech Rights •Freedom of Information Public Records Act •Records Retention Requirements •Sunshine Ordinances Government Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd / mob-sourcing online public comment forms: civil, legal, insightful Low High Pu b l i c E x p e c t a t i o n s High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd / mob-sourcing • Forum appears on gov website (but powered by Peak Democracy servers) • Agenda & topics set by gov • Background info set by gov (when applicable, gov staff report inserted in forum) • Forum options set by gov (duration, open-ended, Y/N, option A/B, show name, support, tally, civic points & rewards) • Forums can integrate gov Fb wall & Twitter feed Low High Pu b l i c E x p e c t a t i o n s High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd / mob-sourcing • Commenters register name, address & email (not anonymous, but gov can allow post with name-not-shown ) • Structure is parallel to a public hearing • 1 comment per topic (but can change comment) • Can’t dominate forum via multiple comments • Can’t argue back-&-forth & intimidate others • Can’t hijack forum with off-topic thread Low High Pu b l i c E x p e c t a t i o n s High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd / mob-sourcing • We confirm email valid via email confirmation • We check street address via geo-coding • We note IP address & browser cookie • We monitor participants for multiple comments • We prevent systematic abuse & fraud • You don’t utilize gov staff time Low High Pu b l i c E x p e c t a t i o n s High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd / mob-sourcing • We handle user support issues & questions • We resolve disruptive comments • We notify gov contact if problem occurs • We move problem comment to special web page • We diplomatically inform commenter via email • We never delete or edit comments • We maintain freedom of speech rights • You don’t utilize gov staff time Low High Pu b l i c E x p e c t a t i o n s High Low Legal Requirements Facebook, Twitter, blogs, list serves, email, e-polls, e-surveys, crowd / mob-sourcing • You can archive digital & paper copy of forum • You only use minor staff time for public records • You can analyze feedback (by city, district, neighborhood & distance to a project) • You retain decision-making authority (no use of the “v” word; no Referendum Effect ) • You can assess citizen satisfaction MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:City Manager DATE:December 9, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 9.K. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PROPOSAL FOR A CONGRESS CORRIDOR MARKETING PLAN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consider accepting a proposal for creating a strate gic marketing plan for the Congress Avenue Corridor . BACKGROUND In May, through the Palm Beach County League of Cit ies, I was introduced to Mr. David Wilk. He is the National Director of Corporate Real Estate and Advisory Services for Sperry Van Ness Commercial Real Estate Advisors and Corporate Valuation Adviso rs. One of the services Mr. Wilk provides in his position is economic development strategies for mun icipalities through repositioning key properties, a nd marketing /branding strategies that optimize challe nging real estate assets. The Mayor and I met with Mr. Wilk at that time to get to know him and learn more about what he might be able to do to help us market the Congress Corridor. This fall I contacte d Mr. Wilk again to discuss the Congress Corridor with him further. When he was here, he also spent some time with Vin Nolan. Based on our meetings and what I have been able to learn about Mr. Wilk, I believe he will be able to provide invaluable adv ice on the kinds of businesses most likely to be intere sted in the Congress Corridor, and the Office Depot property in particular, and how we should market ou rselves to them. After our last meeting I asked Mr. Wilk to provide us with a proposal, which you will find attached. I believe that implementation of this proposal would be a significant step in jump starting development/redevelopment of the Congress Corridor. Vin Nolan has reviewed the proposal and agrees that it is a comprehensive, valuable app roach. While the Marketing Plan is being developed , City staff will work closely with Mr. Nolan to deve lop appropriate incentives to make available in thi s corridor. With a Marketing Plan and a package of i ncentives we should be well positioned to attract investment to the corridor. The proposed fee of $7,500 to $10,000 seems reasona ble considering the scope of the proposal. The cost is within administrative approval limits, but considering the fact that this is in support of one of our major goals, I wanted to be sure the Commission agr eed with this approach. FUNDING SOURCE City Manager's contingency. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Commission accept the proposal from Sperry Van Ness for Creating a Strategic Marketing Plan for the Congress Avenue Corridor. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:December 6, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 47 -11 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to add assisted living facilities to the list of allowed u ses in the same manner as multiple family residenti al usesin order to bring consistency between the Land Development Regu lations and State and Federal Laws. BACKGROUND Recently amendments to the Land Development Regulat ions have been adopted on April 15, 2008 (Ordinance 20-08) and on January 19, 2010 (Ordinanc e 01-10) to allow assisted living facilities to be accommodated similarly (with respect to the number of residents and units) to either single family, duplex, or multi-family uses in the zoning districts in which those uses were allowed. Subsequently it was discovered that assisted living facilities were not accommodated in the same manner as other multi - family residential uses under two certain situation s where special regulations allowed increased densities and in certain overlay districts where re sidential uses are permitted. Under the proposed ordinance, additional provisions are made to allow assisted living facilities where increased densitie s are permitted through the conditional use provisions an d within certain overlay districts which allows residential uses. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), approval of an LDR amendment must be based upon a finding that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment will fur ther Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. A positive finding can be made that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval on a 6 to 1 vote (Gerry Franc iosa dissenting) at its November 21, 2011 meeting. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Ordinance No. 47-11 on first rea ding for a City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations, by adopting the findings o f fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the C omprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulation s. Attachments: - Proposed Ordinance No. 47-11 - Planning and Zoning Staff Report of November 21, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 47-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.6, “MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) DISTRICT, SUBSECTION (D), “CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED”, SECTION 4.4.9, “GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION (B), “PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED”, SECTION 4.4.9, “GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION (G)(3)(4), “MULT I- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS”, SECTION 4.4.12, “PLANNED COMMERCIAL (PC) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION (G), “SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS”, SECTION 4.4.13, “CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT”, SUBSECTION (D), “CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED”, SECTION 4.4.28, “CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT-RAILROAD CORRIDOR (CBD-RC)”, SUBSECTION (D), “CONDITIONAL USES AND STRUCTURES ALLOWED, TO ADD ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES TO THE LIST OF ALLOWED USES IN THE SAME MANNER AS MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES IN ORDER TO BRING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on November 21, 201 1, and voted 6 to 1 to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zonin g Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the ch ange is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach a dopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach fi nds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2 ORD. NO. 47-11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF TH E CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 4.4.6, "Medium Density Residential (RM) District", subsection (D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Bea ch, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.6. Medium Density Residential (RM) District: (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed : The following uses are allowed as conditional uses within the RM District . (1) Child care and adult day care. (2) Private educational facilities subject to the restric tions set forth in Section 4.3.3(HHH). (3) Churches, or places of worship, and their attendant educational , nursery, Sunday school, recreational, and columbarium facilities. The foregoing doe s not allow establishment of educational and care uses such as elementary school and general day c are; however, such uses may be established by a separate conditional use application for child care or r ezoning to CF, as appropriate. (4) The use of common recreational facilities such as swimm ing pools, tennis courts, and golf courses (associated with a subdivision) for club or commercial purp oses. (5) Single family detached residences in zero lot developments. (6) Yacht club with facilities. (7) Dock master facilities when associated with a multi-family development which has a marina. (8) Private beach clubs with attendant recreational, dining, and related accessory facilities within one of the following areas: (a) the area l ying south of Atlantic Dunes Park and east of State Road A1A, or (b) south of Casurina Road, north of Bucida road, and east of State Road A 1A. (9) Multiple family residential development, including resid ential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, may exceed twelve (12) units per acre, up to a maximum 3 ORD. NO. 47-11 of twenty-four (24) units per acre within the Southwest Neighborhood O verlay District defined in Section 4.5.9, subject to the provisions of Section 4.4.6(I), Article 4.7, and based up on the development’s conformance with the applicable standards and criteria describe d within the adopted Southwest Area Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. (10) Multiple family residential development, including resid ential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, may exceed twelve (12) units per acre, up to a maximum of twenty-four (24) units per acre within the Carver Estates Overlay District as defined in Section 4.5.11 and up to a maximum of eighteen (18) units per acre within the Infi ll Workforce Housing Area, subject to the provisions of Section 4.4.6(l), and Article 4.7. Section 3 . That Section 4.4.9, "General Commercial (GC) District", subse ction (B), “Principal Uses and Structures Permitted”, of the Land Development Regulat ions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as f ollows: Section 4.4.9 General Commercial (GC) District: (B) Principal Uses and Structures Permitted : The following are allowed within the GC District as permitted uses, except as modified in the Four Cor ners Overlay District by Section 4.4.9(G)(3)(a). (1) General retail uses and/or facilities, including, but not limited to: (a) Antiques, arts and crafts, automotive parts, baked goods, books, carpet and floor covering, cheeses, beer, wine, liquor, confectioneries, cosmetics, me ats, draperies and slipcovers, pharmacies, electrical fixtures and supplies, fa brics, fish, flowers and plants, fruits and vegetables, food, garden supplies, gifts, glassware, har dware and paints, home furnishings, ice cream, lawn care equipment, leather goods, luggage , medical and surgical equipment, music and musical instruments, nautical supplie s, office furniture equipment and supplies, pets and pet supplies, photographic equipm ent and supplies, sewing supplies, sporting goods, toys, wearing apparel and acces sories, appliances, bicycles, business machines, jewelry. (2) Business, Professional, and Medical uses including, but not limited to: 4 ORD. NO. 47-11 (a) Interior decorating, medical and dental clinics, medical and dental laboratories, photographic studios, printing and publishing, business offices, profes sional offices, and medical offices. (3) Contractor's Offices, including but not limited to: (a) Air conditioning, general contractor, electrical, painting, and plumb ing; however, any outside storage of materials is prohibited. (4) Services and Facilities including, but not limited to: (a) Auctions, barber and beauty shops and salons, caterers, dry cleaning limi ted to on-site processing for customer pickup only, dry cleaning and laundry picku p stations, financing e.g. banks and similar institutions including drive-through facilities, laundromats limited to self-service facilities, pet grooming, restaurants including dr ive-in and drive-through, tailoring, tobacconist, vocational schools limited to arts and craf ts, business, beauty, dancing, driving, gymnastics, photography, modeling, and karate-judo, small item repair, and rental of sporting goods and equipment (such as but not limited to bicycles, skates, boogie boards). With the exception of bicycles with an electric -helper motor as defined in Section 72.02, Delray Beach Code of Ordinances, all rented sporting goods must be non-motorized. (b) Abused spouse residence with forty (40) or fewer residents, gall eries, broadcast studios, butcher shops, cocktail lounges, exercise facilities e.g. gy ms and clubs, indoor shooting ranges, museums, libraries, newsstands, commercial or public p arking lots and parking garages, theaters excluding drive-ins. (5) Dwelling units, and residential licensed service provider fa cilities and assisted living facilities, in the same structure as commercial uses provided that: commer cial uses must be provided on the ground floor; commercial uses on the ground floor must occupy no less than 25% of the total structure excluding square footage devoted to vehicular use; re sidential uses are not located on the ground level; residential uses and non-residential uses are physica lly separated and have separate accessways; and the residential density does not exceed 12 units p er acre, except the Four Corners District which may have a free standing residential building as part of a multi-building unified master plan or the residential component may be a part of a single mixed use buil ding. The density of the Four Corners 5 ORD. NO. 47-11 Master Plan shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre and is subject to the provisions under Section 4.4.9 (G)(3)(d)(4). Section 4 . That Section 4.4.9, "General Commercial (GC) District", subse ction (D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed”, of the Land Development R egulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following are allowed as conditional uses within the GC District, except as modified in the North Fe deral Highway Overlay District by Section 4.4.9(G)(2) and except as modified in the Four Corners Overlay District by S ection 4.4.9(G)(3)(c). (1) Amusement game facilities. (2) Wash establishments or facilities for vehicles. (3) Child Care and Adult Day Care. (4) Clubs and Lodges; social, fraternal, and recreational not e xceeding 3,500 sq. ft. of gross floor area. (5) Drive-in Theaters. (6) Flea Markets, bazaars, merchandise marts, and similar retail us es. (7) Funeral Homes. (8) Gasoline Stations or the dispensing of gasoline directly into vehicles. (9) Hotels and Motels. (10) Free-standing multiple-family housing, including residential licensed service provider facilities, subject to the requirements of the RM Dist rict except for setback and height requirements which shall be pursuant to this Section. (11) Recreational establishments such as bowling alleys, gym nasiums, health spas, miniature golf courses, skating rinks. (12) Sales and service of All Terrain Vehicles and personal w atercraft (waverunners, jet skis), with no outside display, outside storage or outside service. (13) Vehicle care limited to the changing of oil and filters , and lubrication with no mechanical work or outside storage of vehicles except as a part of a gasoli ne station. (14) Veterinary Clinics. 6 ORD. NO. 47-11 (15) (Group Home, Type 2 and Community Residential Homes, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(I). (16) Adult Gaming Centers. (17) Churches or places of worship, and their attendant Sunday school, r ecreational and columbarium facilities not exceeding 3,500 square feet of gross floor area. The foregoing does not allow establishment of educational and care uses such as elementary school and gene ral day care. (18) Multiple family residential development, including reside ntial licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, may exceed twelve (12) units per acre, up to a maximum of eighteen (18) units per acre within the Infill Workforce Housi ng Area, subject to the provisions of Section 4.4.6(l), and Article 4.7, and subject to the requirements of the R M District except for setback and height requirements, which shall be pursuant to this Section . (19) Assisted Living Facilities, Nursing Homes, and Continuing Care Facilities subject to the requirements of the RM District except for setback and height requirements which shall be pursuant to this Section. (20) Large Family Child Care Home, subject to Section 4.3.3(TT). Section 5 . That Section 4.4.9, “General Commercial (GC) District”, subsec tion 4.4.9(G)(3), “Four Corners Overlay District”, paragraph 4, “Multi-Family D welling Units”, of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beac h, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.9(G)(3) (3) Four Corners Overlay District : The following supplemental district regulations apply to the Four Corners Overlay District, as defined in Section 4.5.14. (a) The permitted uses shall be those uses listed in Sections 4.4.9(B)(1,2,4,5). (b) The accessory uses shall be those uses listed in Section (C). (c) The conditional uses shall be those uses listed in Sections (D )(1,3,4,10,12,15, 20 and 21). (d) Standards Pertaining to Allocation of Uses: 1. Office uses can encompass up to one hundred percent (100%) of the t otal building square footage within a Four Corners Overlay master deve lopment plan. 7 ORD. NO. 47-11 2. Retail uses shall not encompass more than one hundred percent (100%) of the total building area square footage of the Four Corners Overla y master development plan. 3. Hotels, motels, and residential all suite lodging shall not encompa ss more than 20% of the total building area square footage of the Four Corners Overlay master development plan. Notwithstanding the above, hotels , motels and residential all suite lodging can comprise 100% of the f loor area of an individual building within a MDP containing multiple buildings. 4. Multi-family Dwelling Units: Multi-family uses and assisted living facilities , but excluding duplexes subject to (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) below, ran ging in density not to exceed 30 units per acre subject to the following: a. Residential units may comprise 75% of the total floor area of the development master plan at a maximum density of (30) units per acre and only when proposed as part of a mixed-use development containing office and/or commercial uses. b. Residential developments must include a minimum of 20% workforce units consisting of moderate income workforce units as defined by Article 4.7 Family/Workforce Housing. c. Workforce units shall be subject to general provisions of Artic le 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.7.8, 4.7.9, and 4.7.10. d. For mixed-use developments, the shared parking provisions of LDR Section 4.6.9. (C)(8) shall be allowed. e. All residential developments shall be subject to the Perfor mance Standards of 4.4.13(l)(2) Section 6 . That Section 4.4.12, “Planned Commercial (PC) District”, subsecti on (G), “Supplemental District Regulations”, of the Land Development Re gulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to re ad as follows: Section 4.4.12 Planned Commercial (PC) District (G) Supplemental District Regulations : In addition to the supplemental district regulations set forth in Article 4.6, the following shall apply. (1) Development within the Lindell/Federal Redevelopment Area O verlay District (Redevelopment Area #6) shall be consistent with the provisions cont ained within the adopted 8 ORD. NO. 47-11 Redevelopment Plan for the area, as particularly described unde r the chapter entitled “Section 4: Plan for Future Development.” (2) Within the portion of the Redevelopment Area that is bounded by Dixie Highway on the west, the C-15 canal on the south, Federal Highway on the east, a nd Avenue K (extended) on the north, multiple family residential development and assisted livi ng facilities with densities of up to 16 units per acre is are allowed as a conditional use, subject to the provisions of LDR Sect ion 4.4.6 RM (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subsection (I), Performance Standards, and based upon the development’s conformance with the applicable standards and criter ia described within the adopted Redevelopment Plan. (3) Dwelling units are permitted within the same structure as commercial uses with no restriction on the percentage of each use allowed. In the event th at residential and nonresidential uses are located in the same structure, residential uses and nonresidential uses must be physically separated and have separate accessways. (4) All development within the Four Corners Overlay District shall also comply with the provisions of Section 4.4.9(G)(3)(d) and (e). (5) Within the Silver Terrace Courtyards Overlay District, as defined by Section 4.5.17, multi-family residential, assisted living facilities and mixed-use development with residential densities up to 22 units per acre is are allowed as a conditional use, subject to the provisions of LDR Section 4.4.6 RM (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, sub section (I), Performance Standards, provided at least 20 % of the units are workforce units which comp ly with the provisions of Article 4.7, “Family/Workforce Housing”. The maximum nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within the overlay district is 0.75. Section 7 . That Section 4.4.13, “Central Business (CBD) District”, subsect ion (D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed”, of the Land Development R egulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.13 Central Business (CBD) District: (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed : The following uses are allowed as conditional uses within the CBD District: (1) Amusement game facilities limited to such uses as pinba ll, air hockey, electronic games, and other similar coin operated games when an attendant is on duty. (2) Child care and adult day care. (3) Financial institutions, e.g., banks and similar institutions i ncluding drive through facilities pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.4.13(H)(1). 9 ORD. NO. 47-11 (4) Funeral homes including accessory uses, such as, a chapel, crematory, and the like. (5) Gasoline stations or the dispensing of gasoline directly int o vehicles, except that such use shall not be allowed in the West Atlantic Neighborhood, t he Beach District, nor on lots which front along Atlantic Avenue or N.E. 2nd Avenue (a/k/a Pineapple Grove Way ), beginning at a point 105’ south of N.E. 4th Street. (6) Recreational establishments such as bowling alleys, g ymnasiums, health spas, miniature golf courses, skating rinks. (7) Veterinary clinics. (8) Movie theaters, excluding drive-ins. (9) Playhouses, dinner theaters, and places of assembly for c ommercial entertainment purposes (e.g., concerts, live performances). (10) Flea markets, bazaars, merchandise marts, and similar retail uses. (11) Wash establishment, with automatic/mechanical systems only, for vehicles, except that such use shall not be located east of the Intracoastal W aterway or on lots which front along Atlantic Avenue. Further, this use must be established on property with a minimum lot ar ea of 20,000 sq.ft. (12) Multi-family dwelling units, including residential licens ed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities, but excluding duplexes, at a density greater than thirty (30) uni ts per acre, on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and north of S.E. 2nd Street, subject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I ). (13) Group Home, Type 2 and Community Residential Homes, pursua nt to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(I). (14) Restaurants, Cocktail Lounges, Hotels, and Residential Type Inns may provide their required parking as valet parking, subject to the provisions of Sect ion 4.6.9(F)(3 (15) Drive-in or drive-through restaurants on property located wi thin the West Atlantic Neighborhood. (16) Hotels, motels, and residential-type inns on property loc ated within the West Atlantic Neighborhood. (17) Free standing or mixed-use residential development, incl uding residential licensed service provider facilities and assisted living facilities at a density greater than twelve (12) units per acre, but not exceeding 30 units per acre, on property located within the West Atlantic Neighborhood, subject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I). (18) Bed and Breakfast Inns within the West Atlantic Neighbor hood, subject to the provisions of LDR Section 4.3.3(Y) (19) Live/Work Unit, subject to Section 4.3.3 (KKK). 10 ORD. NO. 47-11 (20) Large Family Child Care Home subject to Section 4.3.3(TT). (21) Segway Tours and Segway Sales pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(ZZZZ). Section 8 . That Section 4.4.28, “Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (C BD-RC)”, subsection (D), “Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed”, of the L and Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and t he same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.4.28 Central Business District-Railroad Corridor (CBD-RC) (D) Conditional Uses and Structures Allowed: The following uses are allowed as conditional uses within the CBD-RC zoning district: (1) All uses allowed as such within the CBD [Section 4.4.13(D) ]. (2) Automobile repair and automobile detailing. However, s uch facilities may not be located north of S.E. 1st Street or south of S.E. 6th Street, extended. Cond itional use approval may not be granted for a new automobile repair facility, nor for the ex pansion of an existing facility, unless it is specifically demonstrated that off-street parking is availa ble in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.6.9. (3) Food preparation and/or processing, including but not limited t o bakeries and catering operations. (4) Dry cleaning processing plants. (5) Multi-family dwelling units, and assisted living facilities, but excluding duplexes, at a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre, in the a rea located west of the FEC Railroad, north of N.E. 2nd Street and south of N.E. 3rd Street, subject to the standards and limitations of LDR Section 4.4.13 (I). In addition, development must be consistent with the Design G uidelines contained within the Pineapple Grove Main Street Neighborhood Plan. The Pineapple Grove Design Review Committee shall review the project for consistency with the Performance Standar ds and compliance with the Pineapple Grove Neighborhood Plan prior to consideration of the Conditional Use by the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 9. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion t hereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whol e or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. 11 ORD. NO. 47-11 Section 10 . That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be , and the same are hereby repealed. Section 11 . That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon it s passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final rea ding on this the _____ day of ___________________, 200___. ____________________________________ ATTEST M A Y O R _______________________________ City Clerk First Reading__________________ Second Reading________________ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2011 AGENDA NO: IV.B AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIA TED AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTIONS 4.4.6 “MEDIUM DENS ITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) DISTRICT”, 4.4.9 “GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT”, 4.4.12 PLANNED COMMERCIAL (PC) DISTRICT, 4.4.13 “CENTRAL BUSINESS (CBD) DISTRICT” AND SECTION 4.4.28 “CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT–RAILROAD CORRIDOR (CBD-RC ) DISTRICT”, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE SAME MANNER AS MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH RESPE CT TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND DENSITY ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a City-initiated amendment to the Land Development Re gulations pertaining to Assisted Living Facilities. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text o f the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from t he Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS On April 15, 2008, the City Commission adopted Ordina nce 20-08, pertaining to Assisted Living Facilities and Continuing Care Facilities to comport wit h State Statues and achieve compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Law. The Ordinance adde d Assisted Living Facilities and Continuing Care Facilities to certain zoning districts i n the same manner in which multiple-family residential uses were allowed within those districts. In order to achieve compliance with State Laws, a subsequ ent LDR text amendment was adopted by the City Commission on January 19, 2010 (Or dinance 01-10). This amendment allowed assisted living facilities to be accommodated simila rly (with respect to the number of residents and units) to either single family, duplex, o r multi-family uses in the zoning districts in which those uses were allowed. Recently, a public inquiry was received pertaining to t he establishment of an assisted living facility at the 5th Avenue at Delray property, locate d on the east side of NE 5 th Avenue, between NE 1 st Street and NE 2 nd Street. This property is located within the CBD and w as developed at a density in excess of 30 units per acre with a conditional use approval. Assisted living facilities are allowed as a permitted use in the CBD (up to a ma ximum density of 30 units per acre) however, they were not listed as conditional uses with densities in excess of 30 units per acre. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, November 21 , 2011 Amendment to LDRs Regarding Assisted Living Facilit ies Page 2 It was subsequently discovered that assisted living facilit ies were not accommodated in the same manner as other multi-family residential uses under two certain situations where special regulations allowed increased densities and in certain ov erlay districts where residential uses are permitted. Under the proposed ordinance, addition al provisions are made to allow assisted living facilities where increased densities are permitted through the conditional use provisions and within certain overlay districts which allows residen tial uses. Pursuant to LDR Appendix “A” Assisted Living Facilitie s” are defined as: “Any building or buildings, section of building, or distinct part of a building, private home, boarding home, home for the aged, or other residenti al facility, whether operated for profit or not, which undertakes through its ownership or managem ent to provide housing, meals, and one or more personal services for a period exceeding 24 hours to one or more adults who are not relatives of the owner or administration. “Person al services” means direct physical assistance with or supervision of the activities of daily li ving and the self-administration of medication and other similar services which the Departmen t of Elderly Affairs may define by rule. “Personal services” shall not be construed to mean the provision of medical, nursing, dental, or mental health services. Assisted Living Faci lities shall be accommodated in the same manner with respect to the number of residents and the number of units as required for the respective structures of either a single family unit , duplex unit or multi-family unit in the zoning districts where allowed. Requests for exemptio ns to the number of residents can be requested through a reasonable accommodation request pur suant to LDR Section 2.4.7(G)” LDR SECTIONS AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE: The following overlay districts, Infill Workforce Housing Areas and Redevelopment Areas allow for multiple family developments under certain criter ia and do not allow assisted living facilities under similar circumstances. This ordinance adds assisted livin g facilities to these districts and areas to maintain consistency. Section 4.4.6 “Medium Density Residential (RM) District: Within the RM district multiple family residential de velopments may exceed 12 units per acre, up to a maximum of 24 units per acre within the Southwest Neighborhood Overlay district and the Carver Estates Overlay district subject t o approval of a conditional use and the provisions of Section 4.4.6(I), Article 4.7 and con formance with the criteria setforth in their respective re-development plan. Section 4.4.9 “General Commercial (GC) District”: Within the GC district multiple family residential de velopments may exceed 12 units per acre, up to a maximum of 18 units per acre within the Infill Workforce Housing Area subject to approval of a conditional use and the provisions of Section 4.4.6(I), Article 4.7 and conformance with the requirements of the RM district exce pt for setback and height requirements (which shall be per the GC district standar ds). Section 4.4.12 “Planned Commercial (PC) District”: Within the PC district multiple family residential de velopments may exceed 12 units per acre, up to a maximum of 18 units per acre within the Infi ll Workforce Housing Area subject to approval of a conditional use and the provisions of Sect ion 4.4.6(I), Article 4.7 and Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, November 21 , 2011 Amendment to LDRs Regarding Assisted Living Facilit ies Page 3 conformance with the requirements of the RM district exce pt for setback and height requirements (which shall be per the PC district standar ds). Additionally, varying density increases are allowed for multiple family developments within several overlay areas which would also be applicable to assisted living facilities. (i) Within the portion of the Redevelopment Area t hat is bounded by Dixie Highway on the west, the C-15 canal on the south, Federal High way on the east, and Avenue K (extended) on the north, multiple family residential development with densities of up to 16 units per acre is allowed as a conditional use, subject to the provisions of LDR Section 4.4.6 RM (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subsect ion (I), Performance Standards, and based upon the development’s conformance with the a pplicable standards and criteria described within the adopted Redevelopment Plan. (ii) Within the Silver Terrace Courtyards Overlay Dist rict, as defined by Section 4.5.17, multi-family residential and mixed-use develo pment with residential densities up to 22 units per acre is allowed as a conditional use, subjec t to the provisions of LDR Section 4.4.6 RM (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subsection (I), Performance Standards, provided at least 20 % of the units are w orkforce units which comply with the provisions of Article 4.7, “Family/Workforce Housing”. Th e maximum nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) within the overlay district is 0.75. (iii) Within the “Four Corners Overlay District” of t he PC district, multiple-family uses are allowed not to exceed a density of 30 units per acre subject to the following: a. Residential units may comprise 75% of the total floo r area of the development master plan at a maximum density of (30) units per acre and only when proposed as part of a mixed-use development containing office and/or commerci al uses. b. Residential developments must include a minimum of 2 0% workforce units consisting of moderate income workforce units as defined by Article 4.7 Family/Workforce Housing. c. Workforce units shall be subject to general provisions of Article 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.7.8, 4.7.9, and 4.7.10. d. For mixed-use developments, the shared parking pro visions of LDR Section 4.6.9. (C)(8) shall be allowed. e. All residential developments shall be subject to th e Performance Standards of 4.4.13(l)(2) Section 4.4.13 “Central Business District (CBD) District”: Within the CBD district, multi-family dwelling units (excluding duplexes) are allowed as a conditional use at a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre, on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and north of S.E. 2nd Street, sub ject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I ). In addition, development within the Pineapple Gr ove Main Street Area must be consistent with the Design Guidelines contained wi thin the Pineapple Grove Main Street Neighborhood Plan. The Pineapple Grove Desi gn Review Committee shall review the project for consistency with the Performance Standa rds and compliance with the Pineapple Grove Neighborhood Plan prior to considera tion of the Conditional Use by the Planning and Zoning Board. Additionally, for that area located with the West A tlantic Redevelopment Area, free standing or mixed-use residential developments are allowed as a conditional use at a density greater than twelve (12) units per acre, but not exceeding 30 units per acre, on property located Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, November 21 , 2011 Amendment to LDRs Regarding Assisted Living Facilit ies Page 4 within the West Atlantic Neighborhood, subject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I ). Section 4.4.24 “Central Business District-Railroad Corrid or (CBD-RC) District: Within the CBD-RC district, multi-family dwelling un its (excluding duplexes) are allowed as a conditional use at a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre, on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and north of S.E. 2nd Street, sub ject to the standards and limitations of Section 4.4.13(I ). In addition, development within the Pineapple Gr ove Main Street Area must be consistent with the Design Guidelines contained wi thin the Pineapple Grove Main Street Neighborhood Plan. The Pineapple Grove Desi gn Review Committee shall review the project for consistency with the Performance Standa rds and compliance with the Pineapple Grove Neighborhood Plan prior to considera tion of the Conditional Use by the Planning and Zoning Board. As stated above, assisted living facilities are to be accommo dated in the same manner as multiple family residential uses. REQUIRED FINDINGS LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings): Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings), i n addition to LDR Section 1.1.6(A), the City Commissi on must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals , Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were reviewed and the following applicable objective was noted: Housing Element Objective B-2 states , “Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing ty pes and other amenities (i.e. bike trails, parks, sidewalks) to accommodate the diverse economic make up of the City’s demographic profile, and meet the housing needs of all residents. P olicies which will implement this objective include:” The proposed amendment will further this policy. A posi tive finding can be made that the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Obje ctives, and Policies of the Comprehensive. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Pineapple Grove Main Street committee reviewed the amendment at their November 2, 2011 meeting and recommended approval. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) reviewed the amendment at their November 15, 2011 meeting and recommended approval. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) reviewed the amendment at their November 15, 2011 meeting and recommended approval. Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, November 21 , 2011 Amendment to LDRs Regarding Assisted Living Facilit ies Page 5 The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the amendment at their November 10, 2011 meeting and recommended approval. Courtesy Notices: Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeo wner and civic associations: Neighborhood Advisory Council Delray Citizen’s Coalition Letters of objection and support, if any, will be prov ided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this City-initiated LDR text amendment is to bring consistency between the Land Development Regulations and Florida Statues. Positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). RECOMMENDED ACTION Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commissio n for a city-initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations as reflected in the attach ed Ordinance, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and fi nding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). Attachment: Proposed Ordinance MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoni ng THROUGH:City Manager DATE:December 7, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 48 -11 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulat ions (LDRs) that will prohibit simulated gambling devices and their related places of business sometimes referred to as “internet or sweepstake cafes”. BACKGROUND The businesses that utilize simulated gambling devi ces are known by several names including Cyber cafes, Sweepstake cafes, or Internet cafes. These b usinesses can range from storefront locations which install fold out tables, add a few decorations and put out laptop computers with internet access to mu ch larger facilities that install many computers, big screen TVs and have sitting and snack areas. These facilities sell internet access or telephone cards which allow customers to enter a sweepstakes system on computers at the business. Customers then enter games where they can win cash prizes. This circumvents the current gambling laws, because the purchase of computer time or phone cards to enter sweepstakes on a gaming web site is technically not paying to play a game to win money. After players “buy time”, they can win credits in various online sweepstakes that can then be transferred back to cash. These businesses have been popping up across the na tion, including more recently in Florida, thereby creating concerns that it will increase crime rates , contribute to the financial hardships for low inc ome customers, and lower property values. Many communit ies are now considering some type of limitation on this use. These cafes differ from regular internet cafes whic h charge a fee for computer use and are usually associated with the sale of drinks and snacks, but do not offer or promote sweepstakes as their primar y business. They also differ from “adult gaming facil ities”, which are allowed in certain zoning districts as a conditional use in the following way: Cyber ca fes, Sweepstake cafes, or Internet cafes utilize we b based games connected with sweepstake winnings with significantly higher payouts than adult gaming facilities, where the maximum retail value of indiv idual prizes is limited to 75 cents per game and no cash awards, gift certificates, gift cards, credit cards or other cash substitutes are allowed. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item at their November 21, 2011 meeting and recommended approval on a 7-0 vote. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Ordinance No. 48-11 on first rea ding for a city-initiated amendment to Section 4.3.3 and Appendix ‘A’ of the Land Development Regulations, by adopting th e findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. ORDINANCE NO. 48 - 11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, “SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES”; BY ENACTING A NEW SUBSECTION 4.3.3(AAAA), “SIMULATED GAMBLING DEVICES ”, IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT USE OF SAME AND AMENDING APPENDIX “A” TO ENACT A NEW DEFINITION OF “SIMULATED GAMBLING DEVICES”; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Plannin g and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on November 21, 2011 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 7 of the 1968 Florida Constitution prohibits lotteries within Florida, other than the types of pari-mutuel pools authorized by law as of the effective date of the 1968 Florida Constitution; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 23, of the Florida Con stitution, as adopted in a 2004 Amendment to the Florida Constitution, authorizes s lot machine gaming only in certain eligible licensed facilities in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, Fl orida, and such authorization is subject to the requirements and conditions set forth in Articl e X, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and the extensive regulatory requirements of Chapter 551, Flor ida Statutes; and WHEREAS, computer or video displays of spinning re els or other simulations of a game or games ordinarily played on a gambling device or in a casino and which show the results of raffles, sweepstakes, contests or other promotions (hereinaf ter collectively referred to in these recitals as “simulated gambling devices”) were not among the ty pes of pari-mutual pools authorized by law as of the effective date of the 1968 Florida Constitution; and WHEREAS, the technology necessary to facilitate si mulated gambling devices effectively did not even generally exist in 1968; and WHEREAS, under no circumstances does the Florida C onstitution or the Florida Statutes authorize or permit casino gambling or any activity resembling casino gambling in the City of Delray Beach, Florida; and 2 ORD. NO. 48-11 WHEREAS, no vote of the electorate of the City of Delray Beach authorizing casino gambling in the City of Delray Beach has taken place; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City Delray Be ach, Florida (the “Commission”), desiring to protect individual rights, while at the same time affording opportunity for the fullest development of the individual and promoting the hea lth, safety, education, and welfare of the people, including the elderly and economically disa dvantaged, and the children of the City of Delray Beach who are our most precious and valuable resour ce, finds that the City of Delray Beach has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens, and in part icular its elderly, economically disadvantaged, and children from certain activities and influences which can result in irreparable harm, including simulated gambling devices; and WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes that while the State of Florida has authorized slot machine gaming at licensed facilities in certain ar eas outside of the City of Delray Beach, it also recognizes that establishments that utilize simulat ed gambling devices can deceive members of the public, including the elderly, the economically dis advantaged, and children, into believing that they are engaging in a lawfully permitted gaming activity; and WHEREAS, the use of simulated gambling devices is therefor e inherently deceptive; and WHEREAS, due to their inherently deceptive nature, establishments that utilize simulated gambling devices are adverse to the quality of life , tone of commerce, and total community environment in the City of Delray Beach, and have a n unreasonable adverse effect upon the elderly, the economically disadvantaged, and other citizens of the C ity of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, the Commission is also charged with the r esponsibility of protecting and assisting its citizens who suffer from compulsive or probl em gambling behavior; and WHEREAS, there is often a correlation between esta blishments that utilize simulated gambling devices and disturbances of the peace and good order of the community, and the concurrency of these activities is hazardous to the health, safety, and general welfare of the citize ns of the City of Delray Beach; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure the uniform enforcemen t of existing laws, to preserve the public peace and good order, and to safeguard the h ealth, safety, morals and welfare of the community and citizens thereof, it is necessary and advisable to prohibit the use of simulated gambling devices, unless otherwise exempted by law or ordin ance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISS ION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . That the recitations set forth above are incorporated he rein. 3 ORD. NO. 48-11 Section 2 . That Section 4.3.3, “Special Requirements for Spe cific Uses”, Subsection (AAAA), “Simulated Gambling Devices”, of the Land D evelopment Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, shall hereby be enacted to read as follows: (AAAA) Simulated Gambling Devices: (1) Purpose : It is the intent of this section to prohibit the use of simulated gambling devices, including any related activity or behavior which can be reasonably construed to be the use of simulated gambling devices. (2) Prohibition of Simulated Gambling Devices : It shall be unlawful for any person to manage, supervise, maintain, provide, produce or us e one or multiple simulated gambling devices. Each individual act to manage, supervise, maintain, provide, produce, or use a simulated gambling device constitutes a separate violation of this section. (3) Exemptions : (a) This section does not prohibit the personal, re creational, non-commercial ownership, play, operation or use of a device which could be construed to be a simulated gambling device, provided such ownership, play, operation or use is not otherwise prohibited by Florida law and provided su ch ownership, play, operation or use does not constitute a lottery under Article X, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution. (b) This section does not prohibit the ownership, p lay, operation, or use of any device expressly permitted by the Florida Statutes and not otherwise prohibited by the Florida Constitution, except that devices permitted by Article X, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 551, Florida Statu tes, in Broward and Miami- Dade County only are not permitted by this section. c. This section does not prohibit Adult Gaming Cent ers, which are regulated by LDR Section 4.3.3(AAA). (4) Conflict with State Law : Nothing in this section is intended to conflict with the provisions of the Florida Constitution or Chapter 849, Flor ida Statutes, concerning gambling. In the event of a conflict between this section and either the Florida Constitution or Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, then the provisions of the Florida Consti tution or Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, as applicable, control. (5) Penalty : Any person who violates this section is subject to the provisions of Section 10.99, “General Penalty”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach. Each simulated 4 ORD. NO. 48-11 gambling device, possession or use thereof constitu tes an individual offense for purposes of Section 10.99. Section 3 . That Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, of the Land Dev elopment Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to enact a new definition of “Simulated Gambling Device” to read as follows: SIMULATED GAMBLING DEVICE Means any mechanical or electrical device, computer, terminal, video or other equipment that may or may not be capable of downloading games from a central server system, machine, computer or other e quipment upon connection with or the insertion of, swiping, passing in range, or any other technic al means of physically or electromagnetically connecting to a coin, bill, ticket, token, card, or similar object, including entering a password obtained directly or indirectly through payment of consideration or obtained as a bonus or supplement to another transaction involving the pay ment of consideration, which makes the device available to play (by skill, chance, or both) or op erate a computer or video simulation of any game such as slot machines, bingo, poker, keno, craps, o r any other type of game ordinarily played in a casino, including a game involving the display of t he results of a raffle, sweepstakes, drawing, contest, lottery, or other promotion, and which may deliver or entitle the person or persons playing or operating the device to a payoff of cash, money, or other credit, billets, tickets, tokens, or electronic credits to be exchanged for cash or merc handise, or any other thing of value, whether made automatically from the machine or manually. Section 4 . That should any section or provision of this ordi nance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declar ed by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validit y of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereo f other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 5 . That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in con flict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 6 . That this ordinance shall become effective upon i ts passage on second and final reading. 5 ORD. NO. 48-11 PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second an d final reading on this the _____ day of ____________________, 2011. ____________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk First Reading__________________ Second Reading________________ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2011 AGENDA NO: V.C AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A CITY-INITIATED AME NDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), BY ENACTING A NEW SUBSECTION 4.3.3 (AAAA) TO PROHIBIT SIMULATED GAMBL ING DEVICES, AND AMENDING APPENDIX “A” TO ENACT A NEW DEFINITION FOR THE SAME. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a city- initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that will enact a new subsection to Section 4.3.3, “Special Requirements for Specific Uses”, t o prohibit simulated gambling devices and the related places of business sometimes referred to as “internet or sweepstake cafes”. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from t he Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The businesses that utilize these simulated gambling devi ces are known by several names including Cyber cafes, Sweepstake cafes, or Internet cafe s. These businesses can range from storefront locations which install fold out tables, add a few decorations and put out laptop computers with internet access to much larger facilities tha t install many computers, big screen TVs and have sitting and snack areas. These facilities sell internet access or telephone cards wh ich allow customers to enter a sweepstakes system on computers at the business. Customers then enter games where they can win cash prizes. This circumvents the current gambling laws , because the purchase of computer time or phone cards to enter sweepstakes on a gaming web site is technically not paying to play a game to win money. After players “buy time”, they can win credits in various online sweepstakes that can then be transferred back to cash. These businesses have been popping up across the nation, i ncluding more recently in Florida, thereby creating concerns that it will increase crime rate s, contribute to the financial hardships for low income customers, and lower property values. Many co mmunities are now considering some type of limitation on this use. These cafes differ from regular internet cafes which charg e a fee for computer use and are usually associated with the sale of drinks and snacks, but do not offer or promote sweepstakes as their primary business. They also differ from “adult gaming f acilities”, which are allowed in certain zoning districts as a conditional use in the following way: Cybe r cafes, Sweepstake cafes, or Internet cafes utilize web based games connected with sweepstake winnin gs with significantly higher payouts than adult gaming facilities, where the maximum retai l value of individual prizes is limited to 75 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 201 1 LDR Amendment-Prohibition of Simulated Gambling Dev ices 2 cents per game and no cash awards, gift certificates, gift cards, credit cards or other cash substitutes are allowed. REQUIRED FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan Conformance LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the C ity Commission make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Obj ectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. While there were no specific section s of the Comprehensive Plan to support the proposed amendment, it is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS Courtesy Notices Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeo wner and civic associations: Neighborhood Advisory Council Citizens Coalition Chamber of Commerce Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD) Letters of objection and support, if any, will be pro vided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The proposed ordinance will prohibit simulated gambli ng devices and the related places of business sometimes referred to as “internet or sweepstake ca fes”. While the amendment does not specifically further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and is not inconsistent with them. Further a positive finding can b e made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (5). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Com mission of an amendment to the Land Development Regulations , by enacting a new subsection 4.3.3 (AAAA) to proh ibit Simulated Gambling Devices, and amending “Appendix A” to enact a new definition for the same, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commi ssion of an amendment to the Land Development Regulations , by enacting a new subsection 4.3.3 (AAAA) to proh ibit Simulated Gambling Devices, and amending “Appendix A” to enact a new definition for the same, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative). Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, November 21, 201 1 LDR Amendment-Prohibition of Simulated Gambling Dev ices 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend approval of an amendment to the Land Devel opment Regulations, by enacting a new subsection 4.3.3 (AAAA) to prohibit Simulated G ambling Devices, and amending “Appendix A” to enact a new definition for the same, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the t ext amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the cri teria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Attachment: Proposed Ordinance MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE:December 7, 2011 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 12.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 50 -11 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Adoption of Ordinance 50-11 regarding a proposed change to the number of sig natures required to qualify as a candidate for election. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the direction given by Commission, at i ts November 8, 2011 workshop meeting, the following Ordinance has been prepared, which change s the required number of signatures needed on nominating petition from 1% of the registered voter s to a set number of 250. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion. ORDINANCE NO. 50-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 34, “ELECTIONS”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING SECTION 34.16, “FILING OF NOMINATING PETITIONS”, TO MODIFY THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS REQUIRED TO SIGN A PETITION TO GRANT ELIGIBILITY OF A CANDIDATE TO QUALIFY TO RUN FOR OFFICE, PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE , A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach desires to modify the numb er of registered voters required to sign a petition to grant eligibility of a candidate to qualify to run for office . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . That Chapter 34, “Elections”, of the Code of Ordinances of the Ci ty of Delray Beach is amended by amending Section 34.16, “Filing of Nominating Petition”, to read as follow s: Sec. 34.16. FILING OF NOMINATING PETITION (A) To qualify as a candidate for election, the candidate must file the documents set forth in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2). The documents shall be filed with the City Clerk no earlier than noon on the last Tuesday in January nor later than noon on the second Tuesday in February of the cal endar year in which the election is to be held, or to qualify as a candidate for Mayor if a special ele ction is called to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor, the candidate must file with the City Clerk no earlier than noon on t he first Tuesday in April nor later than noon on the third Tuesday in April provided, however, all those who qualified pre viously for Mayor for the previous regular election will be deemed to have qualified as a candidate for the special election without additional petitions being filed or additional monies being paid or to qualify as a candidat e in a special recall election called for the purpose of filling a vacancy pursuant to F.S. Section 100.361, the candidate must file with the City Clerk, no earlier than 8:00 a.m. two (2) days after the circuit court judge, pursuant to F.S . Section 100.361(2), has set the date for the special recall election and no later than 5:00 p.m. on the eighth day after the judge has set the date for the special recall election. The following documents must be filed: (1) A statement in writing under oath stating that the nominee is: (a) Qualified as an elector in the City and has been one since on or before September 1 preceding the election for which he or she is qualifying. (b) A candidate for the office for which he is qualifying. (2) A petition signed by the electors of the City not less in number than one percent of at least 250 of the Registered voters of the City as determined on January 1 of t he year of the election, and payment of fifty dollars ($50.00) to cover the cost of validating the signatures on the petition. (B) (1) The petitions shall be on a form prescribed by the City Clerk, which shall not be released nor 2 ORD. NO. 50-11 distributed by the City Clerk until 8:00 a.m. on the first business day in the month of December preceding the month of qualification, or in the event of a special election to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor, the petition shall be re- leased and distributed by the City Clerk no earlier than t he second Tuesday in March proceeding the special election, or in the case of a special recall election at 8:00 a.m. on the day after the Circuit Court Judge, pursuant to F.S. Section 100.361(2), has set the date for the special recall elec tion unless that date falls on a weekend or holiday, in which case a petition may be obtained on the next regular business d ay. (2) Signatures may be obtained on the petition between the time the C ity Clerk is authorized to release and distribute the petition and the deadline for qualification. The signa tures to a nominating petition need not all be affixed to one paper, but to each separate paper of a pet ition there shall be attached an affidavit executed by its circulator stating the number of signers of the paper, that ea ch signature on it was affixed in his presence, and that he believes each signature to be the genuine signature of the pers on whose name it purports to be. The signatures shall be executed in ink or indelible pencil. Each petition shall have next to the signature the date of signing, the place of residence, and precinct number. (C) The names of all candidates and the office for which they have filed shall be received by the Supervisor of Elections from the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the first Friday after the close of qualifying, or in the event of a special election to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor or in the case of a special recall election by 5:00 p.m. on the day following the close of qualifying except that if sai d day falls on a weekend or holiday, the City Clerk shall transmit the names of all candidates and the office for which the y have filed on the next working day. Section 2 . That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion t hereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or par t thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 3 . That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith b e, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4 . That this ordinance shall become effective after the March 13, 2012 Municipal election. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final readi ng on this the _____ day of ___________________, 2011. ______________________________________ ATTEST: M A Y O R _______________________________ City Clerk First Reading____________________ Second Reading__________________