03-15-12 Special Workshop MeetingCITY COMMISSION CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING -THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2012 4:00 P.M. DELRAY BEACH CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM The City will furnish appropriate
auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity
conducted by the City. Contact Doug Smith at 243-7010, 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices
are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie has instructed
me to announce a Special Meeting of the City Commission to be held for the following purposes: 1. MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS/RESOLUTION NO. 17-12: Canvass the returns, and declare the
results of the March 13, 2012 First Nonpartisan and Special (Referendum) Election; approve Resolution No. 17-12. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 15-12/JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA)/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT): Adopt Resolution No. 15-12 approving a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for 50% reimbursement of operational
and capital costs associated with the Downtown Roundabout Shuttle System. 3. SETTLEMENT CONTRIBUTION/PALM BEACH COUNTY/INSPECTOR GENERAL: Approve a settlement contribution regarding
the lawsuit filed by fifteen municipalities, including the City, against Palm Beach County related to the funding for the Inspector General. WORKSHOP AGENDA 1. Congress Avenue Corridor
Strategic Marketing Plan and Citywide Economic Development Incentives 2. Discussion of Possible Charter Review Committee 3. Discuss Changes to Special Event Policies and Procedures 4.
Provide Direction on Valet Parking Program Options 5. Discussion of On Street Parking Regulation 6. Draft Proposals for Drainage Design Requirements 7. Commission Comments Please be
advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record.
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: March 5, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM SP.1 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP
MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 MUNICIPAL ELECTION 2012 RESULTS/RESOLUTION NO. 17-12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Presented for your review are the unofficial cumulative totals for the regular,
absentee, and provisional ballots as provided by the Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County, indicating the results of the First Nonpartisan Election and Special Election (Referendum)
held on Tuesday, March 13, 2012. BACKGROUND FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION COMMISSION MEMBER – SEAT #2 -TWO YEAR TERM PAT ARCHER 1,156 DAVID JOHN ARMSTRONG 135 _ AL JACQUET 1,955 CHRISTINA
MORRISON 723 COMMISSION MEMBER – SEAT #4 -TWO YEAR TERM ANGIE GRAY 2,261__ VICTOR KIRSON 1,371 REFERENDUM QUESTION 1 Charter Revision relating to the length of terms and term limits
for the Commission
Members and Mayor Currently, the Commission Members (including the Mayor) serve two-year terms, limited to three consecutive terms. The Charter Amendment proposes three-year terms, limited
to three consecutive terms as well as clarifying the applicability of such change as provided in Ordinance No. 44-11. If passed this amendment shall apply to the Commissioners and Mayor
elected in March 2013 and thereafter. Should the above-described Charter Amendment be adopted? 1,236___ _ YES ("For Approval") 2,080___ _ NO ("Against Approval") I have prepared a resolution
to be used after the vote on the referendum which certifies and declares the results of the election held on March 13, 2012. Exhibit A to the resolution is a certification provided pursuant
to Florida Statute Section 100.351, which requires that the "election officials" of the City certify the results to the Department of State, which shall enter the results in the official
records to be held on file in the Office of the Department of State. In addition, Exhibit A should also include the voting information obtained by the City from the Supervisor of Elections
and the affidavit and advertisements as to the publications required by law. RECOMMENDATION To Approve the Unofficial cumulative totals for each candidate for Commission Member/Seat
#2 and Commission Member/Seat #4, including all of the regular, absentee, and provisional votes as presented, and that it is hereby declared, based upon the above and foregoing unofficial
results, that AL JACQUET is elected as Commission Member/Seat #2, for a two year term commencing on the 29th day of March, 2012, and that ANGIE GRAY is elected as Commission Member/Seat
#4, for a two year term commencing on the 29th day of March, 2012 ending in accordance with the City Charter. In addition, approve the total votes for Ballot Question One including all
of the regular, absentee, and provisional votes as presented, and that it is hereby declared, based upon the above and foregoing results, that Ballot Question One is NOT APPROVED.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 17-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, WITH RESPECT TO THE RESULTS OF THE REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY HELD
IN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MARCH 13, 2012, ON THE QUESTION OF AMENDING ARTICLE V, “ELECTIONS”, SECTION 5.02, “TYPES OF ELECTIONS”; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN THE LENGTH
OF A TERM FROM A TWO YEAR TERM TO A THREE YEAR TERM AND CLARIFYING THE APPLICABILITY OF SUCH CHANGE; CANVASSING THE RETURNS OF SAID REFERENDUM AND DECLARING AND CERTIFYING THE RESULTS
THEREOF; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, (the “Commission”), by Resolution No. 01-12, duly adopted on January 3, 2012
(the “Resolution”) and Ordinance No. 44-11, duly adopted on January 17, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), did propose to amend the Charter of the City to provide: (i) that the terms of office
for the Mayor and other City Commission Members be extended from two years to three years, said Ordinance and Resolution having further provided and directed that notice of said Referendum
is given by publication in accordance with state law, City Charter and City ordinance; and WHEREAS, due and regular notice of said Referendum has been published in the Palm Beach Post
and El Latino Semanal Inc. newspapers of general circulation within the City and said publications having been made in English and in Spanish respectively, each once in the fifth week
prior to the week in which the Referendum was held, at least 30 days prior to March 13, 2012 and in the third week and seven days prior to the date the Referendum was held, to wit March
13, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Supervisor of Elections of Palm Beach County has provided the Commission with the results of the Referendum for the purpose of canvassing the returns and declaring
and certifying the results thereof; and WHEREAS, said Referendum has been duly and properly held in accordance with law and that a copy of the certificate certifying the results of the
Referendum to the Florida Department of State (in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”), has been delivered to this Commission for the purpose of declaring and certifying
the results thereof; and
2 RES. NO. 17-12 WHEREAS, the official returns of said Referendum delivered to this Commission by the Supervisor of Elections reflect that the total numbers of votes cast in the Referendum
by the qualified electors residing in the City ___DISAPPROVED____ amending the Charter of the City to provide: (i) that the terms of office for the Mayor and other City Commission Members
be extended from two years to three years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Commission at this
meeting duly held, having received the results from the Supervisor of Elections, hereby canvasses the returns of said Referendum and determines, finds, declares and certifies the results
thereof with respect to the Question as follows: QUESTION 1 Charter Revision relating to the length of terms and term limits for the Commission Members and Mayor Currently, the Commission
Members (including the Mayor) serve two-year terms, limited to three consecutive terms. The Charter Amendment proposes three-year terms, limited to three consecutive terms as well as
clarifying the applicability of such change as provided in Ordinance No. 44-11. If passed this amendment shall apply to the Commissioners and Mayor elected in March 2013 and thereafter.
Should the above-described Charter Amendment be adopted? (a) The total number of votes cast in such Referendum by said qualified electors residing in the City that voted “For Approval”
was 1,236. (b) The total number of votes cast in such Referendum by said qualified electors residing in the City that voted “Against Approval” was 2,080. (c) A majority of the votes
cast in such Referendum by such qualified electors in the City _DISAPPROVED___ amending the Charter of the City to provide: (i) that the terms of office for the Mayor and other City
Commission Members be extended from two years to three years. Section 2. That said Referendum was in all respects conducted in accordance with law, and that all steps in connection with
and preceding such Referendum have been duly, regularly, lawfully taken and that the statutes and constitution of the State of
3 RES. NO. 17-12 Florida, the City Charter and City ordinances have been duly complied with in accordance with all their provisions. Section 3. That a true and correct copy of the certified
results shall be filed by the Commission with the Florida Department of State in substantially the form attained hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Certificate”) and that the Commission shall
secure an affidavit of publication from the publishers of the Palm Beach Post, and El Latino Semanal Inc. attesting to the publications of the notice of the Referendum (the “Affidavit”).
Section 4. That said returns shall be entered and recorded in the minutes of the Commission; and this Resolution, the Affidavit and Certificate shall be recorded in the minutes of the
Commission. Section 5. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict or inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed insofar as any conflict or any inconsistencies exists. Section 6. That
this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED in special session on this 15th day of March, 2012. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ________________________________
M A Y O R ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A” CERTIFICATE OF CITY CANVASSING BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA REFERENDUM MARCH 13, 2012 STATE OF FLORIDA PALM BEACH COUNTY Pursuant to the requirements of Section 100.351
of the Florida Statutes, we, the undersigned, Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Angeleta E. Gray, Vice-Mayor, Thomas F. Carney, Jr., City Commissioner, Jay Alperin,
City Commissioner, and Adam Frankel, City Commissioner do hereby certify that on the 15th day of March 2012 A.D., we canvassed the votes as shown by the records on file in the Office
of the Supervisor of Elections. WE do hereby certify from said returns as follows: That for the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Referendum, the whole number of votes cast was _________
votes of which number the City electors voted in the following manner in connection with the referendum listed below. QUESTION ONE “For Approval” received _______ Votes “Against Approval”
received _______ Votes Witness our hands and seal this the 15TH day of March, 2012. ________________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ________________________________ Angeleta
E. Gray, Vice-Mayor ________________________________ Thomas F. Carney, Jr., City Commissioner ________________________________ Jay Alperin, City Commissioner ________________________________
Adam Frankel, City Commissioner
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, PE, LEED AP, GISP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden,
City Manager DATE: March 5, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM SP.2 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 15-12/JPA/FDOT/DOWNTOWN ROUNDABOUT SHUTTLE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Request adoption and authorization for the Mayor to execute Resolution No. 15-12 approving a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
for 50% reimbursement of operational and capital costs associated with Delray's free shuttle service. Total project cost is estimated at $600,000. Project #12-064. BACKGROUND At the
January 17, 2012 Commission meeting approval was sought, and granted, to enter into a JPA with FDOT to fund the City's free shuttle. The City was awarded a 50% matching grant from the
FDOT. This grant will fund both operational and capital costs of the Delray Beach shuttle for approximately one year. Total cost of the JPA is $600,000, with $400,000 earmarked for operational
expenses (drivers and vehicle maintenance) and $200,000 earmarked for capital expenses. The capital expenses will be to purchase trolley type vehicles. The Community Redevelopment Agency
has committed $300,000 to fund the required match of this grant. FDOT also requires adoption of the attached resolution which was inadvertently not included with the January 17th agenda
item. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO PROVIDE SERVICE DEVELOPMENT FUNDING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH TO ENHANCE AND/OR EXPAND THE DOWNTOWN TROLLEY SERVICES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach Florida desires to approve the Joint Participation Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Transportation to provide
service development funding to the City of Delray Beach to enhance and/or expand the downtown trolley services located within the City of Delray Beach. WHEREAS, the City Commission authorizes
the execution of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the recitals set forth are incorporated as
if fully set forth herein. Section 2. The City Commission of the City of Delray Beach authorizes the entry in the Joint Participation Agreement, related to Financial Project No. 431947-1-84/94-01,
between the City and the Florida Department of Transportation and authorizes the execution thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED in special session on this the ____ day of ______________, 2012.
___________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: ________________________ City Clerk
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE: March 8, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM SP.3 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 SETTLEMENT CONTRIBUTION/PALM
BEACH COUNTY/INSPECTOR GENERAL ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Settlement contribution regarding the lawsuit filed by fifteen municipalities, including the City, against Palm Beach County related
to the funding for the Inspector General. BACKGROUND In November 2011 the City, along with fourteen other municipalities, filed suit against Palm Beach County regarding a ballot question
and adoption of an ordinance related to the funding for the Inspector General. Both sides, through their attorneys, have met several times regarding the lawsuit in an effort to come
to a resolution. At this time it appears that the County Commission will be discussing a possible revision to the ordinance that provides for a different funding mechanism than what
was presented to the municipalities by the County. The revision would provide that a charge of .25% will be placed on certain contracts entered into between the City and its vendors
where the fee would be paid by the vender. If the ordinance is adopted by the County it would apply to contracts entered into by the municipalities after the adoption of the ordinance.
In furtherance of settlement negotiations it was suggested that the municipalities may want to offer some amount of funding to the County in order to help offset the cost of the IG to
date. Although the City was billed by the County, under the current ordinance, the City has not remitted payment due to the ongoing lawsuit. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion.
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Vincent Nolan, Economic Development Director Richard J. Reade, Sustainability Officer/PIO THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:
March 8, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.1 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 CONGRESS AVENUE CORRIDOR STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN & CITYWIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ITEM
BEFORE COMMISSION David J. Wilk, from Sperry Van Ness, and City staff will provide the City Commission with a presentation and recommendations for creating a Congress Avenue Corridor
Strategic Marketing Plan & Citywide economic development incentives to promote growth within the City. BACKGROUND David J. Wilk, National Director of Corporate Real Estate and Advisory
Services for Sperry Van Ness Commercial Real Estate Advisors and Corporate Valuation Advisors, will provide the City Commission with a report on the development of a Congress Avenue
Corridor Strategic Marketing Plan. Following Mr. Wilk’s presentation, Vin Nolan, Economic Development Director, and Rich Reade, Sustainability Officer/PIO, will provide the City Commission
with a presentation and recommendations on proposed Citywide economic development incentives to be utilized to spur development activity along Congress Avenue and throughout the City
of Delray Beach. Mr. Wilk was hired by the City in December 2011 to develop an economic development strategy for the Congress Avenue Corridor through repositioning key properties and
marketing/branding strategies that optimize challenging real estate assets within this area of the City, in particular the former Office Depot property. Further, Mr. Wilk will provide
the City with the types of industries and businesses that would most likely fit within the Congress Corridor, including the former Office Depot property, and will recommend a marketing/branding
plan to attract these companies to our community. In an effort to position Congress Avenue and the City of Delray Beach as an attractive location for new and/or expanding businesses,
it is important to identify and develop incentive opportunities (i.e., financial and non-financial) that can be utilized in partnership with the Marketing Plan that is being developed
by Mr. Wilk. As a result, staff will present information on the types of incentives that are offered by other local and state communities that are considered to be aggressive in targeting
economic development opportunities. Further, a comprehensive incentive program will be recommended for implementation. **Please note that both presentations will be provided to the City
Commission prior to the Workshop meeting.
CREATING A STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN CONGRESS AVENUE CORRIDOR Delray Beach, FL March, 2012
Scope and Objectives – Mission Statement Current Situation Analysis Activities to Date and In Process Initial Focus Areas Market Observations SWOT Analysis – Delray Beach
and Congress Avenue Initial Branding Direction Corridor Maps & Conceptual Plans Critical Ingredients for Success Implementation Framework and Phasing Funding Recommendations
Next Steps CONTENTS
Create a strategic marketing and branding plan that brings new economic development, jobs, and demand for real estate along Congress Avenue in Delray Beach. A real estate branding
strategy that repositions key underutilized properties along Congress Avenue will transform this Corridor into a catalyst for new private investment. SCOPE & OBJECTIVES – MISSION STATEMENT
The Congress Avenue Corridor in Delray Beach, although right off I-95, is currently comprised of multiple vacant parcels, vacant offices, and a disjointed mix of uses. The office
real estate segment in the Corridor has not been strong for years because of current aesthetics, a lack of “sense of place”, and lackluster market conditions. The 550K SF vacant, former
Office Depot property (“IWA”) is a major “eyesore” and stands in the way of the Corridor realizing its upside potential. IWA, the Arbors and Levenger complexes represent about 80%
of the Delray office market with vacancy rates of between 60% and 100%. There are limited services for office users in this corridor, such as restaurants, coffee shops, retail, or
other offerings. The Corridor contains various aesthetically challenged non-office properties presenting challenges in attracting office users, especially compared to Boca. New businesses
interested in locating in southern Palm Beach County are not currently being brought to the Corridor due to a lack of financial incentives and desirability. CURRENT SITUATION – CONGRESS
CORRIDOR IN DELRAY
Market reconnaissance on vacant and available properties in Delray and Boca, including the most recent transactions along Congress. Meetings with property owners, businesses, brokers,
BDB, and other key stakeholders to gain insights and invite them into our strategic marketing process. Gained market perspectives on supply & demand for commercial, industrial, healthcare,
lifestyle, institutional, and residential uses. Developed a SWOT analysis with recommendations on the best targeted uses for redeveloping Congress Avenue and IWA. Made general recommendations
to City Staff to build an economic development and incentive package to facilitate bringing new deals to Delray Beach. Formulating a new brand and market identity that will rejuvenate
Congress Avenue in Delray Beach. Working to transform the IWA property into a demand generator for new office users and a new hub of innovation and lifestyle connected uses for the
community. ACTIVITIES TO DATE AND IN PROCESS
Existing Conditions along the Congress Avenue Corridor What realistic options exist in Delray’s market to transform Congress Ave. Corridor? How critical is the redevelopment of
the IWA site in reinventing the Corridor and bringing new businesses to Delray? How can aesthetics along Congress be improved to elevate the feel of the area. Market Observations
and Unlocking Future Corridor Potential What types of retail, office, lifestyle, educational, medical, and other uses would work along the Congress Avenue Corridor between Boca and
Atlantic Ave? What branding strategy for Congress Avenue Corridor in Delray will capture market attention and generate short-term and permanent demand? Community Participation and
Teaming Success What processes and tools are critical to building a new market identity for Congress Avenue Corridor in Delray with BDB, Enterprise Florida, and potential users?
Infrastructure and Funding Needs CRA District, Special Development District, Enterprise Zone, & Foreign Trade Zone Designations. Economic Development & Incentives to support recruitment,
retention, & expansion, and encourage private investment. INITIAL FOCUS AREAS
The south Florida office market is still trying to recover from the last few years of downturn and although trends are turning positive, the pace of recovery will be gradual. The
Boca/Delray Beach office market comprises 12,825,000 SF and currently has a vacancy rate of about 30%, and negative, net absorption of (309,000) SF for 2011. The Delray Beach office
market comprises 1,442,000 SF and has a current direct vacancy rate of 56.6%. The IWA property represents 550K SF or 38 % of the total space. With an overall vacancy rate for Delray
of over 50%, it could take five to ten years to absorb this space if left to market forces. The Arbor’s new ownership is a great addition to Delray, and should add new energy to the
market along Congress Avenue although their 250,000 SF is almost 20% of the Delray market. There is current demand for office in downtown Delray, but there are no large blocks of space
available, so repositioning Congress as a new destination connected to downtown is possible. Challenges for Congress Avenue include the “white elephant” IWA site, limited appeal of
Delray for office users, and the need for more than just Class A office in the future to reach the next level. The key to capturing new demand along Congress Avenue in Delray is to
create a new mix of uses that are branded and presented in a way that will lead to a visible market reaction. MARKET OBSERVATIONS – OFFICE POTENTIAL
Given the current glut of office space in Boca and Delray, and the projected pace of absorption, relying on the office sector alone to elevate Congress Ave going forward is not justifiable.
Other market segments are necessary to take Congress to the next level, including retail, institutional, healthcare, educational, multi-family, and restaurants/hospitality. Green
technology, sustainable and solar powered redevelopment can also be strong market differentiators for the Corridor to help “break out” of the current doldrums. Delray’s connection
with Boca at the southern border along Congress can be leveraged to generate more potential demand for both cities from I-95. The first steps in the rejuvenation of the Corridor should
include repositioning the IWA property into a sustainable mixed-use development, along with some key commercial parcels along the Boca, Delray border. In conjunction with the potential
new mix of uses coming into the Corridor, the overall aesthetics of Congress Avenue need to elevated. Given the possibility of budget cuts, current market conditions, and a slow economic
recovery, reinventing the Corridor will not be easy, but a strong new strategy and branding will work. MARKET OBSERVATIONS – CONGRESS CORRIDOR
SWOT ANALYSIS – CONGRESS AVE. CORRIDOR -DELRAY Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats • Connecting to downtown Delray’s success in a way that attracts new businesses to Congress
• Strategic alliance with Boca for branding and demand uplift based on shared borders • Continuing the MedUTech concept north of Boca along Congress into Delray • Development of vacant
commercial land now available right off I-95 on Congress • Working with Delray Medical Center and FAU to attract new healthcare users to Congress Ave • IWA continues to stay dormant
and destabilizes the absorption of existing office space • Numerous vacant land parcels available for sale with limited buyers and feasibility for years • Boca and Palm Beaches markets
have millions of SF of vacant space that competes with Delray • Public schools are not well perceived and present challenges for attracting new residents • Congress Avenue in Delray
is left to market forces and remains “stuck” with no clear vision •Excellent access to I-95, ports, rail, airports, universities, and hospitals •Real estate prices are generally lower
than Boca and Palm Beach • Delray Beach has a track record of success in redevelopment •MROC zoning is perfect for the uses necessary to redevelop land on Congress and good utilities
•Boca leadership and BDB are ready to support a new Congress Ave strategy • Vacancy and status of IWA and lack of any market energy or excitement • Certain properties diminish the potential
uplift of the Corridor •Lack of nearby food and retail services for office occupancy • No competitive package of incentives and/or funding for users •No “sense of place” along Congress
Avenue that would help to draw new business
“Delray Innovation Corridor” Technology, Research, Education, Aspiration, Talent (“TREAT”) Corporate Headquarters and Regional Offices Tourist and Destination Demand From I-95
New Food, Lifestyle, Retail & Leisure Uses Solar-Power & Green Technology Powering the New Mix of Uses INITIAL BRANDING DIRECTION
Reposition the IWA property into the “Delray Innovation Park”. Main Street Entrance with Specialty Retail Uses/Restaurants Corporate/Regional Headquarters Office (Germantown Bldg.?)
Technology/Educational Campuses -Adult, STEM, and Children Multi-Family Units -FAU Med, Young Families & Professionals Park and Open Space for Community Use (Gazebo, Concerts)
Model of Sustainability and Innovative Land Uses INITIAL BRANDING DIRECTION
“DELRAY INNOVATION CORRIDOR” – I-95 TO ATLANTIC
“DELRAY INNOVATION CORRIDOR” – I-95 TO LINTON
CONCEPTUAL PLANS – “DELRAY INNOVATION PARK” Scenario 1 Scenario 2
The “Delray Innovation Corridor” needs a competitive financial incentive and economic development package for BDB. Aesthetic improvements, infrastructure, CRA District, FTZ formation,
and accelerated entitlements for new users. IWA owners working with the City on the new strategic marketing and branding plan for redeveloping their property into the “Delray Innovation
Park”. A “green” trolley link and/or transit connection between Congress, the rail stations, and Downtown Delray to shuttle people between the destinations. Creating a “PR” story
and branding/marketing collaterals about the transformation of IWA property into “Delray Innovation Park”. Partnering with Boca and Boynton along the Congress Avenue corridor to accelerate
everyone’s success. CRITICAL INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESS
Form Public/Private Partnership with City as Lead Gain control of the IWA site or execute a development agreement with current owners and/or new developers. Develop and entitle
a new master plan for the IWA property under MROC code. Target Users for Various Economic Units – South to North Parcels along Boca/Delray border -restaurant/hospitality cluster
right off I-95. Corporate office on 7.99 acres cadi-corner to IWA. Corporate Headquarters site on IWA property as part of mixed-uses. Innovation Park at IWA (powered by a solar
farm) Science and technology innovation Medical & Healthcare Community college, or University consortium Multi-Family Units – Part of IWA Village Plan and geared to FAU Med.
Cultural and Recreational – Open Public Space and Walking Trails. Landscape Buffers along industrial frontage and other key stretches on Congress. Build initial momentum by repositioning
IWA and southern I-95 parcels IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK & PHASING
Aesthetics and Infrastructure – Public Improvements Design a landscaping and beautification plan for the Corridor. Create landscape buffers for industrial and “tired” residential
areas. Transform the Corridor with great aesthetics & lifestyle connectivity. Types of Non-Traditional Funding TIF District, FTZ, Enterprise Zone Designations Solar Farm and
other green technologies to generate special tax credits Create a Corporate Headquarters Strategic Fund Pioneer an “Innovation and Technology Company Development Act” for FL Science
and Technology Innovation tax credits Medical & Healthcare research & development credits Educational and IT Vocational Degree Programs with Training Credits for Companies USDA
Funding for Agri-Technology, Logistics, and Innovation Companies EB-5 Regional Center Funding – Foreign Direct Investment Capital FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Refine and polish the conceptual corridor plan and branding collaterals that capture the new mix of uses comprising the “Delray Innovation Corridor”. Finalize the economic development
incentive package and branding refinements to make the “Delray Innovation Corridor” credible. Present the strategy and new brand to the City Commission, BDB, Chamber of Commerce, and
key stakeholders to build excitement and support for the concept. Fast-track the process for the IWA property redevelopment to be entitled for new uses and become the “Delray Innovation
Park”. Facilitate new deals in process along the Delray/Boca border up to Linton with local brokers to build immediate momentum and stimulate more demand. Finalize the market awareness
package for BDB including the Economic Development and Financial Incentives Plan for the “Delray Innovation Corridor”. NEXT STEPS
QUALIFICATIONS – DAVID J. WILK, CRE, MAI Mr. Wilk is National Director of Corporate Real Estate and Advisory Services for Sperry Van Ness (“SVN”) and Corporate Valuation Advisors (“CVA”).
David creates value in today’s market for corporations, private equity firms, developers/investors, and institutions (universities, hospitals, governmental entities) by focusing on real
estate strategies that generate new earnings, cost savings and bottom line impact. Within these types of value propositions, Mr. Wilk also provides valuations and market studies, economic
development strategies for municipalities through repositioning key properties, and marketing/branding strategies that optimize challenging real estate assets. Mr. Wilk was formerly
National Managing Director of Duff & Phelps Corporate Real Estate Advisory Group from 2008 through 2009 after they acquired Greystone Realty Advisors, a boutique advisory firm he founded
in 1997. From 1995 to 1997 Mr. Wilk was Regional Director of Corporate Real Estate Services for Ernst & Young LLP in the Middle Atlantic. From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Wilk was Managing Director
of the Real Estate Valuation Group for Arthur Andersen in Philadelphia after Andersen acquired Wilk & Associates, Inc., a real estate consulting company founded in 1987. From 1977 to
1987, Mr. Wilk held senior management positions with Valuation Research Corporation, Arthur D. Little, and was National Director of Valuation Services for Kenneth Leventhal & Co in California.
Mr. Wilk is an Adjunct Professor and Co-Founder of the Real Estate program at the University of Delaware Lerner Business School. Courses taught since 1988 include Real Estate Finance
(FINC 417), Real Estate Development & Investment (FINC 467), and MBA Real Estate Finance (FINC 854). He earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Finance from the University of Delaware and is completing
a sequenced Masters and Doctoral Program in Corporate Real Estate Studies through Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Wilk is a Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) and a Member of the Appraisal
Institute (MAI) since 1985. He is a Licensed Real Estate Broker and Certified General Appraiser in the State of Delaware. He has also qualified as an expert witness in numerous State
and Federal court jurisdictions on a national level. Mr. Wilk has 35 years of real estate experience on commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, governmental, and institutional
real estate projects including having worked in 48 states in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Europe, South America, the Caribbean, Asia, and the South Pacific. Fortune 500 clients served have
included; Johnson & Johnson, Chevron, GE, Berkshire Hathaway, Agilent Technologies, MBNA America Bank, Hercules (Ashland), DuPont, Comcast, AT&T, Exelon Energy, Bristol Myers Squibb,
PNC Financial, Bank of America, AstraZeneca, Sun Company, and J.P. Morgan Chase. Real estate consulting highlights from Mr. Wilk’s career include; Pebble Beach, Aspen Ski Resorts, 20th
Century Fox Film Studios, Irvine Ranch, Madison Square Garden, Santa Anita Racetrack, Dover Downs, Elvis Presley Enterprises, Hyatt Regency & Four Seasons Resorts in Hawaii, Chevron’s
Huntington Beach Company, Marriott’s Great America Theme Parks, Power Plant in Baltimore, Art Deco Hotels in South Beach, Pennsylvania Convention Center and Philadelphia Marriott Hotel,
Comcast Cable Systems, Bikini Atoll in Micronesia (South Pacific) and Fort DeRussy in Waikiki, Hawaii.
City of Delray Beach Citywide Economic Development Incentives Recommendations Presentation by Vincent Nolan, Economic Development Director Richard J. Reade, Sustainability Officer/Public
Information Officer March 15, 2012
Overview Existing Economic Conditions Congress Avenue Corridor Statistics – Assessed valuations have decreased more than $106 million over past 5 years: – No substantial corporate development
over past 3 to 5 years – Alta Congress Residential Project ~ only recent major development • 369 apartments (including 74 workforce units) under construction • Included within the Congress
Park Office Park • Close proximity to Tri-Rail Station CONGRESS AVENUE ASSESSED VALUE ‐2006 CONGRESS AVENUE ASSESSED VALUE ‐2011 $376,770,522 $269,892,630
Overview Existing Economic Conditions CRA Economic Development Incentives (Available only within CRA District) – 6 new incentive programs established in 2010 & 2011 – $2 million allocated
towards economic development projects – Nearly $1 million in incentives awarded: • Large Projects: Approved -2 new hotels & relocated law office Planned -several office buildings & 3rd
hotel • Small Projects: Approved -various property renovations as well as new & expanding employers – 175 new jobs created (projected) – Over $20 million in new assessed valuations (projected)
Overview Existing Economic Conditions Operating Without Citywide Economic Development Program – Promote job creation – Preserve existing jobs – Increase property valuation ~ long term,
tax base – Improve business image and visibility of Delray Beach Need Direction on Economic Development Activities to Target – Recruitment & Relocation ~ new businesses to Delray Beach
– Retention ~ keeping our long-standing companies from looking elsewhere – Expansion ~ assisting businesses with growth & market expansion – Support Start-Up & Second-Stage Companies
~ higher risk/reward – Renovation & Redevelopment ~ improve aesthetic appeal of City business districts State & County Financial Incentives – Limited availability due to lack of funds
to support required local match – Not fully utilizing available state & county incentives (i.e., State Urban Job Tax Credit Program)
Overview Existing Economic Conditions Urban Job Tax Credit Program – Up to $1,500 in state funding per job created within targeted areas and for specific industries (other qualifications
also apply)
Economic Development Programs Review of Other Communities – Delray Beach is not just competing with neighboring municipalities and surrounding counties, we are up against other parts
of the state and the country in trying to attract/retain target industries and businesses. – We reviewed (and should continuously review) what other successful communities are offering
to attract/retain their targets (i.e., jobs, businesses, etc.) – Conversations & meetings with municipalities considered to be aggressive in targeting economic development opportunities.
Some of the “best practices” discovered include:
Economic Development Programs Review of Other Communities City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida – Corporate team approach utilizing key development staff & City leadership – Dedicated
reserve allocated ($1 Million) -“Job Fund” -to meet financial incentive needs – Flexible grant & loan programs – Dedicated funding to support marketing and promotional materials City
of Boca Raton, Florida – Offer wide-ranging incentive programs – Utilize unrestricted reserve funding (not a dedicated amount) to meet financial incentive needs • Since 2010 -$680,000
committed over a defined period of time to 12 companies that created/retained approx. 3,400 jobs (avg. $200 per job in City incentive funding) • Since 2010 – City Incentives committed
were leveraged to bring in $2.9 million in state economic funding and $440,000 from Palm Beach County (avg. $982 per job in state and/or county funding)
Economic Development Programs Review of Other Communities City of North Port, Florida – 25 member Economic Development Advisory Board – Dedicated reserve ($3 Million) allocated to meet
financial incentive needs – Recurring annual budget ($495,000) allocation to support staff, marketing & financial incentives • $100,000 is dedicated to economic development marketing/promotion
• Multiple economic development staff members City of Boulder, Colorado – Flexible rebate program (Rebate City development fees) – Micro-lending program City of Sunrise, Florida – Direct
financial incentive grant programs to fulfill state & county match requirements ~ ranging from $50,000 to $1 million City of Wellington, Florida – Streamlined (expedited) permitting
– Development incentives (i.e., increased density)
Economic Development Programs Review of Other Communities Other Economic Development Tools Used By Municipalities – Land donation for specific types of use – Ad-Valorem (property) tax
exemptions/rebates – Waiving of various City fees – Enterprise zones – Amend Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Code
Citywide Economic Development Goals & Strategies Goals – Continue to improve the perception that Delray Beach is business friendly and a viable corporate destination – “Level the playing
field” by matching economic development tools offered by locally & regionally competitive communities – Grow sustainable & livable wage jobs – Encourage new & retain existing entrepreneurs
(i.e., start-ups) – Increase Delray Beach tax base
Citywide Economic Development Goals & Strategies Strategies: Non-Fiscal – Ongoing review of overall development & permitting processes (i.e., MROC zoning & expedited permitting) – Create
new Delray Beach Economic Development Action Team to work with corporate prospects – Create new business visitation program for effective retention/expansion of local businesses – Continuous
improvement of www.BusinessDelray.org web site and other related web sites in Delray Beach (City/Chamber/CRA/DDA) for consistent messaging – Constructive & continued engagement with
strategic partners • Enterprise Florida & Florida Office of Economic Opportunity • Business Development Board (BDB), Palm Beach County Economic Development Office & Economic Council
of Palm Beach County • Delray Beach CRA, DDA, DBMC & Chamber of Commerce • South County neighboring municipalities
Citywide Economic Development Goals & Strategies Strategies -Fiscal – Implement economic development financial incentives – Step-up branding & marketing/promotion activity – Create sustainable
economic development systems • Create CRA District along the Congress Avenue Corridor to improve the aesthetics and infrastructure necessary for a true corporate environment, support
financial incentives and to fund marketing/promotion efforts • Collaborate with state legislative delegation to create an Enterprise Zone to support the Delray Innovation Corridor
Recommendations 1. Adopt City Resolution to provide local match for state and county incentive programs: • Qualified Target Industry Refund Program (QTI) • Governor’s Quick Action Closing
Fund • Economic Development Transportation Fund Road Fund 2. Commit City’s unrestricted reserve funds ($1 to $2 million) to support City incentives & local match for county and state
incentives 3. Establish annual budget allocation for economic development activities: • Grants & incentives – smaller projects • Citywide branding • Citywide marketing/promotion
Recommendations 4. Develop grant/loan incentive programs to encourage good economic development. Program examples may include: • Job Growth (business development) incentive grants/loans
• Extraordinary Opportunity/Alternative incentive program • Ad-Valorem (property) Tax Exemptions and rebates • Economic gardening (technical assistance) grants • Workforce Development
Assistance and Training grants • Green grants/loans (PACE – Property Assessed Clean Energy Program) • Rent Subsidies 5. Request state legislative delegation to support City’s effort
to establish Enterprise Zone for Congress Avenue area 6. Authorize development of CRA district along Congress Avenue to support the “Delray Innovation Corridor”
Citywide Economic Development Incentives Recommendations
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: March 7, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.2 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 DISCUSSION OF
POSSIBLE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a discussion regarding a possible charter review committee. BACKGROUND The possibility of conducting
a charter review has been raised by the Commission. The last charter review was in 2001. This item is on the agenda for discussion by the Commission. Two questions need to be addressed:
(1) Should the City have a Charter Review Committee to review the City Charter at this time? (2) If the answer to the first question is yes, then should the Committee be given direction
to review certain sections of the Charter, or should they be asked to review the entire charter? The previous committee appointed in 2001 (which was named the "Charter Revision Committee")
consisted of eleven members appointed by the Mayor and Commissioners. Each member of the Commission nominated five individuals for apointment to the Committee (except the Mayor actually
only nominated three) and then each Commissioner appointed two (2) members. In addition the Mayor also appointed an additional member to serve as the Chairperson. Each appointment was
approved by the full Commission. If the Commission decides to set up a Charter Review Committee, then the size of the Committee and how its members are to be selected should also be
discussed. Do Commissioners wish to recruit members to appoint to the Committee, or do you wish to solicit applications and appoint members in the same manner as other boards?
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: March 8, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.3 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP
MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 DISCUSS CHANGES TO SPECIAL EVENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Commission is requested to discuss possible changes to the Special Event Policies
and Procedures and to provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND Over the last couple of months, Commissioners have discussed and proposed possible changes to the Special Event Policies
and Procedures to increase revenues and recoup costs and to possibly limit the number of events. Based on these discussions, staff is proposing options for Commission’s consideration
to meet these goals. Attached as back up information are: (1) a copy of the Special Event Policies and Procedures, (last changes were made April 29, 2011); (2) a spreadsheet listing
events and costs for FY10-11; (3) a spreadsheet listing events and costs starting October 1, 2011 through February 29, 2012; (4) a list of events from March 1, 2012 through September
30, 2012 with last year’s costs; and (5) Old School Square grounds/Park rentals. I will try to get this information in calendar format prior to the workshop meeting. Options for consideration:
1. Increase the charge for overtime costs for the Delray Beach Marketing Cooperative and Old School Square to 50% versus 35%, and eliminate the grandfather clause and charge all other
events 100% of overtime costs. All events are charged 100% for equipment rentals, such as barricades, light towers, stage use, trash boxes and towing fees. They are not charged for regular
time, use of City generator or use of City barricades. There are six (6) events that were grandfathered in at the 75% rate. These are: St. Patrick’s Day Parade, Garlic Fest, Delray Affair,
Cinco de Mayo, AVDA 5K run and the Asian Food Festival. Changing the above percentage charges would increase revenues by approximately $24,500 per year. At past meetings, it was the
consensus of Commission to make this change.
2. Charge all events an administrative charge for staff time spent on an event which is not now being charged. This would include staff time spent at event planning and recap meetings,
time spent during regular work hours and any supervisory time that is not compensated for working during the event. Currently police supervisors, (lieutenants and above) are paid a stipend
at sergeants top out rate for time worked over 40 hours and we charge the event producer for this time. The Fire Department staffs all events with personnel at the rank of captain and
below who are paid overtime. For the 4th of July and Delray Affair, a Chief Officer is assigned and they receive comp time. Parks Maintenance supervisors are not paid overtime for events,
but receive comp time for working an event. Public Works supervisors are neither paid nor do they get comp time for working an event. My time and my assistant’s time is somewhat offset
by the permit fees. Other staff members that perform tasks which are not recouped are the Purchasing Manager and Finance Accounting Clerk. We also do not charge an event producer for
staff time spent on the event during regular work hours. City Commission is requested to consider that a percentage of between 10% -15% of total City costs (excluding rentals) be charged
as an Administrative fee to help in cost recovery. This would be fairly easy to implement without putting additional administrative burden on staff. Consider 12.5%. 3. Deposits for New
Events: Based on Commission action requiring a deposit for the Delray Rocks Music event, it appears Commission wants to require deposits as a policy for all new events. Items to consider
are as follows: · Rate: What percentage of total cost would be charged? 50% seems reasonable. · Do you want to charge all new events a deposit, not just large ones? Some smaller events
might have a difficult time in meeting this requirement. · How far in advance of the event would the deposit be required? Need to consider our existing policy, Section IV, A, which requires
major event applications to be submitted 120 days prior to the event, intermediate events 90 days and minor events 45 days. If Commission decides to charge a deposit for all events,
they might consider the following for payment of the deposit: Ø Major Event 8 weeks prior to event Ø Intermediate Event 4 weeks prior to event Ø Minor Event 2 weeks prior to event A
deposit would not be recommended for existing events, only new events. 4. Limit Number of New Events: There has been some interest expressed by some of the Commissioners to limit new
events and/or the number of events in a given week or month. Some options to consider are as follows: a. As policy, do not allow any new event at all. Our busiest months are now September
through April. We do have some room on the calendar for events from May through August. b. Strictly enforce the event permit submittal times per Section IV, A of the policies for all
events. In practice, I follow this policy for new events but give some latitude to our long time event producers. I would like to continue this practice. c. Strictly enforce the provisions
of Section III of the policies. In the past waivers have been granted by Commission for the number of major events allowed in a given month. d. Add a provision to Section III of the
policies that states “Events will only be
allowed during three (3) weekends in any given month. 5. Eliminate co-sponsorships of events. We currently co-sponsor the following events: Holiday Parade, Boat Parade and Easter Sunrise
Service. By co-sponsoring the event, we receive no revenue from the co-sponsor partner. Estimated additional revenue $14,500. RECOMMENDATION Consideration of changes to Special Event
Policies and Procedures and provide staff direction and an implementation date for changes.
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist Richard C. Hasko, PE, Director of Environmental Services THROUGH: David T. Harden, City
Manager DATE: March 5, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.4 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 PROVIDE DIRECTION ON VALET PARKING PROGRAM OPTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before
the City Commission is to provide staff direction regarding valet parking program options. BACKGROUND The City Commission, at its meeting of December 6, 2011, discussed the current valet
parking program. The Commission requested a review of the valet parking agreements and for multiple options to be presented to the Commission including the possibility of the City contracting
directly with valet companies. Staff intended to address changes to the valet agreements once a decision was made concerning the Parking Study recommendations to go to a fee based program.
It is noted that a fee based program throughout downtown creates a financial value per parking space which cannot be ignored when assessing valet queue fees, especially in the evenings
where parking occupancy will likely exceed the 85th percentile. However, since the valet agreements are coming up for renewal at the end of this month, it is important that we have this
discussion at this time. Since the mid 1990’s the City has had a valet parking program which allows the use of on-street public parking spaces to provide valet parking service to downtown
patrons by entering into individual licensing agreements with participating establishments. The most successful component of this program is the requirement for licensees to lease private
parking lots that are not already serving a required parking need when utilized. This provision increases the available parking in the area by several hundred parking spaces. When the
program was implemented, Commission did discuss the possibility of the City running the program or contracting it out. The Commission, at that time, did not want to have to go out and
lease lots from the private sector or assume the cost of liability insurance; and they did not feel we had the staff capabilities to operate the program ourselves. Also, they did not
want one company to have a monopoly.
The valet program currently utilizes 50 on-street parking spaces throughout the Central Business District. With current fees ranging from $125 per space, per month east of the Intracoastal
Waterway (ICW) to $100 per space west of the ICW, the program generates $52,200 per year. An additional $19,200 per year is generated from the lease of 40 spaces, in the Federspiel Garage,
at $40 per space, per month, to the Prime Steakhouse queue on SE 2nd Avenue. To demonstrate the program's potential, assume 500 spaces are collectively leased by valets. Applying a 1.75
turnover ratio results in the accommodation of 875 vehicles, with no additional impact to the available pool of public parking spaces. The resulting 16.2 vehicle per space turnover ratio
far exceeds that of publicly used spaces during the same time period. Chapter 9 of the Parking Study suggested an independent study of valet parking. Other observations were included
which could be implemented without incurring the cost of additional study. A. Reevaluation of the valet queue locations to meet current and potential future needs of the City. B. Consistency
between locations portraying a unified system, making it apparent queues are public facilities. C. Maintaining consistently high levels of service. These improvements may be achieved
by the following: 1. Maintaining the current program and increasing the monthly fee per space, with additional modifications to the agreements addressing items above. 2. Hourly Management
Agreement: Advertise a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the management of the valet parking system. Criteria would include the ability to provide parking lot leases, insurance, past history,
etc. The City, at its option, would enter into an agreement with the service provider. The City would pay an hourly fee for the services provided and receive all revenue generated by
the vehicles parked. 3. Flat Fee Management: Issue a RFP for a flat fee management program, similar to above, however the service provider would propose a flat fee to the City, paid,
weekly, monthly, or annually. In this scenario, the service provider would pay the City a fee for operating the valet queues. The service provider would keep revenue generated from performing
the service. 4. In House Operation: Expand the Parking Division and take the program in-house, thereby controlling all aspects of service. This could be an opportunity to continually
improve service while creating local jobs for Delray citizens. 5. RFQ: Advertise the opportunity for the licensing of each queue separately, or as a system. The City would then negotiate
fees with the qualified vendors. It is noted, suggestions 2 and 3 would be directed toward Parking Service Providers. Of immediate concern is the impending automatic renewal of the existing
Parking License Agreements on March 31, 2012. Modifications in 2011 included the automatic renewal of valet queues, subject to meeting certain criteria. During deliberations of subsequent
requests to establish valet queues City Commission has reconsidered that provision. Consequently, it is recommended that all current agreements expire on March 31, 2012. Outside of option
1 above, time will be needed to properly implement the selected option. If an option other that option 1 is selected, staff recommends one-year
renewal of all valet parking license agreements including a 20% fee increase; the agreements would then expire on March 31, 2013, or at such time notification is given by the City of
earlier termination for the implementation of a revised program. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Parking Management Advisory Board, at their meeting of February 28, 2012, unanimously recommended
retaining the existing program with no increase to fees. The Community Redevelopment Agency, at their meeting of March 8, 2012, supported the current valet program methodology, and they
suggested working on fees with the licensees. They also recommended a six-month extension with no increase if another option is selected. RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking Commission direction.
DELRAY BEACH VALET PARKING PRESENTATION
OBJECTIVES: VALET PARKING • EVALUATE CURRENT PROGRAM Review Parking Study Recommendations Assure Equity To City Provide Optional Valet Parking Programs Evaluate Current Program Secure
City Commission Direction To Proceed
CURRENT PROGRAM: VALET PARKING Reviewed case by case Since 2001 no new queues On Atlantic Avenue between Swinton Avenue & the ICW Valets use various designs for queue elements such as
signage, uniforms, valet stands, etc. Private Lot Lease Requirement Significantly Increases Parking Inventory
CURRENT PROGRAM: VALET PARKING Valet Queue Fees Are Currently $125/Space/Month East Of The ICW And $100/Space/Month, West Of The ICW A perception exists that revenue from valet parking
operations are inequitable compared to the volume of valet queue traffic Recent modifications to the agreements caps fees for valet parking at $10, included requirements for price lettering
size for better visibility and provided for validation programs for neighboring businesses
PARKING STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS: VALET PARKING Reevaluate queue locations Create uniformity among queues Improve public access awareness Explore other program options
CURRENT PROGRAM OPTIONS: VALET PARKING Modify current agreements to require consistent signage, uniforms, valet stands, etc., to provide public awareness Increase fees commensurate with
volume of vehicles in the area Reevaluate queue locations for possible modification to meet current needs
OTHER PROGRAM OPTIONS: VALET PARKING Advertise Fixed-Price Management RFP Provide Valet Services In-house Advertise Flat Fee Management RFP Advertise Request For Qualifications Options
may require the City to provide spaces for the storage of vehicles
FLAT-FEE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: VALET PARKING Select most qualified bidder offering the best value for the management of the valet system Operator retains revenue, covers all expenses and
assumes all liabilities Advertise a RFP identifying fee schedules, staffing, etc. City is paid a flat fee for the management of the valet system
VALET PARKING Select most qualified bidder offering the best value for the management of the valet system City is charged an hourly fee for the all inclusive management of the valet
system City retains all revenue generated FIXED-FEE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Advertise a RFP identifying scope of services including fee schedules, staffing, etc.
Negotiated Services: VALET PARKING Shortlist respondents deemed most qualified to manage the program Negotiate best terms for City and Stakeholders Advertise Request For Qualifications
Request proposals from 3 top rated respondents
IN-HOUSE OPERATION: The City would manage valet parking queues. VALET PARKING The use of public parking spaces to store vehicles would reduce current parking supply Reevaluate queue
locations, establish staffing levels, conduct hiring program Damage Claims, real or fabricated, require careful oversight and can be extremely costly There are substantial costs including
significant expansion of Parking Services Division
Closing comments: VALET PARKING Benefit of current private lot lease requirement is substantial The use of public parking spaces to store vehicles would reduce current parking supply
Reevaluation of valet queue locations should be performed regardless of program selected Damage Claims, real or fabricated, require careful oversight and can be extremely costly
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: VALET PARKING Require all signage to state PUBLIC VALET Consider licensees’ suggestion for longer agreement terms, (3 -5 years) Reevaluate valet queue locations
Increase valet queue monthly fees Maintain current program It is noted, implementation of a fee based program may require additional examination of rates charged
VALET PARKING
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: March 7, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.5 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 DISCUSSION OF ON STREET PARKING REGULATION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is
before the Commission for discussion of current on-street parking enforcement hours along Atlantic Ave and SR A1A. BACKGROUND The City currently regulates and enforces on-street parking
limits along A1A and along East Atlantic Avenue, east and west of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), as follows: Street Location Enforcement Hours Metered Limit E Atlantic Ave West of
ICW 8 am – 8 pm No 2 hr E Atlantic Ave East of ICW 8 am – 8 pm Yes 2 hr SR A1A Public beach 8 am -8 pm Yes 2 & 4 hr This information is presented for discussion by the Commission regarding
the current parking enforcement hours. Commissioner Carney has suggested that paid parking (meters) should not be enforced until later in the morning at least on Atlantic Avenue, and
perhaps not on A1A as well. Several questions need to be discussed. Does the Commission majority wish to change the hours for enforcing metered parking on Atlantic Avenue and/or A1A,
either seven days a week or for certain days? If the meters are not enforced, then should the two hour time limit be enforced? Keep in mind that if the hours of enforcement are reduced
we will lose revenue from both parking meters and parking tickets.
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 27, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA
ITEM WS.6 -SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR DRAINAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This is a presentation of draft proposals for the revision
of LDR Sections 2.4.3, Submission Requirements and 6.1.9, Drainage Systems, addressing design requirements for storm drainage and surface water management systems, and mitigation of
flood plain encroachment by new structures which could result in negative impacts to existing neighborhoods. BACKGROUND As infill development and redevelopment of properties occurs throughout
the city, new development projects are required to conform to current regulations as they relate to drainage system design, minimum floor elevations, etc. This can result in a condition
where new housing must be constructed at higher elevations than the existing surrounding structures, particularly in high hazard flood zones such as the barrier island neighborhoods.
While our Land Development Regulations (LDR) mandate compliance with the requirements of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for drainage and surface water management
designs and flood protection, those requirements generally apply to larger scale development than what typically occurs in Delray Beach and, in fact, typically exempt projects less than
ten acres in area. In the past, we have had complaints from residents about flooding occurring in areas that have not historically been flood prone. This typically is the result of new
buildings being required to set floor elevations significantly higher than existing structures in older neighborhoods. In order to build slab on grade structures, much of the development
area must be filled to meet the current criteria. While allowable runoff from such parcels can usually be accommodated in the surrounding drainage system, the fill material necessary
to construct at the required elevations displaces what was formerly available storage in the watershed or drainage basin. As a result, flood stages will increase in the surrounding neighborhood
from rainfall events that historically caused no flooding. This is due to the reduction in available basin storage. The proposed LDR revisions attached are intended to address the issue
of flood plain encroachment as well as establish specific minimum drainage design criteria that are not subject to exemption from SFWMD regulations based on project size.
SECTION 2.4.3 (D) (D) Preliminary Engineering Plans (1) Preliminary engineering plans shall provide information and be in a format as required by Section 2.4.3 (B), Standard Plan Items.
(2) Said plans shall be drawn on a topographic base (unless the use of spot elevations are previously approved by the City Engineer) with topographic features extended to a minimum of
ten feet (10’) beyond the site including finished floor elevations of the nearest adjacent habitable structure abutting all site boundaries. All plans shall be drawn on a sheet which
is 24” by 36”. (3) Said plans shall show the approximate location, dimensions and size, as shown in records of Delray Beach and/or field observations of all existing water, sewer, and
drainage facilities along with streets, sidewalks and above ground improvements which provide service to and on the site. Notes shall state the disposition of all existing facilities
including service lines, meters, etc. (4) Said plan shall show the proposed location, sizing, and design basis of water, sewer, fire suppression, and drainage facilities which are to
serve the site, including pertinent calculations, and the method of providing service to the proposed structures. (5) Said plans shall show the method of providing service to proposed
structures. (6)(5) Said plans shall show the location of proposed street lights and shall address the responsibility for installation. (7)(6) Surface water management calculation indicating
the proposed system’s ability to meet storm water quality and quantity requirements in accordance with Section 6.1.9 and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) regulations.
(8)(7) Said plans may include a plan sheet which includes all proposed improvements on one plan sheet at a scale other than what is required in Section 2.4.3 (B) (1). This additional
submittal is in addition to plans submitted meeting the scale requirement in Section 2.4.3 (B) (1).
SECTION 2.4.3 (F) (F) Final Engineering Plans: Final Engineering Plans are construction drawings which have been prepared by a Registered Engineer in a manner format acceptable to permitting
agencies. (1) Water and sewer plans must be prepared pursuant to requirements of the City Engineering Department and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). (2) Drainage
plans must be prepared pursuant to requirements of the City Engineering Department and the South Florida Water Management District. (3) Street improvement plans must be prepared pursuant
to specifications as set forth by the City Engineer for local streets; and, per Palm Beach County or FDOT requirements for streets which are under the jurisdiction of those agencies.
(4) Composite utility plans shall show the proposed locations of all existing and proposed utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, gas, cable, drainage devices) and shall be signed
by a representative of each utility provider attesting to the fact that services can be accommodated as shown on the composite utility plan. The composite plan shall address the responsibility
for relocation of existing services and installation of new services.
SECTION 6.1.9 Section 6.1.9 Drainage Systems (A) The dDrainage and surface water management systems shall be designed and constructed for long life, low maintenance cost and ease of
maintenance. (B) An adequate The drainage system shall be designed to include all including necessary open swales ditches, pipes, culverts, intersectional drains, inlets, bridges and
the like other system appurtenances required to shall be provided adequate capacity for the proper drainage of all surface storm water for the specified design storm event. Cross drains
shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full width roadway and required slopes. (C) Developers of subdivisions whose storm
drainage system discharges into the Lake Worth Drainage District shall contract with the Lake Worth Drainage District for maintenance of drainage facilities prior to annexation to the
city. (D)(C) Lots shall be laid out configured and graded to provide positive drainage and route runoff away from all existing or proposed buildings. (D) Finished floor elevations shall
be a minimum of eighteen inches (18”) above the highest centerline or crown elevation of adjacent roadways or as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for flood
zone designations where base flood elevations are determined. (E) No net floodplain encroachment above the average wet season water table which will adversely affect the existing rights
of others will be permitted. (F) Provision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the project site. (E)(G) The drainage Surface
water management systems shall be designed using accepted engineering principles for rainstorms of maximum intensity based on a ten year interval for the South Florida area. in accordance
with the requirements of the South Florida Water Management District Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permits (SFWMD BOR)(latest revision) regardless of development area. The
system Systems shall provide for positive drainage of lots, streets, roads, and other public areas. The design shall provide capacity for the maintenance of any and all historical offsite
watershed runoff flowing to or through the development site as well as handling any runoff from adjacent areas that naturally flows onto the subject area. Runoff coefficients shall be
based on completed projects. At a minimum, The the following standards shall apply to all drainage projects system designs: (1) Storm sewers, culverts and related installations shall
be provided. Where necessary, according to the City Engineer: (a) To permit unimpeded flow of natural water courses.
SECTION 6.1.9 (b) To insure adequate drainage of all low points. (c) To intercept storm water runoff along streets at intervals reasonably related to the extent and grade of the area
drained. (1) Design storm shall be a 10 year return frequency of 24 hour duration. (2) Minimum site retention for water quality: (a) The greater of the first 1” of runoff and 2.5” x
% site impervious area for water quality. Sample calculation: First 1” of runoff 1”/12 x site area(sf)=Vol. (cf) 2.5”x % impervious area (2.5”/12)x % imperv area(sf)=Vol. (cf) (3) Minimum
site retention for water quantity: (a) The difference between pre-development and post development site runoff for the 10 yr./24 hr. design storm. Runoff shall be calculated using methodology
as set forth in the SFWMD BOR considering rainfall distribution to establish peak stage and runoff values over the duration of the design storm. (F) In the design of storm sewerage installations,
special consideration shall be given to avoidance of problems which may arise from concentration of storm water runoff over adjacent properties. (G) The subdivider may be required to
carry away by pipe or open ditch any spring or surface water that may exist previous to or as a result of the subdivision. Such drainage facilities shall be located in the street right-of-way
where feasible, or in perpetual unobstructed easements of appropriate width. (H) A cCulverts or and other drainage facilityies shall, in each case, be large enough have adequate capacity
to accommodate potential runoff from it’s the entire upstream drainage area for which they are designed , whether inside or outside the subdivision. The City Engineer shall approve the
design and size of the facility based on anticipated runoff from a ten year storm 10 yr./24 hr. design storm under conditions of total potential development permitted by the zoning code
in the watershed. (I) The subdivider’s engineer system design shall also study consider the effect impact of such subdivision site development on the capacity of existing downstream
drainage facilities outside the area of the subdivision; this study shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. Where it is anticipated calculations as prepared by the development engineer
and approved by the City Engineer indicate that the additional of runoff incident to the development of the subdivision to downstream drainage facilities will overload result in the
exceedance of the capacity of an existing downstream drainage facility any such facilities during a ten year for the 10 yr./24 hr. design storm, the subdivision shall not be approved
until provision has been made for the improvement of the condition. a design for an adequate increase in capacity for the affected facilities has been submitted
SECTION 6.1.9 by the development engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The new drainage system will not be approved for connection to the downstream facilities until the capacity
improvements are constructed. (J) The owner or responsible entity of any land development or redevelopment that discharges directly or indirectly to a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System is required to provide for annual inspections, and operation and maintenance of its storm water management system, to ensure that the system functions as designed and permitted.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 17-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, WITH RESPECT TO
THE RESULTS OF THE REFERENDUM OF THE
QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY HELD IN THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MARCH 13, 2012,
ON THE QUESTION OF AMENDING ARTICLE V,
“ELECTIONS”, SECTION 5.02, “TYPES OF ELECTIONS”;
TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN THE LENGTH OF A
TERM FROM A TWO YEAR TERM TO A THREE YEAR
TERM AND CLARIFYING THE APPLICABILITY OF SUCH
CHANGE; CANVASSING THE RETURNS OF SAID
REFERENDUM AND DECLARING AND CERTIFYING
THE RESULTS THEREOF; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, (the
“Commission”), by Resolution No. 01-12, duly adopted on January 3, 2012 (the “Resolution”) and
Ordinance No. 44-11, duly adopted on January 17, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), did propose to amend
the Charter of the City to provide: (i) that the ter ms of office for the Mayor and other City
Commission Members be extended from two years to thr ee years, said Ordinance and Resolution
having further provided and directed that notice of said Referendum is given by publication in
accordance with state law, City Charter and City ordinance; and
WHEREAS, due and regular notice of said Referendum has been published in the Palm
Beach Post and El Latino Semanal Inc. newspapers of general circulation within the City and said
publications having been made in English and in Spani sh respectively, each once in the fifth week
prior to the week in which the Referendum was held, a t least 30 days prior to March 13, 2012 and in
the third week and seven days prior to the date the Ref erendum was held, to wit March 13, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, the Supervisor of Elections of Palm Beach County has provided the
Commission with the results of the Referendum for th e purpose of canvassing the returns and
declaring and certifying the results thereof; and
WHEREAS, said Referendum has been duly and properly he ld in accordance with law and
that a copy of the certificate certifying the resul ts of the Referendum to the Florida Department of
State (in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”), has been delivered to this
Commission for the purpose of declaring and certifying the res ults thereof; and
2 RES. NO. 17-12
WHEREAS, the official returns of said Referendum deli vered to this Commission by the
Supervisor of Elections reflect that the total numb ers of votes cast in the Referendum by the
qualified electors residing in the City ___DISAPPROVED____ amending the Charter of the City
to provide: (i) that the terms of office for the May or and other City Commission Members be
extended from two years to three years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISS ION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . That the Commission at this meeting duly held, hav ing received the results from
the Supervisor of Elections, hereby canvasses the r eturns of said Referendum and determines, finds,
declares and certifies the results thereof with respect to th e Question as follows:
QUESTION 1
Charter Revision relating to the length of terms an d term limits for the Commission
Members and Mayor
Currently, the Commission Members (including the May or) serve two-year terms,
limited to three consecutive terms. The Charter Ame ndment proposes three-year
terms, limited to three consecutive terms as well as clarifying the applicability of such
change as provided in Ordinance No. 44-11. If passed th is amendment shall apply to
the Commissioners and Mayor elected in March 2013 and thereafte r.
Should the above-described Charter Amendment be adopted?
(a) The total number of votes cast in such Refere ndum by
said qualified electors residing in the City that voted “For A pproval” was 1,236 .
(b) The total number of votes cast in such Refere ndum by
said qualified electors residing in the City that vote d “Against Approval” was
2,080.
(c) A majority of the votes cast in such Referendu m by such
qualified electors in the City _DISAPPROVED___ amending the Charter of the
City to provide: (i) that the terms of office for th e Mayor and other City
Commission Members be extended from two years to three years.
Section 2 . That said Referendum was in all respects conducted in accordance
with law, and that all steps in connection with and prece ding such Referendum have been
duly, regularly, lawfully taken and that the statutes and constitution of the State of
3 RES. NO. 17-12
Florida, the City Charter and City ordinances have bee n duly complied with in
accordance with all their provisions.
Section 3 . That a true and correct copy of the certified resul ts shall be filed
by the Commission with the Florida Department of Sta te in substantially the form
attained hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Certificate”) a nd that the Commission shall secure
an affidavit of publication from the publishers of t he Palm Beach Post, and El Latino
Semanal Inc. attesting to the publications of the n otice of the Referendum (the
“Affidavit”).
Section 4 . That said returns shall be entered and recorded in the minutes of
the Commission; and this Resolution, the Affidavit an d Certificate shall be recorded in
the minutes of the Commission.
Section 5 . All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict or i nconsistent herewith
are hereby repealed insofar as any conflict or any inconsiste ncies exists.
Section 6 . That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in special session on this 15 th day of March, 2012.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
________________________________
M A Y O R
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CANVASSING BOARD
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
REFERENDUM
MARCH 13, 2012
STATE OF FLORIDA
PALM BEACH COUNTY
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 100.351 of the Florida Statutes, we, the
undersigned, Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Angeleta E. Gray, Vice-
Mayor, Thomas F. Carney, Jr., City Commissioner, Ja y Alperin, City Commissioner, and Adam
Frankel, City Commissioner do hereby certify that on the 15 th day of March 2012 A.D., we
canvassed the votes as shown by the records on file i n the Office of the Supervisor of Elections.
WE do hereby certify from said returns as follows:
That for the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Referendu m, the whole number of votes cast was
_________ votes of which number the City electors voted in th e following manner in connection
with the referendum listed below.
QUESTION ONE
“For Approval” received _______ Votes
“Against Approval” received _______ Votes
Witness our hands and seal this the 15 TH day of March, 2012.
________________________________
Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor
________________________________
Angeleta E. Gray, Vice-Mayor
________________________________
Thomas F. Carney, Jr., City Commissioner
________________________________
Jay Alperin, City Commissioner
________________________________
Adam Frankel, City Commissioner
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Randal L. Krejcarek, PE, LEED AP, GISP, City E ngineer
Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Direct or
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:March 5, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM SP.2 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -12/JPA/FDOT/ DOWNTOWN ROUNDABOUT SHUTTLE
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Request adoption and authorization for the Mayor to execute Resolution No. 15-12 approving a Joint
Participation Agreement (JPA) with the Florida Depa rtment of Transportation (FDOT) for 50%
reimbursement of operational and capital costs asso ciated with Delray's free shuttle service. Total
project cost is estimated at $600,000. Project #12-064.
BACKGROUND
At the January 17, 2012 Commission meeting approval was sought, and granted, to enter into a JPA
with FDOT to fund the City's free shuttle. The Cit y was awarded a 50% matching grant from the
FDOT. This grant will fund both operational and ca pital costs of the Delray Beach shuttle for
approximately one year. Total cost of the JPA is $600,000, with $400,000 earmarked for operational
expenses (drivers and vehicle maintenance) and $200 ,000 earmarked for capital expenses. The capital
expenses will be to purchase trolley type vehicles. The Community Redevelopment Agency has
committed $300,000 to fund the required match of th is grant.
FDOT also requires adoption of the attached resolut ion which was inadvertently not included with the
January 17th agenda item.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING A JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT FUNDING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH TO
ENHANCE AND/OR EXPAND THE DOWNTOWN TROLLEY
SERVICES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach Florida desires to approve the Joint
Participation Agreement with the State of Florida De partment of Transportation to provide
service development funding to the City of Delray Bea ch to enhance and/or expand the
downtown trolley services located within the City of Delray Beach.
WHEREAS, the City Commission authorizes the execution o f the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA:
Section 1 . That the recitals set forth are incorporated as if fully set fo rth herein.
Section 2. The City Commission of the City of Delray Beach au thorizes the entry in
the Joint Participation Agreement, related to Financ ial Project No. 431947-1-84/94-01 ,
between the City and the Florida Department of Transp ortation and authorizes the
execution thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in special session on this the ____ day of
______________, 2012.
___________________________________
M A Y O R
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney
DATE:March 8, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM SP.3 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012
SETTLEMENT CONTRIBUTION/PALM BEACH COUNTY/INSPECTOR GENERAL
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Settlement contribution regarding the lawsuit filed by fifteen municipalities, including the City, aga inst
Palm Beach County related to the funding for the In spector General.
BACKGROUND
In November 2011 the City, along with fourteen othe r municipalities, filed suit against Palm Beach
County regarding a ballot question and adoption of an ordinance related to the funding for the Inspect or
General. Both sides, through their attorneys, have met several times regarding the lawsuit in an effor t to
come to a resolution. At this time it appears that the County Commission will be discussing a possible
revision to the ordinance that provides for a diffe rent funding mechanism than what was presented to
the municipalities by the County. The revision woul d provide that a charge of .25% will be placed on
certain contracts entered into between the City and its vendors where the fee would be paid by the
vender. If the ordinance is adopted by the County i t would apply to contracts entered into by the
municipalities after the adoption of the ordinance. In furtherance of settlement negotiations it was
suggested that the municipalities may want to offer some amount of funding to the County in order to
help offset the cost of the IG to date. Although th e City was billed by the County, under the current
ordinance, the City has not remitted payment due to the ongoing lawsuit.
RECOMMENDATION
Commission discretion.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Vincent Nolan, Economic Development Director
Richard J. Reade, Sustainability Officer/PIO
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:March 8, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.1 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012
CONGRESS AVENUE CORRIDOR STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN & CITYWIDE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
David J. Wilk, from Sperry Van Ness, and City staff will provide the City Commission with a
presentation and recommendations for creating a Con gress Avenue Corridor Strategic Marketing Plan &
Citywide economic development incentives to promote growth within the City.
BACKGROUND
David J. Wilk, National Director of Corporate Real Estate and Advisory Services for Sperry Van Ness
Commercial Real Estate Advisors and Corporate Valua tion Advisors, will provide the City Commission
with a report on the development of a Congress Aven ue Corridor Strategic Marketing Plan. Following
Mr. Wilk’s presentation, Vin Nolan, Economic Development Dir ector, and Rich Reade, Sustainability
Officer/PIO, will provide the City Commission with a presentation and recommendations on proposed
Citywide economic development incentives to be util ized to spur development activity along Congress
Avenue and throughout the City of Delray Beach.
Mr. Wilk was hired by the City in December 2011 to develop an economic development strategy for the
Congress Avenue Corridor through repositioning key properties and marketing/branding strategies that
optimize challenging real estate assets within this area of the City, in particular the former Office Depot
property. Further, Mr. Wilk will provide the City with the types of industries and businesses that wo uld
most likely fit within the Congress Corridor, inclu ding the former Office Depot property, and will
recommend a marketing/branding plan to attract thes e companies to our community.
In an effort to position Congress Avenue and the Ci ty of Delray Beach as an attractive location for ne w
and/or expanding businesses, it is important to ide ntify and develop incentive opportunities (i.e.,
financial and non-financial) that can be utilized in partnership with the Marketing Plan that is being
developed by Mr. Wilk. As a result, staff will pre sent information on the types of incentives that ar e
offered by other local and state communities that a re considered to be aggressive in targeting economi c
development opportunities. Further, a comprehensiv e incentive program will be recommended for
implementation.
**Please note that both presentations will be provi ded to the City Commission prior to the Workshop
meeting.
CREATING A STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN
CONGRESS AVENUE CORRIDOR
Delray Beach, FL
March, 2012
Scope and Objectives – Mission Statement
Current Situation Analysis
Activities to Date and In Process
Initial Focus Areas
Market Observations
SWOT Analysis – Delray Beach and Congress Avenue
Initial Branding Direction
Corridor Maps & Conceptual Plans
Critical Ingredients for Success
Implementation Framework and Phasing
Funding Recommendations
Next Steps
CONTENTS
Create a strategic marketing and branding plan that brings new
economic development, jobs, and demand for real estate along
Congress Avenue in Delray Beach .
A real estate branding strategy that repositions key underutilized
properties along Congress Avenue will transform this Corridor into
a catalyst for new private investment .
SCOPE & OBJECTIVES – MISSION STATEMENT
The Congress Avenue Corridor in Delray Beach, although right off I -95, is currently
comprised of multiple vacant parcels, vacant offices, and a disjointed mix of uses.
The office real estate segment in the Corridor has not been strong for years because of
currentAaesthetics,AaAlackAofA“senseAofAplace”,AandAlacklusterAmarketAconditions.
TheA550KASFAvacant,AformerAOfficeADepotApropertyA(“IW ”)AisAaAmajorA“eyesore”AandAstandsA
in the way of the Corridor realizing its upside potential.
IWA, the Arbors and Levenger complexes represent about 80 % of the Delray office market
with vacancy rates of between 60% and 100%.
There are limited services for office users in this corridor, such as restaurants, coffee shops,
retail, or other offerings.
The Corridor contains various aesthetically challenged non -office properties presenting
challenges in attracting office users, especially compared to Boca.
New businesses interested in locating in southern Palm Beach County are not currently
being brought to the Corridor due to a lack of financial incentives and desirability.
CURRENT SITUATION – CONGRESS CORRIDOR IN DELRAY
Market reconnaissance on vacant and available properties in Delray and Boca, including
the most recent transactions along Congress.
Meetings with property owners, businesses, brokers, BDB, and other key stakeholders to
gain insights and invite them into our strategic marketing process.
Gained market perspectives on supply & demand for commercial, industrial, healthcare,
lifestyle, institutional, and residential uses.
Developed a SWOT analysis with recommendations on the best targeted uses for
redeveloping Congress Avenue and IWA.
Made general recommendations to City Staff to build an economic development and
incentive package to facilitate bringing new deals to Delray Beach.
Formulating a new brand and market identity that will rejuvenate Congress Avenue in
Delray Beach.
Working to transform the IWA property into a demand generator for new office users and
a new hub of innovation and lifestyle connected uses for the community.
ACTIVITIES TO DATE AND IN PROCESS
Existing Conditions along the Congress Avenue Corridor
WhatArealisticAoptionsAexistAinADelray’sAmarketAtoAtransformACongressA ve.ACorridor?
How critical is the redevelopment of the IWA site in reinventing the Corridor and
bringing new businesses to Delray?
How can aesthetics along Congress be improved to elevate the feel of the area.
Market Observations and Unlocking Future Corridor Potential
What types of retail, office, lifestyle, educational, medical, and other uses would work
along the Congress Avenue Corridor between Boca and Atlantic Ave?
What branding strategy for Congress Avenue Corridor in Delray will capture market
attention and generate short -term and permanent demand?
Community Participation and Teaming Success
What processes and tools are critical to building a new market identity for Congress
Avenue Corridor in Delray with BDB, Enterprise Florida, and potential users?
Infrastructure and Funding Needs
CRA District, Special Development District, Enterprise Zone, & Foreign Trade Zone
Designations.
Economic Development & Incentives to support recruitment, retention, & expansion,
and encourage private investment.
INITIAL FOCUS AREAS
The south Florida office market is still trying to recover from the last few years of downturn and
although trends are turning positive, the pace of recovery will be gradual.
The Boca/Delray Beach office market comprises 12,825,000 SF and currently has a vacancy rate of
about 30%, and negative, net absorption of (309,000) SF for 2011.
The Delray Beach office market comprises 1,442,000 SF and has a current direct vacancy rate of
56.6%. The IWA property represents 550K SF or 38 % of the total space.
With an overall vacancy rate for Delray of over 50%, it could take five to ten years to absorb this space
if left to market forces.
TheA rbor’sAnewAownershipAisAaAgreatAadditionAtoADelray,A and should add new energy to the market
along Congress Avenue although their 250,000 SF is almost 20% of the Delray market.
There is current demand for office in downtown Delray, but there are no large blocks of space
available, so repositioning Congress as a new destination connected to downtown is possible.
ChallengesAforACongressA venueAincludeAtheA“whiteAelephant”AIW Asite,AlimitedAappealAofADelrayAforA
office users, and the need for more than just Class A office in the future to reach the next level.
The key to capturing new demand along Congress Avenue in Delray is to create a new mix of uses that
are branded and presented in a way that will lead to a visible market reaction.
MARKET OBSERVATIONS – OFFICE POTENTIAL
Given the current glut of office space in Boca and Delray, and the projected pace of absorption,
relying on the office sector alone to elevate Congress Ave going forward is not justifiable.
Other market segments are necessary to take Congress to the next level, including retail ,
institutional, healthcare, educational, multi -family, and restaurants/hospitality.
Green technology, sustainable and solar powered redevelopment can also be strong market
differentiatorsAforAtheACorridorAtoAhelpA“breakAout”AofAtheAcurrentAdoldrums.
Delray’sAconnectionAwithABocaAatAtheAsouthernAborderAalongACongressAcanAbeAleveragedAtoA
generate more potential demand for both cities from I -95.
The first steps in the rejuvenation of the Corridor should include repositioning the IWA property
into a sustainable mixed -use development, along with some key commercial parcels along the
Boca, Delray border.
In conjunction with the potential new mix of uses coming into the Corridor, the overall
aesthetics of Congress Avenue need to elevated.
Given the possibility of budget cuts, current market conditions, and a slow economic recovery,
reinventing the Corridor will not be easy, but a strong new strategy and branding will work.
MARKET OBSERVATIONS – CONGRESS CORRIDOR
SWOT ANALYSIS – CONGRESS AVE. CORRIDOR - DELRAY
Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities Threats
• Connecting to downtown Delray’s success in a
way that attracts new businesses to Congress
• Strategic alliance with Boca for branding and
demand uplift based on shared borders
• Continuing the MedUTech concept north of
Boca along Congress into Delray
• Development of vacant commercial land now
available right off I -95 on Congress
• Working with Delray Medical Center and FAU
to attract new healthcare users to Congress Ave
• IWA continues to stay dormant and de -
stabilizes the absorption of existing office space
• Numerous vacant land parcels available for
sale with limited buyers and feasibility for years
• Boca and Palm Beaches markets have millions
of SF of vacant space that competes with Delray
• Public schools are not well perceived and
present challenges for attracting new residents
• Congress Avenue in Delray is left to market
forces and remains “stuck” with no clear vision
•Excellent access to I -95, ports, rail, airports,
universities, and hospitals
•Real estate prices are generally lower than
Boca and Palm Beach
• Delray Beach has a track record of success in
redevelopment
•MROC zoning is perfect for the uses necessary
to redevelop land on Congress and good utilities
•Boca leadership and BDB are ready to support
a new Congress Ave strategy
• Vacancy and status of IWA and lack of any
market energy or excitement
• Certain properties diminish the potential uplift of
the Corridor
•Lack of nearby food and retail services for office
occupancy
• No competitive package of incentives and/or
funding for users
•No “sense of place” along Congress Avenue
that would help to draw new business
“DelrayAInnovationACorridor”
Technology,AResearch,AEducation,A spiration,ATalentA(“TRE T”)AA
Corporate Headquarters and Regional Offices
Tourist and Destination Demand From I -95
New Food, Lifestyle, Retail & Leisure U ses
Solar -Power & Green Technology P owering the N ew M ix of Uses
INITIAL BRANDING DIRECTION
RepositionAtheAIW ApropertyAintoAtheA“DelrayAInnovationA
Park”.
Main Street Entrance with Specialty Retail Uses/Restaurants
Corporate/Regional Headquarters Office (Germantown Bldg.?)
Technology/Educational Campuses - Adult, STEM, and Children
Multi -Family Units - FAU Med, Young F amilies & Professionals
Park and Open Space for Community Use (Gazebo, Concerts)
Model of Sustainability and Innovative Land Uses
INITIAL BRANDING DIRECTION
“DELRAY INNOVATION CORRIDOR” – I -95 TO ATLANTIC
“DELRAY INNOVATION CORRIDOR” – I -95 TO LINTON
CONCEPTUAL PLANS – “DELRAY INNOVATION PARK”
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
TheA“Delray Innovation Corridor”A needs a competitive financial incentive and
economic development package for BDB.
Aesthetic improvements, infrastructure, CRA District, FTZ formation, and
accelerated entitlements for new users.
IWA owners working with the City on the new strategic marketing and branding
planAforAredevelopingAtheirApropertyAintoAtheA“DelrayAInnovationAPark”.
A“green”AtrolleyAlinkAand/orAtransitAconnectionAbetweenACongress,AtheArailA
stations, and Downtown Delray to shuttle people between the destinations.
CreatingAaA“PR”AstoryAandAbranding/marketingAcollateralsAaboutAtheA
transformationAofAIW ApropertyAintoA“DelrayAInnovationAPark”.
Partnering with Boca and Boynton along the Congress Avenue corridor to
accelerateAeveryone’sAsuccess.
CRITICAL INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESS
Form Public/Private Partnership with City as Lead
Gain control of the IWA site or execute a development agreement with current
owners and/or new developers.
Develop and entitle a new master plan for the IWA property under MROC code.
Target Users for Various Economic Units – South to North
Parcels along Boca/Delray border - restaurant/hospitality cluster right off I -95.
Corporate office on 7.99 acres cadi -corner to IWA.
Corporate Headquarters site on IWA property as part of mixed -uses.
Innovation Park at IWA (powered by a solar farm)
Science and technology innovation
Medical & Healthcare
Community college, or University consortium
Multi -Family Units – Part of IWA Village Plan and geared to FAU Med.
Cultural and Recreational – Open Public Space and Walking Trails.
Landscape Buffers along industrial f rontage and other key stretches on Congress.
Build initial momentum by repositioning IWA and southern I -95 parcels
IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK & PHASING
Aesthetics and Infrastructure – Public Improvements
Design a landscaping and beautification plan for the Corridor.
CreateAlandscapeAbuffersAforAindustrialAandA“tired”AresidentialAareas.
T ransform the Corridor with great aesthetics & lifestyle connectivity.
Types of Non -Traditional Funding
TIF District, FTZ, Enterprise Zone Designations
Solar F arm and other green technologies to generate special tax credits
Create a Corporate Headquarters Strategic Fund
PioneerAanA“InnovationAandATechnologyACompanyADevelopmentA ct”AforAFL
Science and Technology Innovation tax credits
Medical & Healthcare research & development credits
Educational and IT Vocational Degree Programs with Training Credits for Companies
USDA Funding for Agri -Technology, Logistics, and Innovation Companies
EB -5 Regional Center Funding – Foreign Direct Investment Capital
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Refine and polish the conceptual corridor plan and branding collaterals that
captureAtheAnewAmixAofAusesAcomprisingAtheA“DelrayAInnovationACorridor”.
Finalize the economic development incentive package and branding refinements
to make theA“DelrayAInnovationACorridor”A credible.
Present the strategy and new brand to the City Commission, BDB, Chamber of
Commerce, and key stakeholders to build excitement and support for the
concept.
Fast -track the process for the IWA property redevelopment to be entitled for
new uses and becomeAtheA“DelrayAInnovationAPark”.
Facilitate new deals in process along the Delray/Boca border up to Linton with
local brokers to build immediate momentum and stimulate more demand.
Finalize the market awareness package for BDB including the Economic
DevelopmentAandAFinancialAIncentivesAPlanAforAtheA“DelrayAInnovationACorridor”.
NEXT STEPS
QUALIFICATIONS – DAVID J. WILK, CRE, MAI
Mr . Wilk is National Director of Corporate Real Estate and Advisory Services for Sperry Van Ness (“SVN”) and Corporate Valuation Advisors
(“CVA”). David creates value in today’s market for corporations, private equity firms, developers/investors, and institutions (universities,
hospitals, governmental entities) by focusing on real estate strategies that generate new earnings, cost savings and bottom line impact . Within
these types of value propositions, Mr . Wilk also provides valuations and market studies, economic development strategies for municipalities
through repositioning key properties, and marketing/branding strategies that optimize challenging real estate assets .
Mr . Wilk was formerly National Managing Director of Duff & Phelps Corporate Real Estate Advisory Group from 2008 through 2009 after they
acquired Greystone Realty Advisors, a boutique advisory firm he founded in 1997 . From 1995 to 1997 Mr . Wilk was Regional Director of
Corporate Real Estate Services for Ernst & Young LLP in the Middle Atlantic . From 1993 to 1995 , Mr . Wilk was Managing Director of the Real
Estate Valuation Group for Arthur Andersen in Philadelphia after Andersen acquired Wilk & Associates, Inc ., a real estate consulting company
founded in 1987 . From 1977 to 1987 , Mr . Wilk held senior management positions with Valuation Research Corporation, Arthur D . Little, and was
National Director of Valuation Services for Kenneth Leventhal & Co in California .
Mr . Wilk is an Adjunct Professor and Co -Founder of the Real Estate program at the University of Delaware Lerner Business School . Courses
taught since 1988 include Real Estate Finance (FINC 417 ), Real Estate Development & Investment (FINC 467 ), and MBA Real Estate Finance
(FINC 854 ). He earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Finance from the University of Delaware and is completing a sequenced Masters and Doctoral
Program in Corporate Real Estate Studies through Johns Hopkins University .
Mr . Wilk is a Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) and a Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) since 1985 . He is a Licensed Real Estate Broker
and Certified General Appraiser in the State of Delaware . He has also qualified as an expert witness in numerous State and Federal court
jurisdictions on a national level .
Mr . Wilk has 35 years of real estate experience on commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, governmental, and institutional real estate
projects including having worked in 48 states in the U .S ., Canada, Mexico, Europe, South America, the Caribbean, Asia, and the South Pacific .
Fortune 500 clients served have included ; Johnson & Johnson, Chevron, GE, Berkshire Hathaway, Agilent Technologies, MBNA America Bank,
Hercules (Ashland), DuPont, Comcast, AT&T, Exelon Energy, Bristol Myers Squibb, PNC Financial, Bank of America, AstraZeneca, Sun
Company, and J .P . Morgan Chase .
Real estate consulting highlights from Mr . Wilk’s career include ; Pebble Beach, Aspen Ski Resorts, 20 th Century Fox Film Studios, Irvine Ranch,
Madison Square Garden, Santa Anita Racetrack, Dover Downs, Elvis Presley Enterprises, Hyatt Regency & Four Seasons Resorts in Hawaii,
Chevron’s Huntington Beach Company, Marriott’s Great America Theme Parks, Power Plant in Baltimore, Art Deco Hotels in South Beach,
Pennsylvania Convention Center and Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Comcast Cable Systems, Bikini Atoll in Micronesia (South Pacific) and Fort
DeRussy in Waikiki, Hawaii .
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
Vi
n
c
e
n
t
N
o
l
a
n
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
Ri
c
h
a
r
d
J
.
R
e
a
d
e
,
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
/
P
u
b
l
i
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
Ma
r
c
h
1
5
,
2
0
1
2
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Co
n
g
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
–
A
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
$
1
0
6
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
v
e
r
pa
s
t
5
y
e
a
r
s
:
–
N
o
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
v
e
r
p
a
s
t
3
t
o
5
y
e
a
r
s
–
A
l
t
a
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
~
o
n
l
y
r
e
c
e
n
t
m
a
j
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
•
3
6
9
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
7
4
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
u
n
i
t
s
)
u
n
d
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
O
f
f
i
c
e
P
a
r
k
•
C
l
o
s
e
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
T
r
i
-
R
a
i
l
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
CO
N
G
R
E
S
S
AV
E
N
U
E
AS
S
E
S
S
E
D
VA
L
U
E
‐
20
0
6
CO
N
G
R
E
S
S
AV
E
N
U
E
AS
S
E
S
S
E
D
VA
L
U
E
‐2011
$3
7
6
,
7
7
0
,
5
2
2
$
2
6
9
,
8
9
2
,
6
3
0
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
CR
A
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
(A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
l
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
C
R
A
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
)
–
6
n
e
w
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
&
2
0
1
1
–
$
2
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
–
N
e
a
r
l
y
$
1
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
a
w
a
r
d
e
d
:
•
L
a
r
g
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
:
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
-
2
n
e
w
h
o
t
e
l
s
&
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
l
a
w
o
f
f
i
c
e
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
-
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
&
3
rd
ho
t
e
l
•S
m
a
l
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
:
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
-
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
r
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
ne
w
&
e
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
–
1
7
5
n
e
w
j
o
b
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
(p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
)
–
O
v
e
r
$
2
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
n
e
w
a
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
(p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
)
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
j
o
b
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
–
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
j
o
b
s
–
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
~
l
o
n
g
t
e
r
m
,
t
a
x
b
a
s
e
–
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
i
m
a
g
e
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
Ne
e
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
T
a
r
g
e
t
–
R
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t
&
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
~
n
e
w
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
t
o
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
–
R
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
~
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
o
u
r
l
o
n
g
-
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
–
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
~
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
w
i
t
h
g
r
o
w
t
h
&
m
a
r
k
e
t
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
–
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
t
a
r
t
-
U
p
&
S
e
c
o
n
d
-
S
t
a
g
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
~
h
i
g
h
e
r
r
i
s
k
/
r
e
w
a
r
d
–
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
&
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
~
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
C
i
t
y
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
St
a
t
e
&
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
–
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
u
e
t
o
l
a
c
k
o
f
f
u
n
d
s
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
l
o
c
a
l
m
a
t
c
h
–
N
o
t
f
u
l
l
y
u
t
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
t
e
&
c
o
u
n
t
y
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
S
t
a
t
e
U
r
b
a
n
J
o
b
Ta
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
)
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Ur
b
a
n
J
o
b
T
a
x
C
r
e
d
i
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
–
U
p
t
o
$
1
,
5
0
0
i
n
s
t
a
t
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
j
o
b
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
an
d
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
(
o
t
h
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
l
s
o
a
p
p
l
y
)
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
–
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
i
s
n
o
t
j
u
s
t
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
,
w
e
a
r
e
u
p
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
r
pa
r
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
i
n
t
r
y
i
n
g
t
o
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
/
r
e
t
a
i
n
t
a
r
g
e
t
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
.
–
W
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
(
a
n
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
)
w
h
a
t
o
t
h
e
r
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
t
o
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
/
r
e
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
(i
.
e
.
,
j
o
b
s
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
–
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
&
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
w
i
t
h
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
ag
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
i
n
t
a
r
g
e
t
i
n
g
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
So
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
“
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
”
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
m
B
e
a
c
h
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
,
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
–
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
t
e
a
m
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
u
t
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
k
e
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
f
f
&
C
i
t
y
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
–
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
(
$
1
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
)
-
“
J
o
b
F
u
n
d
”
-
t
o
m
e
e
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
n
e
e
d
s
–
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
g
r
a
n
t
&
l
o
a
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
–
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
o
c
a
R
a
t
o
n
,
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
–
O
f
f
e
r
w
i
d
e
-
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
–
U
t
i
l
i
z
e
u
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
f
u
n
d
i
ng
(
n
o
t
a
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
a
m
o
u
n
t
)
t
o
m
e
e
t
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
n
e
e
d
s
•
S
i
n
c
e
2
0
1
0
-
$
6
8
0
,
0
0
0
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
v
e
r
a
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
t
o
1
2
co
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
/
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
3
,
4
0
0
j
o
b
s
(
a
v
g
.
$
2
0
0
p
e
r
j
o
b
i
n
Ci
t
y
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
)
•
S
i
n
c
e
2
0
1
0
–
C
i
t
y
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
e
r
e
l
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
i
n
$
2
.
9
mi
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
s
t
a
t
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
$
4
4
0
,
0
0
0
f
r
o
m
P
a
l
m
B
e
a
c
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
(a
v
g
.
$
9
8
2
p
e
r
j
o
b
i
n
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
c
o
u
n
t
y
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
)
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
P
o
r
t
,
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
–
2
5
m
e
m
b
e
r
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
B
o
a
r
d
–
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
(
$
3
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
)
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
n
e
e
d
s
–
R
e
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
a
n
n
u
a
l
b
u
d
g
e
t
(
$
4
9
5
,
0
0
0
)
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
t
a
f
f
,
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
&
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
•
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
i
s
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
/
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
•
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
st
a
f
f
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
,
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
–
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
r
e
b
a
t
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
R
e
b
a
t
e
C
i
t
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
f
e
e
s
)
–
M
i
c
r
o
-
l
e
n
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
,
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
–
D
i
r
e
c
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
g
r
a
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
o
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
s
t
a
t
e
&
c
o
u
n
t
y
m
a
t
c
h
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
~
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
$
1
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
W
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
–
S
t
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
e
d
(
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d
)
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
–
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
T
o
o
l
s
U
s
e
d
B
y
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
–
L
a
n
d
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
u
s
e
–
A
d
-
V
a
l
o
r
e
m
(
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
t
a
x
e
x
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
/
r
e
b
a
t
e
s
–
W
a
i
v
i
n
g
o
f
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
C
i
t
y
f
e
e
s
–
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
z
o
n
e
s
–
A
m
e
n
d
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Go
a
l
s
&
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Go
a
l
s
–
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
i
s
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
a
n
d
a
v
i
a
b
l
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
–
“
L
e
v
e
l
t
h
e
p
l
a
y
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
”
b
y
m
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
o
l
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
b
y
l
o
c
a
l
l
y
&
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
–
G
r
o
w
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
&
l
i
v
a
b
l
e
w
a
g
e
j
o
b
s
–
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
n
e
w
&
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p
s
)
–
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
t
a
x
b
a
s
e
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Go
a
l
s
&
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
:
N
o
n
-
F
i
s
c
a
l
–
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
&
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
MR
O
C
z
o
n
i
n
g
&
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
)
–
C
r
e
a
t
e
ne
w
De
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
o
n
T
e
a
m
t
o
w
o
r
k
wi
t
h
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
p
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
s
–
C
r
e
a
t
e
ne
w
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
v
i
s
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
f
o
r
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
/
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
l
o
c
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
–
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
ww
w
.
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
D
e
l
r
a
y
.
o
r
g
we
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
re
l
a
t
e
d
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
(
C
i
t
y
/
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
/
C
R
A
/
D
D
A
)
f
o
r
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
m
e
s
s
a
g
i
n
g
–
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e
&
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
•
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
&
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
•
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
o
a
r
d
(
B
D
B
)
,
P
a
l
m
B
e
a
c
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
&
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
P
a
l
m
B
e
a
c
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
•
D
e
l
r
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
C
R
A
,
D
D
A
,
D
B
M
C
&
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
•
S
o
u
t
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
li
t
i
e
s
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Go
a
l
s
&
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
-
F
i
s
c
a
l
–
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
–
S
t
e
p
-
u
p
b
r
a
n
d
i
n
g
&
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
/
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
–
C
r
e
a
t
e
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
•
C
r
e
a
t
e
C
R
A
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
th
e
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
a
n
d
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
o
r
a
t
r
u
e
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
t
o
f
u
n
d
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
/
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
•
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
t
e
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
n
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
Zo
n
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
D
e
l
r
a
y
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
1 .
Ad
o
p
t
C
i
t
y
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
l
o
c
a
l
m
a
t
c
h
f
o
r
s
t
a
t
e
an
d
c
o
u
n
t
y
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
:
•
Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
T
a
r
g
e
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
R
e
f
u
n
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
Q
T
I
)
•
G
o
v
e
r
n
o
r
’
s
Q
u
i
c
k
A
c
t
i
o
n
C
l
o
s
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
•
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
R
o
a
d
F
u
n
d
2.
Co
m
m
i
t
C
i
t
y
’
s
u
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
f
u
n
d
s
(
$
1
t
o
$
2
mi
l
l
i
o
n
)
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
C
i
t
y
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
&
l
o
c
a
l
m
a
t
c
h
f
o
r
co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
s
t
a
t
e
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
3.
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
n
u
a
l
b
u
d
g
e
t
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
:
•
G
r
a
n
t
s
&
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
–
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
•
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
b
r
a
n
d
i
n
g
•
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
/
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
4.
De
v
e
l
o
p
g
r
a
n
t
/
l
o
a
n
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
go
o
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
m
a
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
•
J
o
b
G
r
o
w
t
h
(
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
g
r
a
n
t
s
/
l
o
a
n
s
•
E
x
t
r
a
o
r
d
i
n
a
r
y
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
/
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
•
A
d
-
V
a
l
o
r
e
m
(
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
T
a
x
E
x
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
e
b
a
t
e
s
•
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
g
a
r
d
e
n
i
n
g
(
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
)
g
r
a
n
t
s
•
W
o
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
g
r
a
n
t
s
•
G
r
e
e
n
g
r
a
n
t
s
/
l
o
a
n
s
(
P
A
C
E
–
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
C
l
e
a
n
En
e
r
g
y
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
)
•
R
e
n
t
S
u
b
s
i
d
i
e
s
5.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
s
t
a
t
e
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
C
i
t
y
’
s
ef
f
o
r
t
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
Z
o
n
e
f
o
r
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
ar
e
a
6.
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
R
A
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
l
o
n
g
C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s
Av
e
n
u
e
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
“
D
e
l
r
a
y
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
”
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:March 7, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.2 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The item before Commission is a discussion regardin g a possible charter review committee.
BACKGROUND
The possibility of conducting a charter review has been raised by the Commission. The last charter
review was in 2001. This item is on the agenda for discussion by the Commission. Two questions need
to be addressed: (1) Should the City have a Charter Review Committee to review the City Charter at thi s
time? (2) If the answer to the first question is y es, then should the Committee be given direction to
review certain sections of the Charter, or should t hey be asked to review the entire charter?
The previous committee appointed in 2001 (which was named the "Charter Revision Committee")
consisted of eleven members appointed by the Mayor and Commissioners. Each member of the
Commission nominated five individuals for apointmen t to the Committee (except the Mayor actually
only nominated three) and then each Commissioner ap pointed two (2) members. In addition the Mayor
also appointed an additional member to serve as the Chairperson. Each appointment was approved by
the full Commission.
If the Commission decides to set up a Charter Revie w Committee, then the size of the Committee and
how its members are to be selected should also be d iscussed. Do Commissioners wish to recruit
members to appoint to the Committee, or do you wish to solicit applications and appoint members in the
same manner as other boards?
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:March 8, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.3 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012
DISCUSS CHANGES TO SPECIAL EVENT POLICIES AND PROCE DURES
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Commission is requested to discuss possible changes to the Special Event Policies and Procedures and
to provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
Over the last couple of months, Commissioners have discussed and proposed possible changes to the
Special Event Policies and Procedures to increase r evenues and recoup costs and to possibly limit the
number of events. Based on these discussions, staff is proposing options for Commission’s
consideration to meet these goals. Attached as back up information are: (1) a copy of the Special Even t
Policies and Procedures, (last changes were made Ap ril 29, 2011); (2) a spreadsheet listing events and
costs for FY10-11; (3) a spreadsheet listing events and costs star ting October 1, 2011 through February
29, 2012; (4) a list of events from March 1, 2012 t hrough September 30, 2012 with last year’s costs; and
(5) Old School Square grounds/Park rentals. I will try to get this information in calendar format prio r to
the workshop meeting.
Options for consideration:
1.Increase the charge for overtime costs for the Delr ay Beach Marketing Cooperative and Old
School Square to 50% versus 35%, and eliminate the grandfather clause and charge all other
events 100% of overtime costs.
All events are charged 100% for equipment rentals, such as barricades, light towers, stage use,
trash boxes and towing fees. They are not charged f or regular time, use of City generator or use of
City barricades. There are six (6) events that were grandfathered in at the 75% rate. These are: St.
Patrick’s Day Parade, Garlic Fest, Delray Affair, Cinco de Mayo, AVDA 5K run and the Asian
Food Festival.
Changing the above percentage charges would increas e revenues by approximately $24,500 per
year. At past meetings, it was the consensus of Com mission to make this change.
2.Charge all events an administrative charge for staf f time spent on an event which is not now being
charged. This would include staff time spent at eve nt planning and recap meetings, time spent
during regular work hours and any supervisory time that is not compensated for working during
the event. Currently police supervisors, (lieutenan ts and above) are paid a stipend at sergeants top
out rate for time worked over 40 hours and we charg e the event producer for this time. The Fire
Department staffs all events with personnel at the rank of captain and below who are paid
overtime. For the 4 th of July and Delray Affair, a Chief Officer is assi gned and they receive comp
time. Parks Maintenance supervisors are not paid ov ertime for events, but receive comp time for
working an event. Public Works supervisors are nei ther paid nor do they get comp time for
working an event.
My time and my assistant’s time is somewhat offset by the permit fees. Other staff members that
perform tasks which are not recouped are the Purcha sing Manager and Finance Accounting
Clerk. We also do not charge an event producer for staff time spent on the event during regular
work hours.
City Commission is requested to consider that a per centage of between 10% - 15% of total City
costs (excluding rentals) be charged as an Administ rative fee to help in cost recovery. This would
be fairly easy to implement without putting additio nal administrative burden on staff. Consider
12.5%.
3.Deposits for New Events: Based on Commission action requiring a deposit for the Delray Rocks
Music event, it appears Commission wants to require deposits as a policy for all new
events. Items to consider are as follows:
· Rate: What percentage of total cost would be charge d? 50% seems reasonable.
· Do you want to charge all new events a deposit, not ju st large ones? Some
smaller events might have a difficult time in meeti ng this requirement.
· How far in advance of the event would the deposit b e required? Need to consider
our existing policy, Section IV, A, which requires major event applications to be
submitted 120 days prior to the event, intermediate events 90 days and minor
events 45 days. If Commission decides to charge a d eposit for all events, they
might consider the following for payment of the dep osit:
Major Event 8 weeks prior to event
Intermediate Event 4 weeks prior to event
Minor Event 2 weeks prior to event
A deposit would not be recommended for existing eve nts, only new events.
4.Limit Number of New Events: There has been some int erest expressed by some of the
Commissioners to limit new events and/or the number of events in a given week or month. Some
options to consider are as follows:
a. As policy, do not allow any new event at all. Our b usiest months are now
September through April. We do have some room on th e calendar for events from
May through August.
b. Strictly enforce the event permit submittal times p er Section IV, A of the policies
for all events. In practice, I follow this policy f or new events but give some
latitude to our long time event producers. I would like to continue this practice.
c. Strictly enforce the provisions of Section III of t he policies. In the past waivers
have been granted by Commission for the number of m ajor events allowed in a
given month.
d. Add a provision to Section III of the policies that states “Events will only be
allowed during three (3) weekends in any given mont h.
5. Eliminate co-sponsorships of events. We currently co-sponsor the following events: Holiday
Parade, Boat Parade and Easter Sunrise Service. By co-sponsoring the event, we receive no revenue
from the co-sponsor partner. Estimated additional r evenue $14,500.
RECOMMENDATION
Consideration of changes to Special Event Policies and Procedures and provide staff direction and an
implementation date for changes.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist
Richard C. Hasko, PE, Director of Environmental Ser vices
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:March 5, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.4 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012
PROVIDE DIRECTION ON VALET PARKING PROGRAM OPTIONS
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
The item before the City Commission is to provide s taff direction regarding valet parking program
options.
BACKGROUND
The City Commission, at its meeting of December 6, 2011, discussed the current valet parking
program. The Commission requested a review of the valet parking agreements and for multiple options
to be presented to the Commission including the pos sibility of the City contracting directly with vale t
companies.
Staff intended to address changes to the valet agre ements once a decision was made concerning the
Parking Study recommendations to go to a fee based program. It is noted that a fee based program
throughout downtown creates a financial value per p arking space which cannot be ignored when
assessing valet queue fees, especially in the eveni ngs where parking occupancy will likely exceed the
85 th percentile. However, since the valet agreements a re coming up for renewal at the end of this
month, it is important that we have this discussion at this time.
Since the mid 1990’s the City has had a valet parki ng program which allows the use of on-street public
parking spaces to provide valet parking service to downtown patrons by entering into individual
licensing agreements with participating establishme nts. The most successful component of this program
is the requirement for licensees to lease private p arking lots that are not already serving a required
parking need when utilized. This provision increase s the available parking in the area by several
hundred parking spaces. When the program was imple mented, Commission did discuss the possibility
of the City running the program or contracting it o ut. The Commission, at that time, did not want to
have to go out and lease lots from the private sect or or assume the cost of liability insurance; and t hey
did not feel we had the staff capabilities to opera te the program ourselves. Also, they did not want one
company to have a monopoly.
The valet program currently utilizes 50 on-street parking spaces throughout the Central Busine ss
District. With current fees ranging from $125 per s pace, per month east of the Intracoastal Waterway
(ICW) to $100 per space west of the ICW, the progr am generates $52,200 per year. An additional
$19,200 per year is generated from the lease of 40 spaces, in the Federspiel Garage, at $40 per space,
per month, to the Prime Steakhouse queue on SE 2nd Avenue. To demonstrate the program's potential,
assume 500 spaces are collectively leased by valets . Applying a 1.75 turnover ratio results in the
accommodation of 875 vehicles, with no additional i mpact to the available pool of public parking
spaces. The resulting 16.2 vehicle per space turnov er ratio far exceeds that of publicly used spaces
during the same time period.
Chapter 9 of the Parking Study suggested an indepen dent study of valet parking. Other observations
were included which could be implemented without in curring the cost of additional study.
A. Reevaluation of the valet queue locations to mee t current and potential future needs of the City.
B. Consistency between locations portraying a unifi ed system, making it apparent queues are public
facilities.
C. Maintaining consistently high levels of service.
These improvements may be achieved by the following :
1. Maintaining the current program and increasing t he monthly fee per space, with additional
modifications to the agreements addressing items ab ove.
2. Hourly Management Agreement: Advertise a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the man agement of the
valet parking system. Criteria would include the ab ility to provide parking lot leases, insurance, past
history, etc. The City, at its option, would enter into an agreem ent with the service provider. The City
would pay an hourly fee for the services provided a nd receive all revenue generated by the vehicles
parked.
3. Flat Fee Management: Issue a RFP for a flat fee management program, sim ilar to above, however the
service provider would propose a flat fee to the Ci ty, paid, weekly, monthly, or annually. In this
scenario, the service provider would pay the City a fee for operating the valet queues. The service
provider would keep revenue generated from performi ng the service.
4. In House Operation: Expand the Parking Division and take the program i n-house, thereby controlling
all aspects of service. This could be an opportunit y to continually improve service while creating loc al
jobs for Delray citizens.
5. RFQ: Advertise the opportunity for the licensing of eac h queue separately, or as a system. The City
would then negotiate fees with the qualified vendor s.
It is noted, suggestions 2 and 3 would be directed toward Parking Service Providers.
Of immediate concern is the impending automatic ren ewal of the existing Parking License
Agreements on March 31, 2012. Modifications in 2011 included the automatic renewal of valet queues,
subject to meeting certain criteria. During deliber ations of subsequent requests to establish valet qu eues
City Commission has reconsidered that provision. Co nsequently, it is recommended that all current
agreements expire on March 31, 2012. Outside of opt ion 1 above, time will be needed to properly
implement the selected option. If an option other t hat option 1 is selected, staff recommends one-year
renewal of all valet parking license agreements inc luding a 20% fee increase; the agreements would
then expire on March 31, 2013, or at such time noti fication is given by the City of earlier terminatio n
for the implementation of a revised program.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
The Parking Management Advisory Board, at their mee ting of February 28, 2012, unanimously
recommended retaining the existing program with no increase to fees.
The Community Redevelopment Agency, at their meetin g of March 8, 2012, supported the current valet
program methodology, and they suggested working on fees with the licensees. The y also recommended
a six-month extension with no increase if another o ption is selected.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking Commission direction.
DE
L
R
A
Y
B
E
A
C
H
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
PR
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
OB
J
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
•
EV
A
L
U
A
T
E
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Re
v
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
•
EV
A
L
U
A
T
E
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
As
s
u
r
e
E
q
u
i
t
y
T
o
C
i
t
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
a
l
e
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Se
c
u
r
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
o
P
r
o
c
e
e
d
CU
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
c
a
s
e
b
y
c
a
s
e
Si
n
c
e
2
0
0
1
n
o
n
e
w
q
u
e
u
e
s
O
n
A
t
l
a
n
t
i
c
A
v
e
n
u
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
S
w
i
n
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
&
t
h
e
I
C
W
Va
l
e
t
s
u
s
e
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
f
o
r
q
u
e
u
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
su
c
h
a
s
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,
u
n
i
f
o
r
m
s
,
v
a
l
e
t
s
t
a
n
d
s
,
e
t
c
.
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
L
o
t
L
e
a
s
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
CU
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Va
l
e
t
Q
u
e
u
e
F
e
e
s
A
r
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
$
1
2
5
/
S
p
a
c
e
/
M
o
n
t
h
Ea
s
t
O
f
T
h
e
I
C
W
A
n
d
$
1
0
0
/
S
p
a
c
e
/
M
o
n
t
h
,
W
e
s
t
O
f
T
h
e
IC
W
A
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
e
x
i
s
t
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
r
o
m
v
a
l
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
i
n
e
q
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
va
l
e
t
q
u
e
u
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
Re
c
e
n
t
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
c
a
p
s
f
e
e
s
f
o
r
va
l
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
$
1
0
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
p
r
i
c
e
le
t
t
e
r
i
n
g
s
i
z
e
f
o
r
b
e
t
t
e
r
v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
va
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
U
D
Y
R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Re
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
q
u
e
u
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Cr
e
a
t
e
u
n
i
f
o
r
m
i
t
y
a
m
o
n
g
q
u
e
u
e
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
Ex
p
l
o
r
e
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
CU
R
R
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
O
P
T
I
O
N
S
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Mo
d
i
f
y
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
si
g
n
a
g
e
,
u
n
i
f
o
r
m
s
,
v
a
l
e
t
s
t
a
n
d
s
,
e
t
c
.
,
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
pu
b
l
i
c
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
e
e
s
c
o
m
m
e
n
s
u
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
Re
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
q
u
e
u
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
m
e
e
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
n
e
e
d
s
OT
H
E
R
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
O
P
T
I
O
N
S
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
F
i
x
e
d
-
P
r
i
c
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
F
P
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
V
a
l
e
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
n
-
h
o
u
s
e
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
F
P
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
F
o
r
Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Op
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
p
r
o
v
id
e
s
p
a
c
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
f
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
FL
A
T
-
F
E
E
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Se
l
e
c
t
m
o
s
t
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
d
d
e
r
o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
va
l
u
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
v
a
l
e
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
Op
e
r
a
t
o
r
r
e
t
a
i
n
s
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
,
c
o
v
e
r
s
a
l
l
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
an
d
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
a
l
l
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
a
R
F
P
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
f
e
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
,
st
a
f
f
i
n
g
,
e
t
c
.
Ci
t
y
i
s
p
a
i
d
a
f
l
a
t
f
e
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
va
l
e
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Se
l
e
c
t
m
o
s
t
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
d
d
e
r
o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
va
l
u
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
v
a
l
e
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
Ci
t
y
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
a
n
h
o
u
r
l
y
f
e
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
v
a
l
e
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
Ci
t
y
r
e
t
a
i
n
s
a
l
l
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
FI
X
E
D
-
F
E
E
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
:
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
a
R
F
P
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
s
c
o
p
e
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
f
e
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
,
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
,
e
t
c
.
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Sh
o
r
t
l
i
s
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
d
e
e
m
e
d
m
o
s
t
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
ma
n
a
g
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
e
b
e
s
t
t
e
r
m
s
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
F
o
r
Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
q
u
e
s
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
f
r
o
m
3
t
o
p
r
a
t
e
d
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
IN
-
H
O
U
S
E
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
:
Th
e
C
i
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
v
a
l
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
q
u
e
u
e
s
.
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Th
e
u
s
e
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
t
o
s
t
o
r
e
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
u
p
p
l
y
Re
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
q
u
e
u
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
le
v
e
l
s
,
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
h
i
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
Da
m
a
g
e
C
l
a
i
m
s
,
r
e
a
l
o
r
f
a
b
r
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
ca
r
e
f
u
l
o
v
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
c
a
n
b
e
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
c
o
s
t
l
y
Th
e
r
e
a
r
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Cl
o
s
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Be
n
e
f
i
t
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
l
o
t
l
e
a
s
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
is
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
Th
e
u
s
e
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
t
o
s
t
o
r
e
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
u
p
p
l
y
Re
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
v
a
l
e
t
q
u
e
u
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
pe
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
Da
m
a
g
e
C
l
a
i
m
s
,
r
e
a
l
o
r
f
a
b
r
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
ca
r
e
f
u
l
o
v
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
c
a
n
b
e
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
c
o
s
t
l
y
ST
A
F
F
R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
:
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
Re
q
u
i
r
e
a
l
l
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
t
o
s
t
a
t
e
PU
B
L
I
C
V
A
L
E
T
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
e
s
’
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
l
o
n
g
e
r
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
t
e
r
m
s
,
(
3
-
5
y
e
a
r
s
)
Re
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
v
a
l
e
t
q
u
e
u
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
v
a
l
e
t
q
u
e
u
e
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
f
e
e
s
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
It
i
s
n
o
t
e
d
,
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
f
e
e
b
a
s
e
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
ma
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
a
t
e
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
VA
L
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
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:March 7, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.5 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012
DISCUSSION OF ON STREET PARKING REGULATION
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This item is before the Commission for discussion o f current on-street parking enforcement hours along
Atlantic Ave and SR A1A.
BACKGROUND
The City currently regulates and enforces on-street parking limits along A1A and along East Atla ntic
Avenue, east and west of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), as follows:
Street Location Enforcement Hours Metered Limit
E Atlantic Ave West of ICW 8 am – 8 pm No 2 hr
E Atlantic Ave East of ICW 8 a m – 8 pm Yes 2 hr
SR A1A Public beach 8 am - 8 pm Yes 2 & 4 hr
This information is presented for discussion by the Commission regarding the current parking
enforcement hours.
Commissioner Carney has suggested that paid parking (meters) should not be enforced until later in the
morning at least on Atlantic Avenue, and perhaps no t on A1A as well. Several questions need to be
discussed. Does the Commission majority wish to ch ange the hours for enforcing metered parking on
Atlantic Avenue and/or A1A, either seven days a wee k or for certain days? If the meters are not
enforced, then should the two hour time limit be en forced? Keep in mind that if the hours of
enforcement are reduced we will lose revenue from b oth parking meters and parking tickets.
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM:Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director
THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE:February 27, 2012
SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.6 - SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012
DRAFT PROPOSALS FOR DRAINAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This is a presentation of draft proposals for the r evision of LDR Sections 2.4.3, Submission
Requirements and 6.1.9, Drainage Systems, addressin g design requirements for storm drainage and
surface water management systems, and mitigation of flood plain encroachment by new structures
which could result in negative impacts to existing neighborhoods.
BACKGROUND
As infill development and redevelopment of properti es occurs throughout the city, new development
projects are required to conform to current regulat ions as they relate to drainage system design,
minimum floor elevations, etc. This can result in a condition where new housing must be constructed a t
higher elevations than the existing surrounding str uctures, particularly in high hazard flood zones su ch
as the barrier island neighborhoods.
While our Land Development Regulations (LDR) mandat e compliance with the requirements of the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for drainage and surface water management
designs and flood protection, those requirements ge nerally apply to larger scale development than wha t
typically occurs in Delray Beach and, in fact, typi cally exempt projects less than ten acres in area.
In the past, we have had complaints from residents about flooding occurring in areas that have not
historically been flood prone. This typically is t he result of new buildings being required to set fl oor
elevations significantly higher than existing struc tures in older neighborhoods. In order to build sl ab on
grade structures, much of the development area must be filled to meet the current criteria. While
allowable runoff from such parcels can usually be a ccommodated in the surrounding drainage system,
the fill material necessary to construct at the req uired elevations displaces what was formerly availa ble
storage in the watershed or drainage basin. As a r esult, flood stages will increase in the surroundin g
neighborhood from rainfall events that historically caused no flooding. This is due to the reduction
in available basin storage.
The proposed LDR revisions attached are intended to address the issue of flood plain encroachment as
well as establish specific minimum drainage design criteria that are not subject to exemption from
SFWMD regulations based on project size.
SECTION 2.4.3 (D)
(D) Preliminary Engineering Plans
(1) Preliminary engineering plans shall provide in formation and be in a format as required
by Section 2.4.3 (B), Standard Plan Items.
(2) Said plans shall be drawn on a topographic base (unless the use of spot elevations are
previously approved by the City Engineer) with topo graphic features extended to a minimum of
ten feet (10’) beyond the site including finished floor elevations of the nearest adjacent
habitable structure abutting all site boundaries . All plans shall be drawn on a sheet which is 24”
by 36”.
(3) Said plans shall show the approximate location , dimensions and size, as shown in records
of Delray Beach and/or field observations of all ex isting water, sewer, and drainage facilities
along with streets, sidewalks and above ground impr ovements which provide service to and on
the site. Notes shall state the disposition of all existing facilities including service lines, meter s,
etc.
(4) Said plan shall show the proposed location, siz ing, and design basis of water, sewer, fire
suppression, and drainage facilities which are to s erve the site, including pertinent calculations,
and the method of providing service to the proposed structures.
(5) Said plans shall show the method of providing servi ce to proposed structures.
(6)(5) Said plans shall show the location of proposed street lights and shall address the
responsibility for installation.
(7)(6) Surface water management calculation indicating the proposed system’s ability to meet
storm water quality and quantity requirements in ac cordance with Section 6.1.9 and SFWMD
(South Florida Water Management District) regulatio ns.
(8)(7) Said plans may include a plan sheet which inclu des all proposed improvements on one
plan sheet at a scale other than what is required i n Section 2.4.3 (B) (1). This additional
submittal is in addition to plans submitted meeting the scale requirement in Section 2.4.3 (B)
(1).
SECTION 2.4.3 (F)
(F) Final Engineering Plans: Final Engineering Plans are construction drawings which have been
prepared by a Registered Engineer in a manner format acceptable to permitting agencies.
(1) Water and sewer plans must be prepared pursuan t to requirements of the City
Engineering Department and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servic es (HRS).
(2) Drainage plans must be prepared pursuant to re quirements of the City Engineering
Department and the South Florida Water Management District.
(3) Street improvement plans must be prepared purs uant to specifications as set forth by the
City Engineer for local streets; and, per Palm Beac h County or FDOT requirements for streets
which are under the jurisdiction of those agencies.
(4) Composite utility plans shall show the propose d locations of all existing and proposed
utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, gas, cab le, drainage devices) and shall be signed by a
representative of each utility provider attesting t o the fact that services can be accommodated
as shown on the composite utility plan. The compos ite plan shall address the responsibility for
relocation of existing services and installation of new services.
SECTION 6.1.9
Section 6.1.9 Drainage Systems
(A) The d Drainage and surface water management system s shall be designed and
constructed for long life, low maintenance cost and ease of maintenance.
(B) A n adequate The drainage system shall be designed to include all including necessary
open swales ditches, pipes , culverts, intersectional drains, inlets, bridges and the like other system
appurtenances required to shall be provided adequate capacity for the proper drainage of all surface
storm water for the specified design storm event . Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate al l
natural water flow and shall be of sufficient lengt h to permit full width roadway and required
slopes.
(C) Develop ers of subdivisions whose storm drainage system dis charges into the Lake
Worth Drainage District shall contract with the Lak e Worth Drainage District for maintenance of
drainage facilities prior to annexation to the city .
(D)(C) Lots shall be laid out configured and graded to provide positive drainage and route
runoff away from all existing or proposed buildings.
(D) Finished floor elevations shall be a minimum o f eighteen inches (18”) above the highest
centerline or crown elevation of adjacent roadways or as established by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for flood zone designation s where base flood elevations are determined.
(E) No net floodplain encroachment above the avera ge wet season water table which will
adversely affect the existing rights of others will be permitted.
(F) Provision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin
storage provided by the project site.
(E)(G) The drainage Surface water management system s shall be designed using accepted
engineering principles for rainstorms of maximum in tensity based on a ten year interval for the
South Florida area. in accordance with the requirements of the South Fl orida Water Management
District Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permits (SFWMD BOR)(latest revision)
regardless of development area. The system Systems shall provide for positive drainage of lots,
streets, roads, and other public areas. The design shall provide capacity for the maintenan ce of any
and all historical offsite watershed runoff flowing to or through the development site as well as
handling any runoff from adjacent areas that natura lly flows onto the subject area . Runoff
coefficients shall be based on completed projects. At a minimum, The the following standards shall
apply to all drainage projects system designs:
(1) Storm sewers, cul verts and related installations shall be provided. Where necessary,
according to the City Engineer:
(a) To permit unimpeded flow of natural water courses.
SECTION 6.1.9
(b) To insure adequate drainage of all low points.
(c) To intercept storm water runoff along streets at in tervals reasonably related to
the extent and grade of the area drained.
(1) Design storm shall be a 10 year return frequency of 24 hour duration.
(2) Minimum site retention for water quality:
(a) The greater of the first 1” of runoff and 2.5” x % site impervious area for water
quality. Sample calculation:
First 1” of runoff 1”/12 x site area(sf)=Vol. (c f)
2.5”x % impervious area (2.5”/12)x % imperv area(sf)=Vol. (cf)
(3) Minimum site retention for water quantity:
(a) The difference between pre-development and post de velopment site runoff for the
10 yr./24 hr. design storm. Runoff shall be calcul ated using methodology as set
forth in the SFWMD BOR considering rainfall distrib ution to establish peak stage
and runoff values over the duration of the design s torm.
(F) In the design of storm sewerage installations, spec ial consideration shall be given to
avoidance of problems which may arise from concentr ation of storm water runoff over adjac ent
properties.
(G) The subdivider may be required to carry away by pip e or open ditch any spring or surface
water that may exist previous to or as a result of the subdivision. Such drainage facilities shall be
located in the street right -of - way where f easible, or in perpetual unobstructed easements of
appropriate width.
(H) A c C ulvert s or and other drainage facility ies shall, in each case, be large enough have
adequate capacity to accommodate potential runoff from it’s the entire upstream drainage area for
which they are designed , whether inside or outside the subdivision. The C ity Engineer shall approve
the design and size of the facility based on antici pated runoff from a ten year storm 10 yr./24 hr.
design storm under conditions of total potential development pe rmitted by the zoning code in the
watershed.
(I) The subdivider’s engineer system design shall also study consider the effect impact of
such subdivision site development on the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities outside
the area of the subdivision; this study shall be r eviewed by the City Engineer . Where it is
anticipated calculations as prepared by the development enginee r and approved by the City Engineer
indicate that the additional of runoff incident to the development of the subdivis ion to downstream
drainage facilities will overload result in the exceedance of the capacity of an existing downstream
drainage facility any such facilities during a ten year for the 10 yr./24 hr. design storm, the
subdivision shall not be approved until provision h as been made for the improvement of the
condition. a design for an adequate increase in capacity for the affected facilities has been submitted
SECTION 6.1.9
by the development engineer and approved by the Cit y Engineer. The new drainage system will not
be approved for connection to the downstream facili ties until the capacity improvements are
constructed.
(J) The owner or responsible entity of any land dev elopment or redevelopment that
discharges directly or indirectly to a Municipal Se parate Storm Sewer System is required to provide
for annual inspections, and operation and maintenan ce of its storm water management system, to
ensure that the system functions as designed and pe rmitted.