10-13-98 Special/Workshop DELRAY BEACH
CITY COMMISSION ~
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA AlI-Ameri~C~
6:00 P.M. - FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services to afford an
individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in and
enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity conducted by
the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127 (voice) or 243-7199
(TDD), 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to accom-
modate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
1 SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/GREEN MARKET: Consider a request for
special event approval for the Green Market, including a
temporary use permit for the closure of a portion of N.W.
1st Avenue between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. (or a portion of
N.E. 1st Avenue as events dictate), together with staff
support and use of the Community Center restrooms.
2 USE OF PEDI-CABS DURING OCTOBER ART & JAZZ: Consider a
request to allow pedi-cabs to operate in the vicinity of
East Atlantic Avenue during the October 22nd Art & Jazz on
the Avenue.
3 DOWNTOWN VALET PARKING SERVICES: Consider approval of the
Parking Management Advisory Board's recommendation as to the
ranking of the downtown valet parking services vendors and
authorize staff to commence negotiations with the top ranked
firm.
******************************************************************
WORKSHOP AGENDA
(1) Joint work session with the Community Redevelopment Agency
Board to discuss the redevelopment proposals for Block 77.
(2) Intergovernmental Coordination Program Issues Forum - Beach
Funding Report.
(3) 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.
[ITY I)F I]ELAAY BEACH
DELRAY BEACH
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · (561) 243-7000
AII-AmericaCity
1993 TO: David T. Harden
City Manager
FROM: ~j~Robert A. Barcinski
~/ Assistant City Manager
DATE: October 7, 1998
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITYCOMMISSlON MEETING
OCTOBER 13, 1998 SPECIAL EVENT APPROVAL -
GREEN MARKET
ACTION
City Commission is requested to endorse the Green Market which will start operations on
November 7', 1998 thru May 15, 1999, to grant a temporary use permit per LDR's Section 2.4.6
(H) for the use and closure of N.W. 1st Avenue from the alley north of Dunkin Donuts, to the
entrance of the CRA lot #3, from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., to authorize staff support to hang and
remove Green Market banners on West Atlantic Avenue and in the CRA lot, to provide barricades
and to move the supply trailer to and from the site, and authority to utilize the restrooms at the
Community Center.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a request from Jayne King, the Manager of the Delray Beach Green Market,
requesting authority to set up the Green Market in N.W. 1st Avenue and to provide staff support.
The request is being made to set up in the street in order to provide additional parking for the
vendors and patrons of the market. In addition, they anticipate more vendor participation than in
years past. On the weekends of the Historic Society Antique Show and the Nuveen Tournament
the market would move to N.E. 1st Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the temporary use permit and set up on N.VV. 1st Avenue, staff
support as requested and use of the Civic Center restrooms. We also recommend relocation
approval to N.E. 1st Avenue when other events dictate the move.
RAB/tas
Attachment : D/~
Dcc:093098a. doc
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS ",~'/~. /.
Printe~ on Recycled Paper
Community
Redevelopment
la Agency
Delray Beach
October 1, 1998
David Harden, City Manager
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. I Ave.
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear Mr. Harden:
The Historic Delray Green Market is requesting a Temporary Use Permit for
approximately 200 feet of N.W. 1st Ave. on Block 60 adjacent to CRAParking Lots
3,4,5 and 6 as shown on the enclosed map. The area needs to be barricaded at
the following locations: 1) the alley entrance behind Dunkin' Donuts facing W.
Atlantic Avenue and 2) at the entrance to Lot 3. This portion of the street
needs to be closed from 6 a.m.- 2 p.m. each Saturday from November 7, 1998 until
May 15, 1999. Should there be a major event requiring the usage of N.W. i Ave.
throughout the market season, the Green Market is requesting an Alternate Site
Usage Permit for N.E. I Ave. adjacent to Old School Square which would also need
to be barricaded. The market is requesting approval for utilization of City Staff
for the following: 1) installation of banners on W. Atlantic Avenue and necessary
signage throughout the City and market vicinity, 2) the delivery and pick-up of
the Green Market trailer each week and 3) the usage of the Community Center rest
rooms. The Green Market is requesting these items to be added to the agenda of
the October 13, 1998 meeting of the City Commission. Should you have any
questions, please contact me at 276-7511. Thank you for your consideration.
S_incerely, , /
Manager
Historic Delray Green Market
cc:Bob Barcinski /
24 N. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 276-8640 / Fax (561) 276-8558
~ I
24.6' 23.5' "
~. .... .?i '
PA V~O
26.5'
~' ~'"'~ ~'~" lJ~60'
~t eJ~J IVED7 ~t~o'
LL~ r ~xr7/
[lTV I]F I]ELIIRV BER[H
DELRAY BEACH
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 ° (561) 243-7000
AII-AmericaCity
! 993 TO: David T. Harden
City Manager
FROM: f-~Robert A. Barcinski
Iv- Assistant City Manager
DATE: October 8, 1998
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COMMISSION MEETIN(~
OCTOBER: 13, 1998 REQUEST/USE OF PEDI CABS FOR ART AND
JAZZ ON THE AVENUE
ACTION
City Commission is requested to consider a request from the Joint Venture to allow the operation
of pedicabs from Swinton Avenue to A-I-A for the Art and Jazz on the Avenue event to be held on
October 22, 1998.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a letter request from the Joint Venture to allow the operation of pedicabs for the
October 22, 1998 Art and Jazz on the Avenue. No problems were noted last year when
permission was granted for the use of pedicabs for an Art and Jazz event. The conditions of
approval would include that the vendor provide liability insurance naming the City as additional
insured.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends consideration of the request to utilize pedicabs for the Art and Jazz on the
Avenue on October 22, 1998 with the condition that the required liability insurance is provided.
RAB/tas ~ /~o/c/ Ill'fO/~ ~ ~ .
Attachment
File:u:sweeney/agenda
Doc: lO0898a.doc ~ ~)
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS ~'/Oo ,:~.
Printed on Recycled Paper
10/08/1998 13:52 5B12780555 DB CHAMBER COMMERCE PAGE 02
October 8, 1998
Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manger
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
RE: AGENDA ITF..M - CON~.IDERATION .OF PEDI-CAI~S
FOR ART & JAZZ - OCTOBER 22, 1998
Dear Bob: ,
The Joint Venture is requesting approval from the City Commissio'~ for the use of pedi-
cabs du~ing the Art & Jazz event of October 22, 1998.
This request is to permit A'IA Bike Rentals, inc., to operate the pedi-cabs on a one time
basis conditioned on the following;
1. That A1A Bike Rentals operates and takes responsibility for this
operation.
2. That this approval is for this event only. .~,
3. That the pedi-cab drivers are 18 years or older, with appropriate driver's
license, and no t~affic violation for the past two yealrs.
4. That AIA Bike Rentals show proof of liability.
The parameters for the pedi-Cab operation will coincide with the btreet closures dudng
Art & Jazz which am from Swinton Avenue to ?,h Avenue, a0d from East Atlantic
Avenue from the east side of Venetian to the west side of Salina:i The hours of closure
are from 6:00 p_m. to 11:00 p.m.
Your consideration of this request is appreciated.
Sincerely,
MARJORIE FERRER
Downtown Coordinator
/sk
DELRA¥ BEACH JOINT VENTURE · Community Redevelopment Agzncy · Delmy Beach Chamber of Cor~t nerence
64 $.E, Fifth Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483 · Tel: 561-278~0424 - Fax:'561-278.0555° Downtown Development Authority
£1TY OF DELI:lAY BER£H
DEI. RAY BEACH
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 · (561) 243-7000
NI-AmericaCity
993 TO: David T. Harden
City Manager
FROM: ~'Robert A. Barcinski
Assistant City Manager
DATE: October 9, 1998
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER t3, 1998 AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE VALET
PARKING CONTRACT
ACTION
City Commission is requested to consider approval of the Parking Management Advisory Board's
recommendation to negotiate a Valet Service contract for the Atlantic Avenue corridor from
Swinton Avenue to A-1-A with Gold Start Parking Systems, Inc.
BACKGROUND
Approximately eighteen (18) months ago, City CommiSsion recommended that the Parking
Management Task Team develop proposals to seek the services of one (1) valet company for the
downtown area. At that time the City had received and approved the third request for a valet
parking agreement with the City. A concern was raised about proliferating the downtown area
with parking ques.
A Request For Proposal was completed by City staff in May, 1998 and the proposal was
advertised June 2, 1998. Proposals were opened on July 9, 1998. No proposals were received.
Vendors were surveyed as to the reasons they did not submit proposals (see attached), the
proposals were revised with the Parking Management Advisory Board's approval, and was
readvertised on September 2, 1998. Three (3) proposals were received on September 17, 1998.
A staff evaluation committee consisting of Sherry Treadwell, Ron Hoggard, Milena Walinski, and
myself reviewed the proposals based on the evaluation criteria and ranked the firms. The firms
were ranked on administration, experience, financial information and concepts and plans. Staff
ranked Omni Parking, Inc. slightly ahead of Gold Star. Staff felt that Omni Parking rated better in
terms of their plan and their financial condition.
On October 7, 1998, the three (3) proposers made verbal presentations to the Parking
Management Advisory Board. Five (5) of the seven (7) Board members present ranked Gold Star
Parking Systems, Inc. first and two (2) ranked Omni Parking first. The final ranking was:
1. Gold Star Parking Systems, Inc.
2. Omni Parking
3. Ryan Dantone
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
Agenda Item: Authorization to Negotiate Valet Parking Contract
October 9, 1998
Page #2
The Board felt that Gold Star had more experience, operational knowledge, and especially liked
their proposal to have a security person in each valet lot. Gold Star also indicated in their verbal
presentation, but not the written proposal, that they would try to get businesses other than
restaurants to stay open at night and use the service.
I, and the staff review team, still have concerns about the financial information provided by Gold
Star Parking Systems, Inc., the fact that their plan was not specific in terms of parking que
locations, how they will be able to provide lot security when only charging $5.00 - $7.00 per car,
and the fact that they are not preparing to use any private lots. However, we would try to reach a
negotiated contract contingent on final reference checks, that the price be limited to $5.00 initially
per car, that the hours of use of beach lots be restricted and tightly controlled, and that some
private lots be used.
In addition, Commission needs to be aware that there is opposition from the Beach Property
Owners Association, Ocean Place Condominium Association and other residents, to the use of
night time parking for any beach parking lots.
Both Gold Star and Omni have indicated a need for valet service on the east side of the
Intracoastal and the need to use Sandoway Park lot for this purpose.
I, and staff, also think there is a need for valet parking on the beach side and feel that in order to
make it viable the Sandoway lot would have to be utilized. However, if the Sandoway lot is
approved for use in the final contract, I would recommend that it be used for valet parking 0nly
and that the closing time be no later than 11:30 p.m. versus 1:00 a.m.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Commission consider approval for staff to begin negotiations with Gold
Star Parking Systems, Inc. for valet parking services for the Atlantic corridor from Swinton Avenue
to A-1-A under the following conditions:
1. Reference checks are good
2. Limit the initial fee to $5.00 per car
3. That private, as well as public lots, be secured
4. Limit the use of the Sandoway lot to valet parking only and that the lot be closed at 11:30 p.m.
RAB/tas
Attachments
cc: Parking Management Advisory Board
File:u:sweeneylagenda
Doc: 100998a. doc
MF O DUM
TO: Parking Management Advisory Board Members
FROM: {~Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
DATE: October 2, 1998
SUBJECT: RANKING RFP'S -VALET PARKING
On September 30th, myself, Shelly Treadwell, Ron Hoggard, and Milena Walinski
(Assistant City Finance Director), met to review, evaluate and rank the three (3) valet
proposals.
Attached is a copy of the evaluation form. All categories were evaluated on a scale of 1
to 10 in the areas of Administration, Experience, Financial Capacity and their
Concepts/Plans. Unfortunately, at this writing we have not received financial information
from Goldstar Parking. If I do not receive required information by Monday, we will not
be able to consider their proposal. I have some concern that this information wasn't
submitted with the proposal.
Each company will make a 10 minute presentation to you on October 7, 1998 at 5:30
p.m. Time will be allowed for questions.
Board action required is as follows:
· Rank firms 1,2,3 and recommended City Commission authorize staff to begin
contract negotiations with the highest ranked firm, or make a recommendation not to
proceed.
RAB/tas
Attachment
File:u:sweeney/parking
Doc: 100298.doc
o~ ~
0
BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS" ' ~~~x~~~
ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 375
~'~'~'<"~' - DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33447
October 6, 1998
MEMBERS OF THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
c/o Assistant City Manager Robert Barcinski
City Hall, 100 N.W. First Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Dear Member:
Our Beach Property Owners' Association shares your concern over the problem of
parking space which today confronts Delray Beach.
We recognize and appreciate the time and effort which the Parking Management
Advisory Board has invested in its conscientious search for some solution. You have
certainly developed an impressive array of approaches to be considered and explored.
While we strongly support some of those initiatives, there are others with which we must
take issue. The night-time use of beachfront parking areas such as Sandoway, Ingraham
or Anchor Parks, for example, is seen by many of our members as directly threatening the
neighborhood integrity of the areas in which they reside.
On October 1, those present at a Board of Trustees Meeting of our Beach Property
Owners' Association voted unanimously to oppose any such nocturnal usage. I have
been asked to bring this to your attention as an element which should be relevant to your
decision-making process.
Please know that we are prepared to support you on any course of action which offers
progress toward a solution without detriment or threat to the legitimate interests of our
beach community.
Sincerely yours,
Frank J. Devine
Executive Director
RECEIVED
Mary F. Rounsavall
75oI CoveredBridge Road 0 C '~ 0 ? 1998
Prospect, KY. 4oo59
ASS I S TA h,,/-,-
PH:(5oD 22g-43~I; F~C: (502) 22g-~5~ CITy MANAc'.
October 5, r998
Mr. Robert Bardnski, Ass't City Manager
Chairman, Parking Management Advisory Board
City of Delray Beach
zoo N. W. [st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33~ 4 ~
Dear Mr. Barcinski;
I understand the issue ofnightparking at Sandoway Park continues to advance through various City
Committees. I also understand that this may be in the form of city-wide valetparking.
This is absolutely unacceptable to those of us who live in close proximity to the lot, in particular my
husband and me. Our condiminium in Ocean Place overlooks the Sandoway lot, and one of the reasons
we have treasured being there is that the lot closes at night and we have peace andprivacy for the
evening. It is beyond belief that you wouM attempt to saddle us with nightparking in order to rectify
past wrongs by the City of Delray in not requiring new businesses - such as the Marriott Hotel- to
include adequate parking for their own patrons.
We live close enough to the Seagate to be aware of the intrusiveness of valetparking at night, and I
strongly oppose this move, and will fight it legally if necessary. This wouM reduce ourproperty values,
and it is truly a poor move by the City. Delray prides itself on its singular quality of life, alone among the
communities along the East Coast in keeping the residential areas green and quiet. Surely you do not
intend to undertake this dangerous precedent, which will erode what you have so eagerly sought.
Si_ncerely yours, .~
October 5, 1998
Mr. Robert J. Barcinski, Ass't. City Manager
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1 st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Re: Proposal to extend Sandoway Park parking hours
Dear Mr. Barcinski:
As President, I represent the 29 unit owners of the Ocean Place
Condominium Association, Inc. whose property is contiguous with the
entire northern boundary of Sandoway Park. We wish to express our
concern of the potential for nighttime parking in Sandoway Park as an
intrusion on the existing residential environment. Previous
correspondence from individual Ocean Place owners to the City Manager
are on file that express opposition to any consideration to extend parking
hours beyond the current sunset closing of the park.
As I understand, there is a strong possibility that the Parking Management
Advisory Board at its October 29th meeting will recommend to the City
Commission that parking hours in Sandoway Park be extended to
accommodate nighttime parking. We strongly urge the PMAB not to take
this position and, if this recommendation does reach the City Commission,
we strongly urge that this type of proposal be rejected.
Indeed parking throughout the business corridor of the city has become a
problem during the three month height of the winter season. The remaining
nine months of the year pose no problem. We understand that exhaustive
studies have been undertaken to seek solutions to this problem. If the
consideration to utilize Sandoway Park for nighttime parking is real, we
ask if the character of one of Delray's prized beachfront residential
neighborhoods should be sacrificed simply to satisfy business interests.
.~ZO SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD · DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483
There is obvious adverse exposure that nighttime parking in Sandoway
Park would bring to the residential neighborhood including noise (traffic,
engines, door slamming, voices, etc.), lights (vehicular, increased park
lighting), after hours congregating, security risks within the park and
throughout the neighborhood, and increased budget requirements for
security services.
In addition, if Sandoway Park is utilized for nighttime parking, it would
not only cause personal hardships but reduce residential property values
and encourage the potential for property tax reduction claims. There would
be negative and wasteful fallout on all fronts.
This is an important issue that will impact the future of Delray Beach. If
the business interests dictate key elements of the master plan without
regard for the rights and comfort of the residential community, Delray
Beach will lose the proud beachfront character that has cultivated a sound
pattern of growth. We must not forego this heritage.
Thank you for your serious consideration.
Robert R. Victorin
President
cc: Mayor Alperin
City Commissioners
City Manager Harden
PMAB Chairperson Onnen
PMAB Members
BPOA Ex. Dir. Devine
SHNC President Patton
l use
]m No~ Oooon Boulovo,d T 0 6 1998
Delro¥ Beoch, Flodd~ 33483
ASSISTANT
(5<5]) 278-]353 CITY MANAGER
October 4, 1998
Robert A. Barcinski
Assistant City Manager
100 NW 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear Mr. Barcinski:
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1998 regarding our
parking lot.
Our full Board will not be in residence until later this fall.
At that time, we will be discussing your letter. Until then, if
further information becomes available, kindly contact the
undersigned.
Thank you again.
Sincerely yours,.
M,~66arol Lindsey
Property Manager
561-433-2100
561-433-2101 (fax)
Royal Insurance
-' Atlanta Office Telephone
Suite 500 4{14 3t}3- I
5 Concourse Parkv, av Facsimile
PO Box 105536 41)4 393-9165
Atlanta GA
SUBROG~IOff ~I~
April 7, 1995
.RICHARD ECKERLE
382 S W 27TH AVE
DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445
RE: CLAIM NUMBER: 419 0008588
DATE OF LOSS: 11/05/94
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: STAR PARKING SYSTEMS
Your file is now being handled by the Royal Insurance Subrogation
Unit in Atlanta, Georgia. We are attempting to collect the
amount we paid as well as your deductible from the party/parties
at fault for the above dated incident.
It often takes some time to collect as we are unable to control the
actions of the responsible party or their insurance company. In
the event we collect we will reimburse you for the appropriate
portion of your deductible.
We may be contacting you from time to time for additional
information during this process and will appreciate your
continued cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Subrogation Unit
TELEPHONE CONTACT:
1-404-393-1300
1-800-523-5431
. EARS ~
· Royal Insurance Company of America
· Royal Indemni~y Company
· GIo~ Indemnity Company
· Sal~guard Insurance Company
· Newark lnxurancc Company
~0~ I · American and Foreign Insurance Company
':~:;; Royal Insurance
DADE: 891-53Y3 $ 2 2.7 2
BROB44RD: 767-0308
mRKING SYST£.VIS
'PETER ZUNIGA
GENERAL MANAGER 6 9 ~ 5
OWN ABOVE ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE OR INQUIRIES
PARKING/VALET MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
~.~ ~.t.--( "~ l-t_ - -z. 'L - cl ~ ...~ ~r '-
VALET
MANAGEMENT p~RKI~O SYSTEM
CONSULTANTS
TONY MARINO
VICE PRESIDENT
725 N.E. ~25th ST. DADE: 89t-5353
N. MIAMI, FL 33161 BROWARD: 767-0308
T0:~01196
RICHARD ECKERLE'
382 S W 27TH AVENUE
DELRAY BEACH FL 33445
(DETACH LOWER PORTION AT PERFORATION)
This e~mate has been prepared baaed on the use of crash parts BODY /.O'
supplied by a ~oun~ olhef than 11~ M~lu~umf o~ your motof PAINT
vehicle. The 8flem~e~ket crash parts used In the I~rep~ratlon of
this estimate are warranted by the Menulactumr or distributor of MECH HRS
such parts father than 't"he M--:nufacturer of your vehicle. PARTS LESS DISCOUNT -~"
INSURANCE COMPANY "'"/"~ '/ / ""~ ~/~ , SUBLET/MISCELLANEOUS
INSURANCE CLAIM NO. '
PAINT SUPPLIES HRS
INC.t.'~ANCE DEDUCTABLE: $ TOWING STORAGE
THIS EBI'IMAT'E I:~ ~ASEO ON OUR INSPECTION AND DOES NOT COVER EPA I WASTE DISPOSAL CHG.
Aoon3oN~I,. PART~ OR LA~OR Wl'flCI. I MAY BE REQUIRED AFTER THE WORK
HAS BEEN SIN:Il'ED, WORN OH O~MAGED PARTS WHICH ARE NOT EVIDENT SUB TOTAL
ON FIRST INSPECTION MAY BE OISCC:'EREO. NATURALLY THIS ESTIMATE
CANNOT COVER SUCH CONTINGENCIES. P!RTS PRICES SUBJECT TO
CHANGE WtrT1-N3~J'T NOTICE, THIS EST1MATE IS FOR IMMEDIATE SALES TAX
ACCEFTANCE. TOTAL
.BY:,....X~
--.2A,£~Tr~: ~RIVER'S REPORT OF TRAFFIC CRASH
DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SA~Y & MOTOR VEHICLE~
~ TRAFFIC CR~H RECOROS,~TALLAH~SEE. FL 3239g
. ~ ~ OA~ OF C~ ~ME OF CR~H RME OFFICER N~FIED ~ME OFFICER ARRIVED I INVE~. ~ENCY REPORT NUMB~ HSMV C~ REPORT NUMBER
ATNODENO. . lQ 20 FROM~NO. NEXT~DENO.~ ~ES I~IDED ~,R~HIGHWAY
· - ;~ .... ~-:- --... ~--~.~-.~? ..... ~ ............. ~ ~ ..... -... · -'.-~ · . - - .'~ :'7~.' -~ .... ,.: ........ ...:.~z.~ ~ -
t
~SS J
~ P~ER'S N~E . : -' . . . ADORESS.~ ~ SmtJ ~' ~ ~ ~O~A~ ' [-. · ~ C~E ~E
.......
~ · .... , .... ,~ ~ ,.~ · .-.. ·
~ ~ I~/~IL/F~Im/~IL/~I ~.IK/R~IL/~II~C~P~{L~P}L - ~ ' ~...~. ~. ~ ...... .
~ ~ - . -.-. . ,'' ~ . . · .: ...... . ... .-~ .. .- - . ~.:. . ~.:-..~ ....-: .'
i~ ~ ~N~'S ~LL ~E (~
_. ~.~0~,-.. ;: .~-:.:?.~c~ '
0 -~ ...... · .......... : ................. :. ' ,. ,., : .......... ' ~ ..... ~ .~_~.~ ..... ~7~. ~,~ r.-'.~ .....
.~-~;;~:.'.t~..~A;~,-.,- .~?.d-,~-,?:;:.,:. , . -....,j ~.~-,,,.
~ ~R ~y~m~'sU~ej/PE~ ~ ~ ~DRESS(~m~.~t) " ~" ' ' ~D'~A~- .' '~3~ ~ :.~ ~C~E~
2 ~ ..... "~. · ~/ ...... :'~2"f.'~'~ _ "~' '.~ :' B~ ' '.'*'?,~,,~-~'~-~,,""- ', ....
............. . .: .,' f '
~ '
~ESS ( A~, C~e
~ONE ~1 ~ . 3 ~ 4 ~ ·
~ P~ER'S NAME ~DRESS {~mber
. ~ P~SE~'S ~E
. t· '.-; ~ ::,:. :~:: .:-.:-.. <-.: ...'..
~ ;:.,~-'"-:.~.~,:__.:::~:::~,..(:,,,~>:.,.:~:.:..'~,~ '.~..;.:?:~...-':.
· ..'-
n ~ ~R I~.. ~ ~L~ ~ ~/~s ~.~
...': = ":~~~S:~[
..~ ~E ', 'A~ .... '..
- ~ P~'S~ '.- . ...'. :-. ~SS(~m~S~) -... . ~A~ . ....'~C~ -- ~E
.~ :. . ·
' _~ :'-' ,. .:- ·
~'S.~E -.. .....
· ' ~ ~ ~RE ~ ~m(~.~R
";' '" '
HSMV 90006 (REV. 10/93)S ~ YOU MU~ R~O AND COMPLY W~ ~E IN~U~S ON ~E B~K OF ~IS FORM
~ NO ~ER ~ON REQUIRED BY YOU, REPORT COMPLE~D BY ~W ENFORCEME~ ~ENCY
the project is substantially complete: 1) that the site is ri
cleared of all scrap stone; 2) that all stone and building ti
materials are removed from the right-of-way; 3) that the walls
and roof of the building have been erected; and 4) that the
parking area has been prepared for paving, in
re
Ms. Dominguez reported that staff had visited the site is
last week to determine the status of improvements and found that (2
virtually no progress had been made. Another site visit was made li
today and staff found that the stone and building materials had ti
been removed from the rights-of-way. However, there is still
debris on the site and the building walls are only partially to
completed' on
Bruce Kaleita, Attorney for the applicant, explained th
that his client has had several economic as well as personal li
setbacks since the August 6th meeting. He stated that he is pa
currently working with his client to have the stone and building do
materials removed from the site. On the positive side, the rear ap
building is under construction, the walls are going up and the do
roof trusses are on site. se
li
Mr. Kaleita noted that this is only a status report by
City staff to see how the improvements are progressing. He
emphasized that the applicant is only halfway through the four
month time frame. He could not say if another extension request
is a possibility. He commented that he is uncomfortable with the
situation, but events occur that cannot be controlled. He stated
that if the Commission allows his client to continue with the
improvements, they will document to City staff the progress of
the improvements prior to the City Commission meeting of December
10, 1996.
Mr. Egan stated that he. understood this is just a
progress report and times have been difficult for the applicant.
However, the Commission is putting the applicant on notice that
the City will not accept any more excuses in December, 1996.
Mr. Ellingsworth moved to allow the applicant the
additional two months to complete the work; require that the
Certificate of Occupancy' for all of the Phase I improvements be
obtained by no later than December 6, 1996; that the project be
brought back to the Commission on December 10, 1996, to determine
if the conditions of approval have been met; that Code Enforce-
ment take immediate action on all violations such as material
stored on the right-of-way; and with the caveat that the City
Attorney begin researching legal options. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Egan. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows:
Mayor Alperin - No; Ms. Kiselewski - Yes; Mr. Egan - Yes; Mr.
Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with
a 4 to I vote.
9.C. LICENSE AGREEMENT/MUSICIAN'S EXCHANGE, INC.: Consider
a license agreement with Musician's Exchange, Inc. for use of
-6- lO/Ol/96
right-of-way to provide a valet parking queue at 213 East Atlan-
tic Avenue.
Acting City Manager Robert Barcinski stated that the
initial request was for three (3) valet parking spaces to be
reserved between 5:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., seve~ days a week. It
is staff's recommendation that valet parking be limited to two
(2) parking spaces. The City Manager recommends approval of the
license agreement for two valet parking spaces subject to condi-
tions as recommended by staff.
Mr. Egan stated that as the Commission's representative
to the Parking Management Team he had attended the PMT's meeting
on September 12, 1996. The PMT approved a recommendation that
the City Commission place a moratorium on the approval of new
license agreements for valet operations which utilize public
parking lots until a master plan for such operations in the
downtown area is approved. It was pointed out by Mr. Egan that
approximately five new restaurants have plans to open in the
downtown area during the next six weeks. While it is exciting to
see redevelopment and activities downtown, public parking is
limited.
Mr. Egan moved to recommend approval of the license
agreement with the Musician's Exchange for use of right-of-way to
provide two (2) valet parking spaces, subject to the conditions
recommended by City staff, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll
call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Kiselewski - Yes; Mr.
Egan - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor
Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
9.D. SPECIAL EVENT REOUEST/PINEAPPLE FESTIVAL IN THE GROVE:
Consider a request from Pineapple Grove Main Street, Inc. for a
permit to use City rights-of-way, CRA property, and City services
in connection with the First Annual Pineapple Festival in the
Grove on Saturday, October 26, 1996, from 4:00 until 11:00 p.m.
Acting City Manager Robert Barcinski stated staff
approves the request for the temporary use permit and support
from the City, with the following exceptions: 1) the event
sponsors should arrange for. and pay for Port-O-Lets; and 2)
consider waiver of ten permit fees, but not required inspections.
Overtime is estimated at $850.00. The event sponsors are not
asking for an overtime waiver.
Mr. Ellingsworth moved to approve the Pineapple Grove
Mainstreet event request for a temporary use permit and staff
support for the 1st Annual Pineapple Festival in the Grove with
the exceptions noted by staff, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon
roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Egan - Yes; Mr.
Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Alperin - Yes; Ms.
Kiselewski - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
-7- 10/01/96
TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER .~
Via FAX 243-3774
FROM: J.T. BENNETT
RESIDENT OF THE NARBERTH CONDOMINIUM
Gleason and Ingraham Sts.
Delray Beach, Florida
RE: Sandoway Public Parking at Night
DATE: October 13, 1998
As a Delray Beach taxpayer and year-round resident in the beach area, I strongly urge
you to reject the proposal for night-time public parking, valet or otherwise, at Sandoway
House.
Many of the area's residents work and/or retire at 10:00 p.m. and, therefore, the
concept.of headlights, voices, car doors slamming, car traffic and loitering is totally
unacceptable any time of night, much tess until 11:00 p.m. or later.
Daytime parking, especially on weekends and 'in season,' already is a hardship and a
detriment to our residential neighborhood; night-time would truly be a nightmare.
Please put yourself in the place of those residents who would be a stone's throw away
from all of this upsetting noise and nuisance, and imagine letting this happen right next
door to where you live.
Neighborhood homeowners would have purchased their residences on Atlantic Avenue
if they had wanted to live in the midst of public parking lots and commerciality.
JTB
. ~¢~,~~'Parkland (Kosokoff, Currie): 58 Condominium units on 1.14 acres = 51 du/acre
.~~ Required Parkin,q:
1 Bedroom~J~ 18 Total Required: 217 - 233
46 2~Bedroom 92 Total Provided: 199
Guest 2._~0 (Potential exists to add 43 more
130 by adding addition garage level)
Plus spaces for 7,000 to
12,000 sq. ft. retail 24 - 40
Plus replacement of public spaces 63
87 - 103
Worthin.q Place (Morris, et al): 219 Apartment units on 2.5 +/- acres = 87.6 du/acre
141 1-Bedroom 212 Total Required: 575
78 2-Bedroom 156 Total Provided: 588 (?)
Guest 53
421
Plus spaces for 12,000 sq. ft. retail40
Plus replacement of public spaces 63 ~'~'-/
Plus replacement of GRIP spaces 51
154
NOTE: Western parcel is zoned OSSHAD, and is not in one of the blocks where
the CBC regs apply. Will require LDR amendment to build as proposed.
Plaza at Worthing Park (PAC): 240 Apartment units on 3.03 acres = 79 du/acre
~,,~,.~.,^~,~, 96 1-Bedroom 144 Total Required: 635
136 2-Bedroom 272 Total Provided: 642 (?)
~?~ 8 3-Bedroom 16
Guest 57
489
Plus spaces for 9,600 sq. ft. retail:32 NOTE: 39 parking spaces
Plus replacement of public spaces: 63 provided on the street
Plus replacement of GRIP spaces: 51
146
s: p&z/documents/reports/CRARFP
ABRAMSON & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Real Estate Advisory Services
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Brown, Delray Beach CRA
FROM: Barry Abramson
SUBJECT: Block 77 Proposal Evaluation
DATE: October 13, 1998
At your request, we have performed an evaluation of the proposals submitted by Block 77'
Development Corporation, P.A.C. Land Development Corporation and Parkland Corporation in
response to the CRA's RFP for the acquisition and redevelopment of a site comprising a portion
of Block 77, located in the Atlantic Avenue corridor in downtown Delray Beach. The RFP site
and proposal project sites are illustrated in the technical appendix at the rear of this
memorandum.
The present evaluation does not address reasonableness of the proposed purchase price or other
business aspects of the transaction. These would be subject to negotiations between the CRA
and the designated proposer. This evaluation is subject to the assumptions and limiting
conditions attached at the rear of this memorandum.
The general features and issues relating to the three proposals are presented in the first exhibit in
the technical appendix and their estimated fiscal and economic benefits are summarized in the
exhibit following page 2 of this memorandum. The base assumptions and the financial analyses
underlying this summary are presented in the technical appendix. The technical Selection
Criteria listed in Section N of the RFP are addressed later in this memorandum. The key issues
relating to the proposals are discussed below.
Generally, the proposals all present good opportunities for the CRA to establish a residential
component and expand the retail presence on the western end &the Atlantic Avenue retail
corridor, if they can be implemented. The projects are generally described as follows:
Block 77 Development Group proposes a project with 219 residential rental units and 12,400
square feet of retail space on a site comprising most of Block 77 and a portion of Block 69. The
developer claims to have all of the project site's private land under control.
P.A.C. Land Development Corporation proposes a project with up to 240 residential rental
units and 9,600 square feet of retail space on a site comprising all of Block 77. The developer
controls one private parcel, but claims to be optimistic that, should it be designated, it can
assemble all or most of the remaining parcels.
Parkland Corporation proposes a project with 58 residential condominium units and 7,000 to
12,000 square feet of retail space on a site comprising only the City and CRA land offered in the
RFP.
79 Milk Street / Suite 811 / Boston, MA 02109 / tel: (617) 423-5607/fax: (617) 423-5680
FISCAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS
All three of the proposers have proposed purchase of the CRA and City properties for the same
price - $180,000 for the CRA property and 63 replacement parking spaces for the City property
(see following section).
The estimated fiscal and economic impacts of the proposed projects are presented in the exhibit
on a following page. These revenues assume that the proposed projects are sited and developed
as proposed, without any risk adjustment relative to likelihood that the proposals can be
implemented.
The potential fiscal and economic impacts of additional development that might occur on land not
part of the individual proposals is not accounted for in the estimates. Given that there is likely a
market in the area for some number of rental and condominium units over the next few years
exceeding what is proposed in any of the proposals, it is appropriate to view any of these projects as
a first step in the residential redevelopment of the area which will set the stage for additiorial rental
and condominium development. In this view, the differences in the proposed project-specific fiscal
and economic benefits are mitigated by likely subsequent development that might result in
comparable total levels of development over the next few years, though the more speculative nature
of any future development (especially in light of fiuctuations in real estate and financing markets)
should not be discounted.
Fiscal and economic benefits that have been estimated are those directly generated by the projects
(i.e. not including any multiplier effects, which are considered to be too highly speculative to
estimate for an area the size of the CRA District).
Estimated fiscal and economic revenues to the CRA and DDA, comprise their share of the
estimated net increase in real estate taxes over the current level. Fiscal revenues to the City
comprise its share of the estimated net increase in real estate taxes over the current level as well
as estimated franchise fees, utility taxes and intergovernmental revenues generated by the
projects.
Retail and restaurant expenditures generated by project residents and employees are estimates of
the amounts to be captured within the Atlantic Avenue retail corridor and surrounding few blocks
of the downtown.
In summary, the estimated annual fiscal and economic benefits of the proposed projects
(in $2001) are as follows:
Block 77 PAC Land Parkland
Der Corp Dev Corp Corp
Fiscal Revenues
CRA $213,000 $213,000 $110,000
City $115,000 $125,000 $37,000
DDA $19,000 $18,000 $10,000
DT retail/restaurant
expend itures $2,230,000 $2,430,000 $680,000
PUBLIC PARKING
A major public benefit to be derived from the project is public parking - both the 63 spaces to be
provided as replacement parking in return for the City land and any additional parking that may
be available to the public.
All of the proposers state that they are providing the 63 replacement spaces and have varying
amounts of additional spaces that may be available to the public. The proposers estimate these
additional available spaces by means of applying different assumptions concerning required or
market-realistic parking ratios to their project components.
In order to provide a consistent means of comparison to the proposals in this regard, the parking
requirements provided in the City's land regulation code were applied to the projects'
components and compared with the proposed total number of spaces to indicate the number
available for public parking. Note that the parking requirements included the Planning
Department's recommended new restaurant requirements, with restaurants assumed to comprise
25 percent of the projects' total retail space.
This analysis indicates that the Block 77 Development Group proposal provides 74 spaces that
will be available to the public in addition to its 63 replacement spaces. Additionally, while the
proposer has agreed to reserve use of 100 spaces to GRIP during weekdays, only 51 are reserved
for their use on evenings and weekends, with the remaining 49 spaces potentially available for
the public during these time-frames.
The P.A.C. proposal provides just the proposed 63 spaces. It is noted that P.A.C. assumes
provision of 51 spaces for replacement parking to GRIP. Should they have to provide the same
parking deal that Block 77 Development Group has, then P.A.C.'s weekday total available for
public use would decrease by that amount.
The Parkland proposal does not allocate parking for its retail component. When the land
regulation code requirements are applied, this proposal results in only 40 spaces, rather than 63,
being available for the public.
Block 77 PAC Land Parkland
Dev Corp Dev Corp Corp
Parking Spaces
Available for Public 137 63* 40
plus eve's & weekends 49
* potentially less 49 during weekdays if required to provide GRIP with same parking deal as Block
77 Development Group; if so these spaces would be available eve's & weekends
It should be emphasized that the land regulation code's requirements could exceed the projects'
market needs, which would mean that more spaces would be available to the public. For
example, this could result in the Parkland project being able to at least meet its proposed
provision of at least the 63 spaces of replacement parking, and the other projects being able to
generate more parking spaces available to the public in proportion to the size of their residential
components.
RISK
Risk has been identified in two major areas - market/financability and site control
Market Viability Risk
It is emphasized that the RFP did not call for a market study in the proposal stage, but the RFP
does list market and financial feasibility and financability as a criteria for selection, to the extent
this can be assessed at this point.
Market viability clearly should be considered a risk for all the projects, at this point. However,
the magnitude of this risk is considered to vary for the projects.
The two rental projects (proposed by Block 77 Development Group and P.A.C. Land
Development Corporation) are considered to be more mass market projects that can more' readily
be considered to make sense for the site. There are relatively comparable projects and an
established financing market for this type of project. The pricing of the two rental proposals
appear to be in line with market comparables, though the dollar per square foot pricing of the
Block 77 Development Group proposal appears to push the upper limit of this site's market
potential. The financing market for these types of projects is currently strong and financing
should be attainable based upon a market study confirming the reasonableness of projected rents.
The condominium project proposed by Parkland may also make market sense. However, it is
noted that the market reasonableness of this type of project is less readily evaluated in advance of
a market study and pre-sale marketing.
Marketing of residential condominiums in a location that is pioneering for upscale market
residential is considered more challenging than marketing rental units, given the different nature
of and decision-making that characterizes the two forms. A large segment of demand for rental
projects in a growth area such as Palm Beach County is people relocating to the area, who often
rent based on a quick perusal of the market and are not as concerned about (or even aware of) the
long term established perceptions and characterizations as to "which side of the rail road tracks"
they are on. Even area natives attracted to such a project are often making a decision to "try it
out" for a year, and if they don't like it, they can leave at the end of their lease.
Condo buyers are making a much deeper financial commitment and are typically more attuned to
and concerned about the reputation of the area they are buying into. Accordingly, they are less
bold in buying in pioneering locations, unless at opportunistic prices. If the pricing is low
enough relative to that of competitive product in more well-established or better located areas
(e.g. closer to Intra-Coastal or ocean), then the condo project can be successful. Given the lack
of better comparables, this assessment cannot be made with reliability at this point.
It is noted that the market risk is likely not one of whether the project would be started and end
up half built. It is likely that debt financing sources for the project would require significant pre-
sales to establish market viability. Assuming sound financial structuring on
the part of lenders and the CRA (e.g. completion guarantees, etc.), if attainable pricing of
subsequent sales were to fall short of projections, then the developer and equity investors might
make less profit, lose their investment or conceivably lose the project to debt financing sources,
but the project could be expected to be completed and sold out at some price, with only some
delay.
The market risk in this case is likely one of delay in the disposition of the City/CRA land and
commencement of a project. In addition to the time taken to negotiate an agreement (say two
months), the developer has stated that only an additional three months would be required to
complete a market study, obtain financing contingent upon pre-sales, set up a marketing center
and attain the required pre-sales. Should this ambitious schedule not be met, the CRA could
proceed to commence negotiations with the second ranked developer - after a delay of
approximately five months.
Site Assemblage Risk
As the Parkland proposal is sited only on the City and CRA land and the Block 77 Development
Group claims to have ownership control of all of the private land needed for its project, this area
of risk appears to affect only the P.A.C. Land Development Corporation proposal.
The P.A.C. proposal assumes that all or most of the private parcels can be assembled to provide
the site necessary for its project. The developer controls one private parcel, but claims to be
optimistic that, should it be designated, it can assemble all or most of the remaining parcels.
Most of these private parcels are currently under the control of Block 77 Development Group,
which has stated an intent to follow through with the acquisitions, regardless of the initial
outcome of the selection process. P.A.C. has stated its belief that many of the Block 77
Development Group's options are contingent upon selection and that P.A.C. has reached verbal
terms with many of the land owners that would be formalized should P.A.C. be designated.
Clearly the exact nature of Block 77 Development Group's options should be confirmed (Block
77 Development Group has expressed its willingness to provide copies of these documents to the
CRA's representatives). It should be considered at least a strong possibility that if P.A.C. were
to be designated, Block 77 Development Group would consummate the acquisition of optioned
parcels, knowing that this would block P.A.C.'s ability to proceed and reinvigorating Block 77
Development Group's ultimate chance of gaining designation. Even if Block 77 Development
Group were not to pursue this tack and the parcels were to go back on the market, there is no
guarantee that P.A.C. would be able to come to terms with the owners.
As with the market viability risk, discussed in the previous section, this risk is one of delay.
P.A.C. has stated that, should it be designated, it would agree to assemble the private parcels
required for its project site within two months of reaching agreement on a contract with the CRA.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Following are the selection criteria listed in the RFP and our evaluation of the proposals based
upon them.
1. Qualifications and financial capacities of proposer - ability to complete project.
It was beyond the scope of this evaluation to assess the developer's qualifications or financial
condition. Based upon the proposals and presentations, the track records of the proposers
indicate that all appear to be well enough qualified to finance and implement the projects
assuming a satisfactory market study and that they are able to overcome any basic feasibility
issues. It is emphasized that ranking of the relative financial strength of the proposers must await
the evaluation of the City's outside legal counsel. Such relative strength could become important
if the project's economics prove to be considered by financing sources to be borderline and/or if
the financing markets deteriorate significantly.
2. Prospects for market and financial feasibility/trmanceability
Discussed in preceding section of this memorandum and in exhibits.
3. Level of commitment and financial strength of proposed pre-lease tenants
None of the proposers have presented pre-lease commitments. As all of the proposed projects
are primarily residential in nature, this criteria is not considered relevant.
4. Level of commitment of financing sources
The P.A.C. proposal includes a committed equity investor and letter of interest from a debt
financing institution. The Block 77 Development Group and Parkland proposals state the intent
to draw upon previous or other equity investors and debt financing sources. Assuming a
satisfactory market study and resolution of any further feasibility issues to be satisfactory, it is
anticipated that any of the proposers would be able to obtain financing for the projects.
5. Potential tax revenues generated by project/effect on CRA's tax increment revenues
Discussed in preceding section of this memorandum and in exhibits.
6. Economic impact on other downtown businesses
Discussed in preceding section of this memorandum and in exhibits.
7. Number and character of new downtown jobs
Estimates of numbers of new jobs are discussed in exhibits; the vast majority of jobs directly
generated by the projects would be in the retail components. These jobs would be primarily sales
or waiter/kitchen positions with some managerial or if, owner operated, ownership positions.
The few jobs generated by the residential component would be primarily maintenance and
janitorial, with no more than a couple of mid-level management jobs in the property
management/marketing area.
8. Number of parking spaces, including replacement public parking
Discussed in preceding section of this memorandum and in exhibits.
9. Extent to which mix of uses supports other uses/planning goals of CRA District
This is primarily a planning consideration for thc CRA. From a real estate perspective, thc mix
of uses provided in all proposals would appear to support the existing downtown development
and prospects for further redevelopment. The residential component would support thc area's
businesses and provide a start toward the 24 hour use that characterizes a vibrant downtown. The
greater size of the Block 77 Development Group and P.A.C. proposals is an advantage over the
Parkland proposal.
The addition of a significant mount of retail space, particularly if it could accommodate anchor
type stores not easily accommodated in the more developed portion of the retail district would
generally reinforce both the district's overall appeal to regional shoppers and promote the flow of
pedestrian traffic along Atlantic Avenue.
The addition of a major increase in parking available to the public, which would support existing
retail/restaurant uses and might enhance efforts to attract additional major retail and
entertainment uses to the district, is a particular strength of the Block 77 Development Group
proposal.
10. Quality of site planning and design
This is a qualitative factor and one that the CRA will be responsible for.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
· This evaluation is based on: our review of the proposals; supplemental materials provided by the
proposers; our conversations with the proposers and members of their development teams and with
you and other sources in the City and County governments; and our experience with similar projects
in the local area and elsewhere. Information provided by others for use in this analysis is believed to
be reliable, but in no sense is guaranteed. No warranty or representation is made regarding the
accuracy thereof, and is subject to errors, omissions, changes in price, rental, or other conditions.
We are familiar with the subject site and the local market area, but have not conducted field research
as part of this assignment. It was not within the scope of this evaluation to perform detailed research
concerning the local market or local land values or to perform a valuation or feasibility analysis, nor
to analyze construction and development costs for the project. Rather, our analysis with regard to
these issues was in the nature of a review for reasonableness of the developer's proposals, supported
by an appropriate level of analysis.
· It was beyond the scope of this evaluation to assess the developer's qualifications or financial
condition, as these tasks were the responsibility of the CRA and its accountant, respectively.
· The author assumes no responsibility for legal matters nor for any hidden or unapparent conditions of
the property, subsoils, structure or other matters which would materially affect the marketability,
developability or value property.
· The market data stated in this report is as of October, 1998. The analysis assumes a continuation of
current economic and real estate market conditions, without any substantial improvement or
degradation of such economic or market conditions.
· Since any projected mathematical models are based on estimates and assumptions, which are
inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending upon evolving events, we do not represent
then as results that will actually be achieved.
· The analysis was undertaken to assist the Delray Beach CRA in evaluating the specified proposals. It
is not based on any other use, nor should it be applied for any other purpose.
· Possession of this report or any copy or portion thereof does not carry with it the right of publication
nor may the same be used for any other purpose by anyone without the previous written consent of
the author, and, in any event, only in its entirety.
· Neither all nor any part of the contents of the report shall be conveyed to the public through
advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the written consent and approval of
the author, particularly regarding the value conclusions and the identity of the author, the firm with
which he is connected, or any of its associates.
· This report may not be presented to third parties except in the form delivered to the client. No
abridgment, abstracting or excerpting may be made without obtaining the permission of Abramson &
Associates, Inc..
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Palm Beach County 9835-16 Lake Worth Road Suite 223
Intergovernmental Coordination Lake Worth, FL 33467
Program - Clearinghouse (561) 434-2575/Fax (561) 434-4513
To: Members of the Issues Forum
From: Anna Yeskey, Clearinghouse Coordinator
Date: September 22, 1998
Subject: Beach Funding Report
At the last meeting of the Issues Forum, the Forum opted to postpone taking action on the
attached Beach Funding Report to allow participants to bring the item back to their governing
body for discussion. This item will be discussed again at the upcoming Issues Forum meeting on
November 2, 1998. If you wanted to take this item before your governing body and have not,
please do so prior to this meeting so that the group can move forward with this item.
BEACH FUNDING REPORT
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Concerns have been raised over the possibility of diminishing funding sources
that could that could create a "funding gap", impacting the future of beach
preservation in the County. In response, the Palm Beach Countywide
Intergovernmental Coordination Committee established a subcommittee to
review the issue and consider alternatives for closing the funding gap. This
report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Beach Funding
Subcommittee.
The focus of the Subcommittee's work is the generation and distribution of local
funds in the face of the potential for diminishing Federal and State funds in the
future, and the potential for rising project costs.
Economic Value of Beaches
Beaches are multi-faceted resources. They provide storm protection, natural
habitat, and recreation. As a result of all of these, but particularly recreation and
tourism, beaches are powerful economic resources. Visits to the beaches of
Palm Beach County originate locally, countywide, statewide, nationally and
internationally. Recent studies by Dr. William Stronge identify visitors to Delray
Beach and Palm Beach Island beaches by their geographic origin. The following
is a sampling of the results, expressed as percents of the total.
Geoc~ra~hic Oriqin of Beach Visitors
Origin Palm Beach Island Delray Beach
Municipal Area 6% 28%
Other P.B. County 52% 24%
Other Florida 2% 6%
Other States 33% 35%
Other Countries 7% 7%
As seen in the examples above, beaches clearly draw visitors from far beyond
the local neighborhood. Interestingly, even though the two areas described are
quite different relative to the characteristics of the beaches, the characteristics of
the beach visitors are similar - almost half are tourists from outside the County,
while the other half are from Palm Beach County. These beach visitors, both
residents and tourists, create a large impact throughout the economy.
The econ~)mic value of beach projects has traditionally been expressed through
a federal formula that addresses storm protection and recreational benefits. This
formula results in a benefit/cost ratio which justifies federal participation in
funding the project. The traditional approach understates benefits, in that beach-
generated spending is not fully accounted, such that a ratio of 3:1 ($3 in benefits
for each $1 in cost) is considered quite good.
Recent economic studies, such as those in Broward County and Delray Beach,
have gone beyond the Federal methodology to address the total economic
impacts of a maintained beach. These impacts include spending by beach
visitors and residents, job creation, and tax revenues. Impacts spread beyond
the location of the beach project, Countywide, statewide and nationwide.
Economic benefits are based on the added value that accrues to property in the
area of a maintained beach, and the increased spending by residents and
tourists.
An example of a full accounting of the economic impact of beach maintenance is
the 1996 economic study of the Delray Beach Nourishment Project. The
property values in the City and the rest of the County have an added value of
$228.8 million that is attributable to the maintenance of the beach. These
increased values lead to occupancy by relatively wealthier residents with
pattems of increased spending which creates more jobs. Direct spending has a
ripple effect through spending by businesses and their employees. The total
impact of the project on Palm Beach County is $96.6 million in spending and the
creation of 2,654 jobs with $57 million in annual earnings. Statewide, the project
increases business by $152.8 million annually and creates 4,197 jobs. In
addition, tourist spending attracted by the beach is about $23.8 million annually,
creating 1,247 jobs with annual earnings of $26.8 million. In summary, one
three-mile long beach project generates direct and indirect spending of about
$200 million a year, and creates 5,444 jobs with $117 million in annual earnings.
The increased spending from the beach project also generates tax revenue.
Tourist spending results in $1.3 million in annual state revenues, most of which is
sales taxes. Increased property values generate $4.2 million annually in ad
valorem taxes. It is interesting to note that the greatest beneficiary of ad valorem
revenues is the School Board at $1.8 million, followed by the County and the
City, each with $0.8 million. Finally, the jobs created generate federal revenue in
excess of $12 million a year through income tax.
The real benefit/cost ratio of maintaining the project is many times higher than
the traditional ratio of 3:1, once a more complete accounting of the economic
impacts are presented. Therefore, it can be stated with confidence that the level
of return to the economy more than justifies public investment in beach projects
at all levels of government.
Page 2
Overall Beach Program in Palm Beach County
Palm Beach County, through its Department of Environmental Resources
Management, sponsors an extensive and varied program including projects to
preserve, protect and enhance the beaches of the County. Projects include
those directly managed by the County, such as the JupitedCaflin, Juno Beach,
and Ocean Ridge shore protection projects; and those funded in part by the
County but managed by municipalities, such as the Palm Beach Midtown, Delray
Beach, North Boca Raton and South Boca Raton shore protection projects. The
County is also involved in numerous dune restoration projects and is responsible
for some inlet management activities.
Funding exposure and staff costs for the County differ among the various
projects. For example, the projects at Ocean Ridge and Juno Beach have no
municipal participation. The County provides design, permitting and construction
management in addition to paying the local share of project costs. At Delray
Beach and Boca Raton, the municipalities provide these management services
and "front end" all design, construction and monitoring costs. The County
reimburses the local share of project costs for Delray Beach through an intedocal
agreement. A similar agreement has been proposed for the North Boca Raton
project. The municipalities bear management and financing costs, which is
essentially "in-kind" financial participation.
Beach projects throughout the County are included in the County's Shoreline
Protection Plan. A 30-year cost projection made for the Program in 1997
indicates a total cost of about $230 million.
CURRENT FUNDING SOURCES
Projects in the Palm Beach County Shoreline Protection Plan are currently
funded through a combination of Federal, State, County and municipal funds at
vadable sharing percentages. The following is an overview of the sources of
these funds.
Federal
Federal funds for a project are generally appropriated by Congress through a line
item in the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, which then goes into the Army
Corps of Engineers operating budget. The usual route for funding requests is
through the Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of Management and Budget,
the President's proposed budget, and finally, the Congressional appropriations
process. As an alternative, funds can be appropriated as an add-on by
Congress even if they are not included in the President's budget. Appropriated
funds are distributed by the Corps of Engineers, on a reimbursement basis,
under the terms of a Project Cooperation Agreement between the Federal
Page 3
government and the local sponsor. Federal funds are available for up to 65% of
project costs, including design, construction and monitoring. The specific
proportion of the Federal share is determined by project parameters such as
beach width and public accessibility.
State
State funds are generally appropriated by the Legislature as a line item in the
Appropriations Bill. Similar to the Federal process, the usual route for a funding
request is inclusion in the Flodda Department of Environmental Protection Fixed
Capital Outlay Budget request, then the Govemor's proposed budget, and finally
the Legislative appropriation process. Projects not in the Governor's budget can
be added by the Legislature during budget consideration. By statute, the State
may fund up to 75% of the non-federal project costs, but recent legislation has
capped the State share at 50% unless specific language approving a larger
share is included in the appropriation. The source of State funds has historically
been general revenues.
County
County funds are appropriated through the annual budget process as part of the
budget for the Department of Environmental Resources Management. The
sources of County funds are a combination of ad valorem and Toudst
Development (bed tax) revenues. There are no restrictions on 'the proportion of
County funding. Typically, the County share of total costs for Federally funded
projects has been about 12.5%. This level of participation is a goal of the
Shoreline Protection Program.
Municipal
As alluded to earlier, municipal involvement in project cost is variable. Of
course, municipal residents contribute directly to the County budget through
taxes. Beyond that ad valorem contribution, municipal involvement ranges from
none, through provision of management services and financing costs, to direct
sharing in project costs.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT SOURCES
The historic sources of funding for shore protection projects are Federal and
State appropriations, supplemented by local funds. In recent years, problems
have developed that affect each of these sources.
Page 4
Federal
The Clinton Administration has taken a position that long-term Federal
involvement in most shore protection projects is not in the national interest. The
justification for this position claims that local government is the greatest
beneficiary from the project, and therefore should bear the costs. The
Administration's position is, at least in part, an outgrowth of efforts to trim Federal
spending and balance the budget.
The effect of the position, at present, is a policy in the Corps of Engineers to
phase out involvement in shore protection projects. This means that current
work will be completed, but there will be no new starts. Work on authorized
projects will not proceed to the next phase. For example, once design is
complete, a project will not proceed to construction. The only projects not
impacted by this policy are those already under existing Federal agreements and
considered "under construction" by the Corps. In Palm Beach County, projects
are designed and built by local govemment in anticipation of reimbursement of a
portion of the costs by the federal government. The impact of the Federal policy
is, therefore, on funding involvement rather than physical completion of the
project. Only Jupiter/Carlin, Delray Beach and North Boca Raton are
considered under construction and eligible for Federal funding according to
Administration policy.
In 1996, Congress passed a new Shore Protection Act which affirms the Corps
of Engineers involvement in beach proiects. This act has not changed the
Administration's stance, and debate continues between Congress and the
President. In the meanwhile, Congress has continued to appropriate shore
protection funds as "Congressional adds", and the President has not exercised
the line item veto for beach appropriations. Until this issue is resolved, Federal
funding for most beach projects is not secure, and long-term planning for the
County's Shoreline Protection Plan contains an element of risk.
State
At least in part as a reaction to the threat of reduced Federal funding, the State
Legislature amended Chapter 161, F.S. which provides for beach projects. The
amendment expresses the Legislature's intent to limit the State share of the non-
federal costs of beach projects to 50%. The statutory limit for the State share
continues to be 75%. As a result, Department of Environmental Protection
budget requests are capped at a 50% State share, regardless of the availability
of Federal funds. In order for a local government to receive State funding at the
75% level special language must be added to each Legislative appropriation so
directing the Department. There are indications that the Legislature is not
inclined to increase the State share beyond the 50% level any time in the near
future. Additionally, the State methodology for ranking projects for funding
places heavy emphasis on those with Federal funding.
Page 5
Last year, and again this year, bills have been intr°duced in the Legislature to
create a dedicated funding source for beach projects. A dedicated funding
source was realized this year with the passage of House Bill 3427. Under the
terms of this bill, $30 million will be dedicated annually for the preservation and
repair of Florida's beaches. Language in the bill may allow a return to state
funding at the 75% level for some projects in the future, although at the time this
report was written, the details of the changes to Chapter 161, F.S. had not yet
been fully analyzed.
County Funding Gap
If Federal funding for beach projects is severely reduced or eliminated, and the
State funds projects at only 50% of the non-federal share, the County and
municipal portion of project costs would cleady increase. Reductions in funding
could delay existing projects, necessitate cost-saving modifications, or prevent
projects from beginning.
The County Shoreline Protection Plan, after assuming diminishing funding from
Federal and State sources as described, projected (in 1997) a shortfall over the
next 30 years totaling $43,500,000. Making up this shortfall will require
approximately an additional $1.5 million in annual revenues which would be
dedicated to beach projects.
It is by no means clear whether, or to what extent, a shortfall will materialize.
However, it is prudent to consider our options based on the County projection
while we continue to work for favorable resolution to the State and Federal
funding issues.
POTENTIAL FOR NEW/MODIFIED LOCAL SOURCES
Options to generate increased funding at the county/municipal level include the
development of new or enhanced funding sources and cost reductions for
projects. The following discussion treats several potential approaches, in no
particular order of priority.
Countywide Ad Valorem Increase
As discussed previously, beach projects generate far more in ad valorem
revenues than their cost. It is reasonable, therefore, to direct more ad valorem
taxes to beach projects. However, it may be politically difficult to redirect existing
resources to beaches from other worthy programs.
One option is the imposition of a countywide ad valorem tax increase. Revenues
generated by this tax increase would be dedicated to beach projects. It is
Page 6
estimated that the increase would amount to less than five dollars per year for
the average homeowner. To assure that such a tax increase has broad support,
it should be approved by a referendum of all County voters.
Sufficient public education regarding the broad reaching economic impact of
beach projects, together with negligible amount of the tax increase, would be
needed to secure passage of a referendum. In addition, it must be made clear
that increased ad valorem rate Countywide is fair, since properties near the
beach, which receive relatively higher benefits due to location, also pay relatively
higher taxes due to assessed value. A vital base of support for such a beach tax
will be the municipalities which sponsor beach projects. These interests will be
concerned over the efficiency and equity of revenue distribution. For a
referendum to be successful, it would be essential to confirm the extent of the
funding gap, and to propose a schedule of beach projects and a specific
methodology for distributing the funds generated by the tax increase and ear-
marked for beaches.
Increased Municipal Cost Sharing
The County has historically funded approximately 12.5% of the cost of beach
projects. Where Federal and State funds have been available, this percentage
represents the entire local share. If Federal and State funding continues to be
reduced in the long term, the local share will increase, perhaps to the range of
25% of total costs. An altemative to increasing revenues at the County level
would be for municipalities to fund the shortfall from their revenue sources. In
this approach, it would be reasonable for the County and municipality to be equal
partners in funding the local share of project costs. This local share would need
to be defined to include financing costs, direct costs, and in-kind services to
assure a full accounting of costs and equity in the partners' shares. This
approach may be politically difficult, since the rate of tax increase needed to
generate needed revenue at a municipal level would be much larger than the
County level because it is spread over. a smaller population. In addition, as
previously noted, the benefits of the beach project are enjoyed Countywide.
Dependent Taxing District
In general, a longer beach nourishment project is more cost efficient than a
shorter one. One reason for this is that the highest rate of erosion losses occur
at the ends of a fill segment. Multiple segments have more ends, and therefore,
higher erosion rates. This higher erosion requires more frequent maintenance
projects. In addition, the mobilization of dredging equipment is a fixed cost in a
beach nourishment project. The longer the project, the lower will be the
mobilization cost per unit (miles, cubic yards, etc.). By this reasoning, an
optimum project in Palm Beach County might reach from one inlet to another,
without regard to lines of political jurisdiction.
Page 7
Historically, most projects in the County have been managed by a municipality;
or by the County, or by the County acting as agent for a municipality.
Requirements for control over design and management have resulted in projects
with limits defined more by jurisdiction than geography.
While the concept of a "super project" has technical and economic medt,
concerns over management and control of the project might be difficult to resolve
among the various govemments with interest in the project. A way that this
concept could work efficiently would be for local governments (municipalities and
the County) to create a countywide agency which would manage shore
protection throughout the County. Such an agency could be funded as a
dependent taxing district, with its budget controlled by the County Commission
and revenues generated countywide. The agency could be overseen by a board
made up of directors from municipalities and unincorporated areas, and operated
by a staff employed by the agency. The County and municipalities would all
relinquish control and management of beach projects to the agency.
The political resistance on the path to creating such an agency may be
significant.
County Advisory Board
An alternative to the establishment of a dependent taxing distdct would be the
use of an advisory board to set project priorities and recommend an annual
beach management program to the County Commission. The advisory board
would be made up of representatives from the coastal municipalities, and the
County, similar to the Palm Beach Countywide Beaches and Shores Council,
and would oversee the Shoreline Protection Plan. Board members would have
weighted votes to reflect the vadous sizes of the municipalities, such as length of
coastline or population. The advisory board would need to be provided a staff
independent of existing County departments to maintain the credibility and
autonomy of the oversight and recommendation process.
Cost Containment
An approach to reducing the projected funding gap, which does not require
additional revenue generation, is cost containment through intergovernmental
coordination. This technique is the joint-bidding of projects to create some of the
benefits of a larger project, reducing mobilization and unit fill costs. This can be
accomplished through intergovernmental coordination by synchronizing the
timing of projects and cooperating in the bid process. Individual entities would
retain full control over their own project once bids are awarded. Cost
containment alone will not eliminate the funding gap, but can offset some of the
need for increased revenue.
Page 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The beaches of Palm Beach County are among its most valuable resources,
drawing residents and toudsts to the area and protecting coastal property. As a
result of both increased property values and spending by beach visitors, the
beaches generate significant impacts to the local, state and national economies.
These impacts far exceed the cost of preserving and repairing the beaches.
Palm Beach County, in partnership with municipalities, has a long-term program
for the repair and maintenance of beaches throughout the County, known as the
Shore Protection Plan. A recent 30-year cost projection for this program
indicates a total cost of about $230 million.
The cost of beach projects in Palm Beach County has historically been paid by a
combination of Federal, State, County and municipal funds. Recent changes
and proposals related to funding at the Federal and State levels threaten to
reduce the size of the Federal and State portions of project funding, increasing
the local share, and the cost of the Shore Protection Plan. In 1997, the County
projected a shortfall over the next 30 years of $43.5 million. Closing this
projected funding gap would require an additional $1.5 million annually,
dedicated to beach projects.
The subcommittee considered a number of options to reduce the cost of the
Shore Protection Plan and to develop additional funding sources to make up the
projected shortfall in the local share of project costs. Options to generate
additional funds included increasing County taxes and increasing the municipal
share of funds. Options to reduce program costs included creation of a
dependent taxing district to manage larger projects and joint-bidding of projects.
The conclusion of the subcommittee is threefold. First, to reduce program costs,
project schedules should be synchronized as much as possible to allow joint-
bidding. Second, when the extent of the funding gap is confirmed, a Countywide
referendum should be offered to provide a permanent tax dedicated to beach
projects. It is estimated that the tax increase would be less than five dollars per
year for the average homeowner. Third, to manage the program equitably, an
advisory board should be established, made up of representatives from coastal
municipalities, inlet districts, and the County, which would set project priorities
and recommend an annual beach management program to the County
Commission.
S:\adv\beach\lPARC1
Page 9