Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-20-12 Regular Meeting
City of Delray Beach Regular Commission Meeting RULES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Tuesday, November 20, 2012 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. Delray Beach City Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The public is encouraged to offer comments with the order of presentation being as follows: City Staff, public comments, Commission discussion and official action. City Commission meetings are business meetings and the right to limit discussion rests with the Commission. Generally, remarks by an individual will be limited to three minutes or less. The Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to adjust the amount of time allocated. A. Public Hearings: Any citizen is entitled to speak on items under this section. B. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public: Any citizen is entitled to be heard concerning any matter within the scope of jurisdiction of the Commission under this section. The Commission may withhold comment or direct the City Manager to take action on requests or comments. C. Regular Agenda and First Reading Items: Public input on agendaed items, other than those that are specifically set for a formal public hearing, shall be allowed when agreed by consensus of the City Commission. 2. SIGN IN SHEET: Prior to the start of the Commission Meeting, individuals wishing to address public hearing or non-agendaed items should sign in on the sheet located on the right side of the dais. If you are not able to do so prior to the start of the meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The primary purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Therefore, when you come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet if you have not already done so. 3. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: At the appropriate time, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. All comments must be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to individuals. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speaking further, unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a majority vote of the Commission members present. APPELLATE PROCEDURES Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phone: (561) 243-7000 Fax: (561) 243-3774 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 Smith at 243-7010, 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to accommondate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG A. NONE 4. AGENDA APPROVAL 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. September 11, 2012 -Special/Workshop Meeting B. October 9, 2012 -Workshop Meeting C. October 16, 2012 -Regular Meeting D. November 2, 2012 -Special Meeting 6. PROCLAMATIONS: A. World AIDS Day – December 1-7, 2012 7. PRESENTATIONS: A. NONE 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval A. REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/936 BANYAN DRIVE: Approve an agreement to defer installing a sidewalk in front of the property located at 936 Banyan Drive. B. REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/972 FERN DRIVE: Approve an agreement to defer installing a sidewalk in front of the property located at 972 Fern Drive. C. REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK EASEMENT AGREEMENT/LIZ REALTY, LLC: Approve a sidewalk easement agreement with Liz Realty, LLC. for the property located at 445 East Atlantic Avenue to satisfy the corner clip requirement. D. RESOLUTION NO. 54-12: ABANDONMENT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT: 1207 HAMMOND ROAD: Approve Resolution No. 54-12 to abandon a 12’ wide drainage easement for Lane Subdivision located at 1207 Hammond Road. E. RESOLUTION NO. 55-12: ABANDONMENT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT: 1211 HAMMOND ROAD: Approve Resolution No. 55-12 to abandon a 12’ wide drainage easement for Lane Subdivision located at 1211 Hammond Road. F. CORRECTION TO A LINE ITEM FOR THE CONTRACT AWARD TO FOSTER MARINE CONTRACTORS, INC.: Approve a correction to a line item for the contract award to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc., to reduce the amount from $84,445.00 to $79,455.00 for the construction of roadside swales along N.W. 7th and 12th Streets and N.W. 3rd and 5th Avenues in the Lake Ida Neighborhood. G. CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (CHANGE ORDER NO. 5/FINAL)/FOSTER MARINE CONTRACTORS, INC./AUBURN AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS: Approve a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 5/Final) in the amount of a $42,718.43 decrease and final payment in the amount of $43,828.47 to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. for completion of the Auburn Avenue Improvement Project. Funding is available from 334-3162-541-68.65 (General Construction Fund: Other Improvement/Auburn Avenue Improvement) and 442-5178-536-68.50 (Water & Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund: Improvements Other/Water Main – S.W. 12th & 13th Avenue). H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) SUB-RECIPIENT FUNDING AGREEMENT/FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC.: Approve and authorize execution of a Sub-Recipient Funding Agreement with the Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for FY 2012-2013, with total funding in the amount of $6,000.00. Funding is available from 118-1966-554-82.12 (Neighborhood Services: Other Current Charges/Promotion of Fair Housing). I. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) SUB-RECIPIENT FUNDING AGREEMENT/ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: Approve and authorize execution of a Sub-Recipient Funding Agreement with Community Child Care Center (d/b/a Achievement Centers for Children and Families) under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for FY 2012-2013, with total funding in the amount of $55,970.00. Funding is available from 118-1966-554-82.09 (Neighborhood Services: Aid to Private Organizations/Child Care Center). J. DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY: Approve an Agreement between the City and Palm Beach County for the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Program for the Auburn Avenue Project. Funding is available from 334-3162-541-68.85 (General Construction Fund: Other Improvement/S.E. 2nd Avenue Parking) and 441-5178-536-68.50 (Water and Sewer Fund: Professional Services/Other Professional Services). K. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE: 2707 S.W. 2ND STREET: Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Contract for Sale and Purchase between the City and Santiago Gutierrez to extend the closing date to November 30, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) property located at 2707 S.W. 2nd Street. L. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE: 810 N.W. 21st WAY: Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Contract for Sale and Purchase between the City and Jarrod Levins to extend the closing date to December 15, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) property located at 810 N.W. 21st Way. M. TERMINATION OF OFF-SITE PARKING AGREEMENT/MACMILLAN INVESTMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP/NINETEEN NORTHEAST, LLC.: Approve Termination of Off-Site Parking Agreement between MacMillan Investment Limited Partnership, Nineteen Northeast LLC and the City of Delray Beach for twenty-three (23) extra spaces for the building, located at 19 N.E. 3rd Avenue. N. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period November 5, 2012 through November 16, 2012. O. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Bid award to Beach Raker for the annual cost of $57,000.00 for beach cleaning, maintenance and beautification services. Funding is available from 001-4123-572-34.90 (General Fund: Other Contractual Services). 2. Purchase award to Southeastern Wastewater Equipment Corp. d/b/a Southeastern Pump in the estimated annual amount of $82,876.00 for the purchase of various models and sizes of submersible wastewater pumps “as needed” for Utilities Maintenance. Funding is available from 441-5144-536-46.20 (Water & Sewer Fund: Repair & Maintenance Service/Equipment Maintenance). 3. Purchase award to Tanner Industries at an estimated annual cost of $42,000.00 for Anhydrous Ammonia for the Water Treatment Plant. Funding is available from 441-5122-536-52.21 (Water and Sewer Fund: Operating Supplies/Chemicals). 4. Purchase award to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $44,303.43 for water main materials to be installed by the City’s in-house construction crew for the N.E. 8th Avenue Water Main Project. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-68.92 (Water & Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund: Improvements Other/N.E. 8th Avenue). 5. Purchase award to Fisher Scientific Company, LLC in the amount of $26,243.52 for eight (8) Scott RIT-PAK III Emergency Air Supply Systems. Funding is available from 001-2315-526-64.90 (General Fund: Machinery/Equipment/Other Machinery/Equipment). 9. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLICIMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING CONSENT AGENDA: A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. B. From the Public. 10. REGULAR AGENDA: A. PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING PENSION FUND MANAGEMENT: Provide direction regarding the management of pension fund plans. B. TRI-PARTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE RELEASE OF RIGHT OF REVERTER ENCUMBERING REAL PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THE OLD LIBRARY SITE AND CHAMBER RELOCATION/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA): Consider approval of the Tri-Party Interlocal Agreement for the Release of Right of Reverter Encumbering Real Property Relative to the Old Library Site and Chamber Relocation with Community Redevelopment of Agency (CRA). C. REVISED LEASE AGREEMENT/GREATER DELRAY BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC.: Consider a revised Lease Agreement with the Greater Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce, Inc. D. FINANCIAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DELRAY BEACH MEMORIAL GARDENS MUNICIPAL CEMETERY: Discuss Financial Review Board Recommendations regarding the operation of Delray Beach Memorial Gardens Municipal Cemetery. E. PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT: Provide direction to reject all bids, and proceed with re-advertising the project for bid; or award the contract to the second lowest bidder for the Federal Highway Beautification Project. F. BUILDING INSPECTOR POSITION: Provide authorization to unfreeze a Building Inspector Position in the Community Improvement Department. G. POLICY ON NAMING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES: Consider establishing a policy and procedure to govern the honorary naming of public places. H. STATE AND FEDERAL LOBBYING SERVICES: Discuss State and Federal lobbying Services. I. REVISED AGREEMENT/TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH: Consider approval of a revised agreement with the Town of Highland Beach providing additional language regarding the shared limited medical services with the City of Delray Beach’s Wellness Center for full-time Police Officers. (ADDENDUM) 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. ORDINANCE NO. 31-12: Consider a city-initiated amendment to Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, of the Code of Ordinances, by amending Section 117.01, “Permit Required”, to remove the reference to the rental payment amount. 12. FIRST READINGS: A. NONE 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: A. City Manager B. City Attorney C. City Commission SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 A Special/Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the First Floor Conference Room at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, September 11, 2012. Roll call showed: Present -Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Alson Jacquet Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent -Commissioner Adam Frankel Also present were -David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor McDuffie called the Special/Workshop meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. 2012 BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT: Provide direction on the upcoming Beach Renourishment Project. Mr. Paul Dorling presented this item and stated the city has the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Army Corps permits and went out for bid on the project. Three people have bid on this project. He stated this is a reimbursable project and we have commitments from the state and county governments for their share but the federal share has not been committed. Staff would like direction regarding the beach renourishment project. Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, stated if we never get the reimbursement from the Federal government our debt service will be approximately $600,000 per year to pay off in ten (10) years and be ready for the next renourishment. He spoke regarding a bond issue, interest and debt service. He stated Great Lakes called him on Friday and stated they have another bid on a large project and they wanted to know if we were going to hire them or not and they cannot extend their time beyond what they are required to. Mr. Harden stated the next lowest bidder is roughly $150,000 higher. Mr. Carney stated he spoke to the city manager a few weeks ago and discussed debt service. He stated he found that the price for not doing this can be costly to the city. Mr. Carney stated we have to do this and we are fortunate that we are going to be able to find the funds to do this through paying off other debt. Mrs. Gray asked which bond will the city be finished paying off next year. She stated the beach is one of our greatest assets for residents and visitors as well. Mrs. Gray stated she is in support of this. She would like for staff to still go after the Army Corp and other grants. The city manager stated staff will make every effort to obtain federal funding, etc. 2 September 11, 2012 Mr. Jacquet stated his main concern was federal funds. He is in support of this as this is one of the most important resources of the city. Mayor McDuffie stated we have two anchor tenants in Delray Beach: Old School Square and the Beach. He stated the loss on the other side of this can be incredible and his direction to staff is to pursue this and continue to look for funding. a. CONTRACT AWARD TO GREAT LAKES DREDGE AND DOCK COMPANY: Approve a contract award to Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company in the amount of $8,820,110.00 for construction of the Beach Renourishment Project. Funding is reimbursable from Federal, State and County funding sources. Mr. Carney moved to approve the contract award to Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:09 p.m. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Joint Meeting with the Charter Review Committee Mr. Jay Alperin, Chair of the Charter Review Committee (CRC), introduced members of the committee who were present: Kimberly Camejo, Doak Campbell, Brian Cheslack, Deborah Dowd, Mike Malone, Alberta McCarthy and Scott Porten. Brenda Durden, David Schmidt and Gary Eliopoulos were not able to attend. Mr. Alperin reviewed the recommendations of the CRC with Commission as well as the ordinances regarding enhancing the charter’s readability, term length, removal of a City Manager, term limits, and removal of Charter prohibition regarding city manager salary. Mrs. Gray asked the committee to explain the rationale for the recommendation regarding the vote to remove a city manager. Ms. McCarthy read a statement into record regarding the committee and their assigned task. She also spoke regarding the supermajority vote and stated this should be kept in place and be required for hire and removal of a city manager. Mr. Porten also spoke and stated the committee made a recommendation because the question needs to be asked. He stated he agrees with everything Ms. McCarthy stated however they have had an outcry of people who felt this needed to be revisited. He stated it is being brought to referendum to ask the people if this is something they would like to change. Mr. Cheslack stated the recommendations are all separate referendum items that can be rejected or accepted. He stated the CRC is in full support of the current city manager. Mayor McDuffie stated he will not support a 3-2 vote. Mr. Carney asked when the ordinances have to be approved by the City Commission to go on the ballot for referendum. Ms. Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk, stated at least by the end of November. Mr. Carney stated the supermajority is there for a reason to insure stability. He asked about the public notice and length of the meetings. 3 September 11, 2012 The city clerk responded regarding the notice for the meetings and Mr. Alperin spoke regarding the length of the meetings. In addition, Ms. Dowd, Mr. Cheslack and Ms. McCarthy spoke regarding the meetings. Mr. Carney stated the committee was exemplary and asked the committee if they think the process would benefit by having an additional public hearing. Mr. Alperin stated the committee did review the entire Charter. Mr. Jacquet thanked the committee for serving and for their leadership and spoke regarding the proposed changes. He referenced the vote to remove a city manager, term limits and term lengths. He commented regarding Ordinances A12 and D12. Mr. Jacquet stated for the stability of Delray Beach, the city cannot go to a 3-2 vote and stated he will not support that. In addition, he would not be in support of the extension of terms for Mayor. Mr. Scott Porten spoke regarding the simple majority to vote someone in as well as to vote them out. Mr. Carney stated he is not necessarily opposed to two three year terms and fundamentally he does not mind giving this to the electorate to make that decision. He stated he is concerned about the ordinance related to the supermajority vote and this was further fortified by Ms. McCarthy’s comments. Mr. Jacquet asked for clarification regarding the majority vote in general. Mrs. Gray thanked the committee for their time and expertise and stated she is in favor of the supermajority vote. Regarding the two three year terms, she is in support of this as well. However, regarding extra time for the mayor, she feels it could lead to a strong mayor. Mr. Alperin spoke regarding the mayor position. Mr. Harden stated in a pure council manager form of government the mayor is elected by the council not by the voters and he thinks the system we have where the mayor is elected by the voters is a good system because the mayor can provide the political leadership in the community and the manager can focus on the leading the staff and carrying out the administrative functions. Mr. Harden spoke regarding the Charter as well. Mayor McDuffie spoke regarding the strong mayor form of government. Discussion ensued between Commission and the committee regarding how often the Charter should be reviewed. Mr. Cheslack asked what the next steps were. Mr. Shutt stated the direction of the Commission is that Ordinance C12 regarding the vote for city manager removal will not be brought forward but the other ordinances will be brought forward for first reading unless he receives other direction. Mr. Carney moved to approve going forward with the Ordinances with the exception of Ordinance C12. There was no second. The Commission decided that staff will place the Charter Committee report on the agenda next week and Commission will provide direction regarding the ordinances at that time. Mr. Cheslack asked regarding review of the Charter if that is an administrative change. Mr. Shutt explained the Charter Review can be placed in the local rules versus by Charter or ordinance. He also discussed timeframes, etc. 4 September 11, 2012 Mr. Carney stated he is not sure if he wants to go beyond the report that the Charter Committee has done. Mr. Jacquet stated he does not think this is something that needs to be put in the Charter. Mr. Scott Porten stated there is the controversial issue regarding removal of the city manager and stated Commission should move this Ordinance (C12) forward because this would be an opportunity to hear from the public. Mrs. Gray asked if Ordinance C12 is going to be brought forward. Mr. Harden stated Commission will decide that on next week. Mr. Alperin thanked Commission for the task and stated it was an honor to work with the group. Mayor McDuffie thanked the Committee for their time and for making this a better city. 2. Delray Beach Innovation Corridor Update (ADDENDUM) Mr. David Wilke, National Director of Corporate Real Estate and Advisory Services/Sperry Van Ness, stating he has been the advisor to the city since January 2012 regarding transforming the Congress Avenue Corridor. He was originally retained to complete a strategic marketing plan which was a mission to create a real estate branding strategy on Congress Avenue. He stated they created a new brand: the Delray Beach Innovation Corridor which was presented at a previous workshop. Mr. Wilke discussed the three primary goals and conducted a PowerPoint presentation providing information on the project. Mr. Carney stated this is a great idea. 3. Auburn Trace Loan Modification (THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE POSTPONED) 4. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) FY 2012-2013 Work Plan and Budget Ms. Diane Colonna, Executive Director of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) introduced Mr. Peter Arts, Vice Chair; Mr. Jeff Costello, Assistant Director; Ms. Lori Hayward, Finance Director and Vin Nolan, Economic Development Director. She conducted a PowerPoint presentation of the Fiscal Year 2011/2012 CRA work plan and the preliminary work plan for FY 2012/2013. Ms. Colonna described the accomplishments of the CRA for FY 2011-2012 to date and progress on upcoming projects. Ms. Hayward explained the FY 2013 budget. Mrs. Gray asked questions about micro lending, the hotel, pocket parks, sidewalks and nonprofit funding. Mr. Jacquet stated he thinks the concept of micro lending is good and glad to see SE 1st Street. Mr. Carney thanked the CRA for their presentation and inquired about carry forward funds and asked Ms. Colonna to explain how this works. 5 September 11, 2012 5. Financial Review Board Recommendations for Tennis Operations Mr. Robert Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, presented this item and discussed private individuals coming in to use the tennis courts. He reviewed the recommendations as presented by the FRB and provided staff comments for each one. Mr. Jacquet commented on the percentage of sales. Mr. Carney stated the tennis center is a great facility that attracts a lot of visitors and commented regarding sponsorships. Mrs. Gray asked about the RFP process and why we would be looking to only hire locally. Mr. Jacquet referenced the list regarding rentals and Mr. Barcinski clarified that the list is for stadium rentals. Mayor McDuffie inquired about the RFP. Mr. Carney asked what the timeframe would be. Mrs. Gray stated she would like to see a study done regarding the Tennis Center. Mr. Jacquet asked how long FRB believes the Tennis Stadium contracts should be. Ms. Christina Morrison, FRB Chair, stated three to five years. Mr. Carney inquired about the impact of charging non-residents more. Mr. Jacquet stated the Tennis Center should be made more accessible to the Delray Beach youth first and foremost. Ms. Morrison stated they spoke to Kids and Police Tennis Association (KAPTA). The Commission thanked the FRB for their recommendations. At this point, 9:22 p.m., Commissioner Jacquet left the meeting. 6. Co-Sponsor the Annual Boat Parade Mr. Barcinski asked if Commission wished to be a co-sponsor for the boat parade. He stated he has had emails and they have been included in the packet. He explained the process for how the boat parade works and the costs. Mrs. Gray asked how many people attend the boat parade and stated she would like to know what the Downtown Development Authority would like to say regarding the parade. Mayor McDuffie mentioned the cash prices and asked if Boynton was looking for the city to waive the expenses. Mr. Carney stated he goes to the boat parade every year and likes it; but does not know the answer to this. Discussion continued between staff and the Commission. It was consensus of the Commission to move forward with this item. 6 September 11, 2012 7. Schedule for Public Comments at Commission Meetings Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, presented this item and stated he has placed a proposed change to the local rules stating public comments and inquiry on non-agenda items will commence by 6:30 p.m. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to move public comments right after the Consent Agenda with remaining public comments, if any, to resume after Public Hearings. The City Attorney will bring this back to the Commission on the September 20, 2012 Regular Commission Meeting. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 9:33 p.m. ________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of the City Commission held on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on November 20, 2012. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. WORKSHOP MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the First Floor Conference Room at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, October 9, 2012. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Alson Jacquet Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor McDuffie called the workshop meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Drug Task Force Presentation Ms. Suzanne Spencer, Chair of Drug Task Force, provided background information and conducted a presentation highlighting their mission, vision, values and spoke regarding Florida Association of Recovery Residences (FARR) and National Association of Recovery Residences (NARR) standards. She asked Commission for direction on where the Drug Task Force’s focus should be. Mr. Jacquet thanked Ms. Spencer for the presentation and stated Delray Beach prides itself on being very inclusive. He stated the city would like to continue to provide assistance to those who need it. He asked Ms. Spencer how the Commission can assist them with what they are trying to do. Mr. Carney also thanked Ms. Spencer for the presentation and asked about standardized recovery residences and if there are any state regulations. Mrs. Gray thanked Ms. Spencer for the presentation and stated she feels staff and Code Enforcement has been doing a great job. She feels this item should go back to staff for staff to work on. Mr. Frankel thanked Ms. Spencer for the presentation. Mayor McDuffie thanked Ms. Spencer for the presentation as well and spoke regarding Delray Beach and recovery. 2. Possible Tennis Stadium Upgrades Mr. Mark Baron stated Mr. David T. Harden, City Manager, asked him to speak regarding the 2 October 9, 2012 Tennis Stadium. He discussed his background and possible changes to the stadium. He highlighted the attributes of a multi-purpose stadium as well as economic impact. He also discussed retractable roofs, skyboxes, necessary steps that would need to be taken i.e. with the county and state and what might possibly attract promoters. Mr. Frankel thanked Mr. Baron and stated the Commission often gets critiqued regarding naming rights but it is an outdated facility. He stated it is sixty years old and needs to be redone. He mentioned the ATP Tournament in London and stated he is in full support of the upgrades to the Tennis Stadium. Mr. Baron spoke regarding an upcoming event to be televised for 52 hours and spoke regarding the “Hawkeye” system. Mrs. Gray thanked Mr. Baron for the presentation and stated one of the Commission’s goals is for Delray Beach to be a sports destination. She feels the Tennis Center can be an anchor and is worth the investment. She stated she is in full support of the upgrades and would like to see staff bring in someone who knows what can be done to change the stadium. Mr. Carney echoed comments by Mr. Frankel and Mrs. Gray and asked if maybe the recommendations as suggested by Mr. Baron are “band aids”. He asked if the city is better off simply starting fresh. Mr. Baron stated the present facility will be torn down and it will cost approximately $35-$55 million to build a new one. Mr. Jacquet asked about the control of the stadium and the adjacent Community Center. He stated the city is missing the multi-use factor and he is in support of the changes to the stadium. Mr. Baron stated the new stadium should be designed with 100 events per year in mind. Mayor McDuffie stated the stadium is not losing money-it is actually close to breaking even. He mentioned different stadiums and asked about seating capacity. He thanked Mr. Baron for the presentation. 3. Joint Meeting with the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Mr. Carney stated he reviewed budgets for the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the Delray Beach Marketing Cooperative (DBMC) and there seems to be an overlap regarding marketing and funds, etc. Mr. Jacquet stated he would like to hear a brief historical perspective on each organization. Marjorie Ferrer, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority, gave an overview of the history of the DDA from 1971 to date. She introduced her board members that were present: Seabron Smith, Diane Franco, David Cook, Albert Richwagen, Laura Simon and Gail Lee McDermott who transcribes the DDA minutes. Mrs. Ferrer conducted a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the DDA mission, goals and objectives. Mrs. Gray thanked Mrs. Ferrer for the presentation and asked if the DDA contributes financially to Clean and Safe. Mrs. Ferrer stated their contribution is on the back end: they assist with removing gum, etc. in the downtown area. She asked about the website and if the list from two years ago regarding the duties of the DDA and DBMC. Mrs. Gray inquired about what is being done for the West Atlantic Avenue Merchants and what are fund solicited for. Mr. Carney stated he feels the DDA administrative costs are higher than other development authorities and expenditures are being made that he cannot account for. Mr. Jacquet asked about the Resolution that started the DDA and Mr. Roy Simon provided an 3 October 9, 2012 overview. Mr. Jacquet asked why did the DDA and the DBMC split in 2010; and how different is the work of the DDA from the DBMC regarding the downtown. Ms. Ferrer stated the purpose of the DDA is to be the point person for the merchants and to keep them in business. Mr. Jacquet asked about the millage rate and the number of DDA staff. Mr. Frankel stated the successes of the city can be attributed to the DDA and DBMC. He stated he may not agree with the DDA’s reason for pulling out but he respects it. He spoke regarding the DDA administrative costs. Mr. Frankel stated he serves as a Liaison to the DDA and feels certain decisions are made for personal reasons. Mrs. Gray asked the board to explain why the DDA pulled out and Mr. Smith stated it was a business decision. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Smith a question regarding taxing districts. Mr. Jacquet stated the DDA has the authority to decide what they will and will not do. Discussion ensued between Commission and the DDA members. Mayor McDuffie commented regarding the DDA and the DBMC. 4. Joint Meeting with the Delray Beach Marketing Cooperative (DBMC) Ms. Sarah Martin provided the history of the DBMC and showed a map of how the DBMC and DDA differ as far as boundaries. She conducted a PowerPoint and gave their mission and stated they utilize the “Arts for Economic” Calculator regarding dollars and economic impact. Ms. Martin spoke about Call to Action Marketing and stated they have reorganized staff. She explained their functions and partners. Mr. Frankel stated he applauds what the DBMC has done in terms of national awards and gave suggestions regarding the relocation of events. Mr. Jacquet thanked the DBMC for the work they have done and are doing. He encouraged the DBMC and DDA to work together: he stated this is about the city of Delray Beach. He urged Ms. Martin to continue doing what they are doing. Mrs. Gray thanked the DBMC as well and stated every organization has its mission and goals. She asked what will DBMC do to not duplicate services or efforts moving forward. She also asked if DBMC will do anything from West Atlantic Avenue to Military Trail. Mayor McDuffie thanked Commissioner Jacquet for his comments and stated he will leave in a couple of months and he does not want to leave it with people at odds with one another. He stated the success of Delray Beach is the effort of everyone involved. 5. Discussion regarding the Chamber of Commerce Relocation Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, presented this item and asked for Commission direction. Mr. Frankel stated the Chamber needs to be updated and relocated. He stated he thinks the location in the garage is better. Mrs. Gray stated the Chamber should be relocated and asked when this agreement was going forth six years ago who was going to be responsible for the maintaining the building. The City Attorney stated any appraisal we receive would be for the land value. Mrs. Gray stated she does not feel the Chamber needs to be in the garage. In addition, she 4 October 9, 2012 asked what is the financial responsibility of the Chamber. Mr. Scott Porten discussed why the agreement was initially proposed and talked about residue value and TIFF dollars. Ms. Diane Colonna, Executive Director of the Community Redevelopment Agency, stated the Chamber appraisal was valued at $1 million. She stated the land adds a lot to redevelopment and puts it back on the tax rolls. Mr. Carney stated moving the Chamber to the city’s space pays for itself. He stated the city and the Chamber are better off with how this is structured and he supports this. Mr. Jacquet stated this move frees up a prime piece of real estate. He stated he has a concern with the Chamber moving into the garage as far as utilizing tax dollars to assist with the move. Mr. Shutt explained the impact on bonds and selling to a private entity. Mr. Jacquet asked if the Chamber looked at any other locations or just this one spot. Mrs. Gray asked what will the Chamber contribute. Mr. Porten stated the Chamber will contribute $250,000. Mayor McDuffie stated that all that has been asked for tonight is direction to staff. He stated we are looking at economic development. He stated the Chamber needs to have a better space. It was the consensus of the Commission to have staff move forward and gather more information. 6. Direction regarding the Old School Square Garage Retail Space Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, presented this item stating the appraisal is $2,000,060. He discussed parking permits and asked if Commission wants to increase the asking price. He stated the taxable line of credit is $2.4 million. Mr. Frankel stated he thinks the value that we can get is closer to what the city owes. Mrs. Gray asked if we have any offers for the property. Mr. Shutt discussed the Letters of Intent. Mr. Jacquet stated he feels the price should be higher. Mrs. Gray stated she agrees with a higher price and asked what is the process we use regarding proposals. Mr. Carney inquired about the status of the current tenant. The City Attorney stated the current tenant will remain there until January 2015. Mr. Carney stated he wants to get a tenant in the space that will add to the city’s tax base. Mayor McDuffie stated the numbers are rising fast. It was the consensus of the Commission to market this. 7. Consider Bid Proposal for the Fed Cup Semi-Finals Mr. Robert Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated the USTA is accepting bids for the Fed Cup and stated the city has commitments regarding the Davis Cup but the numbers will need to be amended. 5 October 9, 2012 He stated staff wants to know if Commission would like for them to prepare a bid package. Mr. Frankel stated he supports this. Mrs. Gray stated she too supports this. Mr. Carney stated the estimated economic impact is $1 million and he is not opposed to this. Mr. Jacquet asked how much does the city spend to put into this. Commission stated they would like to move ahead with this. 8. Discussion regarding State and Federal Lobbying Services Mr. Barcinski presented this item and stated staff is looking for direction from Commission. The City Attorney stated this is not so much as an RFP versus an agreement. Mr. Jacquet commented regarding the lobbying firm and asked were they the only ones who responded to us. He asked why are we following Boca Raton. He asked about the options: one issue lobbying or general lobbying services. Mr. Carney spoke regarding one issue lobbying and stated something has to be done sooner rather than later as far as getting legislation into Tallahassee. The City Attorney provided background information. Mr. Jacquet asked about Option 1 and stated he feels there is no real choice because only one firm has been presented. He stated Commission should have a clear choice and he cannot move forward with this. Mr. Frankel stated he chooses Option 1. Mrs. Gray agrees that it should have been sent out as an RFP. She stated more people should be able to submit a proposal and feels we have more than one issue regarding lobbying services. Mr. Jacquet stated he will not make a decision based on rush timing and for the sake of transparency would like clear choices. The City Attorney asked if we can find other firms without an RFP and bring those back to the Commission. Commission asked staff bring this item back to the next meeting. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 10:10 p.m. _______________________________ City Clerk 6 October 9, 2012 ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of the City Commission held on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on November 20, 2012. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. 10/16/12 OCTOBER 16, 2012 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 16, 2012. 1. Roll call showed: Present -Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Alson Jacquet Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent -None Also present were -David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Lanelda D. Gaskins, Acting City Clerk 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Ron Arflin, Director of Pastoral Services with Abbey Delray South. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 4. AGENDA APPROVAL. Mrs. Gray requested that Item 8.J., Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement/Match Point, Inc., be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A. Mr. Carney requested that Item 8.H., Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Commerce Bank, N.A. be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A, Item 8.I., Amendment No. 2 to the Players International Management, Inc. (PIM) Agreement, be moved from the Consent Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A.A. and Item 8.L., Amendments between CareHere, LLC. of the Consent Agenda be removed from the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A. and moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A.A.A. and Item 8.P.6., Purchase Award to Specialty Vehicles be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A.A.A.A. Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 2 10/16/12 Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 20, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mrs. Gray moved to approve the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of September 24, 2012, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 6. PROCLAMATIONS: 6.A. Breast Cancer Awareness Month – October 2012 Mayor McDuffie read and presented a proclamation hereby proclaiming the month of October 2012 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Bruce Koeser and Patricia Lewandowski came forward to accept this proclamation. 6.B. Delray Reads Day! – November 8, 2012 Mayor McDuffie read and presented a proclamation hereby proclaiming November 8, 2012 as Delray Reads Day. Janet Meeks, Education Coordinator, came forward to accept the proclamation and stated over the past 11 years the City of Delray Beach has hosted “Principal for a Day” and have actually sunset that program. This year the City is doing “Delray Reads Day” which aligns itself with the City’s campaign for grade level reading. Mrs. Meeks introduced Rich Pollack, volunteer, who is heading the initiative which came out of our Mayor’s Collaborative Implementation Team as an Initiative to provide awareness to our community about what we are doing for grade level reading. Rich Pollack with “Delray Reads Day” they are asking the community to solve a problem. Mr. Pollack stated in 4 of 7 public elementary schools 30% of the third graders are reading at grade level which means 70% are not. He stated this is an economic development issue because they cannot compete with other cities if we do not have schools. Mr. Pollack stated on “Delray Reads Day” there will be 250 volunteers one in every elementary school classroom reading to children between 9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. He stated that people can join by going to delrayreads.org. 3 10/16/12 Mrs. Meeks stated there are bookmarks that have all the information on the back of them if anyone is interested in taking one. Mr. Jacquet stated he signed up to read at Banyan Creek Elementary School where he attended and his niece currently goes. Mayor McDuffie stated he has signed up to read at S.D. Spady Elementary School. Mrs. Gray stated she signed up to read at Village Academy. Mr. Carney stated he sign up to read at Pine Grove Elementary School. Mayor McDuffie stated at the All American City Awards in Denver they found how crucial third grade reading is to the success of every child in our school systems and it sheds some light on why children drop out of our education programs when 87.5% have passing grades when they drop. He stated reading is the key to this and we need to engage this community to get this done and hopes that surrounding communities will do the same. 7. PRESENTATIONS: 7.A. Presentation by the Delray Beach Youth Council recognizing Florida City Government Month – October 2012 Mayor McDuffie read and presented a proclamation hereby proclaiming the month of October as Florida City Government Month. Janet Meeks, Education Coordinator, stated this year the Delray Beach Youth Council is also have an exciting week planned for Florida City Government Month. Mrs. Meeks stated the Delray Beach Fire-Rescue Department has come in and given a presentation to them and at the Carver Morning Program they have also asked them to do some community service hours and the students with the most community service hours will get a trip to the fire station. Mrs. Meeks stated she will be working with Rich Reade, Public Information Officer, to get into an elementary school to do a presentation and is also working with Atlantic High School and their Government Services Academy to provide a program there. Mrs. Meeks stated they have two interactive programs; one is a jeopardy game that talks about vocabulary and fun facts and a mock City Commission meeting. Mrs. Meeks stated the Delray Beach Youth Council was established in 1995. Kacey Carr, Co-President of the Delray Beach Youth Council (DBYC), stated the Delray Beach Youth Council is a group of middle aged to high school teenagers who meet every other Tuesday at the 505 Teen Center at 6:30 p.m. The Delray Beach Youth Council is a non-denominational youth group that services students that attend Carver and Village Academy Middle Schools, Pope, Atlantic, Boca, North 4 10/16/12 Broward, American Heritage, and Village High School. The DBYC plan events for the future and discuss how they can improve events they have hosted in order to make them better for next year. Jack Digney, Co-President of the Delray Beach Youth Council (DBYC), stated the DBYC hosts a wide variety of events that range from activities for younger children to providing meals for families in need. They have participated in coastal clean-ups and plan to volunteer their time at the local Caring Kitchen. He stated their most successful events are their Annual Turkey Drive where they raise money in order to buy turkeys to give away to families for Thanksgiving that use the 505 Teen Center. He stated last year the DBYC gave away 60 turkeys and the year before they gave away over 100 turkeys. The DBYC also works in conjunction with many other organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the Women’s Club, Toys for Tots, and the City of Delray Beach. For the past two years the DBYC has stuffed over 10,000 eggs for the annual Easter Egg Hunt. Kacey Carr stated the DBYC obtains most of their revenue from car washes and soda sales. She stated last year they had a coke booth at the Tree Lighting Festival, Kids Day at the Tree, First Night, and at skateboarding events they host at the 505 Teen Center. She stated all the revenue goes back into the events that they host. She announced that the next car wash is November 10, 2012. Jack Digney announced that the next Delray Beach Youth Council meeting will be on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. and noted they meet every other Tuesday. He stated they communicates via Facebook (their page is called the Delray Beach Youth Council). 7.B. Recognizing and commending Delray 21 for their contributions and outstanding work at Atlantic Community High School Mr. Jacquet moved to postpone to the next regular meeting of November 6, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.A. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL/10TH AND 10TH CENTER: Approve a final subdivision plat for 10th and 10th Center, for a new neighborhood commercial development located at the southeast corner of S.W. 10th Street and S.W. 10th Avenue. 8.B. ACCEPTANCE OF A WATER EASEMENT DEED/ROSEAIRE RETREAT: Approve and accept an exclusive water easement deed for Roseaire Retreat located at 14281 Gallagher Road. 5 10/16/12 8.C. ACCEPTANCE OF A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/622-A S.E. 5TH STREET: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Marc Julien Homes to install pervious pavers in the right-of-way on S.E. 5th Street for property at 622-A S.E. 5th Street. 8.D. ACCEPTANCE OF A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/622-B S.E. 5TH STREET: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Marc Julien Homes to install pervious pavers in the right-of-way on S.E. 5th Street for property at 622-B S.E. 5th Street. 8.E. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION/PROFESSIO NAL SERVICES: Approve an Interlocal Agreement with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the funding of construction costs and professional services for certain projects as listed on Exhibit “A” attached to the Agreement for FY 2012-2013. 8.F. ACCEPT GRANT AWARD/ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY GRANT/SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD): Approve accepting an award in the amount of $170,000.00 for a SFWMD Alternative Water Supply grant to provide supplementary funding for the Area 12APhase 1 Reclaimed Water System expansion project. 8.G. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/605 ANDREWS AVENUE: Approve a landscape maintenance agreement with Audrey Flannery to install and maintain landscaping within the public right-of-way for the property located at 605 Andrews Avenue. 8.H. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A.A. 8.I. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A.A.A. 8.J. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A. 8.K. RATIFICATION TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD: Approve and ratify the appointment of Mr. Gerald Franciosa as the regular representative on the Planning & Zoning Board to the Parking Management Advisory Board for an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013. 8.L. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A.A.A.A. 8.M. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/5TH ANNUAL DOWNTOWN DELRAY BEACH CRAFT FESTIVAL: Approve a special event request for the 5th Annual Downtown Delray Beach Craft Festival sponsored by Howard Alan Events, Ltd. 6 10/16/12 to be held on December 29-30, 2012 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., granting a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(F) for use of N.E./S.E. 4th Avenue, two blocks north/south of Atlantic Avenue as well as use of the north end of Hand’s parking lot for vendor parking; authorize staff support for security and traffic control, fire inspection services, and permit an event sign to be erected on Atlantic Avenue just east of I-95 fourteen (14) days prior to the event with the sponsor responsible for 100% of City costs, plus a 5% administrative fee for an estimated total of $3,433.50. 8.N. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/TWILIGHT BICYCLE RACE AND FESTIVAL: Approve a special event request for the Delray Beach Twilight Bicycle Race, sponsored by RAC Event Productions to be held on March 22, 2013 from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and March 23, 2013 from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; grant a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(F) for closure and use of the bike race route noted in the staff report from approximately 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 23, 2013 and use of Old School Square Park and Worthing Park; and authorize staff support for traffic control and security, EMS assistance, barricade assistance, fire inspection services, and event signage; contingent upon the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. The event sponsor is responsible for 100% of City costs, plus 5% administrative fee for an estimated total of $16,840.00. 8.O. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period October 1, 2012 through October 12, 2012. 8.P. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Bid award to Midnight Sun Tours, Inc./Horizon Coach Lines in an estimated annual cost of $53,320.00 for bus rental and driver service for the Parks and Recreation Department for the Youth Football Program, Summer Day Camp, Holiday Day Camp, Special Events, Sports & Dance Competition and Overnight/Weekend Trips. Funding is available from multiple Parks and Recreation Department accounts. 2. Contract award to Special Products Group (SPG) in the annual estimated amount of $68,850.00 for uniform procurement for Fire-Rescue Department personnel. Funding is available from 001-2315-526-52.22 (General Fund: Operating Supplies/Uniforms/Linen Service), 001-2311-522-52.22 (General Funds: Operating Supplies/Uniforms/Linen Service) 001-2313-522-52.22 (General Fund: Operating Supplies/Uniforms/Linen Service) and 001-2317-522-52.22 (General Fund: Operating Supplies/Uniforms/Linen Service). 3. Contract award to Zoll Medical Corporation to renew the extended warranty and semi-annual preventive maintenance contract and provide guaranteed repair coverage for seventeen (17) 12 Lead EKG Monitor/Defibrillators in the amount of $24,195.25 and 7 10/16/12 seven (7) Auto Pulse units in the amount of $3,150.00. Funding is available from 001-2315-526-46.20 (General Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/Equipment Maintenance) and 001-2313-522-46.20 (General Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/Equipment Maintenance). 4. Purchase award to the Dumont Company, Inc. in the amount of $49,000.00 for the purchase and delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite on an “as needed” basis to remote booster station locations. Funding is available from 441-5123-536.52-21 (Water and Sewer Fund: Operating Supplies/Chemicals). 5. Purchase award to Line Tec, Inc., in the amount of $55,000.00 for the Water Service Relocations Project and Fire Hydrant Flow Testing. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-49.33 (Water and Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund: Other Current Charges/OB/Water Service Relocation) and 441-5123-536-34.90 (Water and Sewer Fund: Other Contractual Services). 6. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A.A.A.A.A. 7. Purchase award to Otto Waste Systems, as a sole source provider, in the amount of $50,000.00 for purchase of hot stamped garbage carts, lids and wheels to be ordered “as needed”. Funding is available from 433-3711-534-49.35 (Sanitation Fund: Other Current Charges/Cart Renewal & Replacement). 8. Purchase award to Specialty Vehicles in an amount not to exceed $462,210.00, for three (3) trolley style vehicle to be used to operate the City’s transportation service. Funding is available from 334-6111-545-64.20 (General Construction Fund: Machinery/Equipment/Automobile). Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the City Commission moved to Item 9, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public-Immediately following the Consent Agenda. 9. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC-IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING CONSENT AGENDA. 9.A. City Manager’s response to prior public comments and inquiries. The City Manager had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 8 10/16/12 9.B. From the Public. 9.B.1. Michael Weiner, Weiner, Lynne & Thompson, P.A., 10 S.E. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated he would like to reinforce the seriousness of the offer that has been made by K&P and noted they brought 70 jobs to Pineapple Grove and occupy the building that was once occupied by Mr. Pugliese. Mr. Weiner stated K&P is looking to expand and almost double their size. Mr. Weiner stated he would like to do whatever they can do to move this along and make this into a real estate contract so that it can be hammered out and finished with speed. 9.B.2. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Drive Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he attended the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and he was extremely impressed because one of the items on their agenda was the building at Linton and Federal. He stated the Board listened for 2½ hours to all the people that had a voice in that then they talked among themselves for another hour or so back and forth with the Board. Mr. Blum stated it was an excellent meeting and feels the Commission should take that as an example when the public is not allowed to speak on regular agenda items. He urged the Commission to look at how the Planning and Zoning Board meeting was run and suggested that that they come up with a change where people from the community can speak on regular agenda items. Mr. Blum stated then the Commission can talk back and forth about it, ask questions to the people in the audience, and then come up with a solution that is beneficial to everyone. 9.B.3. Chuck Ridley, 210 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, expressed concern around the property that is owned by the Auburn Group and stated he has heard several comments from residents both who live there and do not because they have moved out. Mr. Ridley stated the residents brought this before the Commission that they would be concerned about the density and the concentration of persons with under resourced houses. He stated it is not the neighbors who have under resourced households but they want to make sure that the property is appropriately and well managed. Mr. Ridley stated he is not sure that is the case now. Mr. Ridley asked that the Commission work with the residents in getting actively involved and stated he still would like to work with Mr. Hinners in finding a resolution. He urged the Commission to take a leadership role and bring all of these parties together to find a resolution. 9.B.4. Brian Hinners, CEO of the Auburn Group, stated he would like to point out some of the facts and mis-statements that were made in some of the articles that were printed in the Sun-Sentinel. Mr. Hinners distributed photos of the development that were taken yesterday as evidence of the integrity of the property, and maintenance and management of the property. Mr. Hinners stated Village of Delray is 100% occupied and that speaks to the success of the property and the great demand for this development. He stated their rents are $300-$500 a month below market rate and there is a tremendous need for this rental housing. Mr. Hinners stated Village at Delray hosts the Milagro Center providing arts, music, tutoring, mentoring, and teen programs for Delray’s at risk youth. He stated the Village at Delray supports the Roots Festival, the Spady Museum, and other local community groups. Mr. Hinners stated they host homebuyers, seminars, swimming lessons, financial counseling, and help programs and have 24 hour security 9 10/16/12 and the City of Delray Beach CPTED approved their security plan in 2009 and they make periodic inspections and noted that they are extremely pleased with the property. Mr. Hinners stated he is puzzled by the crime statistics that are being stated as they are not accurate. He stated they pay $70,000 annually for a professional guard service company to man the guardhouse and patrol when management is not on the premises. Mr. Hinners stated according to multi-housing news the industry average move-out rate is 58%; Village at Delray’s move-out rate is at 25%; 75% of their residents renewed their leases; 4% of the residents that moved out left because they were generally unhappy with the property. He stated the majority either had monetary issues or were relocated due to a job. Mr. Hinners stated they have no association to Carver Estates that is compared to Village at Delray. He commended the City and the Commission for their approval and support of the Village at Delray. 9.B.5. Pauline Moody, 609 S.W. 8th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated the rehab people are destroying property on Atlantic Avenue and throughout the city. Ms. Moody stated the people from the rehabs are putting their cigarettes out on people’s cars and the benches at the library are covered with cigarettes ashes and vomit so she cannot sit down on them. She stated taxpayers should not be paying for the damage that people from the rehabs caused but nobody from the rehabs is taking responsibility. She urged the City to do something about this soon. 9.B.6. Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray Beach and Member of the Alliance), disagrees with comments expressed by Steve Blum regarding the agenda and stated with regard to Ms. Moody’s comments he does not understand any of that. 9.B.7. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he was here over a month ago and raised an issue and did not hear anything about it. Mr. Bennett asked if we have a hurricane that requires evacuation of the barrier island this year or next year will information about when the island is back opened up allowing people back on the island be available to the people at the non-emergency dispatch center. Secondly, Mr. Bennett stated at Andrews Avenue at the Florida Inland Navigation District site (south of the Landings) someone has placed “No Parking Car Will be Towed” signs in between the road and the sidewalk in the right-of-way. He stated he believes these signs were erected without official city permission because the police department number is not filled out and suggested that these signs be removed because the signs are unofficial. Lastly, Mr. Bennett stated when the Reclaimed Water Project was put in on the barrier island someone figured out in a lot of places if they put the new meter box in close to the original water meter to avoid having to put a separate transmitter on the new box. He stated other than the cost savings they did not seal the hole where the meter goes so there are all these boxes with a whole. Mr. Bennett stated this could be an issue 10 10/16/12 if someone walks up there in the dark and sticks their heel in the hole they will fall over and since it is on the City right-of-way then it is a potential City liability. At this point, the time being 7:00 p.m., the Commission moved to the Regular Agenda. 10. REGULAR AGENDA: 10.A.A. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE AGREEMENT /MATCH POINT, INC.: Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement between the City and Match Point Inc. to reduce the number of players required for the Champions Tour Event from eight (8) to six (6). The City Attorney stated this is Amendment No. 4 to the Match Point Agreement and there is a change in the number of required players for the Champions Tour Event. Currently, there is a requirement that there be eight (8) players and the proposal is to go to six (6) players. Mrs. Gray stated she would like to know the reason why they are going from eight (8) players to six (6). Mark Baron, Tournament Director for Players International, stated it is not reducing the tournament to six (6); it is reducing the amount of players to six (6) because the ATP Champions Tour has created different formats thus allowing them to go after marque players that will only play in a six (6) man format. Mr. Baron stated instead of an eight (8) man round robin there will be single elimination draw and a six (6) man elimination draw; and there will also be a four (4) man round robin with a four (4) man elimination draw. Mrs. Gray asked Mr. Baron that if we have six (6) players they can actually pay them more money. Mr. Baron stated they are spending over $25,000 more for six (6) players this year than they did last year for eight (8) in appearance fees. Mr. Baron stated they have the one and two ranked players on the ATP Champions Tour. Mr. Jacquet stated by reducing the requirement for the number of championship players from six (6) to eight (8) will the City will get higher quality players. Mr. Baron stated that the City will get higher quality players and last year they had two players that were around the $15,000-$20,000 range and they are not being brought back. Mr. Baron stated they are now bringing in players at $35,000, one at $125,000, and one at $30,000. Mr. Baron stated the greater the name the more expensive the player and the bigger the crowd. Mr. Carney stated when the City recently extended this agreement there was controversy with the decision and part of his analysis was the economic benefit that the Commission thought this tournament would bring to the City. He expressed concern that when you reduce the number of players by having less players you may have less 11 10/16/12 competition. Mr. Carney stated he is concerned about the financial awards for the City and asked why he would agree to reduce the number of players which gives more opportunity for people to see different players. Mr. Baron stated the biggest thing in any event is the name of the player. Mr. Baron stated they are still making it a ten day event (i.e. Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, and finals on Sunday) which gives a two weekend event. He stated last year the attendance decreased over the year before. Mr. Baron stated they financially made an additional expenditure to bring the quality and attendance up to fill the hotels, etc. Brief discussion between the Commission and Mr. Baron continued. Mr. Carney asked if the Commission agrees to allow for amendment to be effective for one year. Mrs. Gray concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Carney. Mr. Baron stated 70% of all funds on player/appearance fees and it increases every year. Mayor McDuffie stated he agrees that quality is better than quantity. Mr. Jacquet concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Gray and supports a decision for a year and then come back and if we need to change the contract then it can be amended then. He understands that if we cannot find eight (8) quality players then we want to have six (6) quality players instead of having six (6) quality and two (2) amateurs. Mr. Jacquet stated he agrees that quality is better than quantity. Mr. Baron stated the eight (8) man draw only brought players in Monday and Tuesday and the key thing for anything for the Champions Tour for Delray Beach is do the opening weekend as big as they can and as previously done in the past. Mayor McDuffie agrees to do the contract for one year and renew it in the future. Mr. Frankel moved to approve the agreement between the City of Delray Beach and Match Point Inc. but limit it to as a one year waiver to reduce the number of players required for the Champions Tour Event from eight (8) to six (6), seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A.A.A. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH COMMERCE BANK, N.A.: Approve Amendment No. 1 to our Agreement with Commerce Bank for ControlPay Advanced (CPA), an accounts payable solution that replaces paper checks with electronic payments through the Visa Network, to increases the percentage used in calculating the monthly revenue share for the City. 12 10/16/12 Mr. Jacquet moved to approve Item 10.A.A.A. (formerly Item 8.J.), seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A.A.A.A. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PLAYERS INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC. (PIM) AGREEMENT: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement between the City and Players International Management, Inc. (PIM) to provide for a change of the time periods when the events may be held and a clarification on the type of events required and the penalty if they fail to televise or hold an event. The City Attorney stated this is Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement between the City and Players and this amendment provides that in the current agreement they talked events in certain months and this agreement would modify that to talk about the events as either USTA or ITF governed and it would also modify the amount of money the City would get back if there is a failure to hold one or more of the events especially on the televised events then the City would get 37.5% deduction in the amount of payments we would make versus the way it was currently worded it was 25 but that also affects the other deduct amounts for two remaining events. The City Attorney stated staff has also modified Exhibit “A” to clarify the examples of certain events that may be held. Mr. Carney asked what impact does this have on the public’s use of the courts. Mark Baron, Tournament Director for the Junior Events, stated in the agreement it states that the courts have to be approved as far as usage by the City. Mr. Baron stated when this agreement was first written it was on four specific events that they would be holding and those consisted of eight tournaments. Mr. Baron stated they are now bringing nine (9) events consisting of twenty (20) tournaments which is thousands of people coming in. He stated the ITF event brought in thirty (30) players last year from around the world. Mr. Baron stated the contract is saying that the two specific events that 7 years ago was specified to be televised the City is giving PIM (Players International Management, Inc.) to televise the best. Brief discussion between the Commission and Mr. Baron followed. Mr. Baron noted that the first priority is with the court availability. Mr. Jacquet made reference to Section 27 of the amendment and stated it used to state “Failure to hold the April Event there would be a 25% deduction per event.” and now it is amended to state “Failure to hold a televised Event -37.5% deduction per event.” However, Mr. Jacquet stated in Section 3(c) it states that “PIM will secure, at a minimum, regional television coverage for two Events…” Mr. Baron clarified that it should state “Failure to hold two televised Events – 37.5% deduction per event.” 13 10/16/12 The City Attorney stated if he fails to hold one of the televised events it is a 37.5% deduction; he must hold two of those events and if he does not hold either one of them it is a 75% deduction and if it one event that is not televised the City gets 37.5%. Mr. Jacquet moved to approve Item 10.A.A.A. (formerly Item 8.I.), seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A.A.A.A.A. AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CAREHERE, LLC., THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH/EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER: Approve Agreements between CareHere, LLC., the City of Delray Beach and the Town of Highland Beach to allow full-time Highland Beach police officers shared limited medical services at the Employee Health and Wellness Center. Mr. Carney stated in determining what we charge City employees of another city is that at a higher per capita rate than we would charging for our own people. Bruce Koeser, Human Resources Director, stated for Highland Beach is $500/$600 depending on the level of service. Mr. Koeser stated the costs from Care Here, LLC, will be $30.00 plus labs and hourly rates for medical personnel. Mr. Koeser anticipates $200.00 to be the City’s cost and there will be only 2-5 officers because this is optional for them. He stated there will be no additional costs from the City’s side. Mr. Jacquet moved to approve Item 10.A.A.A.A.A. (formerly Item 8.L.), seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A.A.A.A.A.A. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: Purchase award to Martin Fence Company in the amount of $50,000.00 to remove existing 4' fence and replace with 6' green chain link fence on Pompey Park Fields #1, 2 and 3, and installation of an 8' wide x 90' long canopy over the backstop at Field #1. Funding is available from 334-4127-572-46.15 (General Construction Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/Improvements-Other Repair & Maintenance). Mrs. Gray stated the City received $92,000.00 from the County Commission to regulate the field at Pompey Park and part of that regulation was the size of the fence. She stated there is currently a 4 inch fence that extends from the dugout around the field. Mrs. Gray stated they are proposing a 6 foot green chain link fence which is not in regulation. She stated the fence at Miller Field their fence is 8 foot and then it goes down to 6 feet. The City Manager stated he will look into this but he thought 6 feet was regulation. He stated at Miller Park field there is 8 feet along the railroad to make it 14 10/16/12 harder for kids to get over on the railroad from Miller field. Mrs. Gray stated they were measured today and noted they are 8 feet from the dugout Mr. Frankel moved to postpone this item to the next regular meeting of November 6, 2012, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A. WAIVER REQUEST/290 S.E. 6TH AVENUE: Consider a waiver request to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.4.13(F)(7)(a), “Rear Setbacks”, to reduce the required rear setback to zero feet (0’) from the required ten feet (10’), in association with the installation of a wing wall for 290 S.E. 6th Avenue. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Mayor McDuffie read the City of Delray Beach Quasi-Judicial Hearing rules into the record for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items. Lanelda D. Gaskins, Acting City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications. The Commission had no ex parte communications to disclose. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a request for approval of a waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(7)(a) to reduce the required rear setback from 10 feet to zero feet in association with the installation of a wing wall for a project at 290 S.E. 6th Avenue. Mr. Dorling stated this building has recently been designated and it is to be redeveloped; it was an old auto repair facility and will be converted into an office facility. He stated the actual waiver request is for a small improvement for a wing wall that will match additional wing walls that will be along the southern facade. At its meeting of September 19, 2012, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered and approved with conditions as part of a Class I Site Plan modification associated with elevation changes to the historically designated building. The HPB considered this waiver request concurrently with the Site Plan Modification request and recommended approval with a 4 to 0 vote (McDonald absent). Mr. Dorling stated required findings are identified in the City Commission documentation and are made as it relates to the waiver requirements of LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or opposition, to please come forward at this time. Richard Jones, Richard Jones Architecture, urged the Commission to approve the waiver request for the property on S.E. 6th Avenue and stated a waiver 15 10/16/12 request came before the Commission approximately two months ago and this was one last waiver that slipped through the cracks at that time. Mr. Jones stated it was at a time where they were going through SPRAB and subsequently they decided to go for historic designation. He stated they are going down through two paths of site plan approval and they are both converging currently at this point of which this waiver Mr. Jones stated they took some direction from the Planning and Zoning staff and cut the wall back to maintain the safe site triangle and they feel it is an important part of the design because it is a structural support. Christina Morrison, 2809 Florida Boulevard #207, Delray Beach, FL 33483, applauds the developer for making this historic and stated the wing wall will make the view from these beautiful townhomes better. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the waiver request, the public hearing was closed. There was no rebuttal. Mr. Jacquet stated he understands there were two different routes being taken and wished this was before the Commission when they handled the other three waivers. He asked what the applicant is requesting is on S.E. 3rd or Federal Highway. Mr. Dorling stated it is S.E. 3rd and the alley. Mr. Jones stated they maintain the clear site triangle as required. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Board Order approving the waiver request, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.B. RELOCATION OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Provide direction regarding the relocation of the Chamber of Commerce. The City Attorney stated the last Workshop meeting the Commission gave direction; however, the Commission asked if the City would be able to sell the 6,000 square foot space to a developer if they so wish. At that time, the City Attorney stated he felt it would be a violation of the City’s bond proceeds. Subsequent to the meeting he checked with the outside bond counsel and it is not a violation of our bond conveyance if we would wish to do that because the area is so small and the amount is small compared to the total cost of the garage. The City Attorney informed the Commission that if the City did want to sell that space to a private developer there were no restrictions under a 16 10/16/12 bond conveyance to do that and to confirm the direction that the Commission gave staff at that meeting to proceed forward with the relocation of the Chamber of Commerce to that space. Mayor McDuffie stated there is some desire to include the 10,000 foot piece as well and the firm who made the offer wanted to clear a few things up. The City Attorney stated that is a separate item; however, he can discuss the asking price under his comments because this is not on the agenda. Mr. Jacquet asked how much can the City get for it if sold to a private entity. The City Manager stated the realtors are better equipped to answer this but the City could probably get a little over $1 million. The City Attorney stated the other space appraised at $200 a square foot and believes this space will appraise just as well. Scott Porten, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated there is an appraisal at $200 a foot and the City may even get an offer at $250 a foot. Mr. Porten stated it is in everyone’s best interest to relocate the Chamber so that they can recognize the $1.7 million and the ground that we currently occupy as well as the parking. Mr. Porten stated if you just take the 40% that the Chamber occupies that is approximately $750,000 and add that to $1,080,000 that the Chamber is giving the City for the other location, the City is getting $1.7 million versus $1.2 million or $1.5 million. He stated the tax that the City is going to generate will be on an ultimate project that is going to be $10-$20 million in the Chamber location versus $1.5 million if the City sells the space at $250 a foot or $1.2 million if sold at $200 a foot. Mr. Jacquet asked if the Old School Square Garage the best place for the Chamber to go or is there someplace else. Mr. Porten stated the Chamber has to either fix the space they are in or relocate. He stated if the City has another location for them they will take it if it is comparable. Mr. Porten stated they do not know of another location and they have to do this now. Mr. Jacquet clarified that the City does not have any other location that we know of that we can give to the Chamber except for the garage. Mr. Carney stated he understands the need for the Chamber wanting to have a comparable visible site and it is economically good for the CRA, the City, and the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Carney stated he is in support of the relocation. Mrs. Gray stated she too is in support of the relocation. Mr. Carney stated he knows that the CRA is planning to pay for the land over a period of time and he suggested shortening the period for the payment of that land to the City so the City could enjoy the funds sooner rather than later. Mr. Porten stated the intent would be that the net proceeds would go to pay off the City. Mr. Jacquet applauds Mr. Porten for his work. 17 10/16/12 Mayor McDuffie supports the relocation. It was the consensus of the Commission to relocate the Chamber of Commerce. 10.C. MODIFICATION TO PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENTS: Consider a request by the Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) to modify the valet parking license agreements to mandate licensees to validate 50% of the parking fee for customers patronizing their establishments. Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist, stated at its meeting of July 24, 2012, the Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) requested that the Board to modify the Valet Parking License Agreements that the valet license owner holder would mandate that they validate 50% of the fee for customers patronizing their establishments. He stated this was tabled at the first meeting that it was suggested and they directed staff to do a survey to see which of the existing valets were doing any validation programs. Mr. Aronson stated out of the eight (8) existing queues all but one were validating for their customers and it was the valet queue located on the south side of Atlantic Avenue between 2nd Avenue and the railroad tracks. The contention with the valet license agreements that predicated the changes earlier in the year were not that valet parking was $10.00 but that valet parking in a couple of the queues was $10.00 on weekdays and went up to $20.00 on the weekends. Staff understood the damage it can do with that expensive of parking and supported the $10.00 maximum fee for the valets. Mr. Aronson stated staff does not agree that the mandate would be appropriate because it could cause some hardships for neighboring restaurants who might not be doing so well if the valets are mandated to do so that they would have to validate and join those programs which could be a burden for them if they are not as successful as a neighboring restaurant. Mr. Aronson stated at the Parking Management Advisory Board meeting the made a slight adjustment. He stated noting that Max’s Harvest is on the 100 block of Pineapple Grove Way they charge $5.00 to all people and if they were mandated to the 50% validation for patrons of their customers the end result would be a raise to the $10.00 charge; $5.00 validation for customers of Max’s and the rest of the users of that valet queue would be stuck with the tab so the Board took a limit to the order of this mandate to go on Atlantic Avenue or within one block north and south of Atlantic Avenue. Mr. Aronson stated it would have the same effect on the GOL taste of Brazil who currently charges $7.00 and they would increase their rate to $10.00 and validate for the GOL customers and result in the $10.00 parking fee for the remaining customers. Staff recommends to not approve this mandate and leave it to the customers to choose where they want to park. Mr. Carney inquired about what they are charging. Mr. Aronson stated $10.00 is the maximum fee that any valet queue can charge. Mr. Carney stated it was his understanding that the whole idea behind these programs was to create validations for one and all. 18 10/16/12 Mr. Frankel suggested limiting it to Atlantic Avenue valets. Mayor McDuffie stated is a mess. Brief discussion by the Commission followed. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Item 10.C., seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – No; Mrs. Gray – No; Mayor McDuffie – No; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.D. VISIONS 2020 PROCESS APPOINTMENTS AND RATIFICATION OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE/VISIONS 2020: Consider approval of the recommended list of appointments as submitted by the Commission to serve as the Visions 2020 Steering Committee and appoint the City Commission representative. Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated this item is a recommended list of appointments as submitted by the Commission to serve on Visions 2020 Steering Committee and to appoint the City Commission representative. Ms. Butler stated at the regular meeting of October 2, 2012 the City Commission elected to establish the Steering Committee by having each Commissioner and Mayor submit three names for appointment. Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie suggested that the following two business types be represented: (1) retail and (2) restaurateur. Mr. Carney suggested adding David Cook as a retailer and Hand’s is a retailer. Mr. Frankel suggested adding Butch Johnson as a restaurateur. Mrs. Gray asked how many members should be on the Committee. Mrs. Butler stated the Steering Committees have ranged from 13 up to 19. Mr. Jacquet stated the last time the Commission discussed this he had mentioned that he wanted to move Commissioner Carney’s name. Mrs. Gray moved to approve the people listed as well as add Butch Johnson and David Cook with a Commission representative of Commissioner Carney, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.E. STATE LOBBYING SERVICES: Consider the selection of a firm for State Lobbying Services. Doug Smith, Assistant City Manager, stated Rich Reade, Public Information Officer, helped to contact and get proposals from several firms and many of 19 10/16/12 those were coming from contacts he had through a City Manager’s Statewide Committee. Mr. Smith briefly discussed the six (6) additional proposals and highlighted them: (1) Capitol Alliance Group, (2) Ericks Consultants, Inc., (3) Florida Strategic Group, (4) Greenberg Traurig, (5) Ronald Book, and (6) Weiss, Handler & Cornwell. Mr. Frankel stated he supports Option #1 (to represent the City regarding transient housing legislation at a fee of $15,000 for the 2013 legislative session) because time is of the essence and for further lobbying especially on the Federal level; the Commission has more of an opportunity to go through the various proposals. He is concerned about missing out on the number one issue that affects our city by not acting on that one single issue but then acting on the six (6) other proposals for lobbying on other issues while important to him he does not want to miss out on the one opportunity. Mr. Frankel stated he is looking at selecting the single issue for Ballard Partners to discuss further at a Workshop meeting the other proposals as to what issues need to be lobbied on behalf of the City. Mr. Smith stated several of these forms mentioned federal contact relationships they might have but he does not believe those would be the same services the City would get from a full federal lobbyist. Mr. Smith suggested if the Commission is interested in pursuing something for federal issues specifically the Beach Renourishment that they put out something separate to get proposals on those services. Mrs. Gray concurs with Commissioner Frankel that the Commission needs to go ahead and move forward with the single item for the state issue. Mrs. Gray stated she would like to have this added to the next Workshop agenda for the federal level. Mr. Carney stated the City of Boca Raton’s attorney and our attorneys were working on a piece of legislation that could be introduced in Tallahassee. Mr. Carney stated they have a lobbyist already working on that same bill on their behalf and it made sense cost wise to have one voice to the lobbying because when there are several lobbyist on the same issue it can distract legislators. He is favor of the Option #1 as it relates to this issue because tine is of the essence. Mr. Carney suggested that the City look into having both State and Federal lobbying services. Mr. Jacquet thanked Mr. Smith, Mr. Reade, and the City Attorney’s office for their hard work and the quickest turnaround in getting this information about the six (6) lobbying firms back to the Commission. He stated he believes when you have multiple lobbyists lobbying one issue that it actually helps your cause and not hurt it. Mr. Jacquet stated he spent over three years in Tallahassee and realized that when a legislator is making a decision on a bill and one lobbyist comes to them on that issue it does not speak as loud as if Ronald Book or Brian Ballard show up. Mr. Jacquet disagrees in going with the same lobbying firm that Boca Raton has and stated he would go with a different firm because he thinks two heads are better than one. Mr. Jacquet asked if our focus is on the State level or on the Federal level. The City Attorney stated our focus is on the State level. 20 10/16/12 Mayor McDuffie concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Carney that the Commission needs to move on this. Mayor McDuffie stated he would like to come right back and go through this list because they have already presented to the Commission and work out their choice for a full-time Florida lobbyist. Mayor McDuffie reiterated that the Commission is talking about a firm Ballard Partners for this one issue for this one time because of time restraints and other issues. He suggested that the Commission come back and get additional information on this group of lobbying firms and decide who the City wants to give its lobbying business to for the State. Mayor McDuffie stated then over the next few meetings then decide who the Commission wants to give our lobbying business to for the State; and then move on to Federal after that. Mayor McDuffie stated the Commission has a list of qualified lobbyists but he does not want to see the Commission award a single contract for one issue for one time to a lobbyist without going back and picking someone from this list for full time. Mrs. Gray asked staff if he can provide recommendations for the issues that the City is facing. Mr. Smith stated staff can bring back their list of issues at the November Workshop meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to award this to one firm for State lobbying services and provide additional information on Federal lobbying services at the next Workshop meeting. 10.F. APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE ADVISORY BOARD: Appoint one (1) regular member to the Police Advisory Board to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3). Mr. Frankel moved to appoint Marc Muscarella as a regular member to the Police Advisory Board (PAB) to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.G. APPOINTMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL: Appoint two (2) student members to the Neighborhood Advisory Council to serve unexpired terms ending July 31, 2013. Based on the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Mayor McDuffie (Seat #5) and Commissioner Carney (Seat #1). Mayor McDuffie stated he would like to appoint Elisha Porter as a student member to the Neighborhood Advisory Council to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013. Mr. Frankel so moved, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Carney moved to appoint Nathaniel Ellis as a student member to the Neighborhood Advisory Council to serve an unexpired term ending July 13, 2013, 21 10/16/12 seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 7:07 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11.A. ORDINANCE NO. 40-12 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.3.3 (ZZZ), “Transient Residential Use”, in order to clarify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penalties; and amend Appendix “A”, “Definitions”, the definition of “Transient Residential Use”. If passed, a public hearing will be held on November 6, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 40-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, “SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES”, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.3.3(ZZZ), “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY PROHIBITIONS, EXEMPTIONS/EXCEPTIONS, WAIVERS, AND PENALTIES FOR SAME; AMENDING APPENDIX “A”, “DEFINITIONS”, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”; AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.4.6(B), “PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED”, TO REMOVE TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE AS A PRINCIPAL USE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 40-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a cityinitiated amendment and amend the definition also for transient residential uses. Mr. Dorling stated the modifications clarify that the single-family residential zone district category includes the (RR) Rural Residential zoning designation and that the reference to 22 10/16/12 Medium Density Residential zoning districts category includes the (RL) Low Density Residential zoning designation. The ordinance modifications also include procedural standards for undue economic hardship requests and the amendment also removes the reference to transient residential use as a principal use in the RM (Medium Density Residential District). At its meeting of September 24, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the item and recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote. Staff recommends approval on first reading. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Frankel moved to adopt Ordinance No. 40-12 on First Reading/First Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 11.B. ORDINANCE NO. 29-12: Consider a request for historic designation of an individual site known as the “Waters-Wellenbrink Residence”, located at 1108 Vista Del Mar Drive North to be listed in the Local Register of Historic Places. The caption of Ordinance No. 29-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING WATERS-WELLENBRINK RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 1108 VISTA DEL MAR DRIVE NORTH, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AS A LOCAL HISTORIC SITE; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE “ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, JANUARY 2012” PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 29-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a request for approval to individually designate the property located at 1108 Vista Del Mar Drive North as Waters-Wellenbrink residence. Mr. Dorling stated this was built in 1938 23 10/16/12 and it does meet and fulfill the requirements set-forth in Section 4.5.1.(B)(2) and Section 4.5.1(B)(3). At its meeting of September 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval. Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacquet asked if the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) was a unanimous decision. Mr. Dorling stated HPB was unanimous on their decision. Mr. Carney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 29-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 11.C. ORDINANCE NO. 33-12: Consider an amendment to Chapter 37, “Delray Beach Code Enforcement”, by amending Section 37.42, “Administrative Fines; Costs of Repair, Liens”, to increase the fines for noise violations as defined in Section 99.03. The caption of Ordinance No. 33-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 37, “DELRAY BEACH CODE ENFORCEMENT”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 37.42 “ADMINISTRATIVE FINES; COSTS OF REPAIR, LIENS” TO INCREASE THE FINES FOR NOISE VIOLATIONS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 99.03; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 33-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated this ordinance deals with increasing the fines and if it is a $1,000 fine per day per violation for first violation and going up to $5,000 per day per violation for a repeat violation and this is in accordance with State Statute. 24 10/16/12 Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mayor McDuffie stated we are not really doing anything to the beginning level fines but we are opening up the windows so that if something continues that we can make it to the point where we actually get someone’s attention. The City Attorney stated most of the City’s noise ordinance violations are given citations and there is a maximum number the does not apply and cannot go up to this number on a citation because if you want to get up the numbers that we are talking about here someone would have to be cited and then they would have to go in front of the Code Enforcement Board be found guilty before that same entity could be found guilty of a repeat violation. The City Attorney stated this is more to allow in certain extreme examples if we cannot seem to get compliance. The City Attorney stated it opens up the process so that we can have the higher violation if and when we need to go through that process. Mr. Carney stated he first raised this issue primarily after some conversations with people who lived in Osceola Park who informed him that on a Saturday night at 11:00 p.m. it sounded like the music was in their front yards. Mr. Carney stated he went there and found the noise bad. He stated there is really no mechanism and there has to be a monetary price; if it is cheaper to stay loud and pay $500 as opposed to not doing that it was the residents that were being affected. Mr. Carney stated the thought was that the City could provide for stiffer penalties but those could only be imposed after a hearing with a public board so if there were mitigating circumstances it would be an opportunity for that person who was cited to explain their point of view and come to some kind of accommodation where it would not happen again. Mr. Jacquet clarified that as it is now we could get to this level of fines but they would have to go to the Code Enforcement Board and be found guilty. The City Attorney stated the City cannot get to that level yet because their fines are capped at a certain amount. Mr. Jacquet asked how this affects someone in a vehicle who is blasting music in the neighborhood. The City Attorney stated it affects everybody because it is applied equally across the board so whether it is a business, single family house, or sitting in the front yard, if someone is found guilty of violating the noise ordinance the fines could be big. Mr. Jacquet asked about the City’s enforcement and whether or not the City is stiffening it up because we cannot get people to comply. The City Attorney stated when the City had the case where the noise ordinance was struck down by the Court then the City revamped its noise ordinance and came up with a new noise ordinance. At that point in time based on direction from the Commission and other things that staff was seeing out there especially the ordinance that the City copied it off of (City of Miami Beach) they had something similar to this in their ordinance. Mr. Jacquet stated we have had a number of issues with people living in nearby communities with excessive noise and feels we are attacking the problem. Mr. Jacquet stated he has a problem supporting this; however, he does understand in what direction we are moving. 25 10/16/12 Mayor McDuffie expressed concern over the enforcement of this and asked if we still need to have a reading on a decibel meter and how do we quantify what is objectionable. The City Attorney stated it is basically a distance requirement. Mr. Carney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 33-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote, Commissioner Jacquet dissenting. 11.D. ORDINANCE NO. 34-12: Consider an amendment to Chapter 99, “Noise Control”, by amending Section 99.03, “Loud and Unnecessary Noises Prohibited”, to clarify same, by amending Section 99.08, “Penalty”, to increase the fines for noise violations. The caption of Ordinance No. 34-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 99 “NOISE CONTROL”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 99.02 “DEFINITIONS” TO DEFINE “STRUCTURE”; BY AMENDING 99.03 “LOUD AND UNNECESSARY NOISES PROHIBITED” TO CLARIFY SAME; BY AMENDING SECTION 99.08 “PENALTY” TO INCREASE THE FINES FOR NOISE VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 34-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated when the City revamped the noise ordinance there were some comments made on the second reading when the Commission adopted that ordinance that talked about some of the language they had with loud speakers and public address systems and how it may have conflicted with one of the other provisions that was in the ordinance. The City Attorney stated staff has since removed that section and have added that into the first section to remove any conflict and prevent any issues of inconsistent enforcement. Mr. Jacquet stated this is the clarification between the two sections. The City Attorney stated also under the penalty section whereas under Chapter 37 they had to allow us to go up to that certain level and in this particular case we are defining whether or not on second offense you can go up to $1,000; on the third offense you can go up to 26 10/16/12 $3,000; on the third or more after that then a $5,000 fine may be imposed. The City Attorney stated this talks about when we can go up to those fine levels if the enforcement was warranted and if the Code Enforcement Board also imposed those fines. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Drive Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he lives several blocks from a church on Gleason Street and especially during the holidays they play music on the hour. Mr. Blum stated this is fine with him; however, if someone down the street calls the police and says to stop it because it is a noise violation, how is that issue going to be addressed in this area. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacquet asked if there is any differential treatment in the City’s ordinance with regard to the churches. The City Attorney stated there is no difference and noise is treated the same for everyone. Mr. Carney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 34-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote, Commissioner Jacquet dissenting. 11.E. ORDINANCE NO. 35-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 3.04, “Assumption of Office; Organizational Meeting”, Section 3.05, “Oath of Office”, Section 3.08, “Vacancies; Filling of Vacancies”, Subsection (B), “Vacancy in Office of Mayor”, Section 4.02, “Appointment; Removal; Compensation”, Subsection (C), “Replacement”; Section 4.05, “Budget Procedure”, Subsection (D), “Public Hearing”, Subsection (E), “Budget Adoption/Appropriations”, Subsection I, “Audit”, Section 5.04, “Elections Generally”, Subsection (B), “Highest Number of Votes to Elect in First Nonpartisan Election”, Subsection (D), “If No Person Qualifies”; Section 6.05, “Procedure for Filing”, Subsection (A), “Certificate of City Clerk; Amendment”; to clarify, correct grammatical errors, and to enhance the Charter's readability; providing for a referendum election to be held on March 12, 2013. The caption of Ordinance No. 35-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 3.04, “ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE; ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING”; SECTION 3.05, “OATH OF OFFICE”; SECTION 3.08, 27 10/16/12 “VACANCIES; FILLING OF VACANCIES”, SUBSECTION (B), “VACANCY IN OFFICE OF MAYOR”; SECTION 4.02, “APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL; COMPENSATION”, SUBSECTION (C), “REPLACEMENT”; SECTION 4.05, “BUDGET PROCEDURE”, SUBSECTION (D), “PUBLIC HEARING”, SUBSECTION (E), “BUDGET ADOPTION/APPROPRIATIONS”, SUBSECTION I, “AUDIT”; SECTION 5.04, “ELECTIONS GENERALLY”, SUBSECTION (B), “HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES TO ELECT IN FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION”, SUBSECTION (D), “IF NO PERSON QUALIFIES”; SECTION 6.05, “PROCEDURE FOR FILING”, SUBSECTION (A), “CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK; AMENDMENT”; TO CLARIFY, CORRECT GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, AND TO ENHANCE THE CHARTER'S READABILITY; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013; PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 35-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated this item will be going to referendum that provides minor changes to the Charter hoping to clarify a few things in the Charter. He stated there is also an issue where approximately a year or so ago where West Palm Beach had an issue with a Commissioner who was elected but then passed away before he assumed office and staff has tried to also tried provide language in the ordinance to clarify that so that is not an issue. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Drive Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, addressed a comment expressed by Commissioner Frankel two weeks where he stated he wanted to get input from the public before making a decision. Mr. Blum stated he believes that was an excellent decision on his part and the question is if he is going to carry out the will of the people or impose his will on the people. Mr. Blum reiterated to the Commission to let the people vote and express the will of the people and to not impose their will on the people. 28 10/16/12 Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray Beach and Member of the Alliance), stated there are less than 25 people in this room; 2 or 3 people are going to speak. Dr. Kirson stated people are not coming out like last night for this item and stated when these are put on the referendum and the Commission sees the length of the referendum everybody will check “no” because he feels it is too long to read. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Carney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 35-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. F. ORDINANCE NO. 36-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 3.02, “City Commission: Composition, Eligibility, Election, and Terms”; amending Section 5.02, “Types of Elections”; to provide for a change in the length of a term from a twoyear term to a three-year term, but not extending the maximum number of consecutive years a Commissioner or Mayor is allowed to serve; providing for a referendum on March 12, 2013. The caption of Ordinance No. 36-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 3.02, “CITY COMMISSION: COMPOSITION, ELIGIBILITY, ELECTION, AND TERMS”; AMENDING 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, BUT NOT EXTENDING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE YEARS A COMMISSIONER OR MAYOR IS ALLOWED TO SERVE; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 36-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 29 10/16/12 The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Drive Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, suggested that the Commission should take the recommendations of the 11 people on the Charter Review Committee and take these five ordinances (Item 11.E thru 11.I. Ordinance No. 35-12 thru 39-12) to a referendum on March 12, 2013. Mr. Blum stated it would be a dis-service to the Charter Review Committee for the Commission to pick and choose what they feel is the best to do and not look for what is the best will of the people to do. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, disagrees with comments expressed by Mr. Blum and stated the last time there was a Charter Review Committee they deliberated at many longer meetings and came up with three (3) recommendations; one which was adopted by the Commission and the others were not. Mr. Frankel stated he agrees we appointed members of this panel that looked at the Charter who he considers very wise and who have served our community. Mr. Frankel stated he does believe it should go to the people; however, he finds it interesting that when this Board wanted to put an item on the ballot regarding the change in the length of the term of office and the Commission was heavily criticized yet there were some members of the panel who now want to place this on the ballot. Mr. Carney stated to be consistent with his position before this needs to be placed on the ballot and let the citizens decide do they want to have two 3 year terms or retain the three 2 year terms as is. Mrs. Gray stated she was in support of this the last time and is in support of this going to the public. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Gray moved to adopt Ordinance No. 36-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote, Mr. Jacquet dissenting. G. ORDINANCE NO. 37-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 4.02, “Appointment; Removal; Compensation”, by amending Subsection (B), “Removal” ; to provide that the removal of the City Manager shall only require a majority vote; 30 10/16/12 providing for a referendum on March 12, 2013. The caption of Ordinance No. 37-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 4.02, “APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL; COMPENSATION”, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (B), “REMOVAL”; TO PROVIDE THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER SHALL ONLY REQUIRE A MAJORITY VOTE; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013, PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 37-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated this provides a change to the Charter that will allow for the removal of the City Manager upon a majority vote and not by four affirmative votes. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Tom Lynch, 820 N.E. 6th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated in the 1980’s Delray Beach had 9 or 10 interim City Manager’s and in the 1990’s they put into action the super majority. Mr. Lynch stated in hindsight it was probably a mistake because the Commission at the time was out of a reaction instead of the right reason. However, Mr. Lynch stated now as he looks back he sees Mr. Harden after 22 years getting ready to retire it did work because they had stability for 22 years which they did not have in Delray Beach. Mr. Lynch strongly believes the saying that “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Drive Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated this should not be about 3/2 versus 4/1 at all but should be about giving the people the right to vote. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he concurs with comments expressed by Mr. Lynch. 31 10/16/12 Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray Beach and Member of the Alliance), stated there is no need for this to go on the ballot and urged the Commission to make a decision. Michael Weiner, Weiner & Lynne, P.A., 10 S.E. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, concurs with comments expressed by Mr. Lynch, Mr. Bennett, and Dr. Victor Kirson. Mr. Weiner stated over the years he has seen the City Manager make decisions which unfortunately he did not agree with but when he looks around at all the municipalities that he practices in the stability that has been in this city over the last two decades has been wonderful for the town. He encouraged the Commission to make their own decision about this particular amendment. Christina Morrison, 2809 Florida Boulevard #207, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated the City of Delray Beach went through some rough waters a few years ago and the City Manager was heavily criticized. Ms. Morrison stated if this 3/2 vote would have been in affect back then she does not believe the City Manager would be sitting on the dais right now which she feels would have been unfortunate for the City. She stated when she looks around the city she feels those 22 years of strong leadership put us in this position. Ms. Morrison stated it would be a shame to change the City Manager’s job to a political job if the vote were to go to a 3/2 majority and feels that 4/1 is a harder majority to get and thanked the City Manager for everything he has done. Jay Alperin, 3130 Lowson Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33445, thanked the City Manager for his dedication and hard work for 22 years. Dr. Alperin stated he and Mr. Lynch were on a previous Commission that hired Mr. Harden. Dr. Alperin stated he was also appointed Chair of the Charter Revision Committee and before they knew about the City Manager’s retirement they were going to recommend having the ordinance written in such a way that it would not have any impact on him because everyone believes that he has done an excellent job. However, Dr. Alperin stated there was a 10 to 1 vote to recommend that this go to the public to have it confirmed or changed. He stated the Committee also reviewed the ordinance removing the salary control out of the Charter so that should you have a City Manager that you are disappointed with and do not want to fire, the Commission can reduce their salary. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacquet stated there were many good comments were made this evening about this issue. Mr. Jacquet stated he opposes this item because this is an attempt to make the position of the City Manager a political position which will hurt the City in the long run. He encouraged the rest of the Commission to vote against placing this on the ballot. Mr. Jacquet stated when people elect the City Commissioners they are elected to make certain decisions. 32 10/16/12 Mr. Carney stated there is a caveat to the statement that “the highest form of democracy is a citizen referendum” and that is if your elected body truly believes that what could be put on a referendum is not in the best interest of the city. Mr. Carney stated he cannot make that argument here. Mr. Carney stated he is in favor of putting this ordinance to referendum. Mrs. Gray concurs with Commissioner Jacquet that this should not be placed on the ballot. She stated the stability in this city has been awesome and she supports the super majority and does not support this ordinance. Mr. Frankel stated it is hard for him to say we should not put this on the ballot when there were 10 people out of 11 who felt it necessary and agreed to put it on the ballot. Mr. Jacquet stated in speaking the Charter Review Committee members they wanted to present the Commission with some options and the City Commission would make the final decision of which ordinances should pass and which ones should not. He agrees that 10 to 1 is a large majority but at the same time that does not and should not determine the way that the Commission votes on any other board or committee. Mayor McDuffie stated without continuity of vision or a consistent flow of institutional knowledge every time you change the Commission the entire dynamic of the city changes. Mayor McDuffie stated he cannot support something that would allow this Commission or any other Commission to have the emotions of three people take someone of this caliber out of office. Mayor McDuffie reiterated that he knows that the continuity and the consistency of vision here pretty much passed on by Mr. Harden is a great deal of the reason why we have been able to change the other five people that sit on the dais and keep the course and vision. He stated the knowledge and leadership has been there. Mayor McDuffie stated he has he highest regard for the committee that made these decisions but he is adamantly opposed to this. Mr. Jacquet moved to adopt Ordinance No. 37-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – No; Mayor McDuffie – No; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion to adopt Ordinance No. 37-12 was DENIED with a 3 to 2 vote, Commissioner Jacquet, Commissioner Gray, and Mayor McDuffie dissenting. H. ORDINANCE NO. 38-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 3.09, “Term Limits”, Subsection (A), “Term Limit”; to provide that the maximum time period allowed to hold office, six (6) years, shall not apply in the case of a Commissioner who assumes the office of Mayor, in that case the time spent holding office as a Commissioner shall not count toward the six (6) year maximum time limit; providing for a referendum on March 12, 2013. 33 10/16/12 The caption of Ordinance No. 38-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 3.09, “TERM LIMITS”, SUBSECTION (A), “TERM LIMIT”; TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAXIMUM TIME PERIOD ALLOWED TO HOLD OFFICE, SIX YEARS, SHALL NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF A COMMISSIONER WHO ASSUMES THE OFFICE OF MAYOR, IN THAT CASE THE TIME SPENT HOLDING OFFICE AS A COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT COUNT TOWARD THE SIX YEAR MAXIMUM TIME LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 38-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated this proposed amendment to the Charter would allow a sitting Commissioner who assumes the Office of Mayor where the six (6) year consecutive years would not apply to the time that person has spent as a Commissioner and they could be in the Office of Mayor for a term of six (6) years if re-elected, etc. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray Beach and Member of the Alliance), thanked Commissioner Jacquet, Commissioner Gray and Mayor McDuffie for the comments on the previous item and he agrees with all their points. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Drive Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he is thankful for all the comments from the Commission and Mayor McDuffie but he disagrees because he feels it is rare that the public has an opportunity to vote on issues that affect them greatly and for the Commission to take away the right of the people to vote is an abomination. Mr. Blum stated more and more he is seeing decisions made in the last year by this Commission that have eroded the public trust. He stated the Commission should allow his vote. 34 10/16/12 There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacquet stated he understands that Mr. Blum is saying that he wants this decision to be made by the voters but unfortunately this is not a decision that is guaranteed to go to the voters because the process does not work that way. Mr. Jacquet stated this was by referendum, a committee was put together and they come up with ideas and recommendations and the Commission is charged with the responsibility of deciding out of those recommendations which ones should go to the ballot. He stated the residents get to vote every two years for their Commissioners and encouraged everyone to find out more who is running for office and find out where they stand on certain issues so that when you vote for your Commissioners you know that you voted for someone who represents you and who will make certain decisions in line with you want for example these Charter amendments. Mr. Frankel moved to adopt Ordinance No. 38-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – No; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. I. ORDINANCE NO. 39-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 4.02, “Appointment; Removal; Compensation”, by amending Subsection (D), “Compensation”; to provide for the removal of the Charter prohibition on reducing the City Manager’s Salary; providing for a referendum on March 12, 2013. The caption of Ordinance No. 39-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 4.02, “APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL; COMPENSATION”, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (D), “COMPENSATION”; TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CHARTER PROHIBITION ON REDUCING THE CITY MANAGER’S SALARY; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013, PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 39-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 35 10/16/12 A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated there is a prohibition in the Charter that does not allow or prohibits the Commission from reducing the City Manager’s salary so this would remove that prohibition. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated the three of the Commissioners that did not support the previous item should also oppose this because if 3 but not 4 fail to boot the City Manager they can accomplish the same affect by diminishing his/her salary to the point to where the person cannot live on it or that they are insulted by it. Mr. Bennett stated as to sending a message when you are displeased or you have an annual performance review you can make comments there and not give an increase or bonus. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Carney stated he does not feel that matters of compensation should be left up to a Charter so that anytime you want to make a compensation change you have to have a Charter Review and put something on the ballot. He feels that the policy makers should have the right to determine compensation and whether it should be raised or lowered and he is in support of making this change. Mr. Jacquet concurs with Commissioner Carney on this ordinance and stated it is the Commissions job to determine the hiring, firing, and pay of the City Manager. He stated he supported placing this on the ballot for referendum before and he will support it again. Mrs. Gray stated if a potential City Manager is looking at the contract and the fact that the salary could be lowered at any given point then that person might not consider the job. Mrs. Gray stated she is still not in support of this ordinance. Mr. Frankel thanked the Committee for the time they spent on this and stated he does not support this ordinance. Mayor McDuffie stated if the City has a City Manager that is out of control and needs to be dismissed the vote is going to be 5 to 0. He stated he does not support this ordinance. Mr. Frankel moved to adopt Ordinance No. 39-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – No; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – No. Said motion was approved with a 5 to 0 vote, Mayor McDuffie and 36 10/16/12 Commissioner Gray dissenting. At this point, Mrs. Gray requested to pull Item 8.P.6., Purchase Award to Martin Fence Company from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Carney moved to reconsider the approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Frankel moved to remove Item 8.P.6., Purchase Award to Martin Fence Company to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A.A.A.A. and reapprove the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12. FIRST READINGS: A. None 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. City Manager The City Manager stated last Friday he attended the Florida League of Cities Legislative Committee meetings in Orlando. He stated he is on the Urban Administration Committee and there are several people from Palm Beach County on the Committee and they were successful in getting sober house legislation as one of the two priorities. The City Manager stated that should go forward with the League of Cities to be one of their top priorities. He stated the other one is regulation of synthetic drugs. The City Manager stated their next meeting is in November in Orlando. Secondly, the City Manager stated Mr. Jacquet had asked about the process used for naming things such as a building or park. The City Manager stated in the past the Commission has assumed the responsibility of handling all naming opportunities. He stated generally the suggestion has come from a community member or leader or an organized group and the Commission has either rejected or ratified the recommendation. Staff has begun to work on a written policy and procedure for the public to use when the naming opportunity becomes available. The City Manager stated staff will try to have some minimum criteria as well as the types of things that can be named for the Commission’s consideration. The City Manager stated Mrs. Gray had asked about creating a historic district on 5th Avenue. Mrs. Gray stated she mis-spoke and clarified that what she was really inquiring about is whether or not the City has a district named the Historical Business District and whether we are still calling it this. The City Manager stated north of Atlantic Avenue is in the West Settlers’ District but south of Atlantic Avenue is not in 37 10/16/12 a historic district. The City Manager stated although we look at 5th Avenue from South 1st to North 2nd as the Historic Light Business District it has never been officially designated as such. The City Manager stated if Mrs. Gray has a suggestion for a way to formalize that then staff can work on it. Lastly, the City Manager stated he appreciates the Commission’s comments on updating the website and there is training scheduled for all the departments on how to do the updates. 13.B. City Attorney The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C. City Commission 13.C.1. Mr. Jacquet Mr. Jacquet had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C.2. Mrs. Gray Mrs. Gray inquired about the contracts that Commissioner Carney previously requested from Parks and Recreation. The City Manager stated these were provided to Commissioner Carney. Secondly, Mrs. Gray stated she went to the Delray Swim and Tennis Club today to see the conditions of the pool after the closure and she was disappointed to see how the conditions of the pool were left. The City Manager stated he will get that addressed. Mrs. Gray stated the tennis center membership numbers have increased and they are doing a great job. However, she stated inside the clubhouse there are maintenance issues such as the carpet and the bathroom that need to be addressed. Lastly, Mrs. Gray expressed concern over the collapse of the restroom roof at Hilltopper Stadium and asked that staff look into this. 13.C.3. Mr. Frankel Mr. Frankel concurred with comments expressed by Ms. Moody about the debris and conditions at the library. He stated the front of the library is disgusting. Secondly, Mr. Frankel stated the City Manager will receive a prestigious award from the Historic Preservation Society in early November (November 2, 2012). 38 10/16/12 13.C.4. Mr. Carney Mr. Carney stated he had a meeting this afternoon with TJ with Prep and Sports about the conditions of the bathrooms at Hilltopper Stadium and this needs to be addressed. 13.C.5. Mayor McDuffie Mayor McDuffie stated next week the City will mount the first four devices at S.D. Spady, Atlantic High School, Village Academy, and the Police tower. He stated in the following two weeks the City will mount the rest of them. Mayor McDuffie stated by the GIS counts and running this against the School Board the City expects to serve 302 families out of Atlantic High School, 68 families out of S.D. Spady, 168 families out of Carver Middle School, and 204 families out of Village Academy. He stated there will be a kick-off meeting to invite all the stakeholders to discuss this. There being no further business, Mayor McDuffie declared the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ____________________________________ ______ City Clerk ATTEST: ____________________________________ M A Y O R The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting held on October 16, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on ________________________. _____________________ ____________________ City Clerk 39 10/16/12 NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendments, additions or deletions as set forth above. October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting; Item 10.A. October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting; Item 10.A. SPECIAL MEETING November 2, 2012 A Special Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Vice Mayor Thomas Carney in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 1:01 p.m., on Friday November 2, 2012. Roll call showed: Present -Vice-Mayor Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Absent -Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Commissioner Alson Jacquet Also present were -Douglas Smith, Assistant City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Lanelda Gaskins, Deputy City Clerk Vice-Mayor Carney called the Special Meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. DEFERRAL OF CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTS/ATLANTIC PLAZA II: Consider deferral of Conditional Use Requests for Atlantic Plaza II to the November 13, 2012 Special/Workshop Meeting. Mr. Frankel thanked Mr. Douglas Smith, Assistant City Manager, for calling this meeting. He stated that he spoke with Mr. Bill Morris regarding this item, and also received a lot of emails requesting that this item be deferred from Tuesday, November 6th Election night meeting to November 13th meeting. Mr. Frankel stated that he also received a letter from the Edwards Group regarding this item. Mrs. Gray stated that she received calls and emails regarding this item. She is in favor of deferring this item to the November 13, 2012 Special Meeting. Vice-Mayor Carney stated that there were numerous emails and conversations regarding this item. Mr. Frankel made a motion to defer the Conditional Use Requests/Atlantic Plaza II from the November 6, 2012 Regular Meeting to a Special Meeting on November 13, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. Vice-Mayor Carney adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 1:04 p.m. 2 November 2, 2012 ______________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the City Commission held on Friday, November 2, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on November 20, 2012. _________________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. WHEREAS, world-wide over 35 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS and over 25 million people have already died of AIDS, and each year more than 2.7 million new infections occur; and WHEREAS, the global spread of HIV infection and AIDS necessitates a worldwide effort to increase communication, education and action to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS observes December 1 of each year as “World AIDS Day”, a day to commemorate those who have passed on, celebrate victories such as increased access to treatment and prevention services, and to reinvigorate the worldwide effort to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, the 2012 World AIDS Day theme is “Getting to Zero” and focuses on zero new infections, zero discrimination, and zero AIDS related deaths; and WHEREAS, in the United States, over 1 million people are infected with HIV and every 9½ minutes a new infection occurs resulting in more than 50,000 new annual infections; and WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County HIV Community Prevention Partnership and Palm Beach County HIV CARE Council, through its partners are working together to renew HIV/AIDS awareness and to expand and strengthen the local effort to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Palm Beach County on World AIDS Day. NOW, THEREFORE, I, NELSON S. McDUFFIE, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission do hereby proclaim December 1-7, 2012: “WORLD AIDS AWARENESS WEEK” and December 1, 2012 as World AIDS Day in the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and urge all residents to take part in activities and observances designed to increase awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge and urge residents to join the global effort to prevent further spread of HIV/AIDS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 20th day of November, 2012. __________________________________ NELSON S. McDUFFIE MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Tamara Genius, Plan Reviewer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental Services THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 31, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/936 BANYAN DRIVE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Deferral of sidewalk installation in front of 936 Banyan Drive. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Banyan Drive, east of Spanish Trail in the Tropic Isle Subdivision, at 936 Banyan Drive. Refer to location map. The applicant will construct a single family residence on the lot where an existing structure has been demolished. Currently, there are no plans to install a sidewalk along the south side of Banyan Drive in the vicinity of the subject residence. The deferral request was approved by DSMG at the November 8, 2012 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the sidewalk deferral. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Tamara Genius, Plan Reviewer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 10, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/972 FERN DRIVE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Deferral of sidewalk installation in front of 972 Fern Drive. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Fern Drive, east of Boone Drive in the Tropic Isle Subdivision, at 972 Fern Drive (location map attached). The current project is a vacant lot in which the Owner will construct a single family residence. Currently, there are no plans to install a sidewalk along the south side of Fern Drive in the vicinity of the subject residence. The deferral request was approved by DSMG at the October 11, 2012 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the sidewalk deferral. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Tracie M. Lutchmansingh, P.E., Asst. City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 13, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK EASEMENT DEED /LIZ REALTY LLC ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Acceptance of a Sidewalk Easement Deed with Liz Realty LLC for property located at 445 East Atlantic Avenue. BACKGROUND Property is located at the northwest corner of NE 5th Avenue and Atlantic Avenue. In August 2012, plans were submitted to Planning and Zoning for a Class III Site Plan Modification. Renovations includes a 207 square feet addition and awning along the south side of the exisitng building. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1 (D)(3), a corner clip right-of-way dedication is required at all intersections in the Central Business District (CBD). This right-of-way dedication is required to ensure adeqaute right-of-way for safe movement of pedestrians in the CBD. However, due to the location of the building addition and the setback requirements, taking a right-of-way dedication would create a nonconforming condition. In order to accomplish the same goal of providing a safe public pedestrain access area, a sidewalk easement was required in lieu of the corner clip right-of-way dedication. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. LOCATION MAP Liz Building @445 East Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Ave. Federal Hwy. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Ronald Hoggard, AICP, Principal Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: November 13, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 54-12 /ABANDONMENT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT: 1207 HAMMOND ROAD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The request involves the abandonment a portion of a 12’ drainage easement located on the property at 1207 Hammond Road, within Lot C, Lane Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. BACKGROUND The subject property, located on the north side of Hammond Road, is currently undeveloped. A building permit application for construction of a single-family home has been submitted to the Building Department. Drainage easements were dedicated on the plat for the four single-family lot subdivision recorded on September 13, 2001. These easements were dedicated to the owners of the lots “for the purpose of storm water management”. The drainage plan has since changed and portions of the original drainage easements on two of the lots are no longer needed. The portion of the 12’ easement being abandoned on Lot C is located along the west property line. REVIEW BY OTHERS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(5), a finding must be made prior the City Commission granting an abandonment that the abandonment will not be detrimental to the provision of utility services to adjacent properties or the general area. Since the easement is strictly for drainage purposes, review and approval by Florida Power & Light (FPL), Comcast Cable, Florida Public Utilities Company and AT&T is not required. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and has no objections to the abandonment. The original Engineer of Record (EOR) did the first drainage plan and used surface swales for the subdivision. The current EOR changed the original drainage plan and incorporated exfiltration trenches and eliminated a couple of the surface swales. The easements being eliminated /abandoned on Lots C and D (easement abandonment for Lot D is a separate agenda item on the November 20, 2012 meeting) are easements that are no longer needed because those surface swales have been eliminated and replaced with exfiltration trenches. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Resolution No. 54-12 to abandon a 71 foot section of a 12 feet drainage easement located on the property at 1207 Hammond Road, within Lot C, Lane Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.6(N)(5), Abandonment of Public Easements, of the Land Development Regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 54-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 1207 HAMMOND ROAD, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, received an application for abandonment of 71 feet of a 12 foot wide drainage easement dedicated to the lot owners via the Plat of “Lane Subdivision”, as recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, located at 1207 Hammond Road, and as more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the application for abandonment of said easement was processed pursuant to Section 2.4.6(N), "Abandonment of Public Easements", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(3)(c), the application was forwarded to the City Commission with a recommendation from the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(5), finds that the abandonment will not result in detriment for the provision of utility services to adjacent properties or the general area, that its interest in the described property is no longer needed for the public good and deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach to vacate and abandon said easement, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That pursuant to Chapter 177 and Chapter 166 of the Florida Statutes, it is hereby determined to vacate and abandon all right and interest it holds to the following real property, more particularly described as follows: 2 RES. NO. 54-12 See Exhibit "A" Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the __ day of__________, 2012. __________________ ______________ M A Y O R ATTEST: ___________________________ City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Ronald Hoggard, AICP, Principal Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: November 13, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 55-12 /ABANDONMENT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT: 1211 HAMMOND ROAD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The request involves the abandonment a portion of a 12’ drainage easement located on the property at 1211 Hammond Road, within Lot D, Lane Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. BACKGROUND The subject property, located on the north side of Hammond Road, is currently undeveloped. A building permit application for construction of a single-family home has been submitted to the Building Department. Drainage easements were dedicated on the plat for the four single-family lot subdivision recorded on September 13, 2001. These easements were dedicated to the owners of the lots “for the purpose of storm water management”. The drainage plan has since changed and portions of the original drainage easements on two of the lots are no longer needed. The portion of the 12’ easement being abandoned on Lot D is located along the east property line. REVIEW BY OTHERS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(5), a finding must be made prior the City Commission granting an abandonment that the abandonment will not be detrimental to the provision of utility services to adjacent properties or the general area. Since the easement is strictly for drainage purposes, review and approval by Florida Power & Light (FPL), Comcast Cable, Florida Public Utilities Company and AT&T is not required. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and has no objections to the abandonment. The original Engineer of Record (EOR) did the first drainage plan and used surface swales for the subdivision. The current EOR changed the original drainage plan and incorporated exfiltration trenches and eliminated a couple of the surface swales. The easements being eliminated /abandoned on Lots C and D (easement abandonment for Lot C is a separate agenda item on the November 20, 2012 meeting) are easements that are no longer needed because those surface swales have been eliminated and replaced with exfiltration trenches. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Resolution No. 55-12 to abandon a 103.7 foot section of a 12 feet drainage easement located on the property at 1211 Hammond Road, within Lot D, Lane Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.6(N)(5), Abandonment of Public Easements, of the Land Development Regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 55-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 1211 HAMMOND ROAD, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, received an application for abandonment of a 103.7 foot section of a 12 foot wide drainage easement dedicated to the lot owners via the Plat of “Lane Subdivision”, as recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, located at 1211 Hammond Road, and as more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the application for abandonment of said easement was processed pursuant to Section 2.4.6(N), "Abandonment of Public Easements", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(3)(c), the application was forwarded to the City Commission with a recommendation from the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(5), finds that the abandonment will not result in detriment for the provision of utility services to adjacent properties or the general area, that its interest in the described property is no longer needed for the public good and deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach to vacate and abandon said easement, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That pursuant to Chapter 177 and Chapter 166 of the Florida Statutes, it is hereby determined to vacate and abandon all right and interest it holds to the following real property, more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit "A" 2 RES. NO. 55-12 Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the __ day of__________ , 2012. ________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: ___________________________ City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construction Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 13, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 CORRECTION TO A LINE ITEM FOR THE CONTRACT AWARD TO FOSTER MARINE CONTRACTORS, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a contract line item amount correction/reduction and a total contract amount reduction from $84,445.00 to $79,455.00 to the contract awarded to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc.; for the Lake Ida Swales Project #12-010. BACKGROUND On November 6, 2012, Commission approved a contract award in the amount of $84,445.00 to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. for the construction of roadside swales along N.W. 7th and 12th Streets and N.W. 3rd and 5th Avenues in the Lake Ida Neighborhood. Upon contract execution, it was discovered that there was an error in the amount of a bid/contract line item for the Lake Ida Swales Project Contract. The amount on the Bid Package for Line Item #11 Indemnification was $5,000.00; this is incorrect. The indemnification amount should be $10.00. The City Attorney and staff are recommending approval of a reduction in Line Item #11 Indemnification from $5,000.00 to $10.00. As a result of the line item reduction, the total contract amount will be reduced from $84,445.00 to $79,455.00. Attached, please find a signed letter from Foster Marine, stating that they agree to the line item reduction and total contract amount reduction. The letter also clarifies that Foster Marine is aware that there is no Contingency Allowance in the Lake Ida Swales Project contract. FUNDING SOURCE N/A -funding is not required for this agenda item. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a contract line item amount correction/reduction and a total contract amount reduction from $84,445.00 to $79,455.00 for the contract awarded to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc.; for the Lake Ida Swales Project. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construction Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: October 18, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (C.O. NO. 5/FINAL)/FOSTER MARINE CONTRACTORS, INC./AUBURN AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Contract Closeout (CO #5/Final) in the net deduct amount of ($42,718.43) and final payment amount of $43,828.47 to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. for completion of the Auburn Avenue Improvement Project #2010-040. BACKGROUND On October 4, 2011, Commission approved a contract award and Change Order No. 1 in the total amount of $1,156,896.00 to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. The project consists of Roadway and Infrastructure Improvements on Auburn Avenue from SW 7th St. to 8th St.; SW 12th and 13th Ave. from SW 8th St. to 10th St.; SW 8th St. from SW 14th Ave. to 12th Ave.; and SW 10th St. from SW 14th Ave. to 12th Ave. The scope of the project includes roadway resurfacing and reconstruction, sidewalks, landscaping, design-build irrigation, paver cross-walks, drainage improvements, on street parking and bus shelters. In addition, new water and sewer infrastructure on SW 12th and 13 Ave. from SW 8th St. to 10th St., SW 8th St. from SW 14th Ave. to 12th Ave., and SW 10th Street from SW 14th Ave. to 12th Ave. On March 9, 2012 the City Manager approved the cost of $6,625.68 associated with converting twelve (12) single water services and twelve (12) single sewer services, to double services. The amount was paid out of the Contract's Unforeseen Conditions Allowance. On April 3, 2012 Commission approved Change Order No. 2 in the total amount of $20,991.00 for the removal of an additional 260 SY of concrete driveway and 315 LF of concrete sidewalk; and the installation of 310 LF of concrete sidewalk and 2,340 SF of concrete driveway apron. This was required in order to properly match the plan elevations of the proposed roadway adjacent to the existing concrete driveways. On May 1, 2012 Commission approved a Contract Addition (CO #3) in the total amount of $40,715.83 for Construction of the Auburn Avenue turn lane to accommodate the revised configuration of the entrance to the Village of Delray development; asphalt overbuild on SW 8th Street required to match the new curb and roadway elevations; and a total contract time extension of 55 days. CO #3 also included excavation and restoration services in the amount of $6,311.00, for assisting the city with the installation of line stops on SW 10th St. in order for the City to shut down a water main. This was funded out of the Contract's Unforeseen Conditions Allowance. On August 21, 2012, Commission approved Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $11,844.45 for the reconstruction of a driveway apron at Storage America; and a contract time extension of (35) days. Change Order No. 5 includes plus and minus quantity adjustments and liquidates the residual from contingency allowances. All changes for the project are itemized on the attached Schedule "A". The project is complete and all closeout documentation has been received. FUNDING SOURCE Residual funds to be liquidated from PO #679160 to funding accounts as follows: 334-3162-541-68.65 ($29,761.93) 442-5178-536-68.50 ($12,956.50) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Contract Closeout (CO #5/Final) in the net deduct amount of ($42,718.43) and final payment amount of $43,828.47 to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. for the completion of the Auburn Ave. Improvement Project. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 CDBG SUB-RECIPIENT FUNDING AGREEMENT/FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval is requested to execute an agreement for funding with the above-listed sub-recipient under the 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. BACKGROUND In accordance with 24 CFR 570.301, a Public Hearing was held before the City Commission on August 7, 2012, to obtain public comment on the proposed budget for the approval of the Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Action Plan for fiscal year 2012-2013. The Action Plan contains an appropriation for public service activity and was approved by the Commission. CDBG Program regulations at 24 CFR 570.503 require written agreements prior to the disbursement of funds to sub-recipient organizations, specifying the work to be performed and reporting requirements, among other requirements and governing provisions. These agreements have been developed in accordance with the stated regulations and have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney for legal sufficiency and form. FUNDING SOURCE Community Development Block Grant 118-1966-554.82.12 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval and execution of the attached agreements in order that funding may proceed in accordance with the Commission approved Action Plan for fiscal year 2012-2013. 1 FY 2012-2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT between CITY OF DELRAY BEACH and FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY,” and FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC., hereinafter referred to as “the SUBRECIPIENT,” having its principal office at 1300 West Lantana Road, Suite 100, Lantana, Florida 33462. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the CITY has entered into an Agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a grant for the execution and implementation of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in the CITY, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (as amended); and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to engage the SUBRECIPIENT to implement an activity of the Delray Beach CDBG Program; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITION AND PURPOSE 1. Definitions 1.1 “CDBG” means Community Development Block Grant program. 1.2 “HUD” means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1.3 “24 CFR” refers to the Section of the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining to the U.S. Dept. of HUD. 1.4 “Program Income” means gross income received, directly generated or earned from the use of CDBG funds. Program Income includes, but is not limited to, interest earned on advances of federal funds or royalties received as a result of patents or copyrights produced under this grant. 1.5 “OMB” means Office of Management and Budget. 1.6 “Low-and Moderate-Income” means a household whose income is within specified income limits set forth by HUD. 1.7 Property: a. “Real Property” means land, land improvements, structures, fixtures and appurtenances thereto, excluding movable machinery and equipment. 2 b. “Personal Property” means personal property of any kind except real property. c. “Nonexpendable Personal Property” means tangible (i.e., physical) personal property of a nonconsumable nature, with a value of $500 or more per item, with a normal expected life of one or more years, not fixed in place, and not an integral part of a structure, facility or another piece of equipment. d. “Expendable Personal Property” means all tangible personal property other than nonexpendable property. 2. Purpose The purpose of this Agreement is to state the covenants and conditions under which the SUBRECIPIENT will implement the Statement of Work set forth in Article II of this agreement. ARTICLE II STATEMENT OF WORK The SUBRECIPIENT shall carry out the activities specified in Attachment A, “Scope of Services.” ARTICLE III FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT 3.1 The maximum amount payable by the CITY under this Agreement will be Six Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($6,000.00). 3.2 The CITY will be billed by the SUBRECIPIENT and will disburse $1000.00 per seminar/session. Bills shall be submitted by the SUBRECIPIENT at least two weeks in advance. 3.3 Prior to receipt of CDBG funds (through reimbursement), SUBRECIPIENT shall submit for each seminar/session conducted, the following documentation: a. An agenda displaying the date, time, and location of the session/seminar conducted (the NS Division must have been notified in advance of the same, as required in the Scope of Service, item (b); b. A list of invitees/attendees for each session/seminar; c. A request for funds/invoice; d. Proof that each seminar/session was adequately advertised and marketed to residents of Delray Beach, in an effort to ensure maximum participation and effectiveness (i.e. marketing tools used, copy of flyers/invitations/newspaper ads, and a narrative of other efforts made (activity report); e. A grantee performance report generated for each seminar showing summary statistics on race, ethnicity, and income level of clients served by the program. 3.4 Release of funds is subject to the approval of the Director of Community Improvement. 3 ARTICLE IV TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from October 1, 2012, to September 30, 2013. ARTICLE V SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION 5.1 Termination/Suspension of Payments/Agreement for Cause: If through any cause either party shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, either party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend payments in whole or in part by giving written notice of such termination or suspension of payments and specify the effective date of termination or suspension. If payments are withheld, the CITY shall specify in writing the actions that must be taken by the SUBRECIPIENT as a condition precedent to resumption of payments and shall specify a reasonable date for compliance. Sufficient cause for suspension of payments shall include, but not be limited to: a. ineffective or improper use of CDBG funds, b. failure to comply with the Statement of Work or terms of this Agreement, c. failure to submit reports as required, d. submittal of materially incorrect or incomplete reports, e. failure to comply with any additional conditions that may be imposed by HUD. 5.2 Termination for Convenience of City: The CITY may terminate this Agreement without cause at any time by giving at least ten (10) working days notice in writing to the SUBRECIPIENT. If this Agreement is terminated by the CITY as provided herein, the SUBRECIPIENT will be paid for allowable services performed under Article II of this Agreement until the effective date of the termination. 5.3 Termination for Convenience of the SUBRECIPIENT: At any time during the term of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT may, at its option and for any reason, terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) working days written notice to the CITY. Upon termination, the SUBRECIPIENT shall be paid for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement through and including the date of termination. ARTICLE VI RECORDS AND REPORTS 6.1 The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to retain supporting documentation relating to activities funded by this Agreement for a period of five years after the termination of the Agreement. 6.2 The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to submit upon request other documentation which may later be determined necessary to assure compliance with this Agreement. 4 ARTICLE VII PROGRAM INCOME The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to expend CDBG funds for the purpose outlined in Article I of this Agreement. It is not anticipated that program income shall be generated from this allocation. However, such income, if generated, may be retained by the SUBRECIPIENT and used for costs that are in addition to the approved costs of this agreement, provided that such costs specifically further the objectives of this agreement. Under no circumstances shall the SUBRECIPIENT use program income to pay for charges or expenses that are specifically not allowed pursuant to the terms of this agreement and applicable federal regulations or rules. The use of program income by the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the requirements set forth at 24 CFR 570.504. ARTICLE VIII PUBLICITY The SUBRECIPIENT shall ensure that all publicity, public relations, advertisements and signs, recognize the CITY and the CDBG Program for the support of all contracted activities. The use of the official CITY logo is permissible, but all signs used to publicize CITY contracted activities must be approved by the CITY prior to being posted. ARTICLE IX GENERAL CONDITIONS 9.1 Federal, State, County and CITY Laws and Regulations: The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with applicable provisions of applicable federal, state, County, and CITY laws, regulations and rules, including OMB A-122, OMB A-21, OMB A-133. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, and Executive Order 11063 which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; Executive Order 11246, as amended which requires equal employment opportunity; and with the Energy Policy, amended and Conservation Act (Pub.L 94-163) which requires mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency. The SUBRECIPIENT shall report its compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act whenever so requested by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, including, but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to employment, program services, transportation, communications, access to facilities, renovations, and new construction. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with all federal laws and regulations pertaining to environmental standards described in 24 CFR Subpart K, except that: a. The SUBRECIPIENT does not assume the CITY’s environmental responsibilities described at 570.604, and b. The SUBRECIPIENT does not assume the CITY’s responsibility for initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 52. 5 9.2 Opportunities for Residents and Civil Rights Compliance: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to, discrimination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. To the greatest feasible extent, lower-income residents of the project areas shall be given opportunities for training and employment; and to the greatest feasible extent, eligible business concerns located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the project areas shall be awarded contracts in connection with the project. 9.3 Evaluation and Monitoring: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that the CITY will carry out periodic monitoring and evaluation activities as determined necessary and that the continuation and/or renewal of this Agreement is dependent upon satisfactory evaluation conclusions. Such evaluations will be based on the terms of this Agreement, comparisons of planned versus actual progress relating to activity scheduling, budgets, audit reports, and output measures. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to furnish upon request to the CITY and make copies of transcriptions of such records and information as is determined necessary by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit on a schedule set by the CITY and at other times upon request, information and status reports required by the CITY to enable the evaluation of said progress and to allow for completion of reports required of the CITY by HUD. The SUBRECIPIENT shall allow the CITY or HUD to monitor its agency on site. Such site visits may be scheduled or unscheduled as determined by the CITY or HUD. 9.4 Audits: Nonprofit organizations that expend $500,000 or more annually in federal awards shall have a single or program specific audit conducted accordance with OMB A-133. Nonprofit organizations that expend less than $500,000 annually in federal awards shall be exempt from an audit conducted in accordance with OMB A-133, although their records must be available for review. These agencies are required by the CITY to submit “reduced scope” audits (e.g., financial audits, performance audits). Each audit shall cover a time period of not more than 12 months and an audit shall be submitted covering each assisted period until all the assistance received from this agreement has been reported on. A copy of the audit report must be received by the CITY no later than six months following each audit period. The SUBRECIPIENT shall maintain all records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, procedures, and practices which shall sufficiently and properly reflect all revenues and expenditures of funds provided directly or indirectly by the CITY pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 9.5 Uniform Administrative Requirements: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to maintain books, records and documents in accordance with accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all expenditures of funds provided by the CITY under this Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT is required to comply with the following uniform administrative requirements: a. Specific provisions of the uniform administrative requirements of OMB Circular A-110, as implemented at 24 CFR Part 84, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations.” b. OMB Circular A-122 “Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations” (a list of allowable and unallowable costs appears in Attachment B). 6 c. Applicable provisions of 24 CFR 570.502. 9.6 Lobbying Prohibition: The SUBRECIPIENT shall certify that no federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal Agreement, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative Agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal Agreement, grant, loan, or cooperative Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall disclose to the CITY if any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal Agreement. 9.7 Section 3 Requirements: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with all Section 3 requirements applicable to contracts funded through this Agreement. Information on Section 3 is available from the CITY upon request. The SUBRECIPIENT shall include the following, referred to as the Section 3 Clause, in every solicitation and every contract for every Section 3 covered project: Section 3 Clause a. The work to be performed under this agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701 (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD-assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low-and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. b. The parties to this agreement agree to comply with HUD’s requirements in 24 CFR Part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this agreement, the parties to this agreement certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the Part 135 regulations. c. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the SUBRECIPIENT has a collective bargaining Agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers representative of the SUBRECIPIENT’s commitment under this Section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each, and the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions, and the anticipated date the work shall begin. 7 d. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 135, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. The SUBRECIPIENT will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the SUBRECIPIENT has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. e. The SUBRECIPIENT will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the SUBRECIPIENT is selected but before the contract is executed and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the SUBRECIPIENT’s obligations under 24 CFR Part 135. f. Noncompliance with HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. 9.8 Insurance: The SUBRECIPIENT shall furnish to the CITY, c/o the Community Improvement Department, certificate(s) of insurance evidencing coverage that meets the requirements outlined in Attachment C. 9.9 Property: Any real property under the SUBRECIPIENT’s control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds received from the CITY in excess of $25,000 shall be either: a. Used to meet one of the three CDBG national objectives required by and defined in 24 CFR Part 570.208 for five years following the expiration or termination of this agreement, or for such longer period of time as determined by the CITY; or b. Not used to meet a CDBG national objective, in which case the SUBRECIPIENT shall pay to the CITY an amount equal to the market value of the property as may be determined by the CITY, less any proportionate portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Reimbursement is not required after the period of time specified in Paragraph 9.9.a., above. Any real property under the SUBRECIPIENT’s control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds from the CITY for $25,000 or less shall be disposed of, at the expiration or termination of this contract, in accordance with instructions from the CITY. All real property purchased in whole or in part with funds from this and previous agreements with the CITY, or transferred to the SUBRECIPIENT after being purchased in whole or in part with funds from the CITY, shall be listed in the property records of the SUBRECIPIENT and shall include a legal description, size, date of acquisition, value at time of acquisition, present market value, present condition, address or location, owner’s name if different from the SUBRECIPIENT, information on the transfer or disposition of the property, and map. The property records shall describe the programmatic purpose for which the property was acquired and identify the CDBG national objective that will be met. If the property was improved, the records shall describe the programmatic purpose for which the improvements were made and identify the CDBG national objective that will be met. 8 All nonexpendable personal property purchased in whole or in part with funds from this and previous agreements with the CITY shall be listed in the property records of the SUBRECIPIENT and shall include a description of the property, location, model number, manufacturer’s serial number, date of acquisition, funding source, unit cost at the time of acquisition, present market value, property inventory number, information on its condition, and information on transfer, replacement, or disposition of the property. The SUBRECIPIENT shall obtain prior written approval from the CITY for the disposition of real property, expendable personal property, and nonexpendable personal property purchased in whole or in part with funds given to the SUBRECIPIENT pursuant to the terms of this agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall dispose of all such property in accordance with instructions from the CITY. Those instructions may require the return of all such property to the CITY. 9.10 Reversion of Assets: The SUBRECIPIENT shall return to the CITY, upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, all the assets owned or held as a result of this Agreement, including, but not limited to any funds on hand, any accounts receivable attributable to these funds, mortgages, notes, and other collateral and any overpayments due to unearned funds or costs disallowed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement that were disbursed to the SUBRECIPIENT by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall within 30 days of expiration or termination of this Agreement execute any and all documents as required by the CITY to effectuate the reversion of assets. Any funds not earned, as described and provided for in OMB A-122, by the SUBRECIPIENT prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be retained by the CITY. 9.11 Conflicts with Applicable Laws: If any provision of this agreement conflicts with any applicable law or regulation, only the conflicting provision shall be deemed by the parties hereto to be modified to be consistent with the law or regulation or to be deleted if modification is impossible. However, the obligations under this agreement, as modified, shall continue and all other provisions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 9.12 Renegotiation or Modification: Modifications of provisions of the agreement shall be valid only when in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party. The parties agree to renegotiate this agreement if the CITY determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that federal, State and/or CITY revisions of any applicable laws or regulations, or increases or decreases in budget allocations make changes in this agreement necessary. 9.13 Right to Waive: The CITY may, for good and sufficient cause, as determined by the CITY in its sole and absolute discretion, waive provisions in this agreement or seek to obtain such waiver from the appropriate authority. Waiver requests from the SUBRECIPIENT shall be in writing. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of this agreement. 9.14 Disputes: In the event an unresolved dispute exists between the SUBRECIPIENT and the CITY, the CITY shall refer the questions, including the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the CITY, to the City Manager for determination. The City Manager, or an authorized representative, will issue a determination within 30 calendar days of receipt and so advise the CITY and the SUBRECIPIENT, or in the event additional time is necessary, the CITY will notify the SUBRECIPIENT within the 30 day 9 period that additional time is necessary. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that the City Manager’s determination shall be final and binding on all parties. 9.15 Indemnification: To the extent provided by law, the SUBRECIPIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless and defend the CITY, its agents, employees, and elected officers from and against any and all claims, demands or causes of action of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of error, omission, negligent act, conduct or misconduct by the SUBRECIPIENT, its agents, employees or officers in the performance of services under this Agreement. IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have set their hands and seals on the day and year written above. WITNESSES: FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC. ___________________________ By:_________________________________ Print_______________________ ___________________________ Print_______________________ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _______________, 20___, by __________________________, who is personally known to me. NOTARY PUBLIC Sign Print Personally Known _______ OR Produced Identification ________ Type of Identification Produced: ___________________________ ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ____________________ By: City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: ____________________ City Attorney ATTACHMENT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES The major focus of the Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. under this Agreement will be to provide a minimum of six (6) Housing Industry Provider /Community Education Sessions for residents of Delray Beach, including school-age children and community organizations, upon the following terms and conditions: a. All six (6) seminars and sessions will be accomplished during the effective date of the contract period (October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013). b. Each seminar or session will be conducted following notification of the Neighborhood Services Division regarding date, location and the submittal of supporting documentation (i.e. flyers, marketing tools, advertising efforts, etc.). c. Each seminar/session must be adequately marketed to residents of Delray Beach, in an effort to ensure maximum participation and effectiveness (copies to be submitted to NS Division prior to seminar/session). d. Reimbursement of expenses will be provided upon completion of each seminar/session, at the predetermined amount of $1,000.00 per seminar/session, with the total maximum reimbursement not exceeding $6,000.00 (for the eight seminars/sessions). e. All seminars/sessions will be open to participants, free of charge. f. The Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. shall provide: 1. Community Education Sessions for civic organizations, community based agencies, social service providers, immigrant populations and/or schools within the municipal boundaries of the City of Delray Beach. These sessions shall be designated to educate the public and protected classes to identify incidents of discrimination in housing and to gain an understanding of the means to find remedies, to seek redress and relief. Sessions are to be conducted citywide on an ongoing basis during the program year. A minimum of four (4) sessions shall be conducted during the period beginning October 1, 2012 and ending September 30, 2013. One (1) of the sessions will focus on the education of children about housing discrimination. 2. Housing Industry Provider Education Seminars for developers, real estate brokers, property managers, financial institutions, and the media/advertising industry. The seminars shall provide information on fair housing laws, Community Reinvestment Act regulations and affirmative marketing requirements. A minimum of two (2) seminars shall be conducted during the period beginning October 1, 2012 and ending September 30, 2013. ATTACHMENT “B” * Allowable under limited circumstances. ** Allowable only with prior permission from the CITY. *** Allowable only as a direct cost with permission from the CITY. ALLOWABLE AND UNALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER OMB A-122 ITEM OF COST OMB A-122 (NONPROFITS) Unallowable Allowable Advertising √ Bad debts √ Bonding √ Communication √ Compensation, personnel services √ Contingency provisions √ Contributions (to others) √ Depreciation, use allowance √ Donations (from others) √ Employee morale, health, welfare √ Entertainment √ Equipment √** Fines, penalties √ Fringe benefits √ Fund raising, interest, investment management √ Idle facility, idle capacity √ Insurance & indemnification √ Interest Labor relations √ Lobbying √ Losses on other awards √ Maintenance, repair √ Materials, supplies √ Memberships, subscriptions, professional activity √ Organization costs √** Overtime, shift premiums √** Page charges in professional journals (research) √ Participant support costs √** Patent costs √ Pension plans √ Plant security √ Pre-award costs √** Professional services √ Profits, losses on asset disposition √* Public information service √*** Publication and printing costs √*** Rearrangement, facility alteration √** Reconversion costs √ Recruiting √ Relocation √* ATTACHMENT “B” * Allowable under limited circumstances. ** Allowable only with prior permission from the CITY. *** Allowable only as a direct cost with permission from the CITY. ITEM OF COST OMB A-122 (NONPROFITS) Unallowable Allowable Rental √ Royalties, use of patents, copyrights √ Severance pay √ Specialized service facilities √ Taxes √ Termination-related costs √ Training, education √ Transportation √ Travel √* ATTACHMENT “C” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS WORKER’S COMPENSATION This coverage shall include Worker’s Compensation Insurance covering all employees and include Employer’s Liability with limits meeting all applicable state and federal laws. This coverage must extend to any subcontractor that does not have their own Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance. Thirty (30) days notice of cancellation is required and must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mail. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY This coverage shall be on an “Occurrence” basis. Coverage shall include Premises and Operations; Independent Contractors’ Products and Completed Operations and Contractual Liability. This policy shall provide coverage for death, personal injury or property damage that could arise directly or indirectly from the performance of this Agreement. The Minimum Limits of Coverage shall be ($1,000,000) per occurrence, Combined Single Limit for bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MUST BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY. Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mail in the event of cancellation. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY The minimum limits of coverage shall be ($500,000) per occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. This coverage shall be an “Any Auto” type policy. The CITY must be listed as an Additional Insured under the Policy. Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mail in the event of cancellation. In the event that the SUBRECIPIENT does not own any vehicles, we will accept hired and nonowned coverage in the amounts listed above. In addition, we will require an affidavit signed by the SUBRECIPIENT indicating the following: does not own any vehicles. "Company Name" In the event we acquire any vehicles throughout the term of his Contract/Agreement, agrees to purchase "Any Auto" or "Company Name" Comprehensive Form coverage as of the date of acquisition. The SUBRECIPIENT’s Signature:_________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.I. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 CDBG SUB-RECIPIENT FUNDING AGREEMENT/COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTER (D.B.A. ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval is requested to execute an agreement for funding with the above-listed sub-recipient under the 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. BACKGROUND In accordance with 24 CFR 570.301, a Public Hearing was held before the City Commission on August 7, 2012, to obtain public comment on the proposed budget for the approval of the Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Action Plan for fiscal year 2012-2013. The Action Plan contains an appropriation for public service activity and was approved by the Commission. CDBG Program regulations at 24 CFR 570.503 require written agreements prior to the disbursement of funds to sub recipient organizations, specifying the work to be performed and reporting requirements, among other requirements and governing provisions. These agreements have been developed in accordance with the stated regulations and have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney for legal sufficiency and form. FUNDING SOURCE Community Development Block Grant 118-1966-554-82.09 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval and execution of the attached agreements in order that funding may proceed in accordance with the Commission approved Action Plan for fiscal year 2012-2013. 1 FY 2012-2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT between CITY OF DELRAY BEACH and ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES . THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY,” and “ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES”, hereinafter referred to as “the SUBRECIPIENT,” having its principal office at 555 N.W. 4th Street, Delray Beach, Florida 33444-2734. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the CITY has entered into an Agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a grant for the execution and implementation of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in the CITY, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (as amended); and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to engage the SUBRECIPIENT to implement an activity of the Delray Beach CDBG Program; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITION AND PURPOSE 1. Definitions 1.1 “CDBG” means Community Development Block Grant program. 1.2 “HUD” means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1.3 “24 CFR” refers to the Section of the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining to the U.S. Dept. of HUD. 1.4 “Program Income” means gross income received directly generated or earned from the use of CDBG funds. Program Income includes, but is not limited to, interest earned on advances of federal funds or royalties received as a result of patents or copyrights produced under this grant. 1.5 “OMB” means Office of Management and Budget. 1.6 “Low-and Moderate-Income” means a household whose income is within specified income limits set forth by HUD. 1.7 Property: a. “Real Property” means land, land improvements, structures, fixtures and appurtenances thereto, excluding movable machinery and equipment. b. “Personal Property” means personal property of any kind except real property. 2 c. “Nonexpendable Personal Property” means tangible (i.e., physical) personal property of a nonconsumable nature, with a value of $500 or more per item, with a normal expected life of one or more years, not fixed in place, and not an integral part of a structure, facility or another piece of equipment. d. “Expendable Personal Property” means all tangible personal property other than nonexpendable property. 2. Purpose The purpose of this Agreement is to state the covenants and conditions under which the SUBRECIPIENT will implement the Statement of Work set forth in Article II of this agreement. ARTICLE II STATEMENT OF WORK The SUBRECIPIENT shall carry out the activities specified in Attachment A, “Scope of Services.” ARTICLE III FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT 3.1 The maximum amount payable by the CITY under this Agreement will be Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars and 00/100 ($55,970). 3.2 The CITY will be billed by the SUBRECIPIENT and will disburse twelve (12) monthly payments in the amount of Four Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Four Dollars and 17/00 ($4,664.17) Bills shall be submitted by the SUBRECIPIENT at least two weeks in advance. 3.3 Prior to receipt of CDBG funds (through reimbursement), SUBRECIPIENT shall submit the following documentation no later than the 10th day of each month covered by this Agreement, in a format prescribed by the CITY: a. Monthly grantee performance report as well as a narrative identifying the participant’s levels of family income, race, ethnicity, and achievements of participants served by the program. b. Monthly timesheets and payroll reports reflecting actual time worked by the CDBG funded position and a completed Direct Benefit Activity form (monthly); c. Monthly Project Budget, detailing requested funds, included in this agreement as “Attachment D.” 3.4 Release of funds is subject to the approval of the Director of Community Improvement. ARTICLE IV TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from October 1, 2012, to September 30, 2013. 3 ARTICLE V SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION 5.1 Termination/Suspension of Payments/Agreement for Cause: If through any cause either party shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, either party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend payments in whole or in part by giving written notice of such termination or suspension of payments and specify the effective date of termination or suspension. If payments are withheld, the CITY shall specify in writing the actions that must be taken by the SUBRECIPIENT as a condition precedent to resumption of payments and shall specify a reasonable date for compliance. Sufficient cause for suspension of payments shall include, but not be limited to: a. ineffective or improper use of CDBG funds, b. failure to comply with the Statement of Work or terms of this Agreement, c. failure to submit reports as required, d. submittal of materially incorrect or incomplete reports, e. failure to comply with any additional conditions that may be imposed by HUD. 5.2 Termination for Convenience of City: The CITY may terminate this Agreement without cause at any time by giving at least ten (10) working days’ notice in writing to the SUBRECIPIENT. If this Agreement is terminated by the CITY as provided herein, the SUBRECIPIENT will be paid for allowable services performed under Article II of this Agreement until the effective date of the termination. 5.3 Termination for Convenience of the SUBRECIPIENT: At any time during the term of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT may, at its option and for any reason, terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) working days written notice to the CITY. Upon termination, the SUBRECIPIENT shall be paid for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement through and including the date of termination. ARTICLE VI RECORDS AND REPORTS 6.1 The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to retain supporting documentation relating to activities funded by this Agreement for a period of five years after the termination of the Agreement. 6.2 The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit quarterly reports in a format prescribed by the CITY per the schedule in Article III of this Agreement. 6.3 The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to submit upon request other documentation which may later be determined necessary to assure compliance with this Agreement. 4 ARTICLE VII PROGRAM INCOME The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to expend CDBG funds for the purpose outlined in Article I of this Agreement. It is not anticipated that program income shall be generated from this allocation. However, such income, if generated, may be retained by the SUBRECIPIENT and used for costs that are in addition to the approved costs of this agreement, provided that such costs specifically further the objectives of this agreement. Under no circumstances shall the SUBRECIPIENT use program income to pay for charges or expenses that are specifically not allowed pursuant to the terms of this agreement and applicable federal regulations or rules. The use of program income by the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the requirements set forth at 24 CFR 570.504. ARTICLE VIII PUBLICITY The SUBRECIPIENT shall ensure that all publicity, public relations, advertisements and signs, recognize the CITY and the CDBG Program for the support of all contracted activities. The use of the official CITY logo is permissible, but all signs used to publicize CITY contracted activities must be approved by the CITY prior to being posted. ARTICLE IX GENERAL CONDITIONS 9.1 Federal, State, County and CITY Laws and Regulations: The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with applicable provisions of applicable federal, state, County, and CITY laws, regulations and rules, including OMB A-122, OMB A-21, OMB A-133. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, and Executive Order 11063 which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; Executive Order 11246, as amended which requires equal employment opportunity; and with the Energy Policy, amended and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163) which requires mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency. The SUBRECIPIENT shall report its compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act whenever so requested by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, including, but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to employment, program services, transportation, communications, access to facilities, renovations, and new construction. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with all federal laws and regulations pertaining to environmental standards described in 24 CFR Subpart K, except that: a. The SUBRECIPIENT does not assume the CITY’s environmental responsibilities described at 570.604, and b. The SUBRECIPIENT does not assume the CITY’s responsibility for initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 52. 5 9.2 Opportunities for Residents and Civil Rights Compliance: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to, discrimination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. To the greatest feasible extent, lower-income residents of the project areas shall be given opportunities for training and employment; and to the greatest feasible extent, eligible business concerns located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the project areas shall be awarded contracts in connection with the project. 9.3 Evaluation and Monitoring: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that the CITY will carry out periodic monitoring and evaluation activities as determined necessary and that the continuation and/or renewal of this Agreement is dependent upon satisfactory evaluation conclusions. Such evaluations will be based on the terms of this Agreement, comparisons of planned versus actual progress relating to activity scheduling, budgets, audit reports, and output measures. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to furnish upon request to the CITY and make copies of transcriptions of such records and information as is determined necessary by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit on a schedule set by the CITY and at other times upon request, information and status reports required by the CITY to enable the evaluation of said progress and to allow for completion of reports required of the CITY by HUD. The SUBRECIPIENT shall allow the CITY or HUD to monitor its agency on site. Such site visits may be scheduled or unscheduled as determined by the CITY or HUD. 9.4 Audits: Nonprofit organizations that expend $500,000 or more annually in federal awards shall have a single or program specific audit conducted accordance with OMB A-133. Nonprofit organizations that expend less than $500,000 annually in federal awards shall be exempt from an audit conducted in accordance with OMB A-133, although their records must be available for review. These agencies are required by the CITY to submit “reduced scope” audits (e.g., financial audits, performance audits). Each audit shall cover a time period of not more than 12 months and an audit shall be submitted covering each assisted period until all the assistance received from this agreement has been reported on. A copy of the audit report must be received by the CITY no later than six months following each audit period. The SUBRECIPIENT shall maintain all records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, procedures, and practices which shall sufficiently and properly reflect all revenues and expenditures of funds provided directly or indirectly by the CITY pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 9.5 Uniform Administrative Requirements: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to maintain books, records and documents in accordance with accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all expenditures of funds provided by the CITY under this Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT is required to comply with the following uniform administrative requirements: a. Specific provisions of the uniform administrative requirements of OMB Circular A-110, as implemented at 24 CFR Part 84, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations.” b. OMB Circular A-122 “Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations” (a list of allowable and unallowable costs appears in Attachment B). c. Applicable provisions of 24 CFR 570.502. 6 9.6 Lobbying Prohibition: The SUBRECIPIENT shall certify that no federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal Agreement, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative Agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal Agreement, grant, loan, or cooperative Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall disclose to the CITY if any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal Agreement. 9.7 Section 3 Requirements: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with all Section 3 requirements applicable to contracts funded through this Agreement. Information on Section 3 is available from the CITY upon request. The SUBRECIPIENT shall include the following, referred to as the Section 3 Clause, in every solicitation and every contract for every Section 3 covered project: Section 3 Clause a. The work to be performed under this agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701 (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD-assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low-and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. b. The parties to this agreement agree to comply with HUD’s requirements in 24 CFR Part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this agreement, the parties to this agreement certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the Part 135 regulations. c. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the SUBRECIPIENT has a collective bargaining Agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers representative of the SUBRECIPIENT’s commitment under this Section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each, and the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions, and the anticipated date the work shall begin. d. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 135, and agrees to take 7 appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. The SUBRECIPIENT will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the SUBRECIPIENT has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. e. The SUBRECIPIENT will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the SUBRECIPIENT is selected but before the contract is executed and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the SUBRECIPIENT’s obligations under 24 CFR Part 135. f. Noncompliance with HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. 9.8 Insurance: The SUBRECIPIENT shall furnish to the CITY, c/o the Community Improvement Department, certificate(s) of insurance evidencing coverage that meets the requirements outlined in Attachment C. 9.9 Property: Any real property under the SUBRECIPIENT’s control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds received from the CITY in excess of $25,000 shall be either: a. Used to meet one of the three CDBG national objectives required by and defined in 24 CFR Part 570.208 for five years following the expiration or termination of this agreement, or for such longer period of time as determined by the CITY; or b. Not used to meet a CDBG national objective, in which case the SUBRECIPIENT shall pay to the CITY an amount equal to the market value of the property as may be determined by the CITY, less any proportionate portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Reimbursement is not required after the period of time specified in Paragraph 9.9.a., above. Any real property under the SUBRECIPIENT’s control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds from the CITY for $25,000 or less shall be disposed of, at the expiration or termination of this contract, in accordance with instructions from the CITY. All real property purchased in whole or in part with funds from this and previous agreements with the CITY, or transferred to the SUBRECIPIENT after being purchased in whole or in part with funds from the CITY, shall be listed in the property records of the SUBRECIPIENT and shall include a legal description, size, date of acquisition, value at time of acquisition, present market value, present condition, address or location, owner’s name if different from the SUBRECIPIENT, information on the transfer or disposition of the property, and map. The property records shall describe the programmatic purpose for which the property was acquired and identify the CDBG national objective that will be met. If the property was improved, the records shall describe the programmatic purpose for which the improvements were made and identify the CDBG national objective that will be met. All nonexpendable personal property purchased in whole or in part with funds from this and previous agreements with the CITY shall be listed in the property records of the 8 SUBRECIPIENT and shall include a description of the property, location, model number, manufacturer’s serial number, date of acquisition, funding source, unit cost at the time of acquisition, present market value, property inventory number, information on its condition, and information on transfer, replacement, or disposition of the property. The SUBRECIPIENT shall obtain prior written approval from the CITY for the disposition of real property, expendable personal property, and nonexpendable personal property purchased in whole or in part with funds given to the SUBRECIPIENT pursuant to the terms of this agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall dispose of all such property in accordance with instructions from the CITY. Those instructions may require the return of all such property to the CITY. 9.10 Reversion of Assets: The SUBRECIPIENT shall return to the CITY, upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, all the assets owned or held as a result of this Agreement, including, but not limited to any funds on hand, any accounts receivable attributable to these funds, mortgages, notes, and other collateral and any overpayments due to unearned funds or costs disallowed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement that were disbursed to the SUBRECIPIENT by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall within 30 days of expiration or termination of this Agreement execute any and all documents as required by the CITY to effectuate the reversion of assets. Any funds not earned, as described and provided for in OMB A-122, by the SUBRECIPIENT prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be retained by the CITY. 9.11 Conflicts with Applicable Laws: If any provision of this agreement conflicts with any applicable law or regulation, only the conflicting provision shall be deemed by the parties hereto to be modified to be consistent with the law or regulation or to be deleted if modification is impossible. However, the obligations under this agreement, as modified, shall continue and all other provisions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 9.12 Renegotiation or Modification: Modifications of provisions of the agreement shall be valid only when in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each party. The parties agree to renegotiate this agreement if the CITY determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that federal, State and/or CITY revisions of any applicable laws or regulations, or increases or decreases in budget allocations make changes in this agreement necessary. 9.13 Right to Waive: The CITY may, for good and sufficient cause, as determined by the CITY in its sole and absolute discretion, waive provisions in this agreement or seek to obtain such waiver from the appropriate authority. Waiver requests from the SUBRECIPIENT shall be in writing. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of this agreement. 9.14 Disputes: In the event an unresolved dispute exists between the SUBRECIPIENT and the CITY, the CITY shall refer the questions, including the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the CITY, to the City Manager for determination. The City Manager, or an authorized representative, will issue a determination within 30 calendar days of receipt and so advise the CITY and the SUBRECIPIENT, or in the event additional time is necessary, the CITY will notify the SUBRECIPIENT within the 30 day period that additional time is necessary. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that the City Manager’s determination shall be final and binding on all parties. 9 9.15 Indemnification: To the extent provided by law, the SUBRECIPIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless and defend the CITY, its agents, employees, and elected officers from and against any and all claims, demands or causes of action of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of error, omission, negligent act, conduct or misconduct by the SUBRECIPIENT, its agents, employees or officers in the performance of services under this Agreement. IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have set their hands and seals on the day and year written above. WITNESSES: ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. ___________________________ By: _________________________________ Print_______________________ ___________________________ Print_______________________ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _______________, 20___, by ______, who is personally known to me. NOTARY PUBLIC Sign Print Personally Known _______ OR Produced Identification ________ Type of Identification Produced: ___________________________ ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ____________________ By: City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: ____________________ City Attorney ATTACHMENT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES The major focus of the ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES under this Agreement will be providing day care, after-school care and related services to eligible children. At least 51% of the beneficiaries of a project funded under this Agreement must be low-and moderate-income persons (as determined annually by HUD for the area). CDBG funds may be used for programmatic costs including, but not limited to, salaries of direct service personnel, training, insurance, office supplies and expenses, education supplies and materials, utilities, and sponsored events (field trips). Services under this program will be provided at the Center’s main facility located at 555 N.W. 4th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida and at Village Academy, 400 SW 12th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. The major tasks which the Achievement Centers for Children and Families will perform in connection with the provision of the eligible day care and after-school services include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Maintain facility at all times in conformance with all applicable codes, licensing, and other requirements for the operation of a day care center. The facility must also be handicapped accessible, and the day care services must be organized into separate areas appropriate for each of the age groupings being served (toddler – 12 months to 3 years, pre-school – 3 to 4 years, prekindergarten – 4 to 5 years and after-school/out-of school care --5 years to 14 years). b. Accept applications and perform eligibility determinations. At least 51 percent (51%) of the beneficiaries of subsidized day care must be low and moderate-income persons (as determined annually by HUD for the area). c. Offer day care services from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, after-school/out-ofschool services from public school closing time to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. to eligible families. d. Ensure that the numbers, background, and qualifications of the Achievement Center’s for Children and Families’ staff providing the on-site day care and any related services at all times are appropriate for the enrolled child population at the center and meet at least the minimum standards established by the pertinent licensing bodies. e. As part of the day care services, provide a range of structured social, educational, and cultural enrichment activities appropriate to the age groups being served. f. Maintain program and financial records documenting the eligibility, attendance, provision of services, and the Center’s expenses relative to the children receiving day care services as a result of assistance provided through the CDBG program. ATTACHMENT “B” * Allowable under limited circumstances. ** Allowable only with prior permission from the CITY. *** Allowable only as a direct cost with permission from the CITY. ALLOWABLE AND UNALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER OMB A-122 ITEM OF COST OMB A-122 (NONPROFITS) Unallowable Allowable Advertising √ Bad debts √ Bonding √ Communication √ Compensation, personnel services √ Contingency provisions √ Contributions (to others) √ Depreciation, use allowance √ Donations (from others) √ Employee morale, health, welfare √ Entertainment √ Equipment √** Fines, penalties √ Fringe benefits √ Fund raising, interest, investment management √ Idle facility, idle capacity √ Insurance & indemnification √ Interest Labor relations √ Lobbying √ Losses on other awards √ Maintenance, repair √ Materials, supplies √ Memberships, subscriptions, professional activity √ Organization costs √** Overtime, shift premiums √** Page charges in professional journals (research) √ Participant support costs √** Patent costs √ Pension plans √ Plant security √ Pre-award costs √** Professional services √ Profits, losses on asset disposition √* Public information service √*** Publication and printing costs √*** Rearrangement, facility alteration √** Reconversion costs √ Recruiting √ Relocation √* ATTACHMENT “B” * Allowable under limited circumstances. ** Allowable only with prior permission from the CITY. *** Allowable only as a direct cost with permission from the CITY. ITEM OF COST OMB A-122 (NONPROFITS) Unallowable Allowable Rental √ Royalties, use of patents, copyrights √ Severance pay √ Specialized service facilities √ Taxes √ Termination-related costs √ Training, education √ Transportation √ Travel √* ATTACHMENT “C” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS WORKER’S COMPENSATION This coverage shall include Worker’s Compensation Insurance covering all employees and include Employer’s Liability with limits meeting all applicable state and federal laws. This coverage must extend to any subcontractor that does not have their own Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance. Thirty (30) day’s notice of cancellation is required and must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mail. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY This coverage shall be on an “Occurrence” basis. Coverage shall include Premises and Operations; Independent Contractors’ Products and Completed Operations and Contractual Liability. This policy shall provide coverage for death, personal injury or property damage that could arise directly or indirectly from the performance of this Agreement. The Minimum Limits of Coverage shall be ($1,000,000) per occurrence, Combined Single Limit for bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MUST BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY. Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mail in the event of cancellation. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY The minimum limits of coverage shall be ($500,000) per occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability. This coverage shall be an “Any Auto” type policy. The CITY must be listed as an Additional Insured under the Policy. Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mail in the event of cancellation. In the event that the SUBRECIPIENT does not own any vehicles, we will accept hired and nonowned coverage in the amounts listed above. In addition, we will require an affidavit signed by the SUBRECIPIENT indicating the following: does not own any vehicles. "Company Name" In the event we acquire any vehicles throughout the term of his Contract/Agreement, agrees to purchase "Any Auto" or "Company Name" Comprehensive Form coverage as of the date of acquisition. The SUBRECIPIENT’s Signature:_________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.J. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY/AUBURN AVENUE PROJECT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of Agreement between the City and Palm Beach County for the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Auburn Avenue project in lieu of DRI Amendment No. 2, which was approved at the November 6, 2012 City Commission meeting. BACKGROUND Palm Beach County has decided to enter into a fully-executed new agreement (for improvements in the SW 12th Avenue/Auburn Avenue/SW 14th Avenue project) replacing the original agreement dated November 3, 2009 and subsequent amendments. Amendment No. 2, establishing a new project completion date to March 31, 2013, was approved at the November 6th meeting. Subsequent to that action, the County contacted City staff, informing us that a new agreement will be sent for execution, based on the decision from their legal office and consultation with the State. The new agreement sets the maximum compensation at $81,311.02, representing the balance owed to the City, and the project close-out date continues to be March 31, 2013. Otherwise, the agreement is consistent with the original and amendments already approved. FUNDING SOURCE Disaster Recovery Initiative 334-3162-541-68.65 Disaster Recovery Initiative 442-5178-536-68.50 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the new Agreement as proposed between the City and Palm Beach County for the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Auburn Avenue project. AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALM BEACH COUNTY AND CITY OF DELRAY BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this ______ day of__________, 20___, by and between Palm Beach County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the City of Delray Beach, a municipality duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal office at 100 NW 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 WHEREAS, Palm Beach County has entered into a Contract (number 08DB-D3-10-60-01-A07) with the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, in connection with the State’s 2005 Disaster Recovery Initiative Program -Supplemental Appropriation which the State is implementing for the use of grant funds provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under its Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach was allocated certain funds under said Contract to implement specified activities under the 2005 Disaster Recovery Initiative Program -Supplemental Appropriation; and WHEREAS, Palm Beach County desires to engage the City of Delray Beach to implement the activities associated with the funds allocated to it. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS (1) "County" means Palm Beach County. (2) "CDBG" means the Community Development Block Grant Program of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (3) "DES" means Palm Beach County Department of Economic Sustainability. (4) "Municipality" means the City of Delray Beach. (5) “State” means the State of Florida, Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). (6) “Contract” means contract number 08DB-D3-10-60-01-A07 between Palm Beach County and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs. (7) "DES Approval" means the written approval of the DES Director or his designee. (8) "U.S. HUD" means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or a person authorized to act on its behalf. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to state the covenants and conditions under which the Municipality will implement the Scope of Services set forth in Part II of this Agreement. 3. APPLICABLE CONDITIONS The Municipality shall be bound by the Contract to the extent applicable to this Agreement. Furthermore, the conditions applicable to the activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement shall include but not be limited to those listed below (as they may be amended from time to time). Palm Beach County’s failure to list verbatim or make reference to a regulation, statute, ordinance, reference, or any other document affecting the Municipality, shall not relieve the Municipality of compliance with any applicable regulation, statute, ordinance, or any other document not listed below. The County reserves the right, but not the obligation, to inform the Municipality of any such applicable regulation, statute, ordinance, or any other document, and to require the Municipality to comply with the same. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 2 Community Development Block Grant, Final Rule, 24 C.F.R., Part 570; Florida Small and Minority Business Act, s 288.702-288.714, F.S.; Florida Coastal Zone Protection Act, s 161.52-161.58, F.S.; Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Ch. 163, F.S.; Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; Treasury Circular 1075 regarding drawdown of CDBG funds; Sections 290.0401-290.049, F.S.; Rule Chapter 9B-43, Fla Admin. Code.; Department of Community Affairs Technical Memorandums; HUD Circular Memorandums applicable to the Small Cities CDBG Program; Single Audit Act of 1984; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other provisions of law which further the purpose of this Act; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) as amended and Protection of Historic Properties (24 C.F.R., part 800); Preservation of Archaeological and Historical Data Act of 1966; Executive Order 11593 -Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment; Reservoir Salvage Act; Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended; Endangered Species Act of 1958, as amended; Executive Order 12898 -Environmental Justice Executive Order 11988 and 24 C.F.R. Part 55-Floodplain Management; The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C., s 1251 et. seq.); Executive Order 11990 -Protection of Wetlands; Coastal Zone Management Act of 1968, as amended; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended; Clean Air Act of 1977; HUD Environmental Standards (24 C.F.R. Part 58); Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981; Clean Water Act of 1977; Davis -Bacon Act; Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act of 1962, 40 U.S.C. s. 327 et. seq.; The Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended; The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C., s. 6901 et. seq.; Noise Abatement and Control: Departmental Policy Implementation, Responsibilities and Standards, 24 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart B; Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, P.L. 92-234; Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties under HUD Programs, 24 C.F.R. Part 59; Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, P.L. 92-583; Architectural and Construction Standards; Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151; Executive Order 11296, relating to the evaluation of flood hazards; Executive Order 11288, relating to prevention, control and abatement of water pollution; Cost-Effective Energy Conservation Standards, 24 C.F.R., Part 39 Section 8 Existing Housing Quality Standards, 24 C.F.R., Part 882; Coastal Barrier Resource Act of 1982; Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. s. 201 et. seq.; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -Non-discrimination; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 -Non-discrimination in housing; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Executive Order 12892 -Fair Housing; Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Non-discrimination; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 24 C.F.R., Part 8; Executive Order 11063 Equal Opportunity in Housing; Executive Order 11246 -Nondiscrimination; Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended -Employment /Training of Lower Income Residents and Local Business Contracting; Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, P.L. 100-17, and 49 C.F.R. Part 24; Copeland Anti-Kickback Act of 1924; Hatch Act; Title IV Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. s. 1251 et. seq.); OMB Circulars A-87, A-122 and A-133, as revised; Administrative Requirements for Grants, 24 C.F.R. Part 85; Section 102 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 and 24 C.F.R. Part 12; Emergency Rule 9BER05-2, CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds; HUD program requirements for disaster recovery projects as published in Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 237 (December 10, 2004) [Docket No. FR-4959 -N-01]. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 3 4. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Municipality shall, in a satisfactory and proper manner as determined by DES, perform the tasks necessary to conduct the program outlined in Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and made a part hereof. 5. MAXIMUM COMPENSATION The Municipality agrees to accept as full payment for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement the actual amount of budgeted, eligible, and DES Director or designee-approved expenditures and encumbrances made by the Municipality under this Agreement, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said services shall be performed in a manner satisfactory to DES. In no event shall the total compensation or reimbursement to be paid hereunder exceed the maximum and total authorized sum of $81,311.02 (as more specifically detailed in Exhibit “A” hereto) from the date of execution of this Agreement through and including March 31, 2013. Any funds not obligated by the expiration date of this Agreement shall automatically revert to the County. 6. TIME OF PERFORMANCE The effective date of this Agreement and all rights and duties designated hereunder are contingent upon the timely release of funds for this project under State Contract number 08DB-D3-10-60-01-A07, and any amendments thereto. If funds cease to be available under said Contract, the County shall be relieved from providing funds under this Agreement. The effective date shall be the date of execution of this Agreement, and the services of the Municipality shall be undertaken and completed in light of the purposes of this Agreement. In any event, all services required hereunder shall be completed by the Municipality prior to March 31, 2013. 7. METHOD OF PAYMENT The County agrees to make payments and to reimburse the Municipality for all budgeted costs permitted by Federal, State, and County guidelines. The Municipality shall not request reimbursement for payments made by the Municipality before the effective date of this Agreement, nor shall it request reimbursement for payments made after the expiration date of this Agreement, and in no event shall the County provide advance funding to the Municipality or any subcontractors hereunder. The Municipality shall request payments or reimbursements from the County by submitting to DES proper documentation of expenditures consisting of originals of invoices, receipts, or other evidence of indebtedness, and when original documents cannot be presented, the Municipality may furnish copies if deemed acceptable by DES. Each request for payment or reimbursement submitted by the Municipality shall be accompanied by a letter from the Municipality, provided on the Municipality’s letterhead, referencing the name of the project funded herein, the date of this Agreement and/or its document number, and containing a statement requesting the payment or reimbursement and its amount, as well as the name and signature of the person making the request. Payment shall be made by the Palm Beach County Finance Department upon presentation of the aforesaid proper documentation of expenditures as approved by DES. The Municipality may at any time after the expiration of this agreement request from the County reimbursement for payments made by the Municipality during the term of this Agreement by submitting to DES the aforesaid proper documentation of expenditures, and the Palm Beach County Finance Department shall make payment as stated above, provided that DES has determined that the funds allocated to the Municipality through this agreement are still available for payment, and provided that DES approves such payment. 8. CONDITIONS ON WHICH PAYMENT IS CONTINGENT (A) IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT ACCORDING TO REQUIRED PROCEDURES The Municipality shall implement this Agreement in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and County laws, ordinances and codes and with the procedures outlined in DES Policies and Procedures memoranda. The Federal, State, and County laws, ordinances and codes are minimal CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 4 regulations supplemented by more restrictive guidelines set forth by DES. No payments for projects funded by more than one funding source will be made until a cost allocation plan has been approved by the DES Director or designee. Should a project receive additional funding after the commencement of this Agreement, the Municipality shall notify DES in writing within thirty (30) days of receiving notification from the funding source and submit a cost allocation plan for approval by the DES Director or designee within forty-five (45) days of said official notification. (B) FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY The County may have a financial systems analysis and/or an audit of the Municipality, or of any of its subcontractors, by an independent auditing firm employed by the County or by the County Internal Audit Department at any time the County deems necessary to determine if the project is being managed in accordance with Federal, State, and County requirements. (C) SUBCONTRACTS Any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be specifically by written contract, written agreement, or purchase order. All subcontracts shall be submitted by the Municipality to DES and approved by DES prior to execution of any subcontract hereunder. All subcontracts shall be subject to Federal, State and County laws and regulations. This includes ensuring that all consultant contracts and fee schedules meet the minimum standards as established by the Palm Beach County Engineering Department and U.S. HUD. Contracts for architecture, engineering, survey, and planning shall be fixed fee contracts. All additional services shall have prior written approval with support documentation detailing categories of persons performing work plus hourly rates including benefits, number of drawings required, and all items that justify the "Fixed Fee Contract." Reimbursables will be at cost. None of the work or services covered by this Agreement, including, but not limited to, consultant work or services, shall be subcontracted or reimbursed without prior written approval of the DES Director or his designee. (D) PURCHASING All purchasing for services and goods, including capital equipment, shall be made by purchase order or by a written contract and in conformity with the procedures prescribed by the Palm Beach County Purchasing Code, as well as Federal Management Circulars A-87, A-102, A-128, and 24CFR Part 85 (also known as the Common Rule), which are incorporated herein by reference. (E) REPORTS, AUDITS, AND EVALUATIONS Payment will be contingent on the timely receipt of complete and accurate reports required by this Agreement, and on the resolution of monitoring or audit findings identified pursuant to this Agreement. (F) ADDITIONAL DES, COUNTY, AND U.S. HUD REQUIREMENTS DES shall have the right under this Agreement to suspend or terminate payments if after fifteen (15) days written notice the Municipality has not complied with any additional conditions that may be imposed, at any time, by DES, the County, the State, or U.S. HUD. (G) PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVALS-SUMMARY The following activities among others require the prior written approval of the DES Director or designee to be eligible for reimbursement or payment: (1) All subcontracts and agreements pursuant to this Agreement; (2) All change orders; (3) All requests to utilize uncommitted funds after the expiration of this Agreement for programs described in Exhibit A. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 5 (H) PROGRAM-GENERATED INCOME The Agency shall comply with the program income requirements imposed by CDBG and other applicable federal regulations. In all cases, accounting and disbursement of such income shall comply with OMB Circular A-110 and other applicable regulations incorporated herein by reference. All income earned by the Agency from activities financed, in whole or in part, by funds provided hereunder must be reported and returned to DES on an monthly basis. The Agency may request that program income be used to fund other eligible uses, subject to DES approval, and provided that the Agency is in compliance with its obligations, terms, and conditions as contained within this Agreement (including the attached Exhibits herein). The Agency shall only use such program income to fund "basic eligible activities" as defined by Federal Community Development Block Grant Regulations (24 CFR Part 570). Furthermore, the Agency agrees that the provisions of this Agreement shall also apply to these "basic eligible activities" as funded with the Agency's program income. Such income shall only be used to undertake the activities authorized by a written Agreement. The requirements of this Paragraph shall survive the expiration of this Agreement. 9. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLIANCE The Agency agrees that no person shall on the ground of race, color, disability, national origin, ancestry, religion, age, familial status, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. Upon receipt of evidence of such discrimination, the County shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. To the greatest extent feasible, lower-income residents of the project areas shall be given opportunities for training and employment; and to the greatest feasible extent eligible business concerns located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the project areas shall be awarded contracts in connection with the project. The Municipality shall comply with the Section 3 Clause of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968. 10. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL AND MINORITY/WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, or services to implement this Agreement, the Municipality shall make a positive effort to utilize small business and minority/women-owned business enterprises of supplies and services, and provide these sources the maximum feasible opportunity to compete for contracts to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. To the maximum extent feasible these small business and minority/women-owned business enterprises shall be located in or owned by residents of the CDBG areas designated by the County in its CDBG Annual Consolidated Plan approved by U.S. HUD. 11. PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES At least fifty-one percent (51%) of the beneficiaries of a project funded through this Agreement must be low-and moderate-income persons. The project funded under this Agreement shall assist beneficiaries as defined above for the time period designated in this Agreement. The Municipality shall provide written verification of compliance to DES upon DES’s request. 12. EVALUATION AND MONITORING The Municipality agrees that DES will carry out periodic monitoring and evaluation activities as determined necessary by DES or the County and that payment, reimbursement, or the continuation of this Agreement is dependent upon satisfactory evaluation conclusions based on the terms of this Agreement. The Municipality agrees to furnish upon request to DES, the County, or the County's designees copies of transcriptions of such records and information as is determined CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 6 necessary by DES or the County. The Municipality shall submit status reports required under this Agreement on forms approved by DES to enable DES to evaluate progress. The Municipality shall provide information as requested by DES to enable DES to complete reports required by the County or HUD. The Municipality shall allow DES, the County, the State, or HUD to monitor the Municipality on site. Such visits may be scheduled or unscheduled as determined by DES, the State, or HUD. 13. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS At any time during normal business hours and as often as DES, the County, U.S. HUD, or the Comptroller General of the United States may deem necessary, there shall be made available by the Municipality to DES, the County, U.S. HUD, or the Comptroller General for examination all its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. If during the year, the Municipality expends over $500,000 of Federal awards, the Municipality shall comply with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. The Municipality shall submit a single audit, including any management letter, made in accordance with the general program requirements of OMB Circulars A-110, A-122, A-133, and other applicable regulations within the earlier of, 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or nine (9) months after the end of the audit period in which DES-administered funds are expended. Said audit shall be made by a Certified Public Accountant of the Municipality’s choosing, subject to the County’s approval. In the event the Municipality anticipates a delay in producing such audit, the Municipality shall request an extension in advance of the deadline. The cost of said audit shall be borne by the Municipality. In the event the Municipality is exempt from having an audit conducted under A-133, the Municipality shall submit audited financial statements and/or the County reserves the right to conduct a “limited scope audit” of the Municipality as defined by A-133. The County will be responsible for providing technical assistance to the Municipality, as deemed necessary by the County. 14. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The Municipality agrees to comply with the applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in Federal Community Development Block Grant Regulations 24 CFR 570.502. 15. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration of this Agreement, the Municipality shall transfer to the County any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. Any real property under the Municipality’s control upon expiration of this Agreement which was acquired or improved in whole or part with CDBG in the excess of $25,000 must either be used to meet one of the national objectives in Federal Community Development Block Grant Regulations 24 CFR 570.508 for a period of five years after expiration of this Agreement (unless a longer period is specified elsewhere in this Agreement), or, the Municipality shall pay the County an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for the acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. 16. DATA BECOMES COUNTY PROPERTY All reports, plans, surveys, information, documents, maps, and other data procedures developed, prepared, assembled, or completed by the Municipality for the purpose of this Agreement shall be made available to the County by the Municipality at any time upon request by the County or DES. Upon completion of all work contemplated under this Agreement copies of all documents and records relating to this Agreement shall be surrendered to DES if requested. In any event the Municipality shall keep all documents and records for six (6) years after expiration of this Agreement. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 7 17. INDEMNIFICATION Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for its own actions and negligence and, to the extent permitted by law, the County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Municipality against any actions, claims, or damages arising out of the County’s negligence in connection with this Agreement, and the Municipality shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County against any actions, claims, or damages arising out of the Municipality’s negligence in connection with this Agreement. The Municipality shall also hold the State harmless against all claims of whatever nature arising out of the Municipality’s performance of work under this Agreement, to extent allowed and required by law. The foregoing indemnification shall not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity beyond the limits set forth in Florida Statute, section 768.28, nor shall the same be construed to constitute agreement by either party to indemnify the other party for such other party’s negligent, willful or intentional acts or omissions. The Municipality shall hold the County harmless and shall indemnify the County for funds which the County is obligated to refund the State or the Federal Government arising out of the conduct of activities and administration of the Municipality. The provisions of this indemnification clause shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 18. INSURANCE Without waiving the right to sovereign immunity as provided by s.768.28 F.S., the Municipality acknowledges to be self-insured for General Liability and Automobile Liability under Florida sovereign immunity statutes with coverage limits of $200,000 Per Person and $300,000 Per Occurrence; or such monetary waiver limits that may change and be set forth by the legislature. In the event the Municipality maintains third-party Commercial General Liability and Business Auto Liability in lieu of exclusive reliance of self insurance under s.768.28 F.S., the Municipality shall agree to maintain said insurance policies at limits not less than $500,000 combined single limit for bodily injury or property damage. The Municipality agrees to maintain, or be self-insured for Workers’ Compensation & Employer’s Liability insurance in accordance with Florida Statute, Chapter 440. When requested, the Municipality shall agree to provide an affidavit or Certificate of Insurance evidencing insurance, self-insurance and/or sovereign immunity status, which County agrees to recognize as acceptable for the above mentioned coverage. Compliance with the foregoing requirements shall not relieve the Municipality of its liability and obligations under this Agreement. 19. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT The intent and purpose of this Agreement is to increase the availability of the Municipality's services. This Agreement is not to substitute for or replace existing or planned projects or activities of the Municipality. The Municipality agrees to maintain a level of activities and expenditures, planned or existing, for projects similar to those being assisted under this Agreement which is not less than that level existing prior to this Agreement. 20. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Municipality covenants that no person who presently exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Project, has any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in the target areas or any parcels therein, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Agreement and that no person having any conflict of interest shall be employed by or subcontracted by the Municipality. Any possible conflict of interest on the part of the Municipality or its employees shall be disclosed in writing to DES provided, however, that this paragraph shall be interpreted in such a manner so as not to unreasonably impede the statutory requirement that maximum opportunity be provided for employment of and participation of low and moderate-income residents of the project area. 21. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The Municipality shall cooperate with DES in the implementation of the Citizen Participation Plan by establishing a citizen participation process to keep residents informed of the activities the Municipality is undertaking in carrying out the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 8 provisions of this Agreement. Representatives of the Municipality shall attend meetings and assist DES in the implementation of the Citizen Participation Plan, as requested by DES. 22. RECOGNITION All facilities purchased or constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall be clearly identified as to funding source. The Municipality will include a reference to the financial support herein provided by DES in all publications and publicity. In addition, the Municipality will make a good faith effort to recognize DES’s support for all activities made possible with funds made available under this Agreement. 23. AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS The following documents are herein incorporated by reference and made a part hereof, and shall constitute and be referred to as the Agreement; and all of said documents taken as a whole constitute the Agreement between the parties hereto and are as fully a part of the Agreement as if they were set forth verbatim and at length herein: (A) This Agreement, including its Exhibits; (B) Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-87, A-102, A-133, and 24CFR Part 85; (C) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; (D) Executive Orders 11246, 11478, 11625, 12432, the Davis Bacon Act, and Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended; (E) Executive Orders 11063, 12259, 12892, the Fair Housing Act of 1988, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; (F) Florida Statutes, Chapter 112; (G) Palm Beach County Purchasing Code; (H) Federal Community Development Block Grant Regulations (24 CFR Part 570), as amended; (I) The Municipality’s personnel policies and job descriptions; and (J) The Municipality’s Certificate of Insurance. (K) Contract number 08DB-D3-10-60-01-A07 between Palm Beach County and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs. The Agency shall keep an original of this Agreement, including its Exhibits, and all Amendments thereto, on file at its principal office. 24. TERMINATION In event of termination for any of the following reasons, all finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports prepared, and capital equipment secured by the Agency with funds under this Agreement shall be returned to DES or the County. In the event of termination, the Agency shall not be relieved of liability to the County for damages sustained by the County by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by the Agency, and the County may withhold any payment to the Agency for set-off purposes until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the County from the Agency is determined. (1) TERMINATION FOR CAUSE If through any cause either party shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, either party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement in whole or part by giving a fifteen (15) working day written notice of such termination to the other party and specifying therein the effective date of termination. (2) TERMINATION DUE TO CESSATION In the event the grant to the County under the Contract is suspended or CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 9 terminated, this Agreement shall be suspended or terminated effective on the date the State specifies. 25. SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby if such remainder would then continue to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law. 26. AMENDMENTS The County may, at its discretion, amend this Agreement to conform with changes required by Federal, State, County, or U.S. HUD guidelines, directives, and objectives. Such amendments shall be incorporated by written amendment as a part of this Agreement and shall be subject to approval of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners. Except as otherwise provided herein, no amendment to this Agreement shall be binding on either party unless in writing, approved by the Board of County Commissioners and the governing body of the Municipality, and signed by both parties. 27. NOTICES All notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient when delivered to DES at its office at 100 Australian Avenue, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406, and to the Municipality when delivered to its office at the address listed on page one (1) of this Agreement. 28. INDEPENDENT AGENT AND EMPLOYEES The Municipality agrees that, in all matters relating to this Agreement, it will be acting as an independent agent and that its employees are not Palm Beach County employees and are not subject to the County provisions of the law applicable to County employees relative to employment, hours of work, rates of compensation, leave, unemployment compensation and employee benefits. 29. NO FORFEITURE The rights of the County under this Agreement shall be cumulative and failure on the part of the County to exercise promptly any rights given hereunder shall not operate to forfeit or waive any of the said rights. 30. PALM BEACH COUNTY OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Palm Beach County has established the Office of Inspector General in Palm Beach County Code, Section 2-421 -2-440, as may be amended. The Inspector General’s authority includes but is not limited to the power to review past, present and proposed County contracts, transactions, accounts and records, to require the production of records, and to audit, investigate, monitor, and inspect the activities of the Municipality, its officers, agents, employees, and lobbyists in order to ensure compliance with contract requirements and detect corruption and fraud. Failure to cooperate with Inspector General or interfering with or impeding any investigation shall be in violation of Palm Beach County Code, Section 2-421 – 2-440, and punished pursuant to Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as a second degree misdemeanor. 31. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES As provided in F.S. 287.133 by entering into this Agreement or performing any work in furtherance hereof, the Municipality certifies that it, its affiliates, suppliers, subcontractors and consultants who will perform hereunder, have not been placed on the convicted vendor list maintained by the State of Florida Department of Management Services within the thirty-six (36) months immediately preceding the date hereof. This notice is required by F.S. 287.133 (3)(a). 32. COUNTERPARTS OF THE AGREEMENT This Agreement, consisting of twenty-two (22) enumerated pages which include the exhibits referenced herein, shall be executed in three (3) counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts will constitute one and the same instrument. A copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 10 33. ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING This Agreement and its provisions merge any prior agreements, if any, between the parties hereto and constitutes the entire understanding. The parties hereby acknowledge that there have been and are no representations, warranties, covenants, or undertakings other than those expressly set forth herein. WITNESS our Hands and Seals on this day of , 20 . (MUNICIPALITY SEAL BELOW) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY: Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor BY: Chevelle D. Nubin, CMC, City Clerk BY: Attorney for Municipality (Signature Optional) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida FOR ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Shannon R. LaRocque-Baas, P.E. Assistant County Administrator Approved as to Form and Approved as to Terms and Conditions Legal Sufficiency Department of Economic Sustainability By: By: Tammy K. Fields Sherry Howard Chief Assistant County Attorney Deputy Director CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 11 EXHIBIT “A” WORK PROGRAM NARRATIVE 1. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT: A. PRIOR AGREEMENT: The project contained in this Agreement is a continuation of the project contained in prior Agreements between the Municipality and the County dated November 3, 2009, (hereinafter the “First Agreement”), and dated March 11, 2011, as amended by Amendment No. 001 on October 22, 2011 (hereinafter the “Second Agreement”). The terms and conditions of the First and Second Agreements are incorporated herein by reference. B. ELIGIBLE PAYMENTS AND/OR REIMBURSEMENTS: All payments and/or reimbursements deemed eligible under the First and Second Agreements shall be eligible under this Agreement. C. PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The project requirements contained in the First and Second Agreements are repeated herein in substantial form. Changes have been made in order to update these requirements for this Agreement. The parties recognize that the following project activities have been accomplished, and where indicated below, the County has paid and/or reimbursed the Municipality for such project activities: (1) The Municipality, at their own expense, has procured the services of an engineering consultant (a Florida professional engineer) for this project to provide design services and to create plans and specifications for the street and infrastructure improvements described below. (2) Improvements, as designed by the engineering consultant and installed by Foster-Marine, Inc., are substantially complete and project close-out has been initiated by the Municipality. (3) The Municipality has submitted to the County a Certification of Completion prepared by a Florida Professional engineer on the Municipality’s staff stating that the project improvements have been installed according to the project plans and specifications, as amended by change orders, and stating the date of completion of construction. 2. THE MUNICIPALITY AGREES TO: A. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The Municipality shall at its own expense retain the services of an engineering consultant (a Florida professional engineer) for this project to provide design services to create plans and specifications for the infrastructure improvements described herein in the City of Delray Beach. The consultant shall also prepare, obtain and review bids, prepare contract documents, inspect work in progress, recommend payment to contractors, and provide other professional services customarily provided by similar professionals on this type of project. The consultant shall also coordinate the design and construction work with the asbestos abatement contractor, should such abatement become necessary. The Municipality’s engineering consultant for this project shall also provide the below described certification upon completion of the project. All costs associated with the above services shall be paid for by the Municipality. Alternatively, the Municipality shall have the option of performing any portion of the consultant’s services described above by its own staff provided such staff possesses the necessary competency to do so. All costs associated with the above services shall be paid for by the Municipality. B. PROJECT SCOPE: The scope of this project subject to funding availability shall include the following street improvements in the City of Delray Beach: Infrastructure improvements including storm drainage, sidewalks, roadway CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 12 construction, street lighting, and sodding at the following locations: SW 12th Avenue, from SW 10th Street to SW 8th Street SW 13th Avenue, from SW 10th Street to SW 8th Street Auburn Avenue from SW 8th Street to SW 7th Street, and SW 8th Street from SW 14th Avenue to SW 12th Avenue NOTE 1: Cost Allocation: The total amount of $81,311.02 funded through this Agreement shall be allocated as follows: An amount not to exceed $81,311.02 for construction expenses associated with the installation of above referenced infrastructure improvements at locations noted above. The Municipality shall pay all construction costs which exceed the above stated amount. NOTE 2: Should the construction contract amount for this project exceed the amount to be funded by the County for construction costs through this Agreement, then the Municipality shall fund all amounts in excess of the amount to be funded by the County. The Municipality shall not request the County for reimbursement of any of the County’s funds for construction costs until after it has expended all amounts in excess of the amount to be funded by the County. NOTE 3: The Municipality shall not request reimbursement from DES for materials or equipment received and stored on the project site or elsewhere. The Municipality shall only request reimbursement for materials and equipment that have been installed. The Municipality further agrees that DES, in consultation with any parties it deems necessary, shall be the final arbiter on the Municipality's compliance with the above. C. ASBESTOS REQUIREMENTS: The Municipality shall comply with all applicable requirements contained in Exhibit “D”, attached hereto, for construction work in connection with the project funded through this Agreement. D. DAVIS-BACON ACT: The Municipality shall request the County to obtain a Davis-Bacon wage decision for the project prior to advertising the construction work. The Municipality shall incorporate a copy of the Davis-Bacon wage decision and disclose the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act in its construction bid solicitation and contract. E. BONDING REQUIREMENTS: The Municipality shall comply with the requirements of 24CFR Part 85 in regard to bid guarantees, performance bonds, and payment bonds. F. CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT RETAINAGE: The Municipality shall apply a retainage of at least 5% on all construction draws which retainages shall be released in conjunction with the final draw upon satisfactory completion of the project. The Municipality agrees not to release such retainages until it has obtained approval from the County that the contractor and subcontractors have complied with the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. G. FORMER PROJECTS: The Municipality shall maintain all previously completed CDBG funded projects. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of future CDBG funds and will delay funding for ongoing activities. H. WORK SCHEDULE: The time frame for completion of the outlined activities shall be March 31, 2013. The Municipality shall implement the activities of the project described herein according to the benchmark dates shown in Exhibit “E” attached hereto. I. REPORTS: The Municipality shall submit to DES reports as described below: (a) MONTHLY REPORT: The Municipality shall submit to DES detailed monthly CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 13 progress reports in the form provided as Exhibit B to this Agreement. Each report must account for the total activity for which the Municipality is funded under this Agreement. The progress reports shall be used by DES to assess the Municipality’s progress in implementing the project. (b) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT: The Municipality shall submit to DES detailed semi-annual reports in the form provided as Exhibit “C” to this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, the Municipality shall each 31st day of March submit such report for the prior six month period beginning on the preceding 1st day of October, and ending on said 31st day of March. In addition, during the term of this Agreement, the Municipality shall each 30th day of September submit such report for the prior six month period beginning on the preceding 1st day of April, and ending on said 30th day of September. (c) OTHER REPORTS: The Municipality agrees to submit to DES any other reports required by the State in connection with activities undertaken through this Agreement including, but not limited to, reports associated with Section 3. J. USE OF THE PROJECT FACILITY: The Municipality agrees in regard to the use of the facility/property whose acquisition or improvements are being funded in part or in whole by CDBG funds as provided by this Agreement, that for a period of ten (10) years after the expiration date of this Agreement (as may be amended from time to time): (1) The Municipality may not change the use or planned use, or discontinue use, of the facility/property (including the beneficiaries of such use) from that for which the acquisition or improvements are made, unless the Municipality provides affected citizens with reasonable notice of, and opportunity to comment on, any such proposed change and either: a. The new use of the facility/property qualifies as meeting one of the national objectives defined in the regulations governing the CDBG program, and is not a building for the general conduct of government; or b. The requirements of paragraph (2) of this section are met. (2) If the Municipality determines after consultation with affected citizens, that it is appropriate to change the use of the facility/property to a use which does not qualify under paragraph (1) (a) of this section or discontinue the use of the facility/property, it may retain or dispose of the facility for such use if the County is reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the facility/property less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvements to the facility/property. The final determination of the amount of any such reimbursement to the County under this paragraph shall be made by the County. (3) Following the reimbursement of CDBG funds by the Municipality to the County pursuant to paragraph (2) above, the facility/property will then no longer be subject to any CDBG requirements. The provisions of this clause shall survive the expiration of this Agreement. K. SECTION 3 REQUIREMENTS: The Municipality agrees to comply with all Section 3 requirements applicable to contracts funded through this Agreement. Information on Section 3 is available at DES upon request. The Municipality shall include the following, referred to as the Section 3 Clause, in every solicitation and every contract for every Section 3 covered project: Section 3 Clause (1) The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 14 of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U. S.C. 170 1u (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD-assisted projects covered by Section 3 shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low-and very low-income persons, particularly recipients of HUD assistance for housing. (2) The parties to this contract agree to comply with HUD’s requirements in 24 CFR Part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this contract, the parties to this contract certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the Part 135 regulations. (3) The contractor agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the contractor has a collective bargaining agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers representative of the contractor’s commitment under this Section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each; and the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions; and the anticipated date the work shall begin. (4) The contractor agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 135, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. The contractor will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the contractor has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. (5) The contractor will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the contractor is selected but before the contract is executed, and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the contractor’s obligations under 24 CFR Part 135. (6) Noncompliance with HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. 3. THE COUNTY AGREES TO: A. Provide funding for the above specified improvements as described above in “Project Scope”, during the term of this Agreement, in the amount of $81,311.02. However, the County shall not provide any funding for the construction work until the Municipality provides documentation showing that sufficient funds are available to complete the project. B. Provide project administration and inspection to the Municipality to ensure compliance with U.S. HUD and the Department of Labor, and applicable State, Federal and County laws and regulations. C. Monitor the Municipality at any time during the term of this Agreement. Visits may be announced or unannounced as determined by DES and will serve to ensure compliance with State and U.S. Department of HUD regulations, that planned activities are conducted in a timely manner, and to verify the accuracy of reporting to DES on program activities. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 15 D. The County shall perform an environmental review of the project, and review and approve project design and bids submitted for the work. The County shall also perform Davis Bacon Act Labor Standards monitoring and enforcement. Environmental review costs incurred by the County may be charged to the project budget identified above. E. Allowable costs that may be paid by the County under this Agreement in addition to those stated in II.A above: (a) Costs of asbestos surveys, asbestos abatement, and abatement monitoring. (b) Costs of any other services customarily associated with projects of the nature of the project contemplated by this Agreement. The County shall review requests by the Municipality for expenditures on the above items prior to undertaking the services associated with them, and approve any such expenditure it deems appropriate for this project. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 16 EXHIBIT “B” PALM BEACH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT Report For: Month:_________________ Year: Subrecipient Name: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Project Name: SW 12th & 13th Avenues, Auburn Avenue and SW 8th Street Report Prepared By: Name Signature Date BUDGETING AND EXPENDITURES Amounts Expended this Reporting Period: CDBG Funds:$ Other Funds:$ Amounts Expended to Date: //////////////////////////////////////////////BUDGETED EXPENDED PERCENTAGE CDBG Funds: $ $ % Other Funds: $ $ % Other Funds: $ $ % TOTAL: $ $ % Describe any changes in budgeted amounts during this reporting period and the source of funds: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Describe your efforts to obtain any additional funds for the project during this reporting period (if your project is underfunded):_______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT ACTIVITIES Describe your accomplishments during the reporting period:_______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Describe any problems encountered during this reporting period:___________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Other comments:_____________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _____________ I, _____________________________________, do hereby certify that the Pahokee Housing Authority has met all of its Monthly Performance Requirements (Exhibit “E”) referenced in the Agreement during this reporting period. _______________________________________ Name & Title of Certifying Representative Send Monthly Performance Report to: Bud Cheney, Manager of CREIS Department of Economic Sustainability 100 Australian Avenue, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 17 EXHIBIT “C” PALM BEACH COUNTY Department of Economic Sustainability CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND MBE REPORT Project Name: City of Delray Beach -SW 12th & 13th Avenues, Auburn Avenue and SW 8th Street Report Date: Page of Pages Report Period: [ ] October 1, 20 , to March 31, 20 . [ ] April 1, 20 , to September 30, 20 . Prepared By: (1) Contractor/Subcontractor name and address (fill in for each contractor or subcontractor) Include all professional services such as consultants, engineers, architects, etc. that are funded under the agreement for this project. All Contractors and subcontractors (with contracts over $10,000) that are paid with CDBG funds must be included. Do not list previously reported information. (2) Prime Contractor Employer Identification Number * (3) Subcontractor Employer Identification Number (see below) (4) Amount of Contract or Subcontract (5) Type of Trade Code (1 thru 3) (see below) (6) Contractor or subcontractor Racial/Ethnic Code (1 thru 6) (see below) (7) WBE (yes or no) (8) Section 3 (yes or no) Name: Street: City, State, Zip: Name: Street: City, State, Zip: Name: Street: City, State, Zip: Name: Street: City, State, Zip: Name: Street: City, State, Zip: (3) When subcontractor employer identification is used, information in columns 4 through 8 must reflect the subcontractor information, not the prime contractor’s information; also include the prime contractor’s employer identification number. * Employer identification number or social security number (5) Type of Trade Codes: 1 = New Construction (including rehab, water, and sewer 2= Education/Training 3= Other (including supply, professional services and other activities except construction and education/training) (6) Racial/Ethnic Code: 1=White American 4= Hispanic American 2= Black American 5= Asian/Pacific American 3= Native American 6=Hasidic Jews (7) WBE = Women Business Enterprise CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 18 EXHIBIT “D” ASBESTOS REQUIREMENTS SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS The provisions of this part apply to all demolition and renovation work contemplated in this Agreement and described in Exhibit “A” of this Agreement. I. DEFINITIONS ACM: Asbestos Containing Materials AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act EPA: Environmental Protection Agency FLAC: Florida Licensed Asbestos Consultant DES: Palm Beach County Department of Economic Sustainability NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NRCA: National Roofing Contractors Association NVLAP: National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program OSHA: Occupational Safety & Health Administration PBCAC: Palm Beach County Asbestos Coordinator (in Risk Management) PLM: Polarized Light Microscopy RACM: Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials TEM: Transmission Electron Microscopy II. ASBESTOS SURVEYS All properties scheduled for renovation or demolition are required to have a comprehensive asbestos survey conducted by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Consultant (FLAC). The survey shall be conducted in accordance with AHERA guidelines. Analysis must be performed by a NVLAP accredited laboratory. For Renovation Projects (projects which will be reoccupied): -Point counting should be conducted on all RACM indicating 1% -10% asbestos by PLM analysis. If the asbestos content by PLM is less than 10%, the building owner/operator can elect to: 1. Assume the material is greater than 1% and treat it as RACM, or 2. Require verification by point counting. -Samples of resilient vinyl floor tile indicating asbestos not detected must be confirmed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). -Joint compound shall be analyzed as a separate layer. -Roofing material shall be sampled only if a renovation requires the roof to be disturbed In lieu of sampling the roof, it will be presumed to contain asbestos. For Demolition Projects: -Point counting should be conducted on all RACM indicating 1% -10% asbestos by PLM analysis. If the asbestos content by PLM is less than 10%, the building owner/operator can elect to: 1. Assume the material is greater than 1% and treat it as RACM, or 2. Require verification by point counting. -Composite sample analysis is permitted for drywall systems (combining the drywall and joint compound constituents). -All Category I and II non-friable materials, as defined in EPA/NESHAP, shall be sampled to determine asbestos content. If the Agency has a recent asbestos survey report prepared by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Consultant, a copy may be provided to DES for review by the PBCAC to determine if the survey is adequate to proceed with renovation/demolition work. If no survey is available, a survey may be initiated by the Agency or requested by DES. If the survey is through DES, a copy of the completed survey will be forwarded to the Agency. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 19 III. ASBESTOS ABATEMENT A. RENOVATION (a) Prior to a renovation, all asbestos containing materials that will be disturbed during the renovation, must be removed by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Contractor under the direction of a FLAC. Exceptions may be granted by DES prior to the removal. The Agency must obtain approval for all exceptions from DES. DES will request the PBCAC to review and approve all exceptions. (b) Asbestos abatement work may be contracted by the Agency or by DES upon request. (c) If the Agency contracts the asbestos abatement, the following documents are required to be provided to the DES. 1. An Asbestos Abatement Specification (Work Plan), 2. Post Job submittals, reviewed and signed by the FLAC. (d) If the Agency requests DES to contract the asbestos abatement, DES will initiate the request through the PBCAC who will contract the asbestos abatement. DES will provide a copy of all contractor and consultant documents to the Agency. (e) Materials containing <1% asbestos are not regulated by EPA/NESHAPS. However, OSHA compliance is mandatory. OSHA requirements include training, wet methods, prompt cleanup in leak tight containers, etc. The renovation contractor must comply with US Dept of Labor, OSHA Standard Interpretation, “Compliance requirements for renovation work involving material containing <1% asbestos”, dated 11/24/2003. The renovation contractor must submit a work plan to DES prior to removal of the materials. B. DEMOLITION All RACM must be removed by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Contractor under the direction of an FLAC prior to demolition. Examples of RACM include: popcorn ceiling finish, drywall systems, felt or paper-backed linoleum, resilient floor tile which is not intact, asbestos cement panels/pipes/shingles (“transite”). NESHAP Category I non-friable materials, such as intact resilient floor tile & mastic and intact roofing materials, may be demolished with the structure, using adequate controls. The demolition contractor shall be made aware of the asbestos-containing materials and shall exercise adequate control techniques (wet methods, etc.). Any exceptions to these guidelines shall be requested through and approved by DES prior to the removal. Demolition work should be monitored by a FLAC to ensure proper control measures and waste disposal. This is the responsibility of the Agency. (a) Asbestos Abatement work may be contracted by the Agency or by DES upon request. (b) If the Agency contracts the asbestos abatement, the following documents must be provided to the DES and reviewed by the PBCAC. 1. An Asbestos Abatement Specification (Work Plan), 2. Post Job submittals, reviewed and signed by the FLAC. (c) If the Agency requests DES to contract the asbestos abatement, DES will initiate the request through the PBCAC who will contract the asbestos abatement. DES will provide a copy of all contractor and consultant documents to the Agency. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 20 (d) Recycling, salvage or compacting of any asbestos containing materials or the substrate is strictly prohibited. (e) In all cases, compliance with OSHA "Requirements for demolition operations involving material containing <1% asbestos” is mandatory. (f) If suspect materials are discovered that were not previously sampled and identified in the survey, stop all work that will disturb these materials and immediately notify DES. IV. NESHAP NOTIFICATION A. RENOVATION A NESHAP form must be prepared by the Agency or its Contractor and submitted to the Palm Beach County Health Department at least ten (10) working days prior to an asbestos activity that involves removal of regulated asbestos containing material, including linoleum, greater than 160 square feet or 260 linear feet or 35 cubic feet. For floor tile removal greater than 160 square feet, the Agency or its Contractor shall provide a courtesy NESHAP notification to the Palm Beach County Health Department at least three (3) working days prior to removal. The Agency shall provide a copy of the asbestos survey to the renovation contractor to keep onsite during the work activity. B. DEMOLITION A NESHAP form must be prepared by the Agency or its Contractor and submitted to the Palm Beach County Health Department at least ten (10) working days prior to the demolition for projects demolished by the Agency. C. NESHAP FORM The NESHAP form is available online through the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations. The notification shall be sent to the address shown below. A copy of it shall be included in the Agency’s post job documentation submitted to DES. All fees shall be paid by the Agency. Palm Beach County Department of Health Asbestos Coordinator 800 Clematis Street Post Office Box 29 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 V. APPLICABLE ASBESTOS REGULATIONS/GUIDELINES The Agency, through its demolition or renovation contractor, shall comply with the following asbestos regulations/guidelines. This list is not all inclusive: (a) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NESHAP, 40 CFR Parts 61 Subpart M National Emission Standard for Asbestos, revised July 1991 (b) Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Construction Industry Standard, 29 CFR 1926.1101 (c) EPA: A Guide to Normal Demolition Practices Under the Asbestos NESHAP, September 1992 (d) Demolition practices under the Asbestos NESHAP, EPA Region IV (e) Asbestos NESHAP Adequately Wet Guidance CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 21 (f) Florida State Licensing and Asbestos Laws 1. Title XVIII, Chapter 255, Public property and publicly owned buildings. 2. Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Chapter 469 Florida Statute, Licensure of Asbestos Consultants and Contractors (g) Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI), Updated Recommended Work Practices and Asbestos Regulatory Requirements, current version. (h) Florida Roofing Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, NRCA, June 1995, or current version. (i) US Dept of Labor, OSHA Standard Interpretation 1. Application of the asbestos standard to demolition of buildings with ACM in Place, dated 8/26/2002. 2. Requirements for demolition operations involving material containing <1% asbestos, dated 8/13/1999. 3. Compliance requirements for renovation work involving material containing <1% asbestos, dated 11/24/2003. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 22 EXHIBIT “E” PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS Subrecipient Name: City of Delray Beach Project Name: Auburn Avenue Performance Benchmarks Date Drawdown Request – Construction Continues – Ongoing Monitoring OCT – NOV 2012 Final Inspection /Engineer’s Certificate of Completion of Construction /Activity Close Out – Final Payment Request DEC 2012 – FEB 2013 The Benchmarks noted above are used by the County to evaluate the Municipality’s performance under this Agreement. Failure to meet these goals may result in the County’s recapture of the grant funds financing this project. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.K. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE: 2707 S.W. 2ND STREET ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff requests City Commission approval to Amendment No. 4 to extend the closing date to November 30, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 2707 SW 2nd Street, Delray Beach, FL 33445 to Santiago Gutierrez. BACKGROUND The City Commission approved the sale of NSP property to Santiago Gutierrez at the August 21, 2012 Commission meeting. The initial agreement required that the closing take place 60 days from the date of execution. However, the buyer has been delayed by the bank's process, thus the need for an extension of the closing date. The City of Delray Beach desires to sell the subject property to Santiago Gutierrez for the purchase price of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and 00/100 cents ($100,000.00) or appraised value and provide subsidy up to $25,000 secured by promissory note and second mortgage, said property being described as follows: THE WEST ¼ OF LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, OF HOMEWOOD LAKES SECTION C, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 196-197, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. RECOMMENDATION Staff City Commission approval to Amendment No. 4 to extend the closing date to November 30, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 2707 SW 2nd Street, Delray Beach, FL 33445 to Santiago Gutierrez. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 to the contract dated August 27, 2012 (“Agreement”), between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, (“Seller”) and SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ (“Buyer”), is hereby entered into this ____ day of _____________, 2012, and amends the Agreement as follows: W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of a parcel of land in Delray Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS, the closing date will expire soon; however, the parties wish to extend the closing date to the date as indicated in this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants, the parties agree as follows: 1. The closing date as stated in Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is extended to November 30, 2012. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Contract for Sale and Purchase the day and year first above written. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: ___________________ _________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ATTESTED BY: Dated: __________________________ _______________________ City Clerk 2 WITNESSES : SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ __________________________ By: _____________________________ Printed Name: ______________ __________________________ Dated: ___________________________ Printed Name: ______________ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 16, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.L. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE: 810 NW 21ST WAY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff requests City Commission approval to Amendment No. 4 to extend the closing date to December 15, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 810 NW 21st Way, Delray Beach to Jarrod Levins. BACKGROUND The City Commission approved the sale of NSP property to Jarrod Levin at the September 4, 2012 commission meeting. The City of Delray Beach desires to sell the subject property to Jarrod Levins for the purchase price of One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Dollars and 00/100 cents ($145,000.00) or appraised value and provide subsidy up to $50,000 secured by promissory note and second mortgage, said property being described as follows: LOT 34, TOGETHER WITH THE SOUTHERLY 9.67 FEET OF LOT 35, RE-PLAT OF RAINBERRY LAKE, PHASE IV-A, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 39, PAGE 99, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Commission approval to Amendment No. 4 to extend the closing date to December 15, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 810 NW 21st Way to Jarrod Levins. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 to the contract dated August 28, 2012 (“Agreement”), between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, (“Seller”) and JARROD LEVINS (“Buyer”), is hereby entered into this ____ day of _____________, 2012, and amends the Agreement as follows: W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of a parcel of land in Delray Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS, the closing date will expire soon; however, the parties wish to extend the closing date to the date as indicated in this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants, the parties agree as follows: 1. The closing date as stated in Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is extended to December 15, 2012. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Contract for Sale and Purchase the day and year first above written. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: ___________________ _________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ATTESTED BY: Dated: __________________________ _______________________ City Clerk 2 WITNESSES : JARROD LEVINS __________________________ By: _____________________________ Printed Name: ______________ __________________________ Dated: ___________________________ Printed Name: ______________ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE: November 16, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.M. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 TERMINATION OF OFF-SITE PARKING AGREEMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of the Termination of Off-Site Parking Agreement between MacMillan Investment Limited Partnership, Nineteen Northeast LLC and the City of Delray Beach. BACKGROUND The Off-Site Parking Agreement was drafted in 2006 to provide for parking for the new location of City Limits, which required 23 extra spaces for the building, located at 19 N.E. 3rd Avenue. The building is currently vacant. Nineteen Northeast, LLC is under negotiation to sell the building and as a condition of sale, the Off-Site Parking Agreement between Nineteen Northeast, LLC, MacMillan Investment Limited Partnership and the City is required to be terminated. It may only be terminated by the consent of all parties, which includes the City. City staff does not oppose the termination of this agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Termination of Off-Site Parking Agreement. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: November 15, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.N. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is review of appealable actions which were taken by various Boards during the period of November 5, 2012 through November 16, 2012. BACKGROUND This is the method of informing the City Commission of the land use actions, taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed to the City Commission. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day appeal period has not occurred). Section 2.4.7(E), Appeals, of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Commission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Commission may file an appeal. To do so: · The item must be raised by a Commission member. · By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting of the Commission as an appealed item. REVIEW BY OTHERS Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Meeting of November 14, 2012 A. Approved (3 to 1, Alice Finst dissenting, Mark Gregory stepped down, Jose Aguila and Rustem Kupi absent), a request for a flat wall sign for Palm Beach Community Bank, within the Law Center Building, located at 2160 West Atlantic Avenue (southwest corner of West Atlantic Avenue and Congress Avenue). B. Approved (5 to 0), a request for a master sign program for Alta Congress, a residential development that includes 369 dwelling units and located on the west side of Congress Avenue, south of Atlantic Avenue. C. Approved (5 to 0), the color chips and sample tiles for the architectural elevations for Ed Morse Cadillac, located on the west side of South Federal Highway, south of Linton Boulevard (2300 South Linton Boulevard). D. Approved with conditions (4 to 1, Alice Finst dissenting), a request for a color change for an existing commercial establishment for Dee Dees Conch Rib & Crab Shack, located on the south side of West Atlantic Avenue, west of SW 5th Avenue (540 West Atlantic Avenue). E. Denied (4 to 1) a request for a color change for Palm Plaza, an existing commercial building, located at the southeast corner of East Atlantic Avenue and Palm Avenue (1118 East Atlantic Avenue). F. Approved (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with the installation of a carport/awning for Ahead of Our Time, located at 280 NE 6th Avenue (west side of NE 6th Avenue, between NE 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street). G. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with architectural elevation changes for Jourdan’s Bridge Club, in the Delray Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Linton Boulevard and Military Trail (4801 Linton Boulevard). H. Postponed (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with architectural elevation changes for Linton Square, located at the northeast corner of Linton Boulevard and Congress Avenue (1565 South Congress Avenue). I. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class II site plan modification associated with hardscape/landscape improvements and architectural elevation changes for Gracey Office Complex, located on the east side of NE 6th Avenue, between NE 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street (255 NE 6th Avenue). J. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class V site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan for Lintco, a proposed 51,412 sq. ft. shopping center consisting of three commercial buildings on a 7.09 acre vacant site located on the north side of Linton Boulevard, west of SW 4th Avenue. Concurrently, the Board approved a waiver request to reduce the stacking distance from the required fifty feet (50’) to 28 feet nine inches (28’ 9”). K. Approved with conditions (4 to 1, Alice Finst dissenting), a Class V site plan, (5 to 0) landscape plan and (3 to 2, Jason Bregman and Alice Finst dissenting) architectural elevation plan for Chase Bank, a proposed 5,033 sq. ft. bank with drive-thru lanes, in the Delray Square Shopping center, located at the northeast corner of West Atlantic Avenue and Military Trail (4899 West Atlantic Avenue). Historic Preservation Board Meeting of November 14, 2012 1. Approved with conditions (6 to 0 Reginald Cox absent), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the construction of a single family residence on a vacant property located at 115 NE 6th Street, within the Del-Ida Park Historic district. 2. Continued with direction (5 to 0, Ana Maria Aponte left the meeting prior to this vote), a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the construction of a single family residence on a vacant property located at 11 NE 7th Street, within the Del-Ida Park Historic district. Concurrently, the Board acted on the following variances and waiver: i. Approved (5 to 0) a variance to construct a swimming pool five feet from the rear and Denied (4 to 1) a variance request to construct the pool five feet from the side interior property lines (where 10 feet is required); ii. Approved (5 to 0) a variance to permit parking within the front yard setback; iii. Continued (5 to 0) a waiver request to the Building Height Plane requirement. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: James Scala, Ocean Rescue Superintendent Linda Karch, Director of Parks and Recreation THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 13, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.O.1 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 BID AWARD/BEACH RAKER ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to consider approval of a bid award to Beach Raker in the amount of $57,000.00 annual cost for beach cleaning, maintenance and beautification services. BACKGROUND Three bids were submitted for the provision of beach cleaning services. The Universal Beach Service is the current contract holder and has been providing reliable service for many years. While we appreciate Universal's reliability and years of service, the Beach Raker company has submitted a bid which presents substantial savings and enhanced beach cleaning services. Beach Raker submitted a bid of $57,000 for 12 months of service. The next lowest bid was submitted by Universal for $94,896. A third bid was submitted by The Beach Groomer for $450,000. We currently pay $79,000 and have increased the services required by the current contract. The Beach Raker Company submitted the lowest bid and utilizes equipment that would bring new and effective methods of cleaning and beautification to our beach. This includes a Barber Surf Rake and Cherrington Sand Sifter that are capable of cleansing the sand of small debris like bottle caps and cigarette butts. The company would also utilize a piece of machinery called the "Barber Sandman" which is a new versatile tool to be used for cleaning the sand on our walkways once a month. The Beach Raker offers other modern amenities such as GPS tracking on their tractors which would enable the Beach Superintendent or Supervisors to effectively monitor the provision of services. Due to the enhanced quality of proposed services and substantial savings presented in their proposal we believe it is in the City's best interest to recommend the Beach Raker bid for the provision of beach cleaning services. The term of this bid award is three years. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is from Ocean Rescue account # 001-4123-572-34.90 Other Contractual Service. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Commission award Bid # 2013-12 for Beach Cleaning, Maintenance, and Beautification Services to the lowest bidder Beach Raker for an annual cost of $57,000.00. 6 September 11, 2012 7. Schedule for Public Comments at Commission Meetings Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, presented this item and stated he has placed a proposed change to the local rules stating public comments and inqui ry on non-agenda items will commence by 6:30 p.m. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commis sion to move public comments right after the Consent Agenda with remaining public comments, if any , to resume after Public Hearings. The City Attorney will bring this back to the Commi ssion on the September 20, 2012 Regular Commission Meeting. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 9:33 p.m. ________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delr ay Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meetin g of the City Commission held on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, which Minutes were formally app roved and adopted by the City Commission on November 20, 2012. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated a bove, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may in volve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. WORKSHOP MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the Ci ty of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the First Floor Conference Room at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, October 9, 2012. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Alson Jacquet Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Chevelle D. Nubin, City Clerk Mayor McDuffie called the workshop meeting to order a nd announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Drug Task Force Presentation Ms. Suzanne Spencer, Chair of Drug Task Force, prov ided background information and conducted a presentation highlighting their mission, vision, values and spoke regarding Florida Association of Recovery Residences (FARR) and Nationa l Association of Recovery Residences (NARR) standards. She asked Commission for direction o n where the Drug Task Force’s focus should be. Mr. Jacquet thanked Ms. Spencer for the presentation and stated Delray Beach prides itself on being very inclusive. He stated the city would like to continue to provide assistance to those who need it. He asked Ms. Spencer how the Commission can assist them with what they are trying to do. Mr. Carney also thanked Ms. Spencer for the presenta tion and asked about standardized recovery residences and if there are any state regulations. Mrs. Gray thanked Ms. Spencer for the presentation a nd stated she feels staff and Code Enforcement has been doing a great job. She feels t his item should go back to staff for staff to work on. Mr. Frankel thanked Ms. Spencer for the presentation. Mayor McDuffie thanked Ms. Spencer for the presenta tion as well and spoke regarding Delray Beach and recovery. 2. Possible Tennis Stadium Upgrades Mr. Mark Baron stated Mr. David T. Harden, City Manage r, asked him to speak regarding the 2 October 9, 2012 Tennis Stadium. He discussed his background and possibl e changes to the stadium. He highlighted the attributes of a multi-purpose stadium as well as economic impact. He also discussed retractable roofs, skyboxes, necessary step s that would need to be taken i.e. with the county and state and what might possibly attract promoters. Mr. Frankel thanked Mr. Baron and stated the Commissio n often gets critiqued regarding naming rights but it is an outdated facility. He stat ed it is sixty years old and needs to be redone. He mentioned the ATP Tournament in London and stated he is in full support of the upgrades to the Tennis Stadium. Mr. Baron spoke regarding an upcoming event to be te levised for 52 hours and spoke regarding the “Hawkeye” system. Mrs. Gray thanked Mr. Baron for the presentation and stated one of the Commission’s goals is for Delray Beach to be a sports destination. She fee ls the Tennis Center can be an anchor and is worth the investment. She stated she is in full sup port of the upgrades and would like to see staff bring in someone who knows what can be done to change th e stadium. Mr. Carney echoed comments by Mr. Frankel and Mrs. Gr ay and asked if maybe the recommendations as suggested by Mr. Baron are “band ai ds”. He asked if the city is better off simply starting fresh. Mr. Baron stated the present facility will be torn down and it will cost approximately $35-$55 million to build a new one. Mr. Jacquet asked about the control of the stadium an d the adjacent Community Center. He stated the city is missing the multi-use factor and he is in supp ort of the changes to the stadium. Mr. Baron stated the new stadium should be designed with 100 eve nts per year in mind. Mayor McDuffie stated the stadium is not losing money -it is actually close to breaking even. He mentioned different stadiums and asked about seating cap acity. He thanked Mr. Baron for the presentation. 3. Joint Meeting with the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Mr. Carney stated he reviewed budgets for the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the Delray Beach Marketing Cooperative (DBMC) and th ere seems to be an overlap regarding marketing and funds, etc. Mr. Jacquet stated he would like to hear a brief historical pe rspective on each organization. Marjorie Ferrer, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority, gave an overview of the history of the DDA from 1971 to dat e. She introduced her board members that were present: Seabron Smith, Diane Franco, David Coo k, Albert Richwagen, Laura Simon and Gail Lee McDermott who transcribes the DDA minutes. Mrs. Ferrer conducted a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the DDA mission, goals and object ives. Mrs. Gray thanked Mrs. Ferrer for the presentation and asked if the DDA contributes financially to Clean and Safe. Mrs. Ferrer stated their contribut ion is on the back end: they assist with removing gum, etc. in the downtown area. She asked ab out the website and if the list from two years ago regarding the duties of the DDA and DBMC. M rs. Gray inquired about what is being done for the West Atlantic Avenue Merchants and what are fu nd solicited for. Mr. Carney stated he feels the DDA administrative cos ts are higher than other development authorities and expenditures are being made that he cannot acc ount for. Mr. Jacquet asked about the Resolution that started the DDA and Mr. Roy Simon provided an 3 October 9, 2012 overview. Mr. Jacquet asked why did the DDA and the D BMC split in 2010; and how different is the work of the DDA from the DBMC regarding the do wntown. Ms. Ferrer stated the purpose of the DDA is to be the point person for th e merchants and to keep them in business. Mr. Jacquet asked about the millage rate and the number of DDA s taff. Mr. Frankel stated the successes of the city can be attributed to the DDA and DBMC. He stated he may not agree with the DDA’s reason for pu lling out but he respects it. He spoke regarding the DDA administrative costs. Mr. Frankel stated he serves as a Liaison to the DDA and feels certain decisions are made for personal reasons. Mrs. Gray asked the board to explain why the DDA pull ed out and Mr. Smith stated it was a business decision. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Smith a question regarding taxing district s. Mr. Jacquet stated the DDA has the authority to decide what the y will and will not do. Discussion ensued between Commission and the DDA members. Mayor McDuffie commented regarding the DDA and the DBMC. 4. Joint Meeting with the Delray Beach Marketing Cooperativ e (DBMC) Ms. Sarah Martin provided the history of the DBMC and showed a map of how the DBMC and DDA differ as far as boundaries. She conducted a PowerPoint and ga ve their mission and stated they utilize the “Arts for Economic” Calculator reg arding dollars and economic impact. Ms. Martin spoke about Call to Action Marketing and stat ed they have reorganized staff. She explained their functions and partners. Mr. Frankel stated he applauds what the DBMC has done in terms of national awards and gave suggestions regarding the relocation of events. Mr. Jacquet thanked the DBMC for the work they have done and are doing. He encouraged the DBMC and DDA to work together: he stated this is abou t the city of Delray Beach. He urged Ms. Martin to continue doing what they are doing. Mrs. Gray thanked the DBMC as well and stated every o rganization has its mission and goals. She asked what will DBMC do to not duplicate services or efforts moving forward. She also asked if DBMC will do anything from West Atlantic Avenue to Military Trail. Mayor McDuffie thanked Commissioner Jacquet for his comments and stated he will leave in a couple of months and he does not want to leave it wi th people at odds with one another. He stated the success of Delray Beach is the effort of everyone in volved. 5. Discussion regarding the Chamber of Commerce Relocation Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, presented this item and asked f or Commission direction. Mr. Frankel stated the Chamber needs to be updated and r elocated. He stated he thinks the location in the garage is better. Mrs. Gray stated the Chamber should be relocated and a sked when this agreement was going forth six years ago who was going to be responsible for the m aintaining the building. The City Attorney stated any appraisal we receive would be for the land value. Mrs. Gray stated she does not feel the Chamber needs t o be in the garage. In addition, she 4 October 9, 2012 asked what is the financial responsibility of the Chamber. Mr. Scott Porten discussed why the agreement was init ially proposed and talked about residue value and TIFF dollars. Ms. Diane Colonna, Executive Director of the Commun ity Redevelopment Agency, stated the Chamber appraisal was valued at $1 million. She stated the la nd adds a lot to redevelopment and puts it back on the tax rolls. Mr. Carney stated moving the Chamber to the city’s s pace pays for itself. He stated the city and the Chamber are better off with how this is structured and he su pports this. Mr. Jacquet stated this move frees up a prime piece of real estate. He stated he has a concern with the Chamber moving into the garage as far as utilizing t ax dollars to assist with the move. Mr. Shutt explained the impact on bonds and selling to a private e ntity. Mr. Jacquet asked if the Chamber looked at any other locations or just this one spot. Mrs. Gray asked what will the Chamber contribute. M r. Porten stated the Chamber will contribute $250,000. Mayor McDuffie stated that all that has been asked for tonight i s direction to staff. He stated we are looking at economic development. He stated the Chamber ne eds to have a better space. It was the consensus of the Commission to have staf f move forward and gather more information. 6. Direction regarding the Old School Square Garage Retail Sp ace Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney, presented this item stating the appraisal is $2,000,060. He discussed parking permits and asked if Commission wants to increase the asking price. He stated the taxable line of credit is $2.4 million. Mr. Frankel stated he thinks the value that we can get is clo ser to what the city owes. Mrs. Gray asked if we have any offers for the property. Mr. Shutt discussed the Letters of Intent. Mr. Jacquet stated he feels the price should be higher. Mrs. Gray stated she agrees with a higher price and asked what is the process we use regarding proposals. Mr. Carney inquired about the status of the current tenant. The City Attorney stated the current tenant will remain the re until January 2015. Mr. Carney stated he wants to get a tenant in the space that wi ll add to the city’s tax base. Mayor McDuffie stated the numbers are rising fast. It was the consensus of the Commission to market this. 7. Consider Bid Proposal for the Fed Cup Semi-Finals Mr. Robert Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, state d the USTA is accepting bids for the Fed Cup and stated the city has commitments regarding the Davis Cup but the numbers will need to be amended. 5 October 9, 2012 He stated staff wants to know if Commission would like for the m to prepare a bid package. Mr. Frankel stated he supports this. Mrs. Gray stated she too supports this. Mr. Carney stated the estimated economic impact is $1 million a nd he is not opposed to this. Mr. Jacquet asked how much does the city spend to put into this. Commission stated they would like to move ahead with this. 8. Discussion regarding State and Federal Lobbying Services Mr. Barcinski presented this item and stated staff is looking fo r direction from Commission. The City Attorney stated this is not so much as an RFP versus a n agreement. Mr. Jacquet commented regarding the lobbying firm and asked were they the only ones who responded to us. He asked why are we following Boca R aton. He asked about the options: one issue lobbying or general lobbying services. Mr. Carney spoke regarding one issue lobbying and sta ted something has to be done sooner rather than later as far as getting legislation into Tallah assee. The City Attorney provided background information. Mr. Jacquet asked about Option 1 and stated he feels t here is no real choice because only one firm has been presented. He stated Commission should h ave a clear choice and he cannot move forward with this. Mr. Frankel stated he chooses Option 1. Mrs. Gray agrees that it should have been sent out a s an RFP. She stated more people should be able to submit a proposal and feels we have more than one issue regarding lobbying services. Mr. Jacquet stated he will not make a decision based o n rush timing and for the sake of transparency would like clear choices. The City Attorney asked if we can find other firms w ithout an RFP and bring those back to the Commission. Commission asked staff bring this item back to the next meetin g. Mayor McDuffie adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 10:10 p.m. _______________________________ City Clerk 6 October 9, 2012 ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delr ay Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meetin g of the City Commission held on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, which Minutes were formally approv ed and adopted by the City Commission on November 20, 2012. ________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated a bove, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may in volve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. 10/16/12 OCTOBER 16, 2012 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Del ray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie in the C ommission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 16, 2012. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Alson Jacquet Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Lanelda D. Gaskins, Acting City Clerk 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Ron Arflin, Dir ector of Pastoral Services with Abbey Delray South. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of A merica was given. 4. AGENDA APPROVAL. Mrs. Gray requested that Item 8.J., Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement/Match Point, Inc., be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A. Mr. Carney requested that Item 8.H., Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Commerce Bank, N.A. be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A, Item 8.I., Amendment No. 2 to the Players International Management, Inc. (PIM) Agreement, be moved from the Consent Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A.A. and Item 8.L., Amendments between CareHere, LLC. of the Consent Agenda be removed from the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A. and moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A.A.A. and Item 8.P.6., Purchase Award to Specialty Vehicles be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A.A.A.A. Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Franke l – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Y es. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 2 10/16/12 Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Franke l – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Y es. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 20, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commiss ion voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carne y – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mrs. Gray moved to approve the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of September 24, 2012, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commiss ion voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 6. PROCLAMATIONS: 6.A. Breast Cancer Awareness Month – October 2012 Mayor McDuffie read and presented a proclamation hereby procl aiming the month of October 2012 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Bruc e Koeser and Patricia Lewandowski came forward to accept this proclamation. 6.B. Delray Reads Day! – November 8, 2012 Mayor McDuffie read and presented a proclamation hereby procl aiming November 8, 2012 as Delray Reads Day. Janet Meeks, Education Coordinator , came forward to accept the proclamation and stated over the past 11 years the City of Delray Beach has hosted “Principal for a Day” and have actually sunset that program. This year the City is doing “Delray Reads Day” which aligns itself wit h the City’s campaign for grade level reading. Mrs. Meeks introduced Rich Pollack, volunteer, who is heading the initiative which came out of our Mayor’s Collaborative Implement ation Team as an Initiative to provide awareness to our community about what we are doing for grade level reading. Rich Pollack with “Delray Reads Day” they are asking the c ommunity to solve a problem. Mr. Pollack stated in 4 of 7 public elementar y schools 30% of the third graders are reading at grade level which means 70% are not. H e stated this is an economic development issue because they cannot compete with other c ities if we do not have schools. Mr. Pollack stated on “Delray Reads Day” there wil l be 250 volunteers one in every elementary school classroom reading to children betwe en 9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. He stated that people can join by going to delrayreads.org. 3 10/16/12 Mrs. Meeks stated there are bookmarks that have all the informa tion on the back of them if anyone is interested in taking one. Mr. Jacquet stated he signed up to read at Banyan Creek Eleme ntary School where he attended and his niece currently goes. Mayor McDuffie stated he has signed up to read at S.D. Spad y Elementary School. Mrs. Gray stated she signed up to read at Village Academy. Mr. Carney stated he sign up to read at Pine Grove Elementary School. Mayor McDuffie stated at the All American City Awards i n Denver they found how crucial third grade reading is to the success of every c hild in our school systems and it sheds some light on why children drop out of our educa tion programs when 87.5% have passing grades when they drop. He stated reading is the key to this and we need to engage this community to get this done and hopes that surroundi ng communities will do the same. 7. PRESENTATIONS: 7.A. Presentation by the Delray Beach Youth Council recognizing Flor ida City Government Month – October 2012 Mayor McDuffie read and presented a proclamation hereby procl aiming the month of October as Florida City Government Month. Janet Meeks, Education Coordinator, stated this year the Delray Be ach Youth Council is also have an exciting week planned for Florida City Government Month. Mrs. Meeks stated the Delray Beach Fire-Rescue Depart ment has come in and given a presentation to them and at the Carver Morning Program the y have also asked them to do some community service hours and the students with the most c ommunity service hours will get a trip to the fire station. Mrs. Meeks stated she will be working with Rich Reade, Public Information Officer, to get into an el ementary school to do a presentation and is also working with Atlantic High School and their Government Services Academy to provide a program there. Mrs. Meeks stat ed they have two interactive programs; one is a jeopardy game that talks about vocabulary and fun facts and a mock City Commission meeting. Mrs. Meeks stated the Delra y Beach Youth Council was established in 1995. Kacey Carr, Co-President of the Delray Beach Youth Council (DBYC), stated the Delray Beach Youth Council is a group of middle age d to high school teenagers who meet every other Tuesday at the 505 Teen Center at 6:30 p.m. The Delray Beach Youth Council is a non-denominational youth group that services students that attend Carver and Village Academy Middle Schools, Pope, At lantic, Boca, North 4 10/16/12 Broward, American Heritage, and Village High School. The DBYC plan events for the future and discuss how they can improve events they have hosted in or der to make them better for next year. Jack Digney, Co-President of the Delray Beach Youth Council (DBYC), stated the DBYC hosts a wide variety of events that range fr om activities for younger children to providing meals for families in need. They h ave participated in coastal clean-ups and plan to volunteer their time at the local Caring Kitchen. He stated their most successful events are their Annual Turkey Drive w here they raise money in order to buy turkeys to give away to families for Thanksgiving tha t use the 505 Teen Center. He stated last year the DBYC gave away 60 turkeys and the year before they gave away over 100 turkeys. The DBYC also works in conjunction with many other organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the Women’s Club, Toys for T ots, and the City of Delray Beach. For the past two years the DBYC has stuffed ove r 10,000 eggs for the annual Easter Egg Hunt. Kacey Carr stated the DBYC obtains most of their revenue f rom car washes and soda sales. She stated last year they had a coke booth at the Tree Lighting Festival, Kids Day at the Tree, First Night, and at skateboar ding events they host at the 505 Teen Center. She stated all the revenue goes back into the eve nts that they host. She announced that the next car wash is November 10, 2012. Jack Digney announced that the next Delray Beach Youth Council meeting will be on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. and noted they meet every other Tuesday. He stated they communicates via Facebook (their p age is called the Delray Beach Youth Council). 7.B. Recognizing and commending Delray 21 for their contributions and outstanding work at Atlantic Community High School Mr. Jacquet moved to postpone to the next regular meeting of Novemb er 6, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.A. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL/10 TH AND 10 TH CENTER: Approve a final subdivision plat for 10 th and 10 th Center, for a new neighborhood commercial development located at the southeast corner of S.W. 10 th Street and S.W. 10 th Avenue. 8.B. ACCEPTANCE OF A WATER EASEMENT DEED/ROSEAIRE RETREAT: Approve and accept an exclusive water easement deed for Roseai re Retreat located at 14281 Gallagher Road. 5 10/16/12 8.C. ACCEPTANCE OF A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/622-A S.E. 5 TH STREET: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Marc Julien Homes to install pervious pavers in the right-of-way on S.E. 5 th Street for property at 622-A S.E. 5 th Street. 8.D. ACCEPTANCE OF A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/622-B S.E. 5 TH STREET: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement with Marc Julien Homes to install pervious pavers in the right-of-way on S.E. 5 th Street for property at 622-B S.E. 5 th Street. 8.E. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR FUNDING OF CONSTRUCTION/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Approve an Interlocal Agreement with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the funding of construction costs and professional s ervices for certain projects as listed on Exhibit “A” attached to the Agreement for FY 2012-2013. 8.F. ACCEPT GRANT AWARD/ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY GRANT/SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD): Approve accepting an award in the amount of $170,000.00 for a SFWMD Alternative Water Supply grant to provide supplementary funding f or the Area 12A- Phase 1 Reclaimed Water System expansion project. 8.G. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/ 605 ANDREWS AVENUE: Approve a landscape maintenance agreement with Audrey Flannery to insta ll and maintain landscaping within the public right-of-way for the property located at 605 Andrews Avenue. 8.H. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A.A. 8.I. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A.A.A. 8.J. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A. 8.K. RATIFICATION TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD: Approve and ratify the appointment of Mr. Gerald Franciosa as t he regular representative on the Planning & Zoning Board to the Parking Manage ment Advisory Board for an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013. 8.L. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A.A.A.A. 8.M. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/ 5TH ANNUAL DOWNTOWN DELRAY BEACH CRAFT FESTIVAL: Approve a special event request for the 5 th Annual Downtown Delray Beach Craft Festival sponsored by Howard Alan Events, Ltd. 6 10/16/12 to be held on December 29-30, 2012 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., granting a temp orary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(F) for use of N.E./S.E. 4 th Avenue, two blocks north/south of Atlantic Avenue as well as use of the north end of Hand’s parking lot for vendor parking; authorize staff support for security and traffic control, fire inspection services, and permit an event sign to be erected on Atlantic Avenue just east of I-95 fourteen (14) days prior to the event with the sponsor responsible for 100% of City costs, plus a 5% administrative fee for an estimated total of $3,433.50. 8.N. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/TWILIGHT BICYCLE RACE AND FESTIVAL: Approve a special event request for the Delray Beach Twilight Bicycle Race, sponsored by RAC Event Productions to be held on March 22, 2013 from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and March 23, 2013 from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; grant a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(F) for closure and use of the bike race route noted in the staff report from approximately 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Satur day, March 23, 2013 and use of Old School Square Park and Worthing Park; and authorize staff support for traffic control and security, EMS assistance, barricade as sistance, fire inspection services, and event signage; contingent upon the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. The event sponsor is responsible for 100% of City costs, plus 5% a dministrative fee for an estimated total of $16,840.00. 8.O. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boa rds for the period October 1, 2012 through October 12, 2012. 8.P. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Bid award to Midnight Sun Tours, Inc./Horizon Coach Lines in an estimated annual cost of $53,320.00 for bus rental and driver service for the Parks and Recreation Department for the Youth Football Program, Summer Day Camp, Holiday Day Camp, Special Events, Sports & Dance Competition and Overnight/Weekend Trips. Funding is available from multiple Parks and Recreation Department accounts. 2. Contract award to Special Products Group (SPG) in the annual estimated amount of $68,850.00 for uniform procurement for Fire- Rescue Department personnel. Funding is available from 001- 2315-526-52.22 (General Fund: Operating Supplies/Uniforms/Linen Service), 001-2311-522-52.22 (General Funds: Operating Supplies/Uniforms/Linen Service) 001-2313- 522-52.22 (General Fund: Operating Supplies/Uniforms/Linen Service) and 001-2317-522-52.22 (General Fund: Operating Supplies/Uniforms/Linen Service). 3. Contract award to Zoll Medical Corporation to renew the extended warranty and semi-annual preventive maintenance contract and provide guaranteed repair coverage for seventeen (17) 12 Lead EKG Monitor/Defibrillators in the amount of $24,195.25 and 7 10/16/12 seven (7) Auto Pulse units in the amount of $3,150.00. Funding is available from 001-2315-526-46.20 (General Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/Equipment Maintenance) and 001-2313- 522-46.20 (General Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/Equipment Maintenance). 4. Purchase award to the Dumont Company, Inc. in the amount of $49,000.00 for the purchase and delivery of Sodium Hypochlorite on an “as needed” basis to remote booster station locations. Funding is available from 441-5123-536.52-21 (Water and Sewer Fund: Operating Supplies/Chemicals). 5. Purchase award to Line Tec, Inc., in the amount of $55,000.00 for the Water Service Relocations Project and Fire Hydrant Flow Testing. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-49.33 (Water and Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund: Other Current Charges/OB/Water Service Relocation) and 441-5123-536-34.90 (Water and Sewer Fund: Other Contractual Services). 6. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 10.A.A.A.A.A.A. 7. Purchase award to Otto Waste Systems, as a sole source provider , in the amount of $50,000.00 for purchase of hot stamped garbage carts, lids and wheels to be ordered “as needed”. Funding is available from 433-3711-534-49.35 (Sanitation Fund: Other Current Charges/Cart Renewal & Replacement). 8. Purchase award to Specialty Vehicles in an amount not to exceed $462,210.00, for three (3) trolley style vehicle to be used to operate the City’s transportation service. Funding is available from 334- 6111-545-64.20 (General Construction Fund: Machinery/Equipment/Automobile). Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacqu et – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. C arney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the City Commission moved to Item 9, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public-Immediately following the Consent Agenda. 9. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC-IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING CONSENT AGENDA. 9.A. City Manager’s response to prior public comments and inquiries. The City Manager had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 8 10/16/12 9.B. From the Public. 9.B.1. Michael Weiner, Weiner, Lynne & Thompson, P.A., 10 S.E. 1 st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated he would like to reinforce the seriousness of the offer that has been made by K&P and noted they brought 70 jobs to Pineapple Grove and occupy the building that was once occupied by Mr. Pugliese. M r. Weiner stated K&P is looking to expand and almost double their size. Mr. Wei ner stated he would like to do whatever they can do to move this along and make this into a real estate contract so that it can be hammered out and finished with speed. 9.B.2. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Dri ve Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he attended the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and he was extremely impressed because one of the it ems on their agenda was the building at Linton and Federal. He stated the Board listened for 2½ hours to all the people that had a voice in that then they talked among themselves f or another hour or so back and forth with the Board. Mr. Blum stated it was an excell ent meeting and feels the Commission should take that as an example when the public is not allowed to speak on regular agenda items. He urged the Commission to look at how the Planning and Zoning Board meeting was run and suggested that that they come up with a change where people from the community can speak on regular agenda items. Mr. Blum st ated then the Commission can talk back and forth about it, ask questions to the peopl e in the audience, and then come up with a solution that is beneficial to everyone. 9.B.3. Chuck Ridley, 210 N.W. 2 nd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, expressed concern around the property that is owned by the Aub urn Group and stated he has heard several comments from residents both who live there and do not because they have moved out. Mr. Ridley stated the residents brought this before t he Commission that they would be concerned about the density and the concentration of p ersons with under resourced houses. He stated it is not the neighbors who have under resourced households but they want to make sure that the property is appropriatel y and well managed. Mr. Ridley stated he is not sure that is the case now. Mr. Ridley asked that the Commission work with the residents in getting actively involved and stated he s till would like to work with Mr. Hinners in finding a resolution. He urged the Commission to t ake a leadership role and bring all of these parties together to find a resolution. 9.B.4. Brian Hinners, CEO of the Auburn Group, stated he would like to point out some of the facts and mis-statements that were made in some of the articles that were printed in the Sun-Sentinel. Mr. Hinners distributed photos of t he development that were taken yesterday as evidence of the integrity of the pr operty, and maintenance and management of the property. Mr. Hinners stated Village of Delray is 100% occupied and that speaks to the success of the property and the great dem and for this development. He stated their rents are $300-$500 a month below market rate and there i s a tremendous need for this rental housing. Mr. Hinners stated Village at Delr ay hosts the Milagro Center providing arts, music, tutoring, mentoring, and teen programs for Delray’s at risk youth. He stated the Village at Delray supports the Roots Fes tival, the Spady Museum, and other local community groups. Mr. Hinners stated they host homeb uyers, seminars, swimming lessons, financial counseling, and help programs and have 24 hour security 9 10/16/12 and the City of Delray Beach CPTED approved their security pla n in 2009 and they make periodic inspections and noted that they are extremely pleased w ith the property. Mr. Hinners stated he is puzzled by the crime statistics that are being stated as they are not accurate. He stated they pay $70,000 annually for a professional guard service company to man the guardhouse and patrol when management is not on the premises . Mr. Hinners stated according to multi-housing news the industry average move-out r ate is 58%; Village at Delray’s move-out rate is at 25%; 75% of their re sidents renewed their leases; 4% of the residents that moved out left because they were genera lly unhappy with the property. He stated the majority either had monetary issues or were relocated due to a job. Mr. Hinners stated they have no association to Carver Esta tes that is compared to Village at Delray. He commended the City and the Commission for their approval and support of the Village at Delray. 9.B.5. Pauline Moody, 609 S.W. 8 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated the rehab people are destroying property on Atlantic Avenue and throughout the city. Ms. Moody stated the people from the rehabs are putting their cigarettes out on people’s cars and the benches at the library are covered with cigarette s ashes and vomit so she cannot sit down on them. She stated taxpayers should not be paying f or the damage that people from the rehabs caused but nobody from the rehabs is ta king responsibility. She urged the City to do something about this soon. 9.B.6. Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray Beach and Member of the Alliance), disagrees with comments expressed by Steve Blum regarding the agenda and stated with regard to Ms. Moody’s comments he does not understand any of that. 9.B.7. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he was here over a month ago and raised an issue and did not hear anythi ng about it. Mr. Bennett asked if we have a hurricane that requires evacuation of t he barrier island this year or next year will information about when the island is ba ck opened up allowing people back on the island be available to the people at the non-emergency dispatch center. Secondly, Mr. Bennett stated at Andrews Avenue at the Florida I nland Navigation District site (south of the Landings) someone has place d “No Parking Car Will be Towed” signs in between the road and the sidewalk in the right-of-way. He stated he believes these signs were erected without official city permission because the police department number is not filled out and suggested that these signs be removed because the signs are unofficial. Lastly, Mr. Bennett stated when the Reclaimed Water Proje ct was put in on the barrier island someone figured out in a lot of places if t hey put the new meter box in close to the original water meter to avoid having to put a se parate transmitter on the new box. He stated other than the cost savings they did not sea l the hole where the meter goes so there are all these boxes with a whole. Mr. Bennett st ated this could be an issue 10 10/16/12 if someone walks up there in the dark and sticks their heel in the hole they will fall over and since it is on the City right-of-way then it is a potential City liabil ity. At this point, the time being 7:00 p.m., the Commission moved to the Regular Agenda. 10. REGULAR AGENDA: 10.A.A. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE AGREEMENT /MATCH POINT, INC.: Approve Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement between the City and Ma tch Point Inc. to reduce the number of players required for the Champions Tour Event from eight (8) to six (6). The City Attorney stated this is Amendment No. 4 to the Match Poi nt Agreement and there is a change in the number of required players for the Champions Tour Event. Currently, there is a requirement that there be eig ht (8) players and the proposal is to go to six (6) players. Mrs. Gray stated she would like to know the reason why they are going from eight (8) players to six (6). Mark Baron, Tournament Director for Players International, state d it is not reducing the tournament to six (6); it is reducing the amount o f players to six (6) because the ATP Champions Tour has created different formats thus allowi ng them to go after marque players that will only play in a six (6) man format. Mr. Baron state d instead of an eight (8) man round robin there will be single elimination draw a nd a six (6) man elimination draw; and there will also be a four (4) man round robi n with a four (4) man elimination draw. Mrs. Gray asked Mr. Baron that if we have six (6) players they can actually pay them more money. Mr. Baron stated they are spending over $25,000 more for six (6) players this year than they did last year for eig ht (8) in appearance fees. Mr. Baron stated they have the one and two ranked players on the ATP Champions Tour. Mr. Jacquet stated by reducing the requirement for the number of championship players from six (6) to eight (8) will the City will get higher quality players. Mr. Baron stated that the City will get higher qual ity players and last year they had two players that were around the $15,000-$20,000 range and they are not being brought back. Mr. Baron stated they are now bringing in players at $35,000, one at $125,000, and one at $30,000. Mr. Baron stated the greater the name the more ex pensive the player and the bigger the crowd. Mr. Carney stated when the City recently extended this agree ment there was controversy with the decision and part of his analysis was t he economic benefit that the Commission thought this tournament would bring to the City. He exp ressed concern that when you reduce the number of players by having less player s you may have less 11 10/16/12 competition. Mr. Carney stated he is concerned about the financia l awards for the City and asked why he would agree to reduce the number of players whic h gives more opportunity for people to see different players. Mr. Baron stated the biggest thing in any event is the name of the player. Mr. Baron stated they are st ill making it a ten day event (i.e. Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, and finals on Sunday) which gives a two weekend event. He stated last year the attendance decreased over the year before. Mr. Baron stated they financially made an additional expenditure to bring the quality and attendance up to fill the hotels, etc. Brief discussion between the Commission and Mr. Baron continued. Mr. Carney asked if the Commission agrees to allow for amendment to be effective for one year. Mrs. Gray concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Carney. Mr. Baron stated 70% of all funds on player/appearance fees and it increases every year. Mayor McDuffie stated he agrees that quality is better than quantity. Mr. Jacquet concurs with comments expressed by Commissioner Gra y and supports a decision for a year and then come back and if we need to change the contract then it can be amended then. He understands that if we cannot find eig ht (8) quality players then we want to have six (6) quality players instead o f having six (6) quality and two (2) amateurs. Mr. Jacquet stated he agrees that quality is better tha n quantity. Mr. Baron stated the eight (8) man draw only brought players in Mond ay and Tuesday and the key thing for anything for the Champions Tour f or Delray Beach is do the opening weekend as big as they can and as previously done in the past. Mayor McDuffie agrees to do the contract for one year and rene w it in the future. Mr. Frankel moved to approve the agreement between the City of De lray Beach and Match Point Inc. but limit it to as a one year waiver to reduce the number of players required for the Champions Tour Event from eight (8) to s ix (6), seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacqu et – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. C arney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A.A.A. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH COMMERCE BANK, N.A.: Approve Amendment No. 1 to our Agreement with Commerce Bank for ControlPay Advanced (CPA), an accounts payable solution that repla ces paper checks with electronic payments through the Visa Network, to increases the percentage used in calculating the monthly revenue share for the City. 12 10/16/12 Mr. Jacquet moved to approve Item 10.A.A.A. (formerly Item 8.J.), seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as fol lows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Y es; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A.A.A.A. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PLAYERS INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC. (PIM) AGREEMENT: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement between the City and Players International Management , Inc. (PIM) to provide for a change of the time periods when the events may be he ld and a clarification on the type of events required and the penalty if they fail to televise or hold an e vent. The City Attorney stated this is Amendment No. 2 to the Agreeme nt between the City and Players and this amendment provides that in the current agreement they talked events in certain months and this agreement would modify t hat to talk about the events as either USTA or ITF governed and it would also modif y the amount of money the City would get back if there is a failure to hold one or more of the events especially on the televised events then the City would get 37.5% deduc tion in the amount of payments we would make versus the way it was currently worde d it was 25 but that also affects the other deduct amounts for two remaining events. The City Attorney stated staff has also modified Exhibit “A” to clarify the examples of certain events that may be held. Mr. Carney asked what impact does this have on the public’s us e of the courts. Mark Baron, Tournament Director for the Junior Events, stated in t he agreement it states that the courts have to be approved as far as usage by the City. Mr. Baron stated when this agreement was first written it was on four spec ific events that they would be holding and those consisted of eight tournaments. Mr. Baron stat ed they are now bringing nine (9) events consisting of twenty (20) tournaments which is thousands of people coming in. He stated the ITF event brought in thirty (30) players last year from around the world. Mr. Baron stated the contract is saying that the two specific events that 7 years ago was specified to be televised the City is giving PIM (Players International Management, Inc.) to televise the best. Brief discussion between the Commission and Mr. Baron followed. Mr. Baron noted that the first priority is with the court availability. Mr. Jacquet made reference to Section 27 of the amendment and state d it used to state “Failure to hold the April Event there would be a 25% deduction per event.” and now it is amended to state “Failure to hold a televised Event - 37.5% deduction per event.” However, Mr. Jacquet stated in Section 3(c) it states t hat “PIM will secure, at a minimum, regional television coverage for two Events…” Mr. Baron cla rified that it should state “Failure to hold two televised Events – 37.5% deduction per event.” 13 10/16/12 The City Attorney stated if he fails to hold one of the televis ed events it is a 37.5% deduction; he must hold two of those events and if he does not hold either one of them it is a 75% deduction and if it one event that is not televised the City gets 37.5%. Mr. Jacquet moved to approve Item 10.A.A.A. (formerly Item 8.I.), seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follow s: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Y es. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A.A.A.A.A. AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CAREHERE, LLC., THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH/EMPLOYE E HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER: Approve Agreements between CareHere, LLC., the City of Delray Beach and the Town of Highland Beach to allow full-time Highland Beach police officers shared limited medical servic es at the Employee Health and Wellness Center. Mr. Carney stated in determining what we charge City empl oyees of another city is that at a higher per capita rate than we would charging for our own people. Bruce Koeser, Human Resources Director, stated for Highland Beac h is $500/$600 depending on the level of service. Mr. Koeser stated the cos ts from Care Here, LLC, will be $30.00 plus labs and hourly rates for medical p ersonnel. Mr. Koeser anticipates $200.00 to be the City’s cost and there will be only 2 -5 officers because this is optional for them. He stated there will be no additional costs from the City’s s ide. Mr. Jacquet moved to approve Item 10.A.A.A.A.A. (formerly Item 8.L.), seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follow s: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Y es; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A.A.A.A.A.A. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: Purchase award to Martin Fence Company in the amount of $50,000.00 to remove existing 4' fence and rep lace with 6' green chain link fence on Pompey Park Fields #1, 2 and 3, and install ation of an 8' wide x 90' long canopy over the backstop at Field #1. Funding is avail able from 334- 4127-572-46.15 (General Construction Fund: Repair & Maintenance Services/ Improvements- Other Repair & Maintenance). Mrs. Gray stated the City received $92,000.00 from the County Commission to regulate the field at Pompey Park and part of that regulation was the size of the fence. She stated there is currently a 4 inch fence tha t extends from the dugout around the field. Mrs. Gray stated they are proposing a 6 foot green chain link fence which is not in regulation. She stated the fence at Miller Fie ld their fence is 8 foot and then it goes down to 6 feet. The City Manager stated he will look into this but he thought 6 f eet was regulation. He stated at Miller Park field there is 8 feet along the railroad to make it 14 10/16/12 harder for kids to get over on the railroad from Miller field. Mr s. Gray stated they were measured today and noted they are 8 feet from the dugout Mr. Frankel moved to postpone this item to the next regular meet ing of November 6, 2012, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commissi on voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.A. WAIVER REQUEST/290 S.E. 6 TH AVENUE: Consider a waiver request to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.4.13(F)(7)(a), “Rear Setbacks”, to reduce the required rear setback to zero feet (0’) from the required ten feet (10’), in association with the installation of a wing wall for 290 S.E. 6 th Avenue. (Quasi- Judicial Hearing) Mayor McDuffie read the City of Delray Beach Quasi-Judici al Hearing rules into the record for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial items. Lanelda D. Gaskins, Acting City Clerk, swore in those individuals w ho wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor McDuffie asked the Commission to disclose their ex part e communications. The Commission had no ex parte communications to disclose. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this i s a request for approval of a waiver to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(7)(a) to re duce the required rear setback from 10 feet to zero feet in association with the installation of a wing wall for a project at 290 S.E. 6 th Avenue. Mr. Dorling stated this building has recently been designated and it is to be redeveloped; it was an old auto repai r facility and will be converted into an office facility. He stated the actual waiver request is for a small improvement for a wing wall that will match additional wing wal ls that will be along the southern facade. At its meeting of September 19, 2012, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered and approved with conditions as part of a Class I Site Plan modification associated with elevation changes to the historically designated building. The HPB considered this waiver request concurrently with the Site Plan Modification request and recommended approval with a 4 to 0 vote (McDonald absent). Mr. Dorling stated required findings are identified in the City Commission docume ntation and are made as it relates to the waiver requirements of LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or opposition, to please come forward at this time. Richard Jones, Richard Jones Architecture, urged the Commission to approve the waiver request for the property on S.E. 6 th Avenue and stated a waiver 15 10/16/12 request came before the Commission approximately two months ag o and this was one last waiver that slipped through the cracks at that time. Mr. Jones stated it was at a time where they were going through SPRAB and subsequently they decided to go for historic designation. He stated they are going down through two paths of site plan approval and they are both converging currently at this point of which this waiver Mr. Jones stated they took some direction from the Planning and Zoning staff and cut the wall back to maintain the safe site triang le and they feel it is an important part of the design because it is a structural support. Christina Morrison, 2809 Florida Boulevard #207, Delray Beach, FL 33483, applauds the developer for making this historic and stated the w ing wall will make the view from these beautiful townhomes better. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the waiver request, the public hearing was cl osed. There was no rebuttal. Mr. Jacquet stated he understands there were two different route s being taken and wished this was before the Commission when they handled the other three waivers. He asked what the applicant is requesting is on S.E. 3 rd or Federal Highway. Mr. Dorling stated it is S.E. 3 rd and the alley. Mr. Jones stated they maintain the clear site triangle as required. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the C ommission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). Mr. Frankel moved to approve the Board Order approving the waiver request, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission vote d as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.B. RELOCATION OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Provide direction regarding the relocation of the Chamber of Commerce. The City Attorney stated the last Workshop meeting the Commi ssion gave direction; however, the Commission asked if the City would be able t o sell the 6,000 square foot space to a developer if they so wish. At that time , the City Attorney stated he felt it would be a violation of the City’s bond proceeds. Subsequent to the meeting he checked with the outside bond counsel and it is not a violation of our bond conveyance if we would wish to do that because the area is so small and the amount is small compared to the total cost of the garage. The City Attorney informed the Commission that if the City did want to sell that space to a private developer ther e were no restrictions under a 16 10/16/12 bond conveyance to do that and to confirm the direction that the Commiss ion gave staff at that meeting to proceed forward with the relocation of the Cha mber of Commerce to that space. Mayor McDuffie stated there is some desire to include the 10,000 f oot piece as well and the firm who made the offer wanted to clear a few things up. The City Attorney stated that is a separate item; however, he can discus s the asking price under his comments because this is not on the agenda. Mr. Jacquet asked how much can the City get for it if sold to a private entity. The City Manager stated the realtors are better equi pped to answer this but the City could probably get a little over $1 million. The City At torney stated the other space appraised at $200 a square foot and believes this space will appraise just a s well. Scott Porten, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors for t he Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated there is an appraisal at $200 a foot and the City may even get an offer at $250 a foot. Mr. Porten stated it is in everyone’s best interest to relocate the Chamber so that they can recognize the $1.7 million and the ground that we currently occupy as well as the parking. Mr. Porten stated if you just take the 40% that the Chamber occupies that is approximately $750,000 and add that t o $1,080,000 that the Chamber is giving the City for the other location, the City i s getting $1.7 million versus $1.2 million or $1.5 million. He stated the tax that the City is goin g to generate will be on an ultimate project that is going to be $10-$20 million in the Cha mber location versus $1.5 million if the City sells the space at $250 a foot or $1.2 million if sold at $200 a foot. Mr. Jacquet asked if the Old School Square Garage the best plac e for the Chamber to go or is there someplace else. Mr. Porten state d the Chamber has to either fix the space they are in or relocate. He stated if the Ci ty has another location for them they will take it if it is comparable. Mr. Porten stated t hey do not know of another location and they have to do this now. Mr. Jacquet clarified that the City does not have any other loc ation that we know of that we can give to the Chamber except for the garage. Mr. Carney stated he understands the need for the Chamber wanting to have a comparable visible site and it is economically good for t he CRA, the City, and the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Carney stated he is in support of the relocation. Mrs. Gray stated she too is in support of the relocation. Mr. Carney stated he knows that the CRA is planning to pay fo r the land over a period of time and he suggested shortening the period for t he payment of that land to the City so the City could enjoy the funds sooner rather than la ter. Mr. Porten stated the intent would be that the net proceeds would go to pay off the City. Mr. Jacquet applauds Mr. Porten for his work. 17 10/16/12 Mayor McDuffie supports the relocation. It was the consensus of the Commission to relocate the Chamber of Commerce. 10.C. MODIFICATION TO PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENTS: Consider a request by the Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB ) to modify the valet parking license agreements to mandate licensees to valida te 50% of the parking fee for customers patronizing their establishments. Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist, stated at its m eeting of July 24, 2012, the Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) requested that the Board to modify the Valet Parking License Agreements that the va let license owner holder would mandate that they validate 50% of the fee for customer s patronizing their establishments. He stated this was tabled at the first m eeting that it was suggested and they directed staff to do a survey to see which of the existing valets were doing any validation programs. Mr. Aronson stated out of the eight (8) exist ing queues all but one were validating for their customers and it was the valet queue located on the south side of Atlantic Avenue between 2 nd Avenue and the railroad tracks. The contention with the valet license agreements that predicated the changes earlier in the year were not that valet parking was $10.00 but that valet parking in a couple of the queues was $10.00 on weekdays and went up to $20.00 on the weekends. Staff understood the damage it can do with that expensive of parking and supported the $10.00 maximum fee for the valets. Mr . Aronson stated staff does not agree that the mandate would be appropr iate because it could cause some hardships for neighboring restaurants who might not be doing so we ll if the valets are mandated to do so that they would have to validate and join those programs which could be a burden for them if they are not as successful as a neighboring restaurant. Mr. Aronson stated at the Parking Management Advisory Board me eting the made a slight adjustment. He stated noting that Max’s Ha rvest is on the 100 block of Pineapple Grove Way they charge $5.00 to all people and if they were mandated to the 50% validation for patrons of their customers the end result would be a raise to the $10.00 charge; $5.00 validation for customers of Max’s and the rest of the users of that valet queue would be stuck with the tab so the Board took a limit to t he order of this mandate to go on Atlantic Avenue or within one block north and south of Atlant ic Avenue. Mr. Aronson stated it would have the same effect on the G OL taste of Brazil who currently charges $7.00 and they would increase their rate to $10.00 and va lidate for the GOL customers and result in the $10.00 parking fee for the remai ning customers. Staff recommends to not approve this mandate and leave it to the cust omers to choose where they want to park. Mr. Carney inquired about what they are charging. Mr. Aronson stat ed $10.00 is the maximum fee that any valet queue can charge. Mr. Carne y stated it was his understanding that the whole idea behind these programs was to creat e validations for one and all. 18 10/16/12 Mr. Frankel suggested limiting it to Atlantic Avenue valets. Mayor McDuffie stated is a mess. Brief discussion by the Commission followed. Mr. Frankel moved to approve Item 10.C., seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – No; Mrs. Gray – No; Mayor McDuffie – No; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said mot ion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.D. VISIONS 2020 PROCESS APPOINTMENTS AND RATIFICATION OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE/VISIONS 2020: Consider approval of the recommended list of appointments as submitted by the Commiss ion to serve as the Visions 2020 Steering Committee and appoint the City Commission representative. Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement, stated this item is a recommended list of appointments as submitted by the Commissi on to serve on Visions 2020 Steering Committee and to appoint the City Commission represent ative. Ms. Butler stated at the regular meeting of October 2, 2012 the City Commis sion elected to establish the Steering Committee by having each Commissioner and Mayor s ubmit three names for appointment. Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie suggested that the following two business types be represented: (1) retail and (2) restaurateur. Mr. Carney suggested adding David Cook as a retailer and Hand’s is a retailer. Mr. Frankel suggested adding Butch Johnson as a restaurateur. Mrs. Gray asked how many members should be on the Committee. M rs. Butler stated the Steering Committees have ranged from 13 up to 19. Mr. Jacquet stated the last time the Commission discussed this he had mentioned that he wanted to move Commissioner Carney’s name. Mrs. Gray moved to approve the people listed as well as add B utch Johnson and David Cook with a Commission representative of Commissioner Carney, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follow s: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Y es; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.E. STATE LOBBYING SERVICES: Consider the selection of a firm for State Lobbying Services. Doug Smith, Assistant City Manager, stated Rich Reade, Public Information Officer, helped to contact and get proposals from se veral firms and many of 19 10/16/12 those were coming from contacts he had through a City Manager’s Statewide Committee. Mr. Smith briefly discussed the six (6) additional proposals and highlighted them: (1) Capitol Alliance Group, (2) Ericks Consultants, Inc., (3) Florida St rategic Group, (4) Greenberg Traurig, (5) Ronald Book, and (6) Weiss, Handler & Cornwell. Mr. Frankel stated he supports Option #1 (to represent the Cit y regarding transient housing legislation at a fee of $15,000 for the 2013 legislative session) because time is of the essence and for further lobbying especially on the Federal level; the Commission has more of an opportunity to go through the various proposal s. He is concerned about missing out on the number one issue that affects our ci ty by not acting on that one single issue but then acting on the six (6) other proposa ls for lobbying on other issues while important to him he does not want to miss out on the one opportunity. Mr. Frankel stated he is looking at selecting the single issue for Ballard Partners to discuss further at a Workshop meeting the other proposals as to what issues need to be lobbied on behalf of the City. Mr. Smith stated several of these forms mentioned federal conta ct relationships they might have but he does not believe those would be the same services the City would get from a full federal lobbyist. Mr. Smith sug gested if the Commission is interested in pursuing something for federal issues speci fically the Beach Re- nourishment that they put out something separate to get proposals on those ser vices. Mrs. Gray concurs with Commissioner Frankel that the Commission ne eds to go ahead and move forward with the single item for the state i ssue. Mrs. Gray stated she would like to have this added to the next Workshop agenda for the federal level. Mr. Carney stated the City of Boca Raton’s attorney and our att orneys were working on a piece of legislation that could be introduced i n Tallahassee. Mr. Carney stated they have a lobbyist already working on that same bill on the ir behalf and it made sense cost wise to have one voice to the lobbying because when there are several lobbyist on the same issue it can distract legislators. He is favor of the Option #1 as it relates to this issue because tine is of the essence. Mr. Ca rney suggested that the City look into having both State and Federal lobbying services. Mr. Jacquet thanked Mr. Smith, Mr. Reade, and the City Attorney’s off ice for their hard work and the quickest turnaround in getting this informat ion about the six (6) lobbying firms back to the Commission. He stated he believe s when you have multiple lobbyists lobbying one issue that it actually helps your caus e and not hurt it. Mr. Jacquet stated he spent over three years in Tallahassee and realized that when a legislator is making a decision on a bill and one lobbyist comes to them on that issue it does not speak as loud as if Ronald Book or Brian Ballard show up. Mr. Jac quet disagrees in going with the same lobbying firm that Boca Raton has and s tated he would go with a different firm because he thinks two heads are better than one. Mr. Jacquet asked if our focus is on the State level or on the Federal level. The City Attorney stated our focus is on the State level. 20 10/16/12 Mayor McDuffie concurs with comments expressed by Commissi oner Carney that the Commission needs to move on this. Mayor McDuffie stated he would like to come right back and go through this list because they have already presented to the Commission and work out their choice for a full-time Florida lobbyi st. Mayor McDuffie reiterated that the Commission is talking about a firm Ballar d Partners for this one issue for this one time because of time restraints and other issues . He suggested that the Commission come back and get additional information on this group of lobbying firms and decide who the City wants to give its lobbying business to f or the State. Mayor McDuffie stated then over the next few meetings then decide who t he Commission wants to give our lobbying business to for the State; and then move on to F ederal after that. Mayor McDuffie stated the Commission has a list of qualified l obbyists but he does not want to see the Commission award a single contract for one issue for one time to a lobbyist without going back and picking someone from this list for full time . Mrs. Gray asked staff if he can provide recommendations for the i ssues that the City is facing. Mr. Smith stated staff can bring back their list of issues at the November Workshop meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to awar d this to one firm for State lobbying services and provide additional informati on on Federal lobbying services at the next Workshop meeting. 10.F. APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE ADVISORY BOARD: Appoint one (1) regular member to the Police Advisory Board to serve an unex pired term ending July 31, 2013. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be ma de by Commissioner Frankel (Seat #3). Mr. Frankel moved to appoint Marc Muscarella as a regular member to the Police Advisory Board (PAB) to serve an unexpired term ending July 31, 2013, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 10.G. APPOINTMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL: Appoint two (2) student members to the Neighborhood Advisory Council to serve unexpired terms ending July 31, 2013. Based on the rotation system, the appointments will be made by Mayor McDuffie (Seat #5) and Comm issioner Carney (Seat #1). Mayor McDuffie stated he would like to appoint Elisha Porter as a student member to the Neighborhood Advisory Council to serve an unexpired te rm ending July 31, 2013. Mr. Frankel so moved, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Carney moved to appoint Nathaniel Ellis as a student membe r to the Neighborhood Advisory Council to serve an unexpired term ending July 13, 2013, 21 10/16/12 seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as fol lows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the time being 7:07 p.m., the Commission moved to the dul y advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11.A. ORDINANCE NO. 40-12 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARING): Consider a city-initiated amendment to the Land Development Re gulations (LDR) Section 4.3.3 (ZZZ), “Transient Residential Use”, in order to clarify prohibitions, exemptions/exceptions, waivers, and penalties; and amend Appendix “A ”, “Definitions”, the definition of “Transient Residential Use”. If passed, a publ ic hearing will be held on November 6, 2012. The caption of Ordinance No. 40-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, “SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES”, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.3.3(ZZZ), “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY PROHIBITIONS, EXEMPTIONS/ EXCEPTIONS, WAIVERS, AND PENALTIES FOR SAME; AMENDING APPENDIX “A”, “DEFINITIONS”, IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF “TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE”; AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.4.6(B), “PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES PERMITTED”, TO REMOVE TRANSIENT RESIDENTIAL USE AS A PRINCIPAL USE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 40-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this is a city- initiated amendment and amend the definition also for transient reside ntial uses. Mr. Dorling stated the modifications clarify that the single-family residential zone district category includes the (RR) Rural Residential zoning designa tion and that the reference to 22 10/16/12 Medium Density Residential zoning districts category includes t he (RL) Low Density Residential zoning designation. The ordinance modifications also incl ude procedural standards for undue economic hardship requests and the amendment also r emoves the reference to transient residential use as a principal use in the RM (Medium Density Residential District). At its meeting of September 24, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Boar d reviewed the item and recommended approval with a 7 to 0 vote. Staff recommends approval on first reading. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was clos ed. Mr. Frankel moved to adopt Ordinance No. 40-12 on First Reading/First Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Com mission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuf fie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 11.B. ORDINANCE NO. 29-12: Consider a request for historic designation of an individual site known as the “Waters-Wellenbrink Residence”, loc ated at 1108 Vista Del Mar Drive North to be listed in the Local Register of Historic Pl aces. The caption of Ordinance No. 29-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING WATERS-WELLENBRINK RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 1108 VISTA DEL MAR DRIVE NORTH, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AS A LOCAL HISTORIC SITE; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE “ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, JANUARY 2012” PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 29-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, stated this i s a request for approval to individually designate the property locate d at 1108 Vista Del Mar Drive North as Waters-Wellenbrink residence. Mr. Dorling stat ed this was built in 1938 23 10/16/12 and it does meet and fulfill the requirements set-forth in Section 4.5.1.(B)(2) and Section 4.5.1(B)(3). At its meeting of September 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Boar d recommended approval. Staff recommends approval. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was clos ed. Mr. Jacquet asked if the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) was a unanimous decision. Mr. Dorling stated HPB was unanimous on their decision. Mr. Carney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 29-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 11.C. ORDINANCE NO. 33-12: Consider an amendment to Chapter 37, “Delray Beach Code Enforcement”, by amending Section 37.42, “Administ rative Fines; Costs of Repair, Liens”, to increase the fines for noise violati ons as defined in Section 99.03. The caption of Ordinance No. 33-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 37, “DELRAY BEACH CODE ENFORCEMENT”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 37.42 “ADMINISTRATIVE FINES; COSTS OF REPAIR, LIENS” TO INCREASE THE FINES FOR NOISE VIOLATIONS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 99.03; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 33-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in com pliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Be ach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and state d this ordinance deals with increasing the fines and if it is a $1,000 fine per day per violation for first violation and going up to $5,000 per day per violation for a r epeat violation and this is in accordance with State Statute. 24 10/16/12 Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was clos ed. Mayor McDuffie stated we are not really doing anything to the beginning level fines but we are opening up the windows so that if some thing continues that we can make it to the point where we actually get someone’s attention. T he City Attorney stated most of the City’s noise ordinance violations are given citations a nd there is a maximum number the does not apply and cannot go up to this number on a citation b ecause if you want to get up the numbers that we are talking about here some one would have to be cited and then they would have to go in front of the Code Enforcement Board be found guilty before that same entity could be found guilty of a repe at violation. The City Attorney stated this is more to allow in certain extreme exa mples if we cannot seem to get compliance. The City Attorney stated it opens up the process so that we can have the higher violation if and when we need to go through that process. Mr. Carney stated he first raised this issue primarily a fter some conversations with people who lived in Osceola Park who informed him that on a Saturday night at 11:00 p.m. it sounded like the music was in their f ront yards. Mr. Carney stated he went there and found the noise bad. He stated there is really no mechanism and there has to be a monetary price; if it is chea per to stay loud and pay $500 as opposed to not doing that it was the residents that were bein g affected. Mr. Carney stated the thought was that the City could provide for sti ffer penalties but those could only be imposed after a hearing with a public board so if there were mitigating circumstances it would be an opportunity for that person who was ci ted to explain their point of view and come to some kind of accommodation where it would not happe n again. Mr. Jacquet clarified that as it is now we could get to this le vel of fines but they would have to go to the Code Enforcement Board and be found guilty . The City Attorney stated the City cannot get to that level yet because their fines are capped at a certain amount. Mr. Jacquet asked how this affects someone in a vehi cle who is blasting music in the neighborhood. The City Attorney stated it affects everybody because it is applied equally across the board so whether it is a business, single fam ily house, or sitting in the front yard, if someone is found guilty of violating the noise ordi nance the fines could be big. Mr. Jacquet asked about the City’s enforcement and w hether or not the City is stiffening it up because we cannot get people to comply. The City Attorney stated when the City had the case where the noise ordinance was struck down by the Court then the City revamped its noise ordinance and came up with a new nois e ordinance. At that point in time based on direction from the Commission and other things t hat staff was seeing out there especially the ordinance that the City copie d it off of (City of Miami Beach) they had something similar to this in their ordinance. Mr. Jacquet stated we have had a number of issues with people living in nearby communities with excessive noise and feels we are atta cking the problem. Mr. Jacquet stated he has a problem supporting this; however, he does unde rstand in what direction we are moving. 25 10/16/12 Mayor McDuffie expressed concern over the enforcement of this a nd asked if we still need to have a reading on a decibel meter and how do we quantify what is objectionable. The City Attorney stated it is basically a distanc e requirement. Mr. Carney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 33-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote, Commissioner Jacquet dissenting. 11.D. ORDINANCE NO. 34-12: Consider an amendment to Chapter 99, “Noise Control”, by amending Section 99.03, “Loud and Unnecessary Noises Prohibited”, to clarify same, by amending Section 99.08, “Penalty”, t o increase the fines for noise violations. The caption of Ordinance No. 34-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 99 “NOISE CONTROL”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 99.02 “DEFINITIONS” TO DEFINE “STRUCTURE”; BY AMENDING 99.03 “LOUD AND UNNECESSARY NOISES PROHIBITED” TO CLARIFY SAME; BY AMENDING SECTION 99.08 “PENALTY” TO INCREASE THE FINES FOR NOISE VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 34-12 is on file in the City C lerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in com pliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Be ach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated whe n the City revamped the noise ordinance there were some comments made on the second reading when the Commission adopted that ordinance that talked about some of the language they had with loud speakers and public address systems and how it may have conflicted with one of the other provisions that was in the ordinance. The City Attorney stated staff has since removed that section and have added that into t he first section to remove any conflict and prevent any issues of inconsistent enforcement. Mr. Jacquet stated this is the clarification between the two sections. The City Attorney stated also under the penalty section whereas under Chapter 37 they had to allow us to go up to that certain level and in this particul ar case we are defining whether or not on second offense you can go up to $1,000; on the third offense you ca n go up to 26 10/16/12 $3,000; on the third or more after that then a $5,000 fine may be imposed. The City Attorney stated this talks about when we can go up to those fi ne levels if the enforcement was warranted and if the Code Enforcement Board also imposed those fines. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Dri ve Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he lives several blocks from a church on Gleason Street and especially during the holidays they play mus ic on the hour. Mr. Blum stated this is fine with him; however, if someone down the street c alls the police and says to stop it because it is a noise violation, how is that issue goi ng to be addressed in this area. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacquet asked if there is any differential treatment i n the City’s ordinance with regard to the churches. The City Attorney stated there is no difference and noise is treated the same for everyone. Mr. Carney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 34-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Frankel. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote, Commissioner Jacquet dissenting. 11.E. ORDINANCE NO. 35-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 3.04, “Assumption of Office; Organizational Meeting”, Section 3.05, “O ath of Office”, Section 3.08, “Vacancies; Filling of Vacancies”, Subsection (B), “Vacancy in Office of Mayor”, Section 4.02, “Appointment; Removal; Compensation”, Subsection (C), “Replacement”; Section 4.05, “Budget Procedure”, Subsection (D), “Public Hearing”, Subsection (E), “Budget Adoption/Appropriations”, Subsection I, “Audit”, Section 5.04, “Elections Generally”, Subsection (B), “Highest Number of Vote s to Elect in First Nonpartisan Election”, Subsection (D), “If No Person Qualifies ”; Section 6.05, “Procedure for Filing”, Subsection (A), “Certificate of Cit y Clerk; Amendment”; to clarify, correct grammatical errors, and to enhance the Charte r's readability; providing for a referendum election to be held on March 12, 2013. The caption of Ordinance No. 35-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 3.04, “ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE; ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING”; SECTION 3.05, “OATH OF OFFICE”; SECTION 3.08, 27 10/16/12 “VACANCIES; FILLING OF VACANCIES”, SUBSECTION (B), “VACANCY IN OFFICE OF MAYOR”; SECTION 4.02, “APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL; COMPENSATION”, SUBSECTION (C), “REPLACEMENT”; SECTION 4.05, “BUDGET PROCEDURE”, SUBSECTION (D), “PUBLIC HEARING”, SUBSECTION (E), “BUDGET ADOPTION/APPROPRIATIONS”, SUBSECTION I, “AUDIT”; SECTION 5.04, “ELECTIONS GENERALLY”, SUBSECTION (B), “HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES TO ELECT IN FIRST NONPARTISAN ELECTION”, SUBSECTION (D), “IF NO PERSON QUALIFIES”; SECTION 6.05, “PROCEDURE FOR FILING”, SUBSECTION (A), “CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK; AMENDMENT”; TO CLARIFY, CORRECT GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, AND TO ENHANCE THE CHARTER'S READABILITY; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013; PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 35-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in com pliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Be ach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated thi s item will be going to referendum that provides minor changes to the Cha rter hoping to clarify a few things in the Charter. He stated there is also an is sue where approximately a year or so ago where West Palm Beach had an issue with a Commissione r who was elected but then passed away before he assumed office and staff has tried to also tried provide language in the ordinance to clarify that so that is not an issue. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Dri ve Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, addressed a comment expressed by Commissioner Frankel two weeks where he stated he wanted to get input from the public before making a decision. Mr. Blum stated he believes that was an excellent decision on his part and the question is if he is going to carry out the will of the people or impose his will on the people. Mr. Blum reiterated to the Commission to let the peop le vote and express the will of the people and to not impose their will on the people. 28 10/16/12 Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray Beach and Member of the Alliance), stated there are less than 25 people in this room; 2 or 3 people are going to speak. Dr. Kirson stated people ar e not coming out like last night for this item and stated when these are put on the referendum and the Commission sees the length of the referendum everybody will check “no” be cause he feels it is too long to read. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Carney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 35-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McD uffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. F. ORDINANCE NO. 36-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 3.02, “City Commission: Composition, Eligibility, Election, and Terms”; amending 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, but not extending the maximum number of consecutive years a Commissioner or Mayor is allowed to serve; providing for a referendum on March 12, 2013. The caption of Ordinance No. 36-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 3.02, “CITY COMMISSION: COMPOSITION, ELIGIBILITY, ELECTION, AND TERMS”; AMENDING 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, BUT NOT EXTENDING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE YEARS A COMMISSIONER OR MAYOR IS ALLOWED TO SERVE; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 36-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 29 10/16/12 The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Dri ve Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, suggested that the Commission should take the recommendations of the 11 people on the Charter Review Committee a nd take these five ordinances (Item 11.E thru 11.I. Ordinance No. 35-12 thru 39-12) to a refere ndum on March 12, 2013. Mr. Blum stated it would be a dis-service to the Chart er Review Committee for the Commission to pick and choose what they feel is the best to do and not look for what is the best will of the people to do. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, disagrees with comments expressed by Mr. Blum and stated the last time there was a Charter Review Committee they deliberated at many longer m eetings and came up with three (3) recommendations; one which was adopted by the Commiss ion and the others were not. Mr. Frankel stated he agrees we appointed members of this pa nel that looked at the Charter who he considers very wise and who have served o ur community. Mr. Frankel stated he does believe it should go to the people; how ever, he finds it interesting that when this Board wanted to put an item on the ballot regarding the change in the length of the term of office and the Commission was heavily criticized yet there were some members of the panel who now want to place this on the ballot. Mr. Carney stated to be consistent with his position before thi s needs to be placed on the ballot and let the citizens decide do they want to have two 3 year terms or retain the three 2 year terms as is. Mrs. Gray stated she was in support of this the last time a nd is in support of this going to the public. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Gray moved to adopt Ordinance No. 36-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote, Mr. Jacquet dissenting. G. ORDINANCE NO. 37-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 4.02, “Appointment; Removal; Compensation”, by amending Subsection (B), “R emoval” ; to provide that the removal of the City Manager shall only require a majority vote; 30 10/16/12 providing for a referendum on March 12, 2013. The caption of Ordinance No. 37-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 4.02, “APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL; COMPENSATION”, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (B), “REMOVAL”; TO PROVIDE THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER SHALL ONLY REQUIRE A MAJORITY VOTE; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013, PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 37-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in com pliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Be ach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and state d this provides a change to the Charter that will allow for the removal of the City Manager upon a majority vote and not by four affirmative votes. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Tom Lynch, 820 N.E. 6 th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, stated in the 1980’s Delray Beach had 9 or 10 interim City Manager’s and in the 1990’s they put into action the super majority. Mr. Lynch stated in hindsight it was probably a mistake because the Commission at the time was out of a reaction inste ad of the right reason. However, Mr. Lynch stated now as he looks back he sees Mr. Har den after 22 years getting ready to retire it did work because they had stabil ity for 22 years which they did not have in Delray Beach. Mr. Lynch strongly believes the sayi ng that “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Drive Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated this should not be about 3/2 versus 4/1 at all but should be about giving the people the right to vote. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he concurs with comments expressed by Mr. Lynch. 31 10/16/12 Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray Beach and Member of the Alliance), stated there is no need for this to go on the ballot and urged the Commission to make a decision. Michael Weiner, Weiner & Lynne, P.A., 10 S.E. 1 st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, concurs with comments expressed by Mr. Lynch, Mr. Bennett, and Dr. Victor Kirson. Mr. Weiner stated over the years he has seen the City Manager make decisions which unfortunately he did not agree with but when he looks around at all the municipalities that he practices in the stability that has been in this city over the last two decades has been wonderful for the town. He encouraged the Commis sion to make their own decision about this particular amendment. Christina Morrison, 2809 Florida Boulevard #207, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated the City of Delray Beach went through some rough water s a few years ago and the City Manager was heavily criticized. Ms. Morrison sta ted if this 3/2 vote would have been in affect back then she does not believe the City Manage r would be sitting on the dais right now which she feels would have been unfortunate for the City. She stated when she looks around the city she feels those 22 years of strong le adership put us in this position. Ms. Morrison stated it would be a shame to change the Cit y Manager’s job to a political job if the vote were to go to a 3/2 majority and feel s that 4/1 is a harder majority to get and thanked the City Manager for everything he has done. Jay Alperin, 3130 Lowson Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33445, thanked the City Manager for his dedication and hard work for 22 years. D r. Alperin stated he and Mr. Lynch were on a previous Commission that hired Mr. Harden. Dr. Alperin stated he was also appointed Chair of the Charter Revision Committe e and before they knew about the City Manager’s retirement they were going to recommend having the ordinance written in such a way that it would not have any imp act on him because everyone believes that he has done an excellent job. However, D r. Alperin stated there was a 10 to 1 vote to recommend that this go to the public to have it confirmed or changed. He stated the Committee also reviewed the ordinance rem oving the salary control out of the Charter so that should you have a City Manager that you are disappointed with and do not want to fire, the Commission can reduce their salary. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacquet stated there were many good comments were made t his evening about this issue. Mr. Jacquet stated he opposes this ite m because this is an attempt to make the position of the City Manager a political p osition which will hurt the City in the long run. He encouraged the rest of the Commission to vote against placing this on the ballot. Mr. Jacquet stated when people elect the Ci ty Commissioners they are elected to make certain decisions. 32 10/16/12 Mr. Carney stated there is a caveat to the statement that “the highest form of democracy is a citizen referendum” and that is if your ele cted body truly believes that what could be put on a referendum is not in the best interest of the city. Mr. Carney stated he cannot make that argument here. Mr. Carney stated he is in favor of putting this ordinance to referendum. Mrs. Gray concurs with Commissioner Jacquet that this should not be placed on the ballot. She stated the stability in this city has been awesome and she supports the super majority and does not support this ordinance. Mr. Frankel stated it is hard for him to say we should not put this on the ballot when there were 10 people out of 11 who felt it necessary and agreed to put it on the ballot. Mr. Jacquet stated in speaking the Charter Review Committee members they wanted to present the Commission with some options and the Cit y Commission would make the final decision of which ordinances should pass and which one s should not. He agrees that 10 to 1 is a large majority but at the sam e time that does not and should not determine the way that the Commission votes on any other boar d or committee. Mayor McDuffie stated without continuity of vision or a consistent flow of institutional knowledge every time you change the Commission the e ntire dynamic of the city changes. Mayor McDuffie stated he cannot support somet hing that would allow this Commission or any other Commission to have the emotions of three people take someone of this caliber out of office. Mayor McDuffie reiterat ed that he knows that the continuity and the consistency of vision here pretty much passed on b y Mr. Harden is a great deal of the reason why we have been able to change the othe r five people that sit on the dais and keep the course and vision. He stated the knowledge and l eadership has been there. Mayor McDuffie stated he has he highest regard for the committee that made these decisions but he is adamantly opposed to this. Mr. Jacquet moved to adopt Ordinance No. 37-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – No; Mayor McDuffie – No; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Ja cquet – No; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion to adopt Ordinance No. 37-12 was DENIED with a 3 to 2 vote, Commissioner Jacquet, Commissioner Gray, and Mayor McDuffie dissenting. H. ORDINANCE NO. 38-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 3.09, “Term Limits”, Subsection (A), “Term Limit”; to provide that the maximum time period allowed to hold office, six (6) years, shall not apply in the case of a Commissioner who assumes the office of Mayor, in that case the time spent holding office as a Commissioner shall not count toward the six (6) year maximum time limit; pr oviding for a referendum on March 12, 2013. 33 10/16/12 The caption of Ordinance No. 38-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 3.09, “TERM LIMITS”, SUBSECTION (A), “TERM LIMIT”; TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAXIMUM TIME PERIOD ALLOWED TO HOLD OFFICE, SIX YEARS, SHALL NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF A COMMISSIONER WHO ASSUMES THE OFFICE OF MAYOR, IN THAT CASE THE TIME SPENT HOLDING OFFICE AS A COMMISSIONER SHALL NOT COUNT TOWARD THE SIX YEAR MAXIMUM TIME LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 38-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in com pliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Be ach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and state d this proposed amendment to the Charter would allow a sitting Commissioner who assumes the Office of Mayor where the six (6) year consecutive years w ould not apply to the time that person has spent as a Commissioner and they could be in the O ffice of Mayor for a term of six (6) years if re-elected, etc. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. Dr. Victor Kirson, D.D.S., 2050 Alta Meadows Lane #2110, Delray Beach, FL 33444 (President of the Board of Directors of Tierra Verde at Delray Beach and Member of the Alliance), thanked Commissioner Jacquet, Commissioner Gray and Mayor McDuffie for the comments on the previous item and he agrees with all their points. Steve Blum, Antilles Homeowners’ Association, 115 Venetian Dri ve Unit “C”, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated he is thankful for all the comments from the Commission and Mayor McDuffie but he disagrees because he feels it is rare that the public has an opportunity to vote on issues that affect them grea tly and for the Commission to take away the right of the people to vote is an abomination. Mr. Blum stated more and more he is seeing decisions made in the last ye ar by this Commission that have eroded the public trust. He stated the Commission should allow his vote. 34 10/16/12 There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacquet stated he understands that Mr. Blum is saying that he wants this decision to be made by the voters but unfortunately this is not a decision that is guaranteed to go to the voters because the process does not work tha t way. Mr. Jacquet stated this was by referendum, a committee was put together and they come up with ideas and recommendations and the Commission is charged with the responsibi lity of deciding out of those recommendations which ones should go to the ballot. He state d the residents get to vote every two years for their Commissioners and encoura ged everyone to find out more who is running for office and find out where they stand on certain i ssues so that when you vote for your Commissioners you know that you voted for someone who represents you and who will make certain decisions in line with you want for example these Charter amendments. Mr. Frankel moved to adopt Ordinance No. 38-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Gray – No; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – No; Mr. Frankel – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. I. ORDINANCE NO. 39-12: Consider calling for a referendum on proposed revisions to the Charter of the City of Delray Beach to amend Section 4.02, “Appointment; Removal; Compensation”, by amending Subsection (D), “Compensation”; to provide for the removal of the Charter prohibit ion on reducing the City Manager’s Salary; providing for a referendum on March 12, 2013. The caption of Ordinance No. 39-12 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CHARTER REVISIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 4.02, “APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL; COMPENSATION”, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (D), “COMPENSATION”; TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CHARTER PROHIBITION ON REDUCING THE CITY MANAGER’S SALARY; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12, 2013, PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 39-12 is on file in the City Clerk’s office.) 35 10/16/12 A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in com pliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Be ach, Florida. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated ther e is a prohibition in the Charter that does not allow or prohibits the Commi ssion from reducing the City Manager’s salary so this would remove that prohibition. Mayor McDuffie declared the public hearing open. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, stated the three of the Commissioners that did not support the previous ite m should also oppose this because if 3 but not 4 fail to boot the City Manager they c an accomplish the same affect by diminishing his/her salary to the point to where the p erson cannot live on it or that they are insulted by it. Mr. Bennett stated as to sending a message when you are displeased or you have an annual performance review you can make comm ents there and not give an increase or bonus. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Carney stated he does not feel that matters of compensation should be left up to a Charter so that anytime you want to make a comp ensation change you have to have a Charter Review and put something on the ballot. He feels t hat the policy makers should have the right to determine compensation and whether it should be r aised or lowered and he is in support of making this change. Mr. Jacquet concurs with Commissioner Carney on this ordinance and stated it is the Commissions job to determine the hiring, firin g, and pay of the City Manager. He stated he supported placing this on the ballot for referendum before and he will support it again. Mrs. Gray stated if a potential City Manager is looking at the contract and the fact that the salary could be lowered at any given point the n that person might not consider the job. Mrs. Gray stated she is still not in support of this ordinance. Mr. Frankel thanked the Committee for the time they spent on this and stated he does not support this ordinance. Mayor McDuffie stated if the City has a City Manager t hat is out of control and needs to be dismissed the vote is going to be 5 to 0. He s tated he does not support this ordinance. Mr. Frankel moved to adopt Ordinance No. 39-12 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Carney. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor McDuffie – No; Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; M r. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – No. Said motion was approved with a 5 to 0 vote, Mayor McDuff ie and 36 10/16/12 Commissioner Gray dissenting. At this point, Mrs. Gray requested to pull Item 8.P.6., Purchase Award to Martin Fence Company from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Carney moved to reconsider the approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follow s: Mr. Carney – Yes; Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; M ayor McDuffie – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Frankel moved to remove Item 8.P.6., Purchase Award to Martin Fence Company to the Regular Agenda as Item 10.A.A.A.A.A.A. and reapprove the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Com mission voted as follows: Mr. Jacquet – Yes; Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mayor McDuffie – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 12. FIRST READINGS: A. None 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. City Manager The City Manager stated last Friday he attended the Florida L eague of Cities Legislative Committee meetings in Orlando. He state d he is on the Urban Administration Committee and there are several people from Pa lm Beach County on the Committee and they were successful in getting sober house leg islation as one of the two priorities. The City Manager stated that should go forward with t he League of Cities to be one of their top priorities. He stated the other one is r egulation of synthetic drugs. The City Manager stated their next meeting is in November in Orlando. Secondly, the City Manager stated Mr. Jacquet had asked about the process used for naming things such as a building or park. The C ity Manager stated in the past the Commission has assumed the responsibility of handling all naming opportunities. He stated generally the suggestion has come from a community member or leader or an organized group and the Commission has either reje cted or ratified the recommendation. Staff has begun to work on a written policy and proce dure for the public to use when the naming opportunity becomes available. The City Manager stated staff will try to have some minimum criteria as well as the types of things that can be named for the Commission’s consideration. The City Manager stated Mrs. Gray had asked about creating a historic district on 5th Avenue. Mrs. Gray stated she mis-spoke and clarif ied that what she was really inquiring about is whether or not the City has a distric t named the Historical Business District and whether we are still calling it this . The City Manager stated north of Atlantic Avenue is in the West Settlers’ District but sout h of Atlantic Avenue is not in 37 10/16/12 a historic district. The City Manager stated although we look a t 5 th Avenue from South 1 st to North 2 nd as the Historic Light Business District it has never been of ficially designated as such. The City Manager stated if Mrs. Gray has a suggestion for a way to formalize that then staff can work on it. Lastly, the City Manager stated he appreciates the Commis sion’s comments on updating the website and there is training scheduled fo r all the departments on how to do the updates. 13.B. City Attorney The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C. City Commission 13.C.1. Mr. Jacquet Mr. Jacquet had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C.2. Mrs. Gray Mrs. Gray inquired about the contracts that Commissioner Carney previously requested from Parks and Recreation. The City Manager stated t hese were provided to Commissioner Carney. Secondly, Mrs. Gray stated she went to the Delray Swim and Tennis Club today to see the conditions of the pool after the closure and she was disappointed to se e how the conditions of the pool were left. The City Manager stated he will get that addressed. Mrs. Gray stated the tennis center membership numbers have increased and they are doing a great job. However, she stated inside the clubhouse there ar e maintenance issues such as the carpet and the bathroom that need to be addres sed. Lastly, Mrs. Gray expressed concern over the collapse of the restroom roof at Hilltopper Stadium and asked that staff look into this. 13.C.3. Mr. Frankel Mr. Frankel concurred with comments expressed by Ms. Moody about the debris and conditions at the library. He stated the front of the library is disgus ting. Secondly, Mr. Frankel stated the City Manager will receive a pres tigious award from the Historic Preservation Society in early November (Novem ber 2, 2012). 38 10/16/12 13.C.4. Mr. Carney Mr. Carney stated he had a meeting this afternoon with TJ with Prep and Sports about the conditions of the bathrooms at Hilltopper Stadium and this needs to b e addressed. 13.C.5. Mayor McDuffie Mayor McDuffie stated next week the City will mount the fi rst four devices at S.D. Spady, Atlantic High School, Village Academy, and t he Police tower. He stated in the following two weeks the City will mount the rest of them. Mayor McDuffie stated by the GIS counts and running this against the School Board the City expects to serve 302 families out of Atlantic High School, 68 families out of S.D . Spady, 168 families out of Carver Middle School, and 204 families out of Villag e Academy. He stated there will be a kick-off meeting to invite all the stakeholders to dis cuss this. There being no further business, Mayor McDuffie declared the m eeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. __________________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: ____________________________________ M A Y O R The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeti ng held on October 16, 2012, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on ________________________. _________________________________________ City Clerk 39 10/16/12 NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They wil l become the official Minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendme nts, additions or deletions as set forth above. Oc t o b e r 16 , 20 1 2 Re g u l a r Me e t i n g ; It e m 10 . A . Oc t o b e r 16 , 20 1 2 Re g u l a r Me e t i n g ; It e m 10 . A . SPECIAL MEETING November 2, 2012 A Special Meeting of the City Commission of the Cit y of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Vice Mayor Thomas Carney in the Commission Chamb ers at City Hall at 1:01 p.m., on Friday November 2, 2012. Roll call showed: Present - Vice-Mayor Thomas F. Carney, Jr. Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Absent - Mayor Nelson S. McDuffie Commissioner Alson Jacquet Also present were - Douglas Smith, Assistant City Mana ger Brian Shutt, City Attorney Lanelda Gaskins, Deputy City Clerk Vice-Mayor Carney called the Special Meeting to order and anno unced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 1. DEFERRAL OF CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTS/ ATLANTIC PLAZ A II: Consider deferral of Conditional Use Requests for Atlantic Plaza II to the November 13, 2012 Special/Workshop Meeting . Mr. Frankel thanked Mr. Douglas Smith, Assistant Cit y Manager, for calling this meeting. He stated that he spoke with Mr. Bill Morris regarding t his item, and also received a lot of emails requesting that this item be deferred from Tuesday, No vember 6 th Election night meeting to November 13 th meeting. Mr. Frankel stated that he also received a letter from the Edwards Group regarding this item. Mrs. Gray stated that she received calls and emails re garding this item. She is in favor of deferring this item to the November 13, 2012 Special Meeting. Vice-Mayor Carney stated that there were numerous em ails and conversations regarding this item. Mr. Frankel made a motion to defer the Conditional Use Requests/Atlantic Plaza II from the November 6, 2012 Regular Meeting to a Special Meeti ng on November 13, 2012, seconded by Mrs. Gray. Upon roll call the Commission voted as f ollows: Mr. Frankel – Yes; Mrs. Gray – Yes; Mr. Carney – Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. Vice-Mayor Carney adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 1:04 p.m . 2 November 2, 2012 ______________________________________ City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delr ay Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the City Commission held on Friday, November 2, 2012, which Minutes were formally appro ved and adopted by the City Commission on November 20, 2012. _________________________________________ City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated a bove, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may in volve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. WHEREAS, world-wide over 35 million people are currently liv ing with HIV/AIDS and over 25 million people have already died of AID S, and each year more than 2.7 million new infections occur; and WHEREAS, the global spread of HIV infection and AIDS necess itates a worldwide effort to increase communication, education and act ion to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS observes De cember 1 of each year as “World AIDS Day”, a day to commemorate those who have passed on, celebrate victories such as increased access to tre atment and prevention services, and to reinvigorate the worldwide effort to stop the sprea d of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, the 2012 World AIDS Day theme is “Getting to Zero” and focuses on zero new infections, zero discrimination, and zero AIDS related deaths; and WHEREAS, in the United States, over 1 million people are i nfected with HIV and every 9½ minutes a new infection occurs resulting i n more than 50,000 new annual infections; and WHEREAS, the Palm Beach County HIV Community Prevention Par tnership and Palm Beach County HIV CARE Council, through its pa rtners are working together to renew HIV/AIDS awareness and to expand and strengthen the local effort to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Palm Beach County on World AIDS Day. NOW, THEREFORE, I, NELSON S. McDUFFIE, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission do hereby proclaim December 1-7, 2012 : “WORLD AIDS AWARENESS WEEK” and December 1, 2012 as World AIDS Day in the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and urge all residents to take part in activities and observ ances designed to increase awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge an d urge residents to join the global effort to prevent further spread of HIV/AIDS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 20 th day of November, 2012. __________________________________ NELSON S. McDUFFIE MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Tamara Genius, Plan Reviewer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental S ervices THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:October 31, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/ 936 BANYAN DRIVE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Deferral of sidewalk installation in front of 936 B anyan Drive. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side o f Banyan Drive, east of Spanish Trail in the Tropic Isle Subdivision, at 936 Banyan Drive. Refer to loc ation map. The applicant will construct a single family reside nce on the lot where an existing structure has been demolished. Currently, there are no plans to install a sidewalk along the south side of Banyan Drive in the vicini ty of the subject residence. The deferral request was app roved by DSMG at the November 8, 2012 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the sidewalk deferral. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Tamara Genius, Plan Reviewer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Dire ctor THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:October 10, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/ 972 FERN DRIVE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Deferral of sidewalk installation in front of 972 F ern Drive. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side o f Fern Drive, east of Boone Drive in the Tropic Isl e Subdivision, at 972 Fern Drive (location map attach ed). The current project is a vacant lot in which the Ow ner will construct a single family residence. Currently, there are no plans to install a sidewalk along the south side of Fern Drive in the vicinity of the subject residence. The deferral request was app roved by DSMG at the October 11, 2012 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the sidewalk deferral. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Tracie M. Lutchmansingh, P.E., Asst. City Engi neer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Dire ctor THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 13, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK EASEMENT DEED / LIZ REALTY LLC ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Acceptance of a Sidewalk Easement Deed with Liz Rea lty LLC for property located at 445 East Atlantic Avenue. BACKGROUND Property is located at the northwest corner of NE 5 th Avenue and Atlantic Avenue. In August 2012, plans were submitted to Planning and Zoning for a C lass III Site Plan Modification. Renovations includes a 207 square feet addition and awning alon g the south side of the exisitng building. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1 (D)(3), a corner clip right-of-way dedication is required at all intersections in the Central Business District (CBD ). This right-of-way dedication is required to ensure adeqaute right-of-way for safe movement of pedestrians in the CBD. Ho wever, due to the location of the building addition and the setback requirements, taking a right-of-way dedication would create a no n- conforming condition. In order to accomplish the sa me goal of providing a safe public pedestrain acces s area, a sidewalk easement was required in lieu of t he corner clip right-of-way dedication. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. LO C A T I O N M A P Liz Building @ 445 East At l a n t i c A v e n u e At l a n t i c A v e . Federal Hwy. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Ronald Hoggard, AICP, Principal Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:November 13, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 54 -12 / ABANDONMENT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT: 1207 HAMMOND ROAD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The request involves the abandonment a portion of a 12’ drainage easement located on the property at 1207 Hammond Road, within Lot C, Lane Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Record s of Palm Beach County, Florida. BACKGROUND The subject property, located on the north side of Hammond Road, is currently undeveloped. A building permit application for construction of a single-family home has been submitted to the Building Department. Drainage easements were dedicated on th e plat for the four single-family lot subdivision recorded on September 13, 2001. These easements wer e dedicated to the owners of the lots “for the purpose of storm water management”. The drainage plan has since changed and portions of the original drainage easements on two of the lots are no longer needed. The portion of the 12’ easement being abandoned on Lot C is located along the west proper ty line. REVIEW BY OTHERS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(5), a finding must be made prior the City Commission granting an abandonment that the abandonment will not be detrim ental to the provision of utility services to adjacent properties or the general area. Since the easement is strictly for drainage purpose s, review and approval by Florida Power & Light (FPL), Comcast Cable, Florida Public Utilities Comp any and AT&T is not required. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and has no objections to t he abandonment. The original Engineer of Record (EOR) did the first drainage plan and used surface swales for the subdivision. The current EOR changed the original drainage plan and incorporated exfiltr ation trenches and eliminated a couple of the surfa ce swales. The easements being eliminated / abandoned on Lots C and D (easement abandonment for Lot D is a separate agenda item on the November 20, 2012 meeting) are easements that are no longer needed because those surface swales have been elimi nated and replaced with exfiltration trenches. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Resolution No. 54-12 to abandon a 71 foot section of a 12 feet draina ge easement located on the property at 1207 Hammond Road, withi n Lot C, Lane Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 throug h 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan a nd meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.6(N)(5), Ab andonment of Public Easements, of the Land Development Regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 54-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 1207 HAMMOND ROAD, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, received an appl ication for abandonment of 71 feet of a 12 foot wide drainage e asement dedicated to the lot owners via the Plat of “Lane Subdivision”, as recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, locat ed at 1207 Hammond Road, and as more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the application for abandonment of said easement wa s processed pursuant to Section 2.4.6(N), "Abandonment of Publi c Easements ", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida; a nd WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(3)(c), the applica tion was forwarded to the City Commission with a recommendation from the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Fl orida, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(5), finds that the abandonment will not result in detriment for the provision of utility services to adjacent propertie s or the general area, that its interest in the described property is no longer needed for the publ ic good and deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach to vacate and abandon said easement, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSI ON OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby i ncorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That pursuant to Chapter 177 and Chapter 166 of the Florida Statutes, it is hereby determined to vacate and abandon all right a nd interest it holds to the following real property, more particularly described as follows: 2 RES. NO. 54-12 See Exhibit "A" Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immedi ately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the __ day of__________, 2012. ________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: ___________________________ City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Ronald Hoggard, AICP, Principal Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:November 13, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.E. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 55 -12 / ABANDONMENT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT: 1211 HAMMOND ROAD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The request involves the abandonment a portion of a 12’ drainage easement located on the property at 1211 Hammond Road, within Lot D, Lane Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Record s of Palm Beach County, Florida. BACKGROUND The subject property, located on the north side of Hammond Road, is currently undeveloped. A building permit application for construction of a single-family home has been submitted to the Building Department. Drainage easements were dedicated on th e plat for the four single-family lot subdivision recorded on September 13, 2001. These easements wer e dedicated to the owners of the lots “for the purpose of storm water management”. The drainage plan has since changed and portions of the original drainage easements on two of the lots are no longer needed. The portion of the 12’ easement being abandoned on Lot D is located along the east proper ty line. REVIEW BY OTHERS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(5), a finding must be made prior the City Commission granting an abandonment that the abandonment will not be detrim ental to the provision of utility services to adjacent properties or the general area. Since the easement is strictly for drainage purpose s, review and approval by Florida Power & Light (FPL), Comcast Cable, Florida Public Utilities Comp any and AT&T is not required. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and has no objections to t he abandonment. The original Engineer of Record (EOR) did the first drainage plan and used surface swales for the subdivision. The current EOR changed the original drainage plan and incorporated exfiltr ation trenches and eliminated a couple of the surfa ce swales. The easements being eliminated / abandoned on Lots C and D (easement abandonment for Lot C is a separate agenda item on the November 20, 2012 meeting) are easements that are no longer needed because those surface swales have been elimi nated and replaced with exfiltration trenches. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve Resolution No. 55-12 to abandon a 103.7 foot section of a 12 feet dra inage easement located on the property at 1211 Hammond Ro ad, within Lot D, Lane Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 91, Page s 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.6(N)(5), Abandonment of Public Easements, of the Land Development Regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 55-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, VACATING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 1211 HAMMOND ROAD, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, received an appl ication for abandonment of a 103.7 foot section of a 12 foot wi de drainage easement dedicated to the lot owners via the Plat of “Lane Subdivision”, as r ecorded in Plat Book 91, Pages 183 through 184 of the Public Records of Palm Beach Cou nty, Florida, located at 1211 Hammond Road, and as more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the application for abandonment of said easement wa s processed pursuant to Section 2.4.6(N), "Abandonment of Publi c Easements ", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida; a nd WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(3)(c), the applica tion was forwarded to the City Commission with a recommendation from the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Fl orida, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.6(N)(5), finds that the abandonment will not result in detriment for the provision of utility services to adjacent propertie s or the general area, that its interest in the described property is no longer needed for the publ ic good and deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach to vacate and abandon said easement, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSI ON OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby i ncorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That pursuant to Chapter 177 and Chapter 166 of the Florida Statutes, it is hereby determined to vacate and abandon all right a nd interest it holds to the following real property, more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit "A" 2 RES. NO. 55-12 Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immedi ately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the __ day of__________ , 2012. ________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: ___________________________ City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construc tion Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Dire ctor THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 13, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.F. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 CORRECTION TO A LINE ITEM FOR THE CONTRACT AWARD TO FOSTER MARINE CONTRACTORS, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a con tract line item amount correction/reduction and a total contract amount reduction from $84,445.00 to $79,455.00 to the contract awarded to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc.; for the Lake Ida Swales Project #12-010. BACKGROUND On November 6, 2012, Commission approved a contract award in the amount of $84,445.00 to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. for the construction of ro adside swales along N.W. 7th and 12th Streets and N.W. 3rd and 5th Avenues in the Lake Ida Neighborho od. Upon contract execution, it was discovered that the re was an error in the amount of a bid/contract lin e item for the Lake Ida Swales Project Contract. The amount on the Bid Package for Line Item #11 Indemnification was $5,000.00; this is incorrec t. The indemnification amount should be $10.00. The City Attorney and staff are recommendi ng approval of a reduction in Line Item #11 Indemnification from $5,000.00 to $10.00. As a res ult of the line item reduction, the total contract amount will be reduced from $84,445.00 to $79,455.0 0. Attached, please find a signed letter from Foster M arine, stating that they agree to the line item reduction and total contract amount reduction. The letter also clarifies that Foster Marine is aware that there is no Contingency Allowance in the Lake Ida S wales Project contract. FUNDING SOURCE N/A - funding is not required for this agenda item. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a contract line item a mount correction/reduction and a total contract amount reduction from $84,445.00 to $79,455.00 for the contract awarded to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc.; for the Lake Ida Swales Project. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construc tion Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Dire ctor THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:October 18, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.G. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (C.O. NO. 5/FINAL)/FOSTER MARINE CONTRACTOR S, INC./AUBURN AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Con tract Closeout (CO #5/Final) in the net deduct amount of ($42,718.43) and final payment amount of $43,828.47 to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. for completion of the Auburn Avenue Improvement Pro ject #2010-040. BACKGROUND On October 4, 2011, Commission approved a contract award and Change Order No. 1 in the total amount of $1,156,896.00 to Foster Marine Contractor s, Inc. The project consists of Roadway and Infrastructure Improvements on Auburn Avenue from S W 7th St. to 8th St.; SW 12th and 13th Ave. from SW 8th St. to 10th St.; SW 8th St. from SW 14t h Ave. to 12th Ave.; and SW 10th St. from SW 14th Ave. to 12th Ave. The scope of the project in cludes roadway resurfacing and reconstruction, sidewalks, landscaping, design-build irrigation, pa ver cross-walks, drainage improvements, on street parking and bus shelters. In addition, new water a nd sewer infrastructure on SW 12th and 13 Ave. from SW 8th St. to 10th St., SW 8th St. from SW 14th Ave . to 12th Ave., and SW 10 th Street from SW 14th Ave. to 12th Ave. On March 9, 2012 the City Manager approved the cost of $6,625.68 associated with converting twelve (12) single water services and twelve (12) single s ewer services, to double services. The amount was paid out of the Contract's Unforeseen Conditions Al lowance. On April 3, 2012 Commission approved Change Order N o. 2 in the total amount of $20,991.00 for the removal of an additional 260 SY of concrete drivewa y and 315 LF of concrete sidewalk; and the installation of 310 LF of concrete sidewalk and 2,3 40 SF of concrete driveway apron. This was required in order to properly match the plan elevat ions of the proposed roadway adjacent to the existi ng concrete driveways. On May 1, 2012 Commission approved a Contract Addit ion (CO #3) in the total amount of $40,715.83 for Construction of the Auburn Avenue turn lane to accommodate the revised configuration of the entrance to the Village of Delray development; asph alt overbuild on SW 8th Street required to match the new curb and roadway elevations; and a total co ntract time extension of 55 days. CO #3 also included excavation and restoration services in the amount of $6,311.00, for assisting the city with t he installation of line stops on SW 10th St. in order for the City to shut down a water main. This was funded out of the Contract's Unforeseen Conditions Allowance. On August 21, 2012, Commission approved Change Orde r No. 4 in the amount of $11,844.45 for the reconstruction of a driveway apron at Storage Ameri ca; and a contract time extension of (35) days. Change Order No. 5 includes plus and minus quantity adjustments and liquidates the residual from contingency allowances. All changes for the projec t are itemized on the attached Schedule "A". The project is complete and all closeout documentation has been received. FUNDING SOURCE Residual funds to be liquidated from PO #679160 to funding accounts as follows: 334-3162-541-68.65 ($29,761.93) 442-5178-536-68.50 ($12,956.50) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Contract Closeout (CO #5/Final) in the net deduct amount of ($42,718.43) and final payment amount of $43,828.47 to Foster Marine Contractors, Inc. for the completion of the Auburn Ave. Improvement Project. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:November 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.H. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 CDBG SUB -RECIPIENT FUNDING AGREEMENT/ FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval is requested to execute an agreement for f unding with the above-listed sub-recipient under the 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. BACKGROUND In accordance with 24 CFR 570.301, a Public Hearing was held before the City Commission on August 7, 2012, to obtain public comment on the proposed b udget for the approval of the Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Action Plan fo r fiscal year 2012-2013. The Action Plan contains an appropriation for public service activi ty and was approved by the Commission. CDBG Program regulations at 24 CFR 570.503 require written agreements prior to the disbursement of funds to sub-recipient organizations, specifying the work to be performed and reporting requirements, among other requirements and governing provisions. These agreements have been developed in accordance with the stated regulations and have bee n reviewed and approved by the City Attorney for legal sufficiency and form. FUNDING SOURCE Community Development Block Grant 118-1966-554.82.1 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval and execution of the atta ched agreements in order that funding may proceed in accordance with the Commission approved Action P lan for fiscal year 2012-2013. 1 FY 2012-2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT between CITY OF DELRAY BEACH and FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHE S, INC . THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF D ELRAY BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, hereinafter referred t o as “CITY,” and FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC ., hereinafter referred to as “the SUBRECIPIENT,” having its principal office at 1300 West Lantana Road, Suite 100, Lantana, Florida 33462 . W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the CITY has entered into an Agreement wit h the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a grant for t he execution and implementation of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in the CITY, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (as ame nded); and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to engage the SUBRECIPIENT to implement an activity of the Delray Beach CDBG Program; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promi ses and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITION AND PURPOSE 1. Definitions 1.1 “CDBG” means Community Development Block Grant p rogram. 1.2 “HUD” means the U.S. Department of Housing and Ur ban Development. 1.3 “24 CFR” refers to the Section of the Code of Fed eral Regulations pertaining to the U.S. Dept. of HUD. 1.4 “Program Income” means gross income received, directl y generated or earned from the use of CDBG funds. Program Income includes, but is not limited to, interest earned on advances of federal funds or royalties received as a resul t of patents or copyrights produced under this grant. 1.5 “OMB” means Office of Management and Budget. 1.6 “Low- and Moderate-Income” means a household whose income is within specified income limits set forth by HUD. 1.7 Property: a. “Real Property” means land, land improvements, stru ctures, fixtures and appurtenances thereto, excluding movable machinery and equipment. 2 b. “Personal Property” means personal property of any kind except real property. c. “Nonexpendable Personal Property” means tangible (i .e., physical) personal property of a nonconsumable nature, with a value of $500 or mo re per item, with a normal expected life of one or more years, not fixed in place , and not an integral part of a structure, facility or another piece of equipment. d. “Expendable Personal Property” means all tangible personal property other than nonexpendable property. 2. Purpose The purpose of this Agreement is to state the covenants and conditions under which the SUBRECIPIENT will implement the Statement of Work set forth in Article II of this agreement. ARTICLE II STATEMENT OF WORK The SUBRECIPIENT shall carry out the activities specifi ed in Attachment A, “Scope of Services.” ARTICLE III FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT 3.1 The maximum amount payable by the CITY under thi s Agreement will be Six Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($6,000.00). 3.2 The CITY will be billed by the SUBRECIPIENT and will disburse $1000.00 per seminar/session. Bills shall be submitted by the SUBRECIP IENT at least two weeks in advance. 3.3 Prior to receipt of CDBG funds (through reimbursem ent), SUBRECIPIENT shall submit for each seminar/session conducted, the following documenta tion: a. An agenda displaying the date, time, and location of the session/seminar conducted (the NS Division must have been notified in advance of the same, as required in the Scope of Service, item (b); b. A list of invitees/attendees for each session/seminar; c. A request for funds/invoice; d. Proof that each seminar/session was adequately adverti sed and marketed to residents of Delray Beach, in an effort to ensure maxim um participation and effectiveness (i.e. marketing tools used, copy of flyers/invitations/newspaper ads, and a narrative of other efforts made (activity report); e. A grantee performance report generated for each se minar showing summary statistics on race, ethnicity, and income level of clients served by the program. 3.4 Release of funds is subject to the approval of the Director of Community Improvement. 3 ARTICLE IV TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from October 1, 2 012, to September 30, 2013. ARTICLE V SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION 5.1 Termination/Suspension of Payments/Agreement for C ause: If through any cause either party shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper man ner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, either party shall thereupon have the rig ht to terminate this Agreement or suspend payments in whole or in part by giving written notice of such termination or suspension of payments and specify the effective date of termination or suspension. If payments are withheld, the CITY shall specify in wr iting the actions that must be taken by the SUBRECIPIENT as a condition precedent to resumpt ion of payments and shall specify a reasonable date for compliance. Sufficient cause for suspension of payments shall include, but not be limited to: a. ineffective or improper use of CDBG funds, b. failure to comply with the Statement of Work or terms of this Agreement, c. failure to submit reports as required, d. submittal of materially incorrect or incomplete rep orts, e. failure to comply with any additional conditions th at may be imposed by HUD. 5.2 Termination for Convenience of City: The CITY m ay terminate this Agreement without cause at any time by giving at least ten (10) working days notice in writing to the SUBRECIPIENT. If this Agreement is terminated by th e CITY as provided herein, the SUBRECIPIENT will be paid for allowable services perfor med under Article II of this Agreement until the effective date of the terminati on. 5.3 Termination for Convenience of the SUBRECIPIENT: At any time during the term of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT may, at its option and f or any reason, terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) working days written notice t o the CITY. Upon termination, the SUBRECIPIENT shall be paid for services rendered pursuan t to this Agreement through and including the date of termination. ARTICLE VI RECORDS AND REPORTS 6.1 The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to retain supporting docu mentation relating to activities funded by this Agreement for a period of five years a fter the termination of the Agreement. 6.2 The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to submit upon request ot her documentation which may later be determined necessary to assure compliance with th is Agreement. 4 ARTICLE VII PROGRAM INCOME The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to expend CDBG funds for the purpose outlined in Article I of this Agreement. It is not anticipated that program income shall be generated from this allocation. However, such income, if generated, may be retained by the SUBRECIPIENT and used for costs that are in addition to the approved costs of this agreement, provided that such costs specifically further the objectives of this agreement. U nder no circumstances shall the SUBRECIPIENT use program income to pay for charges or e xpenses that are specifically not allowed pursuant to the terms of this agreement and a pplicable federal regulations or rules. The use of program income by the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the requirements set forth at 24 CFR 570.504. ARTICLE VIII PUBLICITY The SUBRECIPIENT shall ensure that all publicity, publ ic relations, advertisements and signs, recognize the CITY and the CDBG Program for the suppo rt of all contracted activities. The use of the official CITY logo is permissible, but all signs u sed to publicize CITY contracted activities must be approved by the CITY prior to being posted. ARTICLE IX GENERAL CONDITIONS 9.1 Federal, State, County and CITY Laws and Regulat ions: The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with applicable provisions of applicable federal, state, County, and CITY laws, regulations and rules, including OMB A-122, OMB A-21, OMB A-133. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of h andicap; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimin ation on the basis of race, color, or national origin; the Age Discrimination Act o f 1975, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, and Executive Order 11063 which prohibits discriminatio n in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; Executi ve Order 11246, as amended which requires equal employment opportunity; and with the Energy Policy, amended and Conservation Act (Pub.L 94-163) which requires mandator y standards and policies relating to energy efficiency. The SUBRECIPIENT shall report its compliance with Sectio n 504 of the Rehabilitation Act whenever so requested by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIE NT shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilit ies Act (ADA) of 1990, including, but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to emp loyment, program services, transportation, communications, access to facilities, renova tions, and new construction. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with all federal laws an d regulations pertaining to environmental standards described in 24 CFR Subpart K, except that: a. The SUBRECIPIENT does not assume the CITY’s environm ental responsibilities described at 570.604, and b. The SUBRECIPIENT does not assume the CITY’s responsibi lity for initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 52. 5 9.2 Opportunities for Residents and Civil Rights Compli ance: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, na tional origin, religion, or sex be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to, discr imination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. To the greatest feasible extent, lower-income residents of the project areas shall be gi ven opportunities for training and employment; and to the greatest feasible extent, eli gible business concerns located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the pro ject areas shall be awarded contracts in connection with the project. 9.3 Evaluation and Monitoring: The SUBRECIPIENT agr ees that the CITY will carry out periodic monitoring and evaluation activities as deter mined necessary and that the continuation and/or renewal of this Agreement is depen dent upon satisfactory evaluation conclusions. Such evaluations will be based on the terms o f this Agreement, comparisons of planned versus actual progress relating to a ctivity scheduling, budgets, audit reports, and output measures. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to furnish upon request to the CITY and make copies of transcriptions of such records and information as is determined necessary by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit on a schedule set by the CITY and at other times upon request , information and status reports required by the CITY to enable the evaluatio n of said progress and to allow for completion of reports required of the CITY by HUD. T he SUBRECIPIENT shall allow the CITY or HUD to monitor its agency on site. Such site vi sits may be scheduled or unscheduled as determined by the CITY or HUD. 9.4 Audits: Nonprofit organizations that expend $500 ,000 or more annually in federal awards shall have a single or program specific audit condu cted accordance with OMB A- 133. Nonprofit organizations that expend less than $5 00,000 annually in federal awards shall be exempt from an audit conducted in accordance wi th OMB A-133, although their records must be available for review. These agencies are required by the CITY to submit “reduced scope” audits (e.g., financial audits, per formance audits). Each audit shall cover a time period of not more than 12 months and an audit shall be submitted covering each assisted period until all the assistance receiv ed from this agreement has been reported on. A copy of the audit report must b e received by the CITY no later than six months following each audit period. The SUBRECIPIENT shall maintain all records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, procedures, and practices which shall sufficiently and properly reflect all revenues and expenditures of funds provide d directly or indirectly by the CITY pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 9.5 Uniform Administrative Requirements: The SUBREC IPIENT agrees to maintain books, records and documents in accordance with accounting procedure s and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all expenditures of f unds provided by the CITY under this Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT is required to comply wi th the following uniform administrative requirements: a. Specific provisions of the uniform administrative req uirements of OMB Circular A- 110, as implemented at 24 CFR Part 84, “Uniform Admi nistrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Educa tion, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations.” b. OMB Circular A-122 “Cost Principles for Non-Profit O rganizations” (a list of allowable and unallowable costs appears in Attachment B). 6 c. Applicable provisions of 24 CFR 570.502. 9.6 Lobbying Prohibition: The SUBRECIPIENT shall cert ify that no federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on beha lf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any f ederal Agreement, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative Agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal Agreement, grant, loan, or cooperative Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall disclose to the CITY if any fun ds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an y agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a M ember of Congress in connection with this federal Agreement. 9.7 Section 3 Requirements: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with all Section 3 requirements applicable to contracts funded through thi s Agreement. Information on Section 3 is available from the CITY upon request. The SUBRECIPIENT shall include the following, referred to as the Section 3 Clause, i n every solicitation and every contract for every Section 3 covered project: Section 3 Clause a. The work to be performed under this agreement is su bject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701 (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is t o ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance o r HUD-assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall to the greatest ex tent feasible, be directed to low-and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. b. The parties to this agreement agree to comply with HUD’s requirements in 24 CFR Part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this agreement, the parties to this agreement certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from comply ing with the Part 135 regulations. c. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to send to each labor organiza tion or representative of workers with which the SUBRECIPIENT has a collective bar gaining Agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the lab or organization or workers representative of the SUBRECIPIENT’s commitment under this Section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at t he work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment po sitions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of appren ticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each, and the name and location of t he person(s) taking applications for each of the positions, and the anticipated date the work shall begin. 7 d. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 1 35, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable prov ision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. The SUBRECIPIENT wi ll not subcontract with any subcontractor where the SUBRECIPIENT has notice or knowl edge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regul ations in 24 CFR Part 135 . e. The SUBRECIPIENT will certify that any vacant empl oyment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the SUB RECIPIENT is selected but before the contract is executed and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 135 require employment op portunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the SUBRECIPIENT’s oblig ations under 24 CFR Part 135. f. Noncompliance with HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarmen t or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. 9.8 Insurance: The SUBRECIPIENT shall furnish to the C ITY, c/o the Community Improvement Department, certificate(s) of insurance evi dencing coverage that meets the requirements outlined in Attachment C. 9.9 Property: Any real property under the SUBRECIP IENT’s control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds receive d from the CITY in excess of $25,000 shall be either: a. Used to meet one of the three CDBG national object ives required by and defined in 24 CFR Part 570.208 for five years following the exp iration or termination of this agreement, or for such longer period of time as deter mined by the CITY; or b. Not used to meet a CDBG national objective, in whi ch case the SUBRECIPIENT shall pay to the CITY an amount equal to the market value of the property as may be determined by the CITY, less any proportionate portio n of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Reimbursement is not required after the period of ti me specified in Paragraph 9.9.a., above. Any real property under the SUBRECIPIENT’s control t hat was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds from the CITY for $25,000 or less shall be disposed of, at the expiration or termination of this contract, in accordance with instructions from the CITY. All real property purchased in whole or in part with funds from this and previous agreements with the CITY, or transferred to the SUBR ECIPIENT after being purchased in whole or in part with funds from the CITY, shall b e listed in the property records of the SUBRECIPIENT and shall include a legal description, size , date of acquisition, value at time of acquisition, present market value, present cond ition, address or location, owner’s name if different from the SUBRECIPIENT, informatio n on the transfer or disposition of the property, and map. The property records shall descr ibe the programmatic purpose for which the property was acquired and identify the C DBG national objective that will be met. If the property was improved, the records shall d escribe the programmatic purpose for which the improvements were made and identify the CDBG national objective that will be met. 8 All nonexpendable personal property purchased in whole or in part with funds from this and previous agreements with the CITY shall be listed i n the property records of the SUBRECIPIENT and shall include a description of the pro perty, location, model number, manufacturer’s serial number, date of acquisition, fun ding source, unit cost at the time of acquisition, present market value, property inventory number, information on its condition, and information on transfer, replacement, or disposition of the property. The SUBRECIPIENT shall obtain prior written approval from the CITY for the disposition of real property, expendable personal property, and nonexpendable personal property purchased in whole or in part with funds given to the SUBRECIPIENT pursuant to the terms of this agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall dispose of all such property in accordance with instructions from the CITY. Those instruct ions may require the return of all such property to the CITY. 9.10 Reversion of Assets: The SUBRECIPIENT shall retur n to the CITY, upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, all the assets owned or held as a result of this Agreement, including, but not limited to any funds on hand, any accounts receivable attributable to these funds, mortgages, notes, and oth er collateral and any overpayments due to unearned funds or costs disallowed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement that were disbursed to the SUBRECIPIENT by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall within 30 days of expiration or termination of this Agreemen t execute any and all documents as required by the CITY to effectuate the reversion of a ssets. Any funds not earned, as described and provided for in OMB A-122, by the SUBRE CIPIENT prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be retained by the CITY. 9.11 Conflicts with Applicable Laws: If any provision of this agreement conflicts with any applicable law or regulation, only the conflicting pro vision shall be deemed by the parties hereto to be modified to be consistent with the law or regulation or to be deleted if modification is impossible. However, the obligations un der this agreement, as modified, shall continue and all other provisions of this agreemen t shall remain in full force and effect. 9.12 Renegotiation or Modification: Modifications of provisions of the agreement shall be valid only when in writing and signed by duly author ized representatives of each party. The parties agree to renegotiate this agreement if t he CITY determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that federal, State and/or CITY r evisions of any applicable laws or regulations, or increases or decreases in budget allocatio ns make changes in this agreement necessary. 9.13 Right to Waive: The CITY may, for good and suf ficient cause, as determined by the CITY in its sole and absolute discretion, waive provisio ns in this agreement or seek to obtain such waiver from the appropriate authority. W aiver requests from the SUBRECIPIENT shall be in writing. Any waiver shall n ot be construed to be a modification of this agreement. 9.14 Disputes: In the event an unresolved dispute exist s between the SUBRECIPIENT and the CITY, the CITY shall refer the questions, includin g the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the CITY, to the City Mana ger for determination. The City Manager, or an authorized representative, will issue a determination within 30 calendar days of receipt and so advise the CITY and the SUBRECIP IENT, or in the event additional time is necessary, the CITY will notify the SUBRECIPIENT within the 30 day 9 period that additional time is necessary. The SUBRECIP IENT agrees that the City Manager’s determination shall be final and binding on all parties. 9.15 Indemnification: To the extent provided by law , the SUBRECIPIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless and defend the CITY, its agents, employe es, and elected officers from and against any and all claims, demands or causes of actio n of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of error, omission, negligent act, co nduct or misconduct by the SUBRECIPIENT, its agents, employees or officers in the p erformance of services under this Agreement. IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have set the ir hands and seals on the day and year written above. WITNESSES: FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF THE GREATER PALM BEACHES, INC. ___________________________ By:_________________________________ Print_______________________ ___________________________ Print_______________________ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me th is ___ day of _______________, 20___, by __________________________, who is personal ly known to me. NOTARY PUBLIC Sign Print Personally Known _______ OR Produced Identification ________ Type of Identification Produced: ___________________________ ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ____________________ By: City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: ____________________ City Attorney ATTACHMENT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES The major focus of the Fair Housing Center of the Grea ter Palm Beaches, Inc. under this Agreement will be to provide a minimum of six (6) Ho using Industry Provider / Community Education Sessions for residents of Delray Beach, including school-age children and community organizations, upon the following terms and condition s: a. All six (6) seminars and sessions will be accomplished dur ing the effective date of the contract period (October 1, 2012 through September 3 0, 2013). b. Each seminar or session will be conducted following not ification of the Neighborhood Services Division regarding date, location and the submi ttal of supporting documentation (i.e. flyers, marketing tools, advertising efforts, et c.). c. Each seminar/session must be adequately marketed to resi dents of Delray Beach, in an effort to ensure maximum participation and effectiven ess (copies to be submitted to NS Division prior to seminar/session). d. Reimbursement of expenses will be provided upon compl etion of each seminar/session, at the predetermined amount of $1,000.00 per seminar /session, with the total maximum reimbursement not exceeding $6,000.00 (for the eight seminars/sessions). e. All seminars/sessions will be open to participants, free of charge. f. The Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beache s, Inc. shall provide: 1. Community Education Sessions for civic organizations, co mmunity based agencies, social service providers, immigrant populations and/or sch ools within the municipal boundaries of the City of Delray Beach. These sessions sh all be designated to educate the public and protected classes to identify incid ents of discrimination in housing and to gain an understanding of the means to f ind remedies, to seek redress and relief. Sessions are to be conducted citywide on an ongoing basis during the program year. A minimum of four (4) sessions shall be conducted during the period beginning October 1, 2012 and ending September 30, 2013. One (1) of the sessions will focus on the education of children about housing d iscrimination. 2. Housing Industry Provider Education Seminars for dev elopers, real estate brokers, property managers, financial institutions, and the medi a/advertising industry. The seminars shall provide information on fair housing laws, Community Reinvestment Act regulations and affirmative marketing requirement s. A minimum of two (2) seminars shall be conducted during the period beginning October 1, 2012 and ending September 30, 2013. ATTACHMENT “B” * Allowable under limited circumstances. ** Allowable only with prior permission from the CITY . *** Allowable only as a direct cost with permission fro m the CITY. ALLOWABLE AND UNALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER OMB A-122 ITEM OF COST OMB A-122 (NONPROFITS) Unallowable Allowable Advertising √√√√ Bad debts √√√√ Bonding √√√√ Communication √√√√ Compensation, personnel services √√√√ Contingency provisions √√√√ Contributions (to others) √√√√ Depreciation, use allowance √√√√ Donations (from others) √√√√ Employee morale, health, welfare √√√√ Entertainment √√√√ Equipment √√√√** Fines, penalties √√√√ Fringe benefits √√√√ Fund raising, interest, investment management √√√√ Idle facility, idle capacity √√√√ Insurance & indemnification √√√√ Interest Labor relations √√√√ Lobbying √√√√ Losses on other awards √√√√ Maintenance, repair √√√√ Materials, supplies √√√√ Memberships, subscriptions, professional activity √√√√ Organization costs √√√√** Overtime, shift premiums √√√√** Page charges in professional journals (research) √√√√ Participant support costs √√√√** Patent costs √√√√ Pension plans √√√√ Plant security √√√√ Pre-award costs √√√√** Professional services √√√√ Profits, losses on asset disposition √√√√* Public information service √√√√*** Publication and printing costs √√√√*** Rearrangement, facility alteration √√√√** Reconversion costs √√√√ Recruiting √√√√ Relocation √√√√* ATTACHMENT “B” * Allowable under limited circumstances. ** Allowable only with prior permission from the CITY . *** Allowable only as a direct cost with permission fro m the CITY. ITEM OF COST OMB A-122 (NONPROFITS) Unallowable Allowable Rental √√√√ Royalties, use of patents, copyrights √√√√ Severance pay √√√√ Specialized service facilities √√√√ Taxes √√√√ Termination-related costs √√√√ Training, education √√√√ Transportation √√√√ Travel √√√√* ATTACHMENT “C” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS WORKER’S COMPENSATION This coverage shall include Worker’s Compensation Insuran ce covering all employees and include Employer’s Liability with limits meeting all a pplicable state and federal laws. This coverage must extend to any subcontractor that does not have their own Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance. Thirt y (30) days notice of cancellation is required and must be provided to the CITY via Certif ied Mail. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY This coverage shall be on an “Occurrence” basis. Coverage shall include Premises and Operations; Independent Contractors’ Products and Com pleted Operations and Contractual Liability. This policy shall provide coverage for deat h, personal injury or property damage that could arise directly or indirectly from the performance of this Agreement. The Minimum Limits of Coverage shall be ($1,000,000) per occurrence, Combined Single Limit for bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Lia bility. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MUST BE NAMED AS AN ADDITI ONAL INSURED ON THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY . Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mail in the even t of cancellation. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY The minimum limits of coverage shall be ($500,000) pe r occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liabili ty. This coverage shall be an “Any Auto” type policy. The CITY must be listed as an Additional Insured under the Policy. Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mai l in the event of cancellation. In the event that the SUBRECIPIENT does not own any vehicles, we will accept hired and non- owned coverage in the amounts listed above. In add ition, we will require an affidavit signed by the SUBRECIPIENT indicating the following: does not own any vehicles. "Company Name" In the event we acquire any vehicles throughout the term of his Contract/Agreement, agrees to purchase "Any Auto" or "Company Name" Comprehensive Form coverage as of the date of acqui sition. The SUBRECIPIENT’s Signature:_________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:November 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.I. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 CDBG SUB -RECIPIENT FUNDING AGREEMENT/ COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTER (D.B.A. ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval is requested to execute an agreement for f unding with the above-listed sub-recipient under the 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. BACKGROUND In accordance with 24 CFR 570.301, a Public Hearing was held before the City Commission on August 7, 2012, to obtain public comment on the proposed b udget for the approval of the Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Action Plan fo r fiscal year 2012-2013. The Action Plan contains an appropriation for public service activi ty and was approved by the Commission. CDBG Program regulations at 24 CFR 570.503 require written agreements prior to the disbursement of funds to sub recipient organizations, specifying th e work to be performed and reporting requirements, among other requirements and governing provisions. These agreements have been developed in accordance with the stated regulations and have bee n reviewed and approved by the City Attorney for legal sufficiency and form. FUNDING SOURCE Community Development Block Grant 118-1966-554-82.0 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval and execution of the atta ched agreements in order that funding may proceed in accordance with the Commission approved Action P lan for fiscal year 2012-2013. 1 FY 2012-2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT between CITY OF DELRAY BEACH and ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES . THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF D ELRAY BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, hereinafter referred t o as “CITY,” and “ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES”, hereinafter ref erred to as “the SUBRECIPIENT,” having its principal office at 555 N.W. 4 th Street, Delray Beach, Florida 33444-2734. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the CITY has entered into an Agreement wit h the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a grant for t he execution and implementation of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in the CITY, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (as ame nded); and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to engage the SUBRECIPIENT to implement an activity of the Delray Beach CDBG Program; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promi ses and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITION AND PURPOSE 1. Definitions 1.1 “CDBG” means Community Development Block Grant p rogram. 1.2 “HUD” means the U.S. Department of Housing and Ur ban Development. 1.3 “24 CFR” refers to the Section of the Code of Fed eral Regulations pertaining to the U.S. Dept. of HUD. 1.4 “Program Income” means gross income received directly generated or earned from the use of CDBG funds. Program Income includes, but is not limited to, interest earned on advances of federal funds or royalties received as a resul t of patents or copyrights produced under this grant. 1.5 “OMB” means Office of Management and Budget. 1.6 “Low- and Moderate-Income” means a household whose income is within specified income limits set forth by HUD. 1.7 Property: a. “Real Property” means land, land improvements, stru ctures, fixtures and appurtenances thereto, excluding movable machinery and equipment. b. “Personal Property” means personal property of any kind except real property. 2 c. “Nonexpendable Personal Property” means tangible (i .e., physical) personal property of a nonconsumable nature, with a value of $500 or mo re per item, with a normal expected life of one or more years, not fixed in place , and not an integral part of a structure, facility or another piece of equipment. d. “Expendable Personal Property” means all tangible personal property other than nonexpendable property. 2. Purpose The purpose of this Agreement is to state the covenants and conditions under which the SUBRECIPIENT will implement the Statement of Work set forth in Article II of this agreement. ARTICLE II STATEMENT OF WORK The SUBRECIPIENT shall carry out the activities specifi ed in Attachment A, “Scope of Services.” ARTICLE III FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT 3.1 The maximum amount payable by the CITY under th is Agreement will be Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars and 00/100 ($55 ,970). 3.2 The CITY will be billed by the SUBRECIPIENT and will disburse twelve (12) monthly payments in the amount of Four Thousand Six Hundred S ixty-Four Dollars and 17/00 ($4,664.17) Bills shall be submitted by the SUBRECIPIE NT at least two weeks in advance. 3.3 Prior to receipt of CDBG funds (through reimbursem ent), SUBRECIPIENT shall submit the following documentation no later than the 10th d ay of each month covered by this Agreement, in a format prescribed by the CITY: a. Monthly grantee performance report as well as a na rrative identifying the participant’s levels of family income, race, ethnicity, and achievemen ts of participants served by the program. b. Monthly timesheets and payroll reports reflecting a ctual time worked by the CDBG funded position and a completed Direct Benefit Activit y form (monthly); c. Monthly Project Budget, detailing requested funds, included in this agreement as “Attachment D.” 3.4 Release of funds is subject to the approval of the Director of Community Improvement. ARTICLE IV TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from October 1, 2 012, to September 30, 2013. 3 ARTICLE V SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION 5.1 Termination/Suspension of Payments/Agreement for C ause: If through any cause either party shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper man ner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, either party shall thereupon have the rig ht to terminate this Agreement or suspend payments in whole or in part by giving written notice of such termination or suspension of payments and specify the effective date of termination or suspension. If payments are withheld, the CITY shall specify in wr iting the actions that must be taken by the SUBRECIPIENT as a condition precedent to resumpt ion of payments and shall specify a reasonable date for compliance. Sufficient cause for suspension of payments shall include, but not be limited to: a. ineffective or improper use of CDBG funds, b. failure to comply with the Statement of Work or terms of this Agreement, c. failure to submit reports as required, d. submittal of materially incorrect or incomplete rep orts, e. failure to comply with any additional conditions th at may be imposed by HUD. 5.2 Termination for Convenience of City: The CITY m ay terminate this Agreement without cause at any time by giving at least ten (10) working d ays’ notice in writing to the SUBRECIPIENT. If this Agreement is terminated by th e CITY as provided herein, the SUBRECIPIENT will be paid for allowable services perfor med under Article II of this Agreement until the effective date of the terminati on. 5.3 Termination for Convenience of the SUBRECIPIENT: At any time during the term of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT may, at its option and f or any reason, terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) working days written notice t o the CITY. Upon termination, the SUBRECIPIENT shall be paid for services rendered pursuan t to this Agreement through and including the date of termination. ARTICLE VI RECORDS AND REPORTS 6.1 The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to retain supporting docu mentation relating to activities funded by this Agreement for a period of five years a fter the termination of the Agreement. 6.2 The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit quarterly reports in a format prescribed by the CITY per the schedule in Article III of this Agreement. 6.3 The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to submit upon request ot her documentation which may later be determined necessary to assure compliance with th is Agreement. 4 ARTICLE VII PROGRAM INCOME The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to expend CDBG funds for the purpose outlined in Article I of this Agreement. It is not anticipated that program income shall be generated from this allocation. However, such income, if generated, may be retained by the SUBRECIPIENT and used for costs that are in addition to the approved costs of this agreement, provided that such costs specifically further the objectives of this agreement. U nder no circumstances shall the SUBRECIPIENT use program income to pay for charges or e xpenses that are specifically not allowed pursuant to the terms of this agreement and a pplicable federal regulations or rules. The use of program income by the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the requirements set forth at 24 CFR 570.504. ARTICLE VIII PUBLICITY The SUBRECIPIENT shall ensure that all publicity, publ ic relations, advertisements and signs, recognize the CITY and the CDBG Program for the suppo rt of all contracted activities. The use of the official CITY logo is permissible, but all signs u sed to publicize CITY contracted activities must be approved by the CITY prior to being posted. ARTICLE IX GENERAL CONDITIONS 9.1 Federal, State, County and CITY Laws and Regulat ions: The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with applicable provisions of applicable federal, state, County, and CITY laws, regulations and rules, including OMB A-122, OMB A-21, OMB A-133. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of h andicap; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimin ation on the basis of race, color, or national origin; the Age Discrimination Act o f 1975, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, and Executive Order 11063 which prohibits discriminatio n in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; Executi ve Order 11246, as amended which requires equal employment opportunity; and with the Energy Policy, amended and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163) which requires mandat ory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency. The SUBRECIPIENT shall report its compliance with Sectio n 504 of the Rehabilitation Act whenever so requested by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIE NT shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilit ies Act (ADA) of 1990, including, but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to emp loyment, program services, transportation, communications, access to facilities, renova tions, and new construction. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with all federal laws an d regulations pertaining to environmental standards described in 24 CFR Subpart K, except that: a. The SUBRECIPIENT does not assume the CITY’s environm ental responsibilities described at 570.604, and b. The SUBRECIPIENT does not assume the CITY’s responsibi lity for initiating the review process under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 52. 5 9.2 Opportunities for Residents and Civil Rights Compli ance: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, na tional origin, religion, or sex be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to, discr imination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. To the greatest feasible extent, lower-income residents of the project areas shall be gi ven opportunities for training and employment; and to the greatest feasible extent, eli gible business concerns located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the pro ject areas shall be awarded contracts in connection with the project. 9.3 Evaluation and Monitoring: The SUBRECIPIENT agr ees that the CITY will carry out periodic monitoring and evaluation activities as deter mined necessary and that the continuation and/or renewal of this Agreement is depen dent upon satisfactory evaluation conclusions. Such evaluations will be based on the terms o f this Agreement, comparisons of planned versus actual progress relating to a ctivity scheduling, budgets, audit reports, and output measures. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to furnish upon request to the CITY and make copies of transcriptions of such records and information as is determined necessary by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall submit on a schedule set by the CITY and at other times upon request , information and status reports required by the CITY to enable the evaluatio n of said progress and to allow for completion of reports required of the CITY by HUD. T he SUBRECIPIENT shall allow the CITY or HUD to monitor its agency on site. Such site vi sits may be scheduled or unscheduled as determined by the CITY or HUD. 9.4 Audits: Nonprofit organizations that expend $500 ,000 or more annually in federal awards shall have a single or program specific audit condu cted accordance with OMB A- 133. Nonprofit organizations that expend less than $5 00,000 annually in federal awards shall be exempt from an audit conducted in accordance wi th OMB A-133, although their records must be available for review. These agencies are required by the CITY to submit “reduced scope” audits (e.g., financial audits, per formance audits). Each audit shall cover a time period of not more than 12 months and an audit shall be submitted covering each assisted period until all the assistance receiv ed from this agreement has been reported on. A copy of the audit report must b e received by the CITY no later than six months following each audit period. The SUBRECIPIENT shall maintain all records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, procedures, and practices which shall sufficiently and properly reflect all revenues and expenditures of funds provide d directly or indirectly by the CITY pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 9.5 Uniform Administrative Requirements: The SUBREC IPIENT agrees to maintain books, records and documents in accordance with accounting procedure s and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all expenditures of f unds provided by the CITY under this Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT is required to comply wi th the following uniform administrative requirements: a. Specific provisions of the uniform administrative req uirements of OMB Circular A- 110, as implemented at 24 CFR Part 84, “Uniform Admi nistrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Educa tion, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations.” b. OMB Circular A-122 “Cost Principles for Non-Profit O rganizations” (a list of allowable and unallowable costs appears in Attachment B). c. Applicable provisions of 24 CFR 570.502. 6 9.6 Lobbying Prohibition: The SUBRECIPIENT shall cert ify that no federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on beha lf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any f ederal Agreement, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative Agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal Agreement, grant, loan, or cooperative Agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall disclose to the CITY if any fun ds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an y agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a M ember of Congress in connection with this federal Agreement. 9.7 Section 3 Requirements: The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with all Section 3 requirements applicable to contracts funded through thi s Agreement. Information on Section 3 is available from the CITY upon request. The SUBRECIPIENT shall include the following, referred to as the Section 3 Clause, i n every solicitation and every contract for every Section 3 covered project: Section 3 Clause a. The work to be performed under this agreement is su bject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701 (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is t o ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD-assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall to the greatest ex tent feasible, be directed to low-and very low-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. b. The parties to this agreement agree to comply with HUD’s requirements in 24 CFR Part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this agreement, the parties to this agreement certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from comply ing with the Part 135 regulations. c. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to send to each labor organiza tion or representative of workers with which the SUBRECIPIENT has a collective bar gaining Agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the lab or organization or workers representative of the SUBRECIPIENT’s commitment under this Section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at t he work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment po sitions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of appren ticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each, and the name and location of t he person(s) taking applications for each of the positions, and the anticipated date the work shall begin. d. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 1 35, and agrees to take 7 appropriate action, as provided in an applicable prov ision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. The SUBRECIPIENT wi ll not subcontract with any subcontractor where the SUBRECIPIENT has notice or knowl edge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regul ations in 24 CFR Part 135 . e. The SUBRECIPIENT will certify that any vacant empl oyment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) afte r the SUBRECIPIENT is selected but before the contract is executed and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 135 requ ire employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circu mvent the SUBRECIPIENT’s obligations under 24 CFR Part 135. f. Noncompliance with HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarmen t or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. 9.8 Insurance: The SUBRECIPIENT shall furnish to the C ITY, c/o the Community Improvement Department, certificate(s) of insurance evi dencing coverage that meets the requirements outlined in Attachment C. 9.9 Property: Any real property under the SUBRECIP IENT’s control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds receive d from the CITY in excess of $25,000 shall be either: a. Used to meet one of the three CDBG national object ives required by and defined in 24 CFR Part 570.208 for five years following the exp iration or termination of this agreement, or for such longer period of time as deter mined by the CITY; or b. Not used to meet a CDBG national objective, in whi ch case the SUBRECIPIENT shall pay to the CITY an amount equal to the market value of the property as may be determined by the CITY, less any proportionate portio n of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Reimbursement is not required after the period of ti me specified in Paragraph 9.9.a., above. Any real property under the SUBRECIPIENT’s control t hat was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds from the CITY for $25,000 or less shall be disposed of, at the expiration or termination of this contract, in accordance with instructions from the CITY. All real property purchased in whole or in part with funds from this and previous agreements with the CITY, or transferred to the SUBR ECIPIENT after being purchased in whole or in part with funds from the CITY, shall b e listed in the property records of the SUBRECIPIENT and shall include a legal description, size , date of acquisition, value at time of acquisition, present market value, present cond ition, address or location, owner’s name if different from the SUBRECIPIENT, informatio n on the transfer or disposition of the property, and map. The property records shall descr ibe the programmatic purpose for which the property was acquired and identify the C DBG national objective that will be met. If the property was improved, the records shall d escribe the programmatic purpose for which the improvements were made and identify the CDBG national objective that will be met. All nonexpendable personal property purchased in whole or in part with funds from this and previous agreements with the CITY shall be listed i n the property records of the 8 SUBRECIPIENT and shall include a description of the pro perty, location, model number, manufacturer’s serial number, date of acquisition, fun ding source, unit cost at the time of acquisition, present market value, property inventory number, information on its condition, and information on transfer, replacement, or disposition of the property. The SUBRECIPIENT shall obtain prior written approval from the CITY for the disposition of real property, expendable personal property, and nonexpendable personal property purchased in whole or in part with funds given to the SUBRECIPIENT pursuant to the terms of this agreement. The SUBRECIPIENT shall dispose of all such property in accordance with instructions from the CITY. Those instruct ions may require the return of all such property to the CITY. 9.10 Reversion of Assets: The SUBRECIPIENT shall retur n to the CITY, upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, all the assets owned or held as a result of this Agreement, including, but not limited to any funds on hand, any accounts receivable attributable to these funds, mortgages, notes, and oth er collateral and any overpayments due to unearned funds or costs disallowed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement that were disbursed to the SUBRECIPIENT by the CITY. The SUBRECIPIENT shall within 30 days of expiration or termination of this Agreemen t execute any and all documents as required by the CITY to effectuate the reversion of a ssets. Any funds not earned, as described and provided for in OMB A-122, by the SUBRE CIPIENT prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be retained by the CITY. 9.11 Conflicts with Applicable Laws: If any provision of this agreement conflicts with any applicable law or regulation, only the conflicting pro vision shall be deemed by the parties hereto to be modified to be consistent with the law or regulation or to be deleted if modification is impossible. However, the obligations un der this agreement, as modified, shall continue and all other provisions of this agreemen t shall remain in full force and effect. 9.12 Renegotiation or Modification: Modifications of provisions of the agreement shall be valid only when in writing and signed by duly author ized representatives of each party. The parties agree to renegotiate this agreement if t he CITY determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that federal, State and/or CITY r evisions of any applicable laws or regulations, or increases or decreases in budget allocatio ns make changes in this agreement necessary. 9.13 Right to Waive: The CITY may, for good and suf ficient cause, as determined by the CITY in its sole and absolute discretion, waive provisio ns in this agreement or seek to obtain such waiver from the appropriate authority. W aiver requests from the SUBRECIPIENT shall be in writing. Any waiver shall n ot be construed to be a modification of this agreement. 9.14 Disputes: In the event an unresolved dispute exist s between the SUBRECIPIENT and the CITY, the CITY shall refer the questions, includin g the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the CITY, to the City Mana ger for determination. The City Manager, or an authorized representative, will issue a determination within 30 calendar days of receipt and so advise the CITY and the SUBRECIP IENT, or in the event additional time is necessary, the CITY will notify the SUBRECIPIENT within the 30 day period that additional time is necessary. The SUBRECIP IENT agrees that the City Manager’s determination shall be final and binding on all parties. 9 9.15 Indemnification: To the extent provided by law , the SUBRECIPIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless and defend the CITY, its agents, employe es, and elected officers from and against any and all claims, demands or causes of actio n of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of error, omission, negligent act, co nduct or misconduct by the SUBRECIPIENT, its agents, employees or officers in the p erformance of services under this Agreement. IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have set the ir hands and seals on the day and year written above. WITNESSES: ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. ___________________________ By: _________________________________ Print_______________________ ___________________________ Print_______________________ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me th is ___ day of _______________, 20___, by ______, who is personally known to me. NOTARY PUBLIC Sign Print Personally Known _______ OR Produced Identification ________ Type of Identification Produced: ___________________________ ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ____________________ By: City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: ____________________ City Attorney ATTACHMENT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES The major focus of the ACHIEVEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDR EN AND FAMILIES under this Agreement will be providing day care, after-school care and related services to eligible children. At least 51% of the beneficiaries of a project funded u nder this Agreement must be low- and moderate-income persons (as determined annually by HUD for the area). CDBG funds may be used for programmatic costs including, but not limited t o, salaries of direct service personnel, training, insurance, office supplies and expenses, educati on supplies and materials, utilities, and sponsored events (field trips). Services under this progr am will be provided at the Center’s main facility located at 555 N.W. 4 th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida and at Village Academy , 400 SW 12 th Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. The major tasks which the Achievement Centers for Child ren and Families will perform in connection with the provision of the eligible day care an d after-school services include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Maintain facility at all times in conformance wi th all applicable codes, licensing, and other requirements for the operation of a day care center . The facility must also be handicapped accessible, and the day care services must be organ ized into separate areas appropriate for each of the age groupings being served (toddler – 12 mon ths to 3 years, pre-school – 3 to 4 years, pre- kindergarten – 4 to 5 years and after-school/out-of school care -- 5 years to 14 years). b. Accept applications and perform eligibility dete rminations. At least 51 percent (51%) of the beneficiaries of subsidized day care must be low an d moderate-income persons (as determined annually by HUD for the area). c. Offer day care services from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p .m. Monday through Friday, after-school/out-of- school services from public school closing time to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. to eligible families. d. Ensure that the numbers, background, and qualifi cations of the Achievement Center’s for Children and Families’ staff providing the on-site day care and any related services at all times are appropriate for the enrolled child population a t the center and meet at least the minimum standards established by the pertinent licensing bo dies. e. As part of the day care services, provide a rang e of structured social, educational, and cultural enrichment activities appropriate to the age groups being served. f. Maintain program and financial records documenti ng the eligibility, attendance, provision of services, and the Center’s expenses relative to the children receiving day care services as a result of assistance provided through the CDBG prog ram. ATTACHMENT “B” * Allowable under limited circumstances. ** Allowable only with prior permission from the CITY . *** Allowable only as a direct cost with permission fro m the CITY. ALLOWABLE AND UNALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER OMB A-122 ITEM OF COST OMB A-122 (NONPROFITS) Unallowable Allowable Advertising √√√√ Bad debts √√√√ Bonding √√√√ Communication √√√√ Compensation, personnel services √√√√ Contingency provisions √√√√ Contributions (to others) √√√√ Depreciation, use allowance √√√√ Donations (from others) √√√√ Employee morale, health, welfare √√√√ Entertainment √√√√ Equipment √√√√** Fines, penalties √√√√ Fringe benefits √√√√ Fund raising, interest, investment management √√√√ Idle facility, idle capacity √√√√ Insurance & indemnification √√√√ Interest Labor relations √√√√ Lobbying √√√√ Losses on other awards √√√√ Maintenance, repair √√√√ Materials, supplies √√√√ Memberships, subscriptions, professional activity √√√√ Organization costs √√√√** Overtime, shift premiums √√√√** Page charges in professional journals (research) √√√√ Participant support costs √√√√** Patent costs √√√√ Pension plans √√√√ Plant security √√√√ Pre-award costs √√√√** Professional services √√√√ Profits, losses on asset disposition √√√√* Public information service √√√√*** Publication and printing costs √√√√*** Rearrangement, facility alteration √√√√** Reconversion costs √√√√ Recruiting √√√√ Relocation √√√√* ATTACHMENT “B” * Allowable under limited circumstances. ** Allowable only with prior permission from the CITY . *** Allowable only as a direct cost with permission fro m the CITY. ITEM OF COST OMB A-122 (NONPROFITS) Unallowable Allowable Rental √√√√ Royalties, use of patents, copyrights √√√√ Severance pay √√√√ Specialized service facilities √√√√ Taxes √√√√ Termination-related costs √√√√ Training, education √√√√ Transportation √√√√ Travel √√√√* ATTACHMENT “C” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS WORKER’S COMPENSATION This coverage shall include Worker’s Compensation Insuran ce covering all employees and include Employer’s Liability with limits meeting all a pplicable state and federal laws. This coverage must extend to any subcontractor that does not have their own Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance. Thir ty (30) day’s notice of cancellation is required and must be provided to the CITY via Certif ied Mail. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY This coverage shall be on an “Occurrence” basis. Coverage shall include Premises and Operations; Independent Contractors’ Products and Com pleted Operations and Contractual Liability. This policy shall provide coverage for deat h, personal injury or property damage that could arise directly or indirectly from the performance of this Agreement. The Minimum Limits of Coverage shall be ($1,000,000) per occurrence, Combined Single Limit for bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Lia bility. THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH MUST BE NAMED AS AN ADDITI ONAL INSURED ON THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY . Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mail in the even t of cancellation. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY The minimum limits of coverage shall be ($500,000) pe r occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liabili ty. This coverage shall be an “Any Auto” type policy. The CITY must be listed as an Additional Insured under the Policy. Thirty (30) days written notice must be provided to the CITY via Certified Mai l in the event of cancellation. In the event that the SUBRECIPIENT does not own any vehicles, we will accept hired and non- owned coverage in the amounts listed above. In add ition, we will require an affidavit signed by the SUBRECIPIENT indicating the following: does not own any vehicles. "Company Name" In the event we acquire any vehicles throughout the term of his Contract/Agreement, agrees to purchase "Any Auto" or "Company Name" Comprehensive Form coverage as of the date of acqui sition. The SUBRECIPIENT’s Signature:_________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:November 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.J. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE AGREEMENT/ PALM BEACH COUNTY/ A UBURN AVENUE PROJECT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of Agreement between the City and Palm Bea ch County for the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Auburn Avenue project in lieu of DRI Amendmen t No. 2, which was approved at the November 6, 2012 City Commission meeting. BACKGROUND Palm Beach County has decided to enter into a fully -executed new agreement (for improvements in the SW 12th Avenue/Auburn Avenue/SW 14th Avenue project ) replacing the original agreement dated November 3, 2009 and subsequent amendments. Amendme nt No. 2, establishing a new project completion date to March 31, 2013, was approved at the November 6th meeting. Subsequent to that action, the County contacted City staff, informing us that a new agreement will be sent for execution, based on the decision from their legal office and c onsultation with the State. The new agreement set s the maximum compensation at $81,311.02, representin g the balance owed to the City, and the project close-out date continues to be March 31, 2013. Otherwise, the agreement is consistent with the original and amendments already approved. FUNDING SOURCE Disaster Recovery Initiative 334-3162-541-68.65 Disaster Recovery Initiative 442-5178-536-68.50 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the new Agreement as proposed between the City and Palm Beach County for the Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) A uburn Avenue project. AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALM BEACH COUNTY AND CITY OF DELRAY BEACH THIS AGREEMENT , entered into this ______ day of__________, 20___, by and between Palm Beach County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the City of Delray Beach , a municipality duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal office at 100 NW 1 st Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 WHEREAS , Palm Beach County has entered into a Contract (number 08DB -D3 -10 -60 -01 - A07) with t he State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, in connection with the State’s 2005 Disaster Recovery Initiative Program - Supplemental Appropriation which the State is implementing for the use of grant funds provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Develop ment under its Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach was allocated certain funds under said Contract to implement specified activities under the 2005 Disaster Recovery Initiative Progr am - Supplemental Appropriation; and WHEREAS , Palm Beach County desires to engage the City of Delray Beach to implement the activities associated with the funds allocated to it. NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS (1) "County" means Palm Beach County. (2) "CDBG" means the Community Development Block Grant Program of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Develop ment. (3) "DES " means Palm Beach County Department of Economic Sustainability . (4) "Municipality" means the City of Delray Beach . (5) “State” means the State of Florida, Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). (6) “Contract” means contract number 08DB -D3 -10 -60 -01 -A07 between Palm Beach County and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs. (7) "DES Approval" means the written approval of the DES Director or his designee. (8) "U.S. HUD" means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or a person authorized to act on its behalf. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to state the cove nants and conditions under which the Municipality will implement the Scope of Services set forth in Part II of this Agreement. 3. APPLICABLE CONDITIONS The Municipality shall be bound by the Contract to the extent applicable to this Agreement. Furthermore, the conditions applicable to the activities undertaken in connection with this Agreement shall include but not be limited to those listed below (as they may be amended from time to time). Palm Beach County’s failure to list verbatim or make reference to a regulation, statute, ordinance, reference, or any other document affecting the Municipality, shall not relieve the Municipality of compliance with any applicable regulation, statute, ordin ance, or any other document not listed below. The County reserves the right, but not the obligation, to inform the Municipality of any such applicable regulation, statute, ordinance, or any other document, and to require the Municipality to comply with th e same. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 2 Community Development Block Grant, Final Rule, 24 C.F.R., Part 570; Florida Small and Minority Business Act, s 288.702 -288.714, F.S.; Florida Coastal Zone Protection Act, s 161.52 -161.58, F.S.; Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Ch. 163, F.S.; Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; Treasury Circular 1075 regarding drawdown of CDBG funds; Sections 290.0401 -290.049, F.S.; Rule Chapter 9B -43, Fla Admin. Code.; Department of Community Affairs Technical Memorandums; HUD Circular Memorandums applicable to the Small Cities CDBG Pro gram; Single Audit Act of 1984; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other provisions of law which further the purpose of this Act; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89 -665) as amended and Protection of Historic Properties (24 C.F.R., part 800); Preservation of Archaeological and Historical Data Act of 1966; Executive Order 11593 - Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment; Reservoir Salvage Act; Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended; Endangered Species Act of 1958, as amended; Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice Executive Order 11988 and 24 C.F.R. Part 55 - Floodplain Management; The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C., s 1251 et. seq.); Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands; Coastal Zone Management Act of 1968, as amended; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended; Clean Air Act of 1977; HUD Environmental Standards (24 C.F.R. Part 58); Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981; Clean Water Act of 1977; Davis - Bacon Act; Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act of 1962, 40 U.S.C. s. 327 et. seq.; The Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended; The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C., s. 6901 et. seq.; Noise Abatement and Control: Departmental Policy Implementation, Responsibilities and Standards, 24 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart B; Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, P.L. 92 -234; Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties under HUD Programs, 24 C.F.R. Part 59; Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, P.L. 92 -583; Architectural and Construction Standards; Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151; Executive Order 11296, relating to the evaluation of flood hazards; Executive Order 11288, relating to prevention, control and abatement of water pollution; Cost -Effective Energy Conservatio n Standards, 24 C.F.R., Part 39 Section 8 Existing Housing Quality Standards, 24 C.F.R., Part 882; Coastal Barrier Resource Act of 1982; Federal Fai r Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. s. 201 et. seq.; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Non -discrimination; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 - Non -discrimination in housing; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Executive Order 12892 - Fair Housing; Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Non -discrimination; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 24 C.F.R., Part 8; Executive Order 11063 Equal Opportunity in Housing; Executive Order 11246 - Non - discrimination; Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended - Employment /Training of Lower Income Residents and Local Business Contracting; Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, P.L. 100 -17, and 49 C.F.R. Part 24; Copeland Anti -Kickback Act of 1924; Hatch Act; Title IV Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. s. 1251 et. seq.); OMB Circulars A -87, A -122 and A -133, as revised; Administrative Requirements for Grants, 24 C.F.R. Part 85; Section 102 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 and 24 C.F.R. Part 12; Emergency Rule 9BER05 -2, CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds; HUD program requirements for disaster recovery projects as published in Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 237 (December 10, 2004) [Docket No. FR -4959 - N -01]. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 3 4. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Municipality shall, in a satisfactory and proper manner as determined by DES, perform the tasks necessary to conduct the program outlined in Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and made a part hereof. 5. MAXIMUM COMPENSATION The Municipality agrees to accept as full payment for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement the actual amount of budgeted, elig ible, and DES Director or desig - nee -approved expenditures and encumbrances made by the Municipality under this Agreement, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said services shall be performed in a manner satisfactory to DES . In no event shall the tota l compensation or reimbursement to be paid hereunder exceed the maximum and total authorized sum of $81,311.02 (as more specifically detailed in Exhibit “A ” hereto) from the date of execution of this Agreement through and including March 3 1, 2013. Any funds not obligated by the expiration date of this Agreement shall automatically revert to the County. 6. TIME OF PERFORMANCE The effective date of this Agreement and all rights and duties designated hereunder are contingent upon the timely release of funds for this project under State Contract number 08DB -D3 -10 -60 -01 -A07, and any amendments thereto. If funds cease to be available under said Contract, the County shall be relieved from providing funds under this Agreement. The effective date shall be the dat e of execution of this Agreement, and the services of the Municipali ty shall be undertaken and completed in light of the purposes of this Agreement. In any event, all services required hereunder shall be completed by the Municipality prior to March 3 1, 20 13 . 7 . METHOD OF PAYMENT The County agrees to make payments and to reimburse the Municipality for all budgeted costs permitted by Federal, State, and County guidelines. The Municipality shall not request reimbursement for payments made by the Municipality before the effective dat e of this Agreement, nor shall it request reimbursement for payments made after the expiration date of this Agreement, and in no event shall the County provide advance funding to the Municipality or any subcontractors hereunder. The Municipality shall req uest payments or reimbursements from the County by submitting to DES proper documentation of expenditures consisting of originals of invoices, receipts, or other evidence of indebtedness, and when original documents cannot be presented, the Municipality ma y furnish copies if deemed acceptable by DES . Each request for payment or reimbursement submitted by the Municipality shall be accompanied by a letter from the Municipality, provided on the Municipality’s letterhead, referencing the name of the project fu nded herein, the date of this Agreement and/or its document number, and containing a statement requesting the payment or reimbursement and its amount, as well as the name and signature of the person making the request. Payment shall be made by the Palm Be ach County Finance Department upon presentation of the aforesaid proper documentation of expenditures as approved by DES . The Municipality may at any time after the expiration of this agreement request from the County reimbursement for payments made by th e Municipality during the term of this Agreement by submitting to DES the aforesaid proper documentation of expenditures, and the Palm Beach County Finance Department shall make payment as stated above, provided that DES has determined that the funds alloc ated to the Municipality through this agreement are still available for payment, and provided that DES approves such payment. 8 . CONDITIONS ON WHICH PAYMENT IS CONTINGENT (A ) IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT ACCORDING TO REQUIRED PROCEDURES The M unicipality shall implement this Agreement in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and County laws, ordinances and codes and with the procedures outlined in DES Policies and Procedures memoranda. The Federal, State, and County laws, ordinances and c odes are minimal CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 4 regulations supplemented by more restrictive guidelines set forth by DES . No payments for projects funded by more than one funding source will be made until a cost allocation plan has been approved by the DES Director or designee. Should a project receive additional funding after the commencement of this Agreement, the Municipality shall notify DES in writing within thirty (30) days of receiving notification from the funding source and submit a cost allocation plan for approval by the DES Director or designee within forty -five (45) days of said official notification. (B ) FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY The County may have a financial systems analysis and/or an audit of the Municipality, or of any of its subcontractors, by an independent auditing firm employed by the County or by the County Internal Audit Depart ment at any time the County deems necessary to deter mine if the project is being managed in accordance with Federal, State, and County requirements. (C ) SUBCONTRACTS Any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be specifically by written contract, written agreement, or purchase order. All subcontracts shall be submitted by the Municipality to DES and approved by DES prior to execution of any subcontract hereunder. All subcontracts shall be subject to Federal, State and County laws and regulations. This includes ensuring that all consultant contracts and fee schedules meet the minimum standards as established by the Palm Beach County Engineering Department and U.S. HUD. Con tracts for architecture, engineering, survey, and planning shall be fixed fee contracts. All additional services shall have prior written approval with support documentation detailing catego ries of persons performing work plus hourly rates including benefits, number of drawings required, and all items that justify the "Fixed Fee Contract." Reimbursables will be at cost. None of the work or services covered by this Agreement, including, but not limited to, consultant work or services, shall be subcontracted or reim bursed without prior written approval of the DES Director or his designee. (D ) PURCHASING All purchasing for services and goods, including capital equipment, shall be made by purchase order or by a written contract and in conformity with the procedures prescribed by the Palm Beach County Pur chasing Code, as well as Federal Manage ment Circulars A -87, A -102, A -128, and 24CFR Part 85 (also known as the Common Rule), which are incorporat ed herein by reference. (E ) REPORTS, AUDITS, AND EVALUATIONS Payment will be contingent on the timely receipt of complete and accurate reports required by this Agreement, and on the resolution of monitoring or audit findings identified pursuant to this A greement. (F ) ADDITIONAL DES , COUNTY, AND U.S. HUD REQUIREMENTS DES shall have the right under this Agreement to suspend or terminate payments if after fifteen (15 ) days written notice the Municipality has not complied with any additional conditions that may be imposed, at any time, by DES , the County, the State, or U.S. HUD. (G ) PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVALS -SUMMARY The following activities among others require the prior written approval of the DES Director or designee to be eligible for reimbursement or payment: (1 ) All subcontracts and agreements pursuant to this Agreement; (2 ) All change orders; (3 ) All requests to utilize uncommitted funds after the expiration of this Agreement for programs desc ribed in Exhibit A. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 5 (H ) PROGRAM -GENERATED INCOME The Agency shall comply with the program income requirements imposed by CDBG and other applicable federal regulations. In all cases, accounting and disbursement of such income shall comply with OMB Circular A -110 and other applicable regulations incorporat ed herein by reference. All income earned by the Agency from activities financed, in whole or in part, by funds provided hereunder must be reported and returned to DES on an monthly basis. The Agency may request that program income be used to fund other eligible uses, subject to DES approval, and provided that the Agency is in compliance with its obligations, terms, and conditions as contained within this Agreement (including the attached Exhibits herein). The Agency shall only use such program income t o fund "basic eligible activities" as defined by Federal Community Development Block Grant Regulations (24 CFR Part 570). Furthermore, the Agency agrees that the provisions of this Agreement shall also apply to these "basic eligible activities" as funded with the Agency's program income. Such income shall only be used to undertake the activities authorized by a written Agreement. T he requirements of this Paragraph shall survive the expiration of this Agreement. 9 . OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLIANCE The Agency agrees that no person shall on the ground of race, color, disability, national origin, ancestry, religion, age, familial status, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, be excluded from the be nefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. Upon receipt of evidence of such discrimination, the County shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. To the greatest extent feasibl e, lower -income resi dents of the project areas shall be given opportunities for training and employment; and to the greatest feasible extent eligible business concerns located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the project areas shall be awarded contracts in connection with the project. The Municipality shall comply with the Section 3 Clause of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968. 10 . OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL AND MINORITY/WOMEN -OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construc tion, or services to implement this Agreement, the Munici pality shall make a positive effort to utilize small business and minority/women -owned business enterprises of supplies and services, and provide these s ources the maximum feasible opportunity to compete for contracts to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. To the maximum extent feasible these small business and minority/women - owned business enterprises shall be located in or owned by residents of th e CDBG areas designated by the County in its CDBG Annual Consolidated Plan approved by U.S. HUD. 11 . PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES At least fifty -one percent (51%) of the beneficiaries of a project funded through this Agreement must be low - and moderate - income p ersons. The project funded under this Agreement shall assist beneficiaries as defined above for the time period designated in this Agreement. The Municipality shall provide written verification of compliance to DES upon DES ’s request. 12 . EVALUATION A ND MONITORING The Municipality agrees that DES will carry out periodic monitoring and evaluation activities as determined necessary by DES or the County and that payment, reimbursement, or the continuation of this Agreement is dependent upon satisfactory e valuation conclusions based on the terms of this Agreement. The Municipality agrees to furnish upon request to DES , the County, or the County's designees copies of transcriptions of such records and information as is determined CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 6 necessary by DES or the Cou nty. The Municipality shall submit status reports required under this Agreement on forms approved by DES to enable DES to evaluate progress. The Municipality shall provide information as requested by DES to enable DES to complete reports required by the County or HUD. The Municipality shall allow DES , the County, the State, or HUD to monitor the Municipality on site. Such visits may be scheduled or unscheduled as determined by DES , the State, or HUD. 13 . AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS At any time during norma l business hours and as often as DES , the County, U.S. HUD, or the Comptroller General of the United States may deem necessary, there shall be made available by the Municipality to DES , the County, U.S. HUD, or the Comptroller General for examination all i ts records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. If during the year, the Municipality expends over $500,000 of Federal awards, the Municipality shall comply with the pro visions of OMB Circular A -133. The Municipality shall submit a single audit, including any management letter, made in accordance with the general program requirements of OMB Circulars A -110, A -122, A -133, and other applicable regulations within the earlier of, 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or nine (9) mo nths after the end of the audit period in which DES -administered funds are expended. Said audit shall be made by a Certified Public Accountant of the Municipality’s choosing, subject to the County’s approval. In the event the Municipality anticipates a d elay in producing such audit, the Municipality shall request an extension in advance of the deadline. The cost of said audit shall be borne by the Municipality. In the event the Municipality is exempt from having an audit conducted under A -133, the Munic ipality shall submit audited financial statements and/or the County reserves the right to conduct a “limited scope audit” of the Municipality as defined by A -133. The County will be responsible for providing technical assistance to the Municipality, as de emed necessary by the County. 14 . UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The Municipality agrees to comply with the applicable uniform administrative requirements as described in Federal Community Development Block Grant Regulations 24 CFR 570.502. 15 . REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration of this Agreement, the Municipality shall transfer to the County any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. Any real property under the Municipality’s control upon expiration of this Agreement which was acquired or improved in whole or part with CDBG in the excess of $25,000 must either be used to meet one of the national objectives in Federal Community Development Block Grant Regulati ons 24 CFR 570.508 for a period of five years after expiration of this Agreement (unless a longer period is specified elsewhere in this Agreement), or, the Municipality shall pay the County an amount equal to the current market value of the property less a ny portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for the acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. 16 . DATA BECOMES COUNTY PROPERTY All reports, plans, surveys, information, documents, maps, and other data procedures developed , prepared, assembled, or completed by the Municipality for the pur pos e of this Agreement shall be made available to the County by the Municipality at any time upon request by the County or DES . Upon completion of all work contem plated under this Agreem ent copies of all documents and records relating to this Agreement shall be surrendered to DES if requested. In any event the Municipality shall keep all documents and records for six (6) years after expiration of this Agreement. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 7 17 . INDEMNIFICATION Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for its own actions and negligence and, to the extent permitted by law, the County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Municipality against any actions, claims, or damages arising out of the County’s negligence in connection with this Agreement, and the Municipality shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County against any actions, claims, or damages arising out of the Municipality’s negligence in connection with this Agreement. The Municipali ty shall also hold the State harmless against all claims of whatever nature arising out of the Municipality’s performance of work under this Agreement, to extent allowed and required by law. The foregoing indemnification shall not constitute a waiver of s overeign immunity beyond the limits set forth in Florida Statute, section 768.28, nor shall the same be construed to constitute agreement by either party to indemnify the other party for such other party’s negligent, willful or intentional acts or omission s. The Municipality shall hold the County harmless and shall indemnify the County for funds which the County is obligated to refund the State or the Federal Government arising out of the conduct of activities and administration of the Municipality. The p rovisions of this indemnification clause shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 18 . INSURANCE Without waiving the right to sov ereign immunity as provided by s .768.28 F.S., the Municipality acknowledges to be self -insured for General Liability and Automobile Liability under Florida sovereign immunity statutes with coverage limits of $200,000 Per Person and $300,000 Per Occurrence; or such monetary waiver limits that may change and be set forth by the legislature. In the event the Municipality m aintains third -party Commercial General Liability and Business Auto Liability in lieu of exclusive re liance of self insurance under s .768.28 F.S., the Municipality shall agree to maintain said insurance policies at limits not less than $500,000 combined si ngle limit for bodily injury or property damage. The Municipality agrees to maintain , or be self -insured for Worker s ’ Compensation & Employer’s Liability insurance in accordance with Florida Statute, Chapter 440. When requested, the Municipality shall agree to provide an affidavit or Certificate of Insurance evidencing insurance, self -insurance and/or sovereign immunity status, which County agrees to recognize as acceptable for the above mentioned coverage. Compliance with the foregoing requirements sha ll not relieve the Municipality of its liability and obligations under this Agreement. 19 . MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT The intent and purpose of this Agreement is to in crease the availability of the Municipality's services. This Agreement is not to substitute for or replace exist ing or planned projects or activities of the Municipality. The Municipality agrees to maintain a level of activities and expenditures, planned or existing, for projects simi lar to those being assisted under this Agreeme nt which is not less than that level existing prior to this Agreement. 20 . CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Municipal ity covenants that no person who presently exer cises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Project, has any personal financia l interest, direct or indirect, in the target areas or any parcels therein, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Agreement and that no person having any conflict of interest shall be employed by or subcontracted by the Municipality. Any possible conflict of interest on the part of the Municipality or its employ ees shall be disclosed in writing to DES provided, howev er, that this paragraph shall be interpreted in such a manner so as not to unreasonably impede the statu tory requirement that maximum opportunity be provided for employment of and participation of low and moderate -income residents of the project area. 21 . CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The Municipality shall cooperate with DES in the implementation of the Citizen Pa rticipation Plan by establishing a citizen participation process to keep residents informed of the activities the Municipality is undertaking in carrying out the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 8 p rovisions of this Agreement. Representatives of the Municipality shall attend meetings and as sist DES in the implementation of the Citizen Participation Plan, as requested by DES . 22 . RECOGNITION All facilities purchased or constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall be clearly id entified as to funding source. The Municipality will include a ref erence to the financial support herein provided by DES in all publications and publicity. In addition, the Municipality will make a good faith effort to recognize DES ’s support for all activities made possible with funds made available under this Agreemen t. 23 . AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS The following documents are herein incorporated by reference and made a part hereof, and shall constitute and be referred to as the Agreement; and all of said documents taken as a whole constitute the Agreement between the parties hereto and are as fully a part of the Agreement as if they were set forth verbatim and at length herein: (A ) This Agreement, including its Exhibits; (B ) Office of Management and Budget Circulars A -87, A -102, A -133, and 24CFR Part 85; (C ) Title VI o f the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; (D ) Executive Orders 11246, 11478, 11625, 12432, the Davis Bacon Act, and Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Ac t of 1968, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended; (E ) Executive Orders 11063, 12259, 12892, the Fair Housing Act of 1988, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, a s amended; (F ) Florida Statutes, Chapter 112; (G ) Palm Beach County Purchasing Code; (H ) Federal Community Development Block Grant Regula tions (24 CFR Part 570), as amended; (I ) The Municipality’s personnel policies and job descriptions; and (J ) The Municipality’s Certificate of Insurance. (K ) Contract number 08DB -D3 -10 -60 -01 -A07 between Palm Beach County and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs. The Agency shall keep an original of this Agreement, including its Exhibits, and all Amendments thereto, on file at its principal office. 24 . TERMINATION In event of termination for any of the following reasons, all finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports prepared, and capital equipment secured by the Agency with funds under this Agreement shall be returned to DES or the County. In the event of termination, the Agency shall not be relieved of liability to the County for damages sustained by the County by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by the Agency, and the County may withhold any payment to the Agency for set -off purposes until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the Coun ty from the Agency is determined. (1) TERMINATION FOR CAUSE If through any cause either party shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, either party shall thereupon have the right to term inate this Agreement in whole or part by giving a fifteen (15) working day written notice of such termination to the other party and specifying therein the effective date of termination. (2) TERMINATION DUE TO CESSATION In the event the grant to the Coun ty under the Contract is suspended or CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 9 terminated, this Agreement shall be suspended or terminated effective on the date the State specifies. 25 . SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby if such remainder would then continue to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law. 26 . AMENDMENTS The County may, at its discretion, amend this Agree ment to conform with changes required by Federal, State, Co unty, or U.S. HUD guidelines, directives, and objectives. Such amendments shall be incorporated by written amendment as a part of this Agreement and shall be subject to approval of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners. Except as otherwise p rovided herein, no amendment to this Agreement shall be binding on either party unless in writing, approved by the Board of County Commissioners and the governing body of the Municipality, and signed by both parties. 27 . NOTICES All notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient when delivered to DES at its office at 100 Australian Avenue, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406, and to the Municipality when delivered to its office at the address listed o n page one (1) of this Agreement. 28 . INDEPENDENT AGENT AND EMPLOYEES The Municipality agrees that, in all matters relating to this Agreement, it will be acting as an independent agent and that its employees are not Palm Beach County employ ees and are n ot subject to the County provisions of the law applicable to County employees relative to employ ment, hours of work, rates of compensation, leave, unem ployment compensation and employee benefits. 29 . NO FORFEITURE The rights of the County under this Agreement shall be cumulative and failure on the part of the County to exer cise promptly any rights given hereunder shall not oper ate to forfeit or waive any of the said rights. 3 0 . PALM BEACH COUNTY OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Palm Beach County ha s established the Office of Inspector General in Palm Beach County Code, Section 2 -421 - 2 -440, as may be amended. The Inspector General’s authority includes but is not limited to the power to review past, present and proposed C ounty contracts, transactions, accounts and records, to require the production of records, and to audit, investigate, monitor, and inspect the activities of the Municipality , its officers, agents, employees, and lobbyists in order to ensure compliance with cont ract requirements and detect corruption and fraud. Failure to cooperate with Inspector General or interfering with or impeding any investigation shall be in violation of Palm Beach County Code, Section 2 -421 – 2 -440, and punished pursuant to Section 125.69 , Florida Statutes, in the same manner as a second degree misdemeanor. 3 1 . PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES As provided in F.S. 287.133 by entering into this Agreement or performing any work in furtherance hereof, the Municipality certifies that it, its affiliates, suppli ers, subcontractors and consultants who will perform hereunder, have not been placed on the convicted vendor list maintained by the State of Florida Department of Management Services within the thirty -six (36 ) months immediately preceding the date hereof. This notice is required by F.S. 287.133 (3)(a). 3 2 . COUNTERPARTS OF THE AGREEMENT This Agreement, consisting of twenty -two (22 ) enumerated pages which include the exhibits referenced herein, shall be executed in three (3) counterparts , each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts will constitute one and the same instrument. A copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 10 3 3 . ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING This A greement and its provisions merge any prior agree ments, if any, between the parties hereto and constit utes the entire understanding. The parties hereby acknowledge that there have been and are no representations, warran ties, covenants, or undertakings ot her than those express ly set forth herein. WITNESS our Hands and Seals on this day of , 20 . (MUNICIPALITY SEAL BELOW) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BY: Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor BY: Chevelle D. Nubin, CMC, City Clerk BY: Attorney for Municipality (Signature Optional) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida FOR ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Shannon R. LaRocque -Baas, P.E. Assistant County Administrator Approved as to Form and Approved as to Terms and Conditions Legal Sufficiency Dep artment of Economic Sustainability By: By: Tammy K. Fields Sherry Howard Chief As sistant County Attorney Deputy Director CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 11 EXHIBIT “A ” WORK PROGRAM NARRATIVE 1. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT: A. PRIOR AGREEMENT: The project contained in this Agreement is a continuation of the project contained in prior Agreements between the Municipality and the County dated November 3, 2009, (hereinafter the “First Agre ement”), and dated March 11, 2011, as amended by Amendment No. 001 on October 22, 2011 (hereinafter the “Second Agreement”). The terms and conditions of the First and Second Agreements are incorporated herein by reference. B. ELIGIBLE PAYMENTS AND/OR REIMBURSEMENTS: All payments and/or reimbursements deemed eligible under the First and Second Agreements shall be eligible under this Agreement. C. PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The project requirements contained in the First and Second Agreements are repeated herein in substantial form. Changes have been made in order to update these requirements for this Agreement. The parties recognize that the following project activities have been accomplished, and where indicated below, the County has paid and/or reimbur sed the Municipality for such project activities: (1) The Municipality, at their own expense, has procured the services of an engineering consultant (a Florida professional engineer) for this project to provide design services and to create plans and specifications for the street and infrastructure improvements described below. (2) Improvements, as designed by the engineering consultant and installed by Foster -Marine, Inc., are substantially complete and project close -out has been initiated by the Municipality. (3) The Municipality has submitted to the County a Certification of Completion prepared by a Florida Professional engineer on the Municipality’s staff stating that the project improvements have been installed according to the project plans and specificatio ns, as amended by change orders, and stating the date of completion of construction. 2. THE MUNICIPALITY AGREES TO: A. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The Municipality shall at its own expense retain the services of an engineering consultant (a Florida professional engineer) for this project to provide design se rvices to create plans and specifications for the infrastructure improvements described herein in the City of Delray Beach. The consultant shall also prepare, obtain and review bids, prepare contract documents, inspect work in progress, recommend payment to contractors, and provide other professional services customarily provided by similar professionals on this type of project. The consultant shall also coordinate the design and construction work with the asbestos abatement contractor, should such abatem ent become necessary. The Municipality’s engineering consultant for this project shall also provide the below described certification upon completion of the project. All costs associated with the above services shall be paid for by the Municipality. Alternatively, the Municipality shall have the option of performing any portion of the consultant’s services described above by its own staff provided such staff possesses the necessary competency to do so. All costs associated with the above services sha ll be paid for by the Municipality. B. PROJECT SCOPE: The scope of this project subject to funding availability shall include the following street improvements in the City of Delray Beach: Infrastructure improvements including storm drainage, sidewalks, roadway CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 12 construction, street lighting, and sodding at the following locations: SW 12 th Avenue, from SW 10 th Street to SW 8 th Street SW 13 th Avenue, from SW 10 th Street to SW 8 th Street Auburn Avenue from SW 8 th Street to SW 7 th Street, and SW 8 th Stree t from SW 14 th Avenue to SW 12 th Avenue NOTE 1: Cost Allocation: The total amount of $81,311.02 funded through this Agreement shall be allocated as follows: An amount not to exceed $81,311.02 for construction expenses associated wi t h the installation of above referenced infrastructure improvements at locations noted above. The Municipality shall pay all construction costs which exceed the above stated amount. NOTE 2 : Should the construction contract amount for this project exceed t he amount to be funded by the County for construction costs through this Agreement, then the Municipality shall fund all amounts in excess of the amount to be funded by the County. The Municipality shall not request the County for reimbursement of any of the County’s funds for construction costs until after it has expended all amounts in excess of the amount to be funded by the County. NOTE 3 : The Municipality shall not request reimbursement from DES for materials or equipment received and stored on the project site or elsewhere. The Municipality shall only request reimbursement for materials and equipment that have been installed. The Municipality further agrees that DES , in consulta tion with any parties it deems necessary, shall be the final arbiter on the Municipality's compliance with the above. C. ASBESTOS REQUIREMENTS: The Municipality shall comply with all applicable requirements contained in Exhibit “D ”, attached hereto, for construction w ork in connection with the project funded through this Agreement. D. DAVIS -BACON ACT: The Municipality shall request the County to obtain a Davis - Bacon wage decision for the project prior to advertising the construction work. The Municipality shall inco rporate a copy of the Davis -Bacon wage decision and disclose the requirements of the Davis -Bacon Act in its construction bid solicitation and contract. E. BONDING REQUIREMENTS: The Municipality shall comply with the requirements of 24CFR Part 85 in regard to bid guarantees, performance bonds, and payment bonds. F. CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT RETAINAGE: The Municipality shall apply a retainage of at least 5% on all construction draws which retainages shall be released in conjunction with the final draw upon satis factory completion of the project. The Municipality agrees not to release such retainages until it has obtained approval from the County that the contractor and subcontractors have complied with the requirements of the Davis -Bacon Act. G. FORMER PROJECTS : The Municipality shall maintain all previously completed CDBG funded projects. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of future CDBG funds and will delay funding for ongoing activities. H. WORK SCHEDULE: The time frame for completion of the outlined activities shall be March 3 1, 2013 . The Municipality shall implement the activities of the project described herein according to the benchmark dates shown in Exhibit “E” attached hereto. I. REPORTS : The Municipality shall submit to DES reports as described below: (a) MONTHLY REPORT: The Municipality shall submit to DES detailed month ly CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 13 progress reports in the form provided as Exhibit B to this Agreement. Each report must account for the total ac tivity for which the Municipality is funded under this Agreement. The progress reports shall be used by DES to assess the Municipality’s progress in implementing the project. (b) SEMI -ANNUAL REPORT: The Municipality shall submit to DES detailed semi -annu al reports in th e f o r m provided as Exhibit “C ” to this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, the Municipality shall each 31 st day of March submit such report for the prior six month period beginning on the preceding 1 st day of October, and ending on said 31 st day of March. In addition, during the term of this Agreement, the Municipality shall each 30 th day of September submit such report for the prior six month period beginning on the preceding 1 st day of April, and ending on said 30 th day of Sept ember. (c) OTHER REPORTS: The Municipality agrees to submit to DES any other reports required by the State in connection with activities undertaken through this Agreement including, but not limited to, reports associated with Section 3. J. USE OF THE PRO JECT FACILITY: The Municipality agrees in regard to the use of the facility/property whose acqui sition or improvements are being funded in part or in whole by CDBG funds as provided by this Agreement, that for a period of ten (10) years after the expi ra tion date of this Agreement (as may be amended from time to time): (1 ) The Municipality may not change the use or planned use, or discontinue use, of the facility/property (including the beneficia ries of such use) from that for which the acquisition or i mprovements are made, unless the Municipality provides affected citizens with reasonable notice of, and opportunity to comment on, any such proposed change and either: a . The new use of the facility/property qualifies as meeting one of the national objectives defined in the regulations governing the CDBG program, and is not a building for the general conduct of govern ment; or b . The requirements of paragraph (2 ) of this section are met. (2 ) If the Municipality determines after consultation with a ffected citizens, that it is appropriate to change the use of the facility/property to a use which doe s not qualify under paragraph (1) (a ) of this section or discontinue the use of the facility/property, it may retain or dispose of the facility for such u se if the County is reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the facili ty/property less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non - CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvements to the facility/property. The final determi nation of the amount of any such reimbursement to the County under this paragraph shall be made by the County. (3 ) Following the reimbursement of CDBG funds by the Municipality to the County pursuant to paragraph (2 ) above, the facility/property will then no longer be subject to any CDBG requirements. The provisions of this clause shall survive the expiration of this Agreement. K. SECTION 3 REQUIREMENTS: The Municipality agrees to comply with all Section 3 requirements applicable to contracts funded through this Agreement. Information on Section 3 is available at DES upon request. The Municipality shall include the following, referred to as the Section 3 Clause, in every solicitation and every contract for every Section 3 covered project: Section 3 Clause (1 ) The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 14 of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as am ended, 12 U. S.C. 170 1u (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD -assisted projects covered by Section 3 shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be directed to l ow -and very low -income persons, particularly recipients of HUD assistance for housing. (2 ) The parties to this contract agree to comply with HUD’s requirem ents in 24 CFR Part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this contrac t, the parties to this contract certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the Part 135 regulations. (3 ) The contractor agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the contractor has a collective bargaining agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers representative of the contractor’s commitment under this Section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notic e in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, avail ability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each; and the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions; and the anticipated date the work shall begin. (4 ) The contractor agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 135, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subc ontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. The contractor will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the contractor has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 1 35. (5 ) The contractor will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the contractor is selected but before the contract is executed, and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the contractor’s obligations under 24 CFR Part 135. (6 ) Noncompliance with HUD’s regulations in 24 CFR Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. 3 . THE COUNTY AGREES TO: A. Provide funding for the above specified improvements as described above in “Project Scope”, during the term of this Agreement, in the amo unt of $81,311.02 . However, the County shall not provide any funding for the construction work until the Municipality provides documentation showing that sufficient funds are available to complete the project. B. Provide project admini stration and inspec tion to the Municipality to ensure compliance with U.S. HUD and the Department of Labor, and applicable State, Federal and County laws and regulations. C. Monitor the Municipality at any time during the term of this Agreement. Visits may be announced or unannounced as determined by DES and will serve to ensure compliance with State and U.S. Department of HUD regulations, that planned activities are conducted in a timely manner, and to veri fy the accuracy of reporting to DES on program activities. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 15 D. The County shall perform an environmental review of the project, and review and approve project design and bids submitted for the work. The County shall also perform Davis Bacon Act Labor Standards monitoring and enforce ment. Environmental review costs inc urred by the County may be charged to the project budget identified above. E. Allowable costs that may be paid by the County under this Agreement in addition to those stated in II.A above: (a) Costs of asbestos surveys, asbestos abatement, and abatement monitoring. (b) Costs of any other services customarily associated with projects of the nature of the project contemplated by this Agreement. The County shall review requests by the Municipality for expenditures on the above items prior to undertaking the services associated with them, and approve any such expenditure it deems appropriate for this project. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 16 EXHIBIT “B ” PALM BEACH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT Report For: Month :_________________ Year: Subrecipient Name: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Project Name: SW 12 th & 13 th Avenues, Auburn Avenue and SW 8th Street Report Prepared By: Name Signature Date BUDGETING AND EXPENDITURES Amounts Expended this Reporting Period: CDBG Funds:$ Other Funds:$ Amounts Expended to Date: ////////////////////////////////////////////// BUDGETED EXPENDED PERCENTAGE CDBG Funds: $ $ % Other Funds: $ $ % Other Funds: $ $ % TOTAL: $ $ % Describe any changes in budgeted amounts during this reporting period and the source of funds: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Describe your efforts to obtain any additional funds for the project during this reporting period (if you r project is underfunded):_______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT ACTIVITIES Describe your accomplishments during the reporting period:_______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Describe any problems encountered during this reporting period:___________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Other comments:_____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ I, _____________________________________, do hereby certify that the Pahokee Housing Authority has met all of its Monthly Perf ormance Requirements (Exhibit “E ”) referenced in the Agreement during this reporting period. _______________________________________ Name & Title of Certifying Representative Send Monthly Performance Report to: Bud Cheney, Manager of CREIS Department of Economic Sustainability 100 Australian Avenue, S uite 500 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 17 EXHIBIT “C ” PALM BEACH COUNTY Department of Economic Sustainability CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND MBE REPORT Project Name: City of Delray Beach - SW 12th & 13th Avenues, Auburn Avenue and SW 8th Street Report Date: Page of Pages Report Period: [ ] October 1, 20 , to March 31, 20 . [ ] April 1, 20 , to September 30, 20 . Prepared By: (1) Contractor/Subcontractor name and address (fill in for each contractor or subcontractor) Include all professional services such as consultants, engineers, architects, etc. that are funded under the agreement for this project. All Contractors and subcontractors (with contracts over $10,000) that are paid with CDBG funds must b e included. Do not list previously reported information. (2) Prime Contractor Employer Identification Number * (3) Subcontractor Employer Identification Number (see below) (4) Amount of Contract or Subcontract (5) Type of Trade Code (1 thru 3) (see below) (6) Contractor or subcontractor Racial/Ethnic Code (1 thru 6) (see below) (7) WBE (yes or no) (8) Section 3 (yes or no) Name: Street: City, State, Zip: Name: Street: City, State, Zip: Name: Street: City, State, Zip: Name: Street: City, State, Zip: Name: Street: City, State, Zip: (3) When subcontractor employer identification is used, information in columns 4 through 8 must reflect the subcontractor information, not the prime contractor’s information; also include the prime contractor’s employer identification number. * Employer identification number or social security number (5) Type of Trade Codes: 1 = New Construction (including rehab, water, and sewer 2= Education/Training 3= Other (including supply, professional services and other activities except construction and education /training) (6) Racial/Ethnic Code: 1=White American 4= Hispanic American 2= Black American 5= Asian/Pacific American 3= Native American 6=Hasidic Jews (7) WBE = Women Business Enterprise CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 18 EXHIBIT “D” ASBESTOS REQUIREMENTS SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS The provisions of this part apply to all demolition and renovation work contemplated in this Agreement and described in Exhibit “A” of this Agreement. I. DEFINITIONS ACM: Asbes tos Containing Materials AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act EPA: Environmental Protection Agency FLAC: Florida Licensed Asbestos Consultant DES: Palm Beach County Department of Economic Sustainability NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NRCA: National Roofing Contractors Association NVLAP: National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program OSHA: Occupational Safety & Health Administration PBCAC: Palm Beach County Asbestos Coordinator (in Risk Management) PLM: Polarized Light Microscopy RACM: Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials TEM: Transmission Electron Microscopy II. ASBESTOS SURVEYS All properties scheduled for renovation or demolition are required to have a comprehensive asbestos survey conducted by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Consultant (FLAC). The survey shall be conducted in accordance with AHERA guidelines. Analysis must be performed by a NVLAP accredited laboratory. For Renovation P rojects (projects which will be reoccupied): - Point counting should be conducted on all RACM indicating 1% - 10% asbestos by PLM analysis. If the asbestos content by PLM is less than 10%, the building owner/operator can elect to: 1. Assume the material is greater than 1% and treat it as RACM, or 2. Require verification by point counting. - Samples of resilient vinyl floor tile indicating asbestos not detected must be confirmed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). - Joint compound shall be analyzed as a separate layer. - Roofing material shall be sampled only if a renovation requires the roof to be disturbed In lieu of sampling the roof, it will be presumed to contain asbestos. For Demolition Projects: - Point counting should be conducted on all RACM indicating 1% - 10% asbestos by PLM analysis. If the asbestos content by PLM is less than 10%, the building owner/operator can elect to: 1. Assume the material is greater than 1% and treat it as RACM, or 2. Require verification by point counting. - Composi te sample analysis is permitted for drywall systems (combining the drywall and joint compound constituents). - All Category I and II non -friable materials, as defined in EPA/NESHAP, shall be sampled to determine asbestos content. If the Agency has a recen t asbestos survey report prepared by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Consultant, a copy may be provided to DES for review by the PBCAC to determine if the survey is adequate to proceed with renovation/demolition work. If no survey is available, a survey may b e initiated by the Agency or requested by DES. If the survey is through DES, a copy of the completed survey will be forwarded to the Agency. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 19 III. ASBESTOS ABATEMENT A. RENOVATION (a) Prior to a renovation, all asbestos containing materials that will be disturbed during the renovation, must be removed by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Contractor under the direction of a FLAC. Exceptions may be granted by DES prior to the removal. The Age ncy must obtain approval for all exceptions from DES. DES will request the PBCAC to review and approve all exceptions. (b) Asbestos abatement work may be contracted by the Agency or by DES upon request. (c) If the Agency contracts the asbestos abatement , the following documents are required to be provided to the DES. 1. An Asbestos Abatement Specification (Work Plan), 2. Post Job submittals, reviewed and signed by the FLAC. (d) If the Agency requests DES to contract the asbestos abatement, DES will in itiate the request through the PBCAC who will contract the asbestos abatement. DES will provide a copy of all contractor and consultant documents to the Agency. (e) Materials containing <1% asbestos are not regulated by EPA/NESHAPS. However, OSHA compli ance is mandatory. OSHA requirements include training, wet methods, prompt cleanup in leak tight containers, etc. The renovation contractor must comply with US Dept of Labor, OSHA Standard Interpretation, “Compliance requirements for renovation work inv olving material containing <1% asbestos”, dated 11/24/2003. The renovation contractor must submit a work plan to DES prior to removal of the materials. B. DEMOLITION All RACM must be removed by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Contractor under the direction of an FLAC prior to demolition. Examples of RACM include: popcorn ceiling finish, drywall systems, felt or paper -backed linoleum, resilient floor tile which is not intact, asbestos cement panels/pipes/shingles (“transite”). NESHAP Category I non -friable materials, such as intact resilient floor tile & mastic and intact roofing materials, may be demolished with the structure, using adequate controls. The demolition contractor shall be made aware of the asbestos -containing materials and shall exercise adeq uate control techniques (wet methods, etc.). Any exceptions to these guidelines shall be requested through and approved by DES prior to the removal. Demolition work should be monitored by a FLAC to ensure proper control measures and waste disposal. This is the responsibility of the Agency. (a) Asbestos Abatement work may be contracted by the Agency or by DES upon request. (b) If the Agency contracts the asbestos abatement, the following documents must be provided to the DES and reviewed by the PBCAC. 1. An Asbestos Abatement Specification (Work Plan), 2. Post Job submittals, reviewed and signed by the FLAC. (c) If the Agency requests DES to contract the asbestos abatement, DES will initiate the request through the PBCAC who will contract the asbestos abatement. DES will provide a copy of all contractor and consultant documents to the Agency. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 20 (d) Recycling, salvage or compacting of any asbestos containing materials or the substrate is strictly prohibited. (e) In all cases, compliance with OSHA "Requi rements for demolition operations involving material containing <1% asbestos” is mandatory. (f) If suspect materials are discovered that were not previously sampled and identified in the survey, stop all work that will disturb these materials and immedi ately notify DES. IV. NESHAP NOTIFICATION A. RENOVATION A NESHAP form must be prepared by the Agency or its Contractor and submitted to the Palm Beach County Health Department at least ten (10) working days prior to an asbestos activity that involves re moval of regulated asbestos containing material, including linoleum, greater than 160 square feet or 260 linear feet or 35 cubic feet. For floor tile removal greater than 160 square feet, the Agency or its Contractor shall provide a courtesy NESHAP notifi cation to the Palm Beach County Health Department at least three (3) working days prior to removal. The Agency shall provide a copy of the asbestos survey to the renovation contractor to keep onsite during the work activity. B. DEMOLITION A NESHAP form must be prepared by the Agency or its Contractor and submitted to the Palm Beach County Health Department at least ten (10) working days prior to the demolition for projects demolished by the Agency. C. NESHAP FORM The NESHAP form is available onlin e through the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations. The notification shall be sent to the address shown below. A copy of it shall be included in the Agency’s post job documentation submitted to DES. All fees shall be paid by the Agency. Palm Beach County Department of Health Asbestos Coordinator 800 Clematis Street Post Office Box 29 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 V. APPLICABLE ASBESTOS REGULATIONS/GUIDELINES The Agency, through its demolition or renovation contractor, shall comply with t he following asbestos regulations/guidelines. This list is not all inclusive: (a) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NESHAP, 40 CFR Parts 61 Subpart M National Emission Standard for Asbestos, revised July 1991 (b) Occupational Safety & Health Admini stration (OSHA) Construction Industry Standard, 29 CFR 1926.1101 (c) EPA: A Guide to Normal Demolition Practices Under the Asbestos NESHAP, September 1992 (d) Demolition practices under the Asbestos NESHAP, EPA Region IV (e) Asbestos NESHAP Adequately Wet Guidance CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 21 (f) Florida State Licensing and Asbestos Laws 1. Title XVIII, Chapter 255, Public property and publicly owned buildings. 2. Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Chapter 469 Florida Statute, Licensure of Asbestos Consultants a nd Contractors (g) Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI), Updated Recommended Work Practices and Asbestos Regulatory Requirements, current version. (h) Florida Roofing Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, NRCA, June 1995, or curr ent version. (i) US Dept of Labor, OSHA Standard Interpretation 1. Application of the asbestos standard to demolition of buildings with ACM in Place, dated 8/26/2002. 2. Requirements for demolition operations involving material containing <1% asbestos, da ted 8/13/1999. 3. Compliance requirements for renovation work involving material containing <1% asbestos, dated 11/24/2003. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Page 22 EXHIBIT “E ” PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS Subrecipient Name: City of Delray Beach Project Name: Auburn Avenue Performance Benchmarks Date Drawdown Request – Construction Continues – Ongoing Monitoring OCT – NOV 2012 Final Inspection / Engineer’s Certificate of Completion of Construction / Activity Close Out – Final Payment Request DEC 2012 – FEB 2013 The Benchmarks noted above are used by the County to evaluate the Municipality ’s performance under this Agreement. Failure to meet these goals may result in the County’s recapture of the g rant funds financing this project. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:November 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.K. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE: 27 07 S.W. 2ND STREET ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff requests City Commission approval to Amendmen t No. 4 to extend the closing date to November 30, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 2707 SW 2 nd Street, Delray Beach, FL 33445 to Santiago Gutierrez. BACKGROUND The City Commission approved the sale of NSP proper ty to Santiago Gutierrez at the August 21, 2012 Commission meeting. The initial agreement required that the closing tak e place 60 days from the date of execution. However , the buyer has been delayed by the bank's process, t hus the need for an extension of the closing date. The City of Delray Beach desires to sell the subjec t property to Santiago Gutierrez for the purchase price of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ce nts ($100,000.00) or appraised value and provide subsidy up to $25,000 secured by promissory note an d second mortgage, said property being described as follows: THE WEST ¼ OF LOT 8, IN BLOCK 2, OF HOMEWOOD LAKES SECTION C, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 196-197, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY , FLORIDA. RECOMMENDATION Staff City Commission approval to Amendment No. 4 t o extend the closing date to November 30, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 2707 SW 2 nd Street, Delray Beach, FL 33445 to Santiago Gutierrez. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 to the contract dated August 27, 2012 (“Agreement”), between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA , (“Seller”) and SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ (“Buyer”), is hereby entered into this ____ day of _____________, 2012, and amends the Agreement as follows: W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS , the parties previously entered into a contract for th e sale and purchase of a parcel of land in Delray Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS , the closing date will expire soon; however, the part ies wish to extend the closing date to the date as indicated in this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants, the parties agree as follows: 1. The closing date as stated in Paragraph 4 of the A greement is extended to November 30, 2012. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement no t in conflict with this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this First Amendmen t to Contract for Sale and Purchase the day and year first above written. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: ____________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ATTESTED BY: Dated: __________________________ _______________________ City Clerk 2 WITNESSES : SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ __________________________ By: _____________________________ Printed Name: ______________ __________________________ Dated: ___________________________ Printed Name: ______________ MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:November 16, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.L. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE: 81 0 NW 21ST WAY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff requests City Commission approval to Amendmen t No. 4 to extend the closing date to December 15, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stabilization Program property located at 810 NW 21st Way, Delray Beach to Jarrod Levins. BACKGROUND The City Commission approved the sale of NSP proper ty to Jarrod Levin at the September 4, 2012 commission meeting. The City of Delray Beach desire s to sell the subject property to Jarrod Levins for the purchase price of One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Dollars and 00/100 cents ($145,000.00 ) or appraised value and provide subsidy up to $50,000 s ecured by promissory note and second mortgage, said property being described as follows: LOT 34, TOGETHER WITH THE SOUTHERLY 9.67 FEET OF LO T 35, RE-PLAT OF RAINBERRY LAKE, PHASE IV-A, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 39, PAGE 99, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Commission approval to Amend ment No. 4 to extend the closing date to December 15, 2012 for the sale of Neighborhood Stab ilization Program property located at 810 NW 21 st Way to Jarrod Levins. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 to the contract dated August 28, 2012 (“Agreement”), between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA , (“Seller”) and JARROD LEVINS (“Buyer”), is hereby entered into this ____ day of _____________, 2012, and amends the Agreement as follows: W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS , the parties previously entered into a contract for th e sale and purchase of a parcel of land in Delray Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS , the closing date will expire soon; however, the part ies wish to extend the closing date to the date as indicated in this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants, the parties agree as follows: 1. The closing date as stated in Paragraph 4 of the A greement is extended to December 15, 2012. 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement no t in conflict with this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this First Amendmen t to Contract for Sale and Purchase the day and year first above written. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: ____________________________ Nelson S. McDuffie, Mayor ATTESTED BY: Dated: __________________________ _______________________ City Clerk 2 WITNESSES : JARROD LEVINS __________________________ By: _____________________________ Printed Name: ______________ __________________________ Dated: ___________________________ Printed Name: ______________ MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE:November 16, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.M. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 TERMINATION OF OFF -SITE PARKING AGREEMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of the Termination of Off-Site Parking Agreement between MacMillan Investment Limited Partnership, Nineteen Northeast LLC and the City of Delray Beach. BACKGROUND The Off-Site Parking Agreement was drafted in 2006 to provi de for parking for the new location of City Limits, which required 23 extra spaces for the buil ding, located at 19 N.E. 3rd Avenue. The building is currently vacant. Nineteen Northeast, LLC is under negotiation to sell the building and as a condition of sale, the Off-Site Parking Agreement between Nineteen Northeast, LLC, MacMillan Investment Limited Partnership and the City is required to be terminated. It may only be terminated by the consen t of all parties, which includes the City. City staff does not oppose the termination of this agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Termination of Off-Sit e Parking Agreement. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH:City Manager DATE:November 15, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.N. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is revi ew of appealable actions which were taken by various Boards during the period of November 5, 201 2 through November 16, 2012. BACKGROUND This is the method of informing the City Commission of the land use actions, taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed to the City Commissio n. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day appeal period has not occ urred). Section 2.4.7(E), Appeals, of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Comm ission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Com mission may file an appeal. To do so: · The item must be raised by a Commission member. · By motion, an action must be taken to place the ite m on the next meeting of the Commission as an appealed item. REVIEW BY OTHERS Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Meeting of No vember 14, 2012 A. Approved (3 to 1, Alice Finst dissenting, Mark Greg ory stepped down, Jose Aguila and Rustem Kupi absent), a request for a flat wall sign for Palm Beach Community Bank , within the Law Center Building, located at 2160 West Atlantic Aven ue (southwest corner of West Atlantic Avenue and Congress Avenue). B. Approved (5 to 0), a request for a master sign prog ram for Alta Congress, a residential development that includes 369 dwelling units and lo cated on the west side of Congress Avenue, south of Atlantic Avenue. C. Approved (5 to 0), the color chips and sample tiles for the architectural elevations for Ed Morse Cadillac , located on the west side of South Federal Highway , south of Linton Boulevard (2300 South Linton Boulevard). D. Approved with conditions (4 to 1, Alice Finst disse nting), a request for a color change for an existing commercial establishment for Dee Dees Conch Rib & Crab Shack, located on the south side of West Atlantic Avenue, west of SW 5th Avenue (540 West Atlantic Avenue). E. Denied (4 to 1) a request for a color change for Palm Plaza, an existing commercial building, located at the southeast corner of East Atlantic Av enue and Palm Avenue (1118 East Atlantic Avenue). F. Approved (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with the installation of a carport/awning for Ahead of Our Time, located at 280 NE 6th Avenue (west side of NE 6th Avenue, between NE 2nd Street and NE 3rd Street). G. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class I site p lan modification associated with architectural elevation changes for Jourdan’s Bridge Club, in the Delray Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Linton Boulevard and Military T rail (4801 Linton Boulevard). H. Postponed (5 to 0), a Class I site plan modificatio n associated with architectural elevation changes for Linton Square , located at the northeast corner of Linton Bouleva rd and Congress Avenue (1565 South Congress Avenue). I. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class II site plan modification associated with hardscape/landscape improvements and architectural elevation changes for Gracey Office Complex , located on the east side of NE 6 th Avenue, between NE 2 nd Street and NE 3 rd Street (255 NE 6 th Avenue). J. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a Class V site p lan, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan for Lintco, a proposed 51,412 sq. ft. shopping center consisti ng of three commercial buildings on a 7.09 acre vacant site loc ated on the north side of Linton Boulevard, west of SW 4 th Avenue. Concurrently, the Board approved a waiver request to reduce the stacking distance from the required fifty feet (50’) to 28 feet nine inches (28’ 9”). K. Approved with conditions (4 to 1, Alice Finst disse nting), a Class V site plan, (5 to 0) landscape plan and (3 to 2, Jason Bregman and Alice Finst dis senting) architectural elevation plan for Chase Bank , a proposed 5,033 sq. ft. bank with drive-thru lan es, in the Delray Square Shopping center, located at the northeast corner of West Atl antic Avenue and Military Trail (4899 West Atlantic Avenue). Historic Preservation Board Meeting of November 14, 2012 1. Approved with conditions (6 to 0 Reginald Cox absen t), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the construction of a single family residence on a vacant property located at 115 NE 6 th Street , within the Del-Ida Park Historic district. 2. Continued with direction (5 to 0, Ana Maria Aponte left the meeting prior to this vote), a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with the construction of a single family residence on a vacant property located at 11 NE 7 th Street, within the Del-Ida Park Historic district. Concurrently, the Board acted on the following vari ances and waiver: i. Approved (5 to 0) a variance to construct a swimmin g pool five feet from the rear and Denied (4 to 1) a variance request to construct the pool five feet from the side interior property lines (where 10 feet is required); ii. Approved (5 to 0) a variance to permit parking with in the front yard setback; iii. Continued (5 to 0) a waiver request to the Building Height Plane requirement. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:James Scala, Ocean Rescue Superintendent Linda Karch, Director of Parks and Recreation THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 13, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.O.1 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 BID AWARD/ BEACH RAKER ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to consider approval o f a bid award to Beach Raker in the amount of $57,000.00 annual cost for beach cleaning, maintena nce and beautification services. BACKGROUND Three bids were submitted for the provision of beac h cleaning services. The Universal Beach Service i s the current contract holder and has been providing reliable service for many years. While we apprecia te Universal's reliability and years of service, the B each Raker company has submitted a bid which presents substantial savings and enhanced beach cle aning services. Beach Raker submitted a bid of $57,000 for 12 month s of service. The next lowest bid was submitted by Universal for $94,896. A third bid was submitt ed by The Beach Groomer for $450,000. We currently pay $79,000 and have increased the servic es required by the current contract. The Beach Raker Company submitted the lowest bid an d utilizes equipment that would bring new and effective methods of cleaning and beautification to our beach. This includes a Barber Surf Rake and Cherrington Sand Sifter that are capable of cleansi ng the sand of small debris like bottle caps and cigarette butts. The company would also utilize a piece of machinery called the "Barber Sandman" which is a new versatile tool to be used for cleani ng the sand on our walkways once a month. The Beach Raker offers other modern amenities such as GPS tracking on their tractors which would enable the Beach Superintendent or Supervisors to e ffectively monitor the provision of services. Due to the enhanced quality of proposed services an d substantial savings presented in their proposal w e believe it is in the City's best interest to recomm end the Beach Raker bid for the provision of beach cleaning services. The term of this bid award is t hree years. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is from Ocean Rescue account # 001-4123-572 -34.90 Other Contractual Service. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Commission award Bid # 2013-12 for Beach Cleaning, Maintenance, and Beautification Services to the lowest bidder Beach Raker for an annual cost of $57,000.00. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 12, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.O.2 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/SOUTHEASTERN PUMP ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to approve the contract award to Southeastern Wastewater Equipment Corp. d/b/a/Southeastern Pump for the purchase of various models and sizes of submersible wastewater pumps for Utilities Maintenance “as needed” at an estimated annual cost of $82,876, per Bid #2013-07. BACKGROUND Wastewater pumps are used for disposing of water tainted with chemicals, sewage or other harmful substances. These pumps are essential in keeping the City safe and clean. With the environmental regulations, these pumps also have to comply with government requirements, ensuring that wastewater is disposed of properly and safely. Sixty-four (64) "Advertisements for Bid" were mailed to registered vendors. One (1) vendor completed and returned the bid documents by the due date of October 30, 2012. Two (2) “Statements of No Bid” were received by the Purchasing Office as unable to meet specifications. Bid #2013-07 documents are on file in the Purchasing Office. FUNDING SOURCE 441-5144-536.46-20 WATER/SEWER SERVICES REPAIR & MAINT SERVICE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATION The Manager of the Utilities Maintenance Division recommends an award to Southeastern Pump at an estimated annual cost of cost $82,876 “as needed” for the City of Delray Beach per attached email dated November 8, 2012. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 6, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.O.3 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/TANNER INDUSTRIES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The City Commission is requested to approve the one (1) year renewal with Tanner Industries for the purchase of Anhydrous Ammonia for the Water Treatment Plant at an estimated annual cost of $42,000.00 for the remaining eleven (11) months of FY12/13 via the City of Stuart, FL bid number 2012 awarded September 24, 2012 for initial one (1) year period with the option to renew for two (2) additional one (1) year periods. BACKGROUND Anhydrous “without water” Ammonia is used in several areas of water and wastewater treatment, such as pH control, in solution form to regenerate weak anion exchange resins, in conjunction with chlorine to produce potable water and as an oxygen scavenger in boiler water treatment. Tanner Industries has agreed to extend to the City of Delray Beach a unit cost of $.77 per pound City of Stuart, Florida per bid #2012-278, pricing includes two (2) hours of unloading time and is valid through September 30, 2013. FUNDING SOURCE 441-5122.536.52.21 OPERATING SUPPLIES CHEMICALS RECOMMENDATION The Manager of the Water Treatment Plant recommends award to Tanner Industries based on the fact that Tanner Industries has consistently provided the City of Delray Beach with quality service, product and safety throughout the years that the City has been feeding ammonia. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construction Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 7, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.O.4 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a purchase award in the amount of $44,303.43 to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. for water main materials to be installed by the City's In-house construction crew for the NE 8th Ave. Water Main Project #2009-014. BACKGROUND The scope of work consists of the construction of 1,900 linear feet of 8 inch PVC Water Main and 40 linear feet of 6 inch PVC Water Main, 10 valves, 4 fire hydrants, and water service connections to the new water main. The project also includes sodded swales, asphalt trench repair, concrete, asphalt, brick paver apron replacement and maintenance of traffic. Staff received quotes from three (3) vendors: Lehman Pipe and Plumbing Supply, Inc. in the amount of $47,994.07, HD Supply Waterworks in the amount of $46,186.01 and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $44,303.43. The quotes are attached for your reference. It is noted that the Lehman Pipe and Plumbing Supply quote provided only a total price with no unit prices in the quote schedule and would, therefore, be considered non-responsive. Since their proposal was not the lowest, their disqualification does not affect the award recommendation. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from 442-5178-536-68.92 (Water/Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund/Improvements Other/N.E. 8th Ave.) after budget transfer. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a purchase award in the amount of $44,303.43 to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. for water main materials to be installed by the City's In-house construction crew for the NE 8th Ave. Water Main Project. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Danielle Connor, Fire Chief THROUGH: David T Harden, City Manager DATE: November 13, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.O.5 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 SCOTT RIT PACK EMERGENCY AIR SUPPLY SYSTEM ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission for approval to purchase (8) Scott RIT-PAK III Emergency Air Supply Systems from 2012-2013 Fire Department Approved Operations Budget in the amount of $26,243.52 with pricing per Orange County contract T12-1086F. BACKGROUND The Fire-Rescue Department has a need to purchase (8) Scott RIT-PAK III Emergency Air Supply Systems. This will provide us with the ability to get an emergency air supply to downed fire fighters or other occupants in hazardous atmospheres. The Scott RIT-PAK III allows us to connect directly to a fire fighters air pack and deliver air to them quickly and safety. This equipment is also compatible with surrounding department air packs so we provide the same service when relied on through mutual aid calls. The Fire Rescue Department does not currently have the ability to provide an emergency air source to fire fighters in the case that they are injured or trapped in a hazardous environment without having to change the fire fighter's existing air pack they would be wearing. This is a process and in an emergency situation can prove even more difficult. Having the ability to quickly provide air to a downed fire fighter can be the difference between life and death and can provide us with time to help disentangle or remove the fire fighter from the hazardous environment in a safer manner. FUNDING SOURCE 001-2315-526-64.90 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 14, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING PENSION FUND MANAGEMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Commissioner Carney requested that the management of the City's pension funds be placed on a Work Session agenda for discussion. BACKGROUND The first table attached compares the actuarial investment earnings from 2000 -2011 for both the General Employee's Pension Plan and the Police and Fire Pension Plan. The two following attachments carry the comparison all the way back to 1985. In both time periods the General Employee's Plan has earned more, on average, than the Police and Fire Plan. The next two exhibits show the administrative expenses of the two plans. Expenses of the Police and Fire Plan appear to be about five times the expenses of the General Employee's Plan. The final attachment is the third quarter 2012 Investment Report for the Police and Fire Pension Plan; the plan's investment consultant, The Bogdahn Group, will be attending the November 20 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Commission direction is requested regarding any further information you may wish to receive or persons you may wish to meet with regarding management of these pension plans. Delray Beach Police Officers' & Firefighters' Retirement System Investment Performance Review 3rd Quarter 2012 3rd Quarter 2012 Market Environment Page 2 What a difference a year makes. For the equity markets, the year-to-date performance through September is the best nine months in a calendar year since 2009. After the negative performance in the second quarter, the markets rebounded in the third quarter. Year-to-date through September 30th, the S&P 500, Russell 1000, Russell 2000, and MSCI EAFE indexes returned +16.4%, +16.3%, +14.2%, and +10.6%, respectively. In general, investors appeared to have overlooked the mixed economic data during the quarter, and focused more on the perceived positive impacts from additional liquidity measures from central bank policies both in the United States and Europe. In early September, the President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi, announced that the ECB had agreed on a new bond buying program to help stabilize the region. Prior to this announcement, comments from European officials moved the US markets around almost daily depending on the perceived outcome. In addition to market participants‘ focus on the comments from Europe, investor sentiment fluctuated on the anticipation of what the US Federal Reserve (Fed) would do next. After some head fakes, the Fed announced additional quantitative easing measures to supposedly help the employment picture. In addition to the extension of Operation Twist that was announced in June, the Fed announced on September 13th that it will buy $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities per month. The Fed also stated that it will keep the fed funds target near zero until at least mid-2015 instead of late 2014. International equity markets continued June’s trend of strong performance into the third quarter. Like the US equity indexes, the international equity indices recorded positive performance in every month during the quarter. Developed markets, represented by the MSCI-EAFE Index, were up +7.0% for the quarter and emerging markets posted slightly better returns of +7.9%. In general, the USD depreciated, benefitting US investors’ overseas assets. The Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index finished the third quarter with a return of +1.6%. However, the positive return was not strong enough to reverse the downward trend of the trailing one-year return which fell 230 basis points (bps) to 5.2%. From a sector perspective, corporate bonds and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) outperformed U.S. Treasuries during the quarter. This has been the trend for 2012 as corporate bonds and MBS have outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 604 bps and 115 bps, respectively. Source: Morningstar Direct The Market Environment Major Market Index Performance As of September 30, 2012 0.0% 3.8% 1.1% 2.1% 0.6% 1.6% 5.3% 5.6% 6.3% 6.2% 6.4% 7.9% 7.0%7.5% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 3-Month T-Bill Barclays Corp IG Barclays MBS Barclays US TIPS Barclays US Tsy Barclays US Agg Russell 2000 Russell MidCap Russell 1000 Russell 3000 S&P 500 MSCI Emerg Mkts MSCI EAFE MSCI ACWxUS Quarter Performance 0.1% 10.8% 3.7% 9.1% 3.0%5.2% 31.9% 28.0%30.1% 30.2% 30.2% 17.3% 14.3% 15.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 3-Month T-Bill Barclays Corp IG Barclays MBS Barclays US TIPS Barclays US Tsy Barclays US Agg Russell 2000 Russell MidCap Russell 1000 Russell 3000 S&P 500 MSCI Emerg Mkts MSCI EAFE MSCI ACWxUS 1-Year Performance Page 3 Source: Morningstar Direct The Market Environment Domestic Equity Style Index Performance As of September 30, 2012 There was not a lot of variation in the performance among the domestic equity indexes for the quarter or trailing one-year periods. The largest dispersion during the quarter was among the growth indexes (130 basis points); the Russell 1000 Growth Index returned +6.1% and the Russell 2000 Growth Index returned +4.8%. A large contributor to the difference in the two indexes was the weighting and performance of the Information Technology sector. In the Russell 1000 Growth, the sector contributed 267 bps based on an average weighting of 32.1% compared to a contribution of 89 bps based on an average weighting of 22% for the Russell 2000 Growth. Apple has been a significant contributor to the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth and Russell 3000 Growth Indexes (as well as the S&P 500, Russell 1000, and Russell 3000 indexes). Based on Apple’s 8.3% and 7.7% average weighting in the Russell 1000 Growth and Russell 3000 Growth indexes during the quarter, the stock contributed 117 bps and 108 bps to the indexes, respectively. Apple’s stock price has gained +14.7% and +75.7% for the third quarter and trailing twelve months, respectively. GICS sector performance varied by capitalization and style, and there were no broad themes to which sectors performed the best as in past quarters. Financials outperformed in the Russell 1000 Value and Russell 3000 Value indexes, while Materials outperformed in the Russell 2000 Value Index. Telecom Services performed the best in the Russell 2000 Growth Index. In a reversal from the second quarter, “value” outperformed “growth” for the quarter and the one-year periods, regardless of capitalization. Large cap outperformed small cap. As a continuation from the second quarter, “mega cap” companies, which is defined as those companies with a market capitalization greater than $100 billion, outperformed the other market capitalizations break points in the Russell 1000 and Russell 3000 Indexes. Similar to the relative performance in the large cap indexes, the larger capitalization companies in the Russell 2000 Indexes outperformed. Micro cap companies, which is defined as those companies with a market cap less than $500 million, underperformed across all indexes. 4.8%5.3%5.7% 5.3% 5.6% 5.8%6.1% 6.3% 6.5% 6.0% 6.2% 6.4% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 2000 Growth 2000 Index 2000 Value MidCap Growth MidCap Index MidCap Value 1000 Growth 1000 Index 1000 Value 3000 Growth 3000 Index 3000 Value Quarter Performance -Russell Style Series 31.2% 31.9% 32.6% 26.7% 28.0% 29.3% 29.2% 30.1% 30.9% 29.3% 30.2% 31.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 2000 Growth 2000 Index 2000 Value MidCap Growth MidCap Index MidCap Value 1000 Growth 1000 Index 1000 Value 3000 Growth 3000 Index 3000 Value 1-Year Performance -Russell Style Series Page 4 The Market Environment GICS Sector Performance & (Quarter-End Sector Weight) As of September 30, 2012 Source: Morningstar Direct and Russell.com. Compared to the second quarter, market volatility declined. In the Russell 1000, there were three (3) days in which the index returned greater than 2% and there were no days where the index lost more than 2% versus seven and seven days, respectively, in the prior quarter. While the volatility appeared to decline in the quarter based on the number of days that were +/-2%, the dispersion from the best and worst daily return was still large and the representative days were only three days a part; the worst daily return was -1.9% on July 24th and the best daily return was +3.6% on July 27th. As expected, the volatility for the small cap Russell 2000 Index was greater than the other indexes during the quarter. There were eight days where the index returned greater than 2% and four days in which the index returned less than -2%. The best day was +3.5% (on July 27th) and the worst day was -3.0% (on July 24th). For the quarter, regardless of capitalization, each GICS sector was positive within the Russell 1000 and Russell 2000 Indexes. Even though economic growth globally is expected to remain low for the foreseeable future, the Energy sector was the best performer in the Russell 1000 Index. Although Tesoro was one of the top three performing stocks in the index (+68.4%), its contribution to sector performance was minimal due to its reduced weighting in the index. While Chevron and Exxon Mobil returned +11.4% and +7.6% during the quarter, the two stocks accounted for nearly 39% of the sector’s contribution to the index. As indicated in the chart, the top performing sector in the Russell 2000 Index during the quarter was Telecom Services. Of the twenty-eight companies in the sector, fourteen names generated double-digit performance. The trailing one-year returns look significantly different at the end of the third quarter compared to the end of the second quarter due to September 2011 (large negative month) dropping off. At the end of the third quarter, each GICS sector, in both the indexes, generated a double-digit return compared to several sectors that had negative returns at the end of the second quarter. 18.1% 31.0% 21.2% 38.5% 40.6% 22.2% 33.9% 28.8% 34.3% 14.7% 6.1% 14.0% 2.4% 5.7% 4.8% 2.3% 7.3% 3.5% 12.9% 7.5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Utilities (3.7%) Telecom Services (0.8%) Info Technology (17.0%) Financials (21.6%) Health Care (13.3%) Consumer Staples (13.9%) Consumer Disc (3.6%) Industrials (14.8%) Materials (5.0%) Energy (6.0%) Russell 2000 Quarter 1-Year 14.1% 34.4% 26.7% 33.1% 30.0% 22.3% 31.2% 28.1% 26.9% 25.0% 0.2% 7.9% 6.9% 6.2% 6.6% 3.8% 7.9% 3.6%6.1% 10.2% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Utilities (3.6%) Telecom Services (3.1%) Info Technology (19.2%) Financials (15.5%) Health Care (11.8%) Consumer Staples (12.1%) Consumer Disc (10.0%) Industrials (10.4%) Materials (3.8%) Energy (10.5%) Russell 1000 Quarter 1-Year Page 5 Source: Morningstar Direct The Market Environment Top 10 Index Weights & Quarterly Performance for the Russell 1000 & 2000 As of September 30, 2012 Top 10 Weighted Stocks Top 10 Weighted Stocks Russell 1000 Symbol Avg. Wgt Return Sector Russell 2000 Symbol Avg. Wgt Return Sector Apple Inc AAPL 4.26% 14.7% Information Technology Pharmacyclics Inc PCYC 0.29% 18.1% Health Care Exxon Mobil Corp XOM 2.92% 7.6% Energy Athenahealth Inc ATHN 0.27% 15.9% Health Care General Electric Co GE 1.64% 9.8% Industrials Two Hbrs Invt Corp TWO 0.27% 16.9% Financials Chevron Corp CVX 1.57% 11.4% Energy Cubist Pharmaceuticals CBST 0.25% 25.8% Health Care Intl Business Machines IBM 1.54% 6.5% Information Technology Ocwen Financial Corp OCN 0.25% 46.0% Financials Microsoft Corp MSFT 1.53% -2.0% Information Technology Dril-Quip Inc DRQ 0.24% 9.6% Energy At&T Inc T 1.51% 7.0% Telecommunication Services Hms Holdings Corp HMSY 0.24% 0.4% Health Care Google Inc GOOG 1.33% 30.1% Information Technology United Natural Foods Inc UNFI 0.24% 6.5% Consumer Staples Procter & Gamble Co PG 1.30% 14.2% Consumer Staples Energy Xxi (Bermuda) Ltd EXXI 0.23% 11.9% Energy Johnson & Johnson JNJ 1.29% 2.9% Health Care Ultimate Software Group ULTI 0.23% 14.6% Information Technology Top 10 Performing Stocks Top 10 Performing Stocks Russell 1000 Symbol Avg. Wgt Return Sector Russell 2000 Symbol Avg. Wgt Return Sector Metropcs Communications Inc PCS 0.02% 93.6% Telecommunication Services Sunesis Pharmaceuticals Inc SNSS 0.01% 96.9% Health Care Sprint Nextel Corp S 0.11% 69.3% Telecommunication Services Sunrise Senior Living Inc SRZ 0.07% 95.7% Health Care Tesoro Corp TSO 0.04% 68.4% Energy Xenoport Inc XNPT 0.04% 89.7% Health Care Shaw Group Inc SHAW 0.02% 59.7% Industrials Authentec Inc AUTH 0.03% 85.0% Information Technology Rackspace Hosting Inc RAX 0.05% 50.4% Information Technology Enernoc Inc ENOC 0.03% 79.3% Industrials Tahoe Resources Inc TAHO 0.01% 46.6% Materials Infinity Pharmaceuticals Inc INFI 0.05% 73.7% Health Care Fusion-Io Inc FIO 0.01% 44.9% Information Technology Iris International Inc IRIS 0.03% 72.7% Health Care Corelogic Inc CLGX 0.02% 44.9% Information Technology Fsi Intl Inc FSII 0.02% 72.7% Information Technology Pultegroup Inc PHM 0.04% 44.9% Consumer Discretionary Geoeye Inc GEOY 0.03% 70.7% Industrials Riverbed Technology Inc RVBD 0.02% 44.1% Information Technology Golden Star Resources Ltd GSS 0.04% 69.8% Consumer Discretionary Bottom 10 Performing Stocks Bottom 10 Performing Stocks Russell 1000 Symbol Avg. Wgt Return Sector Russell 2000 Symbol Avg. Wgt Return Sector Groupon Inc GRPN 0.00% -55.2% Consumer Discretionary A123 Systems Inc AONE 0.00% -80.2% Industrials Zynga Inc -Cl A ZNGA 0.00% -47.8% Information Technology Knight Capital Group Inc-A KCG 0.02% -77.6% Financials Itt Educational Services Inc ESI 0.01% -47.0% Consumer Discretionary Progenics Pharmaceuticals PGNX 0.01% -70.7% Health Care Molycorp Inc MCP 0.01% -46.6% Materials Audience Inc ADNC 0.00% -67.8% Information Technology Advanced Micro Devices AMD 0.01% -41.2% Information Technology Envivio Inc ENVI 0.00% -65.7% Information Technology Facebook Inc-A FB 0.06% -30.4% Information Technology Questcor Pharmaceuticals QCOR 0.08% -65.3% Health Care Big Lots Inc BIG 0.01% -27.5% Consumer Discretionary Gevo Inc GEVO 0.01% -57.1% Energy Devry Inc DV 0.01% -26.5% Consumer Discretionary Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc IDIX 0.03% -55.6% Health Care Tripadvisor Inc TRIP 0.02% -26.3% Consumer Discretionary Education Management Corp EDMC 0.01% -55.3% Consumer Discretionary Walter Energy Inc WLT 0.01% -26.2% Materials Supervalu Inc SVU 0.04% -53.5% Consumer Staples Page 6 Source: MSCI (www.msci.com) In general, European equities were up the most on a regional basis during the third quarter, as the region’s leaders made some apparent headway in the debt crisis. Of all European Union countries, equities in Germany performed the best. The Bank of Japan continued its monetary easing policy in mid-September by announcing an expansion of its asset purchase program from 70 to 80 trillion yen. The purchases are expected to be completed by the end of 2013. We would expect this action to lead to yen devaluation at some point. In USD terms, Indian (+15.4%) and New Zealand (+15.8%) equities had the best quarterly return of the Asian countries. Over 40% of the Indian equity return was due to Rupee appreciation. Conversely, Japan, Ireland and Greece were the worst-performing developed country equities during the quarter—Japan and Ireland were in negative territory. All sectors in the developed markets exhibited positive performance during the quarter, with Financials leading the pack at +11.3%. In developing markets, Info Technology, Consumer Discretionary, Healthcare and Energy sectors were up double digits, while Utilities stocks were mostly flat to slightly negative. US investor returns overseas were aided significantly by currency effects during the quarter, with the exception of the Brazilian Real which modestly depreciated. The one-year performance results for non-US equities rose into positive territory as the poor period from September 2011 was dropped off. The Market Environment International and Regional Market Index Performance (Country Count) As of September 30, 2012 3.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.1% 1.6% 6.5% 4.7% 5.0% 5.2% 4.7% 8.9% 9.8% 7.9% 3.8% 8.8% 7.0%7.4% 7.5% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% EM Latin Amer (5) EM Asia (8) EM Europe (5) Emerging Mkt (21) Pacific (5) Europe (16) EAFE (22) WORLD x US (23) AC World x US (44) Quarter Performance USD Local Currency 17.0% 16.5% 15.4%16.8% 6.3% 19.0% 14.1% 13.5% 14.2% 13.5% 18.2% 18.1% 17.3% 7.9% 18.1% 14.3% 14.4% 15.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% EM Latin Amer (5) EM Asia (8) EM Europe (5) Emerging Mkt (21) Pacific (5) Europe (16) EAFE (22) WORLD x US (23) AC World x US (44) 1-Year Performance USD Local Currency Page 7 Source: MSCI (www.msci.com) The Market Environment U.S. Dollar International Index Attribution & Country Detail As of September 30, 2012 MSCI -EAFE Sector Weight Quarter Return 1-Year Return Energy 8.3% 6.7% 16.3% Materials 9.6% 7.1% 8.6% Industrials 12.4% 5.8% 13.0% Consumer Discretionary 10.1% 2.5% 13.0% Consumer Staples 12.0% 7.1% 20.9% Health Care 10.2% 8.9% 22.4% Financials 23.5% 11.3% 19.8% Information Technology 4.3% 1.4% -1.4% Telecommunication Services 5.4% 5.2% 6.8% Utilities 4.0% 2.5% -1.8% Total 100.0% 7.0% 14.3% MSCI -ACWIxUS Sector Weight Quarter Return 1-Year Return Energy 11.0% 8.8% 15.4% Materials 11.1% 7.9% 6.7% Industrials 10.5% 5.6% 13.8% Consumer Discretionary 9.1% 4.2% 13.4% Consumer Staples 10.4% 7.1% 22.2% Health Care 7.4% 9.1% 22.7% Financials 24.7% 10.0% 19.4% Information Technology 6.3% 6.4% 13.1% Telecommunication Services 5.9% 6.3% 10.5% Utilities 3.7% 1.8% 1.4% Total 100.0% 7.5% 15.0% MSCI -Emerging Mkt Sector Weight Quarter Return 1-Year Return Energy 13.1% 10.9% 12.3% Materials 12.0% 5.5% 5.2% Industrials 6.7% 4.6% 13.4% Consumer Discretionary 8.0% 10.6% 14.4% Consumer Staples 8.5% 7.0% 28.0% Health Care 1.3% 11.1% 23.0% Financials 24.9% 7.3% 19.3% Information Technology 14.0% 11.1% 31.1% Telecommunication Services 8.1% 7.9% 16.0% Utilities 3.6% -0.4% 14.6% Total 100.0% 7.9% 17.3% MSCI-EAFE MSCI-ACWIxUS Quarter 1-Year Country Weight Weight Return Return United Kingdom 23.2% 15.8% 7.1% 20.8% Japan 20.1% 13.6% -0.8% -1.5% France 9.2% 6.2% 7.4% 13.8% Australia 8.9% 6.1% 10.5% 23.0% Switzerland 8.6% 5.8% 7.8% 17.1% Germany 8.6% 5.8% 13.9% 26.5% Sweden 3.2% 2.2% 10.6% 27.9% Hong Kong 3.1% 2.1% 12.5% 29.0% Spain 2.9% 2.0% 11.5% -6.5% Netherlands 2.5% 1.7% 9.2% 18.0% Italy 2.2% 1.5% 7.6% 4.7% Singapore 1.9% 1.3% 10.6% 25.7% Denmark 1.2% 0.8% 11.3% 38.2% Belgium 1.2% 0.8% 10.1% 35.4% Norway 1.0% 0.7% 13.6% 29.8% Finland 0.8% 0.5% 10.6% 1.0% Israel 0.6% 0.4% 6.4% 4.7% Ireland 0.3% 0.2% -1.5% 26.4% Austria 0.3% 0.2% 7.3% 1.2% Portugal 0.2% 0.1% 13.1% -13.9% New Zealand 0.1% 0.1% 15.8% 21.8% Greece 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% -40.2% Total EAFE Countries 100.0% 67.8% 7.0% 14.3% Canada 8.3% 10.6% 14.7% Total Developed Countries 76.1% 7.4% 14.4% China 4.1% 4.7% 17.9% Korea 3.7% 9.9% 22.8% Brazil 3.0% 4.8% 5.5% Taiwan 2.7% 11.8% 15.4% South Africa 1.9% 6.6% 19.8% India 1.7% 15.4% 7.5% Russia 1.4% 9.4% 18.5% Mexico 1.2% 6.8% 33.6% Malaysia 0.9% 5.3% 23.1% Indonesia 0.7% 7.5% 10.1% Thailand 0.5% 11.3% 42.1% Chile 0.5% 1.3% 17.8% Turkey 0.4% 8.2% 17.4% Poland 0.4% 13.2% 18.5% Colombia 0.3% 2.3% 23.4% Philippines 0.2% 4.5% 41.6% Peru 0.2% 2.9% 25.9% Egypt 0.1% 22.6% 45.6% Czech Republic 0.1% 10.4% 4.8% Hungary 0.1% 9.6% 21.7% Morocco 0.0% -3.3% -21.3% Total Emerging Countries 23.8% 7.9% 17.3% Total ACWIxUS Countries 100.0% 7.5% 15.0% Page 8 Source: Barclays Capital Live For the second quarter in a row, investors were rewarded for owning riskier assets as a strong credit rally led the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index to a 1.6% quarterly return. Each of the three key sectors were positive for the quarter with Corporate Bonds besting MBS and Treasuries by 270 bps and 320 bps, respectively. The investment grade credit sector was led by Baa-and A-rated bonds, which outperformed AAA-rated bonds by 2.4% and 1.9%. The MBS sector turned in a solid showing due to strong market technicals resulting from the Fed announcing they would buy up to $40 billion per month in passthrough securities. Lastly, Treasuries lagged as the yield curve, across all maturities, was little changed. Within Treasuries, TIPS outperformed standard Treasury bonds. During the third quarter, investors saw low quality bonds continue to outperform their higher quality counterparts. From high yield to AAArated bonds, the trend held. As investors moved down the quality spectrum, investment returns were stronger in the quarter. The differential between investment grade corporates and high yield credits was 60 basis points. The spread between the Baa-rated bonds (the lowest investment grade rating) and AAA-rated credit was 2.4%. Trailing one-year returns continued to be positive across all broad and sector-focused indices. However, absolute levels continue to trend lower as spreads and nominal yields compressed. The trailing one-year fixed income results were led by the 18.6% return of High Yield bonds, which benefited from strong fund flows, positive fundamentals, and strong investor appetite for yield. Continuing with the theme of improving credit, investment grade credit was the second best performing sector, returning 10.8%. Finally, International bonds benefitted from a weak dollar generating a quarterly return of 4.4%, which was 280 basis points better than domestic bonds (1.6%). On a trailing one-year basis, the return gap between the two areas of the market shrank to a 40 bps advantage for domestic bonds. AAA, AA, A, Baa, Treasury, Mortgage & Corporate benchmarks are sub-components of the Barclays Aggregate Index. The Market Environment Domestic Bond Sector & Broad/Global Bond Market Performance As of September 30, 2012 4.4% 1.4%1.6% 2.1% 3.8% 1.1% 0.6% 4.4% 4.3% 3.7% 2.3% 1.9% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% Global Agg x US Intermediate Agg Aggregate TIPS Corporate IG Mortgage Treasury High Yield BaaA AA AAA Quarter Performance 4.8% 4.3%5.2% 9.1% 10.8% 3.7% 3.0% 18.6% 11.9% 10.5% 7.9% 5.7% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Global Agg x US Intermediate Agg Aggregate TIPS Corporate IG Mortgage Treasury High Yield BaaA AA AAA 1-Year Performance Page 9 Source: US Department of Treasury, FRED-Federal Reserve of St. Louis, and Mortgage-X.com During the quarter, the macro-economic picture was dominated by the aggressive moves in September by the Federal Reserve and the ECB. In early September, the ECB approved “outright monetary transactions” (bond purchases) to help troubled sovereign nations in the Eurozone, specifically Italy and Spain. Later in the month, Chairman Ben Bernanke announced the Federal Reserve would begin another round of Quantitative Easing (QE III). This time, in addition to the announced continuation of Operation Twist in June, the Fed announced plans to buy up to $40 billion of MBS securities each month. Treasuries had a modest reaction to the news given that the current round of quantitative easing will be focused on the mortgage sector. The 10-year Treasury began the quarter with a yield of 1.67% and finished 2 bps lower at 1.65%. The 1.65% yield on the 10-year, while modestly below the closing yield on June 30, masked a great deal of volatility for the quarter. During the third quarter, the 10-year Treasury traded in a 45 basis point range of 1.43% to 1.88%. The low was reached in late July as concerns grew that the sluggish global economy was weakening further. As optimism grew that central banks would, once again, undertake further quantitative easing, rates sold off dramatically to their quarterly high of 1.88% on September 14. After such time, rates moved back to the levels of the previous quarter to end at a yield of 1.65%. Once again, short-term rates remain at or near zero giving even more indication from the Fed that they intend to keep rates low for a considerable period of time. In spite of activity from central banks in the United States and Europe, the Treasury yield curve remained mostly unchanged during the 3rd quarter. However, when comparing 2010 to the present period, the yield curve has flattened dramatically. At current levels, investors must extend to 10-year maturities and beyond to realize a yield in excess of the rate of inflation. Since 2010, investors in longer-dated bonds have been rewarded as rates moved lower. Going forward, however, the flatter yield curve and low nominal yields provide investors with little return to compensate for the high level of interest rate risk found in long-dated Treasuries. The Market Environment Market Rate & Yield Curve Comparison As of September 30, 2012 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 1 mo 3 mo 6 mo 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 5 yr 7 yr 10 yr 20 yr 30 yr Treasury Yield Curve 12/31/2010 12/30/2011 6/30/2012 9/30/2012 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50Sep-11 Dec-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 1-Year Trailing Market Rates Fed Funds Rate TED Spread 3-Month Libor BAA/10yr Spread 10yr Treasury 10yr TIPS Page 10 Private Core Real Estate (Charts located to the right): The asset class (as represented by the NCREIF NFI-ODCE and the NPI) continued to produce solid results across all sectors and geographies for the quarter, which drove returns for most sectors (except Hotels) and geographies into double digits for the 1-Year. This is the first time in five quarters that the apartment sector was not the highest performing; while the West region continues to be the strongest performer. Underlying property fundamentals continue to improve with the NFI and NPI occupancy rates increasing. Due to asset appreciation, the pay-down of debt, and continued interest of investors in Core real estate (investors contributed $3.05 billion during the quarter), the NFI LTV reduce by 1%. For the broader universe, represented by the NPI, same store NOI increased for the third consecutive quarter by 2.8% and Cap rates stayed at 6.0%. Source for top right table.: NCREIF as of June 30, 2012; Source for bottom right chart: Green Street Advisors via AEW Research The Market Environment Domestic Private & Public Real Estate Market Metrics As of September 30, 2012 U.S. Monthly Sector Results* M-T-D Total Returns Y-T-D Total Returns Dividend Yield Equity Market Capitalization ($MM) Retail 2.5% 26.7% 3.1% $139,209.7 Shopping Center 2.6% 25.2% 3.5% 41,359.2 Regional Mall 2.3% 28.0% 2.7% 86,162.9 Free Standing 4.0% 22.9% 4.3% 11,687.6 Industrial/Office 1.6% 17.1% 3.5% 85,838.0 Industrial 4.5% 21.8% 3.4% 21,208.7 Office 0.4% 14.2% 3.3% 51,944.8 Mixed 2.2% 23.1% 4.8% 10,684.5 Residential -3.5% 9.4% 2.9% 77,955.6 Apartment -3.5% 9.3% 2.9% 73,723.6 Manufactured Home -3.4% 11.4% 3.6% 4,231.9 Diversified -1.3% 12.4% 4.0% 36,209.3 Lodging/Resort 3.0% 9.3% 2.9% 27,092.9 Healthcare -2.5% 16.8% 4.7% 64,093.1 Self Storage -0.7% 15.9% 2.9% 31,515.0 FTSE NAREIT Equity REITs Index 0.0% 17.2% 3.4% $461,913.4 Source for bottom left table: *NAREIT via AEW Research as of August 31, 2012 -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 REIT Premium/Discount to Underlying Property Value January 1990 to September 2012 DISCOUNT PREMIUM NCREIF NPI Market Value ($MM) Quarter Return 1-Year Return Total Return $310,738.9 2.7% 12.0% Income 1.5% 5.9% Appreciation 1.2% 5.9% Sector Weight Quarter Return 1-Year Return Office 35.1% 2.3% 10.5% Apartment 25.3% 2.8% 13.2% Retail 22.7% 3.0% 13.4% Industrial 14.3% 2.9% 12.2% Hotel 2.6% 2.1% 8.0% Total Regional Weight Quarter Return 1-Year Return West 34.0% 3.1% 13.5% East 33.6% 2.4% 10.8% South 22.2% 2.7% 12.2% Midwest 10.2% 2.3% 11.1% NCREIF NFI-ODCE (Cap Weighted) Market Value ($MM) Quarter Return 1-Year Return Total Return $83,830.3 2.6% 12.4% Income 1.3% 5.4% Appreciation 1.2% 6.7% Fund Count Average Loan-To-Value Average Occupancy NCREIF NFI-ODCE Key Statistics 18 23% 89.9% Public Real Estate Securities (Charts located at bottom of this slide): Performance for August 2012 was mixed with retail, industrial/office, and lodging sectors producing positive results while, residential, diversified, healthcare and storage exhibiting negative returns. More broadly, the FTSE NAREIT Equity REITs Index (proxy for U.S. REITs) has performed very well for the YTD period. The REIT dividend yield was unchanged in August at 3.4% and the premium to NAV was relatively unchanged at 17%. However, it seems that investors remain positive that REITs are not overvalued, as REITs spent the past few years refinancing into lower coupon debt, raising common equity at a premium to their NAV, lowering their overall leverage, improving the quality of their portfolios and lowering dividend payout ratios. Page 11 In an effort to better serve your needs, The Bogdahn Group is conducting its annual client survey. We sincerely thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. The insights gained will help The Bogdahn Group continue to improve and better serve you. Additionally, we use the information to evaluate our consultants and identify areas of professional improvement. This survey is short and should take approximately five to ten minutes to complete. The Bogdahn Group will keep all information provided completely confidential and will never release information to third parties. This survey is for internal use only. If you do not receive an individual e-mail from the survey company, please participate by directing your browser to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TBGSurvey2012. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Chip Wooten at (863) 904-0867 or chipw@bogdahngroup.com. Thank you again for your help. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. The Market Environment The 2012 Bogdahn Client Survey How are you doing? How are we doing? The Bogdahn Client Survey link will be live through December 24, 2012. Select one choice Very Poor 1 Excellent 10 1. We made a number of enhancements to the look and feel of your performance reports this year; please rate your satisfaction with these changes. 2. Please rate your satisfaction with the level of detail in your performance report. 3. Please rate your consultant's ability to effectively communicate the information in the performance report. 4. Please rate your consultant's ability to effectively communicate investment insights beyond those in the performance report. 5. Please rate the effort of your consultant to offer suggestions and/or solutions to enhance your portfolio. 6. Please rate the outcomes of your consultant's suggestions and/or investment solutions. 7. Please rate your consultant's level of understanding of your Plan/Fund's unique needs. 8. Please rate the timeliness of your consultant's responses to regular inquiries. (Our firm policy is to reply to all inquiries within 24 hours.) 9. Please rate the detail provided in your consultant's follow up to inquiries. 10. Please rate your overall satisfaction with The Bogdahn Group's 10 services. 987654321 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Page 12 Total Fund Compliance: Yes No N/A Equity Compliance: Yes No N/A Fixed Income Compliance: Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Manager Compliance: City of Delray Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System Compliance Checklist as of September 30, 2012 1. The Total Plan return equaled or exceeded the 8.3% actuarial earnings assumption over the trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ 2. The Total Plan return equaled or exceeded the total plan benchmark over the trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ 3. The Total Plan return ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ 1. Total equity returns meet or exceed the benchmark over the trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ 2. Total equity returns ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ 3. The total equity allocation was less than 70% of the total plan assets at market. ✔ 4. Total foreign equity was less than 25% of the total plan assets at market. ✔ 1. Total fixed income returns meet or exceed the benchmark over the trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ 2. Total fixed income returns ranked within the top 40th percentile of its peer group over the trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ 3. No more than 15% of the fixed income portfolio was rated below BBB/Baa. ✔ Manager outperformed the index over the trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ Manager ranked within the top 40th percentile over trailing three and five year periods.* ✔ Less than four consecutive quarters of under performance relative to the benchmark. ✔ Three and five-year down-market capture ratio less than the index.* ✔ Manager reports compliance with PFIA. ✔ *3 years used when 5 years unavailable ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔✔✔ ✔ Delaware ICC Multi 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Lazard SMID WHV Int'l RBC Int'l Page 13 Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Manager Compliance: City of Delray Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System Compliance Checklist as of September 30, 2012 Manager outperformed the index over the trailing three and five year periods. ✔ Manager ranked within the top 40th percentile over trailing three and five year periods. ✔ Less than four consecutive quarters of under performance relative to the benchmark. ✔ Three and five year down market capture ratio less than 100% ✔ Manager reports compliance with PFIA. ✔ *3 years used when 5 years unavailable ✔✔✔✔ ✔ ✔✔✔✔✔ ✔✔✔✔ ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Mut Am TIP Mut Am Cor 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Temp Global Sawgrass American R Page 14 Asset Allocation By Segment as of September 30, 2012 : $126,757,186 Asset Allocation By Segment as of June 30, 2012 : $121,379,703 Allocation Segments Market Value Allocation ¢ Domestic Equity 43,095,249 34.0 ¢ International Equity 13,669,583 10.8 ¢ Emerging Equity 4,400,851 3.5 ¢ Fixed Income 28,520,055 22.5 ¢ International Fixed Income 6,160,373 4.9 ¢ Real Estate 9,524,919 7.5 ¢ Alternative Investment 12,549,624 9.9 ¢ Timber 5,551,154 4.4 ¢ Cash Equivalent 3,285,379 2.6 Allocation Segments Market Value Allocation ¢ Domestic Equity 42,311,645 34.9 ¢ International Equity 12,356,562 10.2 ¢ Emerging Equity 4,200,997 3.5 ¢ Fixed Income 27,435,990 22.6 ¢ International Fixed Income 5,854,197 4.8 ¢ Real Estate 9,289,259 7.7 ¢ Alternative Investment 11,573,579 9.5 ¢ Timber 5,616,381 4.6 ¢ Cash Equivalent 2,741,094 2.3 Asset Allocation Summary Total Fund As of September 30, 2012 NONE Page 15 Asset Allocation By Manager as of September 30, 2012 : $126,757,186 Asset Allocation By Manager as of June 30, 2012 : $121,379,703 Allocation Market Value Allocation ¢ Mutual of America Core Fixed 24,193,817 19.1 ¢ Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 16,602,247 13.1 ¢ Delaware Value 14,619,050 11.5 ¢ RBC Int'l (Voyageur) 9,179,740 7.2 ¢ ICC Multi-Cap 7,185,714 5.7 ¢ PIMCO DiSCO II 7,607,609 6.0 ¢ Lazard SMid Cap Core 6,129,881 4.8 ¢ Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) 6,160,373 4.9 ¢ Mutual of America TIPS 5,527,445 4.4 ¢ American Core Realty 5,404,570 4.3 ¢ Abbey Managed Futures 4,942,015 3.9 ¢ Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 4,400,851 3.5 ¢ WHV Int'l Equity 4,562,588 3.6 ¢ Quadrant Real Estate 4,120,348 3.3 ¢ Amsouth Bank Timber 2,856,251 2.3 ¢ Molpus Woodlands Timber 2,694,903 2.1 ¢ R&D 512,404 0.4 ¢ Mutual Fund Cash 57,381 0.0 Allocation Market Value Allocation ¢ Mutual of America Core Fixed 22,554,453 18.6 ¢ Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 16,316,715 13.4 ¢ Delaware Value 14,434,971 11.9 ¢ RBC Int'l (Voyageur) 8,270,203 6.8 ¢ ICC Multi-Cap 7,010,866 5.8 ¢ PIMCO DiSCO II 6,513,289 5.4 ¢ Lazard SMid Cap Core 6,005,668 4.9 ¢ Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) 5,854,197 4.8 ¢ Mutual of America TIPS 5,509,525 4.5 ¢ American Core Realty 5,282,770 4.4 ¢ Abbey Managed Futures 5,060,290 4.2 ¢ Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 4,200,997 3.5 ¢ WHV Int'l Equity 4,135,540 3.4 ¢ Quadrant Real Estate 4,006,489 3.3 ¢ Amsouth Bank Timber 2,913,374 2.4 ¢ Molpus Woodlands Timber 2,703,007 2.2 ¢ R&D 549,583 0.5 ¢ Mutual Fund Cash 57,766 0.0 Asset Allocation Summary Total Fund As of September 30, 2012 NONE Page 16 Allocation Differences -10.0 % -8.0 % -6.0 % -4.0 % -2.0 % 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% PIMCO DiSCO II Mutual Fund Cash R&D Timber Real Estate Income Alt. Core Real Estate Managed Futures Total Fixed Income International Equity Domestic Equity 6.0% 0.0%0.4% -0.6 % -1.7 % -0.7 % -1.1 % -1.7 % -0.7 % 0.1% Market Value Allocation (%) Target (%) Domestic Equity 44,536,892 35.1 35.0 International Equity 18,143,179 14.3 15.0 Total Fixed Income 35,881,634 28.3 30.0 Managed Futures 4,942,015 3.9 5.0 Core Real Estate 5,404,570 4.3 5.0 Real Estate Income Alt. 4,120,348 3.3 5.0 Timber 5,551,154 4.4 5.0 R&D 512,404 0.4 0.0 Mutual Fund Cash 57,381 0.0 0.0 PIMCO DiSCO II 7,607,609 6.0 0.0 Total Fund 126,757,186 100.0 100.0 Asset Allocation vs. Target Allocation Total Fund As of September 30, 2012 Page 17 Asset Allocation Attributes Sep-2012 Jun-2012 Mar-2012 Dec-2011 Sep-2011 ($) % ($) % ($) % ($) % ($) % Total Fund 126,757,186 100.00 121,379,703 100.00 125,583,244 100.00 118,888,963 100.00 109,237,000 100.00 Total Equity 62,680,071 49.45 60,374,959 49.74 64,676,398 51.50 64,629,798 54.36 54,818,310 50.18 Total Domestic Equity 44,536,892 35.14 43,768,219 36.06 46,637,075 37.14 48,761,552 41.01 40,941,414 37.48 Delaware Value 14,619,050 11.53 14,434,971 11.89 14,927,767 11.89 16,267,031 13.68 13,061,777 11.96 ICC Multi-Cap 7,185,714 5.67 7,010,866 5.78 7,971,763 6.35 9,437,089 7.94 8,895,394 8.14 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 16,602,247 13.10 16,316,715 13.44 17,238,605 13.73 17,206,925 14.47 14,418,773 13.20 Lazard SMid Cap Core 6,129,881 4.84 6,005,668 4.95 6,498,940 5.18 5,850,507 4.92 4,565,470 4.18 Russell 1000 Growth -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 Total Int'l Equity 18,143,179 14.31 16,606,740 13.68 18,039,323 14.36 15,868,245 13.35 13,876,896 12.70 WHV Int'l Equity 4,562,588 3.60 4,135,540 3.41 4,529,513 3.61 4,173,657 3.51 3,110,361 2.85 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) 9,179,740 7.24 8,270,203 6.81 8,822,442 7.03 7,517,882 6.32 7,433,594 6.81 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 4,400,851 3.47 4,200,997 3.46 4,687,367 3.73 4,176,706 3.51 3,332,942 3.05 Total Fixed Income 35,881,634 28.31 33,918,176 27.94 34,663,500 27.60 34,753,634 29.23 33,585,517 30.75 Mutual of America Core Fixed 24,193,817 19.09 22,554,453 18.58 23,101,023 18.39 23,532,839 19.79 22,652,312 20.74 Mutual of America TIPS 5,527,445 4.36 5,509,525 4.54 5,511,548 4.39 5,516,865 4.64 5,452,541 4.99 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) 6,160,373 4.86 5,854,197 4.82 6,050,930 4.82 5,703,930 4.80 5,480,664 5.02 PIMCO Diversified (PDIIX) -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 Total Real Estate 9,524,919 7.51 9,289,259 7.65 9,044,050 7.20 8,770,220 7.38 8,522,728 7.80 American Core Realty 5,404,570 4.26 5,282,770 4.35 5,156,372 4.11 5,018,614 4.22 4,896,817 4.48 Quadrant Real Estate 4,120,348 3.25 4,006,489 3.30 3,887,678 3.10 3,751,606 3.16 3,625,910 3.32 Total Timber 5,551,154 4.38 5,616,381 4.63 5,637,316 4.49 5,630,909 4.74 6,027,491 5.52 Amsouth Bank Timber 2,856,251 2.25 2,913,374 2.40 2,927,403 2.33 2,910,927 2.45 2,986,351 2.73 Molpus Woodlands Timber 2,694,903 2.13 2,703,007 2.23 2,709,913 2.16 2,719,982 2.29 3,041,140 2.78 Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures 4,942,015 3.90 5,060,290 4.17 5,175,196 4.12 5,143,740 4.33 5,404,175 4.95 PIMCO DiSCO II 7,607,609 6.00 6,513,289 5.37 6,300,000 5.02 -0.00 -0.00 Cash Accounts R&D 512,404 0.40 549,583 0.45 30,364 0.02 -93,549 -0.08 780,219 0.71 Mutual Fund Cash 57,381 0.05 57,766 0.05 56,420 0.04 54,211 0.05 98,560 0.09 Asset Allocation Total Fund As of September 30, 2012 Page 18 Financial Reconciliation Market Value 07/01/2012 Net Transfers Contributions Distributions Management Fees Other Expenses Return On Investment Market Value 09/30/2012 Total Fund 121,379,703 -2,470,065 -2,788,043 -174,159 -65,240 5,934,861 126,757,186 Total Equity 60,374,959 -1,188,357 ---113,191 -6,251 3,612,910 62,680,071 Total Domestic Equity 43,768,219 -1,297,028 ---83,215 -4,292 2,153,207 44,536,892 Delaware Value 14,434,971 -471,647 ---44,051 -1,404 701,182 14,619,050 ICC Multi-Cap 7,010,866 -235,823 ---7,008 -692 418,371 7,185,714 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 16,316,715 -471,647 ---21,646 -1,600 780,424 16,602,247 Lazard SMid Cap Core 6,005,668 -117,912 ---10,510 -595 253,230 6,129,881 Total Int'l Equity 16,606,740 108,671 ---29,976 -1,960 1,459,703 18,143,179 WHV Int'l Equity 4,135,540 179,253 ---10,336 -413 258,544 4,562,588 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) 8,270,203 ----19,640 -1,547 930,723 9,179,740 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 4,200,997 -70,582 ----270,436 4,400,851 Total Fixed Income 33,918,176 911,701 ---19,236 -2,736 1,073,730 35,881,634 Mutual of America Core Fixed 22,554,453 1,123,722 ---17,170 -2,192 535,004 24,193,817 Mutual of America TIPS 5,509,525 -117,912 ---2,066 -544 138,442 5,527,445 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) 5,854,197 -94,109 ----400,284 6,160,373 Total Real Estate 9,289,259 ----24,921 -260,581 9,524,919 American Core Realty 5,282,770 ----14,416 -136,217 5,404,570 Quadrant Real Estate 4,006,489 ----10,505 -124,363 4,120,348 Total Timber 5,616,381 -60,000 -----5,227 5,551,154 Amsouth Bank Timber 2,913,374 -60,000 ----2,877 2,856,251 Molpus Woodlands Timber 2,703,007 ------8,104 2,694,903 Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures 5,060,290 ------118,275 4,942,015 PIMCO DiSCO II 6,513,289 ----16,812 -1,111,132 7,607,609 Cash Accounts R&D 549,583 336,055 2,470,065 -2,788,043 --55,267 11 512,404 Mutual Fund Cash 57,766 601 ----986 -57,381 Financial Reconciliation Total Fund 1 Quarter Ending September 30, 2012 Page 19 Financial Reconciliation Market Value 10/01/2011 Net Transfers Contributions Distributions Management Fees Other Expenses Return On Investment Market Value 09/30/2012 Total Fund 109,237,000 -10,252,161 -10,957,929 -579,439 -304,057 19,109,451 126,757,186 Total Equity 54,818,310 -6,239,636 ---360,580 -25,294 14,487,271 62,680,071 Total Domestic Equity 40,941,414 -7,472,762 ---242,476 -17,671 11,328,386 44,536,892 Delaware Value 13,061,777 -2,249,186 ---88,045 -5,737 3,900,241 14,619,050 ICC Multi-Cap 8,895,394 -3,349,593 ---33,290 -3,283 1,676,485 7,185,714 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 14,418,773 -2,049,186 ---81,030 -6,378 4,320,069 16,602,247 Lazard SMid Cap Core 4,565,470 175,203 ---40,111 -2,273 1,431,591 6,129,881 Total Int'l Equity 13,876,896 1,233,126 ---118,104 -7,623 3,158,885 18,143,179 WHV Int'l Equity 3,110,361 795,122 ---39,876 -1,592 698,573 4,562,588 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) 7,433,594 ----78,228 -6,032 1,830,406 9,179,740 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 3,332,942 438,004 ----629,906 4,400,851 Total Fixed Income 33,585,517 -601,064 ---85,112 -11,090 2,993,384 35,881,634 Mutual of America Core Fixed 22,652,312 16,134 ---76,979 -8,917 1,611,266 24,193,817 Mutual of America TIPS 5,452,541 -424,797 ---8,133 -2,174 510,007 5,527,445 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) 5,480,664 -192,401 ----872,110 6,160,373 Total Real Estate 8,522,728 ----100,483 -1,102,675 9,524,919 American Core Realty 4,896,817 ----55,872 -563,625 5,404,570 Quadrant Real Estate 3,625,910 ----44,611 -539,050 4,120,348 Total Timber 6,027,491 -123,722 -----352,616 5,551,154 Amsouth Bank Timber 2,986,351 -90,000 -----40,100 2,856,251 Molpus Woodlands Timber 3,041,140 -33,722 -----312,515 2,694,903 Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures 5,404,175 ------462,160 4,942,015 PIMCO DiSCO II -6,300,000 ---33,264 -1,340,872 7,607,609 Cash Accounts R&D 780,219 701,727 10,252,161 -10,957,929 --263,798 24 512,404 Mutual Fund Cash 98,560 -37,305 ----3,875 1 57,381 Financial Reconciliation Total Fund October 1, 2011 To September 30, 2012 Page 20 Comparative Performance QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 5 YR Inception Inception Date Total Fund (Net) 4.77 16.79 16.79 8.75 8.79 0.66 3.31 10/01/2005 Total Fund Policy 4.08 15.36 15.36 8.60 8.81 2.51 4.69 Difference 0.69 1.43 1.43 0.15 -0.02 -1.85 -1.38 Total Fund (Gross) 4.92 (33) 17.35 (44) 17.35 (44) 9.20 (23) 9.25 (24) 1.11 (82) 3.76 (74) 10/01/2005 Total Fund Policy 4.08 (71) 15.36 (70) 15.36 (70) 8.60 (31) 8.81 (33) 2.51 (44) 4.69 (38) Difference 0.84 1.99 1.99 0.60 0.44 -1.40 -0.93 IM Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Moderate (MF) Median 4.49 16.66 16.66 7.70 8.14 2.27 4.41 Total Equity 6.09 25.94 25.94 11.75 11.64 -0.71 3.23 10/01/2005 Total Equity Policy 6.71 22.99 22.99 8.36 9.35 -0.82 2.99 Difference -0.62 2.95 2.95 3.39 2.29 0.11 0.24 Total Domestic Equity 5.05 (72) 27.44 (42) 27.44 (42) 14.57 (18) 13.50 (22) -0.08 (56) 3.61 (58) 10/01/2005 Total Domestic Equity Policy 6.07 (44) 29.64 (24) 29.64 (24) 14.13 (23) 13.12 (27) 1.23 (34) 4.61 (37) Difference -1.02 -2.20 -2.20 0.44 0.38 -1.31 -1.00 IM U.S. All Cap Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median 5.85 26.33 26.33 11.45 11.22 0.22 3.93 Total Int'l Equity 8.77 (11) 21.58 (5) 21.58 (5) 4.05 (34) 5.90 (20) -1.85 (16) 1.22 (4) 05/01/2007 Total Int'l Policy 7.49 (45) 15.04 (78) 15.04 (78) 1.51 (76) 3.11 (71) -4.48 (62) -3.40 (70) Difference 1.28 6.54 6.54 2.54 2.79 2.63 4.62 IM International Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 7.31 17.12 17.12 3.13 4.36 -3.93 -2.40 Total Fixed Income 3.16 (30) 9.06 (35) 9.06 (35) 6.05 (49) 7.07 (61) 6.46 (60) 5.84 (60) 10/01/2005 Total Fixed Policy 1.67 (90) 5.75 (86) 5.75 (86) 5.85 (56) 6.77 (71) 6.78 (50) 6.09 (51) Difference 1.49 3.31 3.31 0.20 0.30 -0.32 -0.25 IM U.S. Broad Market Fixed Income (SA+CF+MF) Median 2.64 7.97 7.97 6.00 7.38 6.77 6.11 Total Real Estate 2.81 (41) 13.00 (37) 13.00 (37) 13.55 (85) 12.68 (42) -3.37 (66) -2.36 (71) 07/01/2007 NCREIF ODCE 2.77 (45) 11.61 (58) 11.61 (58) 14.89 (55) 12.19 (46) -1.14 (48) -0.34 (44) Difference 0.04 1.39 1.39 -1.34 0.49 -2.23 -2.02 IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median 2.74 12.35 12.35 15.13 11.85 -1.38 -0.54 Total Timber -0.09 -5.86 -5.86 -1.12 -0.81 2.63 -0.20 06/01/2009 NCREIF Timberland Index 0.75 2.25 2.25 1.25 -0.51 3.32 -0.70 Difference -0.84 -8.11 -8.11 -2.37 -0.30 -0.69 0.50 Comparative Performance Total Fund Trailing Returns As of September 30, 2012 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 21 Comparative Performance Total Fund Trailing Returns As of September 30, 2012 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 5 YR Inception Inception Date Total Domestic Equity 5.05 27.44 27.44 14.57 13.50 -0.08 3.61 10/01/2005 Delaware Value 4.99 (82) 29.80 (37) 29.80 (37) 17.50 (4) 16.24 (5) N/A 2.73 (27) 12/01/2007 Russell 1000 Value Index 6.51 (43) 30.92 (28) 30.92 (28) 13.33 (41) 11.84 (51) -0.90 (78) 0.10 (74) Difference -1.52 -1.12 -1.12 4.17 4.40 N/A 2.63 IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median 6.16 28.62 28.62 12.96 11.88 0.57 1.38 ICC Multi-Cap 6.18 (49) 18.56 (99) 18.56 (99) 7.36 (97) 9.38 (92) N/A 8.92 (3) 08/01/2008 Russell 3000 Index 6.23 (39) 30.20 (28) 30.20 (28) 14.42 (35) 13.26 (52) 1.30 (59) 5.52 (45) Difference -0.05 -11.64 -11.64 -7.06 -3.88 N/A 3.40 IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 6.04 27.88 27.88 13.83 13.30 1.40 5.44 Total Growth 4.89 (86) 29.37 (33) 29.37 (33) 18.44 (4) 14.84 (16) -2.86 (98) -2.07 (98) 07/01/2007 Russell 1000 Growth Index 6.11 (55) 29.19 (35) 29.19 (35) 15.79 (17) 14.73 (17) 3.24 (22) 3.90 (28) Difference -1.22 0.18 0.18 2.65 0.11 -6.10 -5.97 IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median 6.24 27.18 27.18 13.06 12.29 1.87 2.94 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 4.89 (82) 29.37 (36) 29.37 (36) N/A N/A N/A 16.03 (4) 08/01/2011 Russell 1000 Growth Index 6.11 (54) 29.19 (38) 29.19 (38) 15.79 (26) 14.73 (29) 3.24 (33) 11.34 (33) Difference -1.22 0.18 0.18 N/A N/A N/A 4.69 IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median 6.19 27.64 27.64 13.91 13.10 2.47 9.51 Lazard SMid Cap Core 4.30 (77) 30.14 (51) 30.14 (51) 8.82 (96) N/A N/A 11.71 (96) 02/01/2010 Russell 2500 Index 5.57 (55) 30.93 (42) 30.93 (42) 13.15 (63) 14.06 (63) 2.80 (73) 15.29 (64) Difference -1.27 -0.79 -0.79 -4.33 N/A N/A -3.58 IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 5.87 30.15 30.15 14.40 15.08 4.08 16.09 Total Int'l Equity 8.77 21.58 21.58 4.05 5.90 -1.85 1.22 05/01/2007 WHV Int'l Equity 6.17 (74) 20.90 (19) 20.90 (19) 3.97 (51) 6.17 (44) -2.05 (43) 1.03 (23) 05/01/2007 MSCI EAFE Index 6.98 (57) 14.33 (79) 14.33 (79) 2.04 (68) 2.59 (85) -4.77 (73) -3.66 (78) Difference -0.81 6.57 6.57 1.93 3.58 2.72 4.69 IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median 7.10 18.31 18.31 4.06 5.61 -2.71 -0.96 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) 11.28 (3) 24.75 (3) 24.75 (3) 6.71 (11) 8.32 (8) N/A -1.67 (32) 12/01/2007 MSCI EAFE Index 6.98 (57) 14.33 (54) 14.33 (54) 2.04 (63) 2.59 (66) -4.77 (75) -5.04 (78) Difference 4.30 10.42 10.42 4.67 5.73 N/A 3.37 IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median 7.28 15.04 15.04 2.84 3.65 -3.15 -3.33 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 6.50 (64) 17.90 (34) 17.90 (34) N/A N/A N/A -4.29 (46) 02/01/2011 MSCI Emerging Markets Index 7.89 (21) 17.34 (44) 17.34 (44) -0.66 (33) 5.96 (29) -0.98 (25) -3.36 (35) Difference -1.39 0.56 0.56 N/A N/A N/A -0.93 IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Median 6.79 16.64 16.64 -1.67 5.04 -2.66 -4.66 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 22 Comparative Performance Total Fund Trailing Returns As of September 30, 2012 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 5 YR Inception Inception Date Total Fixed Income 3.16 9.06 9.06 6.05 7.07 6.46 5.84 10/01/2005 Core Fixed Income Composite 2.37 7.24 7.24 5.41 6.30 6.05 6.17 08/01/2006 Barclays Aggregate Index 1.58 5.16 5.16 5.21 6.19 6.53 6.53 Difference 0.79 2.08 2.08 0.20 0.11 -0.48 -0.36 Mutual of America Core Fixed 2.37 (30) 7.24 (37) 7.24 (37) N/A N/A N/A 7.37 (47) 06/01/2011 Barclays Aggregate Index 1.58 (90) 5.16 (91) 5.16 (91) 5.21 (91) 6.19 (91) 6.53 (81) 6.57 (89) Difference 0.79 2.08 2.08 N/A N/A N/A 0.80 IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median 2.15 6.62 6.62 5.97 7.15 7.15 7.34 Total TIPS 2.54 9.67 9.67 8.74 9.80 7.86 8.39 07/01/2007 Mutual of America TIPS 2.54 (14) 9.67 (19) 9.67 (19) 8.74 (70) 9.80 (19) N/A 6.44 (62) 04/01/2008 Tips Policy 2.12 (63) 9.10 (49) 9.10 (49) 9.49 (44) 9.42 (46) 8.02 (57) 6.48 (60) Difference 0.42 0.57 0.57 -0.75 0.38 N/A -0.04 IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 2.17 9.10 9.10 9.44 9.39 8.06 6.63 Total Global Fixed Income 6.87 15.90 15.90 5.91 N/A N/A 8.41 07/01/2010 Global Fixed Income Composite 6.87 (1) 15.90 (4) 15.90 (4) 5.91 (24) N/A N/A 8.41 (23) 07/01/2010 Barclays Global Aggregate 3.27 (63) 5.07 (88) 5.07 (88) 4.53 (45) 5.04 (66) 6.22 (32) 7.33 (43) Difference 3.60 10.83 10.83 1.38 N/A N/A 1.08 IM Global Fixed Income (MF) 3.45 7.50 7.50 4.37 5.59 5.61 7.00 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) 6.87 (1) 15.90 (4) 15.90 (4) N/A N/A N/A 5.40 (40) 07/01/2011 Barclays Global Aggregate 3.27 (63) 5.07 (88) 5.07 (88) 4.53 (45) 5.04 (66) 6.22 (32) 4.84 (53) Difference 3.60 10.83 10.83 N/A N/A N/A 0.56 IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median 3.45 7.50 7.50 4.37 5.59 5.61 4.93 Total Real Estate 2.81 13.00 13.00 13.55 12.68 -3.37 -2.36 07/01/2007 Quadrant Real Estate 3.11 14.95 14.95 12.94 16.45 -5.80 -5.80 10/01/2007 Quadrant Custom Policy 3.11 11.10 11.10 8.06 10.35 8.94 8.94 Difference 0.00 3.85 3.85 4.88 6.10 -14.74 -14.74 American Core Realty 2.58 (64) 11.56 (58) 11.56 (58) 13.81 (79) 9.98 (74) -1.10 (47) -0.18 (43) 07/01/2007 NCREIF ODCE 2.77 (45) 11.61 (58) 11.61 (58) 14.89 (55) 12.19 (46) -1.14 (48) -0.34 (44) Difference -0.19 -0.05 -0.05 -1.08 -2.21 0.04 0.16 IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median 2.74 12.35 12.35 15.13 11.85 -1.38 -0.54 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 23 Comparative Performance Total Fund Trailing Returns As of September 30, 2012 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 5 YR Inception Inception Date Total Timber -0.09 -5.86 -5.86 -1.12 -0.81 2.63 -0.20 06/01/2009 Amsouth Bank Timber 0.10 -1.33 -1.33 0.32 0.60 3.61 3.35 07/01/2007 NCREIF Timberland Index 0.75 2.25 2.25 1.25 -0.51 3.32 3.91 Difference -0.65 -3.58 -3.58 -0.93 1.11 0.29 -0.56 Molpus Woodlands Timber -0.30 -10.32 -10.32 -2.64 -2.32 N/A 0.63 06/01/2008 NCREIF Timberland Index 0.75 2.25 2.25 1.25 -0.51 3.32 0.66 Difference -1.05 -12.57 -12.57 -3.89 -1.81 N/A -0.03 Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures -2.34 -8.55 -8.55 -4.78 N/A N/A -1.44 08/01/2010 Barclay BTOP 50 -0.04 -2.60 -2.60 -0.53 -0.18 2.53 1.71 Difference -2.30 -5.95 -5.95 -4.25 N/A N/A -3.15 PIMCO DiSCO II 17.08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 21.35 04/01/2012 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 24 Comparative Performance FYTD Oct-2011 To Sep-2012 Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Total Fund 17.35 (44) 17.35 (44) 1.61 (17) 9.34 (48) -1.70 (89) -17.56 (75) 13.36 (34) Total Fund Policy 15.36 (70) 15.36 (70) 2.22 (11) 9.24 (50) 0.45 (77) -12.52 (23) 12.53 (43) Difference 1.99 1.99 -0.61 0.10 -2.15 -5.04 0.83 IM Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Moderate (MF) Median 16.66 16.66 -0.49 9.20 2.76 -14.99 11.95 Total Equity 25.94 25.94 -0.85 11.43 -4.41 -27.47 17.29 Total Equity Policy 22.99 22.99 -4.52 11.34 -4.90 -22.82 15.93 Difference 2.95 2.95 3.67 0.09 0.49 -4.65 1.36 Total Domestic Equity 27.44 (42) 27.44 (42) 3.01 (14) 11.37 (38) -5.53 (60) -27.88 (85) 16.59 (56) Total Domestic Equity Policy 29.64 (24) 29.64 (24) 0.48 (31) 11.12 (41) -6.42 (67) -21.52 (31) 16.44 (57) Difference -2.20 -2.20 2.53 0.25 0.89 -6.36 0.15 IM U.S. All Cap Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median 26.33 26.33 -1.88 10.34 -4.20 -23.49 17.23 Total Int'l Equity 21.58 (5) 21.58 (5) -10.95 (73) 9.69 (14) 4.11 (44) -26.32 (15) N/A Total Int'l Policy 15.04 (78) 15.04 (78) -10.42 (69) 6.37 (49) 3.80 (47) -30.13 (49) 25.38 (69) Difference 6.54 6.54 -0.53 3.32 0.31 3.81 N/A IM International Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 17.12 17.12 -9.08 6.19 3.11 -30.24 26.93 Total Fixed Income 9.06 (35) 9.06 (35) 3.12 (71) 9.16 (68) 8.40 (84) 2.79 (21) 5.53 (22) Total Fixed Policy 5.75 (86) 5.75 (86) 5.96 (8) 8.63 (77) 8.87 (82) 4.73 (5) 5.43 (24) Difference 3.31 3.31 -2.84 0.53 -0.47 -1.94 0.10 IM U.S. Broad Market Fixed Income (SA+CF+MF) Median 7.97 7.97 4.20 10.05 12.48 -1.62 4.90 Total Real Estate 13.00 (37) 13.00 (37) 14.11 (92) 10.94 (10) -25.07 (6) -21.39 (100) N/A NCREIF ODCE 11.61 (58) 11.61 (58) 18.27 (41) 6.97 (46) -35.19 (52) 3.18 (54) 18.21 (58) Difference 1.39 1.39 -4.16 3.97 10.12 -24.57 N/A IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median 12.35 12.35 16.62 6.39 -34.36 3.60 18.73 Total Timber -5.86 -5.86 3.87 -0.21 10.97 5.16 N/A NCREIF Timberland Index 2.25 2.25 0.26 -3.93 2.53 16.60 15.28 Difference -8.11 -8.11 3.61 3.72 8.44 -11.44 N/A Comparative Performance Total Fund Fiscal Year Returns As of September 30, 2012 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 25 Comparative Performance Total Fund Fiscal Year Returns As of September 30, 2012 FYTD Oct-2011 To Sep-2012 Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Total Domestic Equity 27.44 27.44 3.01 11.37 -5.53 -27.88 16.59 Pioneer Equity Portfolio N/A N/A N/A N/A -5.23 (70) -19.21 (38) 22.45 (11) Russell Midcap Value Index 29.28 (41) 29.28 (41) -2.36 (57) 16.93 (28) -7.12 (89) -20.50 (51) 13.75 (74) Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.89 1.29 8.70 IM U.S. Mid Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median 28.21 28.21 -1.52 15.45 -3.21 -20.43 16.01 Delaware Value 29.80 (37) 29.80 (37) 6.36 (5) 13.77 (17) -3.98 (34) N/A N/A Russell 1000 Value Index 30.92 (28) 30.92 (28) -1.89 (60) 8.90 (55) -10.62 (84) -23.56 (73) 14.45 (69) Difference -1.12 -1.12 8.25 4.87 6.64 N/A N/A IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median 28.62 28.62 -1.09 9.29 -5.88 -20.71 16.24 ICC Multi-Cap 18.56 (99) 18.56 (99) -2.79 (86) 13.54 (19) 14.27 (1) N/A N/A Russell 3000 Index 30.20 (28) 30.20 (28) 0.55 (62) 10.96 (50) -6.42 (59) -21.52 (64) 16.52 (62) Difference -11.64 -11.64 -3.34 2.58 20.69 N/A N/A IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 27.88 27.88 0.96 10.93 -6.07 -21.10 17.37 Total Growth 29.37 (33) 29.37 (33) 8.43 (2) 7.97 (79) -17.58 (100) -30.72 (98) N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index 29.19 (35) 29.19 (35) 3.78 (21) 12.65 (27) -1.85 (38) -20.88 (43) 19.35 (57) Difference 0.18 0.18 4.65 -4.68 -15.73 -9.84 N/A IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median 27.18 27.18 0.68 10.42 -2.98 -21.58 20.04 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 29.37 (36) 29.37 (36) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index 29.19 (38) 29.19 (38) 3.78 (29) 12.65 (35) -1.85 (38) -20.88 (53) 19.35 (57) Difference 0.18 0.18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median 27.64 27.64 1.24 11.27 -3.00 -20.53 20.20 DG Growth N/A N/A N/A 5.61 (94) -17.69 (99) N/A N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index 29.19 (38) 29.19 (38) 3.78 (29) 12.65 (35) -1.85 (38) -20.88 (53) 19.35 (57) Difference N/A N/A N/A -7.04 -15.84 N/A N/A IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median 27.64 27.64 1.24 11.27 -3.00 -20.53 20.20 Lazard SMid Cap Core 30.14 (51) 30.14 (51) -9.00 (98) N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell 2500 Index 30.93 (42) 30.93 (42) -2.22 (77) 15.92 (63) -5.68 (72) -17.99 (35) 15.17 (68) Difference -0.79 -0.79 -6.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 30.15 30.15 -0.15 16.69 -2.72 -19.02 18.69 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 26 Comparative Performance Total Fund Fiscal Year Returns As of September 30, 2012 FYTD Oct-2011 To Sep-2012 Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Total Int'l Equity 21.58 21.58 -10.95 9.69 4.11 -26.32 N/A WHV Int'l Equity 20.90 (19) 20.90 (19) -10.59 (72) 10.73 (36) -7.12 (94) -18.89 (5) N/A MSCI EAFE Index 14.33 (79) 14.33 (79) -8.94 (48) 3.71 (87) 3.80 (50) -30.13 (57) 25.38 (73) Difference 6.57 6.57 -1.65 7.02 -10.92 11.24 N/A IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median 18.31 18.31 -9.11 9.26 3.66 -29.16 30.48 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) 24.75 (3) 24.75 (3) -8.72 (52) 11.60 (15) 11.90 (21) N/A N/A MSCI EAFE Index 14.33 (54) 14.33 (54) -8.94 (57) 3.71 (64) 3.80 (63) -30.13 (73) 25.38 (40) Difference 10.42 10.42 0.22 7.89 8.10 N/A N/A IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median 15.04 15.04 -8.46 4.95 5.67 -27.35 23.99 Total Fixed Income 9.06 9.06 3.12 9.16 8.40 2.79 5.53 Core Fixed Income Composite 7.24 7.24 3.61 8.10 9.17 2.28 5.21 Barclays Aggregate Index 5.16 5.16 5.26 8.16 10.56 3.65 5.14 Difference 2.08 2.08 -1.65 -0.06 -1.39 -1.37 0.07 Mutual of America Core Fixed 7.24 (37) 7.24 (37) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Barclays Aggregate Index 5.16 (91) 5.16 (91) 5.26 (49) 8.16 (87) 10.56 (80) 3.65 (33) 5.14 (53) Difference 2.08 2.08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median 6.62 6.62 5.26 9.20 12.31 2.56 5.16 ICC Fixed N/A N/A N/A 8.10 (89) 9.17 (90) 2.28 (54) 5.21 (46) Core Fixed Policy 5.16 (91) 5.16 (91) 5.26 (49) 8.51 (74) 9.69 (89) 4.16 (21) 5.08 (60) Difference N/A N/A N/A -0.41 -0.52 -1.88 0.13 IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median 6.62 6.62 5.26 9.20 12.31 2.56 5.16 Total TIPS 9.67 (19) 9.67 (19) 7.81 (71) 11.97 (8) 3.76 (95) 6.28 (55) N/A Tips Policy 9.10 (49) 9.10 (49) 9.87 (33) 9.29 (63) 4.02 (89) 7.89 (14) 5.32 (26) Difference 0.57 0.57 -2.06 2.68 -0.26 -1.61 N/A IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 9.10 9.10 9.70 9.36 6.18 6.34 5.07 Mutual of America TIPS 9.67 (19) 9.67 (19) 7.81 (71) 11.97 (8) 3.76 (95) N/A N/A Tips Policy 9.10 (49) 9.10 (49) 9.87 (33) 9.29 (63) 4.02 (89) 7.89 (14) 5.32 (26) Difference 0.57 0.57 -2.06 2.68 -0.26 N/A N/A IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 9.10 9.10 9.70 9.36 6.18 6.34 5.07 Total Global Fixed Income 15.90 15.90 -3.22 N/A N/A N/A N/A Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) 15.90 (4) 15.90 (4) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Barclays Global Aggregate 5.07 (88) 5.07 (88) 4.00 (9) 6.06 (87) 13.51 (48) 2.80 (13) 8.20 (44) Difference 10.83 10.83 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median 7.50 7.50 1.43 7.93 13.44 -1.77 7.44 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 27 Comparative Performance Total Fund Fiscal Year Returns As of September 30, 2012 FYTD Oct-2011 To Sep-2012 Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Total Real Estate 13.00 13.00 14.11 10.94 -25.07 -21.39 N/A Quadrant Real Estate 14.95 14.95 10.97 23.79 -9.53 -48.08 N/A Quadrant Custom Policy 11.10 11.10 5.11 15.07 12.76 1.24 6.89 Difference 3.85 3.85 5.86 8.72 -22.29 -49.32 N/A American Core Realty 11.56 (58) 11.56 (58) 16.11 (77) 2.71 (75) -32.42 (37) 5.26 (29) N/A NCREIF ODCE 11.61 (58) 11.61 (58) 18.27 (41) 6.97 (46) -35.19 (52) 3.18 (54) 18.21 (58) Difference -0.05 -0.05 -2.16 -4.26 2.77 2.08 N/A IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median 12.35 12.35 16.62 6.39 -34.36 3.60 18.73 Total Timber -5.86 -5.86 3.87 -0.21 10.97 5.16 N/A Amsouth Bank Timber -1.33 -1.33 2.00 1.17 11.20 5.44 N/A NCREIF Timberland Index 2.25 2.25 0.26 -3.93 2.53 16.60 15.28 Difference -3.58 -3.58 1.74 5.10 8.67 -11.16 N/A Molpus Woodlands Timber -10.32 -10.32 5.68 -1.66 10.42 N/A N/A NCREIF Timberland Index 2.25 2.25 0.26 -3.93 2.53 16.60 15.28 Difference -12.57 -12.57 5.42 2.27 7.89 N/A N/A Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures -8.55 -8.55 -0.85 N/A N/A N/A N/A Barclay BTOP 50 -2.60 -2.60 1.58 0.52 6.25 7.21 10.20 Difference -5.95 -5.95 -2.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A PIMCO DiSCO II N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 28 Peer Group Analysis -All Public Plans-Total Fund Comparative Performance Financial Reconciliation Fiscal Year To Date Financial Reconciliation October 1, 2005 To September 30, 2012 Cummulative Performance Market Value 10/01/2011 Net Transfers Contributions Distributions Management Fees Other Expenses Income Apprec./Deprec. Market Value 09/30/2012 Total Fund (Gross) 109,237 -10,252 -10,958 -579 -304 4,105 15,004 126,757 Market Value 10/01/2005 Net Transfers Contributions Distributions Management Fees Other Expenses Income Apprec./Deprec. Market Value 09/30/2012 Total Fund (Gross) 97,183 20,657 76,289 -111,194 -2,502 -1,616 18,812 29,128 126,757 Total Fund (Gross) Total Fund Policy $80.00 $90.00 $100.00 $110.00 $120.00 $130.00 $140.00 $146.10 11/05 3/07 9/08 3/10 9/11 9/12 $137.86 $129.50 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅTotal Fund (Gross) 4.92 (42) 17.35 (63) 17.35 (63) 9.20 (35) 9.25 (49) 6.40 (78) 1.11 (91) ÅTotal Fund Policy 4.08 (87) 15.36 (84) 15.36 (84) 8.60 (56) 8.81 (68) 6.66 (72) 2.51 (59) Median 4.79 17.98 17.98 8.76 9.23 7.24 2.76 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Fund (Gross) -1.24 (21) 7.88 (60) 4.98 (80) -8.58 (22) 0.45 (82) 4.17 (46) Total Fund Policy -1.30 (23) 6.55 (88) 5.40 (74) -6.84 (11) 1.12 (47) 3.08 (91) All Public Plans-Total Fund Median -1.95 8.15 6.11 -10.23 1.09 4.07 As of September 30, 2012 Performance Review Total Fund (Gross) NONE Page 29 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅTotal Fund (Gross) 17 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 2 (12%) 14 (82%) ÅTotal Fund Policy 17 0 (0%) 5 (29%) 11 (65%) 1 (6%) Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 19.3 Total Fund (Gross) (%) -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 Total Fund Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 8.80 9.00 9.20 9.32 Return (%) 8.70 9.00 9.30 9.60 9.90 10.20 10.50 10.80 11.10 11.40 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Fund (Gross) 9.25 10.13 ÅTotal Fund Policy 8.81 8.86 ¾ Median 9.23 11.22 1.20 1.80 2.40 3.00 Return (%) 12.60 12.80 13.00 13.20 13.40 13.60 13.80 13.93 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Fund (Gross) 1.11 12.97 ÅTotal Fund Policy 2.51 12.72 ¾ Median 2.76 13.77 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Fund (Gross) 1.68 109.23 115.61 -0.68 0.32 0.92 1.14 6.08 Total Fund Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 1.00 5.14 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 8.86 0.57 -0.49 0.10 -1.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Fund (Gross) 3.38 97.59 111.27 -1.29 -0.40 0.09 0.98 9.30 Total Fund Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.20 1.00 8.45 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 12.95 0.52 -6.86 0.76 -0.20 N/A -0.02 0.00 As of September 30, 2012 Performance Review Total Fund (Gross) NONE Page 30 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. All Cap Equity (SA+CF+MF) Comparative Performance -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 44.31 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅTotal Domestic Equity 3.01 (14) 11.37 (38) -5.53 (60)-27.88 (85) 16.59 (56) ÅTotal Domestic Equity Policy 0.48 (31) 11.12 (41) -6.42 (67)-21.52 (31) 16.44 (57) Median -1.88 10.34 -4.20 -23.49 17.23 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 40.63 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅTotal Domestic Equity 5.05 (72) 27.44 (42) 27.44 (42) 14.57 (18) 13.50 (22) 8.41 (32) -0.08 (56) ÅTotal Domestic Equity Policy 6.07 (44) 29.64 (24) 29.64 (24) 14.13 (23) 13.12 (27) 7.88 (41) 1.23 (34) Median 5.85 26.33 26.33 11.45 11.22 7.19 0.22 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Domestic Equity -2.71 (11) 11.94 (70) 11.39 (41) -14.20 (15) -0.22 (57) 7.46 (26) Total Domestic Equity Policy -3.19 (18) 12.78 (57) 11.95 (33) -15.15 (26) -0.10 (53) 6.00 (59) IM U.S. All Cap Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median -4.91 13.08 10.67 -17.04 -0.03 6.33 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Domestic Equity NONE Page 31 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅTotal Domestic Equity 17 2 (12%) 3 (18%) 8 (47%) 4 (24%) ÅTotal Domestic Equity Policy 17 0 (0%) 13 (76%) 4 (24%) 0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 Total Domestic Equ i ty (%) -20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Total Domestic Equity Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 11.20 12.00 12.80 13.60 Return (%) 16.50 16.80 17.10 17.40 17.70 18.00 18.30 18.60 18.90 19.20 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Domestic Equity 13.50 16.76 ÅTotal Domestic Equity Policy 13.12 17.73 ¾ Median 11.22 18.97 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Return (%) 21.00 21.30 21.60 21.90 22.20 22.50 22.80 23.10 23.40 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Domestic Equity -0.08 21.18 ÅTotal Domestic Equity Policy 1.23 22.10 ¾ Median 0.22 23.19 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Domestic Equity 2.24 96.15 92.07 1.22 0.07 0.92 0.92 8.69 Total Domestic Equity Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.85 1.00 9.68 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 16.05 0.21 -0.21 0.10 -0.85 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Domestic Equity 3.87 95.44 100.41 -1.25 -0.37 0.06 0.95 14.33 Total Domestic Equity Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.13 1.00 14.58 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.84 0.62 -2.02 0.72 -0.13 N/A -0.01 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Domestic Equity NONE Page 32 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 34.93 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅDelaware Value 6.36 (5) 13.77 (17) -3.98 (34) N/A N/A ÅRussell 1000 Value Index -1.89 (60) 8.90 (55)-10.62 (84)-23.56 (73) 14.45 (69) Median -1.09 9.29 -5.88 -20.71 16.24 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 41.00 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅDelaware Value 4.99 (82) 29.80 (37) 29.80 (37) 17.50 (4) 16.24 (5) 10.82 (6) N/A ÅRussell 1000 Value Index 6.51 (43) 30.92 (28) 30.92 (28) 13.33 (41) 11.84 (51) 5.74 (74) -0.90 (78) Median 6.16 28.62 28.62 12.96 11.88 6.94 0.57 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Delaware Value -0.11 (5) 8.33 (90) 14.25 (11) -12.47 (18) 1.82 (13) 8.32 (12) Russell 1000 Value Index -2.20 (23) 11.12 (61) 13.11 (34) -16.20 (51) -0.50 (63) 6.46 (48) IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median -3.75 11.87 12.39 -16.17 -0.18 6.34 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Delaware Value NONE Page 33 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅDelaware Value 8 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) ÅRussell 1000 Value Index 20 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 8 (40%) 10 (50%) Over Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -6.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 27.2 Delaware Value (%) -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 Russell 1000 Value Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 12.00 14.00 16.00 16.98 Return (%) 15.60 15.90 16.20 16.50 16.80 17.10 17.40 17.70 18.00 18.30 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅDelaware Value 16.24 15.85 ÅRussell 1000 Value Index 11.84 17.54 ¾ Median 11.88 18.04 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 0.80 Return (%) 21.90 22.00 22.10 22.20 22.30 22.40 22.50 22.60 22.70 22.80 22.90 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅDelaware Value N/A N/A ÅRussell 1000 Value Index -0.90 22.82 ¾ Median 0.57 21.99 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Delaware Value 4.48 91.94 65.80 6.00 0.79 1.19 0.82 7.36 Russell 1000 Value Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.78 1.00 9.72 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 15.88 0.21 -0.20 0.10 -0.78 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Delaware Value N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell 1000 Value Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.02 1.00 15.17 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 20.24 0.60 -1.97 0.71 -0.02 N/A -0.01 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Delaware Value NONE Page 34 Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 35 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: Russell 1000 Value Index) Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Active (%) Qtr Rtn (%) Lowe's Cos Inc. 3.2 0.4 2.8 7.0 Quest Diagnostics Inc 3.1 0.1 3.0 6.2 AT&T Inc 3.1 3.0 0.2 7.0 Merck & Co Inc. 3.1 1.9 1.3 9.0 CVS Caremark Corp 3.1 0.7 2.4 4.0 Williams Cos Inc. (The) 3.1 0.0 3.1 22.5 Marathon Oil Corp 3.1 0.3 2.8 16.4 Northrop Grumman Corp 3.1 0.2 2.8 5.0 Motorola Solutions Inc 3.0 0.0 3.0 5.6 Mondelez International Inc 3.0 0.9 2.1 7.9 % of Portfolio 30.9 7.5 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: Russell 1000 Value Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($) 61,717,208,365 95,284,036,726 Median Mkt. Cap ($) 31,255,897,500 4,914,081,373 Price/Earnings ratio 14.2 13.3 Price/Book ratio 2.2 1.9 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 0.8 -1.2 Current Yield (%) 3.0 2.5 Beta (3 Years, Monthly) 0.82 1.00 Number of Stocks 34 690 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Williams Cos Inc. (The) 3.1 0.0 Halliburton Co 2.9 0.3 Marathon Oil Corp 3.1 0.3 Baxter International Inc 3.0 0.0 Allstate Corp (The) 3.0 0.3 Comcast Corp 3.0 0.7 Cisco Systems Inc 3.0 1.4 Chevron Corp 3.0 3.1 Pfizer Inc 3.0 2.5 Merck & Co Inc. 3.1 1.9 % of Portfolio 30.1 10.4 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Russell 1000 Value Index Delaware Value 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 33.0 36.0 39.0 41.4 >100 Bil 75 Bil -100 Bil 25 Bil -75 Bil 15 Bil -25 Bil 2 Bil -15 Bil 0 -2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation Portfolio Benchmark Performance Portfolio Benchmark Attribution Stock Sector Total Consumer Discretionary 6.1 7.7 9.67 9.38 0.04 -0.06 -0.04 Consumer Staples 14.3 7.3 -0.03 7.96 -0.58 0.11 -1.06 Energy 14.1 16.7 15.07 9.09 0.96 -0.07 0.73 Financials 12.2 26.1 7.71 6.89 0.22 -0.05 0.05 Health Care 18.3 11.7 5.77 6.03 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 Industrials 9.2 9.1 1.28 5.95 -0.42 0.00 -0.42 Information Technology 11.6 6.6 -0.83 0.40 -0.08 -0.32 -0.47 Materials 3.0 3.8 0.26 7.26 -0.27 -0.01 -0.22 Telecommunication Services 6.1 3.8 5.32 10.00 -0.17 0.09 -0.19 Utilities 3.0 7.2 -0.40 -0.22 -0.02 0.29 0.28 Cash 2.1 0.0 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.16 -0.16 Total 100.0 100.0 4.98 6.51 -0.34 -0.20 -1.53 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Intel Corp 2.9 0.4 Safeway Inc 2.3 0.0 Archer-Daniels-Midland Co 2.9 0.2 Cardinal Health Inc 2.7 0.1 Xerox Corp 2.8 0.1 Waste Management Inc. 2.8 0.2 Edison International 2.9 0.2 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co 2.9 0.0 Raytheon Co. 3.0 0.3 Johnson & Johnson 3.0 2.0 % of Portfolio 28.2 3.5 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 Delaware Value Page 36 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 37.85 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅICC Multi-Cap -2.79 (86) 13.54 (19) 14.27 (1) N/A N/A ÅRussell 3000 Index 0.55 (62) 10.96 (50) -6.42 (59) -21.52 (64) 16.52 (62) Median 0.96 10.93 -6.07 -21.10 17.37 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 41.00 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅICC Multi-Cap 6.18 (49) 18.56 (99) 18.56 (99) 7.36 (97) 9.38 (92) 10.58 (5) N/A ÅRussell 3000 Index 6.23 (39) 30.20 (28) 30.20 (28) 14.42 (35) 13.26 (52) 7.98 (65) 1.30 (59) Median 6.04 27.88 27.88 13.83 13.30 8.11 1.40 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 ICC Multi-Cap -8.15 (97) 13.77 (34) 6.84 (94) -17.54 (75) -3.20 (98) 8.00 (30) Russell 3000 Index -3.15 (32) 12.87 (51) 12.12 (20) -15.28 (42) -0.03 (61) 6.38 (55) IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median -4.17 12.88 11.43 -15.74 0.11 6.44 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 ICC Multi-Cap NONE Page 37 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅICC Multi-Cap 5 3 (60%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) ÅRussell 3000 Index 20 0 (0%) 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0 ICC Mu lti -Cap (%) 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 Russell 3000 Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 9.10 10.40 11.70 13.00 13.90 Return (%) 17.80 18.00 18.20 18.40 18.60 18.80 18.98 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅICC Multi-Cap 9.38 18.81 ÅRussell 3000 Index 13.26 17.78 ¾ Median 13.30 18.02 1.32 1.36 1.40 Return (%) 22.123 22.124 22.125 22.126 22.127 22.128 22.129 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅICC Multi-Cap N/A N/A ÅRussell 3000 Index 1.30 22.13 ¾ Median 1.40 22.12 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk ICC Multi-Cap 7.43 104.70 126.93 -3.79 -0.42 0.57 1.05 11.17 Russell 3000 Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.85 1.00 9.69 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 16.04 0.21 -0.21 0.10 -0.85 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk ICC Multi-Cap N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell 3000 Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.13 1.00 14.58 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.83 0.62 -2.02 0.72 -0.13 N/A -0.01 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 ICC Multi-Cap NONE Page 38 Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 39 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: Russell 3000 Index) Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Active (%) Qtr Rtn (%) Barrick Gold Corp 7.2 0.0 7.2 11.8 Ford Motor Co 6.2 0.2 6.0 3.4 Goldcorp Inc. 5.2 0.0 5.2 22.4 Newmont Mining Corp 5.2 0.2 5.1 16.3 Dow Chemical Co (The) 4.3 0.2 4.1 -7.1 Lincoln National Corp 4.0 0.0 3.9 11.0 Caterpillar Inc 3.8 0.4 3.5 2.0 Micron Technology Inc. 3.7 0.0 3.6 N/A Deere & Co 3.7 0.2 3.5 2.6 AT&T Inc 3.3 1.4 1.9 7.0 % of Portfolio 46.6 2.7 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: Russell 3000 Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($) 49,720,227,197 99,279,157,999 Median Mkt. Cap ($) 27,517,256,720 1,026,433,485 Price/Earnings ratio 11.2 15.5 Price/Book ratio 2.2 2.6 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 6.7 8.0 Current Yield (%) 2.1 2.0 Beta (3 Years, Monthly) 1.05 1.00 Number of Stocks 46 2,961 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Frontier Communications Corp 0.1 0.0 Google Inc 2.2 1.2 International Paper Co 1.1 0.1 Goldcorp Inc. 5.2 0.0 Chemtura Corp 0.4 0.0 Copart Inc 1.9 0.0 Marathon Oil Corp 1.0 0.1 Pall Corp 1.8 0.1 Newmont Mining Corp 5.2 0.2 Allstate Corp (The) 0.2 0.1 % of Portfolio 19.1 1.9 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Russell 3000 Index ICC Multi-Cap 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 48.0 52.0 56.0 59.8 >100 Bil 75 Bil -100 Bil 25 Bil -75 Bil 15 Bil -25 Bil 2 Bil -15 Bil 0 -2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation Portfolio Benchmark Performance Portfolio Benchmark Attribution Stock Sector Total Consumer Discretionary 8.3 12.0 5.64 7.95 -0.26 -0.07 -0.27 Consumer Staples 1.9 9.7 3.99 3.78 0.01 0.19 0.18 Energy 4.2 10.0 2.85 10.02 -0.72 -0.22 -0.52 Financials 13.3 15.9 9.15 6.16 0.49 0.00 0.42 Health Care 9.1 11.9 1.38 6.43 -0.61 -0.03 -0.54 Industrials 21.6 10.9 0.26 3.62 -0.38 -0.28 -1.03 Information Technology 12.8 19.1 5.63 6.62 -0.18 -0.01 -0.14 Materials 21.2 3.9 13.02 6.71 0.25 0.19 1.88 Telecommunication Services 5.9 2.9 5.83 8.03 -0.06 0.11 0.00 Utilities 0.0 3.7 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.21 0.21 Cash 1.8 0.0 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.11 -0.11 Total 100.0 100.0 6.30 6.23 -1.46 -0.02 0.08 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) AMR Corp. 0.4 0.0 Con-Way Inc 1.7 0.0 Tyson Foods Inc. 1.5 0.0 Hewlett-Packard Co 1.8 0.2 Dow Chemical Co (The) 4.3 0.2 Cerner Corp 1.8 0.1 Boeing Co (The) 2.5 0.3 Cummins Inc. 0.9 0.1 Microsoft Corp 0.9 1.4 Agilent Technologies Inc 2.0 0.1 % of Portfolio 17.9 2.5 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 ICC Multi-Cap Page 40 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF+MF) Comparative Performance -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅTotal Growth 8.43 (2) 7.97 (79)-17.58 (100)-30.72 (98) N/A ÅRussell 1000 Growth Index 3.78 (21) 12.65 (27) -1.85 (38) -20.88 (43) 19.35 (57) Median 0.68 10.42 -2.98 -21.58 20.04 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 40.35 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅTotal Growth 4.89 (86) 29.37 (33) 29.37 (33) 18.44 (4) 14.84 (16) 5.70 (90) -2.86 (98) ÅRussell 1000 Growth Index 6.11 (55) 29.19 (35) 29.19 (35) 15.79 (17) 14.73 (17) 10.34 (20) 3.24 (22) Median 6.24 27.18 27.18 13.06 12.29 8.33 1.87 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Growth -1.56 (3) 13.82 (86) 10.08 (37) -8.98 (3) 0.68 (42) 5.93 (38) Russell 1000 Growth Index -4.02 (19) 14.69 (71) 10.61 (24) -13.14 (22) 0.76 (39) 6.03 (35) IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median -5.54 15.90 9.57 -14.88 0.35 5.36 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Growth NONE Page 41 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅTotal Growth 10 2 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 7 (70%) ÅRussell 1000 Growth Index 20 5 (25%) 13 (65%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 Total Growth (%) -20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Russell 1000 Growth Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 Return (%) 15.20 15.60 16.00 16.40 16.80 17.20 17.60 18.00 18.40 18.80 19.20 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Growth 14.84 15.50 ÅRussell 1000 Growth Index 14.73 17.71 ¾ Median 12.29 18.75 -2.10 0.00 2.10 4.20 Return (%) 21.60 21.80 22.00 22.20 22.40 22.60 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Growth -2.86 22.26 ÅRussell 1000 Growth Index 3.24 21.63 ¾ Median 1.87 22.48 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Growth 3.23 91.22 83.75 1.71 -0.05 1.05 0.88 8.01 Russell 1000 Growth Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.94 1.00 9.29 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 15.85 0.21 -0.22 0.10 -0.94 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Growth 6.35 85.53 107.57 -5.66 -0.95 -0.08 0.96 15.29 Russell 1000 Growth Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.23 1.00 14.00 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.36 0.62 -2.17 0.74 -0.23 N/A -0.01 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Growth NONE Page 42 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 44.34 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅSawgrass Large Cap Growth N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅRussell 1000 Growth Index 3.78 (29) 12.65 (35) -1.85 (38)-20.88 (53) 19.35 (57) Median 1.24 11.27 -3.00 -20.53 20.20 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 41.00 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅSawgrass Large Cap Growth 4.89 (82) 29.37 (36) 29.37 (36) N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅRussell 1000 Growth Index 6.11 (54) 29.19 (38) 29.19 (38) 15.79 (26) 14.73 (29) 10.34 (29) 3.24 (33) Median 6.19 27.64 27.64 13.91 13.10 8.88 2.47 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth -1.56 (4) 13.82 (75) 10.08 (51) N/A N/A N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index -4.02 (29) 14.69 (63) 10.61 (38) -13.14 (27) 0.76 (48) 6.03 (47) IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median -5.14 15.29 10.11 -14.61 0.64 5.84 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth NONE Page 43 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth Index) Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Active (%) Qtr Rtn (%) Apple Inc 8.7 8.6 0.1 14.7 International Business Machines Corp 7.3 3.1 4.2 6.5 CVS Caremark Corp 6.7 0.2 6.6 4.0 Verizon Communications Inc 6.6 1.8 4.9 3.7 Abbott Laboratories 6.4 1.4 5.0 7.2 Microsoft Corp 6.0 3.1 2.9 -2.1 Coca-Cola Co (The) 6.0 2.0 4.0 -2.3 Chevron Corp 5.9 0.0 5.9 11.4 MasterCard Inc 5.4 0.7 4.7 5.0 Ecolab Inc. 5.1 0.2 4.9 -5.1 % of Portfolio 64.2 21.2 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($) 154,946,550,954 119,681,596,404 Median Mkt. Cap ($) 58,904,465,940 6,117,302,000 Price/Earnings ratio 16.9 18.4 Price/Book ratio 3.4 4.1 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 17.7 17.5 Current Yield (%) 1.7 1.6 Beta N/A 1.00 Number of Stocks 19 567 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Celgene Corp 4.5 0.5 Apple Inc 8.7 8.6 Express Scripts Holding Co 5.0 0.7 Chevron Corp 5.9 0.0 DIRECTV 4.9 0.5 Abbott Laboratories 6.4 1.4 International Business Machines Corp 7.3 3.1 Wal-Mart Stores Inc 4.0 1.4 Danaher Corp 3.7 0.2 MasterCard Inc 5.4 0.7 % of Portfolio 55.7 17.0 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Russell 1000 Growth Index Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 48.0 52.0 56.0 58.7 >100 Bil 75 Bil -100 Bil 25 Bil -75 Bil 15 Bil -25 Bil 2 Bil -15 Bil 0 -2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation Portfolio Benchmark Performance Portfolio Benchmark Attribution Stock Sector Total Consumer Discretionary 14.0 16.1 4.61 7.34 -0.44 -0.03 -0.32 Consumer Staples 16.9 13.2 1.34 1.55 -0.04 -0.19 -0.19 Energy 5.7 3.9 11.37 14.84 -0.12 0.16 -0.03 Financials 0.0 4.5 0.00 2.19 0.00 0.17 0.17 Health Care 12.1 11.8 9.98 7.15 0.34 0.12 0.35 Industrials 7.3 12.1 4.26 1.86 0.29 0.20 0.38 Information Technology 27.7 32.1 6.93 8.35 -0.45 -0.08 -0.49 Materials 5.3 3.8 -5.13 4.88 -0.39 -0.02 -0.58 Telecommunication Services 6.6 2.3 3.70 4.61 -0.02 -0.07 -0.13 Utilities 0.0 0.2 0.00 12.31 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 Cash 4.3 0.0 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.26 -0.26 Total 100.0 100.0 4.99 6.09 -0.83 -0.02 -1.11 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Ecolab Inc. 5.1 0.2 Coca-Cola Co (The) 6.0 2.0 Microsoft Corp 6.0 3.1 Caterpillar Inc 3.1 0.8 Kroger Co. (The) 4.9 0.2 Verizon Communications Inc 6.6 1.8 CVS Caremark Corp 6.7 0.2 TJX Companies Inc (The) 4.6 0.5 MasterCard Inc 5.4 0.7 Danaher Corp 3.7 0.2 % of Portfolio 52.1 9.6 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth Page 44 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅLazard SMid Cap Core -9.00 (98) N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅRussell 2500 Index -2.22 (77) 15.92 (63) -5.68 (72) -17.99 (35) 15.17 (68) Median -0.15 16.69 -2.72 -19.02 18.69 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 41.00 44.00 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅLazard SMid Cap Core 4.30 (77) 30.14 (51) 30.14 (51) 8.82 (96) N/A N/A N/A ÅRussell 2500 Index 5.57 (55) 30.93 (42) 30.93 (42) 13.15 (63) 14.06 (63) 8.77 (72) 2.80 (73) Median 5.87 30.15 30.15 14.40 15.08 10.32 4.08 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Lazard SMid Cap Core -5.04 (49) 13.47 (52) 15.81 (26) -25.96 (100) -1.93 (99) 8.39 (66) Russell 2500 Index -4.14 (27) 12.99 (64) 14.52 (49) -21.22 (57) -0.59 (75) 8.70 (62) IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median -5.06 13.50 14.26 -20.60 -0.03 9.44 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Lazard SMid Cap Core NONE Page 45 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: Russell 2500 Index) Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Active (%) Qtr Rtn (%) Haemonetics Corp 2.1 0.1 2.1 8.2 Wintrust Financial Corp. 2.1 0.1 2.0 6.1 CareFusion Corp 1.9 0.0 1.9 10.6 Arch Capital Group Ltd 1.9 0.2 1.7 4.9 VCA Antech Inc 1.8 0.1 1.7 -10.3 NetScout Systems Inc 1.8 0.0 1.8 18.2 TriMas Corp 1.8 0.0 1.7 20.0 Xilinx Inc. 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.2 Validus Holdings Ltd 1.7 0.1 1.6 6.6 PS Business Parks Inc. 1.7 0.0 1.6 -0.7 % of Portfolio 18.4 0.6 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: Russell 2500 Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($) 2,982,922,236 2,796,397,302 Median Mkt. Cap ($) 2,163,508,760 717,608,760 Price/Earnings ratio 18.5 16.7 Price/Book ratio 2.2 2.2 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 7.1 4.9 Current Yield (%) 1.0 1.5 Beta N/A 1.00 Number of Stocks 78 2,472 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Ann Inc 1.1 0.1 Rock-Tenn Co 1.3 0.2 MasTec Inc. 1.5 0.0 Rosetta Resources Inc 0.6 0.1 Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp 0.7 0.1 j2 Global Inc 1.3 0.1 Brown Shoe Co Inc. 1.0 0.0 U S Silica Holdings Inc 1.4 0.0 TriMas Corp 1.8 0.0 Targa Resources Corp 0.7 0.1 % of Portfolio 11.4 0.7 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Russell 2500 Index Lazard SMid Cap Core 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 2 Bil -15 Bil 0 -2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation Portfolio Benchmark Performance Portfolio Benchmark Attribution Stock Sector Total Consumer Discretionary 13.1 14.0 10.10 7.93 0.30 -0.01 0.26 Consumer Staples 3.6 3.1 5.23 2.11 0.10 -0.02 0.09 Energy 4.2 6.2 14.13 8.75 0.33 -0.10 0.01 Financials 22.7 22.4 1.86 4.22 -0.53 0.00 -0.55 Health Care 9.2 11.1 5.49 7.69 -0.24 -0.01 -0.19 Industrials 15.6 14.8 4.32 4.37 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 Information Technology 16.7 15.1 2.08 3.05 -0.14 -0.03 -0.22 Materials 7.3 6.7 9.33 8.26 0.07 0.03 0.11 Telecommunication Services 0.0 1.3 0.00 15.31 0.00 -0.12 -0.12 Utilities 4.2 5.3 4.18 4.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cash 3.5 0.0 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.18 -0.18 Total 100.0 100.0 4.79 5.57 -0.11 -0.46 -0.79 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Walter Energy Inc 0.5 0.1 Aeropostale Inc. 1.2 0.0 Hub Group Inc 1.2 0.0 Responsys Inc 0.8 0.0 American Reprographics Co 0.6 0.0 Innophos Holdings Inc 0.8 0.0 ON Semiconductor Corp 1.3 0.1 VCA Antech Inc 1.8 0.1 Echo Global Logistics Inc 1.0 0.0 East West Bancorp Inc. 1.3 0.1 % of Portfolio 10.5 0.5 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 Lazard SMid Cap Core Page 46 Peer Group Analysis -IM International Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅTotal Int'l Equity -10.95 (73) 9.69 (14) 4.11 (44) -26.32 (15) N/A ÅTotal Int'l Policy -10.42 (69) 6.37 (49) 3.80 (47) -30.13 (49) 25.38 (69) Median -9.08 6.19 3.11 -30.24 26.93 -12.00 -10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 27.29 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅTotal Int'l Equity 8.77 (11) 21.58 (5) 21.58 (5) 4.05 (34) 5.90 (20) 5.45 (20) -1.85 (16) ÅTotal Int'l Policy 7.49 (45) 15.04 (78) 15.04 (78) 1.51 (76) 3.11 (71) 3.28 (68) -4.48 (62) Median 7.31 17.12 17.12 3.13 4.36 4.01 -3.93 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Int'l Equity -6.73 (60) 14.83 (6) 4.37 (51) -22.85 (87) -0.68 (96) 5.02 (15) Total Int'l Policy -7.38 (75) 11.34 (48) 3.77 (68) -19.78 (48) 0.61 (85) 3.49 (54) IM International Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median -6.43 11.18 4.38 -20.01 1.98 3.58 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Int'l Equity NONE Page 47 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅTotal Int'l Equity 10 7 (70%) 2 (20%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) ÅTotal Int'l Policy 10 0 (0%) 4 (40%) 6 (60%) 0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 29.0 Total Int'l Equi ty (%) -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 Total Int'l Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Return (%) 19.00 19.50 20.00 20.50 21.00 21.50 22.00 22.50 23.00 23.44 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Int'l Equity 5.90 22.87 ÅTotal Int'l Policy 3.11 19.38 ¾ Median 4.36 19.87 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.40 Return (%) 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 31.93 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Int'l Equity -1.85 31.05 ÅTotal Int'l Policy -4.48 25.63 ¾ Median -3.93 25.73 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Int'l Equity 4.44 115.15 104.83 2.67 0.72 0.37 1.11 14.23 Total Int'l Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.25 1.00 13.21 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.18 0.17 -0.22 0.10 -0.25 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Int'l Equity 7.39 118.26 105.84 3.99 0.50 0.05 1.12 20.02 Total Int'l Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A -0.11 1.00 17.68 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 23.42 0.58 -1.61 0.69 0.11 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Int'l Equity NONE Page 48 Peer Group Analysis -IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅWHV Int'l Equity -10.59 (72) 10.73 (36) -7.12 (94) -18.89 (5) N/A ÅMSCI EAFE Index -8.94 (48) 3.71 (87) 3.80 (50) -30.13 (57) 25.38 (73) Median -9.11 9.26 3.66 -29.16 30.48 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 30.62 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅWHV Int'l Equity 6.17 (74) 20.90 (19) 20.90 (19) 3.97 (51) 6.17 (44) 2.68 (75) -2.05 (43) ÅMSCI EAFE Index 6.98 (57) 14.33 (79) 14.33 (79) 2.04 (68) 2.59 (85) 2.89 (73) -4.77 (73) Median 7.10 18.31 18.31 4.06 5.61 5.64 -2.71 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 WHV Int'l Equity -6.41 (40) 10.55 (90) 10.05 (1) -25.80 (99) -3.33 (100) 7.41 (1) MSCI EAFE Index -6.85 (52) 10.98 (85) 3.38 (65) -18.95 (33) 1.83 (51) 3.45 (42) IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median -6.79 12.91 4.28 -20.07 1.93 3.09 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 WHV Int'l Equity NONE Page 49 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅWHV Int'l Equity 10 1 (10%) 7 (70%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) ÅMSCI EAFE Index 20 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 13 (65%) 7 (35%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 26.7 WHV Int'l Equi ty (%) -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 26.7 MSCI EAFE Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 2.60 3.90 5.20 6.50 Return (%) 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅWHV Int'l Equity 6.17 25.87 ÅMSCI EAFE Index 2.59 19.14 ¾ Median 5.61 19.90 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 Return (%) 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 34.82 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅWHV Int'l Equity -2.05 33.55 ÅMSCI EAFE Index -4.77 25.51 ¾ Median -2.71 25.86 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk WHV Int'l Equity 9.05 115.90 101.38 3.86 0.47 0.37 1.11 15.81 MSCI EAFE Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.23 1.00 13.31 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.27 0.17 -0.20 0.10 -0.23 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk WHV Int'l Equity 12.73 119.59 105.48 4.56 0.33 0.05 1.10 21.23 MSCI EAFE Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A -0.12 1.00 17.73 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 23.46 0.57 -1.57 0.69 0.12 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 WHV Int'l Equity NONE Page 50 Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 51 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: MSCI EAFE Index) Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Active (%) Qtr Rtn (%) BHP Billiton Ltd 7.0 1.1 5.9 7.0 Potash Corp of Saskatchewan 6.5 0.0 6.5 -0.3 Nestle SA, Cham Und Vevey 6.5 2.0 4.5 5.6 Schlumberger Ltd 6.4 0.0 6.4 11.9 Diageo PLC 5.1 0.7 4.5 11.1 Noble Corp 5.1 0.0 5.1 10.4 Cooper Industries Plc 5.1 0.0 5.1 10.6 Rio Tinto PLC 4.7 0.6 4.1 -0.7 British American Tobacco PLC 4.5 1.0 3.5 1.8 Suncor Energy Inc. 4.2 0.0 4.2 14.0 % of Portfolio 55.1 5.4 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: MSCI EAFE Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($) 69,293,430,340 53,363,175,968 Median Mkt. Cap ($) 37,309,633,660 7,086,146,304 Price/Earnings ratio 14.9 12.9 Price/Book ratio 2.3 2.0 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%) 3.7 -0.1 Current Yield (%) 2.2 3.7 Beta (5 Years, Monthly) 1.10 1.00 Number of Stocks 32 920 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) BASF SE 3.7 0.8 Bayer AG 1.7 0.7 Tenaris SA, Luxembourg 2.7 0.1 Canadian Natural Resources 1.5 0.0 Suncor Energy Inc. 4.2 0.0 Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd 2.9 0.0 Axa, Paris 0.2 0.3 Schlumberger Ltd 6.4 0.0 Manulife Financial Corp 0.2 0.0 Diageo PLC 5.1 0.7 % of Portfolio 28.5 2.5 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) MSCI EAFE Index WHV Int'l Equity 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 33.0 36.0 39.0 >100 Bil 75 Bil -100 Bil 25 Bil -75 Bil 15 Bil -25 Bil 2 Bil -15 Bil 0 -2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation Portfolio Benchmark Performance Portfolio Benchmark Attribution Stock Sector Total Consumer Discretionary 0.0 10.5 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.48 0.48 Consumer Staples 17.7 12.1 6.25 7.12 -0.11 0.01 -0.14 Energy 30.8 8.4 7.62 6.62 0.09 -0.09 0.19 Financials 3.5 22.7 3.06 11.33 -1.86 -0.83 -1.12 Health Care 4.6 10.3 12.80 8.92 0.39 -0.11 0.07 Industrials 13.7 12.5 8.96 5.74 0.41 -0.02 0.41 Information Technology 0.0 4.4 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.25 0.25 Materials 28.7 9.5 2.94 7.32 -0.41 0.04 -1.20 Telecommunication Services 0.0 5.6 0.00 5.05 0.00 0.11 0.11 Utilities 0.0 4.1 0.00 2.48 0.00 0.19 0.19 Cash 1.0 0.0 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.07 Total 100.0 100.0 6.15 6.99 -1.49 -0.03 -0.85 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Vale SA 2.9 0.0 Teck Resources Ltd 1.4 0.0 Nabors Industries Ltd 2.3 0.0 PartnerRe Ltd. 1.4 0.0 Rio Tinto PLC 4.7 0.6 BG Group PLC 3.9 0.7 Potash Corp of Saskatchewan 6.5 0.0 Transocean Ltd 2.6 0.2 Weatherford International Ltd 2.0 0.0 British American Tobacco PLC 4.5 1.0 % of Portfolio 32.2 2.4 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 WHV Int'l Equity Page 52 Peer Group Analysis -IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 49.25 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅRBC Int'l (Voyageur) -8.72 (52) 11.60 (15) 11.90 (21) N/A N/A ÅMSCI EAFE Index -8.94 (57) 3.71 (64) 3.80 (63) -30.13 (73) 25.38 (40) Median -8.46 4.95 5.67 -27.35 23.99 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 31.43 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅRBC Int'l (Voyageur) 11.28 (3) 24.75 (3) 24.75 (3) 6.71 (11) 8.32 (8) 9.20 (9) N/A ÅMSCI EAFE Index 6.98 (57) 14.33 (54) 14.33 (54) 2.04 (63) 2.59 (66) 2.89 (69) -4.77 (75) Median 7.28 15.04 15.04 2.84 3.65 3.95 -3.15 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) -6.02 (33) 17.65 (2) 1.40 (91) -21.20 (79) 0.67 (72) 4.70 (23) MSCI EAFE Index -6.85 (50) 10.98 (50) 3.38 (57) -18.95 (55) 1.83 (42) 3.45 (54) IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median -6.86 10.89 3.59 -18.76 1.46 3.55 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) NONE Page 53 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅRBC Int'l (Voyageur) 8 5 (63%) 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) ÅMSCI EAFE Index 20 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 17 (85%) 1 (5%) Over Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 RBC Int'l (Voyageur ) (%) -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 31.5 MSCI EAFE Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 9.29 Return (%) 18.50 19.00 19.50 20.00 20.50 21.00 21.50 22.00 22.50 23.00 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅRBC Int'l (Voyageur) 8.32 22.49 ÅMSCI EAFE Index 2.59 19.14 ¾ Median 3.65 18.90 -4.80 -4.20 -3.60 -3.00 Return (%) 24.20 24.40 24.60 24.80 25.00 25.20 25.40 25.60 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅRBC Int'l (Voyageur) N/A N/A ÅMSCI EAFE Index -4.77 25.51 ¾ Median -3.15 24.32 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk RBC Int'l (Voyageur) 6.55 119.29 98.61 5.74 0.91 0.47 1.08 13.79 MSCI EAFE Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.23 1.00 13.31 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.27 0.17 -0.20 0.10 -0.23 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk RBC Int'l (Voyageur) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MSCI EAFE Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A -0.12 1.00 17.73 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 23.46 0.57 -1.57 0.69 0.12 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) NONE Page 54 Peer Group Analysis -IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Comparative Performance -60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅVanguard Emerging (VERSX) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅMSCI Emerging Markets Index -15.89 (34) 20.54 (35) 19.44 (25)-33.01 (43) 58.63 (29) Median -17.84 18.97 13.46 -33.67 54.77 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅVanguard Emerging (VERSX) 6.50 (64) 17.90 (34) 17.90 (34) N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅMSCI Emerging Markets Index 7.89 (21) 17.34 (44) 17.34 (44) -0.66 (33) 5.96 (29) 9.18 (20) -0.98 (25) Median 6.79 16.64 16.64 -1.67 5.04 6.85 -2.66 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) -8.38 (51) 13.98 (46) 6.01 (15) -24.00 (55) -0.95 (48) N/A MSCI Emerging Markets Index -8.77 (60) 14.14 (42) 4.45 (51) -22.46 (38) -1.04 (55) 2.10 (20) IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Median -8.37 13.77 4.46 -23.63 -0.99 0.75 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) NONE Page 55 Fund Information Fund Name : Vanguard International Equity Index Funds: Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund; Signal Class Shares Portfolio Assets : $71,720 Million Fund Family : Vanguard Group Inc Portfolio Manager : Michael Perre Ticker : VERSX PM Tenure : 2008 Inception Date : 01/19/2007 Fund Style : IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Fund Assets : $916 Million Style Benchmark : MSCI Emerging Markets Index Portfolio Turnover : 10% Top Ten Securities As of 06/30/2012 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd DR 2.1% China Mobile Ltd ORD 1.8% America Movil SAB de CV ORD 1.4% China Construction Bank Corp ORD 1.3% Vale SA DR 1.3% Gazprom OAO DR 1.2% Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd DR 1.2% Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ORD 1.0% Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd ORD 1.0% CNOOC Ltd ORD 1.0% Portfolio Characteristics As of 06/30/2012 Portfolio Benchmark Total Securities 888 819 Avg. Market Cap ($) 38,975,597,596 4,264,367,184 Price/Earnings (P/E) 15.90 9.92 Price/Book (P/B) 2.86 2.13 Dividend Yield 3.15 3.08 Annual EPS 11.01 N/A 5 Yr EPS 15.27 12.77 3 Yr EPS Growth 20.45 N/A Beta N/A 1.00 Region Weights As of 06/30/2012 MSCI Emerging Markets Index Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Other Frontier Markets Pacific ex Japan EM Mid East+Africa North America EM Latin America EM Europe EM Asia Sector Weights As of 06/30/2012 MSCI Emerging Markets Index Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 Utilities Telecommunication Services Materials Information Technology Industrials Health Care Financials Energy Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Other Strategy Review Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) As of September 30, 2012 Statistics provided by Lipper. Most recent available data shown. Page 56 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. Broad Market Fixed Income (SA+CF+MF) Comparative Performance -16.00 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 25.52 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅTotal Fixed Income 3.12 (71) 9.16 (68) 8.40 (84) 2.79 (21) 5.53 (22) ÅTotal Fixed Policy 5.96 (8) 8.63 (77) 8.87 (82) 4.73 (5) 5.43 (24) Median 4.20 10.05 12.48 -1.62 4.90 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 16.97 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅTotal Fixed Income 3.16 (30) 9.06 (35) 9.06 (35) 6.05 (49) 7.07 (61) 7.40 (80) 6.46 (60) ÅTotal Fixed Policy 1.67 (90) 5.75 (86) 5.75 (86) 5.85 (56) 6.77 (71) 7.29 (82) 6.78 (50) Median 2.64 7.97 7.97 6.00 7.38 8.67 6.77 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Fixed Income 1.49 (76) 2.52 (30) 1.60 (39) 0.98 (66) 2.49 (8) 1.03 (49) Total Fixed Policy 2.23 (26) 0.39 (91) 1.36 (55) 3.93 (8) 2.50 (7) 0.67 (72) IM U.S. Broad Market Fixed Income (SA+CF+MF) Median 1.95 1.71 1.43 1.95 1.94 1.00 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Fixed Income NONE Page 57 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅTotal Fixed Income 17 3 (18%) 2 (12%) 6 (35%) 6 (35%) ÅTotal Fixed Policy 17 4 (24%) 5 (29%) 3 (18%) 5 (29%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Total Fixed Income (%) 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.4 Total Fixed Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 6.80 7.00 7.20 7.40 Return (%) 2.49 2.52 2.55 2.58 2.61 2.64 2.67 2.70 2.73 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Fixed Income 7.07 2.66 ÅTotal Fixed Policy 6.77 2.71 ¾ Median 7.38 2.50 6.60 6.80 Return (%) 2.70 3.00 3.30 3.60 3.90 4.20 4.50 4.80 5.10 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal Fixed Income 6.46 3.13 ÅTotal Fixed Policy 6.78 2.80 ¾ Median 6.77 4.84 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Fixed Income 2.10 95.23 51.78 1.18 0.14 2.16 0.87 1.52 Total Fixed Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 2.38 1.00 1.18 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 2.74 1.00 -1.29 0.10 -2.38 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Fixed Income 1.93 95.45 94.37 0.07 -0.15 1.52 0.95 2.10 Total Fixed Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.78 1.00 1.66 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 3.33 6.18 -8.81 0.67 -1.78 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Fixed Income NONE Page 58 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Comparative Performance 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 14.94 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅTotal TIPS 7.81 (71) 11.97 (8) 3.76 (95) 6.28 (55) N/A ÅTips Policy 9.87 (33) 9.29 (63) 4.02 (89) 7.89 (14) 5.32 (26) Median 9.70 9.36 6.18 6.34 5.07 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 16.97 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅTotal TIPS 2.54 (14) 9.67 (19) 9.67 (19) 8.74 (70) 9.80 (19) 8.26 (72) 7.86 (68) ÅTips Policy 2.12 (63) 9.10 (49) 9.10 (49) 9.49 (44) 9.42 (46) 8.05 (74) 8.02 (57) Median 2.17 9.10 9.10 9.44 9.39 8.57 8.06 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total TIPS 2.90 (71) 2.14 (5) 1.76 (78) 3.29 (74) 3.02 (71) 2.23 (35) Tips Policy 3.15 (49) 0.86 (78) 2.69 (42) 4.51 (59) 3.66 (32) 2.08 (64) IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 3.14 1.00 2.67 4.55 3.56 2.11 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total TIPS NONE Page 59 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅTips Policy 7 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 3 (43%) ÅTotal TIPS 12 4 (33%) 2 (17%) 4 (33%) 2 (17%) Over Performance Earliest Date Latest Date 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 13.2 Total TIPS (%) 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 Tips Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 9.40 9.60 9.80 9.87 Return (%) 2.30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal TIPS 9.80 2.35 ÅTips Policy 9.42 2.82 ¾ Median 9.39 2.84 7.84 7.91 7.98 8.05 8.10 Return (%) 4.80 5.00 5.20 5.40 5.60 5.80 6.00 6.20 6.40 6.56 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅTotal TIPS 7.86 6.34 ÅTips Policy 8.02 5.35 ¾ Median 8.06 4.84 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total TIPS 1.35 93.98 62.52 1.94 0.24 2.40 0.83 1.46 Tips Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.99 1.00 1.86 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 4.54 0.65 -0.77 0.10 -1.99 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total TIPS 3.33 98.15 96.91 -0.12 -0.03 0.97 1.00 5.18 Tips Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.10 1.00 4.22 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 6.57 3.95 -3.86 0.70 -1.10 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total TIPS NONE Page 60 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Comparative Performance 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 14.94 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅMutual of America TIPS 7.81 (71) 11.97 (8) 3.76 (95) N/A N/A ÅTips Policy 9.87 (33) 9.29 (63) 4.02 (89) 7.89 (14) 5.32 (26) Median 9.70 9.36 6.18 6.34 5.07 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 16.97 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅMutual of America TIPS 2.54 (14) 9.67 (19) 9.67 (19) 8.74 (70) 9.80 (19) 8.26 (72) N/A ÅTips Policy 2.12 (63) 9.10 (49) 9.10 (49) 9.49 (44) 9.42 (46) 8.05 (74) 8.02 (57) Median 2.17 9.10 9.10 9.44 9.39 8.57 8.06 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Mutual of America TIPS 2.90 (71) 2.14 (5) 1.76 (78) 3.29 (74) 3.02 (71) 2.23 (35) Tips Policy 3.15 (49) 0.86 (78) 2.69 (42) 4.51 (59) 3.66 (32) 2.08 (64) IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 3.14 1.00 2.67 4.55 3.56 2.11 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Mutual of America TIPS NONE Page 61 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅMutual of America TIPS 7 4 (57%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) ÅTips Policy 7 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 3 (43%) Over Performance Earliest Date Latest Date 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 13.2 Mutual of Amer ica TIPS (%) 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 Tips Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 9.40 9.60 9.80 9.87 Return (%) 2.30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅMutual of America TIPS 9.80 2.35 ÅTips Policy 9.42 2.82 ¾ Median 9.39 2.84 8.02 8.04 8.06 8.07 Return (%) 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅMutual of America TIPS N/A N/A ÅTips Policy 8.02 5.35 ¾ Median 8.06 4.84 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Mutual of America TIPS 1.35 93.98 62.52 1.94 0.24 2.40 0.83 1.46 Tips Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.99 1.00 1.86 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 4.54 0.65 -0.77 0.10 -1.99 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Mutual of America TIPS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tips Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.10 1.00 4.22 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 6.57 3.95 -3.86 0.70 -1.10 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Mutual of America TIPS NONE Page 62 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅMutual of America Core Fixed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅBarclays Aggregate Index 5.26 (49) 8.16 (87) 10.56 (80) 3.65 (33) 5.14 (53) Median 5.26 9.20 12.31 2.56 5.16 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅMutual of America Core Fixed 2.37 (30) 7.24 (37) 7.24 (37) N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅBarclays Aggregate Index 1.58 (90) 5.16 (91) 5.16 (91) 5.21 (91) 6.19 (91) 7.26 (94) 6.53 (81) Median 2.15 6.62 6.62 5.97 7.15 8.45 7.15 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Mutual of America Core Fixed 1.84 (88) 1.32 (31) 1.52 (22) 2.72 (75) N/A N/A Barclays Aggregate Index 2.06 (68) 0.30 (89) 1.12 (71) 3.82 (27) 2.29 (38) 0.42 (82) IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median 2.15 1.02 1.26 3.31 2.24 0.67 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Mutual of America Core Fixed NONE Page 63 Peer Group Analysis -IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Comparative Performance -19.00 -16.00 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 28.07 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅTempleton Global Total Return (TTRZX) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅBarclays Global Aggregate 4.00 (9) 6.06 (87)13.51 (48) 2.80 (13) 8.20 (44) Median 1.43 7.93 13.44 -1.77 7.44 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 18.70 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅTempleton Global Total Return (TTRZX) 6.87 (1) 15.90 (4) 15.90 (4) N/A N/A N/A N/A ÅBarclays Global Aggregate 3.27 (63) 5.07 (88) 5.07 (88) 4.53 (45) 5.04 (66) 7.09 (62) 6.22 (32) Median 3.45 7.50 7.50 4.37 5.59 7.62 5.61 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) -1.14 (97) 7.80 (3) 1.76 (27) -7.86 (98) N/A N/A Barclays Global Aggregate 0.62 (48) 0.87 (89) 0.23 (82) 0.97 (30) 3.10 (16) 1.24 (65) IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median 0.58 2.50 0.88 -1.49 2.23 1.54 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) NONE Page 64 Peer Group Analysis -IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -70.00 -60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 44.49 Return Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 ÅAmerican Core Realty 16.11 (77) 2.71 (75) -32.42 (37) 5.26 (29) N/A ÅNCREIF ODCE 18.27 (41) 6.97 (46) -35.19 (52) 3.18 (54) 18.21 (58) Median 16.62 6.39 -34.36 3.60 18.73 -12.00 -10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 25.50 Return QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR ÅAmerican Core Realty 2.58 (64) 11.56 (58) 11.56 (58) 13.81 (79) 9.98 (74) -2.62 (52) -1.10 (47) ÅNCREIF ODCE 2.77 (45) 11.61 (58) 11.61 (58) 14.89 (55) 12.19 (46) -2.19 (51) -1.14 (48) Median 2.74 12.35 12.35 15.13 11.85 -1.91 -1.38 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 American Core Realty 2.72 (65) 3.02 (63) 2.77 (67) 3.19 (46) 3.84 (63) 4.48 (54) NCREIF ODCE 2.58 (72) 2.82 (74) 2.97 (53) 3.52 (40) 4.62 (45) 4.01 (69) IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median 2.95 3.54 3.04 3.17 4.32 4.49 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 American Core Realty NONE Page 65 Peer Group Scattergram -3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance -5 Years Peer Group Scattergram -5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking -5 Years Historical Statistics -3 Years Historical Statistics -5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Return Percenti le Rank 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count ÅAmerican Core Realty 10 0 (0%) 4 (40%) 4 (40%) 2 (20%) ÅNCREIF ODCE 20 0 (0%) 14 (70%) 6 (30%) 0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -12.0 -6.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 16.6 Amer ican Core Real ty (%) -12.0 -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 16.6 NCREIF ODCE (%) Over Performance Under Performance 9.60 10.40 11.20 12.00 12.55 Return (%) 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅAmerican Core Realty 9.98 4.76 ÅNCREIF ODCE 12.19 4.58 ¾ Median 11.85 5.57 -1.40 -1.30 -1.20 -1.10 -1.05 Return (%) 9.90 10.20 10.50 10.80 11.10 11.40 11.70 12.00 12.30 12.60 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation ÅAmerican Core Realty -1.10 10.17 ÅNCREIF ODCE -1.14 11.10 ¾ Median -1.38 12.38 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk American Core Realty 1.17 86.25 121.38 -2.11 -1.73 2.03 1.01 2.47 NCREIF ODCE 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 2.55 1.00 2.01 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 4.57 0.67 -0.99 0.08 -2.55 N/A 0.00 0.00 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk American Core Realty 2.46 91.42 92.56 -0.11 -0.02 -0.12 0.90 8.77 NCREIF ODCE 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A -0.11 1.00 9.54 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 11.10 5.82 -2.26 0.70 0.11 N/A 0.00 0.00 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 American Core Realty NONE Page 66 Total Fund Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Jan-1978 S&P 500 Index 65.00 Barclays U.S. Government/Credit 30.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Apr-2007 Barclays U.S. Government/Credit 30.00 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 5.00 S&P 500 Index 60.00 MSCI EAFE Index 5.00 Oct-2007 MSCI EAFE Index 10.00 Barclays Intermediate Aggregate Index 30.00 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 5.00 Russell 3000 Index 50.00 NCREIF Property Index 5.00 Jan-2010 MSCI AC World ex USA 15.00 Barclays Aggregate Index 30.00 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS Index 5.00 Russell 3000 Index 45.00 NCREIF Property Index 5.00 Jul-2010 Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (full-cap) Index 35.00 MSCI AC World ex USA 15.00 Barclays Aggregate Index 25.00 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS Index 5.00 NCREIF ODCE 5.00 Barclay BTOP 50 5.00 Quadrant Custom Policy 5.00 NCREIF Timberland Index 5.00 Benchmark History Investment Policy Benchmarks As of September 30, 2012 Page 67 Total Int'l Policy Domestic Equity Policy Tips Policy Total Fixed Policy Total Equity Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Oct-2005 S&P 500 Index 95.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Apr-2007 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 S&P 500 Index 85.00 MSCI EAFE Index 10.00 Oct-2007 MSCI EAFE Index 15.00 Russell 3000 Index 85.00 Jan-2010 MSCI AC World ex USA 25.00 Russell 3000 Index 75.00 Jul-2010 MSCI AC World ex USA 45.00 Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (full-cap) Index 55.00 Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Jan-1970 MSCI EAFE Index 100.00 Jan-2010 MSCI AC World ex USA 100.00 Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Jan-1999 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 100.00 Jan-2010 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS Index 100.00 Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Oct-2005 Barclays U.S. Government/Credit 95.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Jan-2007 Barclays U.S. Government/Credit 85.00 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 15.00 Oct-2007 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 15.00 Barclays Intermediate Aggregate Index 85.00 Jan-2010 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS Index 15.00 Barclays Aggregate Index 85.00 Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Oct-2005 S&P 500 Index 100.00 Oct-2007 Russell 3000 Index 100.00 Jul-2010 Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (full-cap) Index 100.00 Benchmark History Investment Policy Benchmarks As of September 30, 2012 Page 68 Disclosures: · American Reality, Molpus Timber Fund, & Regions Timber Fund are shown with a flat return for the monthly based flash reports, since these funds are only updated on a quarterly basis. · For flash or quarterly reports being produced early, investment results are reported on a preliminary basis. · Total Fund Policy = 45% Russell 3000, 15% MSCI ACWI ex US, 30% Barclays Aggregate, 5% Barclays US Tips Intermediate, & 5% NCREIF Fund Index-Open-End. · For flash or early quarterly reports, a 0% proxy is used for the NCREIF, because this index is released on a quarterly basis. · Timber Policy updated from a 8.50% annual return to a 8.40% annual return, effective 7/1/2009. · For the 2-28-2010 report being produced for the 3-17-2010 meeting, all timber and American real estate is showing the market appreciation/depreciation through December with January and February shown flat of any market appreciation/depreciation. · iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund bought 12/29/2009. · iShares Russell 1000 Growth bought 2/11/2010, reflected in the Growth Index account. · Pimco (PDIIX) inception date July 2010. · Abbey inception date July 2010. · Quadrant Custom Policy is released on a quarterly basis, so the monthly flash will show a 0% proxy. Writeup Disclosures As of September 30, 2012 Page 69 Report Statistics Definitions and Descriptions Return -Compounded rate of return for the period. Standard Deviation -A statistical measure of the range of a portfolio's performance. It represents the variability of returns around the average return over a specified time period. Sharpe Ratio -Represents the excess rate of return over the risk free return divided by the standard deviation of the excess return. The result is an absolute rate of return per unit of risk. A higher value demonstrates better historical risk-adjusted performance. Alpha -A measure of the difference between a portfolio's actual performance and its expected return based on its level of risk as determined by beta. It determines the portfolio's non-systemic return, or its historical performance not explained by movements of the market. Beta -A measure of the sensitivity of a portfolio to the movements in the market. It is a measure of the portfolio's systematic risk. R-Squared -The percentage of a portfolio's performance that can be explained by the behavior of the appropriate benchmark. A high R-Squared means the portfolio's performance has historically moved in the same direction as the appropriate benchmark. Treynor Ratio -Similar to Sharpe ratio but utilizes beta rather than excess risk as determined by standard deviation. It is calculated by taking the excess rate of return above the risk free rate divided by beta to derive the absolute rate of return per unit of risk. A higher value indicates a product has achieved better historical risk-adjusted performance. Downside Risk -A measure similar to standard deviation that utilizes only the negative movements of the return series. It is calculated by taking the standard deviation of the negative quarterly set of returns. A higher factor is indicative of a riskier product. Tracking Error -This is a measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's returns in relation to the performance of its designated market benchmark. Information Ratio -This calculates the value-added contribution of the manager and is derived by dividing the active rate of return of the portfolio by the tracking error. The higher the Information Ratio, the more the manager has added value to the portfolio. Consistency -The percentage of quarters that a product achieved a rate of return higher than that of its benchmark. Higher consistency indicates the manager has contributed more to the product’s performance. Excess Return -Arithmetic difference between the manager’s performance and the risk-free return over a specified time period. Active Return -Arithmetic difference between the manager’s performance and the designated benchmark return over a specified time period. Excess Risk -A measure of the standard deviation of a portfolio's performance relative to the risk free return. Up Market Capture -The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of positive returns. A higher value indicates better product performance. Down Market Capture -The ratio of average portfolio performance over the designated benchmark during periods of negative returns. A lower value indicates better product performance Calculations based on monthly periodicity. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE: November 9, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 TRI-PARTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE RELEASE OF THE RIGHT OF REVERTER RELATED TO THE OLD LIBRARY SITE AND CHAMBER RELOCATION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of the Tri-Party Agreement for the Release of the Right of Reverter encumbering the old library site and the Chamber relocation. BACKGROUND The City, the CRA, the Chamber and the Old Library Development LLC, entered into an Agreement known as the Chamber of Commerce Relocation and Public Parking Space Agreement dated April 21, 2008. The Agreement provided for the build out and relocation of the Chamber space to the northwest, (through Amendment No. 1) of the Old School Square garage retail space. Under the terms of the Agreement, the relocation would not occur until the closing of the old library property had occurred. Also, Old Library Development would pay to the City the cost of the rough shell construction, $567,810.00 and the cost of the build out of the space $473,175.00; the developer would also pay approximately $15,000 to the Chamber for moving expenses and other miscellaneous expenses; the CRA would pay to the City the difference in the fair market value, based on the original appraisal, and the rough shell cost in the amount of $315,450.00. All of these costs would be paid at or subsequent to the closing on the old library site. Also, the CRA, Chamber and City had previously entered into a Tri-party Agreement that provided for the transfer of the City parcels and Chamber lease to the CRA. That agreement provided that if the transfer from the CRA to the developer did not take place the City parcels (old library parking lot and Chamber site) would revert back to the City and the Chamber lease would be reassigned back to the City. The CRA, on September 12, 2012, terminated their agreement with Old Library Development LLC and pursuant to the Triparty Agreement the City parcels would revert back to the City and the Chamber lease would be reassigned back to the City. The Commission gave direction, at its October 9, 2012 workshop meeting for staff to draft an agreement to provide for the relocation of the Chamber as well as the removal of the reverter language in the current agreement. As noted above, the existing Tri-party Agreement includes a reverter clause stating that if the CRA does not convey the property to the Developer, the CRA shall convey the property back to the City. For consideration (described below) the City will provide a release of the original reverter clause, thereby permanently conveying title for all associated parcels to the CRA. The CRA will agree to create and maintain fifty (50) code compliant public parking spaces on the redevelopment site or within 300 feet of the City parcels. The consideration to be provided by the CRA as part of the new Agreement is as follows: 1) The CRA would buy out the City’s interest in the SE 5th Avenue property for $1,703,060.00, based upon the average of two separate current appraisals. The first appraisal conducted by Integra Realty pegged the value at $40.00 per square foot ($1.6 Million), while the second conducted by Anderson & Carr valued it at $45.00 per square foot ($1.8 Million). 2) Additionally, the CRA would reimburse the City for the cost of the building shell at the Old School Square Garage space in the amount of $567,810.00. This would replace the $315,450 that the CRA had previously agreed to pay the City to compensate for the value of the garage space. 3) The total of items #1 & 2 is $2,270,870.00 and will be paid to the City by the CRA in equal annual installments of $266,215.24, which includes a 3% annual rate of return to the City on the unpaid principal balance. It further requires that should the CRA dispose of the property prior to full payment of the stipulated price, the CRA will repay additional principal on the loan in an amount equal to 50% of the value received (until such point as the principal is paid in full). 4) The CRA will also (by separate agreement) provide for the relocation of the Chamber to the new location within one year of the date of the execution of the Tri-Party Agreement. The CRA will continue to be the Chamber’s landlord at the present site under the existing lease until such time as the relocation has been completed. The existing lease will then terminate and a new lease for the unexpired term will be put in place between the City and the Chamber at the new location. As part of the separate agreement with the Chamber, the CRA will pay up to $459,675.00 ($75/sq. ft.) for the build out of the new space in the garage (The total amount is slightly less than before based upon an updated and reduced space allocation in the garage space). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Triparty Interlocal Agreement for the Release of Right of Reverter Encumbering Real Property Relative to the Old Library Site and Chamber Relocation. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE: November 9, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REVISED LEASE AGREEMENT/GREATER DELRAY BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of a revised lease agreement with the Chamber of Commerce. BACKGROUND The CRA, Chamber and City had previously entered into a Tri-party Agreement that provided for the transfer of the City parcels and Chamber lease to the CRA. That agreement provided that if the transfer from the CRA to the developer did not take place the City parcels (old library parking lot and Chamber site) would revert back to the City and the Chamber lease would be reassigned back to the City. The CRA, on September 12, 2012, terminated their agreement with Old Library Development LLC and pursuant to the Triparty Agreement the City parcels would revert back to the City and the Chamber lease would be reassigned back to the City. The Commission gave direction, at its October 9, 2012 workshop meeting for staff to draft an agreement to provide for the relocation of the Chamber to the space at the Old School Square Garage (OSS space). Some of the more pertinent terms of the new lease agreement are as follows: The lease will expire on January 9, 2061 (the term stays the same as in the original lease). Rent is $1 per year (same as the original lease). Chamber will be charged for common area maintenance in the amount of $800.00 per year and shall be increased by the CPI each year, not to exceed 5%, unless the actual proportionate share exceeds the $800.00. Chamber is not guaranteed any parking spaces but will be given up 15 parking space passes to be used by their employees or subtenants in the event the City charges for parking. City has the right to relocate the Chamber at any time in the future if the City provides a comparable location and building. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lease agreement. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 14, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 FINANCIAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DELRAY BEACH MEMORIAL GARDENS MUNICIPAL CEMETERY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Attached is the Financial Review Board's report and recommendations regarding operation of the City's cemetery together with staff comments and responses. BACKGROUND A member of the Financial Review Board conducted a study of the operation of the City's cemetery. Based on this study he produced a report with recommendations which was adopted by the Board. This report with staff comments and responses is being presented to the Commission for your consideration. Some of the recommendations have been implemented while there are others with which staff disagrees. Staff from the City Clerk's Office and Parks and Recreation will be present to answer any questions the Commission may have. RECOMMENDATION The Commission may wish to give direction in some cases where the Board and staff disagree. 1 Wynn, Kimberly From: Harden, David Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 2:34 PM To: Wynn, Kimberly Subject: FW: FRB cemetery recommendations 4 9 2012 Attachments: 201209261528.pdf; Cemeterygravelist.pdf ; Cemeteryintermentrequest.pdf Please attach all of this as backup for the cemetery agenda item. From: Harden, David Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:17 PM To: CHRISTINA (christinadelray@gmail.c om); Reade, Richard Cc: Nubin, Chevelle; Karch, Linda; Simmons, Tim Subject: FW: FRB cemetery recommendations 4 9 2012 Below you will find the staff's comments regarding the Financial Review Boards report concerning operations of the City Cemetery. We will schedule this for presentation to the City Commission at a work session, probably in November. City of Delray Beach Financial Review Board Final Recommendations: City Cemetery April 9, 2012 BACKGROUND: The Delray Beach Memorial Gardens, originally named Pine Ridge Cemetery, has been part of the City of Delray Beach since the City’s inception in 1911. (Actually the cemetery started in 1902 when land for a cemetery was given to the Ladies Improvement Association. The Association deeded it to the City in 1914) It was expanded greatly in 1995 and now covers over 38 acres and contains a mausoleum. According to information on the City’s website, record-keeping was always a challenge for the Cemetery with many early burials impossible to locate and maintenance being haphazard, leaving many families to tend to the upkeep of their own plots. (We believe our records are accurate from at least 1976, and probably from 1973.) Presently, the City Clerk’s office (561.243.7050) is responsible for plot sale information and maintaining an up-to-date database of cemetery occupants and plot owners. According to the City’s website, additional information on burial records can be obtained from the Palm Beach Genealogical Society at 561.832.3279. (The Genealogical Society has published a book entitled Delray Beach Memorial Gardens Index of Burials September 1903 – September 1987 which, among other listings, lists by block and lot the names of persons buried there and the date of their death. The City Clerk’s Office has a copy of this book.) CURRENT CEMETERY OPERATIONS ANALYSIS: Mr. Jack Hallahan, FRB Member, researched the Cemetery operations and was informed that in January 1988 the Cemetery’s management was turned over to Total Prearrangements, Inc. on a twenty (20) year contract. They were to manage sales of property and build a mausoleum. The City was to handle all of 2 the maintenance, interments, site assignments, etc. Total Prearrangements defaulted on the agreement. After seventeen (17) months it was given to another company to manage, named Prearrangements with the same functions. Under Total Prearrangements they sold property and gave deeds. Money was collected by this company during the 17 months, but there are no records. During the twenty (20) years of contracted outside management, City Employee Robert Johnson, the Cemetery Supervisor, “manually” kept records of who was buried and where. After the operation of the Cemetery was brought back to City control, in 2008, Mr. Johnson was reportedly told he no longer needed to keep records, so he stopped. His records are the only ones in existence and now they are incomplete. (This is incorrect. When the City took back control of cemetery operations the City Clerk began keeping records in digital media using Pontem Cemetery Software. The Parks Department and the City Clerk’s Office have compared their records and found that the Clerk’s office has the same records as the Parks Department either in their computer records or in a hard copy file.) Mr. Hallahan received a copy from City Clerk’s Office of all of the plots that were sold and interments made over the past three (3) years. The City sold a total of thirty-five (35) gravesites, and there were 416 people buried. (Staff review of Fiscal Years 2009, 2010 and 2011 found 411 burials and 63 gravesites sold. See attached report.) This shows the pre-sold inventory is being depleted but there are no records of the inventory. An intensive investigative method would be needed to determine who is buried where and which plots sold prior to 2008 are in use. Of the 35 plots that were sold since 2008, there are reportedly no records to show if they were used. (Information on whether plots have been used is recorded in the Pontem software. One can enter the block. lot and plot information in the digital record and the record will show if the plot is occupied or not.) The City charges Opening and Closing Fees yet there are reportedly no records showing for which plots these fees were paid and no cross-referencing of fees to plots. (Every burial is pursuant to an “Interment Request” which shows the block, lot and plot for which the fees are paid. See the attached example.) Hence, there appears to be a lack of records showing which plots are in use and which are vacant. (This and the preceding paragraph are incorrect. The Pontem Cemetery Software can produce a listing entitled “Delray Beach Municipal Cemetery Graves List”. See the attached example. This list shows for every block, lot and plot the status as “Occupied”, “Sold” or “Reserved/Pre-need”. Plots which are in use are shown as “Occupied”. Vacant plots are shown as “Sold” or “Reserved/Pre-need”. “Reserved/Pre-need” means they are being paid for on a time payment plan. There is still work to be done to enter some of the information from the manual records into the software.) According to site plans of the Cemetery, there is a large drain pipe running through part of the Cemetery that reportedly rendered over 100 plots as unusable. Mr. Omar Bowra of the City Engineering Department deserves credit for his work in helping find the solution for the piping issue. First, he supplied Mr. Hallahan with the design piping drawings and was requested to and then capable of superimposing the involved piping drawings on to the Cemetery Plot Plan. This combined plan showed the 36” drain pipe appeared not to interfere with the burial sites in question. This was later confirmed during an on-site inspection. Mr. Hallahan attempted to meet with City Employee Tim Simmons to discuss and ascertain whether the 102 plots marked as unusable due to a 36” drain pipe were, indeed, usable. Mr. Simmons was not available so he met with Robert Johnson, Cemetery Supervisor, and his immediate supervisor, Mr. Simmons’s assistant. They walked the 36” pipe and proved that there is sufficient distance from any of the plots and determined that these 102 plots could be sold and used. The City Clerk reminded Mr. Hallahan that the City Manager is the only one that has the authority to release the plots for sale. (Apparently there was some miscommunication on this issue. These plots have been made available for sale and no action by the City Manager is required.) In September, 2011, Mr. Hallahan was informed that there was to be a meeting between Parks and Recreation and the City Clerk’s Office to confirm the number of grave sites available for sale. Mr. Hallahan asked if he would be invited to attend that meeting and was told “No”. He was also told the meeting will not be recorded and no minutes will be taken. Mr. Hallahan has been recently informed by the City 3 Clerk’s office that this meeting has not been held as of this date. (Staff from the City Clerk’s Office and Parks and Recreation have met several times to work on merging their records. One of the outcomes of these meetings will be a complete list of available grave sites.) Lastly, it is noted that the Annual Income from Cemetery operations is roughly $60,000 while the annual cost to operate the Cemetery is approximately $400,000. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. First and foremost, the City Clerk’s office needs to determine what plots have been presold but not yet used, the current “sold” inventory and what “sold” plots are not paid in full. Further, the total unsold inventory of plots available for sale needs to be ascertained and documented; (This is being worked on as staff time permits.) A suggested method of gathering this information is to include a “Notice to Residents” on the City website asking Residents to immediately contact the City Clerk’s office if they have a claim or a deed to a City cemetery plot and bring the documentation in for verification. This Notice could also be included in “News to Neighborhoods” communication. The Notice should also state that any outstanding balances past due must be paid within sixty (60) days of the publication and/or notice date. All plots not fully paid by that date will be returned to the City’s inventory and any partial payments will be forfeited without recourse and/or as permitted by law. (When the City took back administration of the Cemetery in 2008 an audit was performed to determine which cemetery lots were sold on an installment plan by Prearrangements. The Finance Department put in a tremendous effort contacting those purchasers by letter and phone call. This resulted in some of the purchasers coming in to either pay in full or have the City buy back the lots. If the City was not contacted we have taken back the lots and have been selling them) After ascertaining the current status, records should be updated and computerized and processes should be set in place immediately for future sales, monitoring and inventorying of all plots plus documentation of all plot openings and closings; (This is already being done, except for entering some data from manual records into the computer record.) 2. There should only be one Cemetery Manager and that should be the City Clerk’s office. This office is currently responsible for all cemetery records, inventory, sales and communications relating to cemetery matters. The responsibility for Cemetery management (sales, records, handling all phone calls, emails and inquiries regarding the Cemetery and other administrative duties) should be handled solely by the City Clerk’s office with no involvement or oversight by the Parks and Recreation Department. It is strongly felt that having three (Two departments are involved; Parks and the City Clerk’s Office) separate City departments working on the Cemetery have contributed to the disorganization and lack of accurate records. (We have accurate records since at least 1976, and we do not see any evidence of disorganization.) Having one department solely responsible for the management will allow the processes and records to be streamlined and tracked more accurately; (This has been done since the City took back cemetery administration in 2008.) 3. The responsibility for physical and maintenance operations of the Cemetery should be transferred, along with the permanent on-site personnel, to the Public Works Department, since that Department’s Mission Statement appears more compatible with Cemetery activities than the much larger Parks and Recreation Department’s. A copy of each of the Mission Statements is attached hereto as Attachments #1 and #2; (City staff strongly disagrees. Public Works does not do any maintenance of turf, trees or shrubbery. On the other hand this type of work is the primary responsibility of the Parks Maintenance Division. When the cemetery needs extra help it is easy for Parks Maintenance to send fully qualified staff to assist. Furthermore, we look at the cemetery as a “park environment”.) 4. The staff member assigned to the Cemetery in the City Clerk’s office should meet regularly and as needed with the staff member assigned to oversee the Cemetery operation in the Public Works Department in order to facilitate open lines of communication between Management and the physical and maintenance operations of the Cemetery in order to avoid future misunderstandings; (There is 4 ongoing communication between the Clerk’s Office and Parks and Recreation staff regarding the cemetery.) 5. Attached is a listing of adult burial costs for Delray Beach and the neighboring city-owned and operated cemeteries for in-ground burials. This is Attachment #3. It is noted that Boca Raton reported having only one price as their experience has shown that getting around the non-resident classification is easily accomplished. Boca also charges a one-time Perpetual Care fee for all in-ground burials, in addition to the other normal and customary costs, a fee Delray Beach should also strongly consider charging. (Increases to cemetery fees were approved by the Commission on September 20.) Boynton Beach advised that they just moved their Cemetery operation to the Public Works Department from Parks and Recreation. (Boynton Beach has their entire Parks Maintenance function under Public Works, which is the way some cities organize themselves. In my experience, having Parks Maintenance in a different department leads to coordination problems and conflicts between park maintenance activities and park use activities.) This has nothing to do with our same recommendation, which has been discussed for months by the FRB, and which was not reported to Mr. Hallahan until 3/23/2012. In Deerfield Beach, non-Resident fees are much higher and proof of Residency of the Deceased is much more defined. Acceptable proof must be current and valid and must include a photo ID plus one other form of identification for the Deceased at a City address as follows: Voter Registration card Water bill Electric bill Bank statement Phone bill Current medical bill. Delray Beach’s proof of Residency is not definitive enough. The Administrative Policy, CC-2, Page 3 of 6, Paragraph 4 is shown on Attachment #4 hereto and should be updated; (Although not explicit in our policy, we look for the same kinds of proof or residency as does Deerfield. We have amended our policy on this point to be more explicit.) 6. A review of the Parks and Recreation Cemetery budget shows the following costs, as shown on Attachment #5 hereto: Supervision function: $79,916. This equates to $6,660 per month and $533 per burial; Interment function: $88,777. This equates to $7398 per month and $582 per burial; General Maintenance function: $207,926, including water expenses of over $50,000 per year. This equates to $5472 per acre per year and $1386 per burial. (Is it really appropriate to charge current burials for the ongoing maintenance costs for all the prior burials plus the vacant areas of the cemetery? That is what a perpetual care fee would be used for. The invested principal would generate enough income for the perpetual care of the cemetery when it is full.) These figures are based on 38 acres for the Cemetery and 150 in-ground burials per year. It is noted that these fees do not include the costs incurred by the City Clerk’s office in keeping the records for the cemetery operations, which is an additional $40,000+/-per year. (We did not add any staff to the Clerk’s Office when they were given responsibility for cemetery records maintenance and lot sales. In fact, their staff has since been reduced. The incremental cost in the Clerk’s Office is $862 annually. We strongly disagree with the $40,000 stated above.) It is recognized that all burials are not adult in-ground burials so these figures may be slightly “off”. The above-stated costs show a total cost of $2511 per burial as compared with present in-ground burial fees of $1100 (resident) and $1485 (non-resident) netting a LOSS of over $1000 per burial; (As indicated above, we do not believe it would be appropriate to charge current burials for the cost of maintaining previously used burial sites and vacant areas.) 5 7. It is highly recommended that the City Manager immediately review and approve the updating of the Cemetery plot inventory (work on this updating is ongoing and requires no approval from the City Manager) and adjustment of burial fees since the current fee structure is inadequate compared to the costs incurred and in comparison to the fees charged by neighboring cities; (Fee increases were approved by the Commission on September 20, 2012. Also, the City Clerk’s Office is working with Environmental Services GIS staff to develop a mapping program which will enable the Clerk’s Office to generate a map of the cemetery showing occupied plots, sold but vacant plots and available plots.) 8. The adequacy of burial sites within the City should also be addressed by the City Manager and City Clerk. As reported by the Sun Sentinel, which reported a few details incorrectly but covered most of the story properly, Boca Raton believes it has 80 to 100 years’ supply of plots and Pompano Beach, with 3000 plots, reports having a 50-year supply. Delray Beach City employee Tim Simmons stated that Delray Beach would run out of plots within 5 to 7 years, based on the current usage of 150 plots per year. This may or may not be the case since there is not currently a correct inventory of available plots but records show that only 35 plots have been sold in the last 3 years, starting in 2008. It is also noted that the Delray Beach Cemetery has a super-abundance of roadways, some of which could easily be converted to plots, extending the cemetery’s life another 50 to 100 years. Proper planning and land use would make a huge difference in the lifespan of the existing Cemetery. (We agree that as the cemetery fills there are access ways which can be platted into blocks and lots and sold.) 9. Pricing for all Cemetery categories should also be evaluated and adjusted to be in keeping with those of surrounding municipalities; (Staff agrees.) 10. It is noted that not all burials occur in the City Cemetery. There are many private cemeteries throughout Broward and Palm Beach counties as well as the new National Cemetery in Lantana. 11. Periodic reviews of the Cemetery operations should be performed at least every three years to update progress and to implement and benchmark future recommendations. The Financial Review Board wishes to Thank Board Member Jack Hallahan for his considerable efforts in researching this Department’s operations and in the formation of these considerable recommendations. 6 7 8 9 10 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 14, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission for direction to either reject all bids or award a construction contract to the second low bidder for the US 1 Beautification project which is from just south of SE 10th St to just north of George Bush Blvd, Project #2009-009. BACKGROUND This project has been in the planning and design stages since 2002. The following is a timeline of the events that have already occurred related to this project: March 19, 2002; City Commission adopted the “Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan (Master Plan). One element of the Master Plan included the modification of US 1, both northbound and southbound, between SE 10th Street and George Bush Boulevard. December 2007; Commission approved the installation of the temporary modification along both northbound and southbound US 1. The temporary modification was implemented in an effort to observe how traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, along US 1 would operate under the Master Plan proposal. March 2008; temporary modifications were installed. February 2009; collected “after” data and compared to the “before” data, which was collected in April 2007, to analyze operation of corridor under lane reduction proposal. May 2009; presented results of “before” and “after’ data analysis to Commission. Volumes were lower after lane reductions (this has been the trend on US 1 since approximately 2000. Speeds were reduced by approximately 6 mph after lane reduction. Overall crashes were reduced by approximately 50%, and a 75% reduction in crashes at the US 1 intersections with Atlantic Avenue (at East 5th Avenue and East 6th Avenue). As a result of these positive findings, Commission approved proceeding with the final design and construction of this project. March 2012; Commission passed and adopted Resolution #19-12 authorizing the proper city officials to execute a local Agency Program (LAP) agreement with FDOT for the improvements along US 1 corridor. These improvements included: landscaping, lighting, minor drainage improvements and resurfacing both US 1 and E Atlantic Ave between southbound US 1 and northbound US 1. May 2012; FDOT issued the City a Notice to Proceed for the bidding, award and construction of this project. Several grants were obtained to assist in funding this project. Those grants are as follows: $2,803,189.00 Federal Grants $4,405,369.00 State Funding In addition to these grants the City has also received $178,734.00 in private contributions from development along this corridor. The balance of funding will be provided from Fund 442 Utility Renewal/Replacement, Fund 448 Storm Water and the CRA. On 19 July 2012 the City opened bids for this beautification project. Ric-Man International was the apparent low bidder with a bid of $11,178,888.40. A total of eight bids were received and the highest bid received was $19,114,210.10 (see Bid Summary below). FDOT identified possible irregularities in the apparent low bid and before FDOT would provide bid concurrency, a letter from Ric-Man International indicating that they will honor all bid prices was required. After several attempts to obtain this letter from Ric-Man International, staff was told that due to errors in some of the sub-contractors bid prices this required letter will not be forthcoming. Bid Summary After discussions with FDOT, staff was given two options for moving forward; 1)Award to the second low bidder, or 2)Reject all bids and rebid the project Staff has contacted the 2nd apparent low bidder to obtain assurances that if Commission chooses this option, they would be able to provide FDOT with a letter indication they can hold their prices for this contract (a letter from Sealand Contractors to the City is attached). The 2nd low bidder is Sealand Contractors, with a bid of $12,486,957.77, which is $1,308,079.37 higher than the apparent lower bid. Staff has had conversations with FDOT explaining the situation and trying to decide the best course of action. Typically FDOT would just go to the 2nd apparent low bidder and award the contract, but in this case the additional $1,308,079.37 funding needed to award to the low bidder would be provided by the City and/or CRA. Staff feels that rebidding the project may result in a bid lower than the second low Contractor Total Cost Ric-Man International $11,178,888.40 Sealand Contractors $12,486,967.77* Bergeron Land $14,349,228.06* Ocean Bay $14,664,493.21* Gibbs & Register $15,505,999.09 Weekley Asphalt $15,851,865.36* West Construction $17,318,445.20* JW Cheatham $19,114,210.10* *corrected due to error in bid bidder. If the City decides to not go with the second low bidder and rebid this project, the $2,803,189.00 in federal grants may be at risk because the notice to proceed, dated 08 May 2012, indicates that the invoicing for reimbursement of construction costs should begin in this month. FDOT has indicated that they do not know if the federal funds will be removed or be retained until the first actual construction invoice is submitted. FUNDING SOURCE See attached CIP Summary Sheet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends rejecting bids and rebidding this project. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 16, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 UNFREEZING A BUILDING INSPECTOR POSITION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Community Improvement Department is requesting that the Commission approve unfreezing a Building Inspector position. BACKGROUND As has been previously reported to the Commission, since the spring of this year there has been a large increase in construction activity in the City. The attached memorandum from the Chief Building Official outlines the increases in inspection workload resulting from this increase in building activity. If the Building Inspection Division is to be responsive to the needs of the construction industry and provide a high level of service, we need to have additional staff. We have also attached a report of the permit revenue which was received in October. The amount of revenue received is 165% of the amount projected for any one month this year. Based on the projects in the pipeline, which we are aware of because of applications being reviewed by the Planning Department, we expect that permit revenue for the year will exceed budget projections by a significant amount. These additional permit revenues should be more than enough to pay the cost of unfreezing this position. FUNDING SOURCE The cost of this position will be included in the mid-year budget amendment, with funding from the additional permit revenue in excess of the amount currently budgeted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission approve unfreezing one Building Inspector position. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: November 14, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 POLICY ON NAMING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission consideration of establishing a policy and procedure to govern the honorary naming of public places. BACKGROUND The policy is intended to add meaning, significance and uniformity to the honorary naming of public facilities, to minimize conflict and to provide a forum for meaningful discussion regarding naming. In addition, a consistent naming policy lends continuity and a sense of community and establishes a means of appropriately recognizing prominent individuals and those who have substantially contributed to the City, the State or the Nation. This proposed process can generate opportunities to induce dynamic community impact, create sensitivity and lasting public relations, express appreciation, and can serve as a means of education. For purposes of this policy, a public place means any building, facility, park lands, and other public spaces owned by or under the control of the the City, including interior and component spaces integral to the whole. This policy does not govern the naming of streets, per the direction of the City Commission, which adopted the following policy on January 25, 1994: "It is the policy of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida not to entertain requests for the changing of street names in order to recognize or honor individuals." The following words will have the meaning attributed to them: A. “Civic or Charitable Group”shall mean a non-profit entity or group that has made a substantial contribution to the community, either through civic involvement, involvement in historic events relevant to specific City property, or to the geographical location of specific City property; or made a financial and/or in-kind donation to support a specific public service or City property. For-profit entities of any type shall not be considered a civic or charitable group. B. “Individual”shall mean a person who has made a substantial contribution to the community, either through civic involvement, involvement in historical events relevant to the specific City property, financial contribution or to the geographical location of specific City property. C. “Honorary Naming Rights”shall mean the naming of City property to honor the service, commitment, or other type of participation by an individual, or civic or charitable group. D. “Properties”refers to City assets including, but not limited to, real property, facilities, parks, features (e.g. rooms, playgrounds, etc.) and other assets, but not including streets and lanes. E. “City Property” shall mean City-owned or controlled real property, public facilities such as buildings or parks, features or attributes of a facility such as a bench, tree, bridge, walkway, hallway or room, or other public venue. PROCESS: The process to establish honorary naming rights for City property shall be as follows: Any City Commissioner, citizen, group of citizens, or entity or organization may submit an honorary naming proposal to name City property after an individual, civic or charitable group. The naming rights proposal shall be in writing and shall be reviewed by the City Manager or his/her designee, and if found to be in compliance with applicable City policies, shall be referred to a naming committee established under this policy. Honorary naming proposals must include the credentials, character and reputation of the individual, civic or charitable group for whom the naming is being considered. As such, nominations submitted for consideration must be accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation. The City shall establish a “Facility Naming Committee” to review and make recommendations to the Commission on naming proposals. The membership of the committee shall be comprised of representatives from City departments (designated by the City Manager), plus representation from advisory groups, or friends, or recognized support groups with an interest in the property or facility to be named. The Facility Naming Committee shall review the merits of the naming proposal and supporting documentation as submitted and any other applicable history or other information deemed pertinent to the request. The committee shall convene meetings as necessary. After considering the naming rights proposal, the committee will provide their recommendation to the Commission, providing supportive information as appropriate to justify the recommendation. The City Commission shall consider the committee recommendation. The approval of any honorary naming nomination shall be by resolution of the City Commission. RECOMMENDATION City Commisison direction. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Douglas E. Smith, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 14, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 STATE AND FEDERAL LOBBYING SERVICES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is discussion of state and federal lobbying services. BACKGROUND At the October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting, the City Commission selected Ballard Partners to provide lobbying services to the City regarding transient housing legislation. The Commission also expressed interest in considering a full-service state lobbyist from the group of firms that had already submitted proposals. In addition, the Commission discussed federal level lobbying at the October 16 meeting. Staff requested additional information from the seven (7) firms that provided lobbying proposals: Ballard Partners, Capitol Alliance, Ericks Consultants, Florida Strategic Group, Greenberg Traurig, Ronald Book, and Weiss, Handler & Cornwell. Additional information from each firm is attached along with the original proposals. The additional information requested provided includes confirmation of the types of lobbying service offered, types of federal lobbying services/assistance that may be available, and information on several bills that the firms lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session. Some information about the firms has been summarized in the attached Comparison Table. Staff will be prepared to discuss the various proposals at the Commission meeting. In addition, a 2013 Key State Legislative Issues Draft document is attached for your information. It provides some updated information, including some text from Florida League of Cities documents. RECOMMENDATION Commission Discretion. State Lobbying Services -Summary Information Capitol Alliance Offices: Tallahassee Office plus professional associations with firms in West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, and Atlanta 2 $45,000 1 year No additional costs Yes Yes Yes, Palm Beach County, SFWMD, Army Corps Yes -in person, conference call, skype, video conferencing. Conf./video calls weekly during session. In person once a quarter or whenever necessary Yes, assist with strategic analysis of legislative needs and develop legislative agenda and educating/briefing Commission Yes, weekly during session; monthly during off session Yes, on specific issues. Also partner with Patton Boggs on various congressional appropriations issues. Very close relationship with FL Congressional delegation, and work closely with them on issues that impact FL and their clients. Strong relationships with White House and Executive Agencies and work on issues that affect their clients with those contacts. Work with Patton Boggs (full services federal lobbying firm) on legislation and appropriations items that affect their FL clients. City of Key West, Leon County, Port of Palm Beach , AT&T Develop City's Legislative Agenda Yes Clients have Included: Provide Federal Lobbying Services (summary of responses) Firm Name & Location # Legislative Lobbying Staff Assigned Cost Additional Costs (i.e. travel, printing) Max $250 per year. Anything else requires City preapproval Yes Yes Yes Boca Raton, Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach, Martin Co. & Polk Co. Yes Yes Lobby State Legislature Lobby Exec. Branch/State Agencies Lobby local and other agencies Meet on Regular Basis with City Provide Weekly Legislative Updates 3 (plus others as needed) $45,000 1 year Ballard Partners Offices: Tallahassee, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa No. The Firm has for other clients in the past, assisted on an as needed basis (at no additional cost) with members of the Florida Delegation. Excellent relationships with nearly all Members of Congress from Florida and even several from outside the State. In any situation the firm can assist in setting up meetings or advocating for positions beneficial to the City, they are willing to do so. Have done this in the past specifically on federal appropriations projects and in helping with decisions out of the Army Corps of Engineers. Have partnered with federal lobbying firms: Patton Boggs, Alcalde & Fay, Barbour Griffith and Rogers. They would base their recommendation on the issues and scope of work needed. State Lobbying Services -Summary Information Develop City's Legislative Agenda Yes Clients have Included: Provide Federal Lobbying Services (summary of responses) Firm Name & Location # Legislative Lobbying Staff Assigned Cost Additional Costs (i.e. travel, printing) Max $250 per year. Anything else requires City preapproval Yes Yes Yes Boca Raton, Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach, Martin Co. & Polk Co. Yes Yes Lobby State Legislature Lobby Exec. Branch/State Agencies Lobby local and other agencies Meet on Regular Basis with City Provide Weekly Legislative Updates 3 (plus others as needed) $45,000 1 year Ballard Partners Offices: Tallahassee, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa No. The Firm has for other clients in the past, assisted on an as needed basis (at no additional cost) with members of the Florida Delegation. Excellent relationships with nearly all Members of Congress from Florida and even several from outside the State. In any situation the firm can assist in setting up meetings or advocating for positions beneficial to the City, they are willing to do so. Have done this in the past specifically on federal appropriations projects and in helping with decisions out of the Army Corps of Engineers. Have partnered with federal lobbying firms: Patton Boggs, Alcalde & Fay, Barbour Griffith and Rogers. They would base their recommendation on the issues and scope of work needed. Ericks Consulting -offices in Tallahassee and Fort Lauderdale 4 $40,000 1 year All inclusive, except that for extensive travel, such as with federal issues, would request advance approval for expenses Yes Yes Yes, the entire team can lobby those and other agencies with the exception of Candice Eriks who cannot lobby Palm Beach County Yes Yes Yes Have strong relationships at the federal level and have assisted clients with federal issues. Many issues that they deal with at a state level are contingent on various Federal components. For example, they have worked for years collectively with clients such as Broward County, Palm Beach County, other cities, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority and JM Family on issues that require federal cooperation to succeed on a state or local level. Have also worked closely with the Administration for Children & Families’ Assistant Secretary, George Sheldon, who served as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Family Services before leaving for DC. They have relationships with various firms and would help the City team with whichever firm would be most effective depending on the specific issue being addressed. Broward County, Broward County Property Appraiser, Broward County Sheriff, Coconut Creek, Coral Springs, Fort Lauderdale, North Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines, Plantation, Palm Beach County, Davie Florida Strategic Group Offices: Lakeland 2 $36,000 1 year None Yes Yes Yes -as necessary Yes Yes Yes Yes. Currently provide federal consulting for the City of Lakeland and can develop a similar program for the City of Delray Beach. City of Lakeland, FL Association of Code Enforcement Yes -imperative to gain understanding of issues important to City. Should be a collaborative effort. 2 (plus others available to assist) $60,000 1 year Travel. Expect to keep to minimum. Plus typically include pre-approval for expenses over a certain level. Yes Yes Would focus on state level. However they have strong working relationships with local agencies (DB County and SFWMD). In FL and DC, have expertise working with US Army Corps and Corps of Engineers Yes -regular meetings will ensure highest level of representation for the City. Will meet in manner that best suits City (in person or conference call) Yes -During session, legislative language can change quickly. Important that close contact is maintained to ensure they are appropriately advocating our position. Greenberg Traurig Offices: Tallahassee (other FL offices -Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, Palm Beach County, Tampa) City of North Port, Florida Association of Court Clerks, AT&T Yes. DC Governmental Affairs team has successfully provided legislative representation and lobbying at the federal level for a number of municipal clients. Their team has achieved fiscal and policy successes on behalf of their municipal clients, securing more than $250 million in funding over the past decade. State Lobbying Services -Summary Information Develop City's Legislative Agenda Yes Clients have Included: Provide Federal Lobbying Services (summary of responses) Firm Name & Location # Legislative Lobbying Staff Assigned Cost Additional Costs (i.e. travel, printing) Max $250 per year. Anything else requires City preapproval Yes Yes Yes Boca Raton, Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach, Martin Co. & Polk Co. Yes Yes Lobby State Legislature Lobby Exec. Branch/State Agencies Lobby local and other agencies Meet on Regular Basis with City Provide Weekly Legislative Updates 3 (plus others as needed) $45,000 1 year Ballard Partners Offices: Tallahassee, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa No. The Firm has for other clients in the past, assisted on an as needed basis (at no additional cost) with members of the Florida Delegation. Excellent relationships with nearly all Members of Congress from Florida and even several from outside the State. In any situation the firm can assist in setting up meetings or advocating for positions beneficial to the City, they are willing to do so. Have done this in the past specifically on federal appropriations projects and in helping with decisions out of the Army Corps of Engineers. Have partnered with federal lobbying firms: Patton Boggs, Alcalde & Fay, Barbour Griffith and Rogers. They would base their recommendation on the issues and scope of work needed. Yes Yes Yes. During session, provide written reports weekly and phone and e‐mail updates as necessary for priority issues. Also provide written reports and updates coinciding with all interim committee meeting weeks in Dec., Jan.and Feb. Yes -maintain close working relationships with professionals in the Governor's office and state agencies. Yes -will also work closely with the Florida League of Cities on any item approved by the City. Yes -make themselves available to clients as requested. Able to meet with City officials/staff in Delray Beach or by conference call at any time Boca Raton, PBC Sheriff & Broward County Sheriff Yes. During legislative session will provide a weekly summary report detailing legislative action taken during the week, status of legislative issues, and anticipated action during the upcoming week. 19 Florida Cities & 4 Counties 3 $50,000 1 year None Yes Yes Yes Weiss, Handler & Cornwell Offices: Boca Raton, Tallahassee Ronald Book Offices: Aventura and Tallahassee Do not provide federal lobbying services, but can assist with arranging meetings with federal representatives, congressional staff and federal agencies. Extremely well accessed within the entire Florida Delegation and with many members outside of the Florida Delegation. Do not partner with any firms that provide federal lobbying services, but could provide a short list of firms that they believe the city should consider for federal lobbying services. Yes, Have many relationships with the Executive Branch, numerous agencies, and both Houses of Congress. Work on both legislative initiatives and Executive Branch implementation of adopted legislation. Firm's federal lobbying services are coordinated through Joseph Abruzzo 3 $35,000 Nov. 2012 -May 2013 Any additional expense must be agreed upon by City before incurred Yes -maintain an office in Tallahassee; there full time during committee weeks and legislative session and frequently when the legislature is not in session. Yes -currently lobby Palm Beach County for other clients and have close contacts and experience working with Palm Beach County Commissioners, Constitutional Officers and their respective staffs and the SFWMD City of Delray Beach -Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Ballard Partners Contact Information: Joe McCann, 403 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, FL 32301. (850) 577-0444. 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach Brian Ballard, President Joe McCann, Senior Vice President Mat Forrest, Governmental Consultant (Greg Turbeville, Carol Bracy and John Johnson to be utilized on an as needed basis) 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) Maximum $250 per year. Anything else would have to be pre-approved by the City. 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobbylocal and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., inperson, conference call, etc.) Yes e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Yes Executive Branch and State Agencies 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. No. a. Ifyour firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. The Firm has for other clients in the past, assisted on an as needed basis (at no additional cost) with members of the Florida Delegation. We have excellent relationships with nearly all Members of Congress from Florida and even several from outside the State. In any situation where the Firm can assist in setting up meetings or advocating for positions beneficial to the City we are more than willing to do so. We have done this in the past specifically on federal appropriations projects and in helping with decisions out of the Army Corps of Engineers. Washington lobbying, however, is very difficult to do from Tallahassee for obvious reasons. The City would be better served to contract with a Firm in the D.C. area with relationships beyond Florida. b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. We have partnered with several federal lobbying firms. We have done work in the past with: Patton Boggs, Alcalde & Fay and Barbour, Griffith and Rogers. All provide full service in the federal lobbying arena. We would base our recommendation on the issue and scope of work needed. 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. The Firm had a very busy legislative session last year. Examples of lobbying for/against are: On the appropriations front: we were successful in funding for the Elliott Museum in Martin County, funding for a work release program within the Department of Corrections, protecting nursing home’s from significant rate cuts, holding Miami Children’s Hospital harmless from medicaid cuts and other individual projects such as funding for the Baptist Hospital Outpatient facility. On the legislative side 2012 was a year with a great deal of defense. One example was one of the most controversial bills of the year. We were able to work to defeat legislation, against great odds, that would have made it very difficult to for physicians to continue dispensing medications to workers comp patients. City of Delray Beach ‐Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Capitol Alliance Group Contact Information: Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey (Jeff@capitolalliancegroup.com) 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach 2 Professional staff assigned to City Client Services Management 1. Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey, Managing Partner 2. Ms. Barbara Flury 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) No additional costs 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes, Palm Beach County, SFWMD, Army Corps d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., inperson, conference call, etc.) Yes, meetings in person, via conference call, skype, video conferencing 1. Conference Calls/Video calls on a weekly basis during legislative session; 2. In person meetings once a quarter or whenever necessary e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes, we assist with strategic analysis of legislative needs and develop legislative agenda with all of our clients as well as assist in educating and briefing council members on agenda f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes, weekly during session and Monthly during off session periods g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and Yes State Agencies 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. Yes, on specific issues. In addition we partner with Patton Boggs on various congressional appropriations issues. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. We have very close relationships with Florida Congressional delegation and staff and work closely with them on issues that impact Florida and our clients. In addition, we have strong professional and personal relationships with senior staff at the White House and Executive Agencies, such as US DOT,US Dept of Commerce, US DEP, Homeland Security and work on issues that affect our clients with thos e contacts b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. Patton Boggs is a full service federal lobbying firm with extensive congressional and Executive Branch contacts with both political parties. We work closely with them on legislation and appropriations items that affect our clients in Florida. They provide a full range of lobbying services and widely respected as one of the top 10 firms in DC 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. SB 1996 – Dept of Economic Opportunity – prime advocate on bill related to community economic development and workforce housing, successful in passing language that authorized priority funding for workforce housing in various communities. HB 1223 – Relating to Highway Safety and motor Vehicles – we were successful in passing several provisions in this bill that would allow for FDOT to fund bicycle transportation as part of the state Strategic Intermodal system. State Legislative Lobbyist for the City of Delray Beach, Florida Proposal October 11, 2012 Submitted By: Capitol Alliance Group 106 E. College Ave #640 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850)224-1660 Fax: (850)224-6785 Contact Person: Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey I.Introduction The Capitol Alliance Group is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Delray Beach for State Lobbying Services. As one of Florida’s top state level government relations’ firms in Florida with extensive experience in strategic issues’ management, public policy analysis and government relations advocacy for a diverse list of private and public sector clients, as well as the creation and development of transient rental ordinances. With strong bi-partisan Democratic and Republican credentials, each member of the firm possesses strong professional experience working in the private, public and legislative sectors and is widely recognized as being a leader in the Florida lobbying corps. The firm enjoys a strong reputation for unparalleled integrity, professionalism and commitment to its’ clients and to the lobbying process. The Capitol Alliance Group also has great contacts with Florida’s Congressional Delegation and would be willing to assist Delray Beach in their federal priorities with a cost effective partner. The CAG partners are experts at analyzing critical policy issues, assessing economic and political trends at the national, state and local levels, and evaluating and recommending political and legislative strategies for resolving the challenges facing businesses and local governments. The partners in the Alliance each have more than two decades of experience each working inside and outside of state and local governments at the highest level, including such diverse positions as former member of the Florida Legislature, State Agency Director, Senior Staff to the Governor and Consultant to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Their professional experience, close working relationships with Governor Scott, the Speaker (and Speakers-elect) of the House, Senate President (and Senate Presidents-elect) and other top policy makers in the Executive and Legislative branches of government, coupled with their extensive knowledge of the political process, and their enthusiasm and stringent business ethics, makes The Capitol Alliance Group one of the premier lobbying and issues management groups in Florida and an excellent legislative consultant partner for City of Delray Beach. The firm’s clients represent a diverse cross section of public and private sector interests, but CAG is known for its strong knowledge base and expertise in legislative and agency issues related to local governments, including transportation, economic and tourism development, housing, urban and community development, property taxation and environmental permitting and regulation, among others. II.Firm Background The Capitol Alliance Group, Inc. has a stellar reputation as a government relations' consulting firm with a proven track record of success in serving a broad range of client's interest at the state and local level in Florida along with a strong presence in DC with the Florida congressional delegation. Created in 1995 in Tallahassee, FL by a team of seasoned government relations professionals with diverse political and professional lobbying experiences, the Capitol Alliance Group has client and professional interests ranging from Pensacola to Jacksonville to Key West. Led by Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey, the professional staff includes 6 research and support staff, all focused on providing high level, quality service to the diverse array of clients represented by the firm. The firm prides itself on outstanding client services, research driven strategies, and performance based outcomes. With offices in Tallahassee, and professional associations with firms in West Palm Beach, Jacksonville and Atlanta, the firm's partners have a strong understanding of the critical legislative and regulatory issues affecting businesses and organizations. The firm is best known for its’ ability to analyze complex policy issues, assess economic and political trends, and recommend successful political and legislative strategies for resolving the challenges facing their public and private sector clients. In addition, the firm’s core operating principles value straightforward, honest and frequent client communications to help manage and maintain client expectations during the ever-changing issue dynamics during the legislative session in Tallahassee -extremely important in working with local government elected officials and staff who need to understand the impact of policy decisions on their citizens and budgets. The members of Capitol Alliance Group understand the needs of local elected officials and staff and are extremely familiar with the issues facing local governments at the state level, and the possible implications they might have on the City of Delray Beach. Their close working relationships with top policy makers in the Executive and Legislative branches of government, extensive knowledge of the political process, unbridled enthusiasm and stringent business ethics, has made The Capitol Alliance Group one of the premier lobbying and issues management groups in the Southern region. III.Client Representation We have provided a summary list of clients the firm has represented over the last several years. As indicated, the firm’s government relations advocacy focuses on a wide variety of industry and local government interests affecting almost every aspect of Delray Beach and Florida; including: • Local government finance and operations • Aerospace • Property Taxation • Transportation • Information and Systems Technology • Public Safety and EMS • Coastal Erosion and Beach re-nourishment • Economic and Tourism Development • Property Insurance • Pension Funds and Retirement plans • Workforce and Affordable Housing • Sustainable Community Development • Growth Management • Telecommunications • Energy and Alternative Energies • Education • Health Care More importantly, Capitol Alliance Group professionals focus extensively on the state appropriations process, working hard to insert client budget priorities into the agency and Governor’s budget and working closely with the legislative appropriations members to ensure successful passage of budget items in the final appropriations bills. IV.Local Government Advocacy Experience CAG has represented local governments, special districts, and community public private partnerships to the Florida Legislature, Governor’s office and state agencies, including Leon County, City of North Miami, City of Key West, City of Tallahassee, and others. The firm has a first-hand understanding of local government financial and fiscal dynamics, infrastructure requirements, regulatory concerns, growth management pressures, and the unique, if not strained, working relationship that has emerged over the last several years between the legislature and local counties and cities. The CAG partners are well versed on the impact of “unfunded mandates” from the legislature, the recent fiscal pressures created by the property tax reform initiatives, as well as the unique legislative obstacles and opportunities available to City of Delray Beach. CAG has worked closely with the Florida League of Cities in pursuing their legislative agenda on behalf of all of it’s members. Recently, representing Leon County in the Capitol City, our role has often been to work closely with FAC and the League on the development of legislative strategies on a myriad of issues. V.Advocacy Team for the City of Delray Beach The Capitol Alliance Group will assign it’s top legislative professionals to service the contract with the City. Often times, lobbying firms will delegate responsibilities for local government issues to junior staff. CAG understands the complexities of local government issues and believes that its best team needs to be “on the field” to ensure success on these issues. For many years, state government passed frequent unfunded mandates on to cities and counties and questioned local governments’ home rule authority. Because of that mindset, we believe our top lobbyists need to be at the forefront communicating and advocating with legislators on the needs of the city. The following chart identifies the professional client management team assigned to the City of Delray Beach contract. Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey (Project Manager) – Dr. Sharkey is the founding member and Managing Partner of the firm. He has over 22 years of lobbying experience in addition to 6 years of employment at senior positions in the Executive and Legislative branches of Florida Government. His lobbying expertise includes transportation, infrastructure, growth management, affordable housing and ad valorem taxation. In addition, Dr. Sharkey is widely known for his knowledge of highway, transit, rail, seaport and airport funding, as well as growth management, water and waste water infrastructure regulation and financing. He is well versed on local government legislative issues, having represented the City of Tallahassee for 5 years and currently representing other cities and special districts around the state of Florida. Dr. Sharkey has been at the forefront of advocacy of affordable housing since the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992. He and the professionals in his firm have a great deal of expertise in successfully addressing the legislative and regulatory issues facing local governments and businesses interested in sustainable community development, infrastructure financing, and transportation access. He has developed strong professional relationships with the legislative leadership, committee and appropriations staff, the Governor’s office and Agency heads to ensure the needs of his clients are understood and respected. City of Delray Beach City Commission Mr. Joe Arnall (Associate Partner) Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey (Partner and Project Manager) Ms. Barbara Flury (Associate) Mr. Corey Peterson (Legislative Programs Director) In addition, Dr. Sharkey has been actively involved in statewide issue campaigns for over fifteen years, providing him rare insight into the politics and an ability to shape successful business and community development projects. He has been successful in creating, mobilizing and evaluating public policy issues and trends to position his clients to prepare and take advantage of new challenges and opportunities occurring in the arenas of state and local governments. He is ultimately familiar with the dynamics that are created when local, state and national politics intersect with the desire to shape public policy in the local, Legislative or Executive branches of government. Dr. Sharkey is closely attuned to the budget and other community issues facing the City of Delray Beach. Having lived in Palm Beach County for 5 years and spending ample time in Delray Beach, he is familiar with the structure and operations of local government and can help immediately to enhance the city visibility with state legislators and state agencies quickly and effectively. Dr. Sharkey began his professional career as a teacher and school administrator and has worked in England, Thailand, Latin America and in other parts of the world as a consultant for various international agencies. He has worked for the Dept of Education, Office of the Governor, and Florida Legislator, all in senior staff positions. A native of Minnesota, he holds a B.S. degree in English, a M.Ed. in Educational Research, a M.S. in Sociology and Economics and a Ph.D. from Florida State University in International Development. He serves on a multitude of non profit boards, including Florida Association of Volunteer Action for the Caribbean and the Americans, Children’s Miracle Network, member of Leadership Florida and He is also a small business owner with several restaurants in Tallahassee. He is married and lives in Tallahassee. Mr. Corey Peterson – Mr. Peterson is the Legislative Programs Manager for the Capitol Alliance Group and longtime resident of City of Delray Beach. During Corey’s tenure in City of Delray Beach, he was immersed in the issues effecting the county and it’s residents. Corey has specific City of Delray Beach knowledge of the space industry, coastal economic development, tourism, education and property insurance. With Four years of direct legislative experience with major appropriations issues and a concentrated focus on local governance, property taxation, and agency regulation issues, he has proven herself to be a tireless advocate for client’s interest. In addition to legislative issues management, he has developed excellent relations with the state agency management leadership and interfaces regularly with the agency Secretaries to ensure that clients have access to top decision makers. Mr. Peterson is a graduate of Florida State University. He is responsible for mobilizing legislation and communicating with legislators and agency representatives on the needs of the clients. Mr. Peterson lives in Tallahassee Mr. Joseph H. Arnall – Mr. Arnall was a member of the Florida Legislature from the Jacksonville area for 12years, from 1990 to 2002, serving as the powerful Rules Chair for the last 4 years of his career when the Republican minority took over as the majority. He is now a partner with Capitol Alliance Group and manages the Jacksonville and Atlanta offices. During his tenure in the legislature, he was respected by his colleagues as a strong advocate and expert in a variety issue areas, including insurance, growth management, transportation, telecommunications and banking. Mr. Arnall is a Chartered Life Underwriter and Financial Consultant by profession, and his business interests include insurance and real estate. He has been an effective lobbyist for a variety of client interests and has maintained his strong relationship with leadership in the Florida Legislature and Governor’s office. He has held membership in Chartered Life Underwriters, Jacksonville Chapter; Life Member of the Million Dollar Round Table; Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce; National Trust for Historic Preservation; and the American Legislative Exchange Council; the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Chamber. VI.Why Choose Capitol Alliance Group Ability, Character and Skill of the proposer to perform the Contract The Capitol Alliance Group is widely respected by Legislators, Executive Branch leadership and other lobbyists as one of the top statewide legislative advocacy firms in Florida. Based in Tallahassee, and with affiliated associates in West Palm Beach, and Jacksonville, the firm’s partner’s have over 50 years of experience working inside and outside of state and local governments. The firm’s principles have extensive experience representing cities, counties, special districts, and CRA’s as well as a wide variety of industries and businesses throughout the state so they understand how large and small policy decisions contemplated in the halls of the Capitol affect the ability of public and private entities to manage their organizations, customers and their future. The firm partners have personal experience working the process as legislators, legislative staff directors, senior Governor’s staff, cabinet aides and other positions within state government so they understand the culture of decision making within that environment. As private government relations professionals, they have represented a significant diversity of issues affecting almost every facet of Florida. Between the partners collectively, the firm has drafted and passed over 50 pieces of legislation, worked to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriations and defeated hundreds of bills and amendments that would harm the interest of our clients. We have exceptionally strong skills in working the appropriations committees in the House and Senate as well as a wide variety of substantive committee issue areas. Representing local governments takes a unique set of skills and communication abilities, which members of CAG have honed to ensure we meet our local government client expectations. We have attached a letter of reference from the Leon County County Administrator, one of our local government clients with whom we have worked and performed successfully. We bring a unique blend of tireless enthusiasm, unparalleled knowledge of the legislative process, and exceptional advocacy skills to our clients needs. The firm has a strong affinity, history and understanding of issues directly related to the City. In particular, key members of the firm have longstanding ties to Palm Beach County. In addition the firm is one of the top lobbying firms in Florida on issues related to seaport, airport and intermodal transportation issues, having represented the Florida Ports Council for 10 years, the Florida Airports Council for 4 years and the Florida Intermodal Transportation Association since it’s inception. Also, the firm is well respected for it’s knowledge of sustainable community development, growth management and coastal management, all of which are directly related to Delray Beach economic, community and social development. The Character, Integrity, Reputation, Judgment, Experience and Efficiency of the Firm The CAG firm is committed to the highest levels of professionalism, commitment to client goals and reputation and successful accomplishment of the clients’ legislative and regulatory agenda. Survivability in the government relations advocacy business is directly related to the trust your clients place in you and how well you maintain that trust. The CAG has been successfully proving to clients our dependability, honesty and integrity for over 17 years, with a tremendous level of client retention, which is a testimony to what we believe is a level of outstanding service and professionalism. Our experience allows us to navigate the complicated legislative process quickly and effectively. Our cultivated relationships with top legislative leadership in both chambers and both parties allows us access to key decision-makers, accurate assessment of emerging issues, and input into final decisions on legislation, amendments and appropriations items. All of this, combined with our strategic insights into how issues trend in multiple dimensions during legislative discussions, allows us to successfully affect the changes that our clients need during this process. We are certain that our extensive institutional knowledge of the legislative and regulatory process, superb relationships with the Governor, Senior Cabinet members and Legislators, along with their strategic political acumen will prove to be invaluable during the tumultuous legislative and budget process over the next year. Knowledge of the General Character and environment of Florida Cities, including successful experience serving local governments in Florida As mentioned, CAG has represented local governments, special districts, and community public private partnerships to the Florida Legislature, Governor’s office and state agencies, including Leon County, City of North Miami, City of Key West, City of Tallahassee, and others. The firm has a first-hand understanding of local government financial and fiscal dynamics, infrastructure requirements, regulatory concerns, growth management pressures, and the unique, if not strained, working relationship that has emerged over the last several years between the legislature and local counties and cities. The CAG partners are well versed on the impact of “unfunded mandates” from the legislature, the recent fiscal pressures created by the property tax reform initiatives, as well as the unique legislative obstacles and opportunities available to City of Delray Beach. CAG has worked closely with the Florida League of Cities in pursuing their legislative agenda on behalf of all of it’s members. Because of this, we understand extremely well the concerns and culture of cities and local governments. We have attached a list of successful appropriations items for our local government clients for your review. In addition, CAG works year round, not just during legislative session, on regulatory and state agency issues for it’s local government clients to assist with their needs. This is particularly important with the level of federal funding flowing into the state through various agencies. We would assist Delray Beach in pursuing funding for projects that are either on the federal stimulus list or for which they may be eligible. Legislative Reporting Capitol Alliance Group believes in keeping their clients informed of the latest developments with pending legislation and proposed actions by state government agencies and officials. For that reason, the members of Capitol Alliance Group use an integrated communications system to keep clients aware of all developments. To ensure success, Capitol Alliance Group holds weekly conference calls to discuss priorities, strategies and intelligence. Also, Capitol Alliance Group provides weekly legislative updates entitled “Capitol Update” to offer important legislation tracking information. These updates are provided during committee weeks and throughout the Legislative Session on every Friday by 5 p.m. This valuable piece of information allows for Capitol Alliance Group and its clients to prepare for the week ahead and reflect on the movement of legislation throughout the process. This effective tool provides enormous benefit to the client and tracking the progression of their established priorities. VII.Compensation We are providing a two tiered Fee for Service proposal. The first is for a Single Issue contract, where CAG would be hired to successfully accomplish legislative approval on one major item for the City. The second contract is for a full legislative advocacy arrangement where CAG would advocate on behalf of the City for any and all issues affecting the City. Single Issue Contract -The all inclusive retainer fee for State Lobbying Services as identified in this proposal shall be $25,000 for eight (8) months (November 1, 2012 through July 1, 2013 – the 2013 Legislative session). The fee shall be paid in monthly installments. Full Service Contract -The all inclusive retainer fee for Full Contract State Lobbying Services as identified in this proposal shall be $45,000 for twelve (12) months. This will include monitoring, advocating and mobilizing on all issues affecting the City. The fee shall be paid in monthly installments. References Leon County 301 S. Monroe Street, 5th Floor Tallahassee, FL. 32301 Contact Person: Vince Long, County Manager (850) 606-5300 Date of Contract: October 1, 2008 to present Capitol Alliance Group has worked with Leon County on numerous issues during this last legislative session including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2008 (ARRA), Health and Human Services, Energy, Economic Development, Transportation, Affordable Housing and countless other priorities. During the initial Economic Stimulus discussions, Capitol Alliance Group began meeting with Agency Secretaries and the Governor to position Leon County to receive the maximum amount of funds available. Because of these important meetings, Leon County secured over $9million in Road improvement funds during the initial allocation period. Other efforts by Capitol Alliance Group on behalf of the Leon County include securing additional Down Payment Assistance Funds, Inclusion in statewide prison diversion pilot program as well as many others. City of Key West 525 Angela Street Key West, FL 33040 Contact Person: Mayor Craig Cates, (305)809-3888 Date of Contract: June 5, 2007-2012 Capitol Alliance Group is working with the City of Key West to develop strategic relationships for the development of community sustainability and affordable housing. Working with both public and private sector partners, Capitol Alliance Group has developed a short and long term housing strategy and transient rental strategies for properties owned by the City and other public and private entities. While in Tallahassee, Capitol Alliance Group is working on identifying and nurturing new affordable workforce housing opportunities for the City. Capitol Alliance Group is tireless in their efforts in Tallahassee to bring more affordable workforce housing policy that will benefit the City of Key West and others. Port of Palm Beach 1 E 11th St # 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33404-6921 Contact Person for Contract and Procurement: Manny Almira, Director (561) 842-4201 Date of Contract: July 1, 2005 Throughout the years of representing the Port of Palm Beach, Capitol Alliance Group has coordinated efforts with The Governor’s Executive Office, Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Protection, The Agency for Workforce Innovation and many others. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for identifying new business opportunities for the Port in the Legislature as well as monitor legislation that impacts the Port of Palm Beach. Capitol Alliance Group realizes the importance of international trade and tourism to Florida’s ports. With Port Canaveral located in the shadows of Kennedy Space Center, many tourists and businesses find Port Canaveral to be a prime port of call. Using industry contacts, knowledge and business development principals, Capitol Alliance Group will be able to assist City of Delray Beach in accelerating growth at Port Canaveral and the surrounding areas. Dr. Jeff Sharkey, Founder and partner in Capitol Alliance Group has also provided lobbying services for groups such as The Florida Maritime Industries Association, Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association and the Florida Ports Council. City of Destiny 101 Pugliese's Way, Suite 200 Delray Beach, FL 33444 Contact Person for Contract and Procurement: Sara Paul (888)2DESTINY Date of Contract: July 21, 2008 Capitol Alliance Group was contracted by the City of Destiny to assist in the development of an Integrated Intermodal Distribution Center for this newly created city. The City of Destiny is in development to become the first Eco-Sustainable Green City. Because of Capitol Alliance Group’s previous experience and background in intermodal transportation policy and planning, Capitol Alliance Group was chosen during a worldwide search. Working on such a large project required the firm to work closely with CSX, FEC, Department of Transportation and many other private and public entities. Along with intermodal transportation policy and planning, Capitol Alliance Group is assisting with green-company recruitment and economic development opportunities. City of Tallahassee Contact Person: Anita Favors Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Date of Contract: 1998-2005 A. Provide list of current clients, a brief description of the services provided, the term of the contract with each client, number of years each client has contracted with the firm, and the fees charged by the clients. ▪City of Key West – Capitol Alliance Group currently is working with the City of Key West to develop a strategic affordable housing plan that will provide more affordable housing options for Key West residents. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for consulting with affordable housing stakeholders to determine need and viability of proposed projects. Also, Capitol Alliance Group is in charge of securing public and private partners for the City to assist in the creation of new affordable housing units. The City of Key West has been a client of Capitol Alliance Group since June 2006 and will remain under contract through June 2010. The fees for this contract are based on hourly work and average around $4,000 a month. ▪City of Destiny – Located off the Florida Turnpike in Osceola County, Destiny is America’s first eco-sustainable community. Capitol Alliance Group is developing a strategy for the successful creation of an Integrated Intermodal Distribution Center at Destiny. The contract extends through June 2010 with a monthly fee of $2,500. Capitol Alliance Group and Destiny began working together in July 2008. ▪Leon County -Capitol Alliance Group has represented Florida’s Capital County for the last 3 years as the County’s primary State Lobbying Firm. Working with our Federal Partners, Patton and Boggs, Capitol Alliance Group has advocated on behalf of Leon County on a wide variety of issues including economic development, affordable housing, septic tank mandates and health department services. The contract for services and fees are for $4,000 a month. ▪AT&T ▪All Saints Square – All Saints Square is a 42 unit, mixed use workforce housing development in Tallahassee Florida. In the heart of downtown Tallahassee, All Saints Square is a vital part of Tallahassee’s Gaines Street Revitalization Plan. Capitol Alliance Group is assisting All Saints Square with the Credit Underwriting portion of the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP). Part of the firm’s responsibilities is educating the client on state, local and federal policies and programs incentives for workforce housing. As well as identifying state and federal financial resources and regulatory incentives to help fund the clients’ CWHIP project in Leon County. Capitol Alliance Group began work with All Saints Square in June 2008 and will continue to work with the client until credit underwriting is complete. The fees associated with this contract are $30,000 for the entire underwriting consulting. ▪Benderson Development – One of the nation’s largest privately owned development companies, Benderson Development Company currently owns and manages over 250 properties in 35 states. Their portfolio includes 29 million square feet in industrial parks, office buildings residential communities, hotels and self storage facilities. Capitol Alliance Group is currently doing affordable housing consulting for Benderson Development in 2 counties in Florida. A portion of Capitol Alliance Groups’ responsibilities include identifying and nurturing new housing opportunities for affordable workforce housing with state, federal and local housing policy makers. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with Benderson Development since June 2008 and has a contract running through December 2008. Affordable housing consulting fees for this contract are $5,000 monthly. ▪Big Bend Community Based Care – One of Florida’s Community Based Care Lead Agencies, Big Bend Community Based Care is responsible for overseeing foster care services in Florida’s Panhandle. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for monitoring pending legislation; identifying Legislative and Executive Branch foster care child support funding. Capitol Alliance Group also provides legislative advocacy to protect and strengthen the Panhandle’s foster care agencies. The contract between Capitol Alliance Group and Big Bend Community Based Care is for 12 months, ending in March 2009. Fees associated with this contract are $3,500 monthly. ▪Capital Trust Agency – Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for monitoring affordable housing trends and state housing priorities. Other responsibilities include: meeting with the Legislature, Governor’s Office, Florida Housing Finance Corporation and other statewide affordable housing organizations to educate and advocate for support of Capital Trust Agency’s programs. Capital Trust Agency has been a client for 5 years and their contract is through December 2009. The fees for this agreement are $3,000 monthly. ▪Community Education Centers/Civigenics – Community Education Centers (CEC) is a leading provider of treatment and educational services for adult and juvenile corrections and social services populations throughout the United States. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for assessing corrections and offender treatment funding priorities at the state level. Other responsibilities include organizing meetings with key corrections and juvenile justice policymakers, assistance in applying for the operation of one or more private correctional facilities administered by the Department of Management Services. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with CEC for over 4 years and continues to be under contract until October 2008. Monthly fees associated with this contract are $2,500. ▪Florida Intermodal Transportation Association ▪ “Go Green” Florida -Capitol Alliance Group is working with Coalition for Renewable Energy Solutions to develop the “Go Green” Florida license plate. The license plate is being developed to raise awareness in creating a sustainable environment. Funds generated from this license plate will be used to provide educational opportunities for children interested in green technologies, sustainable development and responsible living. Capitol Alliance Group is helping Coalition for Renewable Energy Solutions in the application process associated with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Along with the application process, Capitol Alliance Group will be finding a legislative sponsor, who will oversee the passing of the “Go Green” license plate legislation. This contract runs through May 2009 and is for $2,500 monthly. ▪HRH/GlenCairn – Capitol Alliance Group is currently working with HRH/Glencairn to assess the status of insurance and reinsurance polices and programs in the State of Florida. Additionally, Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for meeting with members of the Cabinet to discuss Property and Causality insurance and reinsurance solutions. Capitol Alliance Group will identify new business opportunities with public and private entities throughout Florida. The terms of this contract are for 12 months, ending in July 2009, with a $6,000 monthly fee. ▪Lee County Habitat For Humanity – Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for monitoring state housing issues in the legislature, Governor’s Office and Florida Housing Finance Corporation. While working with Lee County Habitat for Humanity, Capitol Alliance Group continuously has organized meetings with key housing policymakers, as well as worked to pass legislation to fully fund the Community Contribution Tax Credit program. Every month, Capitol Alliance Group provides Lee County Habitat for Humanity with a legislative update and issue report. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with Habitat for Humanity for four years and has a contract currently that runs through July 2009. Capitol Alliance Group’s fee for affordable housing consultation is $4,583 monthly. ▪Margaritaville Holdings, LLC ▪MDG/Fountain Lakes LLC. – MDG Corp. is affordable housing developer in Collier County. Capitol Alliance Group is currently assisting MDG with their Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) application. MDG was recently selected for a $5 million forgivable loan to develop affordable housing in Collier County. Capitol Alliance Group is not only responsible for the submission of MDG’s application for CWHIP, but also identifying additional funding opportunities for the client’s project. The contract between the two parties is for $40,000 and is valid through the completion of the client’s project. ▪National Electrical Contractor’s Association (NECA) – Capitol Alliance Group has been working with NECA for 4 years, helping educate and advocate for electrical contractors, the building industry and other areas identified by the client. Other duties include providing accurate and timely information, intelligence feedback, and communication on developments of any legislative or agency issues. The terms of this contract is for 12 months, ending in January 2009. Capitol Alliance Group is paid $3,000 a month for services provided. ▪North Miami Community Redevelopment Authority ▪Port of Palm Beach – The Port of Palm Beach is currently in the process of developing an Inland Cargo and Freight Distribution Center. This inland Intermodal logistics hub is essential to the economic development of South Florida and the state. Capitol Alliance Group is acting as the liaison between the Port and state policymakers in order to keep the Port of Palm Beach as the lead agency associated with the Southeast Distribution Center. Other roles include: acquiring financial resources to continue strategic planning for the project, and provide a business demand and site options analysis. Capitol Alliance Group has represented the Port for 2 years and the terms of current contract run through December 2009 with a fee of $2,000 monthly. ▪Prime Homebuilders – Prime Homebuilders is one of the states largest privately owned builders, with commercial and residential properties throughout Florida. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for the development of workforce and affordable housing strategies. Capitol Alliance Group also assisted in the submission of four (4) Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) applications. Duties associated with the submission of applications include: developing strategies, creating public/private partnerships as defined under CWHIP program and developing a financing structure for the projects. Capitol Alliance Group also advises Prime of potential housing opportunities and provides a monthly report of work completed. The current contract is for 6 months and runs through January 2009, with a monthly fee of $5,000. ▪Save the Manatee Club – Capitol Alliance Group is the lead advocate for Save the Manatee Club and helps develop strategies on how to best protect the needs of the species and organization. Other responsibilities include meeting with Florida’s state policy and decision makers to help communicate the need of manatees in Florida. The services contract extends through November 2008 and monthly fees are set at $3,000. ▪SCA Properties – Capitol Alliance Group assists SCA properties by providing continued legislative and property appraiser support for tax abatement for affordable housing properties. It is also the responsibility of Capitol Alliance Group to pass legislation that will expand tax abatement for affordable housing properties owned wholly by non profit organizations. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with SCA for three years and continues to identify new workforce housing opportunities throughout the state. The current contract is for 12 months, ending in September 2008 with a monthly fee of $3,000. ▪Ticketmaster – Ticketmaster is the nation’s leading event ticket agency with offices around the world. Capitol Alliance Group assists Ticketmaster by monitoring pending legislation that directly affects the ticket industry, live entertainment and internet commerce. Capitol Alliance Group is also in charge of meeting with policymakers about Ticketmaster’s services, consumer protection and accountability. Another priority of this agreement is to identify new business opportunities with municipalities and other venues around the State of Florida. This contract is indefinite and the fees are $2,500 monthly ▪ZeroChaos – ZeroChaos is Florida’s largest contract labor solutions and vendor management firm. Capitol Alliance Group has been given the task of analyzing current policies and program for state and local governments. After the initial assessment, Capitol Alliance Group will develop recommendations on how client can meet the needs of government agencies. Capitol Alliance Group is also responsible for monitoring and advocating any legislation that would further the business goals of ZeroChaos. ZeroChaos’ current contract runs through February 2009 with a monthly fee of $4,500. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with ZeroChaos since February 2008. Affordable Workforce Housing Client Issue Outcome Professional Florida Workforce Housing Alliance 2006 -Workforce Housing Legislation and Appropriations Drafted and passed major Workforce Housing legislation (HB 1375) and budget approval for $50 million in funding for workforce housing. ($50 Million) Jeffrey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Wendover Housing Development 2008 -$5 million funding for workforce housing in Osceola County Drafted and passed budget proviso language to secure $5 million funding for workforce housing in Osceola County. ($5 Million) Jeffrey Sharkey, lead lobbyist City of Key West 2007 – Affordable Housing Regulatory relief Passage of legislation to allow local school district and community college to use surplus lands for affordable housing. Jeffrey Sharkey, lead lobbyist City of Key West 2008 – Affordable Housing Passage of Legislation allowing for addition Down Payment Assistance for municipalities who reduce or waive impact fees. Jeffrey Sharkey Transportation Client Issue Outcome Professional Port of Palm Beach 2007 -appropriation for Inland Port Intermodal Distribution Center Passage of budget proviso language for $200,000 for planning phase of Inland Port project ($200,000) Jeffrey Sharkey & Richard Pinsky, lead lobbyists Port of Palm Beach 2009 -appropriation for Inland Port Intermodal Distribution Center Passage of budget proviso language for $1,000,000 for planning phase of Inland Port Project ($1,000,000) Jeffrey Sharkey & Richard Pinsky, lead lobbyists Florida Intermodal Transportation Assoc. 2005 -FDOT Strategic Intermodal System plan Drafted and passed major transportation legislation on development of the state’s Strategic Intermodal System plan and funding formula for FDOT’s 5 year work plan. Jeffrey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Florida Airports Council 2004/05 – Florida Airport Grants funding Successful budget appropriation of $92 million (2004) and $104 million (2005) for Florida Airports grants in FDOT budget. ($196 Million) Jeffrey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Public Safety Client Issue Outcome Professional Florida Assoc of Public Safety Communication Officials (EMS) (2008) -Occupational Certification Passage of legislation creating certification standards and training requirements for dispatchers in EMS throughout Florida Richard Pinsky, lead lobbyist Land Use Management Client Issue Outcome Professional Coalition of Affordable Housing Providers 2005 – DRI Concurrency and Regulation Passage of legislative language to allow for waiver of Concurrency in DRI requirements for development of affordable housing close to major employment centers. Jeffrey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Criminal Justice/Corrections Client Issue Outcome Professional Community Education Centers/CiviGenics, 2007 -Community Corrections Passage of budget and proviso language to direct FDOC to fund 200 community based work release beds and 1264 community work camp beds ($14 Million) Jeffrey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Property Insurance Client Issue Outcome Professional Florida Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials 2007 -Property & Casualty Insurance Successful passage of legislation authorizing the creation of Self Insurance fund for Public Housing Authorities and waiver of assessment fees. Richard Pinsky, lead lobbyist Property Tax Reform Client Issue Outcome Professional Shelter Corporation 2007 -Ad Valorem taxation Successful passage of legislation authorizing property appraisers to use rental income approach revised methodology for ad valorem assessment of multifamily affordable housing. Jeffrey Sharkey, lead lobbyist City of Delray Beach -Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Ericks Consultants, Inc. [partnering with Adams St. Advocates] Contact Information: Candice Ericks @954-648-1204 or 850-224-0880 candice@ericksconsultants.com 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach David Ericks, President ECI and Partner of Adams St Advocates; Candice Ericks, Consultant; Claudia Davant, Managing Partner-Adams St Advocates; and Robert Beck, Partner-Adams St Advocates. 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) All inclusive, except that for extensive travel, such as with federal issues, we would request advance approval for reimbursement of travel expenses. 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: YES! a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes, the entire team can lobby those and other agencies with the exception of Candice Ericks who cannot lobby Palm Beach County. d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., inperson, conference call, etc.) Yes e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. We have strong relationships at the federal level and have assisted our clients with federal issues. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. Many issues that we deal with at a state level are contingent on various Federal components. For example, we have worked for years collectively with clients such as Broward County, Palm Beach County, other cities, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority and JM Family on issues that require federal cooperation to succeed on a state or local level. We have worked on transportation issues with Congressman Mica from Florida [Chairman], Congressman Shuster of Pennsylvania [next Chairman] and Subcommittee Chair Congressman Sam Graves of Missouri. As most of the Florida Congressional Delegation began their political careers in the Florida Legislature, we have already worked with them for years at the state level. We have also worked closely with the Administration for Children & Families’ Assistant Secretary, George Sheldon, who served as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Family Services before leaving for DC. b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. We have relationships with various firms and would help the city team with whichever firm would be most effective depending on the specific issue being addressed. 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. Crime Lab Funding Crime lab funding was a priority for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and Broward County for the last few years. Florida has five crime labs located in Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Indian River and Pinellas Counties that were underfunded by the state. Prior to the 2012 legislative session, statutory authority allowed but did not require judges to impose an additional penalty to increase the funding for crime labs when they were used in the successful prosecution of a defendant. Invoking this additional fine was rarely imposed and it was not uniformly applied. This created significant shortfalls that the Sheriff’s office and the County then had to subsidize with local funding. Efforts led by ECI throughout 2010 and 2011 culminated in successful changes to mandate crime lab fees in 2012 legislation. Specifically, language was passed that would require a $100 fee to be mandated when a person was convicted of a crime and the local crime lab was utilized. Through ECI’s strong relationships with the Broward delegation, support for the language to change the statute was garnered early in the process. This support resulted in Senator Bogdanoff (who was essential in previous efforts) committing to making it a priority during Budget negotiations. ECI worked tirelessly throughout the appropriations process attending all Budget meetings and worked alongside Senator Bogdanoff to gain the support of both the House and Senate leadership to secure the House acceptance of the mandatory $100 fee language. We were successful in getting the House to accept the language and Senate Conforming Bill 1968 passed both the House and Senate unanimously. Our understanding is that this language will provide an estimated $5 Million funding for the crime labs. However, our work was not finished at Session’s end. During the veto period we worked diligently with the Governor’s Office to answer questions and educate them on the user fee funding source contained in the legislation. Our arguments were persuasive and the bill was ultimately approved by the Governor. Medical Examiners During the 2011 Legislative Session ECI facilitated a meeting with the Director of Government Relations for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, regarding allowing our medical examiners to be given direct access to the DAVID database [Driver & Vehicle Information Database] for the purpose of determining the identification of a deceased individual. This database contains a motorist’s identifying and emergency contact information. The agency was concerned about the number of examiners who would be allowed to gain access. We had multiple meetings that resulted in the DHSMV signing off on agreed upon language that would limit the access points to the database as well as including an inter local agreement. Unfortunately, time was an issue and we agreed with the sponsor to wait until the following year to pursue the change. With the groundwork already set we started the 2012 Session touching base with DHSMV to make sure the Department was still supportive of our efforts. After being given the green light and we immediately met with the House sponsor, Representative Albritton and his staff, to explain why Medical Examiners should have direct access to the DAVID database. He understood our concerns but also made it clear that only language that was agreed on by both sponsors (House and Senate) would make it into the final cut of the legislative package. We had our marching orders and went directly to Senator Latvala's office and met with his staff to explain at length the need we saw for direct access to the database and why we should be included in the legislation. From that point we were on constant follow-up with both offices up until the strike-all amendment was made public. Our language ultimately passed allowing the state’s Medical Examiners access to this much needed identification tool. Both of these bills are examples of our sustained, successful efforts on behalf of our clients. ERICKS CONSULTANTS, INC. Governmental Consulting City of Delray Beach Submitted 10/11/2012 205 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 850-224-0880 -1 -Introduction ............................................................................................................................... -2 -Expertise and Experience ......................... ................................................................................... -7 -Appropriations ................................................................................................ ............................ -9 -Federal ....................................................................................................................................... -9 -Execution .................................................................................................................................. -10 -Some Examples of Successes .................................... ................................................................ -12 -Price Proposal .................................................................................................................. ......... -20 -Closing ...................................................................................................................................... -20 -Appendix 1 – ECI Client List ....................................................................................................... -21 -Appendix II – Professional References ............................................... ....................................... -28 - -2 -It is with great pleasure that Ericks Consultants, Inc. (ECI) teaming with Adams St. Advocates (ASA), submits the following proposal to represent the City of Delray Beach on matters of governmental affairs before the Florida Legislature, Cabinet and executive branch agencies, as well as assisting on Federal matters. Our experience provides us with a keen understanding of the issues that local governments face as well as an understanding of new initiatives that the City will undertake. With vast experience representing local governments, we understand that legislative representation is critical to your success. We as a team offer unparalleled knowledge and experience in the political process, gained from years of direct participation. Through experience, dedication, knowledge of the political process and strong relationships, ECI is a highly effective full-service governmental consulting firm representing both corporate and public entity clients with legislative and state agency issues. Equipped with an in-depth knowledge of Florida government, we are trained to interact with all state and local agencies, legislative committees and executive staff. ECI has joined forces with ASA to form an extremely strong alliance in the political arena to meet the City of Delray Beach’s current and future goals. David Ericks has been a government consultant since 1980. Candice Ericks joined the firm in 1998. Marty Cassini joined as general counsel 2009. Since its founding in 1985, Ericks Consultants, Inc. has represented some of Florida’s top corporations and largest associations and has secured a place in Florida’s political arena at both the state, county and municipal levels of government. ECI has offices one block from the Capitol in downtown Tallahassee and in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. ASA is a Florida-based consulting firm, established in response to today’s fluid economic and political landscapes. ASA is a forward thinking, client centered group that provides extensive management experience in both the private and public sectors. ASA is passionate about helping clients reach their goals through a collaborative effort, all the while remaining focused on their needs from beginning to end. Simply, Adams Street Advocates, as the name implies, are advocates-willing and ready to be part of a team that will champion the City of Delray Beach’s priorities. While recently formed -its team members, as discussed in more detail later in this proposal, have a long history at all levels in state and local government. Together they are a collective force committed to excellence and will work endlessly to achieve the results not only the City desires, but deserves. We have extensive knowledge and expertise in dealing with our South Florida Environment, specifically transportation, energy, public safety, solid waste, growth management, beach renourishment, rail, airports, seaports and tourism. We currently represent the City of Coconut Creek [almost 6 years] the City of Coral Springs [12 years] the City of North Lauderdale [since 2009 and previously represented], the City of Pembroke Pines [for over 6 years], the Town of Davie [cumulatively almost 6 years], the City of Plantation [more than 7 years] and recently the City of Fort Lauderdale. We have represented the Cities of Hollywood and Pembroke Park in the past. We also represent Broward County [over 15 years] and Palm Beach County [over 6 years]. We believe that the experience gained from representing these local governments provides us the capability and understanding to meet the needs of the City of Delray Beach. Please meet the members of Ericks Consultants, Inc. (ECI) -3 -DAVID ERICKS is founder and President of Ericks Consultants, Inc. Dave moved to Fort Lauderdale when he was 13 years old and graduated from Stranahan High School. After returning from College at C.W. Post (Long Island University) on a football scholarship he took a position as a police officer with the City of Plantation, which transitioned him into the world of Florida politics. Dave Ericks has been a registered lobbyist in the State of Florida for almost 30 years, starting with his representation of the State of Florida Fraternal Order of Police while at the City of Plantation Police Department in 1980. Mr. Ericks was a registered lobbyist for the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and the 3M Corporation before founding Ericks Consultants, Inc. in 1985. Prior to establishing his own firm, Mr. Ericks was employed by the 3M Corporation as Regional Administrator and Registered Lobbyist in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. Mr. Ericks served as Senior Executive Assistant to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Administrative Assistant to the Broward County Sheriff and served on the City of Plantation Police Force. Mr. Ericks’ past experience allowed him the opportunity to work with various police and criminal justice organizations, including the Steering Committee for Constitutional Amendments and the State Law Enforcement Job Task Advisory Committee for the Florida Police Standards and Training Commission. He has also represented members statewide as the President of the Fraternal Order of Police. His service in those positions has given him both law enforcement and administrative expertise at the local, county and state levels. Moreover, since establishing Ericks Consultants in 1985, Mr. Ericks has represented a multi-faceted group of clients, giving him a wide array of expertise in multiple subject areas, including the electric and telecommunication utilities, law enforcement, entertainment, healthcare, travel, corrections, solid waste, growth management, automobile, gaming, and transportation industries; as well as in the many diverse issues which face local governments on a day to day basis. Dave is a pioneer member of the Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists. Dave served as Chairman of the Tallahassee Downtown Improvement Authority for 3 years and currently serves on the Board. He presently serves on the Advisory Board of Keiser University’s Tallahassee Campus and previously served as a Board Member of the Florida State Fair Authority. Dave received his B.A. Degree from Long Island University and earned his Master of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Nova University. He is also a graduate of the F.B.I. Academy’s Law Specialist School in Quantico, Virginia and has taught as an Adjunct Faculty Member for Nova University. Mr. Ericks resides in Tallahassee, Florida. CANDICE ERICKS is a consultant with Ericks Consultants, Inc., based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Candice was born in Broward County and grew up in the City of Plantation. Prior to joining the firm 14 years ago, Candice began her career in corporate sales in New York City, specializing in outdoor advertising and temporary staffing. Upon her return from Manhattan in 1998, Candice opened the Fort Lauderdale branch of Ericks Consultants, Inc. Candice has developed an extensive network of contacts and relationships within state and local governments and the business community and works closely with the firm’s South Florida based clients. Due to her work with an extensive array of clients, Candice has developed broad expertise in numerous subject areas. Candice is active in many charitable organizations and serves as a Board Member of ChildNet, a not-forprofit organization working to protect Broward County's abused, neglected and abandoned children; the Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists (term ending January 2010), an organization committed to establishing and maintaining high standards for the lobbying profession; and Broward Days, an -4 -independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan group of people advocating for diverse needs and concerns of Broward County, Florida. Candice was a member of Leadership Broward’s Class of XXV, an organization that seeks to prepare members for leadership roles in their community. Candice was also recently featured by Gold Coast Magazine as one of Broward County’s leading young professionals [40 Under 40] who were recognized for their professional and civic involvement in Broward County. Candice worked with Ericks Consultants, Inc. while attending Florida State University and interned during the 1994 Legislative Session in the Florida Senate. She graduated with a Public Relations and Political Science degree from Florida State University. Candice Ericks resides in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. MARTY CASSINI was born in Miami and subsequently raised in Miami Shores. He attended Miami Country Day School for most of his young life and then went on to Barry University. While at Barry, Marty earned a Bachelor of Science in Sociology with a minor in History and also played on the Men’s Soccer team. After college, Marty moved to Alpharetta, Georgia. He worked for the well-respected real estate firm McCalla Raymer. During his time there, Marty administered many real estate transactions and gained a deep love for the law and moved back to South Florida to attend Nova Southeastern Law School. In 2006, Marty graduated from Nova and immediately became policy adviser and legal counsel to the Florida Senate Minority Leader. With such an opportunity, Marty acquired an in depth knowledge base of many different subject matters, including local government, gaming, insurance, health care, transportation and tax issues. Marty worked with various stakeholders on a variety of subjects. Most notably, he was involved in the property insurance rewrite of 2007, gaming bills that expanded poker rooms and slots machines at parimutuels, stem cell research investments, Sun Rail, removal of the affordable housing fund cap, the property tax rollback and ad valorem assessment changes, voluntary condominium termination, and high occupancy vehicle travel for hybrid cars. Since 2009, Marty has collaborated with Ericks Consultants Inc. on an array of different issues but concentrates mainly on local government, tax and gaming issues. With his legal and policy background, Marty is the analytical arm of the firm, providing detailed and in-depth reviews of all legislation moving through the process. He drafts bills and amendments and he also creates comprehensive policy initiatives. Marty offers insight and guidance on how policy changes affect the firm's clients. Marty is also a practicing attorney in the areas of corporate, business and finance law as well as local government law. Marty has served as counsel for campaigns, political action committees and other political groups. Marty serves as pro bono counsel to a local developmentally disabled school and has also lobbied pro bono for Autism related initiatives. Marty has also served as in-house counsel for campaigns, political action committees and other political groups. JANET MORRIS is the Office Manager for Ericks Consultants and works out of the Tallahassee office. Janet has an in-depth knowledge of the operation of the Florida Legislature and state government. Janet -5 -retired from the Florida House of Representatives in 2006 as a Senior Legislative Analyst in the Committee on Business Regulation. In her capacity on committee staff, Janet was responsible for the analysis of legislation dealing with alcohol, tobacco, general business and all gaming venues [lottery, pari-mutuels, slots, etc.]. Prior to her service on the Business Regulation Committee staff, Janet served as an Executive Assistant to the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader. Please meet your team from Adams St. Advocates (ASA) DAVID ERICKS is one of the founding partners of Adams St. Advocates. In addition to Dave, other founding partners that will be dedicated to your issues include Claudia Davant, Robert Beck and Tanya Jackson. CLAUDIA DAVANT, Managing Partner, was the former Managing Partner of NSI, Florida where she lead the national firm's Florida practice for almost 4 years. While there she built a broad multi-client practice that included information technology, local government, telecommunications, transportation, gaming, appropriations, healthcare, aging, education, environmental issues with a niche practice around procurement driven clients and sales/business development strategy. She has extensive experience in government and private sectors. Prior to NSI, Claudia was on the national business development team for Accenture, a global information technology firm, where she led sales campaigns for large, complex integrated systems opportunities. At Accenture she was also responsible for government relations in Florida as well as many other states and worked closely with government entities at both the state and local level in that role. Claudia moved to Florida in 2000 as AT&T's State President for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs where she worked hand in hand with key decision makers in both the Florida legislative and executive branches for 5 years. She subsequently was promoted to Regional Vice President for Legislative Affairs for AT&T where she successfully led legislative and regulatory reform campaigns in the Southern Region before the merger with BellSouth. In addition to her corporate experience, Claudia worked in government on both the state and federal levels. She served as U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond’s Legislative Aide in Washington, D.C. for 3 years providing legislative analysis, constituent service and external communications. As a Policy Advisor to the Michigan House of Representatives, she led the staff effort to rewrite the Michigan Telecommunications Act. And as General Counsel and Communications Director for the South Carolina Department of Commerce, she negotiated economic development incentives with corporations wanting to do business with the state. Claudia currently serves on the Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) IT Council, Florida TaxWatch Board’s Executive Steering Committee and Board, the Take Stock in Children Board and the Florida Afterschool Network Board. One of only nine recipients nationwide, she was recently honored by the Afterschool Alliance as Florida’s Afterschool Champion of the Year at the “Breakfast of Champions” in Washington, DC. A South Carolina native, Claudia earned her BA from the University of South Carolina Honors College and Law degree from the University of South Carolina. ROBERT BECK brings unique and invaluable skills in public and private sector budgeting and appropriations, assisting our clients to build effective business cases that resonate with government decision-makers and procurement evaluation teams. Having served in senior roles in government -6 -including Staff Director of Senate Appropriations, Budget Director for the Governor of the State of Florida, Policy Advisor to the Senate President on Appropriations, Medicaid, and General Government, Robert has leveraged his extensive public sector experience to position private sector clients to effectively compete and win multiple agency procurements since reentering the private sector in 2008. Robert’s experience in health care, criminal justice, and extensive experience with Medicaid has allowed him to effectively assist his clients in developing value propositions and procurement opportunities that resonate in today’s fiscally challenging environment where agencies are continually confronted with a growing workload and shrinking resources to meet these demands. Robert effectively leverages his executive branch relationships, having served in the Departments of Elder Affairs, Children & Families, Agriculture, Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, and Management Services to create opportunities and interest by state agency stakeholders through effective communication and knowledge of agency needs. Robert understands the importance of effective business cases and sound return on investment analyses in a state government market that is becoming more and more driven to operate like a business, increase efficiency and reduce costs. Robert leverages his deep relationships in government and combines these relationships with solid business skills to create opportunities and encourage state government stakeholders to pursue them as good public policy. JIM HENRY has been involved with state government for over forty years. The last ten years he was with The Department of Children & Families as Legislative Director – most recently for Secretary Wilkins. There he coordinated the full legislative package including budget and all substantive program areas. He also served on the department’s executive leadership team. Before that he was legislative coordinator for The Florida Lottery for four years under then Governor Jeb Bush. Jim also was the executive director and lobbyist for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. He came to Tallahassee in 1971 and stared to work as staff director in the Florida legislature both in the Senate and House of Representatives. This unique alliance between ECI and ASA offers the City of Delray Beach a proven, dedicated and respected South Florida based team, as well as a seasoned Tallahassee based team that works and lives in Tallahassee year round. Combining the intimate knowledge of the South Florida based team with the Tallahassee year round presence is invaluable and critical to the City. Many committee, administrative and rule making hearings and other important meetings take place outside of the legislative calendar. Having the ECI/ASA dual representation allows for firsthand knowledge and insight into what is happening throughout the year and the direct effects it may have on the City. In these tough economic times the regulatory and administrative process is equally important as the legislative process. Environmental permitting issues, economic development incentives and the process of determining the economic impact of unfounded mandates are just a few examples of issues that agencies address throughout the year. We are aware of the importance of economic incentives to the City of Delray Beach and our team has solid relationships with the Department of Economic Opportunity, as well as Appropriations in both the House and the Senate. -7 -Our experience and knowledge, combined with our strong relationships throughout the Legislature, allows us to cover a lot of ground within the legislative process. Our capabilities are supported by inhouse legal counsel and interns, as well as an extremely seasoned Office Manager with 30 years of experience in the legislative process. We pride ourselves on efficient coordination and organization that allows us to handle numerous tasks for multiple clients simultaneously. We believe that our long-term relationships with the majority of our clients are indicative of our past performance. In addition, ASA brings another team to the table to champion the City of Delray Beach’s efforts, with additional experts in the consulting and lobbying fields. Session moves fast and decisions and legislation changes quickly so having a large team at the capitol every day and living in Tallahassee during session is invaluable to your representation and success. Another advantage to having a team that lives in Tallahassee during Session is that travel has become so costly and difficult many members of the Legislature and staff spend their weekends in Tallahassee which provides additional opportunities to spend time with decision makers while the decisions are actually happening. Our approach will be an informed and educated one. Our relationships with leadership in both the House and the Senate afford us the knowledge of what the Legislature will be focused on and an insight into what their challenges will be. We will proactively develop a strategy to successfully integrate the City’s needs into the overall plan for the Legislature’s plan. As soon as priorities are identified we will immediately secure bill sponsors for general or special legislation if needed, in addition to educating our local delegation. ECI has a reputation for working within the legal and ethical guidelines of the political world. Experience and personal relationships give us the ability to organize strong political support for our clients’ issues, opposition to amendments that are disadvantageous to our clients, and sponsorship of legislation that is vital to our client’s agenda. Reputation, access, and expertise is the strength of the ECI/ASA Team. ECI is uniquely situated by having a Tallahassee-based firm with an extremely active South Florida office, both equipped to respond to clients’ needs. This dual presence allows constant visibility in both the southern and northern regions of the state. Our firm is fortunate to have very good relationships with both sides of the political aisle, which allows ECI to represent our clients in a highly effective manner. Term limits have made it such that there is no longer an off season from the legislative session. We at ECI spend the entire year in close contact with Legislators and their staff regarding interim projects, campaigns and possible legislation for the upcoming year. In addition, we continue to focus on leadership in both chambers, and of course, the strength of our tri-county delegations. We believe that being present at all times when decision makers and their staff are physically at the capital is vital to your representation. Knowing that ECI “lives” at the Capitol during the legislative session is to the city’s benefit. We believe that our most effective resources are those relationships that we have formed over the years. We take pride in the fact that we have outstanding professional and personal relationships with Legislators from both parties and their staffs, the Governor’s office, with Cabinet officers and staff, and with key decision makers in state agencies. In fact, during a recent team planning meeting the ECI/ASA team went through the organizational charts of every executive branch agency and determined that we have good relationships and access to every agency! This access will be invaluable to the City for any and every issue that needs to be addressed. The Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists [FAPL] was created to provide on-going training and professional development and is committed to promoting the highest ethical standards of professional -8 -conduct among its membership. David Ericks is a pioneer member of the Association and Candice Ericks has served on its Board of Directors for several years and has recently been reappointed. ECI values its professional reputation and has spent years cultivating trust-based relationships within Palm Beach County and state government. ECI has a strong relationship with each member of the Palm Beach County Delegation and staff. We are confident that each current member of the Delegation is comfortable working with ECI. With elections around the corner and qualifying over we are now spending our time getting to know all of the candidates that may become new members of the Delegation. We historically attend the annual Florida League of Cities and Florida Association of Counties statewide and legislative conferences. ECI is also a member of Florida Association of Intergovernmental Relations (FAIR). Being a member of this group affords us the opportunity to utilize an additional resource. During Session this group meets twice a week to discuss and strategize on all Legislation that will affect your City, whether it be transportation, growth management, public safety etc. We have been a member of this group for many years and through this we have cultivated many working relationships and close ties between different levels of government. This participation enhances our knowledge and understanding of the challenges and trends that face South Florida cities, as well as municipalities across the state. We work particularly close with the Florida League of Cities and Association of Counties during the Legislative Session. It is especially beneficial to the citizens of the City of Delray Beach that ECI and ASA have enduring relationships with House and Senate leadership. As you know, the Legislature and the Governor’s office is led by an overwhelming majority if Republicans and we maintain strong relationships with the Majority Party in Tallahassee at both the Legislative and Executive Branch levels. Only a couple of committee chairman and leadership roles have been announced for the new Senate President Gaetz or incoming House Speaker Weatherford. However, we are confident that based on our current relationships we will be well positioned regardless of which members will be appointed to key positions. For the ones who have been announced, such as the House Appropriations Chairman and the Senate Pro Tem, we have very good trust based relationships with those members. Currently we have solid relationships with the Incoming Senate President and Speaker, as well as their recently announced Chiefs of Staff. As for South Florida, we are well positioned with the Senate Minority Leader Chris Smith and House Minority Leader Perry Thurston. Both Senator Smith and Representative Thurston have worked closely with ECI throughout the years. While the Governor’s office is currently transitioning to a new Chief of Staff, we have close relationships with key deputies as well as decision makers and key influencers in the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget (OPB). Our ability to represent our clients is reflected in the duration and loyalty of our business relationships throughout the State of Florida. ECI has a history of familiarizing themselves and forming strong, professional relationships with the members of city and county commissions, the Florida Legislature, cabinet offices, state agencies and staff. ECI has the proven ability to recognize the changing trends in the corporate and political worlds and uses those skills to organize, monitor, maneuver and communicate between government and client, giving both the comfort of understanding and the ability to offer compromise. -9 -Our team is also actively engaged in Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) and other business related lobbying organizations so that we understand what the business priorities are for the Legislative Session and how they will impact the City of Delray Beach. Being successful in the Appropriations process today requires an effective strategy that builds a compelling business case to support your appropriations request. Our team will work with you to build effective business cases needed to support your appropriations issues. The competition for state funding has been nothing but fierce for the past 6 years due to Florida’s revenue challenges – for six years in a row, state revenue collections have been insufficient to fund base budget expenditures. The need to develop a high-level ‘return on investment’ analysis to support your appropriation’s priorities will also be key and we will work with your team to develop the business case needed to support your appropriations priorities. As your advocate and consultant in Tallahassee and back at home in South Florida, our focus will be on our communication, knowledge, expertise, ability and relationships to assist the City of Delray Beach with current priorities, as well as planning and laying the ground work for future goals. We understand the needs and challenges that local governments face on a daily basis and the challenges of planning in tough economic times. Our goal in supporting and advocating on behalf of the City of Delray Beach’s appropriations priorities will always be to present a strategic, compelling, and focused message that differentiates and positions your appropriations requests. ECI has in depth knowledge of the state appropriations process and has been successful in obtaining line item appropriations for our clients. However, the addition of Robert Beck to our roster brings an extraordinary insight and experience to the ECI Team. Robert is uniquely qualified in the legislative appropriations arena having been an appropriations staff director for the Florida Senate. In addition, Beck held the role of chief policy advisor on appropriations for the Florida Senate President in 2004 and 2005. In addition to his legislative appropriations experience, Beck has held senior executive appointments in budget leadership acting as the Governor’s budget director under Governor Crist and also holding the budget director jobs for other executive branch agencies. Beck brings the most solid experience in state budgeting and legislative appropriations possible to achieve this client’s goals. Beck provides a level of knowledge to the appropriations process which has helped him to achieve results in multiple policy areas including health care-specifically home and community care for seniors, Medicaid, criminal justice, technology, education and transportation. Our team will provide continuous assistance throughout the budget process, advocating for full-funding of the City’s project requests. Please note that Mr. Beck with ASA has extensive knowledge of the Florida budget process and has proven to work successfully within the extremely complicated appropriations world. In addition, we will also identify relevant funding opportunities and assist with grant requests. Keep in mind that many opportunities come up outside of the timeframe of the regularly scheduled Session and having a full-time extended team living in Tallahassee continuing to work at the Capitol is key. Members of our team will continue to work throughout the year with the Florida League of Cities and the Palm Beach League of Cities to review their policies. We will also maintain follow-up and appreciation correspondence throughout the process when appropriate. -10 -Please be aware that out team has very strong relationships at the Federal level. In addition, many issues that we deal with at a state level are contingent on the Federal components. We have worked for years collectively with clients such as Broward County, Palm Beach County, other cities, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority and JM Family on issues that require federal cooperation to succeed on a state or local level. We are very familiar with coordinating efforts with our Congressional Delegation, as well as other members from around the state to achieve the desired goals. As most of the Florida Congressional Delegation came from the Florida Legislature, we have worked with them for years. For example, we have worked on transportation issues with Congressman Mica from Florida [Chairman], Congressman Shuster of Pennsylvania [next Chairman] and Subcommittee Chair Congressman Sam Graves of Missouri. We have also worked closely with the Administration for Children & Families’ Assistant Secretary, George Sheldon, who served as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Family Services before leaving for DC. Areas of representation for the City of Delray Beach, will include but will not be limited to: transient or vacation rental issues; community residential group homes [sober homes]; economic opportunities; financial incentives; energy; beach nourishment; transportation; communications services tax; pensions; and local preemptions. We are familiar with the transient rental issue and the history of the legislation that was passed. Our team has excellent working relationships with all parties involved including Senator Evers and representatives of the Vacation Rental Managers’ Association. From our recent conversations we understand the challenges regarding this issue but believe that we can be an effective advocate for the City’s position. It is important to point out that, especially regarding to the sober homes issue, our team has an extremely close trust-based relationship with the Department of Children and Family Services, the Florida League of Cities, and the discussed potential sponsors in the House and Senate. We plan to collaborate our efforts on the city’s behalf with both the Palm Beach League of Cities and the Florida League of Cities who are making this the top priority for this legislative session. ECI, along with ASA, will provide unparalleled representation to the City of Delray Beach. We will work closely with the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Deputy Vice-Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager and staff in the coordination and development of the annual legislative agenda and appropriations requests, including holding workshops as necessary. Once the agenda and budget priorities are set we will then identify key legislators, as well as staff in the Governor’s Office, the Cabinet and executive branch agencies regarding our specific legislative and budget priorities. We will then continue to develop and implement strategy on proposed special or general legislation in coordination with the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation. Our team will be involved in drafting and analyzing proposed legislation, developing strategies and recommending amendments as necessary. ECI will create white papers, talking points or other educational documents to distribute to members as needed on important issues. We will arrange initial educational/informational meetings amongst staff and members of the Legislature and executive branch agencies and will facilitate follow-up meetings as the priorities move through the legislative session. Members of our team will continuously track legislation throughout Committee weeks and Session, monitoring all state legislative committee meetings and agency hearings prior to, during and after Session and testifying as needed. -11 -Our approach will be an informed and educated one. ECI is a committed consulting/lobbying firm that acts as an extended arm of our clients in every aspect. Whether it is on a state, local or federal issue, ECI works closely with each client to identify their specific needs. We recognize that each client has unique assets and needs and has their own style for achievement reports and distribution of workload. Many of our clients are team-based; therefore, the responsibilities, as well as the efforts, are shared. In other cases, we are a client’s sole representation. Members of our firm will be available at all times via phone, text, fax, or email to maintain vital lines of communication throughout Legislative Committee weeks and Session. One of our strengths is the ability to take large amounts of information and present it to the City of Delray Beach every committee week or week during session. With two attorneys on the ECI/ASA team bills and policy changes are given very thorough analyses and reviews. You will receive informative and concise reports on policy matters that will detail any negative or positive effects from any particular piece of legislation. We have staff dedicated to bill tracking and reporting, updates, legislative intent, and answering any questions you may have. ECI believes that communication is the most valuable component of a client/lobbyist relationship and is the key to their mutual success. Insight and ongoing communication between the lobbyist and the client provides a better understanding of exactly what the client wants, allowing us to be successful in achieving the desired result. ECI will provide written reports and updates on a regular basis, during both the legislative session and the interim, on those issues and concerns identified by the City. During Session, the City will receive official weekly reports, as well as phone calls and emails during the week as needed. In these weekly reports the City will receive updates on the City’s priorities, other legislation that City should be aware of, the overall political climate, anticipated action for the upcoming week and a suggested action plan if needed. In addition, ECI will continuously apprise the City of developing initiatives of which we believe the City should be aware, and will submit a status report on priority issues one week prior to the end of Session. At the close of Session, ECI will submit a priority report and soon after a thorough end-of-session report on specific legislation and new requirements effecting the City. Also note that should there be a specific issue that needs detailed research, we have done and will do that for our clients. We will provide that privileged information to decide on the best strategic approach with options. For example; what cities, businesses, and other legislatures are doing in other states on a particular issue. After session we would like to come to the City to talk about what transpired. Prior to the start of Interim Committee Meetings, we would like to conduct a workshop with the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Deputy Vice-Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager and staff to discuss what has happened in the interim and what we should expect to see in the upcoming session. This will lead us into developing the Legislative Agenda for the year to come. Our team takes pride in the fact that we are in constant communication with our clients, whether it be at community events, through reports and correspondence or by phone. Although the hustle and bustle of Tallahassee calms down when session is over, we know that the City will constantly have issues with proposed bills, rule-making, administrative bodies, court cases and perhaps even issues between the state and federal government. Administrative agencies routinely promulgate new and revised rules/regulations. Ericks Consultants, Inc. and Adams St. Advocates constantly monitors the development of these proposes rules which are developed via a formal “rules hearing process” under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. During these rule workshops, we work with the State to ensure our client’s interests are not unduly burdened by a newly proposed/revised rule. During the course of rule promulgation, we analyze the proposed policies for client impact – from a legal, -12 -operational, and fiscal impact – and provide public testimony during the rule-making process to shape the final outcome. South Florida Regional Transportation Authority For historic background, almost ten years ago ECI was instrumental in helping to pass legislation which transformed the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (TriRail) into the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA.) The new Authority was created with a vision to provide greater mobility in South Florida, thereby improving the economic viability and quality of life of the community, region and state. The ECI Team was instrumental in the passage of major legislation that gave the Authority the power to issue, reissue or redeem bonds. Through ECI’s efforts, the bill provided for discretionary bonding ability and gave the Authority the potential to receive matching funds of at least $45 million if Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties imposed a local-option funding source. This provision guaranteed that a dedicated funding source, either from the state, counties and/or a local-option funding source, was always available to the Authority. Throughout 2008 and 2009, ECI worked with the SFRTA team to educate the legislature and other key executive agency decision makers on the critical need for additional dedicated funding. In December 2009, the Florida Legislative Special Session culminated in successfully gaining Legislative approval for additional funding; specifically, the Legislature appropriated an additional $15 million a year for five years to close the gap needed to run a full complement of 50 trains which directly benefits not just the counties but also the City of Ft. Lauderdale. This funding was critical to the on-going operation of the rail and picks up the shortfall caused by reduced funding from the county. The Team successfully secured an additional $1 million in funding during the 2010 Legislative Session. With a state budget short fall of over $4 Billion, any increase in funding was a monumental accomplishment. During the 2012 Legislative Session, Legislation was introduced to dramatically change the governance of the SFRTA Board based on recommendations by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). It would have eliminated the three local representatives currently on the Board and provided for the ability to completely privatize the agency. After weeks of intense lobbying, a compromise was negotiated between SFRTA , FDOT and the Governor’s office to preserve the local representation and allow the Governor additional representation without jeopardizing SFRTA’s operating authority. This amendment required a complicated legislative strategy that was successfully implemented in multiple committee meetings on multiple legislative vehicles, floor support and passage. Ultimately, HB 599 was signed by the Governor and ECI is proud of the teamwork between SFRTA, Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. This huge undertaking that affected multiple counties clearly demonstrates ECI’s leadership abilities to lead on complicated political and policy issues directly affecting local government. JM Family Enterprises -13 -Historically, ECI has fought franchise legislation that would be harmful to the operation of JM Family Enterprises (Southeast Toyota). In the automobile industry, JM is unique in the sense that although they are a distributor, they also own a dealership. JM Family has a wonderful business relationship with its dealers, however, when it comes to franchise legislation JM normally takes the manufacturer stance. Overall, ECI has been successful in defeating franchise language or in negotiating legislation that is less injurious to JM Family. For example, during the 2009 legislative session there was a push to enact legislation that would have made it virtually impossible for a dealer to ever relocate. The language would also have nullified a provision requiring a franchisee to maintain and honor facility improvements that were in place through an already negotiated franchise agreement. ECI was successful in stripping the offensive language out of the bill on the last day of Session. Energy With the assistance of Senator Bogdanoff and Representative Moraitis, we were successful in amending both the House and Senate versions of the Energy Legislation (HB 7117) to include the words "commercial property". Adding this language expanded the ability of local governments to partner with commercial properties to further energy efficient projects which benefits local business and improves energy consumption. The energy legislation is an initiative, backed by the Commissioner of Agriculture, which would extend $16 million dollars of tax credits for renewable energy. The bill also makes a number of changes to energy laws to streamline and help implement a renewable energy plan state-wide. In addition to expanding the ability for biofuel permits the bill allows utilities to recover costs from consumers if the PSC makes such a determination after petition. Additionally, there is information on vehicle charging stations and privately owned electric charging on both energy consumption and the impact of the electric grid on the state. We mention some details of this bill because energy will continue to be a focus of future legislation and we know how important it is to the City of Delray Beach regarding vehicle charging and fueling stations, as well as green energy initiatives. There was recently a workshop in Tallahassee that ECI attended specifically on electric vehicle charging and the electrical grid. We expect a rule-making workshop soon probably in Central Florida to deal with these issues, where we will be in attendance. Seaports During the 2010 Legislative Session ECI and the coalition of Florida Seaports gained support for significant changes to port regulations. HB 963 by Representative Ray and SB 2000 by Senator Ring was Port Policy/Regulatory Relief legislation dealing specifically with the following: port conceptual permits, stormwater management systems serving overwater piers, reduction of match for rehabilitation of wharves and piers, flexibility language for FSTED program, funding process, dredging permits issued by DEP, public/private partnership authority, as well as providing an expedited process for the submission of work program amendments for seaport projects. ECI attended all committee meetings, as well as numerous meetings with the sponsors, other legislator and staff to ensure its passage. In 2011, ECI helped pass HB 283 by Representative Young/SB 524 by Senator Latvala. Florida at that time was the only state subject to both state and federal seaport requirements, including duplicative background checks and access cards. This of course put the state and specifically Port Everglades at a competitive disadvantage with other ports, as well as being costly to port users and workers. HB 283 repealed these duplicative regulations and was signed into law by Governor Scott at a special bill signing -14 -ceremony. (This legislation settled the differences of the FDLE card and the TWIC (Transportation Worker ID Card). Please note that this was an ongoing battle since 2009 and we are very proud of passage of this legislation. In 2011 ECI was instrumental in working with the Ports Council to help pass language geared toward environmental processes, permitting language and seaport planning language. (Senator Ring and Representative Ray – HB 399) This legislation is beneficial to Port Everglades because of the maintenance dredging and streamline permitting language. In 2012, specific port funding for the SouthPort Turning Notch was eliminated from FDOT’s five year work plan. ECI strategically led a coalition of business leaders from Broward County that included Port Everglades Board Members, members of the Greater Fort Lauderdale Business Alliance and Broward County Commissioners. We then facilitated critical meetings with key legislators and agency decision makers to reinstate that funding in the appropriations process. ECI was instrumental in working along side the Ports Council to help pass monumental seaport legislation. Increased financial assistance, as well as streamline permitting legislation was put into place to benefit Florida’s 14 seaports. We worked hard to secure additional money for the FSTED Program, as well as setting up a Strategic Port Initiative to benefit the future of Florida’s ports. Our efforts resulted in an increase from the previous year and specific appropriations for Port Everglades are as follows: Port Everglades $1,100,000 for the Southport Turning Notch (project funded through FSTED Port Everglades $12,000,000 for Southport ICTF on Port Rail Improvement (project funded through FDOT) Port Everglades $12,214,668 for Southport Turning Notch Expansion (project funded through FDOT) FEC/Port Everglades ICTF $30,000,000 (project funded in the Intermodal line item) Crime Lab Crime lab funding has been a priority for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and Broward County for the last few years. Florida has five crime labs that are underfunded by the state. Prior to the 2012 legislative session, statutory authority allowed but did not require judges to impose an additional penalty to increase the funding for crime labs when they were used in the successful prosecution of a defendant. Invoking this additional fine was rarely imposed and it was not uniformly applied. This created significant shortfalls that the Sheriff’s office and the County then had to subsidize with local funding. Efforts led by ECI throughout 2010 and 2011 culminated in successful changes to mandate crime lab fees in 2012 legislation. Specifically, language was passed that would require a $100 fee to be mandated when a person was convicted of a crime and the local crime lab was utilized. There are 5 local crime labs that are located in Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Indian River and Pinellas Counties. Through ECI’s strong relationships with the Broward delegation, support for the language to change the statute was garnered early in the process. This support resulted in Senator Bogdanoff (who was essential in previous efforts) committing to making it a priority during Budget negotiations. ECI worked -15 -tirelessly throughout the appropriations process attending all Budget meetings and worked along side Senator Bogdanoff to gain support of both the House and Senate leadership to secure the House acceptance of the mandatory $100 fee language. We were successful in getting the House to accept the language and Senate Conforming Bill 1968 passed both the House and Senate unanimously. Our understanding is that this language will provide an estimated $5 Million funding for the crime labs. During the veto period we worked diligently with the Governor’s Office to answer questions and educate them on the user fee funding source contained in the legislation. Our arguments were persuasive and the bill was ultimately approved by the Governor. Afterschool Programs During the 2012 Legislative Session Claudia Davant helped lead the charge to prevent the passage of legislative changes that would have made 32,000 low-income children ineligible for participation in the afterschool programs they were currently enrolled in. She met with legislators and facilitated language supported by the Florida AfterSchool Network and other advocates for children and education so that the legislation that was ultimately passed met their goals for improving children’s school readiness without blocking access to important afterschool programs. Claudia was named Florida’s “Afterschool Champion of the Year” for her successful pro bono work on behalf of the Florida Afterschool Network. Budget Robert Beck, a founding partner with Adams St. Advocates leads our Firm’s Appropriations work. Robert has a solid understanding of the State of Florida’s budget process having held numerous senior appointments in the Executive branch, the Governor’s Office and in the Senate Legislative Appropriations Committee. Since leaving government in 2008 after 22 years, Robert has helped secure millions of dollars in appropriations increases as well as preserves base budget funding on behalf of his clients. These accomplishments include: • FY 2010-2011 – Preserved funding for home and community-based programs serving seniors in while over $4 Billion was cut from programs in the State Budget. During the worse fiscal times the State of Florida has ever faced, Mr. Beck was able to secure several million dollars to increase Florida’s Aging & Disabled Medicaid Waiver program. • FY 2011-2012 -$40 million increase for home and community based care programs for seniors including for Alzheimer’s Projects & Services; Nursing home diversion program, Community Care for the Elderly, and local service programs serving Broward and Miami-Dade Counties. • FY 2012-2013 $ 23 million increase for home and community based care programs for seniors $ 11.4 million for the AIDS Insurance Continuation Programs which serves Broward County $ 2.5 million increase for AIDS Drug Assistance Program $ 4.4 million for Juvenile delinquency prevention programs $ 1.0 million of the Health Council of South Florida In addition to these recent appropriations secured through Mr. Beck’s advocacy efforts, he also was an integral member of the 2012 Team led by Ericks Consultants to protect the SFRTA’s base budget funding for commuter rail transportation and secured $2 million for rail bridge replacement in Central Florida. Finally, Mr. Beck has helped his clients achieve success in the budgeting process in numerous cases -16 -through the development of State Budget Proviso language and development of numerous budget conforming bills critical to ensuring proper implementation of the budget following legislative session. Charter Schools ECI was instrumental in obtaining increases in appropriations each year for charter schools. We represent the City of Coral Springs and the City of Pembroke Pines on charter school issues. This has been an uphill battle over the years to gain support and appropriations for the charter school effort. 2001 -Increased from $20 million to $27.7 million 2006 -Increased from $27.7 million to $53 million During the 2007 and 2008 Legislative Sessions -over $54,000,000 2010 -$56,112,466 2011 -$55 million appropriated with additional money for high performing charter school systems (note that both Coral Springs and Pembroke Pines are part of a high performing charter schools system) 2012 -$55,209,106 (plus additional funding available after allocation to the lab schools) Broward Center for the Performing Arts In 2012, ECI was successful in helping pass a bill for the Broward Center of the Performing Arts. The bill grants a public record exemption for publicly owned and operated performing arts centers. Before the bill passed confidential, sensitive, and personal information of the centers’ donors were subject to public records requests. The bill was signed by the Governor and donors are now protected. Crimes Against The Homeless This effort was attempted for many years, prior to passage in 2010. HB 11 by Representative Porth and SB 506 by Senator Ring, added homelessness into the statute of Hate Crimes (reclassifying offenses evidencing prejudice based on the homeless status of the victim). Florida leads the nation in attacks on the homeless. After Maryland enacted a law based on some of the horrific incidences that we as a community faced here in Broward, Sheriff Lamberti contacted members of our Delegation to pursue this effort yet one more time. ECI worked with the sponsors, Commander Rick Wierzbicki and Broward staff through every committee meeting and numerous discussions with Legislators in both the Senate and the House to ensure passage of this legislation. Although it did not pass unanimously [25 yeas/10 nays], there was virtually no discussion on the floor when Senator Ring presented the bill to the Senate. However, some members of the House were quite vocal in their opposition to adding another Hate Crime to the statute that already included nine classes. Representative Porth gave a passionate argument and defense of the legislation. Ultimately, the vote was not close [80 yeas/28 nays] and HB 11 passed. Medical Examiner During the 2011 Legislative Session ECI facilitated a meeting with Steven Fielder, Director of Government Relations for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, regarding allowing our medical examiners to be given direct access to the DAVID database [Driver & Vehicle Information Database]. This database contains a motorist’s identifying and emergency contact information, for the purpose of determining the identification of a deceased individual. Fielder was concerned about the number of examiners’ ability to gain access. Through a lengthy discussion we agreed upon a number of roughly 20 (as the number across the state) that, pursuant to an interagency agreement, would have -17 -secure access to the database. Once DHSMV signed off on the agreed upon language we went back to Representative Moraitis who we had briefed prior to our meeting with DHSMV. With the groundwork already set we started the 2012 Session touching base with Steven Fielder to make sure the Department was still supportive of our efforts. He gave us the green light and we immediately met with Representative Albritton and his staff to explain why our Medical Examiners should have direct access to the DAVID database. He understood, but also made it clear that only language that was agreed on by both sponsors (House and Senate) would make it into the final cut of the legislative package. We had our marching orders and went directly to Senator Latvala's office and met with his staff to explain at length the need we saw for direct access to the database and why we should be included in the legislation. From that point we were on constant follow-up with both offices up until the strike-all legislation was made public. We were very pleased that the database language was incorporated. Palm Beach County In 2011 ECI was instrumental in securing language in the reorganizational legislation for enterprise zone boundary designations on behalf of Palm Beach County. Also, we were able to secure $1.4 million in the budget during the Conference process for the Glades Senior Center/West County Homeless Resource Center. Although the $1.4 M passed in the budget, this particular item, along with many other items, was subject to Governor Scott’s veto power. Property Appraiser Issues ECI worked with Senator Ring and Representative Holder to pass SB 1580 -partial property payments. This piece of legislation proved to be more difficult than we expected. There were many hurdles; however, with the help and dedication of Senator Ring, Representative Holder, Representative Bogdanoff and Representative Murzin, among others, we were able to get it through both chambers in the last few days of Session. What SB 1580 ultimately does is allows for taxpayers to pay their property taxes in partial payments. Before passage of this legislation the law did not legally allow the tax collector to collect the payment unless it was paid in full. This piece of legislation will be helpful to the Florida citizens in these difficult economic times. Seminole Compact After years of negotiation, the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the State finally came together on a compact. The agreement comes after the Legislature challenged the first compact in 2008 and rejected compacts in 2009. The compact will allow the state to collect at least a billion dollars over five years. The Seminole Tribe is authorized to conduct gaming at the following locations: Seminole Indian Casino – Brighton, located in Okeechobee, FL, Seminole Indian Casino – Coconut Creek, located in Coconut Creek, FL, Seminole Indian Casino – Hollywood, located in Hollywood, FL, Seminole Indian Casino – Immokalee, located in Immokalee, FL, Seminole Indian Casino – Big Cypress, located in Clewiston, FL, Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino – Hollywood, located in Hollywood, FL, and Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino – Tampa, located in Tampa, FL. -18 -As a part of the Revenue Sharing Agreement between the state and local governments, the State will remit 3% of revenue received from the Tribe. Out of this 3%, Broward County shall receive 22.5% for revenue collected from the Seminole Indian Casino-Coconut Creek facility, and 25% for both Seminole Indian Casino in Hollywood and the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Hollywood. (The share is less for Coconut Creek due to more cities being included in the share than for the Hollywood facilities.) ECI was successful in negotiating a 5% fee to affected cities and counties in the original Governor’s compact that was overturned by the courts. ECI then helped negotiate the eventually agreed upon 3% (down from 5% because the legislative compact was requiring a larger guarantee from the Seminoles in the final agreement) on the legislative compact. ECI was instrumental in ensuring the percentage cuts to Broward County and the City of Coconut Creek. Law Enforcement ECI was responsible for numerous pieces of legislation dealing with all areas of public safety. SB 214 which set the statewide standards for the training and use of dart firing stun guns. SB 428 which raised the per diem rates for travel expenses of public employees. HB 251 which created the Marvin Clayton Act, which is the database to fairly and correctly dispense the allocation for local law 175/185 premium tax revenues. HB 295 which increased the penalties for violators that attempted to flee or elude law enforcement officers. HB 749 the Duval County Sheriff’s office pension plan legislation added correctional officers to special risk of their local law plan. SB 1792 which revised the number of members sitting on the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission and added the 180 day tolling or limitation period of actions against a law enforcement officer. HB 123 law enforcement officers’ bill of rights, that stopped the 180 day tolling of an investigation during a declared state of emergency and clarified that law enforcement officers were entitled to be interviewed last during an investigation. HB 143 set state wide training standards for firearms training, bringing Florida in line with Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Local Governments In 2008, ECI was able to obtain $500,000 for the Fire Training Simulator Tower for the City of Coral Springs. In 2008, Claudia Davant was retained to help the City of Tavares secure funding from the FDOT for the development of commuter rail in Tavares. In addition to rail funding, Davant’s team helped the City with various permitting issues related to the redevelopment of downtown Tavares. The Department of Environmental Protection had been unwilling to grant the City approval for the reconstruction of an overwater pavilion on Lake Dora. The Davant Team worked with state and local officials, as well as the Legislature and Governor’s office, to get approval for the project. The City was not only granted all permits for construction, but the permits were expedited, saving the City over 12 months of project delays. ECI was responsible for obtaining $7 M for the Plantation Preserve Golf Course. CBIRS -Back when community budget requests were part of the budget, ECI was extremely knowledgeable and successful in securing them for our local governments. Florida Atlantic University -19 -ECI worked with Tom Barlow, Director of Governmental Relations for Florida Atlantic University, to secure funds for identified FAU programs. ECI was initially hired to work on the FAU Davie Campus expansion. During the time ECI represented the University we exceeded our assigned goal and were instrumental in securing substantial funding for the university. In 2007, $94 million in PECO funding, $4.3 million recurring for their medical school expanding as 4 year program; $18 million for a new engineering project; $10 million for a general classroom building; $18 million for the Davie campus expansion; $8 million for the Harbor Branch Oceanic Research Center; and, an $500,000 increase for a student-teacher program. During the 2008 Legislative Session, ECI successfully secured the final $4.3 appropriation for the medical school as well as $8.75 million for an ocean to energy project, $52 million in PECO funding, $9 million in student projects, and $5 million for the Wellness Center. Local Preemption Experience Local preemption language is a constant battle in Tallahassee in numerous areas and we fight all session long for our local governments. Some examples of our experiences in this area include: Growth Management In 2009 ECI worked with Representative Schenk’s office to place a conforming amendment on HB 73 regarding contracting with the Department of Environmental Protection. The language extends the ability to expedite permitting to charter counties with population over 1.2 million that have delegation agreements with DEP or WMD if they do so by resolution. (This bill was amended and passed.) Solid Waste In 2010, ECI worked closely with local governments and other interested parties to defeat preemptive language that would have ultimately dissolved solid waste franchise agreements between a city or county and a vendor. That language would have changed the definition of Construction and Demolition debris and would have put an end to previously negotiated and operating contracts. The last time there was a real attempt to change this language was about five years ago. We were also instrumental in defeating that initiative at that time. Recycling SB 570 by Senator Constantine was quite contentious during the entire 2010 Session. ECI worked with all interested parties to ensure that unachievable mandates to local governments and private business were not in the final piece of legislation. From the beginning we felt comfortable with holding unfriendly language at bay in the House, knowing that we had a fight on our hands in the Senate. The House introduced their language as part of a committee sponsored bill [HB 7243] under Representative Williams’ direction. As the next few weeks unfolded, through countless discussions, amendments and negotiations, we were successful in ensuring that acceptable language was included in the legislation. Taxi Cabs ECI has fought against and has always been successful in defeating pre-emptive language regarding taxi cab regulation for many years. The proposed language prohibits state and local governments from regulating the transfers of taxi cab licenses or shares in the corporation that owns those licenses. The -20 -language usually shows up within the last few weeks of Session. In 2009 it was filed as an amendment to SB 424 and onto HB 1021. In 2010 the language showed up during the last 2 weeks filed as an amendment onto HB 1271. The 2011 Session was a bit different. The legislation was drawn only to affect Hillsborough County. We met with the sponsor to ensure it would not affect Broward. Last year there was not an appetite to entertain the efforts although there was discussion. Traffic Enforcement Cameras ECI worked on and helped pass House Bill 325 that formalizes and governs the specifications for the red light cameras across the state. The bill allows local governments to contract with private contractors to install red light cameras at intersections. The bill provides that any red light infraction will result in a fine of $158. If the county or municipality operates the camera, then the local government will retain $75. If the state operates the cameras, then the local government will receive $45. Under both scenarios, $10 will go to the Department of Health Administrative Trust Fund and $3 will go into the Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund. During the 2012 Legislative Session there was legislation introduced and an attempt to repeal the red light camera law. HB 4087 by Representative Corcoran passed the House but was never taken up in the Senate. Since the Senate did not consider the repeal, the sponsor offered amendments to other transportation bills. One particular amendment seemed to gather support toward the end of the Session and may be back next year. The amendment would have required traffic studies to show that red light cameras would in fact make intersections safer. Other amendments that were debated included the prohibition on citations for red light right hand turns and enactment of specific yellow timing standards. ECI worked alongside interested parties against this effort for our cities, Palm Beach County and ACS. We do expect to see this issue in the 2013 Legislative Session. Ericks Consultants, Inc., together with Adams St. Advocates, would be pleased to accept this one year contract for lobbying services for the City of Delray Beach for an annual fee of $40,000, payable in twelve monthly installments. This contract includes but is not limited to scheduled, extended and special legislative sessions as well as other times throughout the year deemed necessary by the City or the Consultant. The ECI/ASA team would like the opportunity to partner with the City of Delray Beach. We want to thank the City for the opportunity to present this unique and exciting strategic alliance that will allow the City to enter the 2013 Legislative Session with confidence and trust. Should you have any questions or need additional information on any part of this proposal, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you. -21 -– The following Client List offers insight into the varied nature of our experience and current endeavors and provides contact information for each of our clients. American Ambulance Service, Inc. Charles Maymon 2570 South Park Road Pembroke Park, FL 33009 954-868-6668 cmaymon@AmericanAmbulanceSvc.com ECI began representing American Ambulance before local governments in 2010. American Marketing & Management, Inc. Austin Forman 888 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 501 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 954-522-1969 af01@bellsouth.net ECI has represented American Marketing for more than 12 years. BAGS, Inc. Craig Mateer 6751 Forum Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32821 407-447-5547 craig@airportbags.com ECI resumed representing BAGS, Inc. in Broward County in 2011. Broward Center for the Performing Arts Kelley Shanley 201 SW 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312-7112 954-522-5334 kshanley@browardcenter.org ECI has represented the Center for over 12 years. Broward County Eddie Labrador 115 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-357-7575 elabrador@broward.org -22 -ECI has represented Broward County for more than 14 years. Broward County Property Appraiser Lori Parrish 115 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-357-6904 lori@bcpa.net ECI has represented the Broward County Property Appraiser for over five years. Broward County Sheriff’s Office Sheriff Al Lamberti 2601 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 954-321-4605 allamberti1@aol.com ECI has represented the Broward Sheriff’s Office for over three years. Broward Health (formerly North Broward Hospital District) Charlotte Mather 303 SW 17th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 954-355-4174 charlotte.mather@nbhd.org ECI has represented Broward Health for over seven years. Cash Bond Online Pat McDonough 1750 Archmont Circle Dacula, GA 30019 888-726-6301 pmcdonough@cashbondonline.com ECI began representing Cash Bond Online in 2011. Center Stage Attractions Joe Gehl 1815 Cordova Road, Suite 211 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315 954-522-4146 jgehl912@aol.com ECI has represented the Gehl Group for over 20 years. -23 -City of Coconut Creek David Rivera 4800 West Copans Road Coconut Creek, FL 33063 954-973-6720 drivera@coconutcreek.net ECI has represented City of Coconut Creek for almost six years. City of Coral Springs Erdal Donmez 9551 West Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 954-344-1142 edonmez@coralsprings.org ECI has represented City of Coral Springs for over eight years. City of Fort Lauderdale Lee Feldman 100 N. Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-828-5364 lfeldman@fortlauderdale.gov ECI began representing the City of Fort Lauderdale in October 2012. City of North Lauderdale Ambreen Bhatty 701 SW 71st Avenue North Lauderdale, FL 33068 954-724-7041 abhatty@nlauderdale.org ECI resumed representing the City of North Lauderdale again in 2009. City of Pembroke Pines Mayor Frank Ortis Charlie Dodge 10100 Pines Boulevard Pembroke Pines, FL 33026 954-431-4884 cdodge@ppines.com ECI has represented the City of Pembroke Pines for at least six years. City of Plantation -24 -Mayor Diane Veltri Bendekovic 400 NW 73rd Avenue Plantation, FL 33317 954-797-2227 mayor@plantation.org ECI has represented City of Plantation for over seven years. Diplomat Properties Limited Partners, LLC Francis X. Lilly 3555 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, FL 33019 202-898-2270 flilly@independentfiduciary.com ECI began representation of this world class resort and spa in 2011. Federation of Public Employees AFL-CIO Dan Reynolds 1700 NW 66th Avenue Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33313 954-797-7575 x 221 taflaco@aol.com ECI has represented the FOPE since 2009. Florida Power and Light Company Paul Hamilton 215 South Monroe Street, Ste 810 Tallahassee, FL 32301 850-521-3915 paul_hamilton@fpl.com ECI has represented FP&L for over 13 years. Florida Sunshine Entertainment Association Angelina Spencer 4340 Beechwood Lake Drive Naples, FL 34112 216-965-7527 angelina001@comcast.net ECI has represented the Association since 2007. Fort Lauderdale Swap Shop Preston Henn 3501 West Sunrise Boulevard -25 -Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33311 954-931-8148 swshop@aol.com ECI has represented the Swap Shop for over 20 years. The GEO Group, Inc. George Zoley Jorge Dominicis One Park Place, Suite 700 621 Northwest 53rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33487 561-999-7326 gzoley@geogroup.com jdominicis@geocareinc.com Gerstle, Rosen & Goldenberg, PA Ron Nadler 2630 NE 203rd Street Aventura, FL 33180 305-937-0116 rnadler@gerstlerosen.com ECI began representing the Gerstle CPA firm in September 2012. Herzog Contracting Norm Jester Post Office Box 1089 St. Joseph, MO 64502 954-970-3970 njester@herzogcompanies.com ECI has represented Herzog for over 14 years. JM Family Enterprises Sonya Deen 100 NW 12th Avenue Deerfield Beach, FL 33443 954-429-2404 sonya.deen@jmfamily.c om ECI has represented JM for over 16 years. Kendall Properties & Investments Austin Forman Bill Murphy 4300 North University Drive, Suite D-103 Lauderhill, FL33351 -26 -954-522-1969 af01@bellsouth.net ECI has represented Kendall Properties for over seven years. Palm Beach County Todd Bonlarron 301 North Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-310-7832 tbonlarr@co.palm-beach.fl.us ECI has represented Palm Beach County for over eight years. Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Sheriff Donald F. Eslinger Chief Peggy Fleming 100 Bush Blvd. Sanford, FL 32773 407-665-6650 pfleming@seminolesheriff.org ECI began representing the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office on October 1, 2012. South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Joe Giulietti 800 NW 33rd Street, Suite 100 Pompano Beach, FL33064 954-788-7918 giuliettij@sfrta.gov ECI has represented SFRTA for over 17 years. Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District Austin Forman 888 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 501 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 954-522-1969 af01@bellsouth.net ECI has represented Tindall Hammock for over seven years. Town of Davie Richard J. Lemack 6591 Orange Drive Davie, FL 33314 954-797-1023 richard_lemack@davie-fl.gov -27 -ECI resumed representing the Town of Davie in 2010. United Healthcare of Florida Tom Moore 3100 SW 14th Avenue Miramar, FL 33027 813-890-4531 thomas_w_moore@uhc.com ECI began representation of UHC in 2010. United Pawnbrokers Group Thomas E. Sams 4527 Arnold Avenue Naples, FL 34104 239-825-0714 tomsams@capitalpawn.com ECI has worked with the United Pawnbrokers Group or members of the pawnbroker community since 2003. Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. Russell Mackie 2101 W SR 84 Longwood, FL 32779 305-651-7011 rmackie@wasteprousa.com ECI began representing Waste Pro in 2011. -28 -– Ericks Consultants is pleased to present the following professional references: Company Name: American Marketing & Management Address: 888 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 501, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Contact Name: Austin Forman Telephone: 954-763-8111 E-Mail Address: af01@ammi.net Fax: 954-522-1969 ECI has represented this client since 2000 Company Name: South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Address: 800 NW 33rd Street, Suite 100, Pompano Beach, FL 33064 Contact Name: Vicki Wooldridge or Joe Giulietti Telephone: 954-788-7934 E-Mail Address: wooldridgev@sfrta.fl.g ov Fax: 954-786-7505 ECI has represented this client since 1995 Company Name: Broward Health Address: 303 SW 17th Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Contact Name: Charlotte Mather Telephone: 954-355-4174 E-Mail Address: charlotte.mather@nbhd.org Fax: 954-355-4774 ECI has represented this client since 2005 Company Name: Broward County Sheriff’s Office Address: 2601 West Broward Blvd, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 Contact Name:Al Lamberti or Danielle DiNicola Telephone: 954-321-4605 E-Mail Address: danielle_dinicola@sheriff.org Fax: 954-763-4917 ECI has represented this client since 2009 Company Name: JM Family Enterprises Address: 100 NW 12th Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL 33443 Contact Name: Sonya Deen Telephone: 954-429-2404 E-Mail Address: sonya.deen@jmfamily. com Fax: 954-429-2677 ECI has represented this client since 1996 Company Name: Broward County Property Appraiser Address: 115 South Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Contact Name: Lori Parrish Telephone: 954-357-6904 E-Mail Address: lori@bcpa.net Fax: 954-357-8474 ECI has represented this client since 2006 Company Name: City of Plantation Address: 400 NW 73rd Avenue, Plantation, FL 33317 Contact Name: Mayor Diane Veltri Bendekovic Telephone: 954-797-2222 E-Mail Address: mayor@plantation.org Fax: 954-797-2223 ECI has represented this client since 2005 -29 -Company Name: City of Coral Springs Address: 9551 West Sample Road, Coral Springs, FL 33065 Contact Name: Erdal Donmez Telephone: 954-344-5906 E-Mail Address: edonmez@coralsprings.org Fax: 954-344-1043 ECI has represented this client since 2000 Adams St. Advocates LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company established in 2011. Our office hours are Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM; however, we are always available to our clients via cell phone, text message or email. ASA has two Tallahassee offices and also works from the ECI office in Fort Lauderdale. We encourage you to visit our website at: www.adamsstadvocates.com for more information on our firm. Professional Reference for Claudia Davant: Company Name: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. Address: 2073 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 300, Tallahassee, FL 32317 Contact Name: Chuck Cliburn Telephone: 850-210-1302 E-Mail Address: chuck.cliburn@acs-inc.com When was your contract awarded: 2008 Professional Reference for Robert Beck: Company Name: Aging & Disability Resource Center of Broward County Address: 5300 N. Hiatus Road, Sunrise, FL 33351-8701 Contact Name: Edith Lederberg Telephone: 954-745-9603 E-Mail Address: lederbee@adrchbroward.org Fax: 954-745-9584 When was your contract awarded: 2008 City of Delray Beach -Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Florida Strategic Group Contact Information: David A. Shepp 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach 2 David Shepp – Consultant Alex Cutts – Administrative Assistant 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) None 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: X = Yes a. Lobby State Legislature X b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies X c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). X – as necessary d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., inperson, conference call, etc.) X e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda X f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session X g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and State Agencies X 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. Yes. We currently provide federal consulting for the City of Lakeland and can develop a similar program for the City of Delray Beach. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. n/a b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. 1. HB 615, by Rep. Horner – create a ‘blacklist’ for retailers who refuse to pay wholesale distributors as well as classifying roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco stores as ‘manufacturers’. The bill stalled at the end of Session, but we were able to amend the retailer/distributor issue on to HB 887 by Rep. Ingram. The bill was signed by Governor Scott and went into law on Oct 1, 2012. The RYO provision was removed, but later passed by Congress and signed by the President. 2. HB 4025, by Rep. O’Toole – elimination of local business taxes. Fought the proposal to repeal F.S. Chapter 205, the “Local Business Tax” statute, which would have eliminated local business licenses and the resulting revenues. Worked with members of the House Finance & Tax Committee to prepare questions during the Committee Workshop to discredit the bill and keep it from reaching a vote. The bill was TP’d and did not advance beyond the Committee. City of Delray Beach -Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig Contact Information: Leslie Dughi, Assistant Director of Government Affairs, 850-521-8571; cell 850-519-3903 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach Hayden Dempsey, Chair, Florida Governmental Affairs Practice Leslie Dughi, Assistant Director of Government Affairs Note: There are five lobbying professionals on our team. While these two professionals will be primary for Delray Beach, to ensure the highest level of representation is provided, the other team members stand ready to assist. GT also has 2 full-time legislative services professionals that provide support for all legislative needs. 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) Expenses in addition to the annual fee would include travel (primarily for face to face meetings with Delray Beach staff and Commissioners which may also be done through conference calls). We expect to keep these additional costs to a minimum. Further, we typically include in our proposals that any expenses over a certain amount be subject to the client’s written approval. 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Our proposed contract would focus on lobbying on the state level for Delray Beach. However, our team and other members of Greenberg Traurig have strong working relationships with local agencies. In particular, our South Florida professionals have experience working with Palm Beach County policymakers and the South Florida Water Management District. Further, in Florida and in DC, we have professionals with extensive expertise working with the US Army Corps and the Corps of Engineers. d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., inperson, conference call, etc.) Yes – Regular meetings will ensure we provide the highest level of representation for the City. We are willing to meet with staff and Commissioners in the manner (in person or by conference call) that best suits Delray Beach. e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes – It is imperative that the lobbying team gains an in-depth understanding of the issues important to Delray Beach. Development of a legislative agenda should be a collaborative effort between Delray Beach leaders and the lobby team. f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes. During session, legislative language can change quickly. It is important that close contact is maintained with the Commissioners and staff to ensure we are appropriately advocating your position. g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. Yes. Our DC Governmental Affairs team has successfully provided legislative representation and lobbying at the federal level for a number of municipal clients. Our team has achieved fiscal and policy successes on behalf of our municipal clients, securing more than $250 million in funding over the past decade. These funds have been instrumental in a variety of economic development, housing, infrastructure, environmental, homeland security, and community-related programs. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. N/A b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. N/A 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. Our team, for more than 20 years, has been involved in major legislative initiatives on varied policy and appropriation issues. We are happy to provide you with an extensive list of issues we have worked on over the last several years. Outlined below are a few of the issues we worked on for our clients. Local Business Taxes – On behalf of a municipality, we worked to change language originally proposed by Rep. O’Toole which would have prohibited any increases in local business tax rates beginning in FY 2012-13. Working closely with Rep. Roberson, the language that ultimately passed exempted individuals licensed and operating as a real estate sales or broker associate from paying a local business tax. The bill also provided an option for certain counties and municipalities to continue levying local business taxes, provided that at least 25% of their local tax revenue in local FY 2012-13 comes from local business taxes. Counties and municipalities opting to continue levying local business tax would not have been able to increase their ad valorem millage rates above those levied in local FY 2012-13, unless they discontinue levying their local business tax. Further, the bill provided that certain counties and municipalities that pledged their local business tax revenue stream as security for bonds or certificates issued before March 9, 2012, could have continued to levy their tax to meet obligations required by the bonds or certificates. Septic Tanks -On behalf of a local municipality, we worked with Rep. Dorworth and others on HB 999 (which ultimately was added to HB 1263 by Rep. Hudson). This bill repealed the statewide onsite septic system evaluation program and required a county or municipality with a first magnitude spring to develop and adopt by local ordinance a septic system evaluation and assessment program, unless the county or municipality opts out. All other counties and municipalities may opt in. Further, existing septic system inspection programs are grandfathered in unless they contain a mandatory inspection at the point of sale in a real estate transaction. The bill also ensured that owners are given at least 60 days’ notice that their system is due for an evaluation. Finally, the bill required DEP to notify a municipality of potential funding under the Clean Water Act or Clean Water State Revolving Fund and assist such counties or municipalities to model and establish low-interest loan programs. Failure to Return Vehicles -On behalf of an international rental vehicle company, we successfully drafted and passed proactive legislation (HB 729 by Rep. Pilon) that ensured stolen vehicles would be added to the law enforcement "hot sheet" to ensure quick retrieval of the vehicle. The bill also increased, for an evidentiary standpoint, the weight given to the evidence that the person in possession of the vehicle received the demand for return notice from the company and failed to return the vehicle. Medicaid Reform -Over the last three legislative sessions, on behalf of a national health care organization and a statewide business association, we played a significant role in the 2011 comprehensive rewrite of the state's Medicaid program. We worked very closely with legislative leadership and the Governor's office to craft and implement this landmark legislation. Our work continued in the 2012 session as implementation of the reform began and as changes were proposed. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com ©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved. GT Overview of Greenberg Traurig’s Proposal for State Lobbying Services Presented to City of Delray Beach, Florida October 12, 2012 Contact: Leslie Y. Dughi Assistant Director, Governmental Affairs Greenberg Traurig, P.A. dughil@gtlaw.com Direct: 850.521.8571 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. | ATTORNEYS AT LAW | WWW.GTLAW.COM Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 1 GT Table of Contents Section Page About Greenberg Traurig’s Tallahassee Office 2 Qualifications and Experience 3 Representative State Experience 4 Greenberg Traurig’s Team for Delray Beach 7 Legislative Support Services 9 Proposed Fee Schedule and Expenses 10 Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 2 GT About Greenberg Traurig’s Tallahassee Office Greenberg Traurig’s Tallahassee office is home to a multidisciplinary legal team with deep Florida roots. For more than 20 years, our lawyers and governmental affairs professionals have worked at the intersection of business, government and the law. We provide our clients with a wide range of practical legal counsel and services, from dispute resolution and transactional representation to governmental advocacy and day-to-day corporate advice. Located just one block from the state’s capitol and legislative buildings, and three blocks from Florida’s Supreme Court, GT’s Tallahassee office gives our clients an immediate physical and political link to the heart of the nation’s fourth largest state. Greenberg Traurig merged with the Tallahassee office of Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard in 1992 with approximately 14 lawyers who maintained a successful practice for over 15 years. The union provided GT with not only the strong state governmental presence that RBL&R had but the ability to expand this presence statewide. The fruit of these years has been not only strong relationships with governmental and elected officials, but also deeply-rooted relationships with the staff of these officials — whose longevity, many times, exceeds the terms of their bosses. We have clients across the entire political spectrum. Our practice includes banking, local government, procurement, campaigns and elections, data security and privacy, economic incentives, energy, environmental, financial services, gaming, growth management, health care, housing, insurance, public relations and media strategy, state appropriations, taxation, telecommunications, and transportation. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 3 GT Qualifications and Experience The Florida Governmental Affairs team at Greenberg Traurig has been in the mix of every major legislative battle for the past 18 years. We’ve worked to develop and pass such notable legislation as the creation of the Dade County Expressway Authority, Florida's Catastrophic Hurricane Fund, Workers’ Compensation Reform, Nursing Home ‘Tort Reform’ Legislation, the 1995 Telecommunications Act, Privacy and HIPPA Implementation Legislation, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act) Implementation Legislation, the first state definition of ‘Green Energy,’ Rate Rebalancing Legislation, and Florida’s Unified Building Code. We have annually navigated the appropriations process to obtain funding for municipalities and numerous other clients. We’ve helped maintain markets for Florida’s independent power producers and developed new markets for Florida’s life, health, and auto insurers. Each legislative session, the GT Tallahassee Governmental Affairs Team advocates for clients seeking state funding for a variety of programs and projects. Annually our team defends current substantive policy and seeks to amend it on behalf of our clients. Moreover, we are involved in the development of yearly appropriation requests, including the drafting of substantive legislation with both statewide and local fiscal impact. We determine the appropriate sponsors, research and develop oral and written materials to support the issue, and intricately follow each movement through the House and Senate. On appropriation projects, as negotiations progress through the end of the session, we rely on our strong relationships with House and Senate leadership, appropriations leadership and staff to ensure that our clients’ requests survive the maze of House and Senate offers resulting in passage of the final Appropriations Act. The Florida Governmental Affairs practice extends far beyond legislative representation. We are experienced in appearing before the Cabinet and all executive agencies on behalf of a wide range of clients. Our knowledge and expertise in all facets of Florida administrative law have given us the reputation as one of the “go to” firms for resolving matters with state government in Tallahassee. Our administrative law litigators are recognized throughout the state as highly skilled and successful in their efforts, and combined with our executive agency lobby team, form an unbeatable combination of access and substance that is rarely found in one firm. Our governmental affairs team is supported by a full-time staff of support personnel dedicated to making sure the team and our clients are kept abreast of any and all relevant state government activities. This includes ongoing monitoring of executive and legislative branches, legislative tracking services, monitoring of committee and floor debate, defensive review of filed legislation and amendments, access to live calendars, monitoring of the press, reviewing the Florida Administrative Code announcements, reviewing proposed rules, preparing reports for clients, and research and drafting services. These services are provided year-round to our clients by one of the largest, most experienced, legislative support staffs of any firm in Florida. Greenberg Traurig’s lawyers and lobbyists have decades of experience with the Florida Governor’s Office, the State Legislature, and with all the Florida state agencies, as well as the long-term relationships necessary for success. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 4 GT Representative State Experience Following is a representative list and description of work performed on behalf of a number of clients which includes both public and private entities. We would be happy to provide additional details upon request. City of North Port, Florida Scope of Services: Federal & State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 7 Years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Jonathon Lewis, City Manager Contact Phone: 941-429-7165 The state and federal GT Governmental Affairs Team has been the lead lobbyist for the City of North Port since 2005. During these years of representation, we have piloted the city through yearly offensive and defensive legislative efforts of concern to the municipality as well as successfully procured over $1.65 million in state appropriations for major municipal projects. On behalf of North Port, GT has also successfully: Defeated state legislation which would have prevented a freestanding emergency room from being opened within the City of North Port’s city limits. Included language in the State General Appropriations Act requiring the Department of Community Affairs to provide technical assistance to North Port to address antiquated lots and assist in growth planning. Defeated state legislation which would have significantly restricted the city’s ability to conduct public works projects within the city. Florida Association of Court Clerks Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 36 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Ken Kent, Executive Director Contact Phone: 850-921-0808 Our longstanding general counsel representation of the Florida Association of Court Clerks (FACC) has placed us at the forefront of debate on local government issues involving court and county revenues, child support depository, public records, and judicial management. Our representation of the Association included a multi-year effort that has resulted in the authorization and funding of a statewide Comprehensive Case Management System, which is operational in each clerk of court’s office to provide a single portal for access to all court case Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 5 GT data maintained by the clerks. We have also been instrumental in the Associations’ development and operation of a statewide portal to provide access to the Official Records which contain the deeds, mortgages and other documents that are required by statute to be recorded in the county. AT&T Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 4 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Joe York, Vice President, Legislative Affairs Contact Phone: 850-577-5500 In 2009, Greenberg Traurig represented this national telecommunications company in passing the Consumer Choice and Protection Act, legislation aimed at increasing competition in the growing telecommunications market. In the previous session, our team’s efforts prevented a cell phone warranty company from obtaining a statewide monopoly in providing warranties for cell phones and service. In the 2007 Legislative Session, the GT Legislative Team overcame a slue of negative television ads by the Florida Cable Telecommunications Association and other national cable providers and obtained the passage of major legislation on behalf of AT&T. The legislation broke up longstanding government sponsored monopolies in the cable television industry. Enterprise Holdings Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 8 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Jay Ryan, Vice President of Finance Contact Phone: 954-354-5104 Enterprise Holdings is the privately-held entity which operates Enterprise, Alamo and National Rental Car as well as a large fleet management subsidiary. The GT Legislative Team defeated legislation which would have imposed vicarious liability on rental car companies. On behalf of this international company, we worked over several years to secure reforms to the Personal Injury Protection (PIP) provisions for automobile insurance coverage. Further, we gained approval for legislation that streamlined the agent licensing process required of all rental car companies in Florida. We worked closely with the Department of Financial Services to ensure their support of this new structure. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 6 GT Meridian Behavioral Healthcare Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 5 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Maggie Labarta, President & CEO Contact Phone: 352-374-5600 ext. 8221 During the 2009 Session, we assisted in the passage of legislation to restore the Medicaid reimbursement rate for this mental health provider. From the 2005 through 2007 Legislative Sessions, we secured a combined appropriation of nearly $3 million in the General Appropriations Act for the development of a residential treatment program. The funding created and maintained these programs in 11 Florida counties. In fiscally constrained years, the team strategically worked with the leadership and members in order to make mental health a budgetary priority. Florida Assisted Living Association Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 4 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Pat Lange, Executive Director Contact Phone: 850-383-1159 On behalf of this professional health care association, we secured an additional $2.6 million to increase the rate for the Assisted Living for the Elderly (ALE) waiver. This increase was the only Medicaid provider increase not vetoed by the Governor in 2006. In 2007, GT successfully passed legislation requiring the Department of Elder Affairs to adopt a curriculum training program and minimum qualification standards for trainers of Assisted Living Facility administrators and staff. GT also was successful in securing continuing funding for the Assisted Living for the Elderly Waiver of approximately $35 million. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 7 GT Greenberg Traurig’s Team for Delray Beach Greenberg Traurig is uniquely qualified to represent Delray Beach in Tallahassee. GT’s professionals are experts at representing municipalities at the state level. We understand the dynamics of municipal representation and the pressures and challenges faced by local officials and their staffs. Our team possesses a broad array of substantive and political experience. The team includes a former chief of staff to the Senate President, a former counsel to the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, and a former Legislative Affairs Director and Deputy General Counsel for Governor Jeb Bush. Fred Baggett would serve as Greenberg Traurig’s team leader for Delray Beach. Below is a brief outline on the professional qualifications of our team members. Full biographies can be provided on request. Fred W. Baggett is a senior member of the firm’s National Governmental Affairs Practice. For the past 30 years, Fred has represented a broad range of general business community, associations, and governmental entities before federal, state and local agencies and legislative bodies. A significant portion of his practice focuses on matters relating to health care, insurance, environment regulation, banking and finance, and business and professional regulation. Fred’s practice also includes policy development and advocacy as well as administrative litigation. Hayden Dempsey is the Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Florida Governmental Affairs Practice and focuses on representing clients before the Florida Legislature and its executive branch agencies. Prior to joining Greenberg Traurig, Hayden served as Director for Legislative Affairs for Governor Jeb Bush where he gained an in-depth knowledge of the Legislature and state government. Most recently, he served as Special Counsel to Gov. Rick Scott, overseeing the Governor’s legislative and public policy initiatives. He also worked closely with the Governor’s state agencies in promoting their legislative agendas. Hayden has been named a member of the Board of Directors of Enterprise Florida, Inc., the State of Florida’s official economic development organization. His broad legislative experience provides him unparalleled insight into all levels of state government. Gus Corbella is the Director of the Governmental Affairs Practice of the firm’s Tallahassee office. Gus has a formidable background in state government, having served as Chief of Staff of the Florida Senate, as well as staff director for the Majority Offices in both chambers. Gus has been appointed by two Governors to serve as a Commissioner on Judicial Nominating Commissions and also serves as the Chairman of the Florida Film and Entertainment Advisory Council. His role as chief advisor to the Legislature’s most prominent leaders provided Gus with an extensive knowledge of the process and issues before the Legislature. Leslie Dughi is the Assistant Director of Governmental Affairs, Tallahassee. Leslie's state practice spans more than 20 years and includes all areas of the executive and legislative branches of government. From her representations, Leslie has gained in-depth knowledge on the innerworkings of Florida government. Further, she served as the Director of Government Affairs for the 135,000-plus member Florida Chamber of Commerce where she developed strategic relationships and led many legislative initiatives important to both public and private employers. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 8 GT In addition to her lobbying experience, Leslie has considerable experience in political communications, serving as the Political Director for Associated Industries, Florida’s largest statewide business association. Throughout her career she has coordinated numerous grassroots advocacy campaigns and has worked with many Florida statewide and legislative campaigns. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 9 GT Legislative Support Services In addition to our attorneys and lobbyists, Greenberg Traurig provides full legislative support services on a continual basis to ensure that our clients’ interests never take a backseat at the Capitol. If the legislature is there, we’re there. And if the legislature’s not there, we’re still there, building staff-to-staff relationships that open doors at those critical late-night hours when access and inside information are crucial. This team is led by Director, Anne Bevis, who has over 20 years of experience in the legislative process, 15 of those serving the needs of GT clients. Assistant Director, Katie Juckett, who joined the GT team after completing her Master’s Degree in Applied American Politics and Policy, has 6 years of experience. They provide vital services offered to our clients, including the following: Legislative Tracking Services – We identify and follow all bills of interest to our clients with up-tothe-minute notification of hearings and actions in committee as well as on the House and Senate floors. A focused tracking list is developed for each client and updated on a daily basis to ensure notification of any movement on priority bills of interest. Moreover, we make sure that clients receive bills texts and amendments of impact for review and comment on a timely basis. We work to develop a client-directed reporting plan to ensure that clients are kept up-todate at their desired frequency. Monitoring of Committee and Floor Debate – In addition to the presence of our lobbying team, our support team monitors all debates on legislation of major impact to our clients. We also are equipped, in-house, to monitor committee hearings and floor actions via audio transmission, The Florida Channel, and internet access. Defensive Review of Filed Legislation and Amendments – Our support team conducts full text searches of all legislation and amendments filed for language impacting our clients. This is done through keyword and statute cite searches. This capability affords us immediate notification of language entering the process that might be detrimental to our clients. Access to Live Calendar – Our firm has access to a live House and Senate Floor Calendar. This provides us with the opportunity for up-to-the-minute review of amendments as they are filed and discussed on the House and Senate Floors. Monitoring of the Press – Our support team daily monitors Florida newspapers and blogs for press coverage that is applicable to our clients. Research and Drafting Services – The Tallahassee support team is equipped to draft proposed legislation, amendments and talk sheets on a moment’s notice. We also have complete research capabilities. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 10 GT Proposed Fee Schedule and Expenses We at Greenberg Traurig look forward to the opportunity to represent the City of Delray Beach. Our Governmental Affairs team typically provides services on a monthly retainer which allows us to offer a broad range of services and gives our clients more value for their money. For this monthly fee, we would commit to provide all of the services enumerated, regardless of the hours required to perform such services. Our proposed fee for the City of Delray Beach is $60,000 per year split into 12 monthly installments of $5,000. Based upon past experience, expenses should not exceed $1,000 annually for travel, registrations and other miscellaneous costs. No expense over $100 would be incurred without prior approval by the City. To assist the City in evaluating the scope of work performed under the monthly retainer, we will provide detailed monthly bills outlining the hours worked and work performed. Further, we will meet periodically to evaluate the services performed to ensure that fair value is provided to the City. City of Delray Beach ‐Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Ronald L. Book, P.A. Contact Information: Ronald L. Book, 18851 NE 29th Avenue, Suite 1010, Aventura, FL 33180, (305) 935‐1866, ron@rlbookpa.com 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach Ronald L. Book, P.A. will assign three firm lobbyists to the City of Delray Beach, including: Ronald L. Book, Esq., President and CEO, Kelly C. Mallette, Director of Government Affairs and Rana G. Brown, Government Affairs Consultant. 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) None 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobbylocal and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., inperson, conference call, etc.) Yes e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes. During session, we provide written reports weekly and phone and e‐mail updates as necessary for priority issues. We also provide written reports and updates coinciding with all interim committee meeting weeks in December, January and February. g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. We do not provide federal lobbying services, but can assist with arranging meetings with federal representatives. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. We can assist with arranging meetings with federal representatives, congressional staff and federal agencies. We are extremely well accessed within the entire Florida Delegation and with many members outside of the Florida Delegation. b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. We do not partner with any firms that provide federal lobbying services, but could provide a short list of firms that we believe the city should consider for federal lobbying services. 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. HB 465 – (Representative Diaz) District School Board Bonds. Our firm represents the Miami‐Dade County School Board. This bill did a couple of things to allow District school boards additionally flexibility on bonding issues. First, the bill increased the period within which district school board bonds must be retired without approval from the Department of Education, from 20 years to 30 years. It also removed the requirement that certain bonds be callable within 10‐years from date of issuance and allows the district school board to determine the callable term of bonds. This was the second year our firm worked to pass this bill for the school district. In 2011, the bill was approved by legislative committees, but stalled when the Governor’s staff raised concerns. We worked with the Office of the Governor, the bill sponsors and school district staff to address the Governor’s concern. We were successful and the bill was approved by the Legislature in the 2012 session, and later signed by the Governor SB 58/HB 985 – (Senator Flores/Representative Pilon) Lopez Claims. This bill was a claims bill against the City of North Miami. For a number of reasons, the City opposed the claim, and asked us to work against its passage. The plaintiff in the claim hired a prominent Tallahassee firm to work for passage of the bill. When the bill was scheduled for a hearing in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee, we met with the members of the Committee to discuss the details of the case and the City’s position on the bill. The committee voted against the bill and it died in committee on a vote of 7 nays/6 yeas. It was the only claims bill heard last session that was defeated by the House Civil Justice Subcommittee. SB 862/HB 609 – (Senator Simmons/Representative Goodson) Wage Theft. This bill would have completely preempted Miami‐Dade County’s wage theft ordinance. Miami‐Dade County has opposed this legislation. We have been successful in killing the measure for the past two sessions, despite a strong lobbying effort by Florida business groups. City of Delray Beach -Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Weiss, Handler & Cornwell, P.A. Contact Information: Henry B. Handler; hbh@weissandhandlerpa.com 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach Henry B. Handler Ken Pruitt Meghan Hoza 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e., travel, printing, etc.) Any additional expense must be agreed upon by the City of Delray Beach before it is incurred. 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes, we maintain an office in Tallahassee. We are in Tallahassee full time during committee weeks and legislative session and frequently when the legislature is not in session. b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes, we maintain close working relationships with professionals in the Governor's office and state agencies. c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e., Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes, we currently lobby Palm Beach County for other clients and have close contacts and experience working with Palm Beach County Commissioners, Constitutional Officers and their respective staffs and the South Florida Water Management District. d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., inperson, conference call, etc.) Yes, we make ourselves available to our clients as requested. We are able to meet with City officials and/or staff in Delray Beach or by conference call at any time. e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes, we will also work closely with the Florida League of Cities on any item approved by the City of Delray Beach. f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes. During legislative session we will provide a weekly summary report detailing legislative action taken during the week, status of legislative issues, and anticipated action during the upcoming week. g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and Yes State Agencies 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. Yes, we have many relationships with the Executive Branch, numerous agencies, and both Houses of Congress. We work on both legislative initiatives and Executive Branch implementation of adopted legislation. The Firm’s Federal lobbying services are coordinated through Joseph Abruzzo. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. 2012 -Successfully passed SB 694 "Specialized Alzheimer's Services Adult Day Care Act,” which raises the standard of care for adult day care centers by creating a voluntary specialty license for centers that specialize in Alzheimer’s disease and dementiarelated disorder services. Approved by the Governor on April 6, 2012. 2012 -Successfully advocated for the passage of HB 37 “Caylee’s Law,” a bill that would increase penalties for lying to police when a child goes missing. Caylee’s Law makes it a third-degree felony and increase the penalty from a year to five years in prison to give false information to a law enforcement officer in the event of missing child. Approved by the Governor on April 6, 2012. 2012 -Our Firm also successfully advocated for a number of appropriations including: -$1.5 million recurring to fund ten dementia specific daycare centers in Palm Beach, Martin & St. Lucie Counties. -$150,000, which will be used to provide specialized equipment in the care and treatment of dementia specific clients. -$500,000 in funding which will be used to expand the Children’s Crisis Stabilization Unit on New Horizons’ St. Lucie Campus. -$1,083,635 in funding for ChildNet, which was included in $4,665,811 allocated to 10 community-based care agencies to minimize the impacts of the community based care equity model. C:\Documents and Settings\ds\My Documents\City of Delray -Additional Information Sheet.docx Page 1 DRAFT – 11/13/12 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DRAFT 2013 KEY STATE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES TAX REFORM, FINANCE & OTHER BUDGET RELATED ISSUES Develop Fair and Equitable Tax Structure: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides a fair and equitable tax structure and allows municipalities the flexibility to provide the level of services desired by their citizens. Legislation should be developed that SUPPORTS simplifying and stabilizing Florida’s state and local tax revenue structure in a manner that provides fairness for both citizens and businesses of our state, while addressing the realities that the current statewide constitutional taxing structure imposes on all levels of government. Arbitrary caps on property assessments, municipal expenditures or municipal revenues, including Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) proposals, should be OPPOSED. Unfunded Mandates to Local Governments: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that strengthens the prohibition on existing and new unfunded mandates, requires enhanced staff analyses and quantification of the costs to cities and ensures full funding sources be assigned whenever unfunded mandates are identified. The legislature should SUPPORT revisions to the current unfunded mandates provision of the Florida Constitution that would eliminate unnecessary exemptions. The revision should also ensure that any proposed law which contains an unfunded mandate contain only a single subject matter and be enacted by three-fourths vote of each house of the Legislature, only after a duly noticed public hearing at which a current fiscal analysis is available. Communication Services and Local Business Taxes -The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES legislation that restricts or eliminates the authority of municipalities to levy, collect and/or expend the communications services tax and the local business tax. Page 2 DRAFT – 11/13/12 Municipal Pension Plans: The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES legislation that diminishes municipal control over municipal employee pension plan management and funding or that increases municipal funding liabilities. The City will SUPPORT legislation that provides comprehensive municipal firefighter and police officer pension reform and any comprehensive pension reform package should address the issue of flexibility in the use insurance premium tax revenues in place of the previous requirement that additional revenues be used for new, “extra” pension benefits. Police Officer and Firefighter Disability Presumptions: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that modifies the current statutory disability presumptions for firefighters and law enforcement officers relating to tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension. HOME RULE Public Officers/Severance Pay: The City SUPPORTS the repeal of SB 88, passed in 2011, that restricts severance pay for any public officer, agent, employee or contractor. The bill removes Home Rule authority over severance pay by creating a limit of up to 20 weeks of severance pay. Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition: The City SUPPORTS the repeal of HB 45, passed in 2011, which prohibits the City from implementing enforcement action policies regarding firearms and ammunition regulation. PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES Fireworks Regulation: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that strengthens state and local regulations on the sale of fireworks and their illegal use. The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES legislation that limits local regulation, or enforcement, of illegal fireworks. Texting While Driving: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS the modification of traffic statutes to include texting while driving as an element of careless driving. Sober Houses: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides for more stringent local regulation of these facilities. The City also SUPPORTS full enforcement of existing state regulations on substance abuse provider licensing. Pursuant to 65D-30.003, Florida Administrative Code, all substance abuse components must be provided by persons or entities that are licensed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), unless otherwise exempt from licensing. Page 3 DRAFT – 11/13/12 Synthetic Drugs: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation banning the manufacture, possession, distribution, purchase or sale of synthetic drugs, including herbal incense, bath salts, synthetic marijuana and/or any cannabinoids in the state of Florida and also encourages funding for drug abuse education. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Transportation Funding: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides proportionate, dedicated and recurring revenue sources for multi-modal municipal and regional transportation projects to ensure that local conditions and needs are addressed. The City will SUPPORT legislation that: Authorizes the Florida Department of Transportation to increase funding to support local and regional transportation and transit alternatives, including “complete street” programs Prohibits the transfer of State Transportation Trust Funds for nontransportation purposes Transportation Funding: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides opportunities for additional revenue options to fund municipal transportation infrastructure projects. South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA): The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES any changes to the membership of the SFRTA that would remove the SFRTA’s independent authority to appoint three (3) local citizen appointees. The City also OPPOSES any changes to the SFRTA’s statutory authority to expend local funding that is provided to the SFRTA. Red Light Cameras: The City OPPOSES legislation that repeals the current authorization in the Florida Statutes for red light camera programs. PLANNING RELATED ISSUES Outdoor Advertising: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides the home rule authority of municipalities to more strictly regulate outdoor signage, including billboards. Internet Cafes: The City SUPPORTS legislation that will either regulate businesses operating internet “sweepstakes” gaming activities under the gaming commission, or find them in violation of Florida Statues -Chapter 849 and prosecuted accordingly. Page 4 DRAFT – 11/13/12 Housing: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation providing $300 million for the national foreclosure settlement agreement to designated neighborhood stabilization programs to be used for existing local government affordable housing initiatives. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Beach Renourishment: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation preserving funding within the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund, to support beach restoration projects throughout the State. This funding is important to the City of Delray Beach due to the ongoing renourishment project for our 2.65 mile beach. Both State & Federal Funding for this project are critical to this important, ongoing project. Water Management District Governance and Authority: The City of Delray Beach will support legislation that amends the powers and duties of the water management districts. Such legislation should: Require legislative ratification of any proposed rule change proposed by a water management district that imposes a financial impact on a local government, and Specify that water management districts have no authority to require local government adoption or repeal of ordinances or to mandate the review or approval of any ordinance. VOTING & PUBLIC INFORMATION Referendum Campaign Involvement: The City of Delray Beach will SUPPORT legislation to remove restrictions in F.S. 106.113 that prohibit a local government, or any person on the local government’s behalf, from spending public money to advocate for the passage or defeat of any issue, referendum, or amendment going to a public vote. Early Voting Sites: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation which would permit the Supervisor of Elections with the option to designate any permanent public facility as an early voting site. Public Notices: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that would authorize municipalities to provide public notice and advertising by means other than newspapers (i.e. Internet posting and other suitable alternatives). Page 5 DRAFT – 11/13/12 APPROPRIATION ISSUES Judicial System Funding: The City of Delray Beach strongly SUPPORTS the full funding of the State Attorney, Public Defender offices and the Judiciary. Reduced court funding has a significant impact on public safety due to the inability to complete the processing of cases. The City makes arrests, but the court system is so overwhelmed due to reductions in funding that cases are “no filed” or “nolle prossed” by the State Attorney’s office or lost in court due to speedy trial requirements. Thus, full funding of the court system to include the Juvenile Assessment Centers statewide is critical to public safety. The City also SUPPORTS the following revenue enhancements for the court system: Expansion of the $65 mandatory court fee to be applied to civil cases in addition to the already allowed criminal cases. This fee would allow for additional revenue to fund the state court system. Continuation and enhancement of the $2.00 recording fee to be distributed to counties to fund court-related technology needs. Full funding for statewide traffic hearing officer programs. EMS Grants: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS continued funding of the Florida Emergency Medical Services’ (EMS) matching grant programs provided by the Florida Department of Health -Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. The programs are authorized to improve and expand EMS statewide. Parks and Recreation Funding: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS expanded funding of the Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This program provides important financial assistance to local governments for development and/or acquisition of land for public outdoor recreational purposes. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Bruce Koesser, Human Resources Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 19, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.I. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REVISED AGREEMENT/TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH/EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER (ADDENDUM) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a revised agreement between the City and the Town of Highland Beach to provide additonal language regarding the shared limited medical services with the City of Delray Beach's Wellness Center. The Wellness Center will only provide physicals for the Town of Highland Beach's full-time Police Officers. BACKGROUND On October 16, 2012, Commission approved an agreement with the Town of Highland Beach to allow full-time Highland Beach police officers shared limited medical services at the Employee Health and Wellness Center. The regulated medical services would include physical examinations by a physician and other optional services. The Town of Highland Beach is aware there will be a change in medical providers beginning in 2013. The revision provides additional language to Section 3. of the Agreement: 3. HIGHLAND BEACH shall provide to DELRAY BEACH the name, date of birth, social security number, and any other required information of the Highland Beach police officers who have been approved to receive the services to be rendered under this agreement. DELRAY BEACH shall maintain the confidentiality of such information, or maintain its status as exempt from disclosure, in accordance with Florida’s Public Records Laws, as amended from time to time. However, DELRAY BEACH shall provide such information to its selected Medical Service Provider to facilitate the receipt of services by Highland Beach police officers. Providing this service to the Town of Highland Beach will give the City some additional revenue to help offset the cost of the City's Wellness Center. FUNDING SOURCE The City of Delray Beach shall invoice the Town of Highland Beach for medical services rendered for its full-time Police Officers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the revised agreement. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of October, 2012 by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA (DELRAY BEACH) and the TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA (HIGHLAND BEACH). WHEREAS, DELRAY BEACH desires to share limited services of its Medical Services Provider with HIGHLAND BEACH by allowing police officer personnel from the Highland Beach Police Department to receive services in accordance with the contractual arrangements between DELRAY BEACH and its Medical Services Provider. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The recitations referred to above are hereby incorporated herein. 2. Qualified Highland Beach Police Department police officers shall receive medical services as described on Appendix “A”, as attached from DELRAY BEACH’s Medical Service Provider. 3. HIGHLAND BEACH shall provide to DELRAY BEACH the name, date of birth, social security number, and any other required information of the Highland Beach police officers who have been approved to receive the services to be rendered under this agreement. DELRAY BEACH shall maintain the confidentiality of such information, or maintain its status as exempt from disclosure, in accordance with Florida’s Public Records Laws, as amended from time to time. However, DELRAY BEACH shall provide such information to its selected Medical Service Provider to facilitate the receipt of services by Highland Beach police officers. 4. HIGHLAND BEACH shall pay DELRAY BEACH for the medical services rendered according to the prices listed in Appendix “A”. DELRAY BEACH shall issue to HIGHLAND BEACH an invoice after the services are provided. 5. HIGHLAND BEACH is aware that DELRAY BEACH plans to contract with a new Medical Service Provider by the end of 2012. HIGHLAND BEACH agrees to pay any differences in price for the medical services set by the new Medical Service Provider. 6. This agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause, by providing the other party at least ten (10) days prior written notice. 7. This writing embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto, and there are no other agreements and understandings, oral or written, with reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded hereby. 2 8. No alteration, change, or modification of the terms of the Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties. 9. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Florida and venue shall be in Palm Beach County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for the purposes expressed herein. ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA a municipal corporation ________________________ By: ____________________________ City Clerk NELSON S. McDUFFIE, MAYOR Approved as to form: ________________________ City Attorney CITY OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA Witnesses: ________________________ By: ________________________ ________________________ 3 APPENDIX “A” Employment and Annual Physicals-Police Officers (requires two visits at least) Complete Physical Examination by Physician Lab Services: • Urinalysis (UA with dip stick) • HEMGPD (CBC [Hemogram] with Platelet count & Differential) • CMP/Lipid Panel • PSA (Age 40 and above) • Micro UA (if needed) • AHCA Urine 10 Panel Drug Screening • Vital signs (Height, Weight, Temp, Waist, Blood Pressure and Pulse Oximetry) Snellen Vision Screening Audiometry – Sound Proof Booth Standard ECG Cardiovascular Fitness: *Stress ECG: Annual Physicals Only Age: 39 and below Baseline only (Relax) Age: 40 and above (Relax and on Treadmill) Chest X-Ray (2 view) Baseline and every five years Spirometry Cost = $500 without Stress Test and *$600 with Stress Test Other Options: Hepatitis C Screening = $7.00 HIV Baseline (optional test – would be completed after employment) =$9.00 Tobacco Free Testing = $28.00 Tetanus Diptheria Toxoid (Every 10 years) = $34. PPD (TB Testing) Pre-employment and Annual = $4.50 Hepatitis B Vaccination (3 doses) = $32.50/dose Hepatitis B Titer (administered after last immunization – every 5 years or as CDC recommended) $18.00 Influenza (Option) = $10. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: November 9, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 11.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 31-12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Com m ission for second reading to consider a city-initiated amendment to Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, of the Code of Ordinances, by amending Section 117.01, “Permit Required”, to remove the reference to the rental payment amount. BACKGROUND At the first reading on November 6, 2012, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 31-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 31-12 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE NO. 31-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 117, “LANDLORD PERMITS”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 117.01, “PERMIT REQUIRED”, TO REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO RENTAL PAYMENT AMOUNT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission has the authority to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach desires to update the landlord permit submission requirements in order to streamline the landlord permit application process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Section 117.01, “Permit Required”, shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 117.01. PERMIT REQUIRED. (A) No person, company or other entity may offer to or lease, sublease, rent, license, sublicense or have any other arrangement allowing occupancy of any residential units unless a landlord permit is obtained or in existence for the units. All oral rental arrangements shall be included within the scope of this Section, but the operation of a hotel shall not be included in this Section (any building which fits the definition of hotel but also fits the definition of another use which requires a landlord permit shall be interpreted to require a landlord permit), nor shall any facility licensed by the State as a Group Home or Community Residential Home or Assisted Living Facility. Whenever Chapter 117 refers to “lease(s)”, “leased”, “rent(s)”, or “rented”, it shall hereinafter include leases, subleases, rentals, licenses, sublicenses and all other arrangements for the occupancy of property. (B) A separate permit shall be required for each leased unit. However, where a building contains a number of leased units under the same owner, or where a number of different owners in one building authorize the same person or company to act as their agent for the purposes of applying for a permit, a single permit may be obtained for all qualifying units within a single building which are under the same owner or agent, provided that the permit fee is paid for each individual unit. Any such permit issued by the City for residential unit(s) being leased for the first time shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee a current copy of all leases, subleases and/or agreements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein and providing updated copies of all leases, subleases and/or agreements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein within thirty (30) days of any changes. In the event of an oral agreement between the parties instead of a written lease, the terms of these agreements shall be reduced to writing, specifically including, but not 2 ORD. NO. 31-12 limited to, duration of the lease term, rental payment, and number of tenants, such information to be provided to the City at the time of application and within thirty (30) days of any modification thereof. Any such permit being renewed by the City shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing to the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee all required information with the application. Nothing in this Section shall require a permit for any unit enrolled in Federal housing programs or under Federal [Department of] Housing and Urban Development general supervision. (C) Leased residential dwelling units seeking such permits shall be limited to four (4) vehicles per dwelling unit, for which residential parking stickers may be obtained, provided that, upon good cause shown, specifically including availability of garage space, additional parking stickers may be issued by the Community Improvement Director, if the additional stickers will not affect the quality of the neighborhoods. Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the _____ day of ___________________, 2012. ____________________________________ ATTEST M A Y O R _______________________________ City Clerk First Reading__________________ Second Reading________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: October 31, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 31-12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consider a City-initiated amendment to Chapter 117, "Landlord Permits", of the Code of Ordinances, by amending Section 117.01(B) Permit Required to Eliminate the "Rental Payment" as a requirement to the City. BACKGROUND The City adopted Ordinance 08-12 at its regular meeting of February 21, 2012, providing for multiple changes to Chapter 117 governing Landlord Permits. Staff is in the middle of the annual renewal process. One of the major objections from property owners is the requirement to include the monthly rental amount on the lease. Thus, we are recommending amending the Chapter 117 to eliminate this specific requirement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Commission approval of Ordinance 31-12 on first reading, providing for the public hearing and second reading on November 20, 2012. Coversheet Page 1 of 1 http://itwebapp/AgendaIntrane t/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=6157&MeetingID=393 11/9/2012 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:November 12, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.O.2 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/ SOUTHEASTERN PUMP ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to approve the contrac t award to Southeastern Wastewater Equipment Corp. d/b/a/ Southeastern Pump for the purchase of various models and sizes of submersible wastewater pumps for Utilities Maintenance “as needed” at an e stimated annual cost of $82,876, per Bid #2013-07. BACKGROUND Wastewater pumps are used for disposing of water ta inted with chemicals, sewage or other harmful substances. These pumps are essential in keeping th e City safe and clean. With the environmental regulations, these pumps also have to comply with g overnment requirements, ensuring that wastewater is disposed of properly and safely. Sixty-four (64) "Advertisements for Bid" were maile d to registered vendors. One (1) vendor completed and returned the bid documents by the due date of O ctober 30, 2012. Two (2) “Statements of No Bid ” were received by the Purchasing Office as unable to meet specifications. Bid #2013-07 documents are on file in the Purchasing Office. FUNDING SOURCE 441-5144-536.46-20 WATER/SEWER SERVICES REPAIR & MAINT SERVICE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATION The Manager of the Utilities Maintenance Division r ecommends an award to Southeastern Pump at an estimated annual cost of cost $82,876 “as needed” for the City of Delray Beach per attached email dat ed November 8, 2012. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David Boyd, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:November 6, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.O.3 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/ TANNER INDUSTRIES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The City Commission is requested to approve the one (1) year renewal with Tanner Industries for the pu rchase of Anhydrous Ammonia for the Water Treatment Plant at an estimated annual cost of $42,000.00 for the remaining eleven (11) months of FY12/13 via the City of Stuart, FL bid number 2012 awarded September 24, 2012 for initial one (1) year period with the option to renew for two (2) additi onal one (1) year periods. BACKGROUND Anhydrous “without water” Ammonia is used in several areas of water and waste water treatment, such as pH control, in solution form to regenerate weak anion exchange resins, in conjunction with chlorine to pr oduce potable water and as an oxygen scavenger in boiler water treatment. Tanner Industries has agreed to extend to the City of Delray Beach a unit cost of $.77 per pound City of Stuart, Florida per bid #2012-278, pricing includes two (2) hours of unloading ti me and is valid through September 30, 2013. FUNDING SOURCE 441-5122.536.52.21 OPERATING SUPPLIES CHEMICALS RECOMMENDATION The Manager of the Water Treatment Plant recommends award to Tanner Industries based on the fact that Tanner Industries has consistently provided the Cit y of Delray Beach with quality service, product and safety throughout the years that the City has been feeding ammonia. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Rafael Ballestero, Deputy Director of Construc tion Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Dire ctor THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 7, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.O.4 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PURCHASE AWARD/ FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a pur chase award in the amount of $44,303.43 to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. for water main materials to be installed by the City's In-house construction crew for the NE 8th Ave. Water Main Project #2009-0 14. BACKGROUND The scope of work consists of the construction of 1 ,900 linear feet of 8 inch PVC Water Main and 40 linear feet of 6 inch PVC Water Main, 10 valves, 4 fire hydrants, and water service connections to the new water main. The project also includes sodded s wales, asphalt trench repair, concrete, asphalt, br ick paver apron replacement and maintenance of traffic. Staff received quotes from three (3) vendors: Lehma n Pipe and Plumbing Supply, Inc. in the amount of $47,994.07, HD Supply Waterworks in the amount of $46,186.01 and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $44,303.43. The quotes are attached for your reference. It is noted that the Lehman Pipe a nd Plumbing Supply quote provided only a total price w ith no unit prices in the quote schedule and would, therefore, be considered non-responsive. Since their proposal was not the lowes t, their disqualification does not affect the award recommendation. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is available from 442-5178-536-68.92 (Water/Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund/Improvements Other/N.E. 8th Ave.) after budget transfer. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a purchase award in th e amount of $44,303.43 to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. for water main materials to be installed by th e City's In-house construction crew for the NE 8th Ave. Water Main Project. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Danielle Connor, Fire Chief THROUGH:David T Harden, City Manager DATE:November 13, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 8.O.5 - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 SCOTT RIT PACK EMERGENCY AIR SUPPLY SYSTEM ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission for approval to purchase (8) Scott RIT-PAK III Emergency Air Supply Systems from 2012-2013 Fire Department Approved Operations Budget in the amount of $26,243.52 with pricing per Orange County contract T12-1086F. BACKGROUND The Fire-Rescue Department has a need to purchase (8) Scott RIT-PAK III Emergency Air Supply Systems. This will provide us with the ability to g et an emergency air supply to downed fire fighters or other occupants in hazardous atmospheres. The Scott RIT-PAK III allows us to connect directly to a fire fighters air pack and deliver air to them quickly a nd safety. This equipment is also compatible with surrounding department air packs so we provide the same service when relied on through mutual aid calls. The Fire Rescue Department does not currently have the ability to provide an emergency air source to fire fighters in the case that they are injured or trapped in a hazardous environment without having t o change the fire fighter's existing air pack they wo uld be wearing. This is a process and in an emergen cy situation can prove even more difficult. Having the ability to quickly provide air to a downed fire fi ghter can be the difference between life and death and ca n provide us with time to help disentangle or remov e the fire fighter from the hazardous environment in a safer manner. FUNDING SOURCE 001-2315-526-64.90 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 14, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING PENSION FUND MANAGEMENT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Commissioner Carney requested that the management o f the City's pension funds be placed on a Work Session agenda for discussion. BACKGROUND The first table attached compares the actuarial inv estment earnings from 2000 - 2011 for both the General Employee's Pension Plan and the Police and Fire Pension Plan. The two following attachments carry the comparison all the way back to 1985. In both time periods the General Employee's Plan has earned more, on average, than the Police and Fire P lan. The next two exhibits show the administrative expen ses of the two plans. Expenses of the Police and Fire Plan appear to be about five times the expense s of the General Employee's Plan. The final attachment is the third quarter 2012 Inve stment Report for the Police and Fire Pension Plan; the plan's investment consultant, The Bogdahn Group , will be attending the November 20 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Commission direction is requested regarding any fur ther information you may wish to receive or persons you may wish to meet with regarding managem ent of these pension plans. Delray Beach Police Officers' & Firefighters' Retirement System Investment Performance Review 3rd Quarter 2012 3r d Q u a r t e r 2 0 1 2 M a r k e t E n v i r o n m e n t Pa g e 2 Wh a t a d i f f e r e n c e a y e a r m a k e s . F o r t h e e q u i t y m a r k e t s , t h e y e a r - t o - d a t e pe r f o r m a n c e t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r i s t h e b e s t n i n e m o n t h s i n a c a l e n d a r y e a r si n c e 2 0 0 9 . A f t e r t h e n e g a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h e s e c o n d q u a r t e r , t h e ma r k e t s r e b o u n d e d i n t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r . Y e a r - t o - d a t e t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 30 t h , t h e S & P 5 0 0 , R u s s e l l 1 0 0 0 , R u s s e l l 2 0 0 0 , a n d M S C I E A F E i n d e x e s re t u r n e d + 1 6 . 4 % , + 1 6 . 3 % , + 1 4 . 2 % , a n d + 1 0 . 6 % , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n g e n e r a l , in v e s t o r s a p p e a r e d t o h a v e o v e r l o o k e d t h e m i x e d e c o n o m i c d a t a d u r i n g t h e qu a r t e r , a n d f o c u s e d m o r e o n t h e p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e i m p a c t s f r o m a d d i t i o n a l li q u i d i t y m e a s u r e s f r o m c e n t r a l b a n k p o l i c i e s b o t h i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d Eu r o p e . I n e a r l y S e p t e m b e r , t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e E u r o p e a n C e n t r a l B a n k (E C B ) , M a r i o D r a g h i , a n n o u n c e d t h a t t h e E C B h a d a g r e e d o n a n e w b o n d bu y i n g p r o g r a m t o h e l p s t a b i l i z e t h e r e g i o n . P r i o r t o t h i s a n n o u n c e m e n t , co m m e n t s f r o m E u r o p e a n o f f i c i a l s m o v e d t h e U S m a r k e t s a r o u n d a l m o s t da i l y d e p e n d i n g o n t h e p e r c e i v e d o u t c o m e . I n a d d i t i o n t o m a r k e t p a r t i c i p a n t s ‘ fo c u s o n t h e c o m m e n t s f r o m E u r o p e , i n v e s t o r s e n t i m e n t f l u c t u a t e d o n t h e an t i c i p a t i o n o f w h a t t h e U S F e d e r a l R e s e r v e ( F e d ) w o u l d d o n e x t . A f t e r s o m e he a d f a k e s , t h e F e d a n n o u n c e d a d d i t i o n a l q u a n t i t a t i v e e a s i n g m e a s u r e s t o su p p o s e d l y h e l p t h e e m p l o y m e n t p i c t u r e . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e x t e n s i o n o f Op e r a t i o n T w i s t t h a t w a s a n n o u n c e d i n J u n e , t h e F e d a n n o u n c e d o n Se p t e m b e r 1 3 th th a t i t w i l l b u y $ 4 0 b i l l i o n o f m o r tg a g e - b a c k e d s e c u r i t i e s p e r mo n t h . T h e F e d a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i t w i l l k e e p t h e f e d f u n d s t a r g e t n e a r z e r o un t i l a t l e a s t m i d - 2 0 1 5 i n s t e a d o f l a t e 2 0 1 4 . In t e r n a t i o n a l e q u i t y m a r k e t s c o n t i n u e d Ju n e ’ s t r e n d o f s t r o n g p e r f o r m a n c e in t o t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r . L i k e t h e U S e q u i t y i n d e x e s , t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e q u i t y in d i c e s r e c o r d e d p o s i t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n e v e r y m o n t h d u r i n g t h e q u a r t e r . De v e l o p e d m a r k e t s , r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e M S C I - E A F E I n d e x , w e r e u p + 7 . 0 % fo r t h e q u a r t e r a n d e m e r g i n g m a r k e t s p o s t e d s l i g h t l y b e t t e r r e t u r n s o f + 7 . 9 % . In g e n e r a l , t h e U S D d e p r e c i a t e d , b e n e f i t t i n g U S i n v e s t o r s ’ o v e r s e a s a s s e t s . Th e B a r c l a y s U . S . A g g r e g a t e B o n d I n d e x f i n i s h e d t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r w i t h a re t u r n o f + 1 . 6 % . H o w e v e r , t h e p o s i t i v e r e t u r n w a s n o t s t r o n g e n o u g h t o re v e r s e t h e d o w n w a r d t r e n d o f t h e t r a i l i n g o n e - y e a r r e t u r n w h i c h f e l l 2 3 0 ba s i s p o i n t s ( b p s ) t o 5 . 2 % . F r o m a s e c t o r p e r s p e c t i v e , c o r p o r a t e b o n d s a n d mo r t g a g e - b a c k e d s e c u r i t i e s ( M B S ) o u t p e r f o r m e d U . S . T r e a s u r i e s d u r i n g t h e qu a r t e r . T h i s h a s b e e n t h e t r e n d f o r 2 0 1 2 a s c o r p o r a t e b o n d s a n d M B S h a v e ou t p e r f o r m e d d u r a t i o n - m a t c h e d T r e a s u r i e s b y 6 0 4 b p s a n d 1 1 5 b p s , re s p e c t i v e l y . So u r c e : M o r n i n g s t a r D i r e c t The Market Environment Major Market Index Performance As of September 30, 2012 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 1. 1 % 2. 1 % 0. 6 % 1. 6 % 5.3%5.6%6.3%6.2%6.4%7.9%7.0%7.5% 0. 0 % 2 . 0 % 4 . 0 % 6 . 0 % 8 . 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 3- M o n t h T - B i l l Ba r c l a y s C o r p I G Ba r c l a y s M B S Ba r c l a y s U S T I P S Ba r c l a y s U S T s y Ba r c l a y s U S A g g Ru s s e l l 2 0 0 0 Ru s s e l l M i d C a p Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 Ru s s e l l 3 0 0 0 S& P 5 0 0 MS C I E m e r g M k t s MS C I E A F E MS C I A C W x U S Qu a r t e r P e r f o r m a n c e 0. 1 % 10 . 8 % 3. 7 % 9. 1 % 3. 0 % 5. 2 % 31.9%28.0%30.1%30.2%30.2%17.3% 14 . 3 % 15.0% 0. 0 % 5 . 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 1 5 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % 2 5 . 0 % 3 0 . 0 % 3 5 . 0 % 3- M o n t h T - B i l l Ba r c l a y s C o r p I G Ba r c l a y s M B S Ba r c l a y s U S T I P S Ba r c l a y s U S T s y Ba r c l a y s U S A g g Ru s s e l l 2 0 0 0 Ru s s e l l M i d C a p Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 Ru s s e l l 3 0 0 0 S& P 5 0 0 MS C I E m e r g M k t s MS C I E A F E MS C I A C W x U S 1- Y e a r P e r f o r m a n c e Pa g e 3 So u r c e : M o r n i n g s t a r D i r e c t The Market Environment Do m e s t i c E q u i t y S t y l e I n d e x P e r f o r m a n c e As of September 30, 2012 Th e r e w a s n o t a l o t o f v a r i a t i o n i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e a m o n g t h e d o m e s t i c eq u i t y i n d e x e s f o r t h e q u a r t e r o r t r a i l i n g o n e - y e a r p e r i o d s . T h e l a r g e s t di s p e r s i o n d u r i n g t h e q u a r t e r w a s a m o n g t h e g r o w t h i n d e x e s ( 1 3 0 b a s i s po i n t s ) ; t h e R u s s e l l 1 0 0 0 G r o w t h I n d e x r e t u r n e d + 6 . 1 % a n d t h e R u s s e l l 20 0 0 G r o w t h I n d e x r e t u r n e d + 4 . 8 % . A l a r g e c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n th e t w o i n d e x e s w a s t h e w e i g h t i n g a n d p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n Te c h n o l o g y s e c t o r . I n t h e R u s s e l l 1 0 0 0 G r o w t h , t h e s e c t o r c o n t r i b u t e d 2 6 7 bp s b a s e d o n a n a v e r a g e w e i g h t i n g o f 3 2 . 1 % c o m p a r e d t o a c o n t r i b u t i o n o f 89 b p s b a s e d o n a n a v e r a g e w e i g h t i n g o f 2 2 % f o r t h e R u s s e l l 2 0 0 0 G r o w t h . Ap p l e h a s b e e n a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e R u s s e l l 10 0 0 G r o w t h a n d R u s s e l l 3 0 0 0 G r o w t h I n d e x e s (a s w e l l a s t h e S & P 5 0 0 , Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 , a n d R u s s e l l 3 0 0 0 i n d e x e s ) . B a s e d o n A p p l e ’ s 8 . 3 % a n d 7 . 7 % av e r a g e w e i g h t i n g i n t h e R u s s e l l 1 0 0 0 G r o w t h a n d R u s s e l l 3 0 0 0 G r o w t h in d e x e s d u r i n g t h e q u a r t e r , t h e s t o c k c o n t r i b u t e d 1 1 7 b p s a n d 1 0 8 b p s t o th e i n d e x e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . A p p l e ’ s s t o c k p r i c e h a s g a i n e d + 1 4 . 7 % a n d +7 5 . 7 % f o r t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r a n d t r a il i n g t w e l v e m o n t h s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . GI C S s e c t o r p e r f o r m a n c e v a r i e d b y c a p i t a l i z a t i o n a n d s t y l e , a n d t h e r e w e r e no b r o a d t h e m e s t o w h i c h s e c t o r s p e r f o r m e d t h e b e s t a s i n p a s t q u a r t e r s . Fi n a n c i a l s o u t p e r f o r m e d i n t h e R u s s e l l 1 0 0 0 V a l u e a n d R u s s e l l 3 0 0 0 V a l u e in d e x e s , w h i l e M a t e r i a l s o u t p e r f o r m e d i n t h e R u s s e l l 2 0 0 0 V a l u e I n d e x . Te l e c o m S e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d t h e b e s t i n t h e R u s s e l l 2 0 0 0 G r o w t h I n d e x . In a r e v e r s a l f r o m t h e s e c o n d q u a r t e r , “ v a l u e ” o u t p e r f o r m e d “ g r o w t h ” f o r t h e qu a r t e r a n d t h e o n e - y e a r p e r i o d s , r e g a r d l e s s o f c a p i t a l i z a t i o n . L a r g e c a p ou t p e r f o r m e d s m a l l c a p . A s a c o n t i n u a t i o n f r o m t h e s e c o n d q u a r t e r , “ m e g a ca p ” c o m p a n i e s , w h i c h i s d e f i n e d a s t h o s e c o m p a n i e s w i t h a m a r k e t ca p i t a l i z a t i o n g r e a t e r t h a n $ 1 0 0 b i l l i o n , o u t p e r f o r m e d t h e o t h e r m a r k e t ca p i t a l i z a t i o n s b r e a k p o i n t s i n t h e R u s s e l l 1 0 0 0 a n d R u s s e l l 3 0 0 0 I n d e x e s . Si m i l a r t o t h e r e l a t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h e l a r g e c a p i n d e x e s , t h e l a r g e r ca p i t a l i z a t i o n c o m p a n i e s i n t h e R u s s e l l 2 0 0 0 I n d e x e s o u t p e r f o r m e d . M i c r o ca p c o m p a n i e s , w h i c h i s d e f i n e d a s t h o s e c o m p a n i e s w i t h a m a r k e t c a p le s s t h a n $ 5 0 0 m i l l i o n , u n d e r p e r f o r m e d a c r o s s a l l i n d e x e s . 4.8%5.3%5.7%5.3%5.6%5.8%6.1%6.3%6.5%6.0%6.2%6.4% 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 4.0%6.0%8.0% 20 0 0 G r o w t h 20 0 0 I n d e x 20 0 0 V a l u e Mi d C a p G r o w t h Mi d C a p I n d e x Mi d C a p V a l u e 10 0 0 G r o w t h 10 0 0 I n d e x 10 0 0 V a l u e 30 0 0 G r o w t h 30 0 0 I n d e x 30 0 0 V a l u e Qu a r t e r P e r f o r m a n c e - R u s s e l l S t y l e S e r i e s 31.2%31.9%32.6%26.7%28.0%29.3%29.2%30.1%30.9%29.3%30.2%31.1% 0. 0 % 5 . 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 1 5 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % 2 5 . 0 % 3 0 . 0 % 3 5 . 0 % 20 0 0 G r o w t h 20 0 0 I n d e x 20 0 0 V a l u e Mi d C a p G r o w t h Mi d C a p I n d e x Mi d C a p V a l u e 10 0 0 G r o w t h 10 0 0 I n d e x 10 0 0 V a l u e 30 0 0 G r o w t h 30 0 0 I n d e x 30 0 0 V a l u e 1- Y e a r P e r f o r m a n c e - R u s s e l l S t y l e S e r i e s Pa g e 4 The Market Environment GI C S S e c t o r P e r f o r m a n c e & ( Q u a r t e r - E n d S e c t o r W e i g h t ) As of September 30, 2012 So u r c e : M o r n i n g s t a r D i r e c t a n d R u s s e l l . c o m . Co m p a r e d t o t h e s e c o n d q u a r t e r , m a r k e t v o l a t i l i t y d e c l i n e d . I n t h e Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 , t h e r e w e r e t h r e e ( 3 ) d a y s i n w h i c h t h e i n d e x r e t u r n e d gr e a t e r t h a n 2 % a n d t h e r e w e r e n o d a y s w h e r e t h e i n d e x l o s t m o r e th a n 2 % v e r s u s s e v e n a n d s e v e n d a y s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n t h e p r i o r qu a r t e r . W h i l e t h e v o l a t i l i t y a p p e a r e d t o d e c l i n e i n t h e q u a r t e r b a s e d o n th e n u m b e r o f d a y s t h a t w e r e + / - 2 % , t h e d i s p e r s i o n f r o m t h e b e s t a n d wo r s t d a i l y r e t u r n w a s s t i l l l a r g e a n d t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d a y s w e r e o n l y th r e e d a y s a p a r t ; t h e w o r s t d a i l y r e t u r n w a s - 1 . 9 % o n J u l y 2 4 th an d t h e be s t d a i l y r e t u r n w a s + 3 . 6 % o n J u l y 2 7 th . A s e x p e c t e d , t h e v o l a t i l i t y f o r th e s m a l l c a p R u s s e l l 2 0 0 0 I n d e x w a s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e o t h e r i n d e x e s du r i n g t h e q u a r t e r . T h e r e w e r e e i g h t d a y s w h e r e t h e i n d e x r e t u r n e d gr e a t e r t h a n 2 % a n d f o u r d a y s i n w h i c h t h e i n d e x r e t u r n e d l e s s t h a n - 2% . T h e b e s t d a y w a s + 3 . 5 % ( o n J u l y 2 7 th ) a n d t h e w o r s t d a y w a s - 3. 0 % ( o n J u l y 2 4 th ). Fo r t h e q u a r t e r , r e g a r d l e s s o f c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , e a c h G I C S s e c t o r w a s po s i t i v e w i t h i n t h e R u s s e l l 1 0 0 0 a n d R u s s e l l 2 0 0 0 I n d e x e s . E v e n th o u g h e c o n o m i c g r o w t h g l o b a l l y i s e x p e c t e d t o r e m a i n l o w f o r t h e fo r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , t h e E n e r g y s e c t o r w a s t h e b e s t p e r f o r m e r i n t h e Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 I n d e x . A l t h o u g h T e s o r o w a s o n e o f t h e t o p t h r e e pe r f o r m i n g s t o c k s i n t h e i n d e x ( + 6 8 . 4 % ) , i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o s e c t o r pe r f o r m a n c e w a s m i n i m a l d u e t o i t s r e d u c e d w e i g h t i n g i n t h e i n d e x . Wh i l e C h e v r o n a n d E x x o n M o b i l r e t u r n e d + 1 1 . 4 % a n d + 7 . 6 % d u r i n g th e q u a r t e r , t h e t w o s t o c k s a c c o u n t e d f o r n e a r l y 3 9 % o f t h e s e c t o r ’ s co n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e i n d e x . A s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e c h a r t , t h e t o p p e r f o r m i n g se c t o r i n t h e R u s s e l l 2 0 0 0 I n d e x d u r i n g t h e q u a r t e r w a s T e l e c o m Se r v i c e s . O f t h e t w e n t y - e i g h t c o m p a n i e s i n t h e s e c t o r , f o u r t e e n n a m e s ge n e r a t e d d o u b l e - d i g i t p e r f o r m a n c e . Th e t r a i l i n g o n e - y e a r r e t u r n s l o o k s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t t h e e n d o f t h e th i r d q u a r t e r c o m p a r e d t o t h e e n d o f t h e s e c o n d q u a r t e r d u e t o Se p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 ( l a r g e n e g a t i v e m o n t h ) d r o p p i n g o f f . A t t h e e n d o f t h e th i r d q u a r t e r , e a c h G I C S s e c t o r , i n b o t h t h e i n d e x e s , g e n e r a t e d a do u b l e - d i g i t r e t u r n c o m p a r e d t o s e v e r a l s e c t o r s t h a t h a d n e g a t i v e re t u r n s a t t h e e n d o f t h e s e c o n d q u a r t e r . 18 . 1 % 31.0%21.2%38.5%40.6%22.2%33.9%28.8%34.3% 14 . 7 % 6. 1 % 14 . 0 % 2. 4 % 5. 7 % 4. 8 % 2. 3 % 7. 3 % 3. 5 % 12 . 9 % 7. 5 % 0. 0 % 5 . 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 1 5 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % 2 5 . 0 % 3 0 . 0 % 3 5 . 0 % 4 0 . 0 % 4 5 . 0 % Ut i l i t i e s ( 3 . 7 % ) Te l e c o m S e r v i c e s ( 0 . 8 % ) In f o T e c h n o l o g y ( 1 7 . 0 % ) Fi n a n c i a l s ( 2 1 . 6 % ) He a l t h C a r e ( 1 3 . 3 % ) Co n s u m e r S t a p l e s (1 3 . 9 % ) Co n s u m e r D i s c ( 3 . 6 % ) In d u s t r i a l s ( 1 4 . 8 % ) Ma t e r i a l s ( 5 . 0 % ) En e r g y ( 6 . 0 % ) Ru s s e l l 2 0 0 0 Quarter 1-Year 14 . 1 % 34.4%26.7%33.1%30.0%22.3%31.2%28.1%26.9%25.0% 0. 2 % 7. 9 % 6. 9 % 6. 2 % 6. 6 % 3. 8 % 7. 9 % 3. 6 % 6. 1 % 10 . 2 % 0. 0 % 5 . 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 1 5 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % 2 5 . 0 % 3 0 . 0 % 3 5 . 0 % 4 0 . 0 % Ut i l i t i e s ( 3 . 6 % ) Te l e c o m S e r v i c e s ( 3 . 1 % ) In f o T e c h n o l o g y ( 1 9 . 2 % ) Fi n a n c i a l s ( 1 5 . 5 % ) He a l t h C a r e ( 1 1 . 8 % ) Co n s u m e r S t a p l e s (1 2 . 1 % ) Co n s u m e r D i s c ( 1 0 . 0 % ) In d u s t r i a l s ( 1 0 . 4 % ) Ma t e r i a l s ( 3 . 8 % ) En e r g y ( 1 0 . 5 % ) Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 Quarter 1-Year Pa g e 5 So u r c e : M o r n i n g s t a r D i r e c t The Market Environment To p 1 0 I n d e x W e i g h t s & Q u a r t e r l y P e r f o r m a n c e f o r t h e R u s s e l l 1 0 0 0 & 2 0 0 0 As of September 30, 2012 To p 1 0 W e i g h t e d S t o c k s To p 1 0 W e i g h t e d S t o c k s Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 Sy m b o l A v g . W g t R e t u r n S e c t o r Ru s s e l l 2 0 0 0 Sy m b o l A v g . W g t R e t u r n S e c t o r Ap p l e I n c AA P L 4 . 2 6 % 1 4 . 7 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Ph a r m a c y c l i c s I n c PC Y C 0 . 2 9 % 1 8 . 1 % H e a l t h C a r e Ex x o n M o b i l C o r p XO M 2 . 9 2 % 7 . 6 % E n e r g y At h e n a h e a l t h I n c AT H N 0 . 2 7 % 1 5 . 9 % H e a l t h C a r e Ge n e r a l E l e c t r i c C o GE 1 . 6 4 % 9 . 8 % I n d u s t r i a l s Tw o H b r s I n v t C o r p TW O 0 . 2 7 % 1 6 . 9 % F i n a n c i a l s Ch e v r o n C o r p CV X 1 . 5 7 % 1 1 . 4 % E n e r g y Cu b i s t Ph a r m a c e u t i c a l s CB S T 0 . 2 5 % 2 5 . 8 % H e a l t h C a r e In t l B u s i n e s s M a c h i n e s IB M 1 . 5 4 % 6 . 5 % I n f o r m a t i o n Te c h n o l o g y Oc w e n F i n a n c i a l C o r p OC N 0 . 2 5 % 4 6 . 0 % F i n a n c i a l s Mi c r o s o f t C o r p MS F T 1 . 5 3 % - 2 . 0 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Dr i l - Q u i p I n c DR Q 0 . 2 4 % 9 . 6 % E n e r g y At & T I n c T 1 . 5 1 % 7 . 0 % T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v i c e s Hm s H o l d i n g s C o r p HM S Y 0 . 2 4 % 0 . 4 % H e a l t h C a r e Go o g l e I n c GO O G 1 . 3 3 % 3 0 . 1 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Un i t e d Na t u r a l F o o d s I n c U N F I 0 . 2 4 % 6 . 5 % C o n s u m e r S t a p l e s Pr o c t e r & G a m b l e C o PG 1 . 3 0 % 1 4 . 2 % C o n s u m e r S t a p l es En e r g y X x i ( B e r m u d a ) L t d E X X I 0 . 2 3 % 1 1 . 9 % E n e r g y Jo h n s o n & J o h n s o n JN J 1 . 2 9 % 2 . 9 % H e a l t h C a r e Ul t i m a t e So f t w a r e G r o u p UL T I 0 . 2 3 % 1 4 . 6 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y To p 1 0 P e r f o r m i n g S t o c k s To p 1 0 P e r f o r m i n g S t o c k s Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 Sy m b o l A v g . W g t R e t u r n S e c t o r Ru s s e l l 2 0 0 0 Sy m b o l A v g . W g t R e t u r n S e c t o r Me t r o p c s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s I n c P C S 0 . 0 2 % 9 3 . 6 % T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v ic e s S u n e s i s P h a r m a c e u t i c a l s In c S N S S 0 . 0 1 % 9 6 . 9 % H e a l t h C a r e Sp r i n t N e x t e l C o r p S 0 . 1 1 % 6 9 . 3 % T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v i c es S u n r i s e S e n i o r L i v i n g I n c S R Z 0 . 0 7 % 9 5 . 7 % H e a l t h C a r e Te s o r o C o r p TS O 0 . 0 4 % 6 8 . 4 % E n e r g y Xe n o p o r t I n c XN P T 0 . 0 4 % 8 9 . 7 % H e a l t h C a r e Sh a w G r o u p I n c SH A W 0 . 0 2 % 5 9 . 7 % I n d u s t r i a l s Au t h e n t e c I n c AU T H 0 . 0 3 % 8 5 . 0 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Ra c k s p a c e H o s t i n g I n c RA X 0 . 0 5 % 5 0 . 4 % I n f o r m a t i o n Te c h n o l o g y En e r n o c I n c EN O C 0 . 0 3 % 7 9 . 3 % I n d u s t r i a l s Ta h o e R e s o u r c e s I n c TA H O 0 . 0 1 % 4 6 . 6 % M a t e r i a l s In f i n i t y P h a r m a c e u t i c a l s I n c I N F I 0 . 0 5 % 7 3 . 7 % H e a l t h C a r e Fu s i o n - I o I n c FI O 0 . 0 1 % 4 4 . 9 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Ir i s I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n c IR I S 0 . 0 3 % 7 2 . 7 % H e a l t h C a r e Co r e l o g i c I n c CL G X 0 . 0 2 % 4 4 . 9 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y F si I n t l I n c FS I I 0 . 0 2 % 7 2 . 7 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Pu l t e g r o u p I n c PH M 0 . 0 4 % 4 4 . 9 % C o n s u m e r D i s c r et i o n a r y Ge o e y e I n c GE O Y 0 . 0 3 % 7 0 . 7 % I n d u s t r i a l s Ri v e r b e d T e c h n o l o g y I n c RV B D 0 . 0 2 % 4 4 . 1 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Go l de n S t a r R e s o u r c e s L t d G S S 0 . 0 4 % 6 9 . 8 % C o n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o n a r y Bo t t o m 1 0 P e r f o r m i n g S t o c k s Bo t t o m 1 0 P e r f o r m i n g S t o c k s Ru s s e l l 1 0 0 0 Sy m b o l A v g . W g t R e t u r n S e c t o r Ru s s e l l 2 0 0 0 Sy m b o l A v g . W g t R e t u r n S e c t o r Gr o u p o n I n c GR P N 0 . 0 0 % - 5 5 . 2 % C o n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o n a r y A1 2 3 S y s t e m s I n c AO N E 0 . 0 0 % - 8 0 . 2 % I n d u s t r i a l s Zy n g a I n c - C l A ZN G A 0 . 0 0 % - 4 7 . 8 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Kn i g h t C a p i t a l G r o u p I n c - A K C G 0 . 0 2 % - 7 7 . 6 % F i n a n c i a l s It t E d u c a t i o n a l S e r v i c e s I n c E S I 0 . 0 1 % - 4 7 . 0% C o n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o n a r y Pr o g e n i c s P h a r m a ce u t i c a l s P G N X 0 . 0 1 % - 7 0 . 7 % H e a l t h C a r e Mo l y c o r p I n c MC P 0 . 0 1 % - 4 6 . 6 % M a t e r i a l s Au d i e n c e I n c AD N C 0 . 0 0 % - 6 7 . 8 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Ad v a n c e d M i c r o D e v i c e s AM D 0 . 0 1 % - 4 1 . 2 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l og y En v i v i o I n c EN V I 0 . 0 0 % - 6 5 . 7 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Fa c e b o o k I n c - A FB 0 . 0 6 % - 3 0 . 4 % I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y Qu e s tc o r P h a r m a c e u t i c a l s Q C O R 0 . 0 8 % - 6 5 . 3 % H e a l t h C a r e Bi g L o t s I n c BI G 0 . 0 1 % - 2 7 . 5 % C o n s u m e r D i sc r e t i o n a r y Ge v o I n c GE V O 0 . 0 1 % - 5 7 . 1 % E n e r g y De v r y I n c DV 0 . 0 1 % - 2 6 . 5 % C o n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o n a r y Id e n i x Ph a r m a c e u t i c a l s I n c I D I X 0 . 0 3 % - 5 5 . 6 % H e a l t h C a r e Tr i p a d v i s o r I n c TR I P 0 . 0 2 % - 2 6 . 3 % C o n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o n a r y Ed u c at i o n M a n a g e m e n t C o r p E D M C 0 . 0 1 % - 5 5 . 3 % C o n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o n a r y Wa l t e r E n e r g y I n c WL T 0 . 0 1 % - 2 6 . 2 % M a t e r i a l s Su p e r v a l u I n c SV U 0 . 0 4 % - 5 3 . 5 % C o n s u m e r S t a p l e s Pa g e 6 So u r c e : M S C I ( w w w . m s c i . c o m ) In g e n e r a l , E u r o p e a n e q u i t i e s w e r e u p t h e m o s t o n a r e g i o n a l b a s i s du r i n g t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r , a s t h e r e g i o n ’ s l e a d e r s m a d e s o m e a p p a r e n t he a d w a y i n t h e d e b t c r i s i s . O f a l l E u r o p e a n U n i o n c o u n t r i e s , e q u i t i e s i n Ge r m a n y p e r f o r m e d t h e b e s t . Th e B a n k o f J a p a n c o n t i n u e d i t s m o n e t a r y e a s i n g p o l i c y i n m i d - Se p t e m b e r b y a n n o u n c i n g a n e x p a n s i o n o f i t s a s s e t p u r c h a s e p r o g r a m fr o m 7 0 t o 8 0 t r i l l i o n y e n . T h e p u r c h a s e s a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e c o m p l e t e d by t h e e n d o f 2 0 1 3 . W e w o u l d e x p e c t t h i s a c t i o n t o l e a d t o y e n de v a l u a t i o n a t s o m e p o i n t . In U S D t e r m s , I n d i a n ( + 1 5 . 4 % ) a n d N e w Z e a l a n d ( + 1 5 . 8 % ) e q u i t i e s ha d t h e b e s t q u a r t e r l y r e t u r n o f t h e A s i a n c o u n t r i e s . O v e r 4 0 % o f t h e In d i a n e q u i t y r e t u r n w a s d u e t o R u p e e a p p r e c i a t i o n . Co n v e r s e l y , J a p a n , I r e l a n d a n d G r e e c e w e r e t h e w o r s t - p e r f o r m i n g de v e l o p e d c o u n t r y e q u i t i e s d u r i n g t h e q u a r t e r — J a p a n a n d I r e l a n d we r e i n n e g a t i v e t e r r i t o r y . Al l s e c t o r s i n t h e d e v e l o p e d m a r k e t s e x h i b i t e d p o s i t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e du r i n g t h e q u a r t e r , w i t h F i n a n c i a l s l e a d i n g t h e p a c k a t + 1 1 . 3 % . I n de v e l o p i n g m a r k e t s , I n f o T e c h n o l o g y , C o n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o n a r y , He a l t h c a r e a n d E n e r g y s e c t o r s w e r e u p d o u b l e d i g i t s , w h i l e U t i l i t i e s st o c k s w e r e m o s t l y f l a t t o s l i g h t l y n e g a t i v e . US i n v e s t o r r e t u r n s o v e r s e a s w e r e a i d e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b y c u r r e n c y ef f e c t s d u r i n g t h e q u a r t e r , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e B r a z i l i a n R e a l wh i c h m o d e s t l y d e p r e c i a t e d . Th e o n e - y e a r p e r f o r m a n c e r e s u l t s f o r n o n - U S e q u i t i e s r o s e i n t o po s i t i v e t e r r i t o r y a s t h e p o o r p e r i o d f r o m S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 w a s dr o p p e d o f f . The Market Environment In t e r n a t i o n a l a n d R e g i o n a l M a r k e t In d e x P e r f o r m a n c e ( C o u n t r y C o u n t ) As of September 30, 2012 3. 5 % 6.6%6.7%6.1% 1. 6 % 6.5%4.7%5.0%5.2% 4. 7 % 8.9%9.8%7.9% 3. 8 % 8.8%7.0%7.4%7.5% 0. 0 % 2 . 0 % 4 . 0 % 6 . 0 % 8 . 0 % 1 0 . 0 % EM L a t i n A m e r ( 5 ) EM A s i a ( 8 ) EM E u r o p e ( 5 ) Em e r g i n g M k t ( 2 1 ) Pa c i f i c ( 5 ) Eu r o p e ( 1 6 ) EA F E ( 2 2 ) WO R L D x U S ( 2 3 ) AC W o r l d x U S ( 4 4 ) Qu a r t e r P e r f o r m a n c e USD Local Currency 17.0%16.5%15.4%16.8% 6. 3 % 19.0%14.1%13.5%14.2%13.5%18.2%18.1%17.3% 7. 9 % 18.1%14.3%14.4%15.0% 0. 0 % 5. 0 % 10 . 0 % 15.0%20.0% EM L a t i n A m e r ( 5 ) EM A s i a ( 8 ) EM E u r o p e ( 5 ) Em e r g i n g M k t ( 2 1 ) Pa c i f i c ( 5 ) Eu r o p e ( 1 6 ) EA F E ( 2 2 ) WO R L D x U S ( 2 3 ) AC W o r l d x U S ( 4 4 ) 1- Y e a r P e r f o r m a n c e USD Local Currency Pa g e 7 So u r c e : M S C I ( w w w . m s c i . c o m ) The Market Environment U. S . D o l l a r I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n d e x A t t r i b u t i o n & C o u n t r y D e t a i l As of September 30, 2012 MS C I - E A F E Se c t o r W e i g h t Q u ar t e r R e t u r n 1 - Y e a r R e t u r n En e r g y 8. 3 % 6. 7 % 16 . 3 % Ma t e r i a l s 9. 6 % 7. 1 % 8. 6 % In d u s t r i a l s 12 . 4 % 5. 8 % 13 . 0 % Co n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o na r y 10 . 1 % 2. 5 % 13 . 0 % Co n s u m e r S t a p l es 12 . 0 % 7. 1 % 20 . 9 % He a l t h C a r e 10 . 2 % 8. 9 % 22 . 4 % Fi n a n c i a l s 23 . 5 % 11 . 3 % 19 . 8 % In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y 4. 3 % 1. 4 % -1 . 4 % Te l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v i c e s 5. 4 % 5. 2 % 6. 8 % Ut i l i t i e s 4. 0 % 2. 5 % -1 . 8 % To t a l 10 0 . 0 % 7. 0 % 14 . 3 % MS C I - A C W I x U S Se c t o r W e i g h t Qu a r t e r R e t u r n 1 - Y e a r R e t u r n En e r g y 11 . 0 % 8. 8 % 15 . 4 % Ma t e r i a l s 11 . 1 % 7. 9 % 6. 7 % In d u s t r i a l s 10 . 5 % 5. 6 % 13 . 8 % Co n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o na r y 9. 1 % 4. 2 % 13 . 4 % Co n s u m e r S t a p l es 10 . 4 % 7. 1 % 22 . 2 % He a l t h C a r e 7. 4 % 9. 1 % 22 . 7 % Fi n a n c i a l s 24 . 7 % 10 . 0 % 19 . 4 % In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y 6. 3 % 6. 4 % 13 . 1 % Te l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v i c e s 5. 9 % 6. 3 % 10 . 5 % Ut i l i t i e s 3. 7 % 1. 8 % 1. 4 % To t a l 10 0 . 0 % 7. 5 % 15 . 0 % MS C I - E m e r g i n g M k t Se c t o r W e i gh t Q u a r t e r R e t u r n 1 - Y e a r R e t u r n En e r g y 13 . 1 % 10 . 9 % 12 . 3 % Ma t e r i a l s 12 . 0 % 5. 5 % 5. 2 % In d u s t r i a l s 6. 7 % 4. 6 % 13 . 4 % Co n s u m e r D i s c r e t i o na r y 8. 0 % 10 . 6 % 14 . 4 % Co n s u m e r S t a p l es 8. 5 % 7. 0 % 28 . 0 % He a l t h C a r e 1. 3 % 11 . 1 % 23 . 0 % Fi n a n c i a l s 24 . 9 % 7. 3 % 19 . 3 % In f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y 14 . 0 % 11 . 1 % 31 . 1 % Te l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v i c e s 8. 1 % 7. 9 % 16 . 0 % Ut i l i t i e s 3. 6 % -0 . 4 % 14 . 6 % To t a l 10 0 . 0 % 7. 9 % 17 . 3 % MS C I - E A F E M S C I - A C W I x U S Q u a r t e r 1 - Y e a r Co u n t r y W e i g h t W e i g h t R e t u r n R e t u r n Un i t e d K i n g d o m 2 3 . 2 % 15.8%7.1%20.8% Ja p a n 2 0 . 1 % 1 3 . 6 % - 0 . 8 % - 1 . 5 % Fr a n c e 9 . 2 % 6 . 2 % 7 . 4 % 1 3 . 8 % Au s t r a l i a 8 . 9 % 6 . 1 % 1 0 . 5 % 2 3 . 0 % Sw i t z e r l a n d 8 . 6 % 5 . 8 % 7 . 8 % 1 7 . 1 % Ge r m a n y 8 . 6 % 5 . 8 % 1 3 . 9 % 2 6 . 5 % Sw e d e n 3 . 2 % 2 . 2 % 1 0 . 6 % 2 7 . 9 % Ho n g K o n g 3 . 1 % 2 . 1 % 1 2 . 5 % 2 9 . 0 % Sp a i n 2 . 9 % 2 . 0 % 1 1 . 5 % - 6 . 5 % Ne t h e r l a n d s 2 . 5 % 1.7%9.2%18.0% It a l y 2. 2 % 1.5%7.6%4.7% Si n g a p o r e 1. 9 % 1.3%10.6%25.7% De n m a r k 1. 2 % 0.8%11.3%38.2% Be l g i u m 1. 2 % 0.8%10.1%35.4% No r w a y 1. 0 % 0.7%13.6%29.8% Fi n l a n d 0. 8 % 0.5%10.6%1.0% Is r a e l 0. 6 % 0.4%6.4%4.7% Ir e l a n d 0. 3 % 0.2%-1.5%26.4% Au s t r i a 0. 3 % 0.2%7.3%1.2% Po r t u g a l 0. 2 % 0.1%13.1%-13.9% Ne w Z e a l a n d 0. 1 % 0.1%15.8%21.8% Gr e e c e 0. 1 % 0.0%0.3%-40.2% To t a l E A F E C o u n t r i e s 10 0 . 0 % 67.8%7.0%14.3% Ca n a d a 8.3%10.6%14.7% To t a l D e v e l o p e d C o u n t r i e s 76.1%7.4%14.4% Ch i n a 4.1%4.7%17.9% Ko r e a 3.7%9.9%22.8% Br a z i l 3.0%4.8%5.5% Ta i w a n 2.7%11.8%15.4% So u t h A f r i c a 1.9%6.6%19.8% In d i a 1.7%15.4%7.5% Ru s s i a 1.4%9.4%18.5% Me x i c o 1.2%6.8%33.6% Ma l a y s i a 0.9%5.3%23.1% In d o n e s i a 0.7%7.5%10.1% Th a i l a n d 0.5%11.3%42.1% Ch i l e 0.5%1.3%17.8% Tu r k e y 0.4%8.2%17.4% Po l a n d 0.4%13.2%18.5% Co l o m b i a 0.3%2.3%23.4% Ph i l i p p i n e s 0.2%4.5%41.6% Pe r u 0.2%2.9%25.9% Eg y p t 0.1%22.6%45.6% Cz e c h R e p u b l i c 0.1%10.4%4.8% Hu n g a r y 0.1%9.6%21.7% Mo r o c c o 0.0%-3.3%-21.3% To t a l E m e r g i n g C o u n t r i e s 23.8%7.9%17.3% To t a l A C W I x U S C o u n t r i e s 100.0%7.5%15.0% Pa g e 8 So u r c e : B a r c l a y s C a p i t a l L i v e Fo r t h e s e c o n d q u a r t e r i n a r o w , i n v e s t o r s w e r e r e w a r d e d f o r o w n i n g ri s k i e r a s s e t s a s a s t r o n g c r e d i t r a l l y l e d t h e B a r c l a y s A g g r e g a t e B o n d In d e x t o a 1 . 6 % q u a r t e r l y r e t u r n . E a c h o f t h e t h r e e k e y s e c t o r s w e r e po s i t i v e f o r t h e q u a r t e r w i t h C o r p o r a t e B o n d s b e s t i n g M B S a n d Tr e a s u r i e s b y 2 7 0 b p s a n d 3 2 0 b p s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e i n v e s t m e n t gr a d e c r e d i t s e c t o r w a s l e d b y B a a - a n d A - r a t e d b o n d s , w h i c h ou t p e r f o r m e d A A A - r a t e d b o n d s b y 2 . 4 % a n d 1 . 9 % . T h e M B S s e c t o r tu r n e d i n a s o l i d s h o w i n g d u e t o s t r o n g m a r k e t t e c h n i c a l s r e s u l t i n g f r o m th e F e d a n n o u n c i n g t h e y w o u l d b u y u p t o $ 4 0 b i l l i o n p e r m o n t h i n p a s s - th r o u g h s e c u r i t i e s . L a s t l y , T r e a s u r i e s l a g g e d a s t h e y i e l d c u r v e , a c r o s s al l m a t u r i t i e s , w a s l i t t l e c h a n g e d . W i t h i n T r e a s u r i e s , T I P S o u t p e r f o r m e d st a n d a r d T r e a s u r y b o n d s . Du r i n g t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r , i n v e s t o r s s a w l o w q u a l i t y b o n d s c o n t i n u e t o ou t p e r f o r m t h e i r h i g h e r q u a l i t y c o u n t e r p a r t s . F r o m h i g h y i e l d t o A A A - ra t e d b o n d s , t h e t r e n d h e l d . A s i n v e s t o r s m o v e d d o w n t h e q u a l i t y sp e c t r u m , i n v e s t m e n t r e t u r n s w e r e s t r o n g e r i n t h e q u a r t e r . T h e di f f e r e n t i a l b e t w e e n i n v e s t m e n t g r a d e c o r p o r a t e s a n d h i g h y i e l d c r e d i t s wa s 6 0 b a s i s p o i n t s . T h e s p r e a d b e t w e e n t h e B a a - r a t e d b o n d s ( t h e lo w e s t i n v e s t m e n t g r a d e r a t i n g ) a n d A A A - r a t e d c r e d i t w a s 2 . 4 % . Tr a i l i n g o n e - y e a r r e t u r n s c o n t i n u e d t o b e p o s i t i v e a c r o s s a l l b r o a d a n d se c t o r - f o c u s e d i n d i c e s . H o w e v e r , a b s o l u t e l e v e l s c o n t i n u e t o t r e n d lo w e r a s s p r e a d s a n d n o m i n a l y i e l d s c om p r e s s e d . T h e t r a i l i n g o n e - y e a r fi x e d i n c o m e r e s u l t s w e r e l e d b y t h e 1 8 . 6 % r e t u r n o f H i g h Y i e l d b o n d s , wh i c h b e n e f i t e d f r o m s t r o n g f u n d f l o w s , p o s i t i v e f u n d a m e n t a l s , a n d st r o n g i n v e s t o r a p p e t i t e f o r y i e l d . C o n t i n u i n g w i t h t h e t h e m e o f im p r o v i n g c r e d i t , i n v e s t m e n t g r a d e c r e d i t w a s t h e s e c o n d b e s t pe r f o r m i n g s e c t o r , r e t u r n i n g 1 0 . 8 % . Fi n a l l y , I n t e r n a t i o n a l b o n d s b e n e f i t t e d f r o m a w e a k d o l l a r g e n e r a t i n g a qu a r t e r l y r e t u r n o f 4 . 4 % , w h i c h w a s 2 8 0 b a s i s p o i n t s b e t t e r t h a n do m e s t i c b o n d s ( 1 . 6 % ) . O n a t r a i l i n g o n e - y e a r b a s i s , t h e r e t u r n g a p be t w e e n t h e t w o a r e a s o f t h e m a r k e t s h r a n k t o a 4 0 b p s a d v a n t a g e f o r do m e s t i c b o n d s . AA A , A A , A , B a a , T r e a s u r y , M o r t g a g e & C o r p o r a t e b e n c h m a r k s a r e s u b - c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e B a r c l a y s A g g r e g a t e I n d e x . The Market Environment Do m e s t i c B o n d S e c t o r & B r o a d / Gl o b a l B o n d M a r k e t P e r f o r m a n c e As of September 30, 2012 4.4% 1. 4 % 1. 6 % 2. 1 % 3.8% 1. 1 % 0. 6 % 4.4%4.3%3.7% 2. 3 % 1. 9 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 4.0%6.0% Gl o b a l A g g x U S In t e r m e d i a t e A g g Ag g r e g a t e TI P S Co r p o r a t e I G Mo r t g a g e Tr e a s u r y Hi g h Y i e l d Ba a A AA AA A Qu a r t e r P e r f o r m a n c e 4. 8 % 4. 3 % 5. 2 % 9.1%10.8% 3. 7 % 3. 0 % 18.6%11.9%10.5% 7. 9 % 5. 7 % 0. 0 % 5. 0 % 10.0%15.0%20.0% Gl o b a l A g g x U S In t e r m e d i a t e A g g Ag g r e g a t e TI P S Co r p o r a t e I G Mo r t g a g e Tr e a s u r y Hi g h Y i e l d Ba a A AA AA A 1- Y e a r P e r f o r m a n c e Pa g e 9 So u r c e : U S D e p a r t m e n t o f T r e a s u r y , F R E D - F e d e r al R e s e r v e o f S t . L o u i s , a n d M o r t g a g e - X . c o m Du r i n g t h e q u a r t e r , t h e m a c r o - e c o n o m i c p i c t u r e w a s d o m i n a t e d b y t h e ag g r e s s i v e m o v e s i n S e p t e m b e r b y t h e F e d e r a l R e s e r v e a n d t h e E C B . I n ea r l y S e p t e m b e r , t h e E C B a p p r o v e d “ o u t r i g h t m o n e t a r y t r a n s a c t i o n s ” (b o n d p u r c h a s e s ) t o h e l p t r o u b l e d s o v e r e i g n n a t i o n s i n t h e E u r o z o n e , sp e c i f i c a l l y I t a l y a n d S p a i n . L a t e r i n t h e m o n t h , C h a i r m a n B e n B e r n a n k e an n o u n c e d t h e F e d e r a l R e s e r v e w o u l d b e g i n a n o t h e r r o u n d o f Qu a n t i t a t i v e E a s i n g ( Q E I I I ) . T h i s t i m e , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a n n o u n c e d co n t i n u a t i o n o f O p e r a t i o n T w i s t i n J u n e , t h e F e d a n n o u n c e d p l a n s t o b u y up t o $ 4 0 b i l l i o n o f M B S s e c u r i t i e s e a c h m o n t h . T r e a s u r i e s h a d a m o d e s t re a c t i o n t o t h e n e w s g i v e n t h a t t h e c u r r e n t r o u n d o f q u a n t i t a t i v e e a s i n g wi l l b e f o c u s e d o n t h e m o r t g a g e s e c t o r . Th e 1 0 - y e a r T r e a s u r y b e g a n t h e q u a r t e r w i t h a y i e l d o f 1 . 6 7 % a n d fi n i s h e d 2 b p s l o w e r a t 1 . 6 5 % . T h e 1 . 6 5 % y i e l d o n t h e 1 0 - y e a r , w h i l e mo d e s t l y b e l o w t h e c l o s i n g y i e l d o n J u n e 3 0 , m a s k e d a g r e a t d e a l o f vo l a t i l i t y f o r t h e q u a r t e r . D u r i n g t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r , t h e 1 0 - y e a r T r e a s u r y tr a d e d i n a 4 5 b a s i s p o i n t r a n g e o f 1 . 4 3 % t o 1 . 8 8 % . T h e l o w w a s r e a c h e d in l a t e J u l y a s c o n c e r n s g r e w t h a t t h e s l u g g i s h g l o b a l e c o n o m y w a s we a k e n i n g f u r t h e r . A s o p t i m i s m g r e w t h a t c e n t r a l b a n k s w o u l d , o n c e ag a i n , u n d e r t a k e f u r t h e r q u a n t i t a t i v e e a s i n g , r a t e s s o l d o f f d r a m a t i c a l l y t o th e i r q u a r t e r l y h i g h o f 1 . 8 8 % o n S e p t e m b e r 1 4 . A f t e r s u c h t i m e , r a t e s mo v e d b a c k t o t h e l e v e l s o f t h e p r e v i o u s q u a r t e r t o e n d a t a y i e l d o f 1. 6 5 % . O n c e a g a i n , s h o r t - t e r m r a t e s r e m a i n a t o r n e a r z e r o g i v i n g e v e n mo r e i n d i c a t i o n f r o m t h e F e d t h a t t h e y i n t e n d t o k e e p r a t e s l o w f o r a co n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d o f t i m e . In s p i t e o f a c t i v i t y f r o m c e n t r a l b a n k s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d E u r o p e , t h e Tr e a s u r y y i e l d c u r v e r e m a i n e d m o s t l y u n c h a n g e d d u r i n g t h e 3 rd qu a r t e r . Ho w e v e r , w h e n c o m p a r i n g 2 0 1 0 t o t h e p r e s e n t p e r i o d , t h e y i e l d c u r v e h a s fl a t t e n e d d r a m a t i c a l l y . A t c u r r e n t l e v e l s , i n v e s t o r s m u s t e x t e n d t o 1 0 - y e a r ma t u r i t i e s a n d b e y o n d t o r e a l i z e a y i e l d i n e x c e s s o f t h e r a t e o f i n f l a t i o n . Si n c e 2 0 1 0 , i n v e s t o r s i n l o n g e r - d a t e d b o n d s h a v e b e e n r e w a r d e d a s r a t e s mo v e d l o w e r . G o i n g f o r w a r d , h o w e v e r , t h e f l a t t e r y i e l d c u r v e a n d l o w no m i n a l y i e l d s p r o v i d e i n v e s t o r s w i t h l i t t l e r e t u r n t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e hi g h l e v e l o f i n t e r e s t r a t e r i s k f o u n d i n l o n g - d a t e d T r e a s u r i e s . The Market Environment Ma r k e t R a t e & Y i e l d C u r v e C o m p a r i s o n As of September 30, 2012 0. 0 0 0. 5 0 1. 0 0 1. 5 0 2. 0 0 2. 5 0 3. 0 0 3. 5 0 4. 0 0 4. 5 0 5. 0 0 5. 5 0 1 m o 3 m o 6 m o 1 y r 2 y r 3 y r 5 y r 7 y r 1 0 y r 2 0 y r 3 0 y r Tr e a s u r y Y i e l d C u r v e 12 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 0 12 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 1 6/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 2 9/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 2 -1 . 0 0 -0 . 5 0 0. 0 0 0. 5 0 1. 0 0 1. 5 0 2. 0 0 2. 5 0 3. 0 0 3. 5 0 4. 0 0 4. 5 0 Se p - 1 1 D e c - 1 1 M a r - 1 2 J u n - 1 2 S e p - 1 2 1- Y e a r T r a i l i n g M a r k e t R a t e s Fe d F u n d s R a t e TE D S p r e a d 3-Month Libor BA A / 1 0 y r S p r e a d 10 y r T r e a s u r y 10yr TIPS Pa g e 1 0 Pr i v a t e C o r e R e a l E s t a t e ( C h a r t s l o c a t e d t o t h e r i g h t ) : T h e a s s e t c l a s s (a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e N C R E I F N F I - O D C E a n d t h e N P I ) c o n t i n u e d t o pr o d u c e s o l i d r e s u l t s a c r o s s a l l s e c t o r s a n d g e o g r a p h i e s f o r t h e q u a r t e r , wh i c h d r o v e r e t u r n s f o r m o s t s e c t o r s ( e x c e p t H o t e l s ) a n d g e o g r a p h i e s in t o d o u b l e d i g i t s f o r t h e 1 - Y e a r . T h i s i s t h e f i r s t t i m e i n f i v e q u a r t e r s t h a t th e a p a r t m e n t s e c t o r w a s n o t t h e h i g h e s t p e r f o r m i n g ; w h i l e t h e W e s t re g i o n c o n t i n u e s t o b e t h e s t r o n g e s t p e r f o r m e r . U n d e r l y i n g p r o p e r t y fu n d a m e n t a l s c o n t i n u e t o i m p r o v e w i t h t h e N F I a n d N P I o c c u p a n c y ra t e s i n c r e a s i n g . D u e t o a s s e t a p p r e c i a t i o n , t h e p a y - d o w n o f d e b t , a n d co n t i n u e d i n t e r e s t o f i n v e s t o r s i n C o r e r e a l e s t a t e ( i n v e s t o r s c o n t r i b u t e d $3 . 0 5 b i l l i o n d u r i n g t h e q u a r t e r ) , t h e N F I L T V r e d u c e b y 1 % . F o r t h e br o a d e r u n i v e r s e , r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e N P I , s a m e s t o r e N O I i n c r e a s e d fo r t h e t h i r d c o n s e c u t i v e q u a r t e r b y 2. 8 % a n d C a p r a t e s s t a y e d a t 6 . 0 % . So u r c e f o r t o p r i g h t t a b l e . : N C R E I F a s o f J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 ; S o u r c e f o r b o t t o m r i g h t c h a r t : G r e e n S t r e e t A d v i s o r s v i a A E W R e s e a r c h The Market Environment Do m e s t i c P r i v a t e & P u b l i c R e a l E s t a t e M a r k e t M e t r i c s As of September 30, 2012 U. S . M o n t h l y S e c t o r R e s u l t s * M- T - D T o t a l Re t u r n s Y- T - D T o t a l Re t u r n s Di v i d e n d Y i e l d Eq u i t y M a r k e t Ca p i t a l i z a t i o n ( $ M M ) Re t a i l 2. 5 % 26 . 7 % 3. 1 % $1 3 9 , 2 0 9 . 7 Sh o p p i n g C e n t e r 2. 6 % 25 . 2 % 3. 5 % 41 , 3 5 9 . 2 Re g i o n a l M a l l 2. 3 % 28 . 0 % 2. 7 % 86 , 1 6 2 . 9 Fr e e S t a n d i n g 4. 0 % 22 . 9 % 4. 3 % 11 , 6 8 7 . 6 In d u s t r i a l / O f f i c e 1. 6% 17 . 1 % 3. 5 % 85 , 8 3 8 . 0 In d u s t r i a l 4. 5 % 21 . 8 % 3. 4 % 21 , 2 0 8 . 7 Of f i c e 0. 4 % 14 . 2 % 3. 3 % 51 , 9 4 4 . 8 Mi x e d 2. 2 % 23 . 1 % 4. 8 % 10 , 6 8 4 . 5 Re s i d e n t i a l -3 . 5 % 9. 4 % 2. 9 % 77 , 9 5 5 . 6 Ap a r t m e n t -3 . 5 % 9. 3 % 2. 9 % 73 , 7 2 3 . 6 Ma n u f a c t u r e d H o m e -3 . 4 % 11 . 4 % 3. 6 % 4, 2 3 1 . 9 Di v e r s i f i e d -1 . 3 % 12 . 4 % 4. 0 % 36 , 2 0 9 . 3 Lo d g i n g / R e s o r t 3. 0 % 9. 3 % 2. 9 % 27 , 0 9 2 . 9 He a l t h c a r e -2 . 5 % 16 . 8 % 4. 7 % 64 , 0 9 3 . 1 Se l f S t o r a g e -0 . 7 % 15 . 9 % 2. 9 % 31 , 5 1 5 . 0 FT S E N A R E I T E q u i t y R E I T s I n d e x 0 . 0 % 17 . 2 % 3. 4 % $4 6 1 , 9 1 3 . 4 So u r c e f o r b o t t o m l e f t t a b l e : * N A R E I T v i a A E W R e s e a r c h a s o f A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 2 -5 0 % -4 0 % -3 0 % -2 0 % -1 0 % 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 RE I T P r e m i u m / D i s c o u n t t o U n d e r l y i n g P r o p e r t y V a l u e Ja n u a r y 1 9 9 0 t o S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 PREMIUM DISCOUNT NC R E I F N P I Ma r k e t V a l u e ( $ M M ) Q u a r t e r R e t u r n 1 - Y e a r R e t u r n To t a l R e t u r n $3 1 0 , 7 3 8 . 9 2.7%12.0% In c o m e 1.5%5.9% A pp r e c i a t i o n 1.2%5.9% Se c t o r W e i g h t Q u a r t e r R e t u r n 1 - Y e a r R e t u r n Of f i c e 35 . 1 % 2.3%10.5% A pa r t m e n t 25 . 3 % 2.8%13.2% Re t a i l 22 . 7 % 3.0%13.4% In d u s t r i a l 14 . 3 % 2.9%12.2% Ho t e l 2. 6 % 2.1%8.0% To t a l Re g i o n a l W e i g h t Q u a r t e r R e t u r n 1 - Y e a r R e t u r n We s t 34 . 0 % 3.1%13.5% Ea s t 33 . 6 % 2.4%10.8% So u t h 22 . 2 % 2.7%12.2% Mi d w e s t 10 . 2 % 2.3%11.1% NC R E I F N F I - O D C E ( C a p W e i g h t e d ) M a r k e t V a l u e ( $ M M ) Q u a r t e r R e t u r n 1 - Y e a r R e t u r n To t a l R e t u r n $ 8 3 , 8 3 0 . 3 2 . 6 % 1 2 . 4 % In c o m e 1 . 3 % 5 . 4 % A pp r e c i a t i o n 1.2%6.7% Fu n d C o u n t A v e r a g e L o a n - T o - V a l u e A v e r a g e O c c u p a n c y NC R E I F N F I - O D C E K e y S t a t i s t i c s 18 23%89.9% Pu b l i c R e a l E s t a t e S e c u r i t i e s ( C h a r t s l o c a t e d a t b o t t o m o f t h i s s l i d e ) : Pe r f o r m a n c e f o r A u g u s t 2 0 1 2 w a s m i x e d w i t h r e t a i l , i n d u s t r i a l / o f f i c e , an d l o d g i n g s e c t o r s p r o d u c i n g p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s w h i l e , r e s i d e n t i a l , di v e r s i f i e d , h e a l t h c a r e a n d s t o r a g e e x h i b i t i n g n e g a t i v e r e t u r n s . M o r e br o a d l y , t h e F T S E N A R E I T E q u i t y R E I T s I n d e x ( p r o x y f o r U . S . R E I T s ) ha s p e r f o r m e d v e r y w e l l f o r t h e Y T D p e r i o d . T h e R E I T d i v i d e n d y i e l d wa s u n c h a n g e d i n A u g u s t a t 3 . 4 % a n d t h e p r e m i u m t o N A V w a s re l a t i v e l y u n c h a n g e d a t 1 7 % . H o w e v e r , i t s e e m s t h a t i n v e s t o r s r e m a i n po s i t i v e t h a t R E I T s a r e n o t o v e r v a l u e d , a s R E I T s s p e n t t h e p a s t f e w ye a r s r e f i n a n c i n g i n t o l o w e r c o u p o n d e b t , r a i s i n g c o m m o n e q u i t y a t a pr e m i u m t o t h e i r N A V , l o w e r i n g t h e i r o v e r a l l l e v e r a g e , i m p r o v i n g t h e qu a l i t y o f t h e i r p o r t f o l i o s a n d l o w e r i n g d i v i d e n d p a y o u t r a t i o s . Pa g e 1 1 In a n e f f o r t t o b e t t e r s e r v e y o u r n e e d s , T h e B o g d a h n G r o u p i s co n d u c t i n g i t s a n n u a l c l i e n t s u r v e y . We s i n c e r e l y t h a n k y o u f o r t a k i n g t h e t i m e t o f i l l o u t t h i s s u r v e y . Th e i n s i g h t s g a i n e d w i l l h e l p T h e B o g d a h n G r o u p c o n t i n u e t o im p r o v e a n d b e t t e r s e r v e y o u . A d d i t i o n a l l y , w e u s e t h e in f o r m a t i o n t o e v a l u a t e o u r c o n s u l t a n t s a n d i d e n t i f y a r e a s o f pr o f e s s i o n a l i m p r o v e m e n t . T h i s s u r v e y i s s h o r t a n d s h o u l d t a k e ap p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e t o t e n m i n u t e s t o c o m p l e t e . T h e B o g d a h n Gr o u p w i l l k e e p a l l i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l an d w i l l n e v e r r e l e a s e i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h i r d p a r t i e s . T h i s s u r v e y i s fo r i n t e r n a l u s e o n l y . If y o u d o n o t r e c e i v e a n i n d i v i d u a l e - m a i l f r o m t h e s u r v e y co m p a n y , p l e a s e p a r t i c i p a t e b y d i r e c t i n g y o u r b r o w s e r t o ht t p s : / / w w w . s u r v e y m o n k e y . c o m / s / T B G S u r v e y 2 0 1 2 . If y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e s u r v e y , p l e a s e c o n t a c t C h i p Wo o t e n a t ( 8 6 3 ) 9 0 4 - 0 8 6 7 o r ch i p w @ b o g d a h n g r o u p . c o m . Th a n k y o u a g a i n f o r y o u r h e l p . W e l o o k f o r w a r d t o h e a r i n g w h a t yo u h a v e t o s a y . The Market Environment Th e 2 0 1 2 B o g d a h n C l i e n t S u r v e y How are you doing? How are we doing? Th e B o g d a h n C l i e n t S u r v e y l i n k w i l l b e l i v e t h r o u g h D e c e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 . Se l e c t o n e ch o i c e Ve r y P o o r 1 Excellent 10 1. We m a d e a n u m b e r o f e n h a n c e m e n t s t o t h e l o o k a n d f e e l o f y o u r pe r f o r m a n c e r e p o r t s t h i s y e a r ; p l e a s e r a t e y o u r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e s e ch a n g e s . 2. Pl e a s e r a t e y o u r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l e v e l o f d e t a i l i n y o u r pe r f o r m a n c e r e p o r t . 3. Pl e a s e r a t e y o u r c o n s u l t a n t ' s a b i l i t y t o e f f e c t i v e l y c o m m u n i c a t e t h e in f o r m a t i o n i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e p o r t . 4. Pl e a s e r a t e y o u r c o n s u l t a n t ' s a b il i t y t o e f f e c t i v e l y c o m m u n i c a t e in v e s t m e n t i n s i g h t s b e y o n d t h o s e i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e p o r t . 5. Pl e a s e r a t e t h e e f f o r t o f y o u r c o n s u l t a n t t o o f f e r s u g g e s t i o n s a n d / o r so l u t i o n s t o e n h a n c e y o u r p o r t f o l i o . 6. Pl e a s e r a t e t h e o u t c o m e s o f y o u r c o n s u l t a n t ' s s u g g e s t i o n s a n d / o r in v e s t m e n t s o l u t i o n s . 7. Pl e a s e r a t e y o u r c o n s u l t a n t ' s l e v e l o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f y o u r Pl a n / F u n d ' s u n i q u e n e e d s . 8. Pl e a s e r a t e t h e t i m e l i n e s s o f y o u r c o n s u l t a n t ' s r e s p o n s e s t o r e g u l a r in q u i r i e s . ( O u r f i r m p o l i c y i s t o r e p l y t o a l l i n q u i r i e s w i t h i n 2 4 h o u r s . ) 9. Pl e a s e r a t e t h e d e t a i l p r o v i d e d i n y o u r c o n s u l t a n t ' s f o l l o w u p t o in q u i r i e s . 10 . Pl e a s e r a t e y o u r o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T h e B o g d a h n G r o u p ' s se r v i c e s . 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pa g e 1 2 To t a l F u n d C o m p l i a n c e : Yes No N/A Eq u i t y C o m p l i a n c e : Yes No N/A Fi x e d I n c o m e C o m p l i a n c e : Yes No N/A Ye s N o N/ A Ye s N o N/ A Y e s N o N/AYesNo N/AYesNo N/A Ma n a g e r C o m p l i a n c e : Ci t y o f D e l r a y B e a c h P o l i c e a n d F i r e f i g h t e r s ' R e t i r e m e n t S y s t e m Co m p l i a n c e C h e c k l i s t a s o f S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 Th e T o t a l P l a n r e t u r n e q ua l e d o r e x c e e d e d t h e 8 . 3 % a c t u a r i a l e a r n i n g s a s s u m p ti o n o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * 1. ✔ Th e T o t a l P l a n r e t u r n e q ua l e d o r e x c e e d e d t h e t o t a l p la n b e n c h m a r k o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * 2. ✔ Th e T o t a l P l a n r e t u r n r a n k e d w i t h i n t h e t o p 4 0 t h p er c e n t i l e o f i t s p ee r g ro u p o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * 3. ✔ To t a l e q ui t y r e t u r n s m e e t o r e x c e e d t h e b e n c h m a r k o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * ✔ 1. To t a l e q ui t y r e t u r n s r a n k e d w i t h i n t h e t o p 4 0 t h p er c e n t i l e o f i t s p ee r g ro u p o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * 2. ✔ Th e t o t a l e q ui t y a l l o c a t i o n w a s l e s s t h a n 7 0 % o f t h e t o t a l p la n a s s e t s a t m a r k e t . ✔ 3. To t a l f o r e i g n e q ui t y w a s l e s s t h a n 2 5 % o f t h e t o t a l p la n a s s e t s a t m a r k e t . ✔ 4. To t a l f i x e d i n c o m e r e t u r n s m e e t o r e x c e e d t h e b e n c h m a r k o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * 1. ✔ To t a l f i x e d i n c o m e r e t u r n s r a n k e d w i t h i n t h e t o p 4 0 t h p er c e n t i l e o f i t s p ee r g ro u p o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * 2. ✔ No m o r e t h a n 1 5 % o f t h e f i x e d i n c o m e p or t f o l i o w a s r a t e d b e l o w B B B / B a a . ✔ 3. Ma n a g er o u t p er f o r m e d t h e i n d e x o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * ✔ Ma n a g er r a n k e d w i t h i n t h e t o p 4 0 t h p er c e n t i l e o v e r t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . * ✔ Le s s t h a n f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e q ua r t e r s o f u n d e r p er f o r m a n c e r e l a t i v e t o t h e b e n c h m a r k . ✔ Th r e e a n d f i v e - y ea r d o w n - m a r k e t c a p tu r e r a t i o l e s s t h a n t h e i n d e x . * ✔ Ma n a g er r e p or t s c o m p li a n c e w i t h P F I A . ✔ *3 y ea r s u s e d w h e n 5 y ea r s u n a v a i l a b l e ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ De l a w a r e I C C M u l t i 1.2.3.4.5. La z a r d S M I D W H V I n t ' l RBC Int'l Pa g e 1 3 Ye s N o N/ A Ye s N o N/ A Y e s N o N/AYesNo N/AYesNo N/A Ma n a g e r C o m p l i a n c e : Ci t y o f D e l r a y B e a c h P o l i c e a n d F i r e f i g h t e r s ' R e t i r e m e n t S y s t e m Co m p l i a n c e C h e c k l i s t a s o f S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 Ma n a g er o u t p er f o r m e d t h e i n d e x o v e r t h e t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . ✔ Ma n a g er r a n k e d w i t h i n t h e t o p 4 0 t h p er c e n t i l e o v e r t r a i l i n g t h r e e a n d f i v e y ea r p er i o d s . ✔ Le s s t h a n f o u r c o n s e c u t i v e q ua r t e r s o f u n d e r p er f o r m a n c e r e l a t i v e t o t h e b e n c h m a r k . ✔ Th r e e a n d f i v e y ea r d o w n m a r k e t c a p tu r e r a t i o l e s s t h a n 1 0 0 % ✔ Ma n a g er r e p or t s c o m p li a n c e w i t h P F I A . ✔ *3 y ea r s u s e d w h e n 5 y ea r s u n a v a i l a b l e ✔✔✔✔ ✔ ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ Mu t A m T I P M u t A m C o r 1.2.3.4.5. Te m p G l o b a l S a w g r a s s American R Pa g e 1 4 Asset Allocation By Segment as of September 30, 2012 : $126,757,186 Asset Allocation By Segment as of June 30, 2012 : $121,379,703 Allocation Segments Market Value Allocation ¢Domestic Equity 43,095,249 34.0 ¢International Equity 13,669,583 10.8 ¢Emerging Equity 4,400,851 3.5 ¢Fixed Income 28,520,055 22.5 ¢International Fixed Income 6,160,373 4.9 ¢Real Estate 9,524,919 7.5 ¢Alternative Investment 12,549,624 9.9 ¢Timber 5,551,154 4.4 ¢Cash Equivalent 3,285,379 2.6 Allocation Segments Market Value Allocation ¢Domestic Equity 42,311,645 34.9 ¢International Equity 12,356,562 10.2 ¢Emerging Equity 4,200,997 3.5 ¢Fixed Income 27,435,990 22.6 ¢International Fixed Income 5,854,197 4.8 ¢Real Estate 9,289,259 7.7 ¢Alternative Investment 11,573,579 9.5 ¢Timber 5,616,381 4.6 ¢Cash Equivalent 2,741,094 2.3 Asset Allocation Summary Total Fund As of September 30, 2012 NONE Page 15 Asset Allocation By Manager as of September 30, 2012 : $126,757,186 Asset Allocation By Manager as of June 30, 2012 : $121,379,703 Allocation Market Value Allocation ¢Mutual of America Core Fixed 24,193,817 19.1 ¢Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 16,602,247 13.1 ¢Delaware Value 14,619,050 11.5 ¢RBC Int'l (Voyageur)9,179,740 7.2 ¢ICC Multi-Cap 7,185,714 5.7 ¢PIMCO DiSCO II 7,607,609 6.0 ¢Lazard SMid Cap Core 6,129,881 4.8 ¢Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)6,160,373 4.9 ¢Mutual of America TIPS 5,527,445 4.4 ¢American Core Realty 5,404,570 4.3 ¢Abbey Managed Futures 4,942,015 3.9 ¢Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)4,400,851 3.5 ¢WHV Int'l Equity 4,562,588 3.6 ¢Quadrant Real Estate 4,120,348 3.3 ¢Amsouth Bank Timber 2,856,251 2.3 ¢Molpus Woodlands Timber 2,694,903 2.1 ¢R&D 512,404 0.4 ¢Mutual Fund Cash 57,381 0.0 Allocation Market Value Allocation ¢Mutual of America Core Fixed 22,554,453 18.6 ¢Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 16,316,715 13.4 ¢Delaware Value 14,434,971 11.9 ¢RBC Int'l (Voyageur)8,270,203 6.8 ¢ICC Multi-Cap 7,010,866 5.8 ¢PIMCO DiSCO II 6,513,289 5.4 ¢Lazard SMid Cap Core 6,005,668 4.9 ¢Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)5,854,197 4.8 ¢Mutual of America TIPS 5,509,525 4.5 ¢American Core Realty 5,282,770 4.4 ¢Abbey Managed Futures 5,060,290 4.2 ¢Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)4,200,997 3.5 ¢WHV Int'l Equity 4,135,540 3.4 ¢Quadrant Real Estate 4,006,489 3.3 ¢Amsouth Bank Timber 2,913,374 2.4 ¢Molpus Woodlands Timber 2,703,007 2.2 ¢R&D 549,583 0.5 ¢Mutual Fund Cash 57,766 0.0 Asset Allocation Summary Total Fund As of September 30, 2012 NONE Page 16 Allocation Differences 0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%-2.0 %-4.0 %-6.0 %-8.0 %-10.0 % PIMCO DiSCO II Mutual Fund Cash R&D Timber Real Estate Income Alt. Core Real Estate Managed Futures Total Fixed Income International Equity Domestic Equity 6.0% 0.0% 0.4% -0.6 % -1.7 % -0.7 % -1.1 % -1.7 % -0.7 % 0.1% Market Value Allocation (%)Target (%) Domestic Equity 44,536,892 35.1 35.0 International Equity 18,143,179 14.3 15.0 Total Fixed Income 35,881,634 28.3 30.0 Managed Futures 4,942,015 3.9 5.0 Core Real Estate 5,404,570 4.3 5.0 Real Estate Income Alt.4,120,348 3.3 5.0 Timber 5,551,154 4.4 5.0 R&D 512,404 0.4 0.0 Mutual Fund Cash 57,381 0.0 0.0 PIMCO DiSCO II 7,607,609 6.0 0.0 Total Fund 126,757,186 100.0 100.0 Asset Allocation vs. Target Allocation Total Fund As of September 30, 2012 Page 17 Asset Allocation Attributes Sep-2012 Jun-2012 Mar-2012 Dec-2011 Sep-2011 ($)%($)%($)%($)%($)% Total Fund 126,757,186100.00121,379,703100.00125,583,244100.00118,888,963100.00109,237,000100.00 Total Equity 62,680,07149.4560,374,95949.7464,676,39851.5064,629,79854.3654,818,31050.18 Total Domestic Equity 44,536,89235.1443,768,21936.0646,637,07537.1448,761,55241.0140,941,41437.48 Delaware Value 14,619,05011.5314,434,97111.8914,927,76711.8916,267,03113.6813,061,77711.96 ICC Multi-Cap 7,185,7145.677,010,8665.787,971,7636.359,437,0897.948,895,3948.14 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 16,602,24713.1016,316,71513.4417,238,60513.7317,206,92514.4714,418,77313.20 Lazard SMid Cap Core 6,129,8814.846,005,6684.956,498,9405.185,850,5074.924,565,4704.18 Russell 1000 Growth -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 Total Int'l Equity 18,143,17914.3116,606,74013.6818,039,32314.3615,868,24513.3513,876,89612.70 WHV Int'l Equity 4,562,5883.604,135,5403.414,529,5133.614,173,6573.513,110,3612.85 RBC Int'l (Voyageur)9,179,7407.248,270,2036.818,822,4427.037,517,8826.327,433,5946.81 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)4,400,8513.474,200,9973.464,687,3673.734,176,7063.513,332,9423.05 Total Fixed Income 35,881,63428.3133,918,17627.9434,663,50027.6034,753,63429.2333,585,51730.75 Mutual of America Core Fixed 24,193,81719.0922,554,45318.5823,101,02318.3923,532,83919.7922,652,31220.74 Mutual of America TIPS 5,527,4454.365,509,5254.545,511,5484.395,516,8654.645,452,5414.99 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)6,160,3734.865,854,1974.826,050,9304.825,703,9304.805,480,6645.02 PIMCO Diversified (PDIIX)-0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 Total Real Estate 9,524,9197.519,289,2597.659,044,0507.208,770,2207.388,522,7287.80 American Core Realty 5,404,5704.265,282,7704.355,156,3724.115,018,6144.224,896,8174.48 Quadrant Real Estate 4,120,3483.254,006,4893.303,887,6783.103,751,6063.163,625,9103.32 Total Timber 5,551,1544.385,616,3814.635,637,3164.495,630,9094.746,027,4915.52 Amsouth Bank Timber 2,856,2512.252,913,3742.402,927,4032.332,910,9272.452,986,3512.73 Molpus Woodlands Timber 2,694,9032.132,703,0072.232,709,9132.162,719,9822.293,041,1402.78 Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures 4,942,0153.905,060,2904.175,175,1964.125,143,7404.335,404,1754.95 PIMCO DiSCO II 7,607,6096.006,513,2895.376,300,0005.02 -0.00 -0.00 Cash Accounts R&D 512,4040.40 549,5830.45 30,3640.02 -93,549-0.08 780,2190.71 Mutual Fund Cash 57,3810.05 57,7660.05 56,4200.04 54,2110.05 98,5600.09 Asset Allocation Total Fund As of September 30, 2012 Page 18 Financial Reconciliation Market Value 07/01/2012 Net Transfers ContributionsDistributions Management Fees Other Expenses Return On Investment Market Value 09/30/2012 Total Fund 121,379,703 -2,470,065-2,788,043 -174,159 -65,240 5,934,861126,757,186 Total Equity 60,374,959-1,188,357 ---113,191 -6,251 3,612,910 62,680,071 Total Domestic Equity 43,768,219-1,297,028 ---83,215 -4,292 2,153,207 44,536,892 Delaware Value 14,434,971 -471,647 ---44,051 -1,404 701,182 14,619,050 ICC Multi-Cap 7,010,866 -235,823 ---7,008 -692 418,371 7,185,714 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 16,316,715 -471,647 ---21,646 -1,600 780,424 16,602,247 Lazard SMid Cap Core 6,005,668 -117,912 ---10,510 -595 253,230 6,129,881 Total Int'l Equity 16,606,740 108,671 ---29,976 -1,960 1,459,703 18,143,179 WHV Int'l Equity 4,135,540 179,253 ---10,336 -413 258,544 4,562,588 RBC Int'l (Voyageur)8,270,203 ----19,640 -1,547 930,723 9,179,740 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)4,200,997 -70,582 ----270,436 4,400,851 Total Fixed Income 33,918,176 911,701 ---19,236 -2,736 1,073,730 35,881,634 Mutual of America Core Fixed 22,554,4531,123,722 ---17,170 -2,192 535,004 24,193,817 Mutual of America TIPS 5,509,525 -117,912 ---2,066 -544 138,442 5,527,445 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)5,854,197 -94,109 ----400,284 6,160,373 Total Real Estate 9,289,259 ----24,921 -260,581 9,524,919 American Core Realty 5,282,770 ----14,416 -136,217 5,404,570 Quadrant Real Estate 4,006,489 ----10,505 -124,363 4,120,348 Total Timber 5,616,381 -60,000 -----5,227 5,551,154 Amsouth Bank Timber 2,913,374 -60,000 ----2,877 2,856,251 Molpus Woodlands Timber 2,703,007 ------8,104 2,694,903 Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures 5,060,290 ------118,275 4,942,015 PIMCO DiSCO II 6,513,289 ----16,812 -1,111,132 7,607,609 Cash Accounts R&D 549,583 336,0552,470,065-2,788,043 --55,267 11 512,404 Mutual Fund Cash 57,766 601 ----986 -57,381 Financial Reconciliation Total Fund 1 Quarter Ending September 30, 2012 Page 19 Financial Reconciliation Market Value 10/01/2011 Net Transfers ContributionsDistributions Management Fees Other Expenses Return On Investment Market Value 09/30/2012 Total Fund 109,237,000 -10,252,161-10,957,929-579,439 -304,05719,109,451126,757,186 Total Equity 54,818,310-6,239,636 ---360,580 -25,29414,487,27162,680,071 Total Domestic Equity 40,941,414-7,472,762 ---242,476 -17,67111,328,38644,536,892 Delaware Value 13,061,777-2,249,186 ---88,045 -5,737 3,900,24114,619,050 ICC Multi-Cap 8,895,394-3,349,593 ---33,290 -3,283 1,676,485 7,185,714 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 14,418,773-2,049,186 ---81,030 -6,378 4,320,06916,602,247 Lazard SMid Cap Core 4,565,470 175,203 ---40,111 -2,273 1,431,591 6,129,881 Total Int'l Equity 13,876,8961,233,126 ---118,104 -7,623 3,158,88518,143,179 WHV Int'l Equity 3,110,361 795,122 ---39,876 -1,592 698,573 4,562,588 RBC Int'l (Voyageur)7,433,594 ----78,228 -6,032 1,830,406 9,179,740 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)3,332,942 438,004 ----629,906 4,400,851 Total Fixed Income 33,585,517 -601,064 ---85,112 -11,090 2,993,38435,881,634 Mutual of America Core Fixed 22,652,312 16,134 ---76,979 -8,917 1,611,26624,193,817 Mutual of America TIPS 5,452,541 -424,797 ---8,133 -2,174 510,007 5,527,445 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)5,480,664 -192,401 ----872,110 6,160,373 Total Real Estate 8,522,728 ----100,483 -1,102,675 9,524,919 American Core Realty 4,896,817 ----55,872 -563,625 5,404,570 Quadrant Real Estate 3,625,910 ----44,611 -539,050 4,120,348 Total Timber 6,027,491 -123,722 -----352,616 5,551,154 Amsouth Bank Timber 2,986,351 -90,000 -----40,100 2,856,251 Molpus Woodlands Timber 3,041,140 -33,722 -----312,515 2,694,903 Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures 5,404,175 ------462,160 4,942,015 PIMCO DiSCO II -6,300,000 ---33,264 -1,340,872 7,607,609 Cash Accounts R&D 780,219 701,72710,252,161-10,957,929 --263,798 24 512,404 Mutual Fund Cash 98,560 -37,305 ----3,875 1 57,381 Financial Reconciliation Total Fund October 1, 2011 To September 30, 2012 Page 20 Comparative Performance QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 5 YRInception Inception Date Total Fund (Net)4.77 16.79 16.79 8.75 8.79 0.66 3.3110/01/2005 Total Fund Policy 4.08 15.36 15.36 8.60 8.81 2.51 4.69 Difference 0.69 1.43 1.43 0.15 -0.02 -1.85 -1.38 Total Fund (Gross)4.92 (33)17.35 (44)17.35 (44)9.20 (23)9.25 (24)1.11 (82)3.76 (74)10/01/2005 Total Fund Policy 4.08 (71)15.36 (70)15.36 (70)8.60 (31)8.81 (33)2.51 (44)4.69 (38) Difference 0.84 1.99 1.99 0.60 0.44 -1.40 -0.93 IM Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Moderate (MF) Median 4.49 16.66 16.66 7.70 8.14 2.27 4.41 Total Equity 6.09 25.94 25.94 11.75 11.64 -0.71 3.2310/01/2005 Total Equity Policy 6.71 22.99 22.99 8.36 9.35 -0.82 2.99 Difference -0.62 2.95 2.95 3.39 2.29 0.11 0.24 Total Domestic Equity 5.05 (72)27.44 (42)27.44 (42)14.57 (18)13.50 (22)-0.08 (56)3.61 (58)10/01/2005 Total Domestic Equity Policy 6.07 (44)29.64 (24)29.64 (24)14.13 (23)13.12 (27)1.23 (34)4.61 (37) Difference -1.02 -2.20 -2.20 0.44 0.38 -1.31 -1.00 IM U.S. All Cap Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median 5.85 26.33 26.33 11.45 11.22 0.22 3.93 Total Int'l Equity 8.77 (11)21.58 (5)21.58 (5)4.05 (34)5.90 (20)-1.85 (16)1.22 (4)05/01/2007 Total Int'l Policy 7.49 (45)15.04 (78)15.04 (78)1.51 (76)3.11 (71)-4.48 (62)-3.40 (70) Difference 1.28 6.54 6.54 2.54 2.79 2.63 4.62 IM International Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median7.31 17.12 17.12 3.13 4.36 -3.93 -2.40 Total Fixed Income 3.16 (30)9.06 (35)9.06 (35)6.05 (49)7.07 (61)6.46 (60)5.84 (60)10/01/2005 Total Fixed Policy 1.67 (90)5.75 (86)5.75 (86)5.85 (56)6.77 (71)6.78 (50)6.09 (51) Difference 1.49 3.31 3.31 0.20 0.30 -0.32 -0.25 IM U.S. Broad Market Fixed Income (SA+CF+MF) Median2.64 7.97 7.97 6.00 7.38 6.77 6.11 Total Real Estate 2.81 (41)13.00 (37)13.00 (37)13.55 (85)12.68 (42)-3.37 (66)-2.36 (71)07/01/2007 NCREIF ODCE 2.77 (45)11.61 (58)11.61 (58)14.89 (55)12.19 (46)-1.14 (48)-0.34 (44) Difference 0.04 1.39 1.39 -1.34 0.49 -2.23 -2.02 IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median2.74 12.35 12.35 15.13 11.85 -1.38 -0.54 Total Timber -0.09 -5.86 -5.86 -1.12 -0.81 2.63 -0.2006/01/2009 NCREIF Timberland Index 0.75 2.25 2.25 1.25 -0.51 3.32 -0.70 Difference -0.84 -8.11 -8.11 -2.37 -0.30 -0.69 0.50 Comparative Performance Total Fund Trailing Returns As of September 30, 2012 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 21 Comparative Performance Total Fund Trailing Returns As of September 30, 2012 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 5 YRInception Inception Date Total Domestic Equity 5.05 27.44 27.44 14.57 13.50 -0.08 3.6110/01/2005 Delaware Value 4.99 (82)29.80 (37)29.80 (37)17.50 (4)16.24 (5)N/A 2.73 (27)12/01/2007 Russell 1000 Value Index 6.51 (43)30.92 (28)30.92 (28)13.33 (41)11.84 (51)-0.90 (78)0.10 (74) Difference -1.52 -1.12 -1.12 4.17 4.40 N/A 2.63 IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median 6.16 28.62 28.62 12.96 11.88 0.57 1.38 ICC Multi-Cap 6.18 (49)18.56 (99)18.56 (99)7.36 (97)9.38 (92)N/A 8.92 (3)08/01/2008 Russell 3000 Index 6.23 (39)30.20 (28)30.20 (28)14.42 (35)13.26 (52)1.30 (59)5.52 (45) Difference -0.05 -11.64 -11.64 -7.06 -3.88 N/A 3.40 IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 6.04 27.88 27.88 13.83 13.30 1.40 5.44 Total Growth 4.89 (86)29.37 (33)29.37 (33)18.44 (4)14.84 (16)-2.86 (98)-2.07 (98)07/01/2007 Russell 1000 Growth Index 6.11 (55)29.19 (35)29.19 (35)15.79 (17)14.73 (17)3.24 (22)3.90 (28) Difference -1.22 0.18 0.18 2.65 0.11 -6.10 -5.97 IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median6.24 27.18 27.18 13.06 12.29 1.87 2.94 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 4.89 (82)29.37 (36)29.37 (36)N/A N/A N/A 16.03 (4)08/01/2011 Russell 1000 Growth Index 6.11 (54)29.19 (38)29.19 (38)15.79 (26)14.73 (29)3.24 (33)11.34 (33) Difference -1.22 0.18 0.18 N/A N/A N/A 4.69 IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median 6.19 27.64 27.64 13.91 13.10 2.47 9.51 Lazard SMid Cap Core 4.30 (77)30.14 (51)30.14 (51)8.82 (96)N/A N/A 11.71 (96)02/01/2010 Russell 2500 Index 5.57 (55)30.93 (42)30.93 (42)13.15 (63)14.06 (63)2.80 (73)15.29 (64) Difference -1.27 -0.79 -0.79 -4.33 N/A N/A -3.58 IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 5.87 30.15 30.15 14.40 15.08 4.08 16.09 Total Int'l Equity 8.77 21.58 21.58 4.05 5.90 -1.85 1.2205/01/2007 WHV Int'l Equity 6.17 (74)20.90 (19)20.90 (19)3.97 (51)6.17 (44)-2.05 (43)1.03 (23)05/01/2007 MSCI EAFE Index 6.98 (57)14.33 (79)14.33 (79)2.04 (68)2.59 (85)-4.77 (73)-3.66 (78) Difference -0.81 6.57 6.57 1.93 3.58 2.72 4.69 IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median7.10 18.31 18.31 4.06 5.61 -2.71 -0.96 RBC Int'l (Voyageur)11.28 (3)24.75 (3)24.75 (3)6.71 (11)8.32 (8)N/A -1.67 (32)12/01/2007 MSCI EAFE Index 6.98 (57)14.33 (54)14.33 (54)2.04 (63)2.59 (66)-4.77 (75)-5.04 (78) Difference 4.30 10.42 10.42 4.67 5.73 N/A 3.37 IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median7.28 15.04 15.04 2.84 3.65 -3.15 -3.33 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)6.50 (64)17.90 (34)17.90 (34)N/A N/A N/A -4.29 (46)02/01/2011 MSCI Emerging Markets Index 7.89 (21)17.34 (44)17.34 (44)-0.66 (33)5.96 (29)-0.98 (25)-3.36 (35) Difference -1.39 0.56 0.56 N/A N/A N/A -0.93 IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Median 6.79 16.64 16.64 -1.67 5.04 -2.66 -4.66 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 22 Comparative Performance Total Fund Trailing Returns As of September 30, 2012 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 5 YRInception Inception Date Total Fixed Income 3.16 9.06 9.06 6.05 7.07 6.46 5.8410/01/2005 Core Fixed Income Composite 2.37 7.24 7.24 5.41 6.30 6.05 6.1708/01/2006 Barclays Aggregate Index 1.58 5.16 5.16 5.21 6.19 6.53 6.53 Difference 0.79 2.08 2.08 0.20 0.11 -0.48 -0.36 Mutual of America Core Fixed 2.37 (30)7.24 (37)7.24 (37)N/A N/A N/A 7.37 (47)06/01/2011 Barclays Aggregate Index 1.58 (90)5.16 (91)5.16 (91)5.21 (91)6.19 (91)6.53 (81)6.57 (89) Difference 0.79 2.08 2.08 N/A N/A N/A 0.80 IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median2.15 6.62 6.62 5.97 7.15 7.15 7.34 Total TIPS 2.54 9.67 9.67 8.74 9.80 7.86 8.3907/01/2007 Mutual of America TIPS 2.54 (14)9.67 (19)9.67 (19)8.74 (70)9.80 (19)N/A 6.44 (62)04/01/2008 Tips Policy 2.12 (63)9.10 (49)9.10 (49)9.49 (44)9.42 (46)8.02 (57)6.48 (60) Difference 0.42 0.57 0.57 -0.75 0.38 N/A -0.04 IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 2.17 9.10 9.10 9.44 9.39 8.06 6.63 Total Global Fixed Income 6.87 15.90 15.90 5.91 N/A N/A 8.4107/01/2010 Global Fixed Income Composite 6.87 (1)15.90 (4)15.90 (4)5.91 (24)N/A N/A 8.41 (23)07/01/2010 Barclays Global Aggregate 3.27 (63)5.07 (88)5.07 (88)4.53 (45)5.04 (66)6.22 (32)7.33 (43) Difference 3.60 10.83 10.83 1.38 N/A N/A 1.08 IM Global Fixed Income (MF)3.45 7.50 7.50 4.37 5.59 5.61 7.00 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)6.87 (1)15.90 (4)15.90 (4)N/A N/A N/A 5.40 (40)07/01/2011 Barclays Global Aggregate 3.27 (63)5.07 (88)5.07 (88)4.53 (45)5.04 (66)6.22 (32)4.84 (53) Difference 3.60 10.83 10.83 N/A N/A N/A 0.56 IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median 3.45 7.50 7.50 4.37 5.59 5.61 4.93 Total Real Estate 2.81 13.00 13.00 13.55 12.68 -3.37 -2.3607/01/2007 Quadrant Real Estate 3.11 14.95 14.95 12.94 16.45 -5.80 -5.8010/01/2007 Quadrant Custom Policy 3.11 11.10 11.10 8.06 10.35 8.94 8.94 Difference 0.00 3.85 3.85 4.88 6.10 -14.74 -14.74 American Core Realty 2.58 (64)11.56 (58)11.56 (58)13.81 (79)9.98 (74)-1.10 (47)-0.18 (43)07/01/2007 NCREIF ODCE 2.77 (45)11.61 (58)11.61 (58)14.89 (55)12.19 (46)-1.14 (48)-0.34 (44) Difference -0.19 -0.05 -0.05 -1.08 -2.21 0.04 0.16 IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median2.74 12.35 12.35 15.13 11.85 -1.38 -0.54 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 23 Comparative Performance Total Fund Trailing Returns As of September 30, 2012 QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 5 YRInception Inception Date Total Timber -0.09 -5.86 -5.86 -1.12 -0.81 2.63 -0.2006/01/2009 Amsouth Bank Timber 0.10 -1.33 -1.33 0.32 0.60 3.61 3.3507/01/2007 NCREIF Timberland Index 0.75 2.25 2.25 1.25 -0.51 3.32 3.91 Difference -0.65 -3.58 -3.58 -0.93 1.11 0.29 -0.56 Molpus Woodlands Timber -0.30 -10.32 -10.32 -2.64 -2.32 N/A 0.6306/01/2008 NCREIF Timberland Index 0.75 2.25 2.25 1.25 -0.51 3.32 0.66 Difference -1.05 -12.57 -12.57 -3.89 -1.81 N/A -0.03 Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures -2.34 -8.55 -8.55 -4.78 N/A N/A -1.4408/01/2010 Barclay BTOP 50 -0.04 -2.60 -2.60 -0.53 -0.18 2.53 1.71 Difference -2.30 -5.95 -5.95 -4.25 N/A N/A -3.15 PIMCO DiSCO II 17.08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 21.3504/01/2012 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 24 Comparative Performance FYTD Oct-2011 To Sep-2012 Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Total Fund 17.35 (44)17.35 (44)1.61 (17)9.34 (48)-1.70 (89)-17.56 (75)13.36 (34) Total Fund Policy 15.36 (70)15.36 (70)2.22 (11)9.24 (50)0.45 (77)-12.52 (23)12.53 (43) Difference 1.99 1.99 -0.61 0.10 -2.15 -5.04 0.83 IM Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Moderate (MF) Median 16.66 16.66 -0.49 9.20 2.76 -14.99 11.95 Total Equity 25.94 25.94 -0.85 11.43 -4.41 -27.47 17.29 Total Equity Policy 22.99 22.99 -4.52 11.34 -4.90 -22.82 15.93 Difference 2.95 2.95 3.67 0.09 0.49 -4.65 1.36 Total Domestic Equity 27.44 (42)27.44 (42)3.01 (14)11.37 (38)-5.53 (60)-27.88 (85)16.59 (56) Total Domestic Equity Policy 29.64 (24)29.64 (24)0.48 (31)11.12 (41)-6.42 (67)-21.52 (31)16.44 (57) Difference -2.20 -2.20 2.53 0.25 0.89 -6.36 0.15 IM U.S. All Cap Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median 26.33 26.33 -1.88 10.34 -4.20 -23.49 17.23 Total Int'l Equity 21.58 (5)21.58 (5)-10.95 (73)9.69 (14)4.11 (44)-26.32 (15)N/A Total Int'l Policy 15.04 (78)15.04 (78)-10.42 (69)6.37 (49)3.80 (47)-30.13 (49)25.38 (69) Difference 6.54 6.54 -0.53 3.32 0.31 3.81 N/A IM International Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median17.12 17.12 -9.08 6.19 3.11 -30.24 26.93 Total Fixed Income 9.06 (35)9.06 (35)3.12 (71)9.16 (68)8.40 (84)2.79 (21)5.53 (22) Total Fixed Policy 5.75 (86)5.75 (86)5.96 (8)8.63 (77)8.87 (82)4.73 (5)5.43 (24) Difference 3.31 3.31 -2.84 0.53 -0.47 -1.94 0.10 IM U.S. Broad Market Fixed Income (SA+CF+MF) Median7.97 7.97 4.20 10.05 12.48 -1.62 4.90 Total Real Estate 13.00 (37)13.00 (37)14.11 (92)10.94 (10)-25.07 (6)-21.39 (100)N/A NCREIF ODCE 11.61 (58)11.61 (58)18.27 (41)6.97 (46)-35.19 (52)3.18 (54)18.21 (58) Difference 1.39 1.39 -4.16 3.97 10.12 -24.57 N/A IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median12.35 12.35 16.62 6.39 -34.36 3.60 18.73 Total Timber -5.86 -5.86 3.87 -0.21 10.97 5.16 N/A NCREIF Timberland Index 2.25 2.25 0.26 -3.93 2.53 16.60 15.28 Difference -8.11 -8.11 3.61 3.72 8.44 -11.44 N/A Comparative Performance Total Fund Fiscal Year Returns As of September 30, 2012 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 25 Comparative Performance Total Fund Fiscal Year Returns As of September 30, 2012 FYTD Oct-2011 To Sep-2012 Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Total Domestic Equity 27.44 27.44 3.01 11.37 -5.53 -27.88 16.59 Pioneer Equity Portfolio N/A N/A N/A N/A -5.23 (70)-19.21 (38)22.45 (11) Russell Midcap Value Index 29.28 (41)29.28 (41)-2.36 (57)16.93 (28)-7.12 (89)-20.50 (51)13.75 (74) Difference N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.89 1.29 8.70 IM U.S. Mid Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median 28.21 28.21 -1.52 15.45 -3.21 -20.43 16.01 Delaware Value 29.80 (37)29.80 (37)6.36 (5)13.77 (17)-3.98 (34)N/A N/A Russell 1000 Value Index 30.92 (28)30.92 (28)-1.89 (60)8.90 (55)-10.62 (84)-23.56 (73)14.45 (69) Difference -1.12 -1.12 8.25 4.87 6.64 N/A N/A IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median 28.62 28.62 -1.09 9.29 -5.88 -20.71 16.24 ICC Multi-Cap 18.56 (99)18.56 (99)-2.79 (86)13.54 (19)14.27 (1)N/A N/A Russell 3000 Index 30.20 (28)30.20 (28)0.55 (62)10.96 (50)-6.42 (59)-21.52 (64)16.52 (62) Difference -11.64 -11.64 -3.34 2.58 20.69 N/A N/A IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 27.88 27.88 0.96 10.93 -6.07 -21.10 17.37 Total Growth 29.37 (33)29.37 (33)8.43 (2)7.97 (79)-17.58 (100)-30.72 (98)N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index 29.19 (35)29.19 (35)3.78 (21)12.65 (27)-1.85 (38)-20.88 (43)19.35 (57) Difference 0.18 0.18 4.65 -4.68 -15.73 -9.84 N/A IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median27.18 27.18 0.68 10.42 -2.98 -21.58 20.04 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 29.37 (36)29.37 (36)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index 29.19 (38)29.19 (38)3.78 (29)12.65 (35)-1.85 (38)-20.88 (53)19.35 (57) Difference 0.18 0.18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median 27.64 27.64 1.24 11.27 -3.00 -20.53 20.20 DG Growth N/A N/A N/A 5.61 (94)-17.69 (99)N/A N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index 29.19 (38)29.19 (38)3.78 (29)12.65 (35)-1.85 (38)-20.88 (53)19.35 (57) Difference N/A N/A N/A -7.04 -15.84 N/A N/A IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median 27.64 27.64 1.24 11.27 -3.00 -20.53 20.20 Lazard SMid Cap Core 30.14 (51)30.14 (51)-9.00 (98)N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell 2500 Index 30.93 (42)30.93 (42)-2.22 (77)15.92 (63)-5.68 (72)-17.99 (35)15.17 (68) Difference -0.79 -0.79 -6.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median 30.15 30.15 -0.15 16.69 -2.72 -19.02 18.69 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 26 Comparative Performance Total Fund Fiscal Year Returns As of September 30, 2012 FYTD Oct-2011 To Sep-2012 Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Total Int'l Equity 21.58 21.58 -10.95 9.69 4.11 -26.32 N/A WHV Int'l Equity 20.90 (19)20.90 (19)-10.59 (72)10.73 (36)-7.12 (94)-18.89 (5)N/A MSCI EAFE Index 14.33 (79)14.33 (79)-8.94 (48)3.71 (87)3.80 (50)-30.13 (57)25.38 (73) Difference 6.57 6.57 -1.65 7.02 -10.92 11.24 N/A IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median18.31 18.31 -9.11 9.26 3.66 -29.16 30.48 RBC Int'l (Voyageur)24.75 (3)24.75 (3)-8.72 (52)11.60 (15)11.90 (21)N/A N/A MSCI EAFE Index 14.33 (54)14.33 (54)-8.94 (57)3.71 (64)3.80 (63)-30.13 (73)25.38 (40) Difference 10.42 10.42 0.22 7.89 8.10 N/A N/A IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median15.04 15.04 -8.46 4.95 5.67 -27.35 23.99 Total Fixed Income 9.06 9.06 3.12 9.16 8.40 2.79 5.53 Core Fixed Income Composite 7.24 7.24 3.61 8.10 9.17 2.28 5.21 Barclays Aggregate Index 5.16 5.16 5.26 8.16 10.56 3.65 5.14 Difference 2.08 2.08 -1.65 -0.06 -1.39 -1.37 0.07 Mutual of America Core Fixed 7.24 (37)7.24 (37)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Barclays Aggregate Index 5.16 (91)5.16 (91)5.26 (49)8.16 (87)10.56 (80)3.65 (33)5.14 (53) Difference 2.08 2.08 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median6.62 6.62 5.26 9.20 12.31 2.56 5.16 ICC Fixed N/A N/A N/A 8.10 (89)9.17 (90)2.28 (54)5.21 (46) Core Fixed Policy 5.16 (91)5.16 (91)5.26 (49)8.51 (74)9.69 (89)4.16 (21)5.08 (60) Difference N/A N/A N/A -0.41 -0.52 -1.88 0.13 IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median6.62 6.62 5.26 9.20 12.31 2.56 5.16 Total TIPS 9.67 (19)9.67 (19)7.81 (71)11.97 (8)3.76 (95)6.28 (55)N/A Tips Policy 9.10 (49)9.10 (49)9.87 (33)9.29 (63)4.02 (89)7.89 (14)5.32 (26) Difference 0.57 0.57 -2.06 2.68 -0.26 -1.61 N/A IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 9.10 9.10 9.70 9.36 6.18 6.34 5.07 Mutual of America TIPS 9.67 (19)9.67 (19)7.81 (71)11.97 (8)3.76 (95)N/A N/A Tips Policy 9.10 (49)9.10 (49)9.87 (33)9.29 (63)4.02 (89)7.89 (14)5.32 (26) Difference 0.57 0.57 -2.06 2.68 -0.26 N/A N/A IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 9.10 9.10 9.70 9.36 6.18 6.34 5.07 Total Global Fixed Income 15.90 15.90 -3.22 N/A N/A N/A N/A Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)15.90 (4)15.90 (4)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Barclays Global Aggregate 5.07 (88)5.07 (88)4.00 (9)6.06 (87)13.51 (48)2.80 (13)8.20 (44) Difference 10.83 10.83 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median 7.50 7.50 1.43 7.93 13.44 -1.77 7.44 Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 27 Comparative Performance Total Fund Fiscal Year Returns As of September 30, 2012 FYTD Oct-2011 To Sep-2012 Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Total Real Estate 13.00 13.00 14.11 10.94 -25.07 -21.39 N/A Quadrant Real Estate 14.95 14.95 10.97 23.79 -9.53 -48.08 N/A Quadrant Custom Policy 11.10 11.10 5.11 15.07 12.76 1.24 6.89 Difference 3.85 3.85 5.86 8.72 -22.29 -49.32 N/A American Core Realty 11.56 (58)11.56 (58)16.11 (77)2.71 (75)-32.42 (37)5.26 (29)N/A NCREIF ODCE 11.61 (58)11.61 (58)18.27 (41)6.97 (46)-35.19 (52)3.18 (54)18.21 (58) Difference -0.05 -0.05 -2.16 -4.26 2.77 2.08 N/A IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median12.35 12.35 16.62 6.39 -34.36 3.60 18.73 Total Timber -5.86 -5.86 3.87 -0.21 10.97 5.16 N/A Amsouth Bank Timber -1.33 -1.33 2.00 1.17 11.20 5.44 N/A NCREIF Timberland Index 2.25 2.25 0.26 -3.93 2.53 16.60 15.28 Difference -3.58 -3.58 1.74 5.10 8.67 -11.16 N/A Molpus Woodlands Timber -10.32 -10.32 5.68 -1.66 10.42 N/A N/A NCREIF Timberland Index 2.25 2.25 0.26 -3.93 2.53 16.60 15.28 Difference -12.57 -12.57 5.42 2.27 7.89 N/A N/A Managed Futures Abbey Managed Futures -8.55 -8.55 -0.85 N/A N/A N/A N/A Barclay BTOP 50 -2.60 -2.60 1.58 0.52 6.25 7.21 10.20 Difference -5.95 -5.95 -2.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A PIMCO DiSCO II N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.Returns are expressed as percentages. Current Fund Policy=35% W5000, 15% ACWI ex US, 25% BC Agg, 5% BC TIPS, 5% BC Top 50, 5% NCREIF ODCE, 5% Quadrant Custom Policy, 5% NCREIF Timber. Page 28 Peer Group Analysis - All Public Plans-Total Fund Comparative Performance Financial Reconciliation Fiscal Year To Date Financial Reconciliation October 1, 2005 To September 30, 2012 Cummulative Performance Market Value 10/01/2011 Net Transfers ContributionsDistributions Management Fees Other Expenses Income Apprec./ Deprec. Market Value 09/30/2012 Total Fund (Gross)109,237 -10,252 -10,958 -579 -304 4,105 15,004 126,757 Market Value 10/01/2005 Net Transfers ContributionsDistributions Management Fees Other Expenses Income Apprec./ Deprec. Market Value 09/30/2012 Total Fund (Gross)97,183 20,657 76,289 -111,194 -2,502 -1,616 18,812 29,128 126,757 Total Fund (Gross)Total Fund Policy $80.00 $90.00 $100.00 $110.00 $120.00 $130.00 $140.00 $146.10 11/05 3/07 9/08 3/10 9/11 9/12 $137.86 $129.50 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 R e t u r n QTR FYTD 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR Å Total Fund (Gross)4.92 (42)17.35 (63)17.35 (63)9.20 (35)9.25 (49)6.40 (78)1.11 (91) Å Total Fund Policy4.08 (87)15.36 (84)15.36 (84)8.60 (56)8.81 (68)6.66 (72)2.51 (59) Median 4.79 17.98 17.98 8.76 9.23 7.24 2.76 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Fund (Gross)-1.24 (21)7.88 (60)4.98 (80)-8.58 (22)0.45 (82)4.17 (46) Total Fund Policy -1.30 (23)6.55 (88)5.40 (74)-6.84 (11)1.12 (47)3.08 (91) All Public Plans-Total Fund Median -1.95 8.15 6.11 -10.23 1.09 4.07 As of September 30, 2012 Performance Review Total Fund (Gross) NONE Page 29 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å Total Fund (Gross)17 0 (0%)1 (6%)2 (12%)14 (82%) Å Total Fund Policy17 0 (0%)5 (29%)11 (65%)1 (6%) Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 19.3 T o t a l F u n d (G r o s s ) (%) -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 Total Fund Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 8.80 9.00 9.20 9.32 R e t u r n (% ) 8.70 9.00 9.30 9.60 9.90 10.20 10.50 10.80 11.10 11.40 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Fund (Gross)9.25 10.13 Å Total Fund Policy 8.81 8.86 ¾Median 9.23 11.22 1.20 1.80 2.40 3.00 R e t u r n (% ) 12.60 12.80 13.00 13.20 13.40 13.60 13.80 13.93 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Fund (Gross)1.11 12.97 Å Total Fund Policy 2.51 12.72 ¾Median 2.76 13.77 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Fund (Gross)1.68 109.23 115.61 -0.68 0.32 0.92 1.14 6.08 Total Fund Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.00 1.00 5.14 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 8.86 0.57 -0.49 0.10 -1.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Fund (Gross)3.38 97.59 111.27 -1.29 -0.40 0.09 0.98 9.30 Total Fund Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.20 1.00 8.45 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 12.95 0.52 -6.86 0.76 -0.20 N/A -0.02 0.00 As of September 30, 2012 Performance Review Total Fund (Gross) NONE Page 30 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. All Cap Equity (SA+CF+MF) Comparative Performance -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 44.31 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Total Domestic Equity3.01 (14)11.37 (38)-5.53 (60)-27.88 (85)16.59 (56) Å Total Domestic Equity Policy0.48 (31)11.12 (41)-6.42 (67)-21.52 (31)16.44 (57) Median -1.88 10.34 -4.20 -23.49 17.23 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 40.63 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Total Domestic Equity5.05 (72)27.44 (42)27.44 (42)14.57 (18)13.50 (22)8.41 (32)-0.08 (56) Å Total Domestic Equity Policy6.07 (44)29.64 (24)29.64 (24)14.13 (23)13.12 (27)7.88 (41)1.23 (34) Median 5.8526.3326.3311.4511.227.190.22 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Domestic Equity -2.71 (11)11.94 (70)11.39 (41)-14.20 (15)-0.22 (57)7.46 (26) Total Domestic Equity Policy -3.19 (18)12.78 (57)11.95 (33)-15.15 (26)-0.10 (53)6.00 (59) IM U.S. All Cap Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median -4.91 13.08 10.67 -17.04 -0.03 6.33 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Domestic Equity NONE Page 31 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å Total Domestic Equity 17 2 (12%)3 (18%)8 (47%)4 (24%) Å Total Domestic Equity Policy17 0 (0%)13 (76%)4 (24%)0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 T o t a l D o m e s t i c E q u i t y (% ) -20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Total Domestic Equity Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 11.20 12.00 12.80 13.60 R e t u r n (% ) 16.50 16.80 17.10 17.40 17.70 18.00 18.30 18.60 18.90 19.20 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Domestic Equity 13.50 16.76 Å Total Domestic Equity Policy 13.12 17.73 ¾Median 11.22 18.97 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 R e t u r n (% ) 21.00 21.30 21.60 21.90 22.20 22.50 22.80 23.10 23.40 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Domestic Equity -0.08 21.18 Å Total Domestic Equity Policy 1.23 22.10 ¾Median 0.22 23.19 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Domestic Equity 2.24 96.15 92.07 1.22 0.07 0.92 0.92 8.69 Total Domestic Equity Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.85 1.00 9.68 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 16.05 0.21 -0.21 0.10 -0.85 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Domestic Equity 3.87 95.44 100.41 -1.25 -0.37 0.06 0.95 14.33 Total Domestic Equity Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.13 1.00 14.58 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.84 0.62 -2.02 0.72 -0.13 N/A -0.01 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Domestic Equity NONE Page 32 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 34.93 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Delaware Value 6.36 (5)13.77 (17)-3.98 (34)N/AN/A Å Russell 1000 Value Index-1.89 (60)8.90 (55)-10.62 (84)-23.56 (73)14.45 (69) Median -1.099.29-5.88 -20.71 16.24 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 41.00 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Delaware Value 4.99 (82)29.80 (37)29.80 (37)17.50 (4)16.24 (5)10.82 (6)N/A Å Russell 1000 Value Index6.51 (43)30.92 (28)30.92 (28)13.33 (41)11.84 (51)5.74 (74)-0.90 (78) Median 6.1628.6228.6212.9611.886.940.57 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Delaware Value -0.11 (5)8.33 (90)14.25 (11)-12.47 (18)1.82 (13)8.32 (12) Russell 1000 Value Index -2.20 (23)11.12 (61)13.11 (34)-16.20 (51)-0.50 (63)6.46 (48) IM U.S. Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median -3.75 11.87 12.39 -16.17 -0.18 6.34 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Delaware Value NONE Page 33 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å Delaware Value 8 4 (50%)4 (50%)0 (0%)0 (0%) Å Russell 1000 Value Index20 0 (0%)2 (10%)8 (40%)10 (50%) Over Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -6.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 27.2 D e l a w a r e V a l u e (% ) -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 Russell 1000 Value Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 12.00 14.00 16.00 16.98 R e t u r n (% ) 15.60 15.90 16.20 16.50 16.80 17.10 17.40 17.70 18.00 18.30 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Delaware Value 16.24 15.85 Å Russell 1000 Value Index 11.84 17.54 ¾Median 11.88 18.04 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 0.80 R e t u r n (% ) 21.90 22.00 22.10 22.20 22.30 22.40 22.50 22.60 22.70 22.80 22.90 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Delaware Value N/A N/A Å Russell 1000 Value Index -0.90 22.82 ¾Median 0.57 21.99 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Delaware Value 4.48 91.94 65.80 6.00 0.79 1.19 0.82 7.36 Russell 1000 Value Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.78 1.00 9.72 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 15.88 0.21 -0.20 0.10 -0.78 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Delaware Value N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell 1000 Value Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.02 1.00 15.17 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 20.24 0.60 -1.97 0.71 -0.02 N/A -0.01 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Delaware Value NONE Page 34 Pa g e I n t e n t i o n a l l y L e f t B l a n k Pa g e 3 5 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: Russell 1000 Value Index) Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%)Active (%)Qtr Rtn (%) Lowe's Cos Inc.3.2 0.4 2.8 7.0 Quest Diagnostics Inc 3.1 0.1 3.0 6.2 AT&T Inc 3.1 3.0 0.2 7.0 Merck & Co Inc.3.1 1.9 1.3 9.0 CVS Caremark Corp 3.1 0.7 2.4 4.0 Williams Cos Inc. (The)3.1 0.0 3.1 22.5 Marathon Oil Corp 3.1 0.3 2.8 16.4 Northrop Grumman Corp3.1 0.2 2.8 5.0 Motorola Solutions Inc 3.0 0.0 3.0 5.6 Mondelez International Inc3.0 0.9 2.1 7.9 % of Portfolio 30.9 7.5 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: Russell 1000 Value Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($)61,717,208,365 95,284,036,726 Median Mkt. Cap ($)31,255,897,500 4,914,081,373 Price/Earnings ratio 14.2 13.3 Price/Book ratio 2.2 1.9 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%)0.8 -1.2 Current Yield (%)3.0 2.5 Beta (3 Years, Monthly)0.82 1.00 Number of Stocks 34 690 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) Williams Cos Inc. (The)3.1 0.0 Halliburton Co 2.9 0.3 Marathon Oil Corp 3.1 0.3 Baxter International Inc3.0 0.0 Allstate Corp (The)3.0 0.3 Comcast Corp 3.0 0.7 Cisco Systems Inc 3.0 1.4 Chevron Corp 3.0 3.1 Pfizer Inc 3.0 2.5 Merck & Co Inc.3.1 1.9 % of Portfolio 30.1 10.4 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Russell 1000 Value Index Delaware Value 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 33.0 36.0 39.0 41.4 >100 Bil 75 Bil - 100 Bil 25 Bil - 75 Bil 15 Bil - 25 Bil 2 Bil - 15 Bil 0 - 2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation PortfolioBenchmark Performance PortfolioBenchmark Attribution StockSector Total Consumer Discretionary 6.1 7.79.679.380.04-0.06-0.04 Consumer Staples 14.3 7.3-0.037.96-0.580.11-1.06 Energy 14.116.715.079.090.96-0.070.73 Financials 12.226.17.716.890.22-0.050.05 Health Care 18.311.75.776.03-0.01-0.04-0.04 Industrials 9.2 9.11.285.95-0.420.00-0.42 Information Technology 11.6 6.6-0.830.40-0.08-0.32-0.47 Materials 3.0 3.80.267.26-0.27-0.01-0.22 Telecommunication Services 6.1 3.85.3210.00-0.170.09-0.19 Utilities 3.0 7.2-0.40-0.22-0.020.290.28 Cash 2.1 0.00.020.000.00-0.16-0.16 Total 100.0100.04.986.51-0.34-0.20-1.53 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) Intel Corp 2.9 0.4 Safeway Inc 2.3 0.0 Archer-Daniels-Midland Co 2.9 0.2 Cardinal Health Inc 2.7 0.1 Xerox Corp 2.8 0.1 Waste Management Inc.2.8 0.2 Edison International 2.9 0.2 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co2.9 0.0 Raytheon Co.3.0 0.3 Johnson & Johnson 3.0 2.0 % of Portfolio 28.2 3.5 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 Delaware Value Page 36 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 37.85 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å ICC Multi-Cap-2.79 (86)13.54 (19)14.27 (1)N/AN/A Å Russell 3000 Index0.55 (62)10.96 (50)-6.42 (59)-21.52 (64)16.52 (62) Median 0.9610.93-6.07 -21.10 17.37 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 41.00 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å ICC Multi-Cap6.18 (49)18.56 (99)18.56 (99)7.36 (97)9.38 (92)10.58 (5)N/A Å Russell 3000 Index6.23 (39)30.20 (28)30.20 (28)14.42 (35)13.26 (52)7.98 (65)1.30 (59) Median 6.0427.8827.8813.8313.308.111.40 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 ICC Multi-Cap -8.15 (97)13.77 (34)6.84 (94)-17.54 (75)-3.20 (98)8.00 (30) Russell 3000 Index -3.15 (32)12.87 (51)12.12 (20)-15.28 (42)-0.03 (61)6.38 (55) IM U.S. All Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median -4.17 12.88 11.43 -15.74 0.11 6.44 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 ICC Multi-Cap NONE Page 37 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å ICC Multi-Cap 5 3 (60%)0 (0%)1 (20%)1 (20%) Å Russell 3000 Index20 0 (0%)3 (15%)17 (85%)0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0 I C C M u l t i -C a p (%) 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 Russell 3000 Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 9.10 10.40 11.70 13.00 13.90 R e t u r n (% ) 17.80 18.00 18.20 18.40 18.60 18.80 18.98 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å ICC Multi-Cap 9.38 18.81 Å Russell 3000 Index 13.26 17.78 ¾Median 13.30 18.02 1.32 1.36 1.40 R e t u r n (% ) 22.123 22.124 22.125 22.126 22.127 22.128 22.129 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å ICC Multi-Cap N/A N/A Å Russell 3000 Index 1.30 22.13 ¾Median 1.40 22.12 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk ICC Multi-Cap 7.43 104.70 126.93 -3.79 -0.42 0.57 1.05 11.17 Russell 3000 Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.85 1.00 9.69 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 16.04 0.21 -0.21 0.10 -0.85 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk ICC Multi-Cap N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell 3000 Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.13 1.00 14.58 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.83 0.62 -2.02 0.72 -0.13 N/A -0.01 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 ICC Multi-Cap NONE Page 38 Pa g e I n t e n t i o n a l l y L e f t B l a n k Pa g e 3 9 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: Russell 3000 Index) Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%)Active (%)Qtr Rtn (%) Barrick Gold Corp 7.2 0.0 7.2 11.8 Ford Motor Co 6.2 0.2 6.0 3.4 Goldcorp Inc.5.2 0.0 5.2 22.4 Newmont Mining Corp 5.2 0.2 5.1 16.3 Dow Chemical Co (The)4.3 0.2 4.1 -7.1 Lincoln National Corp 4.0 0.0 3.9 11.0 Caterpillar Inc 3.8 0.4 3.5 2.0 Micron Technology Inc.3.7 0.0 3.6 N/A Deere & Co 3.7 0.2 3.5 2.6 AT&T Inc 3.3 1.4 1.9 7.0 % of Portfolio 46.6 2.7 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: Russell 3000 Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($)49,720,227,197 99,279,157,999 Median Mkt. Cap ($)27,517,256,720 1,026,433,485 Price/Earnings ratio 11.2 15.5 Price/Book ratio 2.2 2.6 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%)6.7 8.0 Current Yield (%)2.1 2.0 Beta (3 Years, Monthly)1.05 1.00 Number of Stocks 46 2,961 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) Frontier Communications Corp0.1 0.0 Google Inc 2.2 1.2 International Paper Co 1.1 0.1 Goldcorp Inc.5.2 0.0 Chemtura Corp 0.4 0.0 Copart Inc 1.9 0.0 Marathon Oil Corp 1.0 0.1 Pall Corp 1.8 0.1 Newmont Mining Corp 5.2 0.2 Allstate Corp (The)0.2 0.1 % of Portfolio 19.1 1.9 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Russell 3000 Index ICC Multi-Cap 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 48.0 52.0 56.0 59.8 >100 Bil 75 Bil - 100 Bil 25 Bil - 75 Bil 15 Bil - 25 Bil 2 Bil - 15 Bil 0 - 2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation PortfolioBenchmark Performance PortfolioBenchmark Attribution StockSector Total Consumer Discretionary 8.312.05.647.95-0.26-0.07-0.27 Consumer Staples 1.9 9.73.993.780.010.190.18 Energy 4.210.02.8510.02-0.72-0.22-0.52 Financials 13.315.99.156.160.490.000.42 Health Care 9.111.91.386.43-0.61-0.03-0.54 Industrials 21.610.90.263.62-0.38-0.28-1.03 Information Technology 12.819.15.636.62-0.18-0.01-0.14 Materials 21.2 3.913.026.710.250.191.88 Telecommunication Services 5.9 2.95.838.03-0.060.110.00 Utilities 0.0 3.70.000.530.000.210.21 Cash 1.8 0.00.020.000.00-0.11-0.11 Total 100.0100.06.306.23-1.46-0.020.08 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) AMR Corp.0.4 0.0 Con-Way Inc 1.7 0.0 Tyson Foods Inc.1.5 0.0 Hewlett-Packard Co 1.8 0.2 Dow Chemical Co (The)4.3 0.2 Cerner Corp 1.8 0.1 Boeing Co (The)2.5 0.3 Cummins Inc.0.9 0.1 Microsoft Corp 0.9 1.4 Agilent Technologies Inc2.0 0.1 % of Portfolio 17.9 2.5 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 ICC Multi-Cap Page 40 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF+MF) Comparative Performance -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Total Growth 8.43 (2)7.97 (79)-17.58 (100)-30.72 (98)N/A Å Russell 1000 Growth Index3.78 (21)12.65 (27)-1.85 (38)-20.88 (43)19.35 (57) Median 0.68 10.42 -2.98 -21.58 20.04 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 40.35 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Total Growth 4.89 (86)29.37 (33)29.37 (33)18.44 (4)14.84 (16)5.70 (90)-2.86 (98) Å Russell 1000 Growth Index6.11 (55)29.19 (35)29.19 (35)15.79 (17)14.73 (17)10.34 (20)3.24 (22) Median 6.2427.1827.1813.0612.298.331.87 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Growth -1.56 (3)13.82 (86)10.08 (37)-8.98 (3)0.68 (42)5.93 (38) Russell 1000 Growth Index -4.02 (19)14.69 (71)10.61 (24)-13.14 (22)0.76 (39)6.03 (35) IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF+MF) Median-5.54 15.90 9.57 -14.88 0.35 5.36 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Growth NONE Page 41 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å Total Growth 10 2 (20%)0 (0%)1 (10%)7 (70%) Å Russell 1000 Growth Index20 5 (25%)13 (65%)2 (10%)0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 T o t a l G r o w t h (%) -20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Russell 1000 Growth Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 R e t u r n (% ) 15.20 15.60 16.00 16.40 16.80 17.20 17.60 18.00 18.40 18.80 19.20 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Growth 14.84 15.50 Å Russell 1000 Growth Index 14.73 17.71 ¾Median 12.29 18.75 -2.10 0.00 2.10 4.20 R e t u r n (% ) 21.60 21.80 22.00 22.20 22.40 22.60 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Growth -2.86 22.26 Å Russell 1000 Growth Index 3.24 21.63 ¾Median 1.87 22.48 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Growth 3.23 91.22 83.75 1.71 -0.05 1.05 0.88 8.01 Russell 1000 Growth Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.94 1.00 9.29 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 15.85 0.21 -0.22 0.10 -0.94 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Growth 6.35 85.53 107.57 -5.66 -0.95 -0.08 0.96 15.29 Russell 1000 Growth Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.23 1.00 14.00 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.36 0.62 -2.17 0.74 -0.23 N/A -0.01 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Growth NONE Page 42 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 44.34 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Sawgrass Large Cap GrowthN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Å Russell 1000 Growth Index3.78 (29)12.65 (35)-1.85 (38)-20.88 (53)19.35 (57) Median 1.24 11.27 -3.00 -20.53 20.20 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 41.00 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Sawgrass Large Cap Growth4.89 (82)29.37 (36)29.37 (36)N/AN/AN/AN/A Å Russell 1000 Growth Index6.11 (54)29.19 (38)29.19 (38)15.79 (26)14.73 (29)10.34 (29)3.24 (33) Median 6.1927.6427.6413.9113.108.882.47 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth -1.56 (4)13.82 (75)10.08 (51)N/A N/A N/A Russell 1000 Growth Index -4.02 (29)14.69 (63)10.61 (38)-13.14 (27)0.76 (48)6.03 (47) IM U.S. Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median -5.14 15.29 10.11 -14.61 0.64 5.84 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth NONE Page 43 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth Index) Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%)Active (%)Qtr Rtn (%) Apple Inc 8.7 8.6 0.1 14.7 International Business Machines Corp7.3 3.1 4.2 6.5 CVS Caremark Corp 6.7 0.2 6.6 4.0 Verizon Communications Inc 6.6 1.8 4.9 3.7 Abbott Laboratories 6.4 1.4 5.0 7.2 Microsoft Corp 6.0 3.1 2.9 -2.1 Coca-Cola Co (The)6.0 2.0 4.0 -2.3 Chevron Corp 5.9 0.0 5.9 11.4 MasterCard Inc 5.4 0.7 4.7 5.0 Ecolab Inc.5.1 0.2 4.9 -5.1 % of Portfolio 64.2 21.2 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: Russell 1000 Growth Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($)154,946,550,954 119,681,596,404 Median Mkt. Cap ($)58,904,465,940 6,117,302,000 Price/Earnings ratio 16.9 18.4 Price/Book ratio 3.4 4.1 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%)17.7 17.5 Current Yield (%)1.7 1.6 Beta N/A 1.00 Number of Stocks 19 567 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%) Benchmark (%) Celgene Corp 4.50.5 Apple Inc 8.78.6 Express Scripts Holding Co 5.00.7 Chevron Corp 5.90.0 DIRECTV 4.90.5 Abbott Laboratories 6.41.4 International Business Machines Corp7.33.1 Wal-Mart Stores Inc 4.01.4 Danaher Corp 3.70.2 MasterCard Inc 5.40.7 % of Portfolio 55.717.0 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Russell 1000 Growth Index Sawgrass Large Cap Growth 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 48.0 52.0 56.0 58.7 >100 Bil 75 Bil - 100 Bil 25 Bil - 75 Bil 15 Bil - 25 Bil 2 Bil - 15 Bil 0 - 2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation PortfolioBenchmark Performance PortfolioBenchmark Attribution StockSector Total Consumer Discretionary 14.016.14.617.34-0.44-0.03-0.32 Consumer Staples 16.913.21.341.55-0.04-0.19-0.19 Energy 5.7 3.911.3714.84-0.120.16-0.03 Financials 0.0 4.50.002.190.000.170.17 Health Care 12.111.89.987.150.340.120.35 Industrials 7.312.14.261.860.290.200.38 Information Technology 27.732.16.938.35-0.45-0.08-0.49 Materials 5.3 3.8-5.134.88-0.39-0.02-0.58 Telecommunication Services 6.6 2.33.704.61-0.02-0.07-0.13 Utilities 0.0 0.20.0012.310.00-0.01-0.01 Cash 4.3 0.00.020.000.00-0.26-0.26 Total 100.0100.04.996.09-0.83-0.02-1.11 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) Ecolab Inc.5.1 0.2 Coca-Cola Co (The)6.0 2.0 Microsoft Corp 6.0 3.1 Caterpillar Inc 3.1 0.8 Kroger Co. (The)4.9 0.2 Verizon Communications Inc6.6 1.8 CVS Caremark Corp 6.7 0.2 TJX Companies Inc (The)4.6 0.5 MasterCard Inc 5.4 0.7 Danaher Corp 3.7 0.2 % of Portfolio 52.1 9.6 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 Sawgrass Large Cap Growth Page 44 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Lazard SMid Cap Core-9.00 (98)N/AN/AN/AN/A Å Russell 2500 Index-2.22 (77)15.92 (63)-5.68 (72)-17.99 (35)15.17 (68) Median -0.1516.69-2.72 -19.02 18.69 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 32.00 35.00 38.00 41.00 44.00 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Lazard SMid Cap Core4.30 (77)30.14 (51)30.14 (51)8.82 (96)N/AN/AN/A Å Russell 2500 Index5.57 (55)30.93 (42)30.93 (42)13.15 (63)14.06 (63)8.77 (72)2.80 (73) Median 5.8730.1530.1514.4015.0810.324.08 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Lazard SMid Cap Core -5.04 (49)13.47 (52)15.81 (26)-25.96 (100)-1.93 (99)8.39 (66) Russell 2500 Index -4.14 (27)12.99 (64)14.52 (49)-21.22 (57)-0.59 (75)8.70 (62) IM U.S. SMID Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median -5.06 13.50 14.26 -20.60 -0.03 9.44 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Lazard SMid Cap Core NONE Page 45 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: Russell 2500 Index) Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%)Active (%)Qtr Rtn (%) Haemonetics Corp 2.1 0.1 2.1 8.2 Wintrust Financial Corp.2.1 0.1 2.0 6.1 CareFusion Corp 1.9 0.0 1.9 10.6 Arch Capital Group Ltd1.9 0.2 1.7 4.9 VCA Antech Inc 1.8 0.1 1.7 -10.3 NetScout Systems Inc 1.8 0.0 1.8 18.2 TriMas Corp 1.8 0.0 1.7 20.0 Xilinx Inc.1.7 0.0 1.7 0.2 Validus Holdings Ltd 1.7 0.1 1.6 6.6 PS Business Parks Inc.1.7 0.0 1.6 -0.7 % of Portfolio 18.4 0.6 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: Russell 2500 Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($)2,982,922,236 2,796,397,302 Median Mkt. Cap ($)2,163,508,760 717,608,760 Price/Earnings ratio 18.5 16.7 Price/Book ratio 2.2 2.2 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%)7.1 4.9 Current Yield (%)1.0 1.5 Beta N/A 1.00 Number of Stocks 78 2,472 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) Ann Inc 1.1 0.1 Rock-Tenn Co 1.3 0.2 MasTec Inc.1.5 0.0 Rosetta Resources Inc 0.6 0.1 Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp0.7 0.1 j2 Global Inc 1.3 0.1 Brown Shoe Co Inc.1.0 0.0 U S Silica Holdings Inc 1.4 0.0 TriMas Corp 1.8 0.0 Targa Resources Corp 0.7 0.1 % of Portfolio 11.4 0.7 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) Russell 2500 Index Lazard SMid Cap Core 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 2 Bil - 15 Bil 0 - 2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation PortfolioBenchmark Performance PortfolioBenchmark Attribution StockSector Total Consumer Discretionary 13.114.010.107.930.30-0.010.26 Consumer Staples 3.6 3.15.232.110.10-0.020.09 Energy 4.2 6.214.138.750.33-0.100.01 Financials 22.722.41.864.22-0.530.00-0.55 Health Care 9.211.15.497.69-0.24-0.01-0.19 Industrials 15.614.84.324.370.00-0.01-0.01 Information Technology 16.715.12.083.05-0.14-0.03-0.22 Materials 7.3 6.79.338.260.070.030.11 Telecommunication Services 0.0 1.30.0015.310.00-0.12-0.12 Utilities 4.2 5.34.184.190.000.000.00 Cash 3.5 0.00.020.000.00-0.18-0.18 Total 100.0100.04.795.57-0.11-0.46-0.79 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) Walter Energy Inc 0.5 0.1 Aeropostale Inc.1.2 0.0 Hub Group Inc 1.2 0.0 Responsys Inc 0.8 0.0 American Reprographics Co0.6 0.0 Innophos Holdings Inc 0.8 0.0 ON Semiconductor Corp 1.3 0.1 VCA Antech Inc 1.8 0.1 Echo Global Logistics Inc 1.0 0.0 East West Bancorp Inc.1.3 0.1 % of Portfolio 10.5 0.5 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 Lazard SMid Cap Core Page 46 Peer Group Analysis - IM International Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Total Int'l Equity-10.95 (73)9.69 (14)4.11 (44)-26.32 (15)N/A Å Total Int'l Policy-10.42 (69)6.37 (49)3.80 (47)-30.13 (49)25.38 (69) Median-9.086.193.11-30.2426.93 -12.00 -10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 27.29 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Total Int'l Equity8.77 (11)21.58 (5)21.58 (5)4.05 (34)5.90 (20)5.45 (20)-1.85 (16) Å Total Int'l Policy7.49 (45)15.04 (78)15.04 (78)1.51 (76)3.11 (71)3.28 (68)-4.48 (62) Median 7.3117.1217.123.134.364.01-3.93 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Int'l Equity -6.73 (60)14.83 (6)4.37 (51)-22.85 (87)-0.68 (96)5.02 (15) Total Int'l Policy -7.38 (75)11.34 (48)3.77 (68)-19.78 (48)0.61 (85)3.49 (54) IM International Large Cap Core Equity (SA+CF) Median-6.43 11.18 4.38 -20.01 1.98 3.58 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Int'l Equity NONE Page 47 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å Total Int'l Equity10 7 (70%)2 (20%)1 (10%)0 (0%) Å Total Int'l Policy10 0 (0%)4 (40%)6 (60%)0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 29.0 T o t a l I n t 'l E q u i t y (%) -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 Total Int'l Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 R e t u r n (% ) 19.00 19.50 20.00 20.50 21.00 21.50 22.00 22.50 23.00 23.44 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Int'l Equity 5.90 22.87 Å Total Int'l Policy 3.11 19.38 ¾Median 4.36 19.87 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.40 R e t u r n (% ) 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 31.93 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Int'l Equity -1.85 31.05 Å Total Int'l Policy -4.48 25.63 ¾Median -3.93 25.73 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Int'l Equity 4.44 115.15 104.83 2.67 0.72 0.37 1.11 14.23 Total Int'l Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.25 1.00 13.21 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.18 0.17 -0.22 0.10 -0.25 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Int'l Equity 7.39 118.26 105.84 3.99 0.50 0.05 1.12 20.02 Total Int'l Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A -0.11 1.00 17.68 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 23.42 0.58 -1.61 0.69 0.11 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Int'l Equity NONE Page 48 Peer Group Analysis - IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å WHV Int'l Equity-10.59 (72)10.73 (36)-7.12 (94)-18.89 (5)N/A Å MSCI EAFE Index-8.94 (48)3.71 (87)3.80 (50)-30.13 (57)25.38 (73) Median -9.119.263.66-29.1630.48 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 30.62 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å WHV Int'l Equity6.17 (74)20.90 (19)20.90 (19)3.97 (51)6.17 (44)2.68 (75)-2.05 (43) Å MSCI EAFE Index6.98 (57)14.33 (79)14.33 (79)2.04 (68)2.59 (85)2.89 (73)-4.77 (73) Median 7.1018.3118.314.065.615.64-2.71 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 WHV Int'l Equity -6.41 (40)10.55 (90)10.05 (1)-25.80 (99)-3.33 (100)7.41 (1) MSCI EAFE Index -6.85 (52)10.98 (85)3.38 (65)-18.95 (33)1.83 (51)3.45 (42) IM International Large Cap Growth Equity (SA+CF) Median-6.79 12.91 4.28 -20.07 1.93 3.09 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 WHV Int'l Equity NONE Page 49 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å WHV Int'l Equity10 1 (10%)7 (70%)0 (0%)2 (20%) Å MSCI EAFE Index20 0 (0%)0 (0%)13 (65%)7 (35%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 26.7 W H V I n t 'l E q u i t y (% ) -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 26.7 MSCI EAFE Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 2.60 3.90 5.20 6.50 R e t u r n (% ) 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å WHV Int'l Equity 6.17 25.87 Å MSCI EAFE Index 2.59 19.14 ¾Median 5.61 19.90 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 R e t u r n (% ) 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 34.82 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å WHV Int'l Equity -2.05 33.55 Å MSCI EAFE Index -4.77 25.51 ¾Median -2.71 25.86 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk WHV Int'l Equity 9.05 115.90 101.38 3.86 0.47 0.37 1.11 15.81 MSCI EAFE Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.23 1.00 13.31 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.27 0.17 -0.20 0.10 -0.23 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk WHV Int'l Equity 12.73 119.59 105.48 4.56 0.33 0.05 1.10 21.23 MSCI EAFE Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A -0.12 1.00 17.73 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 23.46 0.57 -1.57 0.69 0.12 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 WHV Int'l Equity NONE Page 50 Pa g e I n t e n t i o n a l l y L e f t B l a n k Pa g e 5 1 Top Ten Equity Holdings (Benchmark: MSCI EAFE Index) Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%)Active (%)Qtr Rtn (%) BHP Billiton Ltd 7.0 1.1 5.9 7.0 Potash Corp of Saskatchewan6.5 0.0 6.5 -0.3 Nestle SA, Cham Und Vevey6.5 2.0 4.5 5.6 Schlumberger Ltd 6.4 0.0 6.4 11.9 Diageo PLC 5.1 0.7 4.5 11.1 Noble Corp 5.1 0.0 5.1 10.4 Cooper Industries Plc 5.1 0.0 5.1 10.6 Rio Tinto PLC 4.7 0.6 4.1 -0.7 British American Tobacco PLC4.5 1.0 3.5 1.8 Suncor Energy Inc.4.2 0.0 4.2 14.0 % of Portfolio 55.1 5.4 Portfolio Characteristics (Benchmark: MSCI EAFE Index) Portfolio Benchmark Wtd. Avg. Mkt. Cap ($)69,293,430,340 53,363,175,968 Median Mkt. Cap ($)37,309,633,660 7,086,146,304 Price/Earnings ratio 14.9 12.9 Price/Book ratio 2.3 2.0 5 Yr. EPS Growth Rate (%)3.7 -0.1 Current Yield (%)2.2 3.7 Beta (5 Years, Monthly)1.10 1.00 Number of Stocks 32 920 Ten Best Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) BASF SE 3.7 0.8 Bayer AG 1.7 0.7 Tenaris SA, Luxembourg 2.7 0.1 Canadian Natural Resources1.5 0.0 Suncor Energy Inc.4.2 0.0 Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd2.9 0.0 Axa, Paris 0.2 0.3 Schlumberger Ltd 6.4 0.0 Manulife Financial Corp 0.2 0.0 Diageo PLC 5.1 0.7 % of Portfolio 28.5 2.5 Distribution of Market Capitalization (%) MSCI EAFE Index WHV Int'l Equity 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 27.0 30.0 33.0 36.0 39.0 >100 Bil 75 Bil - 100 Bil 25 Bil - 75 Bil 15 Bil - 25 Bil 2 Bil - 15 Bil 0 - 2 Bil Cash Buy and Hold Sector Attribution Allocation PortfolioBenchmark Performance PortfolioBenchmark Attribution StockSector Total Consumer Discretionary 0.010.50.002.490.000.480.48 Consumer Staples 17.712.16.257.12-0.110.01-0.14 Energy 30.8 8.47.626.620.09-0.090.19 Financials 3.522.73.0611.33-1.86-0.83-1.12 Health Care 4.610.312.808.920.39-0.110.07 Industrials 13.712.58.965.740.41-0.020.41 Information Technology 0.0 4.40.001.490.000.250.25 Materials 28.7 9.52.947.32-0.410.04-1.20 Telecommunication Services 0.0 5.60.005.050.000.110.11 Utilities 0.0 4.10.002.480.000.190.19 Cash 1.0 0.00.020.000.00-0.07-0.07 Total 100.0100.06.156.99-1.49-0.03-0.85 Ten Worst Performers Portfolio (%)Benchmark (%) Vale SA 2.9 0.0 Teck Resources Ltd 1.4 0.0 Nabors Industries Ltd 2.3 0.0 PartnerRe Ltd.1.4 0.0 Rio Tinto PLC 4.7 0.6 BG Group PLC 3.9 0.7 Potash Corp of Saskatchewan6.5 0.0 Transocean Ltd 2.6 0.2 Weatherford International Ltd2.0 0.0 British American Tobacco PLC4.5 1.0 % of Portfolio 32.2 2.4 Holdings Based Analysis As of September 30, 2012 WHV Int'l Equity Page 52 Peer Group Analysis - IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 49.25 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å RBC Int'l (Voyageur)-8.72 (52)11.60 (15)11.90 (21)N/AN/A Å MSCI EAFE Index-8.94 (57)3.71 (64)3.80 (63)-30.13 (73)25.38 (40) Median -8.464.955.67 -27.35 23.99 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 31.43 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å RBC Int'l (Voyageur)11.28 (3)24.75 (3)24.75 (3)6.71 (11)8.32 (8)9.20 (9)N/A Å MSCI EAFE Index6.98 (57)14.33 (54)14.33 (54)2.04 (63)2.59 (66)2.89 (69)-4.77 (75) Median 7.2815.0415.042.843.653.95-3.15 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 RBC Int'l (Voyageur)-6.02 (33)17.65 (2)1.40 (91)-21.20 (79)0.67 (72)4.70 (23) MSCI EAFE Index -6.85 (50)10.98 (50)3.38 (57)-18.95 (55)1.83 (42)3.45 (54) IM International Large Cap Value Equity (SA+CF) Median-6.86 10.89 3.59 -18.76 1.46 3.55 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) NONE Page 53 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å RBC Int'l (Voyageur)8 5 (63%)2 (25%)1 (13%)0 (0%) Å MSCI EAFE Index20 0 (0%)2 (10%)17 (85%)1 (5%) Over Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 R B C I n t 'l (V o y a g e u r ) (% ) -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 31.5 MSCI EAFE Index (%) Over Performance Under Performance 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 9.29 R e t u r n (% ) 18.50 19.00 19.50 20.00 20.50 21.00 21.50 22.00 22.50 23.00 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å RBC Int'l (Voyageur)8.32 22.49 Å MSCI EAFE Index 2.59 19.14 ¾Median 3.65 18.90 -4.80 -4.20 -3.60 -3.00 R e t u r n (% ) 24.20 24.40 24.60 24.80 25.00 25.20 25.40 25.60 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å RBC Int'l (Voyageur)N/A N/A Å MSCI EAFE Index -4.77 25.51 ¾Median -3.15 24.32 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk RBC Int'l (Voyageur)6.55 119.29 98.61 5.74 0.91 0.47 1.08 13.79 MSCI EAFE Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 0.23 1.00 13.31 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 19.27 0.17 -0.20 0.10 -0.23 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk RBC Int'l (Voyageur)N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MSCI EAFE Index 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A -0.12 1.00 17.73 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 23.46 0.57 -1.57 0.69 0.12 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 RBC Int'l (Voyageur) NONE Page 54 Peer Group Analysis - IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Comparative Performance -60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Å MSCI Emerging Markets Index -15.89 (34)20.54 (35)19.44 (25)-33.01 (43)58.63 (29) Median -17.84 18.97 13.46 -33.67 54.77 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 29.00 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)6.50 (64)17.90 (34)17.90 (34)N/AN/AN/AN/A Å MSCI Emerging Markets Index7.89 (21)17.34 (44)17.34 (44)-0.66 (33)5.96 (29)9.18 (20)-0.98 (25) Median 6.7916.6416.64-1.675.046.85-2.66 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX)-8.38 (51)13.98 (46)6.01 (15)-24.00 (55)-0.95 (48)N/A MSCI Emerging Markets Index -8.77 (60)14.14 (42)4.45 (51)-22.46 (38)-1.04 (55)2.10 (20) IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Median -8.37 13.77 4.46 -23.63 -0.99 0.75 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) NONE Page 55 Fund Information Fund Name :Vanguard International Equity Index Funds: Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund; Signal Class Shares Portfolio Assets :$71,720 Million Fund Family :Vanguard Group Inc Portfolio Manager :Michael Perre Ticker :VERSX PM Tenure :2008 Inception Date :01/19/2007 Fund Style :IM Emerging Markets Equity (MF) Fund Assets :$916 Million Style Benchmark :MSCI Emerging Markets Index Portfolio Turnover :10% Top Ten Securities As of 06/30/2012 Samsung Electronics Co Ltd DR 2.1% China Mobile Ltd ORD 1.8% America Movil SAB de CV ORD 1.4% China Construction Bank Corp ORD 1.3% Vale SA DR 1.3% Gazprom OAO DR 1.2% Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd DR 1.2% Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ORD 1.0% Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd ORD 1.0% CNOOC Ltd ORD 1.0% Portfolio Characteristics As of 06/30/2012 Portfolio Benchmark Total Securities 888 819 Avg. Market Cap ($)38,975,597,596 4,264,367,184 Price/Earnings (P/E)15.90 9.92 Price/Book (P/B)2.86 2.13 Dividend Yield 3.15 3.08 Annual EPS 11.01 N/A 5 Yr EPS 15.27 12.77 3 Yr EPS Growth 20.45 N/A Beta N/A 1.00 Region Weights As of 06/30/2012 MSCI Emerging Markets Index Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Other Frontier Markets Pacific ex Japan EM Mid East+Africa North America EM Latin America EM Europe EM Asia Sector Weights As of 06/30/2012 MSCI Emerging Markets Index Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 Utilities Telecommunication Services Materials Information Technology Industrials Health Care Financials Energy Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Other Strategy Review Vanguard Emerging (VERSX) As of September 30, 2012 Statistics provided by Lipper. Most recent available data shown. Page 56 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Broad Market Fixed Income (SA+CF+MF) Comparative Performance -16.00 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 25.52 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Total Fixed Income3.12 (71)9.16 (68)8.40 (84)2.79 (21)5.53 (22) Å Total Fixed Policy5.96 (8)8.63 (77)8.87 (82)4.73 (5)5.43 (24) Median 4.2010.0512.48-1.624.90 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 16.97 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Total Fixed Income3.16 (30)9.06 (35)9.06 (35)6.05 (49)7.07 (61)7.40 (80)6.46 (60) Å Total Fixed Policy1.67 (90)5.75 (86)5.75 (86)5.85 (56)6.77 (71)7.29 (82)6.78 (50) Median 2.647.977.976.007.388.676.77 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total Fixed Income 1.49 (76)2.52 (30)1.60 (39)0.98 (66)2.49 (8)1.03 (49) Total Fixed Policy 2.23 (26)0.39 (91)1.36 (55)3.93 (8)2.50 (7)0.67 (72) IM U.S. Broad Market Fixed Income (SA+CF+MF) Median 1.95 1.71 1.43 1.95 1.94 1.00 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Fixed Income NONE Page 57 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å Total Fixed Income17 3 (18%)2 (12%)6 (35%)6 (35%) Å Total Fixed Policy17 4 (24%)5 (29%)3 (18%)5 (29%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 T o t a l F i x e d I n c o m e (%) 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.4 Total Fixed Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 6.80 7.00 7.20 7.40 R e t u r n (% ) 2.49 2.52 2.55 2.58 2.61 2.64 2.67 2.70 2.73 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Fixed Income 7.07 2.66 Å Total Fixed Policy 6.77 2.71 ¾Median 7.38 2.50 6.60 6.80 R e t u r n (% ) 2.70 3.00 3.30 3.60 3.90 4.20 4.50 4.80 5.10 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total Fixed Income 6.46 3.13 Å Total Fixed Policy 6.78 2.80 ¾Median 6.77 4.84 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Fixed Income 2.10 95.23 51.78 1.18 0.14 2.16 0.87 1.52 Total Fixed Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 2.38 1.00 1.18 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 2.74 1.00 -1.29 0.10 -2.38 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total Fixed Income 1.93 95.45 94.37 0.07 -0.15 1.52 0.95 2.10 Total Fixed Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.78 1.00 1.66 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 3.33 6.18 -8.81 0.67 -1.78 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total Fixed Income NONE Page 58 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Comparative Performance 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 14.94 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Total TIPS7.81 (71)11.97 (8)3.76 (95)6.28 (55)N/A Å Tips Policy9.87 (33)9.29 (63)4.02 (89)7.89 (14)5.32 (26) Median9.709.366.186.345.07 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 16.97 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR Å Total TIPS2.54 (14)9.67 (19)9.67 (19)8.74 (70)9.80 (19)8.26 (72)7.86 (68) Å Tips Policy2.12 (63)9.10 (49)9.10 (49)9.49 (44)9.42 (46)8.05 (74)8.02 (57) Median2.17 9.10 9.10 9.44 9.39 8.57 8.06 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Total TIPS 2.90 (71)2.14 (5)1.76 (78)3.29 (74)3.02 (71)2.23 (35) Tips Policy 3.15 (49)0.86 (78)2.69 (42)4.51 (59)3.66 (32)2.08 (64) IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 3.14 1.00 2.67 4.55 3.56 2.11 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total TIPS NONE Page 59 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å Tips Policy7 0 (0%)2 (29%)2 (29%)3 (43%) Å Total TIPS12 4 (33%)2 (17%)4 (33%)2 (17%) Over Performance Earliest Date Latest Date 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 13.2 T o t a l T I P S (%) 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 Tips Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 9.40 9.60 9.80 9.87 R e t u r n (% ) 2.30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total TIPS 9.80 2.35 Å Tips Policy 9.42 2.82 ¾Median 9.39 2.84 7.84 7.91 7.98 8.05 8.10 R e t u r n (% ) 4.80 5.00 5.20 5.40 5.60 5.80 6.00 6.20 6.40 6.56 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Total TIPS 7.86 6.34 Å Tips Policy 8.02 5.35 ¾Median 8.06 4.84 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total TIPS 1.35 93.98 62.52 1.94 0.24 2.40 0.83 1.46 Tips Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.99 1.00 1.86 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 4.54 0.65 -0.77 0.10 -1.99 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Total TIPS 3.33 98.15 96.91 -0.12 -0.03 0.97 1.00 5.18 Tips Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.10 1.00 4.22 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 6.57 3.95 -3.86 0.70 -1.10 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Total TIPS NONE Page 60 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Comparative Performance 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 14.94 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Mutual of America TIPS7.81 (71)11.97 (8)3.76 (95)N/AN/A Å Tips Policy 9.87 (33)9.29 (63)4.02 (89)7.89 (14)5.32 (26) Median 9.709.366.186.345.07 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 16.97 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Mutual of America TIPS2.54 (14)9.67 (19)9.67 (19)8.74 (70)9.80 (19)8.26 (72)N/A Å Tips Policy 2.12 (63)9.10 (49)9.10 (49)9.49 (44)9.42 (46)8.05 (74)8.02 (57) Median 2.179.109.109.449.398.578.06 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Mutual of America TIPS 2.90 (71)2.14 (5)1.76 (78)3.29 (74)3.02 (71)2.23 (35) Tips Policy 3.15 (49)0.86 (78)2.69 (42)4.51 (59)3.66 (32)2.08 (64) IM U.S. TIPS (SA+CF) Median 3.14 1.00 2.67 4.55 3.56 2.11 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Mutual of America TIPS NONE Page 61 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å Mutual of America TIPS7 4 (57%)1 (14%)1 (14%)1 (14%) Å Tips Policy 7 0 (0%)2 (29%)2 (29%)3 (43%) Over Performance Earliest Date Latest Date 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 13.2 M u t u a l o f A m e r i c a T I P S (%) 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 Tips Policy (%) Over Performance Under Performance 9.40 9.60 9.80 9.87 R e t u r n (% ) 2.30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Mutual of America TIPS 9.80 2.35 Å Tips Policy 9.42 2.82 ¾Median 9.39 2.84 8.02 8.04 8.06 8.07 R e t u r n (% ) 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å Mutual of America TIPS N/A N/A Å Tips Policy 8.02 5.35 ¾Median 8.06 4.84 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Mutual of America TIPS 1.35 93.98 62.52 1.94 0.24 2.40 0.83 1.46 Tips Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.99 1.00 1.86 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 4.54 0.65 -0.77 0.10 -1.99 N/A 0.00 0.01 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk Mutual of America TIPS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tips Policy 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 1.10 1.00 4.22 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 6.57 3.95 -3.86 0.70 -1.10 N/A 0.00 0.01 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Mutual of America TIPS NONE Page 62 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å Mutual of America Core FixedN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Å Barclays Aggregate Index5.26 (49)8.16 (87)10.56 (80)3.65 (33)5.14 (53) Median 5.269.20 12.31 2.565.16 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Mutual of America Core Fixed2.37 (30)7.24 (37)7.24 (37)N/AN/AN/AN/A Å Barclays Aggregate Index1.58 (90)5.16 (91)5.16 (91)5.21 (91)6.19 (91)7.26 (94)6.53 (81) Median 2.156.626.625.977.158.457.15 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Mutual of America Core Fixed 1.84 (88)1.32 (31)1.52 (22)2.72 (75)N/A N/A Barclays Aggregate Index 2.06 (68)0.30 (89)1.12 (71)3.82 (27)2.29 (38)0.42 (82) IM U.S. Broad Market Core Fixed Income (SA+CF) Median 2.15 1.02 1.26 3.31 2.24 0.67 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Mutual of America Core Fixed NONE Page 63 Peer Group Analysis - IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Comparative Performance -19.00 -16.00 -13.00 -10.00 -7.00 -4.00 -1.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 11.00 14.00 17.00 20.00 23.00 26.00 28.07 R e t u r n Oct- 2010 To Sep- 2011 Oct- 2009 To Sep- 2010 Oct- 2008 To Sep- 2009 Oct- 2007 To Sep- 2008 Oct- 2006 To Sep- 2007 Å Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Å Barclays Global Aggregate 4.00 (9)6.06 (87)13.51 (48)2.80 (13)8.20 (44) Median 1.43 7.93 13.44 -1.77 7.44 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 18.70 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)6.87 (1)15.90 (4)15.90 (4)N/AN/AN/AN/A Å Barclays Global Aggregate 3.27 (63)5.07 (88)5.07 (88)4.53 (45)5.04 (66)7.09 (62)6.22 (32) Median 3.457.507.504.375.597.625.61 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX)-1.14 (97)7.80 (3)1.76 (27)-7.86 (98)N/A N/A Barclays Global Aggregate 0.62 (48)0.87 (89)0.23 (82)0.97 (30)3.10 (16)1.24 (65) IM Global Fixed Income (MF) Median 0.58 2.50 0.88 -1.49 2.23 1.54 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 Templeton Global Total Return (TTRZX) NONE Page 64 Peer Group Analysis - IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Comparative Performance -70.00 -60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 44.49 R e t u r n Oct-2010 To Sep-2011 Oct-2009 To Sep-2010 Oct-2008 To Sep-2009 Oct-2007 To Sep-2008 Oct-2006 To Sep-2007 Å American Core Realty16.11 (77)2.71 (75)-32.42 (37)5.26 (29)N/A Å NCREIF ODCE18.27 (41)6.97 (46)-35.19 (52)3.18 (54)18.21 (58) Median 16.626.39 -34.36 3.6018.73 -12.00 -10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 25.50 R e t u r n QTRFYTD1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR Å American Core Realty2.58 (64)11.56 (58)11.56 (58)13.81 (79)9.98 (74)-2.62 (52)-1.10 (47) Å NCREIF ODCE2.77 (45)11.61 (58)11.61 (58)14.89 (55)12.19 (46)-2.19 (51)-1.14 (48) Median 2.7412.3512.3515.1311.85-1.91-1.38 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2012 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2012 1 Qtr Ending Dec-2011 1 Qtr Ending Sep-2011 1 Qtr Ending Jun-2011 1 Qtr Ending Mar-2011 American Core Realty 2.72 (65)3.02 (63)2.77 (67)3.19 (46)3.84 (63)4.48 (54) NCREIF ODCE 2.58 (72)2.82 (74)2.97 (53)3.52 (40)4.62 (45)4.01 (69) IM U.S. Open End Private Real Estate (SA+CF) Median 2.95 3.54 3.04 3.17 4.32 4.49 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 American Core Realty NONE Page 65 Peer Group Scattergram - 3 Years 3 Yr Rolling Under/Over Performance - 5 Years Peer Group Scattergram - 5 Years 3 Yr Rolling Percentile Ranking - 5 Years Historical Statistics - 3 Years Historical Statistics - 5 Years 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 R e t u r n P e r c e n t i l e R a n k 12/07 6/08 12/08 6/09 12/09 6/10 12/10 6/11 12/11 9/12 Total Period 5-25 Count 25-Median Count Median-75 Count 75-95 Count Å American Core Realty10 0 (0%)4 (40%)4 (40%)2 (20%) Å NCREIF ODCE 20 0 (0%)14 (70%)6 (30%)0 (0%) Over Performance Under Performance Earliest Date Latest Date -12.0 -6.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 16.6 A m e r i c a n C o r e R e a l t y (% ) -12.0 -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 16.6 NCREIF ODCE (%) Over Performance Under Performance 9.60 10.40 11.20 12.00 12.55 R e t u r n (% ) 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å American Core Realty 9.98 4.76 Å NCREIF ODCE 12.19 4.58 ¾Median 11.85 5.57 -1.40 -1.30 -1.20 -1.10 -1.05 R e t u r n (% ) 9.90 10.20 10.50 10.80 11.10 11.40 11.70 12.00 12.30 12.60 Risk (Standard Deviation %) Return Standard Deviation Å American Core Realty -1.10 10.17 Å NCREIF ODCE -1.14 11.10 ¾Median -1.38 12.38 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk American Core Realty 1.17 86.25 121.38 -2.11 -1.73 2.03 1.01 2.47 NCREIF ODCE 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A 2.55 1.00 2.01 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 4.57 0.67 -0.99 0.08 -2.55 N/A 0.00 0.00 Tracking Error Up Market Capture Down Market Capture Alpha Information Ratio Sharpe Ratio Beta Downside Risk American Core Realty 2.46 91.42 92.56 -0.11 -0.02 -0.12 0.90 8.77 NCREIF ODCE 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 N/A -0.11 1.00 9.54 90 Day U.S. Treasury Bill 11.10 5.82 -2.26 0.70 0.11 N/A 0.00 0.00 Performance Review As of September 30, 2012 American Core Realty NONE Page 66 Total Fund Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Jan-1978 S&P 500 Index 65.00 Barclays U.S. Government/Credit 30.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Apr-2007 Barclays U.S. Government/Credit 30.00 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 5.00 S&P 500 Index 60.00 MSCI EAFE Index 5.00 Oct-2007 MSCI EAFE Index 10.00 Barclays Intermediate Aggregate Index 30.00 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 5.00 Russell 3000 Index 50.00 NCREIF Property Index 5.00 Jan-2010 MSCI AC World ex USA 15.00 Barclays Aggregate Index 30.00 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS Index 5.00 Russell 3000 Index 45.00 NCREIF Property Index 5.00 Jul-2010 Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (full-cap) Index 35.00 MSCI AC World ex USA 15.00 Barclays Aggregate Index 25.00 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS Index 5.00 NCREIF ODCE 5.00 Barclay BTOP 50 5.00 Quadrant Custom Policy 5.00 NCREIF Timberland Index 5.00 Benchmark History Investment Policy Benchmarks As of September 30, 2012 Page 67 Total Int'l Policy Domestic Equity Policy Tips Policy Total Fixed Policy Total Equity Policy Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Oct-2005 S&P 500 Index 95.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Apr-2007 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 S&P 500 Index 85.00 MSCI EAFE Index 10.00 Oct-2007 MSCI EAFE Index 15.00 Russell 3000 Index 85.00 Jan-2010 MSCI AC World ex USA 25.00 Russell 3000 Index 75.00 Jul-2010 MSCI AC World ex USA 45.00 Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (full-cap) Index 55.00 Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Jan-1970 MSCI EAFE Index 100.00 Jan-2010 MSCI AC World ex USA 100.00 Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Jan-1999 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 100.00 Jan-2010 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS Index 100.00 Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Oct-2005 Barclays U.S. Government/Credit 95.00 Citigroup 3 Month T-Bill Index 5.00 Jan-2007 Barclays U.S. Government/Credit 85.00 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 15.00 Oct-2007 BC U.S. Treasury Inflation Notes: 1-10 Year 15.00 Barclays Intermediate Aggregate Index 85.00 Jan-2010 Barclays U.S. Treasury: U.S. TIPS Index 15.00 Barclays Aggregate Index 85.00 Allocation Mandate Weight (%) Oct-2005 S&P 500 Index 100.00 Oct-2007 Russell 3000 Index 100.00 Jul-2010 Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (full-cap) Index 100.00 Benchmark History Investment Policy Benchmarks As of September 30, 2012 Page 68 Disclosures: ·American Reality, Molpus Timber Fund, & Regions Timber Fund are shown with a flat return for the monthly based flash reports, since these funds are only updated on a quarterly basis. · For flash or quarterly reports being produced early, investment results are reported on a preliminary basis. · Total Fund Policy = 45% Russell 3000, 15% MSCI ACWI ex US, 30% Barclays Aggregate, 5% Barclays US Tips Intermediate, & 5% NCREIF Fund Index- Open-End. · For flash or early quarterly reports, a 0% proxy is used for the NCREIF, because this index is released on a quarterly basis. · Timber Policy updated from a 8.50% annual return to a 8.40% annual return, effective 7/1/2009. · For the 2-28-2010 report being produced for the 3-17-2010 meeting, all timber and American real estate is showing the market appreciation/depreciation through December with January and February shown flat of any market appreciation/depreciation. · iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund bought 12/29/2009. · iShares Russell 1000 Growth bought 2/11/2010, reflected in the Growth Index account. · Pimco (PDIIX) inception date July 2010. · Abbey inception date July 2010. · Quadrant Custom Policy is released on a quarterly basis, so the monthly flash will show a 0% proxy. Writeup Disclosures As of September 30, 2012 Page 69 Report Statistics Definitions and Descriptions R e t u r n - Co m p o u n d e d r a t e o f r e t u r n f o r t h e p e r i o d . S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n - A s t a t i s t i c a l m e a s u r e o f t h e r a n g e o f a p o r t f o l i o ' s p e r f o r m a n c e. I t r e p r e s e n t s t h e v a r i a b i l i t y o f r e t u r n s a r o u n d t h e a v e r a g e r e tu r n o v e r a s p e c i f i e d t i m e p e r i o d . S h a r p e R a t i o - Re p r e s e n t s t h e e x c e s s r a t e o f r e t u r n o v e r t h e r i s k f r e e r e t u r n d i v i d e d b y t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e e x c e s s r e t u r n . T h e r e s u lt i s a n a b s o l u t e r a t e o f r e t u r n p e r u n i t o f r i s k . A hi g h e r v a l u e d e m o n s t r a t e s b e t t e r h i s t or i c a l r i s k - a d j us t e d p e r f o r m a n c e . A l p h a - A m e a s u r e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a p o r t f o li o ' s a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e a n d i t s e x p e c t e d r e tu r n b a s e d o n i t s l e v e l o f r i s k a s d e t e rmined by beta. It determines the portfolio's no n - s y s t e m i c r e t u r n , o r i t s h i s t o r i c a l p e r f o r m a n ce n o t e x p l a i n e d b y m o v e m e n t s o f t h e m a r k e t . B e t a - A m e a s u r e o f t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f a p o r t f o l i o t o t h e m o v e m e n t s i n th e m a r k e t . I t i s a m e a s u r e o f th e p o r t f o l i o ' s s y s t e m a t i c r i s k . R - S q u a r e d - Th e p e r c e n t a g e o f a p o r t f o l i o ' s p e r f o r m a n c e t h a t c a n b e e x p l a i ne d b y t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e n c h m a r k . A h i g h R - S q u a r e d means the portfolio's performance has hi s t o r i c a l l y m o v e d i n t h e s a m e d i r e ct i o n a s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e n c h m a r k . T r e y n o r Ra t i o - Si m i l a r t o S h a r p e r a t i o b u t u t i l i z e s b e t a r a t h e r t h a n e x c e s s r i sk a s d e t e r m i n e d b y s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n . I t i s c a l c u l a t e d b y t a k i ng t h e e x c e s s r a t e o f r e t u r n a b o v e t h e r i s k f r e e ra t e d i v i d e d b y b e t a t o d e r i v e t h e a b s o l u t e r a t e o f r e t u r n p e r u n i t o f r i s k . A h i g h e r v a l u e i n d i c a t e s a p r o d u c t h a s a c h i e v e d b e tt e r h i s t o r i c a l r i s k - adjusted performance. D o w n s i d e Ri s k - A m e a s u r e s i m i l a r t o s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t h a t u t i l i z e s o n l y t h e n e g a t iv e m o v e m e n t s o f t h e r e t u r n s e r i e s . I t i s c a l c u l a t e d b y t a k in g t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e n e g a t i v e qu a r t e r l y s e t o f r e t u r n s . A h i g h e r f a c t o r i s i n d i c a t i v e o f a r i s k i e r p r o d u c t . T r a c k i n g Er r o r - Th i s i s a m e a s u r e o f t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f a p o r t f o l i o ' s r e t u r n s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f i t s d e s i g n a t e d m a r k e t b e n c h m a r k . I n f o r m a t i o n Ra t i o - Th i s c a l c u l a t e s t h e v a l u e - a d d e d c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e m a n a g e r a n d i s d e r i v e d b y d i v i d i n g t h e a c t i ve r a t e o f r e t u r n o f t h e p o r t f o l i o b y the tracking error. The higher the In f o r m a t i o n R a t i o , t h e m o r e t h e m a n a g e r h a s a d d e d v a l u e t o t h e p o r t f o l i o . C o n s i s t e n c y - Th e p e r c e n t a g e o f q u a r t e r s t h a t a p r o d u c t a c h i e v e d a r a t e o f r e t u rn h i g h e r t h a n t h a t o f i t s b e n c h m ar k . H i g h e r c o n s i s t e n c y i n d i c ates the manager has contributed more to the pr o d u c t ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e . E x c e s s Re t u r n - Ar i t h m e t i c d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e m a n a g e r ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e a n d t h e r i s k - f r e e r e t u r n o v e r a s p e c i f i e d t i m e p e r i o d . A c t i v e Re t u r n - Ar i t h m e t i c d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e m a n a g e r ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e a n d t h e d e s i g n a t e d b e n c h m a r k r e t u r n o v er a s p e c i f i e d t i m e p e r i o d . E x c e s s Ri s k - A m e a s u r e o f t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f a p o r t f o l i o ' s p e r f o r m a n c e r e l a t i v e t o t h e r i s k f r e e r e t u r n . Up M a r k e t C a p t u r e - Th e r a t i o o f a v e r a g e p o r t f o l i o p e r f o r m a n c e o v e r t h e d e s i g n a t e d b e n ch m a r k d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f p o s i t i v e r e t u r n s . A h i g h e r v a l u e i n d icates better product performance. Do w n M a r k e t C a p t u r e - Th e r a t i o o f a v e r a g e p o r t f o l i o p e r f o r m a n c e o v e r t h e d e s i g n a t e d b e n ch m a r k d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f n e g a t i v e r e t u r n s . A l o w e r v a l u e i n d i cates better product performance Ca l c u l a t i o n s b a s e d o n m o n t h l y p e r i o d i c i t y . MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE:November 9, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.B. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 TRI -PARTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE RELEASE OF THE RIGHT OF REVERTER RELATED TO THE OLD LIBRARY SITE AND CHAMBER REL OCATION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of the Tri-Party Agreement for the Release of the Right of Rev erter encumbering the old library site and the Chamber relocation. BACKGROUND The City, the CRA, the Chamber and the Old Library Development LLC, entered into an Agreement known as the Chamber of Commerce Relocation and Pub lic Parking Space Agreement dated April 21, 2008. The Agreement provided for the build out and relocation of the Chamber space to the northwest, (through Amendment No. 1) of the Old School Square garage retail space. Under the terms of the Agreement, the relocation would not occur until the closing of the old library property had occurred. Also, Old Library Development would pay t o the City the cost of the rough shell construction , $567,810.00 and the cost of the build out of the sp ace $473,175.00; the developer would also pay approximately $15,000 to the Chamber for moving exp enses and other miscellaneous expenses; the CRA would pay to the City the difference in the fai r market value, based on the original appraisal, an d the rough shell cost in the amount of $315,450.00. All of these costs would be paid at or subsequent t o the closing on the old library site. Also, the CRA, Chamber and City had previously ente red into a Tri-party Agreement that provided for the transfer of the City parcels and Chamber lease to the CRA. That agreement provided that if the transfer from the CRA to the developer did not take place the City parcels (old library parking lot an d Chamber site) would revert back to the City and the Chamber lease would be reassigned back to the City. The CRA, on September 12, 2012, terminated their ag reement with Old Library Development LLC and pursuant to the Triparty Agreement the City parcels would revert back to the City and the Chamber lease would be reassigned back to the City. The Commission gave direction, at its October 9, 20 12 workshop meeting for staff to draft an agreement to provide for the relocation of the Chamber as well a s the removal of the reverter language in the curre nt agreement. As noted above, the existing Tri-party Agreement includes a reverter clause stating that if the CRA does not convey the property to the Developer, the CRA shall convey the property back to the City. For consider ation (described below) the City will provide a release o f the original reverter clause, thereby permanently conveying title for all associated parcels to the CRA. The CR A will agree to create and maintain fifty (50) code compliant public parking spaces on the redevelopment site or within 300 feet of the City parcels. The consideration to be provided by the CRA as part of the new Agreement is as follows: 1) The CRA would buy out the City’s interest in the SE 5 th Avenue property for $1,703,060.00, based upon the average of two separate current appraisals. The first appraisal conducted by Integra Realty pegged the value at $40.00 per square foot ($1.6 Million), whi le the second conducted by Anderson & Carr valued i t at $45.00 per square foot ($1.8 Million). 2) Additionally, the CRA would reimburse the City for the cost of the building shell at the Old School Square Garage space in the amount of $567,810.00. T his would replace the $315,450 that the CRA had previously agreed to pay the City to compensate for the value of the garage space. 3) The total of items #1 & 2 is $2,270,870.00 and will be paid to the City by the CRA in equal annual installments of $266,215.24, which includes a 3% an nual rate of return to the City on the unpaid princ ipal balance. It further requires that should the CRA dispose of the property prior to ful l payment of the stipulated price, the CRA will repay additional pri ncipal on the loan in an amount equal to 50% of the value received (until such point as the principal i s paid in full). 4) The CRA will also (by separate agreement) provide f or the relocation of the Chamber to the new locatio n within one year of the date of the execution of the Tri-Party Agreement. The CRA will continue to be the Chamber’s landlord at the present site under the existing l ease until such time as the relocation has been completed. The existing lease will then terminate a nd a new lease for the unexpired term will be put i n place between the City and the Chamber at the new l ocation. As part of the separate agreement with the Chamber, the CRA will pay up to $459,675.00 ($75/sq . ft.) for the build out of the new space in the garage (The total amount is slightly less than befo re based upon an updated and reduced space allocati on in the garage space). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Triparty Interloca l Agreement for the Release of Right of Reverter Encumbering Real Property Relative to the Old Libra ry Site and Chamber Relocation. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:R. Brian Shutt, City Attorney DATE:November 9, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.C. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REVISED LEASE AGREEMENT/ GREATER DELRAY BEACH CHAMB ER OF COMMERCE, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of a revised lease agreement with the Chamber of Commerce. BACKGROUND The CRA, Chamber and City had previously entered in to a Tri-party Agreement that provided for the transfer of the City parcels and Chamber lease to t he CRA. That agreement provided that if the transfe r from the CRA to the developer did not take place th e City parcels (old library parking lot and Chamber site) would revert back to the City and the Chamber lease would be reassigned back to the City. The CRA, on September 12, 2012, terminated their ag reement with Old Library Development LLC and pursuant to the Triparty Agreement the City parcels would revert back to the City and the Chamber lease would be reassigned back to the City. The Commission gave direction, at its October 9, 20 12 workshop meeting for staff to draft an agreement to provide for the relocation of the Chamber to the space at the Old School Square Garage (OSS space). Some of the more pertinent terms of the new lease a greement are as follows: The lease will expire on January 9, 20 61 (the term stays the same as in the original leas e). Rent is $1 per year (same as the original lease). Chamber will be charged for common area maintenance in the amount of $800.00 per year and shall be increased by the CPI each year, not to exc eed 5%, unless the actual proportionate share exceeds the $800.00. Chamber is not guaranteed any parking spaces but wi ll be given up 15 parking space passes to be used by their employees or subtenants in the eve nt the City charges for parking. City has the right to relocate the Chamber at any t ime in the future if the City provides a comparable location and building. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lease agreement. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 14, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.D. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 FINANCIAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DELRAY BEACH MEMORIAL GARDENS MUNICIPAL CEMETERY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Attached is the Financial Review Board's report and recommendations regarding operation of the City's cemetery together with staff comments and responses . BACKGROUND A member of the Financial Review Board conducted a study of the operation of the City's cemetery. Based on this study he produced a report with recom mendations which was adopted by the Board. This report with staff comments and responses is being p resented to the Commission for your consideration. Some of the recommendations have been implemented w hile there are others with which staff disagrees. Staff from the City Clerk's Office and Parks and Recreation will be present to answer any questions the Commission may have. RECOMMENDATION The Commission may wish to give direction in some c ases where the Board and staff disagree. 1 Wynn, Kimberly From:Harden, David Sent:Friday, November 09, 2012 2:34 PM To:Wynn, Kimberly Subject:FW: FRB cemetery recommendations 4 9 2012 Attachments:201209261528.pdf; Cemeterygravelist.pdf; Cemeteryintermentrequest.pdf Please attach all of this as backup for the cemetery agenda item. From: Harden, David Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:17 PM To: CHRISTINA (christinadelray@gmail.com); Reade, Richard Cc: Nubin, Chevelle; Karch, Linda; Simmons, Tim Subject: FW: FRB cemetery recommendations 4 9 2012 Below you will find the staff's comments regarding the Financial Review Boards report concerning operations of the City Cemetery. We will schedule this for presentation to the City Commission at a work session, probably in November. City of Delray Beach Financial Review Board Final Recommendations: City Cemetery April 9, 2012 BACKGROUND: The Delray Beach Memorial Gardens, originally named Pi ne Ridge Cemetery, has been part of the City of Delray Beach since the City’s inception in 1911. (Actually the cemetery star ted in 1902 when land for a cemetery was given to the Ladies Im provement Association. The Associ ation deeded it to the City in 1914) It was expanded greatly in 1995 and now covers over 38 acres and contains a mausoleum. According to information on the City’s website, record-keeping was always a challenge for the Cemetery with many early burials impossible to locate and maintenance being haphazard, leaving many families to tend to the upkeep of their own plots. (We believe our records are accurate from at least 1976, and probably from 1973.) Presently, the City Clerk’s office (561.243.7050) is re sponsible for plot sale in formation and maintaining an up-to-date database of cemete ry occupants and plot owners. A ccording to the City’s website, additional information on burial records can be obtained from the Palm Beach Genealogical Society at 561.832.3279. (The Genealogical Society has published a book entitled Delray Beach Memorial Gardens Index of Burials September 1903 – September 1987 which, among other listings, lists by block and lot the names of persons buried there and the date of their de ath. The City Clerk’s Of fice has a copy of this book.) CURRENT CEMETERY OPERATIONS ANALYSIS : Mr. Jack Hallahan, FRB Member, researched the Cemete ry operations and was informed that in January 1988 the Cemetery’s management was turned over to To tal Prearrangements, Inc. on a twenty (20) yea r contract. They were to manage sales of property and build a mausoleum. The City was to handle all o f 2 the maintenance, interments, site assignments, etc. T otal Prearrangements defaulted on the agreement. After seventeen (17) months it was given to anot her company to manage, named Prearrangements with the same functions. Under Total Prearrangements they sold property and gave deeds. Money was collected by this company during the 17 months, but there are no records. During the twenty (20) years of contracted ou tside management, City Employee Robert Johnson, the Cemetery Supervisor, “manually” kept records of who was buried and wh ere. After the operation of the Cemetery was brought back to City control, in 2008, Mr. Johnson wa s reportedly told he no longer needed to keep records, so he stopped. His records are the only ones in ex istence and now they are incomplete. (This is incorrect. When the City took back control of cemetery operations the City Clerk began keeping records in digital medi a using Pontem Cemetery Software. T he Parks Department and the City Clerk’s Office have compared their records and found that the Cler k’s office has the same records as the Parks Department either in their comp uter records or in a hard copy file.) Mr. Hallahan received a copy from Ci ty Clerk’s Office of all of the plot s that were sold and interments made over the past three (3) years. The City sold a tota l of thirty-five (35) grav esites, and there were 416 people buried. (Staff review of Fiscal Years 2009, 2010 and 2011 found 411 burials and 63 gravesites sold. See attached report.) This shows the pre-sold inventory is be ing depleted but there are no records o f the inventory. An intensive investigative method wo uld be needed to determin e who is buried where and which plots sold prior to 2008 are in use. Of the 35 plots that were sold since 2008, there are reportedly no records to show if they were used. (Information on whether plots have been used is recorded in the Pontem software. One can enter the block. lot and pl ot information in the digital record and the record will show if the plot is occupied or not.) The City charges Opening and Closing Fees yet th ere are reportedly no records showing for which plots these fees were paid and no cross-referencing of fees to plots. (Every burial is pursuant to an “Interment Request” which shows the block, lot and plot for wh ich the fees are paid. Se e the attached example.) Hence, there appears to be a lack of records show ing which plots are in use and which are vacant. (This and the preceding paragraph are incorrect. The Pontem Cemetery Software can produce a listing entitled “Delray Beach Municipal Cemetery Gr aves List”. See the attached ex ample. This list shows for every block, lot and plot the status as “Occupied”, “Sold” or “Reserved/Pre-need”. Plots which are in use are shown as “Occupied”. Vacant plots are shown as “S old” or “Reserved/Pre-need”. “Reserved/Pre-need ” means they are being paid for on a time payment plan. There is still work to be done to enter some of the information from the manual records into the software.) According to site plans of the Cemetery, there is a large drain pipe running through part of the Cemetery that reportedly rendered over 100 plots as unusable. Mr. Omar Bowra of the City Engineerin g Department deserves credit for his work in helping find the solution for the piping issue. First, he su pplied Mr. Hallahan with the design piping drawings and was requested to and then capable of superimposing the involved piping drawings on to the Cemetery Plot Plan. T his combined plan showed the 36” drain pipe appeared not to interfere with the burial sites in question. T his was later confirmed during an on-site inspection. Mr. Hallahan attempted to meet with City Empl oyee Tim Simmons to discuss and ascertain whether the 102 plots marked as unusable due to a 36” drain pipe were, indeed, usable. Mr. Simmons was not available so he met with Robert Johnson, Cemetery Supervisor, an d his immediate supervisor, Mr. Simmons’s assistant. They walked the 36” pipe and proved that there is sufficient distance from any of the plots and determined that these 102 plots could be sold and used. The City Clerk reminded Mr. Hallahan that the Ci ty Manager is the only one that has the authority to release the plots for sale. (Apparently there was some miscommunicati on on this issue. These plots have been made available for sale and no acti on by the City Manager is required.) In September, 2011, Mr. Hallahan was informed that there was to be a meeting between Parks and Recreation and the City Clerk’s Offi ce to confirm the number of grave si tes available for sale. Mr. Hallahan asked if he would be invited to atte nd that meeting and was told “No”. He was also told the meeting will not be recorded and no minutes will be taken. Mr . Hallahan has been recent ly informed by the City 3 Clerk’s office that this meeting has not been held as of this date. (Staff from the City Clerk’s Office and Parks and Recreation have met severa l times to work on merging their records. One of the outcomes o f these meetings will be a complete list of available grave sites.) Lastly, it is noted that the Annu al Income from Cemetery operatio ns is roughly $60,000 while the annual cost to operate the Cemetery is approximately $400,000. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. First and foremost, the City Clerk’s office needs to determine what plots have been presold but not yet used, the current “sold” inventory and what “sold” plots are not paid in full. Further, the total unsold inventory of plots available for sale n eeds to be ascertained and documented; (This is being worked on as staff time permits.) A suggested method of gathering this information is to include a “Notice to Residents” on the City website asking Residents to immediately contact the City Clerk’s office if they have a claim or a deed to a City cemetery plot and bring the do cumentation in for verification. T his Notice could al so be included in “News to Neighborhoods” communicati on. The Notice should also state that any outstanding balances past due must be paid within sixty (60) days of the public ation and/or notice date. All plots not fully paid by that date will be returned to the City’s inventor y and any partial payments will be forfeited without recourse and/or as permitted by law. (When the City took back administration of the Cemetery in 2008 an audit was performed to determine which cemetery lots were sold on an installment plan by Prearrangements. The Finance Depart ment put in a tremendous effort contacting those purchasers by letter and phone call. This resulted in some of the purchasers coming in to either pay in full or have the City buy back the lots. If the City was not contacted we have taken back the lots and have been selling them) After ascertaining the current status, records should be update d and computerized and processes should be set in place immediately for future sales, monitoring and inventorying of all plots plus documentation of all plot openings and closings; (This is already being done , except for entering some data from manual records into the computer record.) 2. There should only be one Cemetery Manager and that should be the City Clerk’s office. T his office is currently responsible for all cemete ry records, inventory, sales and communications rela ting to cemetery matters. The responsibility for Ce metery management (sales, records, handling all phone calls, emails and inquiries regarding the Cemetery and other administrative duties) should be handled solely by the City Clerk’s office with no involvement or oversi ght by the Parks and Recrea tion Department. It is strongly felt that having three (Two departments are involved; Pa rks and the City Clerk’s Office) separate City departments working on the Cemetery have contributed to the disorganization and lack o f accurate records. (We have accurate records since at leas t 1976, and we do not see any evidence o f disorganization.) Having one department solely responsible for the management will allow the processes and records to be stream lined and tracked more accurately; (This has been done since the City took back cemetery administration in 2008.) 3. The responsibility for physical and maintenance op erations of the Cemetery should be transferred, along with the permanent on-site personnel, to th e Public Works Department, since that Department’s Mission Statement appears more comp atible with Cemetery activities than the much larger Parks and Recreation Department’s. A copy of each of the Mission Statements is attached hereto as Attachments #1 and #2; (City staff strongly disagrees. Public Works does not do any maintenance o f turf, trees or shrubbery. On the other hand this type of work is the primary re sponsibility of the Parks Maintenance Division. When the ce metery needs extra help it is easy for Parks Maintenance to send fully qualified staff to assist. Furthermore, we l ook at the cemetery as a “park environment”.) 4. The staff member assigned to the Cemetery in the City Clerk’s office should meet regularly and as needed with the staff member a ssigned to oversee the Cemetery operation in the Public Works Department in order to facilitate open lines of communication between Management and the physical and maintenance operations of the Cemetery in order to avoid future misunderstandings; (There is 4 ongoing communication between th e Clerk’s Office and Parks and Recreation staff regarding the cemetery.) 5. Attached is a listing of adult burial costs for Delray Beach an d the neighboring city-owned and operated cemeteries for in-ground burials. This is Attachment #3. It is noted that Boca Raton reported having only one price as their experience has shown that getting around the non-resident classification is easily accomplishe d. Boca also charges a one-time Perpetual Care fee for all in-ground burials, in addition to the other normal and customary costs, a fee Delray Beach should also strongly consider charging. (Increases to cemetery fees were appr oved by the Commission on September 20.) Boynton Beach advised that they just moved th eir Cemetery operation to the Public Works Department from Parks and Recreation. (Boynton Beach has their enti re Parks Maintenance function under Public Works, which is the way some cities organize themse lves. In my experience, having Parks Maintenance in a different department leads to coordination problems and conflicts between park maintenance activities and park use activities.) T his has nothing to do with our same recommendation, which has been discussed for months by the FRB, and which wa s not reported to Mr. Hallahan until 3/23/2012. In Deerfield Beach, non-Resident fees are much higher and proof of Residency of the Deceased is much more defined. Acceptable proof must be curre nt and valid and must include a photo ID plus one other form of identification for the De ceased at a City address as follows: Voter Registration card Water bill Electric bill Bank statement Phone bill Current medical bill. Delray Beach’s proof of Residency is not definitive enough. The Administrative Policy, CC-2, Page 3 o f 6, Paragraph 4 is shown on Attachment #4 hereto and should be updated; (Although not explicit in our policy, we look for the same kinds of proof or residency as does Deerfiel d. We have amended ou r policy on this point to be more explicit.) 6. A review of the Parks and Recreation Cemetery budget shows the following costs, as shown on Attachment #5 hereto: Supervision function: $79,916. This equa tes to $6,660 per month and $533 per burial; Interment function: $88,777. This equa tes to $7398 per month and $582 per burial; General Maintenance function: $20 7,926, including water expenses of over $50,000 per year. T his equates to $5472 per acre per year and $1386 per burial. (Is it really appropriate to charge current burials for the ongoing maintenance costs fo r all the prior burials plus the vacant areas o f the cemetery? That is what a pe rpetual care fee would be used fo r. The invested principal would generate enough income for the perpetual care of the cemetery when it is full.) These figures are based on 38 acres for the Cemetery and 150 in-ground burials per year. It is noted that these fees do not include the cost s incurred by the City Cler k’s office in keeping the records for the cemetery operations, whic h is an additional $40,000+/- per year. (We did not add any staff to the Clerk’s Office when they were given respon sibility for cemetery records maintenance and lot sales. In fact, their staff has since been reduced. The incremental cost in the Clerk’s Office is $862 annually. We strongly disagree with the $40,000 stated above.) It is recognized that all burials are not adult in-ground burials so these figures may be slightly “off”. The above-stated costs show a to tal cost of $2511 per burial as compared with present in-ground burial fees of $1100 (resident) and $1485 (non -resident) netting a LOSS of over $1000 pe r burial; (As indicated above, we do not believe it woul d be appropriate to char ge current burials for the cost of maintaining previously used burial sites and vacant areas.) 5 7. It is highly recommended that the City Manager i mmediately review and appr ove the updating of the Cemetery plot inventory (work on this updating is ongoing an d requires no approval from the City Manager) and adjustment of burial fees since the current fee structure is inadequate compared to the costs incurred and in comparison to th e fees charged by neighboring cities; (Fee increases were approved by the Commission on September 20, 2012. Also, the City Clerk’s Office is working with Environmental Services GIS staff to develop a mapping program which will enable the Clerk’s Office to generate a map of the cemetery showing occupied pl ots, sold but vacant pl ots and available plots.) 8. The adequacy of burial sites within the City shou ld also be addressed by the City Manager and City Clerk. As reported by the Sun Sentinel, which re ported a few details incorrectly but covered most o f the story properly, Boca Raton believes it has 80 to 100 years’ supply of plots and Pompano Beach, with 3000 plots, reports having a 50-year supply. Delray Beach Ci ty employee Tim Simmons stated that Delray Beach would run out of plots within 5 to 7 years, base d on the current usage of 150 plots per year. This may or may not be the case since th ere is not currently a correct inventory of available plots but records show that only 35 plots have been sold in the last 3 years, starting in 2008. It is also noted that the Delray Beach Cemetery has a super-abundance of roadways, some of which could easily be converted to plots, ex tending the cemetery’s life another 50 to 100 years. Proper planning and land use would make a huge difference in the lifespan of the existing Cemetery. (We agree that as the cemetery fills there are access ways which can be platted into blocks and lots and sold.) 9. Pricing for all Cemetery categories should also be evaluated and adjusted to be in keeping with those of surrounding municipalities; (Staff agrees.) 10. It is noted that not all burials occur in the City Cemetery. T here are many private cemeteries throughout Broward and Palm Beach counties as well as the new Nati onal Cemetery in Lantana. 11. Periodic reviews of the Cemetery operations should be performed at least every three years to update progress and to implement and benchm ark future recommendations. The Financial Review Board wishes to Thank Board Member Jack Hallahan for his considerable efforts in researching this Department’s opera tions and in the formation of these considerable recommendations. 6 7 8 9 10 11 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, GISP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Direct or THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 14, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.E. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission for direction to either reject all bids or award a construction contract to the second low bidder for the US 1 Beau tification project which is from just south of SE 10th St to just north of George Bush Blvd, Project #2009-009. BACKGROUND This project has been in the planning and design st ages since 2002. The following is a timeline of the events that have already occurred related to this p roject: March 19, 2002; City Commission adopted the “Downtown Delray Beach Master Plan (Master Plan). One element of the Master Plan included the modific ation of US 1, both northbound and southbound, between SE 10th Street and George Bush Boulevard. December 2007; Commission approved the installation of the temporary modification along both northbound and southbound US 1. The temporary modi fication was implemented in an effort to observe how traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, along US 1 would operate under the Master Plan proposal. March 2008; temporary modifications were installed. February 2009; collected “after” data and compared to the “before” data, which was collected in April 2007, to analyze operation of corridor under lane r eduction proposal. May 2009; presented results of “before” and “after’ data analysis to Commission. Volumes were lower after lane reductions (this has been the trend on U S 1 since approximately 2000. Speeds were reduced by approximately 6 mph after lane reduction. Overal l crashes were reduced by approximately 50%, and a 75% reduction in crashes at the US 1 intersection s with Atlantic Avenue (at East 5th Avenue and East 6th Avenue). As a result of these positive findings , Commission approved proceeding with the final design and construction of this project. March 2012; Commission passed and adopted Resolutio n #19-12 authorizing the proper city officials to execute a local Agency Program (LAP) agreement with FDOT for the improvements along US 1 corridor. These improvements included: landscaping, lighting, minor drainage improvements and resurfacing both US 1 and E Atlantic Ave between so uthbound US 1 and northbound US 1. May 2012; FDOT issued the City a Notice to Proceed for the bidding, award and construction of this project. Several grants were obtained to assist in funding t his project. Those grants are as follows: $2,803,189.00 Federal Grants $4,405,369.00 State Funding In addition to these grants the City has also recei ved $178,734.00 in private contributions from development along this corridor. The balance of fun ding will be provided from Fund 442 Utility Renewal/Replacement, Fund 448 Storm Water and the C RA. On 19 July 2012 the City opened bids for this beaut ification project. Ric-Man International was the apparent low bidder with a bid of $11,178,888.40. A total of eight bids were received and the highest bid received was $19,114,210.10 (see Bid Summary be low). FDOT identified possible irregularities in the apparent low bid and before FDOT would provide bid concurrency, a letter from Ric-Man International indicating that they will honor all b id prices was required. After several attempts to o btain this letter from Ric-Man International, staff was t old that due to errors in some of the sub-contractors bid prices this required letter will not be forthco ming. Bid Summary After discussions with FDOT, staff was given two op tions for moving forward; 1)Award to the second low bidder, or 2)Reject all bids and rebid the project Staff has contacted the 2nd apparent low bidder to obtain assurances that if Commission chooses this option, they would be able to provide FDOT with a l etter indication they can hold their prices for thi s contract (a letter from Sealand Contractors to the City is attached). The 2nd low bidder is Sealand Contractors, with a bid of $12,486,957.77, which is $1,308,079.37 higher than the apparent lower bid. Staff has had conversations with FDOT explaining th e situation and trying to decide the best course of action. Typically FDOT would just go to the 2nd app arent low bidder and award the contract, but in thi s case the additional $1,308,079.37 funding needed to award to the low bidder would be provided by the City and/or CRA. Staff feels that rebidding the pro ject may result in a bid lower than the second low Contractor Total Cost Ric -Man International $11,178,888.40 Sealand Contractors $12,486,967.77* Bergeron Land $14,349,228.06* Ocean Bay $14,664,493.21* Gibbs & Register $15,505,999.09 Weekley Asphalt $15,851,865.36* West Construction $17,318,445.20* JW Cheatham $19,114,210.10* *corrected due to error in bid bidder. If the City decides to not go with the seco nd low bidder and rebid this project, the $2,803,18 9.00 in federal grants may be at risk because the notice to proceed, dated 08 May 2012, indicates that the invoicing for reimbursement of construction costs s hould begin in this month. FDOT has indicated that they do not know if the federal funds will be remov ed or be retained until the first actual constructi on invoice is submitted. FUNDING SOURCE See attached CIP Summary Sheet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends rejecting bids and rebidding this project. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 16, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.F. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 UNFREEZING A BUILDING INSPECTOR POSITION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The Community Improvement Department is requesting that the Commission approve unfreezing a Building Inspector position. BACKGROUND As has been previously reported to the Commission, since the spring of this year there has been a larg e increase in construction activity in the City. The attached memorandum from the Chief Building Official outlines the increases in inspection workl oad resulting from this increase in building activi ty. If the Building Inspection Division is to be responsiv e to the needs of the construction industry and provide a high level of service, we need to have ad ditional staff. We have also attached a report of the permit revenu e which was received in October. The amount of revenue received is 165% of the amount projected fo r any one month this year. Based on the projects in the pipeline, which we are aware of because of applications being reviewed by the Planning Department, we expect that permit reve nue for the year will exceed budget projections by a significant amount. These additional permit reve nues should be more than enough to pay the cost of unfreezing this position. FUNDING SOURCE The cost of this position will be included in the m id-year budget amendment, with funding from the additional permit revenue in excess of the amount c urrently budgeted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission approve unfree zing one Building Inspector position. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:November 14, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.G. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 POLICY ON NAMING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission consideration of establishing a pol icy and procedure to govern the honorary naming of public places. BACKGROUND The policy is intended to add meaning, significance and uniformity to the honorary naming of public facilities, to minimize conflict and to provide a f orum for meaningful discussion regarding naming. In addition, a consistent naming policy lends continui ty and a sense of community and establishes a means of appropriately recognizing prominent individuals and those who have substantially contributed to the City, the State or the Nation. This proposed process can generate opportunities to induce dynamic community impact, create sensitivity and lasting public relations, express a ppreciation, and can serve as a means of education. For purposes of this policy, a public place means a ny building, facility, park lands, and other public spaces owned by or under the control of the the Cit y, including interior and component spaces integral to the whole. This policy does not govern the naming of streets, per the direction of the City Commission, which adopted the following policy on January 25, 1994: "It is the policy of the City Commission of the Cit y of Delray Beach, Florida not to entertain requests for the changing of street names in order to recogn ize or honor individuals." The following words will have the meaning attribute d to them: A. “Civic or Charitable Group”shall mean a non-profit entity or group that has made a substantial contribution to the community, either t hrough civic involvement, involvement in historic events relevant to specific City property, or to the geographical location of specific City property; or made a financial and/or in-kind donation to support a specific public service or City property. For-profit entities of any type shall not be considered a civic or charitable group. B. “Individual”shall mean a person who has made a substantial cont ribution to the community, either through civic involvement, involvement in hi storical events relevant to the specific City property, financial contribution or to the geo graphical location of specific City property. C. “Honorary Naming Rights”shall mean the naming of City property to honor the service, commitment, or other type of participation by an in dividual, or civic or charitable group. D. “Properties”refers to City assets including, but not limited to , real property, facilities, parks, features (e.g. rooms, playgrounds, etc.) and other assets, but not including streets and lanes. E. “City Property” shall mean City-owned or controlled real property, public facilitie s such as buildings or parks, features or attributes of a fac ility such as a bench, tree, bridge, walkway, hallway or room, or other public venue. PROCESS : The process to establish honorary naming rights for City property shall be as follows: Any City Commissioner, citizen, group of citizens, or entity or organization may submit an honorary naming proposal to name City property after an indi vidual, civic or charitable group. The naming right s proposal shall be in writing and shall be reviewed by the City Manager or his/her designee, and if fou nd to be in compliance with applicable City policies, shall be referred to a naming committee established under this policy. Honorary naming proposals must include the credenti als, character and reputation of the individual, civic or charitable group for whom the naming is be ing considered. As such, nominations submitted for consideration must be accompanied by appropriate su pporting documentation. The City shall establish a “Facility Naming Committ ee” to review and make recommendations to the Commission on naming proposals. The membership of the committee shall be comprised of representatives from City departments (designated b y the City Manager), plus representation from advisory groups, or friends, or recognized support groups with an interest in the property or facility to be named. The Facility Naming Committee shall review the merits of the naming proposal and supporting documentation as submitted and any other applicable history or other information deemed pertinent to the request. The committee shall conve ne meetings as necessary. After considering the naming rights proposal, the c ommittee will provide their recommendation to the Commission, providing supportive information as app ropriate to justify the recommendation. The City Commission shall consider the committee re commendation. The approval of any honorary naming nomination shall be by resolution of the Cit y Commission. RECOMMENDATION City Commisison direction. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Douglas E. Smith, Assistant City Manager THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 14, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.H. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 STATE AND FEDERAL LOBBYING SERVICES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is discussion of state a nd federal lobbying services. BACKGROUND At the October 16, 2012 Regular Meeting, the City C ommission selected Ballard Partners to provide lobbying services to the City regarding transient h ousing legislation. The Commission also expressed interest in considering a full-service state lobbyist from the group of firms that had already submitted proposals. In addition, the Commission discussed f ederal level lobbying at the October 16 meeting. Staff requested additional information from the sev en (7) firms that provided lobbying proposals: Ballard Partners, Capitol Alliance, Ericks Consulta nts, Florida Strategic Group, Greenberg Traurig, Ronald Book, and Weiss, Handler & Cornwell. Addit ional information from each firm is attached along with the original proposals. The additional information requested provided includes confirmatio n of the types of lobbying service offered, types of federal lobbying services/assistance that may be available, and information on several bills that th e firms lobbied for or against during the past stat e legislative session. Some information about the fi rms has been summarized in the attached Comparison Table. Staff will be prepared to discuss the various propo sals at the Commission meeting. In addition, a 2013 Key State Legislative Issues Dr aft document is attached for your information. It provides some updated information, including some t ext from Florida League of Cities documents. RECOMMENDATION Commission Discretion. State Lobbying Services - Summary Information Capitol Alliance Offices: Tallahassee Office plus professional associations with firms in West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, and Atlanta 2 $45,000 1 year No additional costs Yes Yes Yes, Palm Beach County, SFWMD, Army Corps Yes - in person, conference call, skype, video conferencing. Conf./video calls weekly during session. In person once a quarter or whenever necessary Yes, assist with strategic analysis of legislative needs and develop legislative agenda and educating/briefing Commission Yes, weekly during session; monthly during off session Yes, on specific issues. Also partner with Patton Boggs on various congressional appropriations issues. Very close relationship with FL Congressional delegation, and work closely with them on issues that impact FL and their clients. Strong relationships with White House and Executive Agencies and work on issues that affect their clients with those contacts. Work with Patton Boggs (full services federal lobbying firm) on legislation and appropriations items that affect their FL clients. City of Key West, Leon County, Port of Palm Beach , AT&T Develop City's Legislative Agenda Yes Clients have Included:Provide Federal Lobbying Services (summary of responses)Firm Name & Location # Legislative Lobbying Staff Assigned Cost Additional Costs (i.e. travel, printing) Max $250 per year. Anything else requires City pre- approval Yes Yes Yes Boca Raton, Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach, Martin Co. & Polk Co. Yes Yes Lobby State Legislature Lobby Exec. Branch/ State Agencies Lobby local and other agencies Meet on Regular Basis with City Provide Weekly Legislative Updates 3 (plus others as needed) $45,000 1 year Ballard Partners Offices : Tallahassee, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa No. The Firm has for other clients in the past, assisted on an as needed basis (at no additional cost) with members of the Florida Delegation. Excellent relationships with nearly all Members of Congress from Florida and even several from outside the State. In any situation the firm can assist in setting up meetings or advocating for positions beneficial to the City, they are willing to do so. Have done this in the past specifically on federal appropriations projects and in helping with decisions out of the Army Corps of Engineers. Have partnered with federal lobbying firms: Patton Boggs, Alcalde & Fay, Barbour Griffith and Rogers. They would base their recommendation on the issues and scope of work needed. State Lobbying Services - Summary Information Develop City's Legislative Agenda Yes Clients have Included:Provide Federal Lobbying Services (summary of responses)Firm Name & Location # Legislative Lobbying Staff Assigned Cost Additional Costs (i.e. travel, printing) Max $250 per year. Anything else requires City pre- approval Yes Yes Yes Boca Raton, Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach, Martin Co. & Polk Co. Yes Yes Lobby State Legislature Lobby Exec. Branch/ State Agencies Lobby local and other agencies Meet on Regular Basis with City Provide Weekly Legislative Updates 3 (plus others as needed) $45,000 1 year Ballard Partners Offices : Tallahassee, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa No. The Firm has for other clients in the past, assisted on an as needed basis (at no additional cost) with members of the Florida Delegation. Excellent relationships with nearly all Members of Congress from Florida and even several from outside the State. In any situation the firm can assist in setting up meetings or advocating for positions beneficial to the City, they are willing to do so. Have done this in the past specifically on federal appropriations projects and in helping with decisions out of the Army Corps of Engineers. Have partnered with federal lobbying firms: Patton Boggs, Alcalde & Fay, Barbour Griffith and Rogers. They would base their recommendation on the issues and scope of work needed. Ericks Consulting - offices in Tallahassee and Fort Lauderdale 4 $40,000 1 year All inclusive, except that for extensive travel, such as with federal issues, would request advance approval for expenses Yes Yes Yes, the entire team can lobby those and other agencies with the exception of Candice Eriks who cannot lobby Palm Beach County Yes Yes Yes Have strong relationships at the federal level and have assisted clients with federal issues. Many issues that they deal with at a state level are contingent on various Federal components. For example, they have worked for years collectively with clients such as Broward County, Palm Beach County, other cities, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority and JM Family on issues that require federal cooperation to succeed on a state or local level. Have also worked closely with the Administration for Children & Families’A ssistantASecretary,AGeorgeASheldon,A who served as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Family Services before leaving for DC. They have relationships with various firms and would help the City team with whichever firm would be most effective depending on the specific issue being addressed. Broward County, Broward County Property Appraiser, Broward County Sheriff, Coconut Creek, Coral Springs, Fort Lauderdale, North Lauderdale, Pembroke Pines, Plantation, Palm Beach County, Davie Florida Strategic Group Offices: Lakeland 2 $36,000 1 year None Yes Yes Yes - as necessary Yes Yes Yes Yes. Currently provide federal consulting for the City of Lakeland and can develop a similar program for the City of Delray Beach. City of Lakeland, FL Association of Code Enforcement Yes - imperative to gain understanding of issues important to City. Should be a collaborative effort. 2 (plus others available to assist) $60,000 1 year Travel. Expect to keep to minimum. Plus typically include pre-approval for expenses over a certain level. Yes Yes Would focus on state level. However they have strong working relationships with local agencies (DB County and SFWMD). In FL and DC, have expertise working with US Army Corps and Corps of Engineers Yes - regular meetings will ensure highest level of representation for the City. Will meet in manner that best suits City (in person or conference call) Yes - During session, legislative language can change quickly. Important that close contact is maintained to ensure they are appropriately advocating our position. Greenberg Traurig Offices : Tallahassee (other FL offices - Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, Palm Beach County, Tampa) City of North Port, Florida Association of Court Clerks, AT&T Yes. DC Governmental Affairs team has successfully provided legislative representation and lobbying at the federal level for a number of municipal clients. Their team has achieved fiscal and policy successes on behalf of their municipal clients, securing more than $250 million in funding over the past decade. State Lobbying Services - Summary Information Develop City's Legislative Agenda Yes Clients have Included:Provide Federal Lobbying Services (summary of responses)Firm Name & Location # Legislative Lobbying Staff Assigned Cost Additional Costs (i.e. travel, printing) Max $250 per year. Anything else requires City pre- approval Yes Yes Yes Boca Raton, Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach, Martin Co. & Polk Co. Yes Yes Lobby State Legislature Lobby Exec. Branch/ State Agencies Lobby local and other agencies Meet on Regular Basis with City Provide Weekly Legislative Updates 3 (plus others as needed) $45,000 1 year Ballard Partners Offices : Tallahassee, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa No. The Firm has for other clients in the past, assisted on an as needed basis (at no additional cost) with members of the Florida Delegation. Excellent relationships with nearly all Members of Congress from Florida and even several from outside the State. In any situation the firm can assist in setting up meetings or advocating for positions beneficial to the City, they are willing to do so. Have done this in the past specifically on federal appropriations projects and in helping with decisions out of the Army Corps of Engineers. Have partnered with federal lobbying firms: Patton Boggs, Alcalde & Fay, Barbour Griffith and Rogers. They would base their recommendation on the issues and scope of work needed. Yes Yes Yes. During session, provide written reports weekly and phone and e‐mailAupdatesAasA necessary for priority issues. Also provide written reports and updates coinciding with all interim committee meeting weeks in Dec., Jan.and Feb. Yes - maintain close working relationships with professionals in the Governor's office and state agencies. Yes - will also work closely with the Florida League of Cities on any item approved by the City. Yes - make themselves available to clients as requested. Able to meet with City officials/ staff in Delray Beach or by conference call at any time Boca Raton, PBC Sheriff & Broward County Sheriff Yes. During legislative session will provide a weekly summary report detailing legislative action taken during the week, status of legislative issues, and anticipated action during the upcoming week. 19 Florida Cities & 4 Counties 3 $50,000 1 year None Yes Yes Yes Weiss, Handler & Cornwell Offices : Boca Raton, Tallahassee Ronald Book Offices : Aventura and Tallahassee Do not provide federal lobbying services, but can assist with arranging meetings with federal representatives, congressional staff and federal agencies. Extremely well accessed within the entire Florida Delegation and with many members outside of the Florida Delegation. Do not partner with any firms that provide federal lobbying services, but could provide a short list of firms that they believe the city should consider for federal lobbying services. Yes, Have many relationships with the Executive Branch, numerous agencies, and both Houses of Congress. Work on both legislative initiatives and Executive Branch implementation of adopted legislation. Firm's federal lobbying services are coordinated through Joseph Abruzzo 3 $35,000 Nov. 2012 - May 2013 Any additional expense must be agreed upon by City before incurred Yes - maintain an office in Tallahassee; there full time during committee weeks and legislative session and frequently when the legislature is not in session. Yes - currently lobby Palm Beach County for other clients and have close contacts and experience working with Palm Beach County Commissioners, Constitutional Officers and their respective staffs and the SFWMD City of Delray Beach - Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Ballard Partners Contact Information: Joe McCann, 403 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, FL 32301. (850) 577-0444. 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach Brian Ballard, President Joe McCann, Senior Vice President Mat Forrest, Governmental Consultant (Greg Turbeville, Carol Bracy and John Johnson to be utilized on an as needed basis) 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) Maximum $250 per year. Anything else would have to be pre -approved by the City. 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobbylocal and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., in - person, conference call, etc.) Yes e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Yes Executive Branch and State Agencies 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. No. a. Ifyour firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. The Firm has for other clients in the past, assisted on an as needed basis (at no additional cost) with members of the Florida Delegation. We have excellent relationships with nearly all Members of Co ngress from Florida and even several from outside the State. In any situation where the Firm can assist in setting up meetings or advocating for positions beneficial to the City we are more than willing to do so. We have done this in the past specifically on federal appropriations projects and in helping with decisions out of the Army Corps of Engineers. Washington lobbying, however, is very difficult to do from Tallahassee for obvious reasons. The City would be better served to contract with a Firm in t he D.C. area with relationships beyond Florida. b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. We have partnered with several federal lobbying firms. We have done work in the past with: Patton Boggs, Alcalde & Fay and Barbour, Griffith and Rogers. All provide full service in the federal lobbying arena. We would base our recommendation on the issue and scope of work needed. 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. The Firm had a very busy legislative session last year. Examples of lobbying for/against are: On the appropriations front: we were successful in funding for the Elliott Museum in Martin County, funding for a work release program within the Department of Corrections, protecting nursing home’s from significant rate cuts, holding Miami C hildren’s Hospital harmless from medicaid cuts and other individual projects such as funding for the Baptist Hospital Outpatient facility. On the legislative side 2012 was a year with a great deal of defense. One example was one of the most controversial bills of the year. We were able to work to defeat legislation, against great odds, that would have made it very difficult to for physicians to continue dispensing medications to workers comp patients. City of Delray Beach ‐ Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Capitol Alliance Group Contact Information: Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey (Jeff@capitolalliancegroup.com) 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach 2 Professional staff assigned to City Client Services Management 1. Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey, Managing Partner 2. Ms. Barbara Flury 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) No additional costs 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes, Palm Beach County, SFWMD, Army Corps d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., in ‐ person, conference call, etc.) Yes, meetings in person, via conference call, skype, video conferencing 1. Conference Calls/Video calls on a weekly basis during legislative session; 2. In person meetings once a quarter or whenever necessary e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes, we assist with strategic analysis of legislative needs and develop legislative agenda with all of our clients as well as assist in educating and briefing council members on agenda f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes, weekly during session and Monthly during off session periods g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and Yes State Agencies 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. Yes, on specific issues. In addition we partner with Patton Boggs on various congressional appropriations issues. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. We have very close relationsh ips with Florida Congressional delegation and staff and work closely with them on issues that impact Florida and our clients. In addition, we have strong professional and person al relationships with senior staff at the White House and Ex ecutive Agencies, such as US DOT,US Dept of Commerce, US DEP, Homeland Security and work on issues that affect our clients with thos e contacts b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. Patton Boggs is a full service federal lobbying firm with extensive congressional and Ex ecutive Branch contacts with both political parties. We work closely with them on legislation and appropriations items that affect our clients in Florida. They provide a full range of lobbying services and widely respected as one of the top 10 firms in DC 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. SB 1996 – Dept of Economic Opportunity – prime advocate on bill related to community economic development and workforce housing, successful in passing language that authorized priority funding for workforce housing in various communities. HB 1223 – Relating to Highway Safety and motor Vehicles – we were successful in passing se veral provisions in this bill that would allow for FDOT to fund bicycle transportation as part of the state Strategic Intermodal system. State Legislative Lobbyist for the City of Delray Beach, Florida Proposal October 11, 2012 Submitted By: Capitol Alliance Group 106 E. College Ave #640 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850)224-1660 Fax: (850)224-6785 Contact Person: Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey I.Introduction The Capitol Alliance Group is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Delray Beach for State Lobbying Services. As one of Florida’s top state level government relations’ firms in Florida with extensive experience in strategic issues’ management , public policy analysis and government relations advocacy for a diverse list of private and public sector clients, as well as the creation and development of transient rental ordinances. With strong bi-partisan Democratic and Republican credentials, each member of the firm possesses strong professional experience working in the private, public and legislative sectors and is widely recognized as being a leader in the Florida lobbying corps. The firm enjoys a strong reputation for unparalleled integrity, professionalism and commitment to its’ clients and to the lobbying process. The Capitol Alliance Group also has great contacts with Florida’s Congressional Delegation and would be willing to assist Delray Beach in their federal priorities with a cost effective partner. The CAG partners are experts at analyzing critical policy issues, assessing economic and political trends at the national, state and local levels, and evaluating and recommending political and legislative strategies for resolving the challenges facing businesses and local governments. The partners in the Alliance each have more than two decades of experience each working inside and outside of state and local governments at the highest level, including such diverse positions as former member of the Florida Legislature, State Agency Director, Senior Staff to the Governor and Consultant to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Their professional experience, close working relationships with Governor Scott, the Speaker (and Speakers-elect) of the House, Senate President (and Senate Presidents-elect) and other top policy makers in the Executive and Legislative branches of government, coupled with their extensive knowledge of the political process, and their enthusiasm and stringent business ethics, makes The Capitol Alliance Group one of the premier lobbying and issues management groups in Florida and an excellent legislative consultant partner for City of Delray Beach. The firm’s clients represent a diverse cross section of public and private sector interests, but CAG is known for its strong knowledge base and expertise in legislative and agency issues related to local governments, including transportation, economic and tourism development, housing, urban and community development, property taxation and environmental permitting and regulation, among others. II.Firm Background The Capitol Alliance Group, Inc. has a stellar reputation as a government relations' consulting firm with a proven track record of success in serving a broad range of client's interest at the state and local level in Florida along with a strong presence in DC with the Florida congressional delegation. Created in 1995 in Tallahassee, FL by a team of seasoned government relations professionals with diverse political and professional lobbying experiences, the Capitol Alliance Group has client and professional interests ranging from Pensacola to Jacksonville to Key West. Led by Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey, the professional staff includes 6 research and support staff, all focused on providing high level, quality service to the diverse array of clients represented by the firm. The firm prides itself on outstanding client services, research driven strategies, and performance based outcomes. With offices in Tallahassee, and professional associations with firms in West Palm Beach, Jacksonville and Atlanta, the firm's partners have a strong understanding of the critical legislative and regulatory issues affecting businesses and organizations. The firm is best known for its’ ability to analyze complex policy issues, assess economic and political trends, and recommend successful political and legislative strategies for resolving the challenges facing their public and private sector clients. In addition, the firm’s core operating principles value straightforward, honest and frequent client communications to help manage and maintain client expectations during the ever-changing issue dynamics during the legislative session in Tallahassee - extremely important in working with local government elected officials and staff who need to understand the impact of policy decisions on their citizens and budgets. The members of Capitol Alliance Group understand the needs of local elected officials and staff and are extremely familiar with the issues facing local governments at the state level, and the possible implications they might have on the City of Delray Beach. Their close working relationships with top policy makers in the Executive and Legislative branches of government, extensive knowledge of the political process, unbridled enthusiasm and stringent business ethics, has made The Capitol Alliance Group one of the premier lobbying and issues management groups in the Southern region. III.Client Representation We have provided a summary list of clients the firm has represented over the last several years. As indicated, the firm’s government relations advocacy focuses on a wide variety of industry and local government interests affecting almost every aspect of Delray Beach and Florida; including: •Local government finance and operations •Aerospace •Property Taxation •Transportation •Information and Systems Technology •Public Safety and EMS •Coastal Erosion and Beach re-nourishment •Economic and Tourism Development •Property Insurance •Pension Funds and Retirement plans •Workforce and Affordable Housing •Sustainable Community Development •Growth Management •Telecommunications •Energy and Alternative Energies •Education •Health Care More importantly, Capitol Alliance Group professionals focus extensively on the state appropriations process, working hard to insert client budget priorities into the agency and Governor’s budget and working closely with the legislative appropriations members to ensure successful passage of budget items in the final appropriations bills. IV.Local Government Advocacy Experience CAG has represented local governments, special districts, and community public private partnerships to the Florida Legislature, Governor’s office and state agencies, including Leon County , City of North Miami , City of Key West , City of Tallahassee, and others. The firm has a first-hand understanding of local government financial and fiscal dynamics, infrastructure requirements, regulatory concerns, growth management pressures, and the unique, if not strained, working relationship that has emerged over the last several years between the legislature and local counties and cities. The CAG partners are well versed on the impact of “unfunded mandates” from the legislature, the recent fiscal pressures created by the property tax reform initiatives, as well as the unique legislative obstacles and opportunities available to City of Delray Beach. CAG has worked closely with the Florida League of Cities in pursuing their legislative agenda on behalf of all of it’s members. Recently, representing Leon County in the Capitol City, our role has often been to work closely with FAC and the League on the development of legislative strategies on a myriad of issues. V.Advocacy Team for the City of Delray Beach The Capitol Alliance Group will assign it’s top legislative professionals to service the contract with the City. Often times, lobbying firms will delegate responsibilities for local government issues to junior staff. CAG understands the complexities of local government issues and believes that its best team needs to be “on the field” to ensure success on these issues. For many years, state government passed frequent unfunded mandates on to cities and counties and questioned local governments’ home rule authority. Because of that mindset, we believe our top lobbyists need to be at the forefront communicating and advocating with legislators on the needs of the city. The following chart identifies the professional client management team assigned to the City of Delray Beach contract. Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey (Project Manager) – Dr. Sharkey is the founding member and Managing Partner of the firm. He has over 22 years of lobbying experience in addition to 6 years of employment at senior positions in the Executive and Legislative branches of Florida Government. His lobbying expertise includes transportation, infrastructure, growth management, affordable housing and ad valorem taxation. In addition, Dr. Sharkey is widely known for his knowledge of highway, transit, rail, seaport and airport funding, as well as growth management, water and waste water infrastructure regulation and financing. He is well versed on local government legislative issues, having represented the City of Tallahassee for 5 years and currently representing other cities and special districts around the state of Florida. Dr. Sharkey has been at the forefront of advocacy of affordable housing since the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992. He and the professionals in his firm have a great deal of expertise in successfully addressing the legislative and regulatory issues facing local governments and businesses interested in sustainable community development, infrastructure financing, and transportation access. He has developed strong professional relationships with the legislative leadership, committee and appropriations staff, the Governor’s office and Agency heads to ensure the needs of his clients are understood and respected. City of Delray Beach City Commission Mr. Joe Arnall (Associate Partner) Dr. Jeffrey Sharkey (Partner and Project Manager) Ms. Barbara Flury (Associate) Mr. Corey Peterson (Legislative Programs Director) In addition, Dr. Sharkey has been actively involved in statewide issue campaigns for over fifteen years, providing him rare insight into the politics and an ability to shape successful business and community development projects. He has been successful in creating, mobilizing and evaluating public policy issues and trends to position his clients to prepare and take advantage of new challenges and opportunities occurring in the arenas of state and local governments. He is ultimately familiar with the dynamics that are created when local, state and national politics intersect with the desire to shape public policy in the local, Legislative or Executive branches of government. Dr. Sharkey is closely attuned to the budget and other community issues facing the City of Delray Beach. Having lived in Palm Beach County for 5 years and spending ample time in Delray Beach, he is familiar with the structure and operations of local government and can help immediately to enhance the city visibility with state legislators and state agencies quickly and effectively. Dr. Sharkey began his professional career as a teacher and school administrator and has worked in England, Thailand, Latin America and in other parts of the world as a consultant for various international agencies. He has worked for the Dept of Education, Office of the Governor, and Florida Legislator, all in senior staff positions. A native of Minnesota, he holds a B.S. degree in English, a M.Ed. in Educational Research, a M.S. in Sociology and Economics and a Ph.D. from Florida State University in International Development. He serves on a multitude of non profit boards, including Florida Association of Volunteer Action for the Caribbean and the Americans, Children’s Miracle Network, member of Leadership Florida and He is also a small business owner with several restaurants in Tallahassee. He is married and lives in Tallahassee. Mr. Corey Peterson – Mr. Peterson is the Legislative Programs Manager for the Capitol Alliance Group and longtime resident of City of Delray Beach. During Corey’s tenure in City of Delray Beach, he was immersed in the issues effecting the county and it’s residents. Corey has specific City of Delray Beach knowledge of the space industry, coastal economic development, tourism, education and property insurance. With Four years of direct legislative experience with major appropriations issues and a concentrated focus on local governance, property taxation, and agency regulation issues, he has proven herself to be a tireless advocate for client’s interest. In addition to legislative issues management, he has developed excellent relations with the state agency management leadership and interfaces regularly with the agency Secretaries to ensure that clients have access to top decision makers. Mr. Peterson is a graduate of Florida State University. He is responsible for mobilizing legislation and communicating with legislators and agency representatives on the needs of the clients. Mr. Peterson lives in Tallahassee Mr. Joseph H. Arnall – Mr. Arnall was a member of the Florida Legislature from the Jacksonville area for 12years, from 1990 to 2002, serving as the powerful Rules Chair for the last 4 years of his career when the Republican minority took over as the majority. He is now a partner with Capitol Alliance Group and manages the Jacksonville and Atlanta offices. During his tenure in the legislature, he was respected by his colleagues as a strong advocate and expert in a variety issue areas, including insurance, growth management, transportation, telecommunications and banking. Mr. Arnall is a Chartered Life Underwriter and Financial Consultant by profession, and his business interests include insurance and real estate. He has been an effective lobbyist for a variety of client interests and has maintained his strong relationship with leadership in the Florida Legislature and Governor’s office. He has held membership in Chartered Life Underwriters, Jacksonville Chapter; Life Member of the Million Dollar Round Table; Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce; National Trust for Historic Preservation; and the American Legislative Exchange Council; the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Chamber. VI.Why Choose Capitol Alliance Group Ability, Character and Skill of the proposer to perform the Contract The Capitol Alliance Group is widely respected by Legislators, Executive Branch leadership and other lobbyists as one of the top statewide legislative advocacy firms in Florida. Based in Tallahassee, and with affiliated associates in West Palm Beach, and Jacksonville, the firm’s partner’s have over 50 years of experience working inside and outside of state and local governments. The firm’s principles have extensive experience representing cities, counties, special districts, and CRA’s as well as a wide variety of industries and businesses throughout the state so they understand how large and small policy decisions contemplated in the halls of the Capitol affect the ability of public and private entities to manage their organizations, customers and their future. The firm partners have personal experience working the process as legislators, legislative staff directors, senior Governor’s staff, cabinet aides and other positions within state government so they understand the culture of decision making within that environment. As private government relations professionals, they have represented a significant diversity of issues affecting almost every facet of Florida. Between the partners collectively, the firm has drafted and passed over 50 pieces of legislation, worked to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriations and defeated hundreds of bills and amendments that would harm the interest of our clients. We have exceptionally strong skills in working the appropriations committees in the House and Senate as well as a wide variety of substantive committee issue areas. Representing local governments takes a unique set of skills and communication abilities, which members of CAG have honed to ensure we meet our local government client expectations. We have attached a letter of reference from the Leon County County Administrator, one of our local government clients with whom we have worked and performed successfully. We bring a unique blend of tireless enthusiasm, unparalleled knowledge of the legislative process, and exceptional advocacy skills to our clients needs. The firm has a strong affinity, history and understanding of issues directly related to the City. In particular, key members of the firm have longstanding ties to Palm Beach County. In addition the firm is one of the top lobbying firms in Florida on issues related to seaport, airport and intermodal transportation issues, having represented the Florida Ports Council for 10 years, the Florida Airports Council for 4 years and the Florida Intermodal Transportation Association since it’s inception. Also, the firm is well respected for it’s knowledge of sustainable community development, growth management and coastal management, all of which are directly related to Delray Beach economic, community and social development. The Character, Integrity, Reputation, Judgment, Experience and Efficiency of the Firm The CAG firm is committed to the highest levels of professionalism, commitment to client goals and reputation and successful accomplishment of the clients’ legislative and regulatory agenda. Survivability in the government relations advocacy business is directly related to the trust your clients place in you and how well you maintain that trust. The CAG has been successfully proving to clients our dependability, honesty and integrity for over 17 years, with a tremendous level of client retention, which is a testimony to what we believe is a level of outstanding service and professionalism. Our experience allows us to navigate the complicated legislative process quickly and effectively. Our cultivated relationships with top legislative leadership in both chambers and both parties allows us access to key decision-makers, accurate assessment of emerging issues, and input into final decisions on legislation, amendments and appropriations items. All of this, combined with our strategic insights into how issues trend in multiple dimensions during legislative discussions, allows us to successfully affect the changes that our clients need during this process. We are certain that our extensive institutional knowledge of the legislative and regulatory process, superb relationships with the Governor, Senior Cabinet members and Legislators, along with their strategic political acumen will prove to be invaluable during the tumultuous legislative and budget process over the next year. Knowledge of the General Character and environment of Florida Cities, including successful experience serving local governments in Florida As mentioned, CAG has represented local governments, special districts, and community public private partnerships to the Florida Legislature, Governor’s office and state agencies, including Leon County , City of North Miami , City of Key West , City of Tallahassee, and others. The firm has a first-hand understanding of local government financial and fiscal dynamics, infrastructure requirements, regulatory concerns, growth management pressures, and the unique, if not strained, working relationship that has emerged over the last several years between the legislature and local counties and cities. The CAG partners are well versed on the impact of “unfunded mandates” from the legislature, the recent fiscal pressures created by the property tax reform initiatives, as well as the unique legislative obstacles and opportunities available to City of Delray Beach. CAG has worked closely with the Florida League of Cities in pursuing their legislative agenda on behalf of all of it’s members. Because of this, we understand extremely well the concerns and culture of cities and local governments. We have attached a list of successful appropriations items for our local government clients for your review. In addition, CAG works year round, not just during legislative session, on regulatory and state agency issues for it’s local government clients to assist with their needs. This is particularly important with the level of federal funding flowing into the state through various agencies. We would assist Delray Beach in pursuing funding for projects that are either on the federal stimulus list or for which they may be eligible. Legislative Reporting Capitol Alliance Group believes in keeping their clients informed of the latest developments with pending legislation and proposed actions by state government agencies and officials. For that reason, the members of Capitol Alliance Group use an integrated communications system to keep clients aware of all developments. To ensure success, Capitol Alliance Group holds weekly conference calls to discuss priorities, strategies and intelligence. Also, Capitol Alliance Group provides weekly legislative updates entitled “Capitol Update” to offer important legislation tracking information. These updates are provided during committee weeks and throughout the Legislative Session on every Friday by 5 p.m. This valuable piece of information allows for Capitol Alliance Group and its clients to prepare for the week ahead and reflect on the movement of legislation throughout the process. This effective tool provides enormous benefit to the client and tracking the progression of their established priorities. VII.Compensation We are providing a two tiered Fee for Service proposal. The first is for a Single Issue contract, where CAG would be hired to successfully accomplish legislative approval on one major item for the City. The second contract is for a full legislative advocacy arrangement where CAG would advocate on behalf of the City for any and all issues affecting the City. Single Issue Contract - The all inclusive retainer fee for State Lobbying Services as identified in this proposal shall be $25,000 for eight (8) months (November 1, 2012 through July 1, 2013 – the 2013 Legislative session). The fee shall be paid in monthly installments. Full Service Contract - The all inclusive retainer fee for Full Contract State Lobbying Services as identified in this proposal shall be $45,000 for twelve (12) months. This will include monitoring, advocating and mobilizing on all issues affecting the City. The fee shall be paid in monthly installments. References Leon County 301 S. Monroe Street, 5th Floor Tallahassee, FL. 32301 Contact Person: Vince Long, County Manager (850) 606-5300 Date of Contract: October 1, 2008 to present Capitol Alliance Group has worked with Leon County on numerous issues during this last legislative session including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2008 (ARRA), Health and Human Services, Energy, Economic Development, Transportation, Affordable Housing and countless other priorities. During the initial Economic Stimulus discussions, Capitol Alliance Group began meeting with Agency Secretaries and the Governor to position Leon County to receive the maximum amount of funds available. Because of these important meetings, Leon County secured over $9million in Road improvement funds during the initial allocation period. Other efforts by Capitol Alliance Group on behalf of the Leon County include securing additional Down Payment Assistance Funds, Inclusion in statewide prison diversion pilot program as well as many others. City of Key West 525 Angela Street Key West, FL 33040 Contact Person: Mayor Craig Cates, (305)809-3888 Date of Contract: June 5, 2007-2012 Capitol Alliance Group is working with the City of Key West to develop strategic relationships for the development of community sustainability and affordable housing. Working with both public and private sector partners, Capitol Alliance Group has developed a short and long term housing strategy and transient rental strategies for properties owned by the City and other public and private entities. While in Tallahassee, Capitol Alliance Group is working on identifying and nurturing new affordable workforce housing opportunities for the City. Capitol Alliance Group is tireless in their efforts in Tallahassee to bring more affordable workforce housing policy that will benefit the City of Key West and others. Port of Palm Beach 1 E 11th St # 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33404-6921 Contact Person for Contract and Procurement: Manny Almira, Director (561) 842-4201 Date of Contract: July 1, 2005 Throughout the years of representing the Port of Palm Beach, Capitol Alliance Group has coordinated efforts with The Governor’s Executive Office, Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Protection, The Agency for Workforce Innovation and many others. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for identifying new business opportunities for the Port in the Legislature as well as monitor legislation that impacts the Port of Palm Beach. Capitol Alliance Group realizes the importance of international trade and tourism to Florida’s ports. With Port Canaveral located in the shadows of Kennedy Space Center, many tourists and businesses find Port Canaveral to be a prime port of call. Using industry contacts, knowledge and business development principals, Capitol Alliance Group will be able to assist City of Delray Beach in accelerating growth at Port Canaveral and the surrounding areas. Dr. Jeff Sharkey, Founder and partner in Capitol Alliance Group has also provided lobbying services for groups such as The Florida Maritime Industries Association, Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association and the Florida Ports Council. City of Destiny 101 Pugliese's Way, Suite 200 Delray Beach, FL 33444 Contact Person for Contract and Procurement: Sara Paul (888)2DESTINY Date of Contract: July 21, 2008 Capitol Alliance Group was contracted by the City of Destiny to assist in the development of an Integrated Intermodal Distribution Center for this newly created city. The City of Destiny is in development to become the first Eco-Sustainable Green City. Because of Capitol Alliance Group’s previous experience and background in intermodal transportation policy and planning, Capitol Alliance Group was chosen during a worldwide search. Working on such a large project required the firm to work closely with CSX, FEC, Department of Transportation and many other private and public entities. Along with intermodal transportation policy and planning, Capitol Alliance Group is assisting with green-company recruitment and economic development opportunities. City of Tallahassee Contact Person: Anita Favors Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Date of Contract: 1998-2005 A.Provide list of current clients, a brief description of the services provided, the term of the contract with each client, number of years each client has contracted with the firm, and the fees charged by the clients. ▪City of Key West – Capitol Alliance Group currently is working with the City of Key West to develop a strategic affordable housing plan that will provide more affordable housing options for Key West residents. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for consulting with affordable housing stakeholders to determine need and viability of proposed projects. Also, Capitol Alliance Group is in charge of securing public and private partners for the City to assist in the creation of new affordable housing units. The City of Key West has been a client of Capitol Alliance Group since June 2006 and will remain under contract through June 2010. The fees for this contract are based on hourly work and average around $4,000 a month. ▪City of Destiny – Located off the Florida Turnpike in Osceola County, Destiny is America’s first eco-sustainable community. Capitol Alliance Group is developing a strategy for the successful creation of an Integrated Intermodal Distribution Center at Destiny. The contract extends through June 2010 with a monthly fee of $2,500. Capitol Alliance Group and Destiny began working together in July 2008. ▪Leon County - Capitol Alliance Group has represented Florida’s Capital County for the last 3 years as the County’s primary State Lobbying Firm. Working with our Federal Partners, Patton and Boggs, Capitol Alliance Group has advocated on behalf of Leon County on a wide variety of issues including economic development, affordable housing, septic tank mandates and health department services. The contract for services and fees are for $4,000 a month. ▪AT&T ▪All Saints Square – All Saints Square is a 42 unit, mixed use workforce housing development in Tallahassee Florida. In the heart of downtown Tallahassee, All Saints Square is a vital part of Tallahassee’s Gaines Street Revitalization Plan. Capitol Alliance Group is assisting All Saints Square with the Credit Underwriting portion of the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP). Part of the firm’s responsibilities is educating the client on state, local and federal policies and programs incentives for workforce housing. As well as identifying state and federal financial resources and regulatory incentives to help fund the clients’ CWHIP project in Leon County. Capitol Alliance Group began work with All Saints Square in June 2008 and will continue to work with the client until credit underwriting is complete. The fees associated with this contract are $30,000 for the entire underwriting consulting. ▪Benderson Development – One of the nation’s largest privately owned development companies, Benderson Development Company currently owns and manages over 250 properties in 35 states. Their portfolio includes 29 million square feet in industrial parks, office buildings residential communities, hotels and self storage facilities. Capitol Alliance Group is currently doing affordable housing consulting for Benderson Development in 2 counties in Florida. A portion of Capitol Alliance Groups’ responsibilities include identifying and nurturing new housing opportunities for affordable workforce housing with state, federal and local housing policy makers. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with Benderson Development since June 2008 and has a contract running through December 2008. Affordable housing consulting fees for this contract are $5,000 monthly. ▪Big Bend Community Based Care – One of Florida’s Community Based Care Lead Agencies, Big Bend Community Based Care is responsible for overseeing foster care services in Florida’s Panhandle. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for monitoring pending legislation; identifying Legislative and Executive Branch foster care child support funding. Capitol Alliance Group also provides legislative advocacy to protect and strengthen the Panhandle’s foster care agencies. The contract between Capitol Alliance Group and Big Bend Community Based Care is for 12 months, ending in March 2009. Fees associated with this contract are $3,500 monthly. ▪Capital Trust Agency – Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for monitoring affordable housing trends and state housing priorities. Other responsibilities include: meeting with the Legislature, Governor’s Office, Florida Housing Finance Corporation and other statewide affordable housing organizations to educate and advocate for support of Capital Trust Agency’s programs. Capital Trust Agency has been a client for 5 years and their contract is through December 2009. The fees for this agreement are $3,000 monthly. ▪Community Education Centers/Civigenics – Community Education Centers (CEC) is a leading provider of treatment and educational services for adult and juvenile corrections and social services populations throughout the United States. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for assessing corrections and offender treatment funding priorities at the state level. Other responsibilities include organizing meetings with key corrections and juvenile justice policymakers, assistance in applying for the operation of one or more private correctional facilities administered by the Department of Management Services. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with CEC for over 4 years and continues to be under contract until October 2008. Monthly fees associated with this contract are $2,500. ▪Florida Intermodal Transportation Association ▪ “Go Green” Florida - Capitol Alliance Group is working with Coalition for Renewable Energy Solutions to develop the “Go Green” Florida license plate. The license plate is being developed to raise awareness in creating a sustainable environment. Funds generated from this license plate will be used to provide educational opportunities for children interested in green technologies, sustainable development and responsible living. Capitol Alliance Group is helping Coalition for Renewable Energy Solutions in the application process associated with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Along with the application process, Capitol Alliance Group will be finding a legislative sponsor, who will oversee the passing of the “Go Green” license plate legislation. This contract runs through May 2009 and is for $2,500 monthly. ▪HRH/GlenCairn – Capitol Alliance Group is currently working with HRH/Glencairn to assess the status of insurance and reinsurance polices and programs in the State of Florida. Additionally, Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for meeting with members of the Cabinet to discuss Property and Causality insurance and reinsurance solutions. Capitol Alliance Group will identify new business opportunities with public and private entities throughout Florida. The terms of this contract are for 12 months, ending in July 2009, with a $6,000 monthly fee. ▪Lee County Habitat For Humanity – Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for monitoring state housing issues in the legislature, Governor’s Office and Florida Housing Finance Corporation. While working with Lee County Habitat for Humanity, Capitol Alliance Group continuously has organized meetings with key housing policymakers, as well as worked to pass legislation to fully fund the Community Contribution Tax Credit program. Every month, Capitol Alliance Group provides Lee County Habitat for Humanity with a legislative update and issue report. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with Habitat for Humanity for four years and has a contract currently that runs through July 2009. Capitol Alliance Group’s fee for affordable housing consultation is $4,583 monthly. ▪Margaritaville Holdings, LLC ▪MDG/Fountain Lakes LLC. – MDG Corp. is affordable housing developer in Collier County. Capitol Alliance Group is currently assisting MDG with their Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) application. MDG was recently selected for a $5 million forgivable loan to develop affordable housing in Collier County. Capitol Alliance Group is not only responsible for the submission of MDG’s application for CWHIP, but also identifying additional funding opportunities for the client’s project. The contract between the two parties is for $40,000 and is valid through the completion of the client’s project. ▪National Electrical Contractor’s Association (NECA) – Capitol Alliance Group has been working with NECA for 4 years, helping educate and advocate for electrical contractors, the building industry and other areas identified by the client. Other duties include providing accurate and timely information, intelligence feedback, and communication on developments of any legislative or agency issues. The terms of this contract is for 12 months, ending in January 2009. Capitol Alliance Group is paid $3,000 a month for services provided. ▪North Miami Community Redevelopment Authority ▪Port of Palm Beach – The Port of Palm Beach is currently in the process of developing an Inland Cargo and Freight Distribution Center. This inland Intermodal logistics hub is essential to the economic development of South Florida and the state. Capitol Alliance Group is acting as the liaison between the Port and state policymakers in order to keep the Port of Palm Beach as the lead agency associated with the Southeast Distribution Center. Other roles include: acquiring financial resources to continue strategic planning for the project, and provide a business demand and site options analysis. Capitol Alliance Group has represented the Port for 2 years and the terms of current contract run through December 2009 with a fee of $2,000 monthly. ▪Prime Homebuilders – Prime Homebuilders is one of the states largest privately owned builders, with commercial and residential properties throughout Florida. Capitol Alliance Group is responsible for the development of workforce and affordable housing strategies. Capitol Alliance Group also assisted in the submission of four (4) Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) applications. Duties associated with the submission of applications include: developing strategies, creating public/private partnerships as defined under CWHIP program and developing a financing structure for the projects. Capitol Alliance Group also advises Prime of potential housing opportunities and provides a monthly report of work completed. The current contract is for 6 months and runs through January 2009, with a monthly fee of $5,000. ▪Save the Manatee Club – Capitol Alliance Group is the lead advocate for Save the Manatee Club and helps develop strategies on how to best protect the needs of the species and organization. Other responsibilities include meeting with Florida’s state policy and decision makers to help communicate the need of manatees in Florida. The services contract extends through November 2008 and monthly fees are set at $3,000. ▪SCA Properties – Capitol Alliance Group assists SCA properties by providing continued legislative and property appraiser support for tax abatement for affordable housing properties. It is also the responsibility of Capitol Alliance Group to pass legislation that will expand tax abatement for affordable housing properties owned wholly by non profit organizations. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with SCA for three years and continues to identify new workforce housing opportunities throughout the state. The current contract is for 12 months, ending in September 2008 with a monthly fee of $3,000. ▪Ticketmaster – Ticketmaster is the nation’s leading event ticket agency with offices around the world. Capitol Alliance Group assists Ticketmaster by monitoring pending legislation that directly affects the ticket industry, live entertainment and internet commerce. Capitol Alliance Group is also in charge of meeting with policymakers about Ticketmaster’s services, consumer protection and accountability. Another priority of this agreement is to identify new business opportunities with municipalities and other venues around the State of Florida. This contract is indefinite and the fees are $2,500 monthly ▪ZeroChaos – ZeroChaos is Florida’s largest contract labor solutions and vendor management firm. Capitol Alliance Group has been given the task of analyzing current policies and program for state and local governments. After the initial assessment, Capitol Alliance Group will develop recommendations on how client can meet the needs of government agencies. Capitol Alliance Group is also responsible for monitoring and advocating any legislation that would further the business goals of ZeroChaos. ZeroChaos’ current contract runs through February 2009 with a monthly fee of $4,500. Capitol Alliance Group has been working with ZeroChaos since February 2008. A ff ordable Workforce Housing Client Issue Outcome Professional Florida Workforce Housing Alliance 2006 - Workforce Housing Legislation and Appropriations Drafted and passed major Workforce Housing legislation (HB 1375) and budget approval for $50 million in funding for workforce housing. ($50 Million) Je ff rey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Wendover Housing Development 2008 - $5 million funding for workforce housing in Osceola County Drafted and passed budget proviso language to secure $5 million funding for workforce housing in Osceola County. ($5 Million) Je ff rey Sharkey, lead lobbyist City of Key West 2007 – A ff ordable Housing Regulatory relief Passage of legislation to allow local school district and community college to use surplus lands for a ff ordable housing. Je ff rey Sharkey, lead lobbyist City of Key West 2008 – A ff ordable Housing Passage of Legislation allowing for addition Down Payment Assistance for municipalities who reduce or waive impact fees. Je ff rey Sharkey Transportation Client Issue Outcome Professional Port of Palm Beach 2007 - appropriation for Inland Port Intermodal Distribution Center Passage of budget proviso language for $200,000 for planning phase of Inland Port project ($200,000) Je ff rey Sharkey & Richard Pinsky, lead lobbyists Port of Palm Beach 2009 - appropriation for Inland Port Intermodal Distribution Center Passage of budget proviso language for $1,000,000 for planning phase of Inland Port Project ($1,000,000) Je ff rey Sharkey & Richard Pinsky, lead lobbyists Florida Intermodal Transportation Assoc. 2005 - FDOT Strategic Intermodal System plan Drafted and passed major transportation legislation on development of the state’s Strategic Intermodal System plan and funding formula for FDOT’s 5 year work plan. Je ff rey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Florida Airports Council 2004/05 – Florida Airport Grants funding Successful budget appropriation of $92 million (2004) and $104 million (2005) for Florida Airports grants in FDOT budget. ($196 Million) Je ff rey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Public Safety Client Issue Outcome Professional Florida Assoc of Public Safety Communication O ffi cials (EMS) (2008) - Occupational Certification Passage of legislation creating certification standards and training requirements for dispatchers in EMS throughout Florida Richard Pinsky, lead lobbyist Land Use Management Client Issue Outcome Professional Coalition of A ff ordable Housing Providers 2005 – DRI Concurrency and Regulation Passage of legislative language to allow for waiver of Concurrency in DRI requirements for development of a ff ordable housing close to major employment centers. Je ff rey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Criminal Justice/Corrections Client Issue Outcome Professional Community Education Centers/CiviGenics, 2007 - Community Corrections Passage of budget and proviso language to direct FDOC to fund 200 community based work release beds and 1264 community work camp beds ($14 Million) Je ff rey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Property Insurance Client Issue Outcome Professional Florida Association of Housing and Redevelopment O ffi cials 2007 - Property & Casualty Insurance Successful passage of legislation authorizing the creation of Self Insurance fund for Public Housing Authorities and waiver of assessment fees. Richard Pinsky, lead lobbyist Property Tax Reform Client Issue Outcome Professional Shelter Corporation 2007 - Ad Valorem taxation Successful passage of legislation authorizing property appraisers to use rental income approach revised methodology for ad valorem assessment of multifamily a ff ordable housing. Je ff rey Sharkey, lead lobbyist Cit y of Delray Beach - Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Ericks Consultants, Inc . [partnering with Adams St. Advocates ] Contact Information: Candice Ericks @ 954 -648 -1204 or 850 -224 -0880 candice@ericksconsultants.com 1 . Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach David Ericks, President ECI and Partner of Adams St Advocates ; Candice Ericks, Consultant; Claudia Davant, Managing Partner -Adams St Advocates; and Robert Beck, Partner -Adams St Advocates. 2 . List types of additional costs above the annual fee , if any (i.e. travel, printing , etc.) All inclusive , except that for extensive travel, such as with f ederal issues, we would request advance approval for reimbursement of travel expenses. 3 . Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: YES! a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes, the entire team can lobby those and other agencies with the exception of Candice Ericks who cannot lobby Palm Beach County. d . Meet regularly with City elected official s and/or staff (i.e., in - person, conference call, etc.) Yes e . Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes f . Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes g . Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes 4 . Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. We have strong relationships at the federal level and have assisted our clients with federa l issues. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. M any issues that we deal with at a st ate level are contingent on various Federal components. For example, w e have worked for years collectively with clients such as Broward County, Palm Beach County, other cities, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority and JM Family on issues that require federal cooperation to succeed on a state or local level. W e have worked on transportation issues with Congressman Mica from Florida [Chairman], Congressman Shuster of Pennsylvania [next Chairman] and Subcommittee Chair Congressman Sa m Graves of Missouri. As most of the Flori da Congressional Delegation began their political careers in the Florida Legislature, we have already worked wi th them for years at the state level. We have also worked closely with the Administration for Children &AFamilies’A ssistantA Secretary, George Sheldon, who served as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Family Services before leaving for DC. b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partner s with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. We have relationships with various firms and would help the city team with whichever firm would be most effective depending on the specific issue being addressed . 5 . Pro vide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session , and provide a summary of the final result. Crime Lab Funding Crime lab funding was aApriorityAforAtheABrowardACountyASheriff’sAOfficeA and Broward County for the last few years. Flor ida has five crime labs located in Broward, Palm Beach, Miami -Dade, Indian River and Pinellas Counties that were underfunded by the state. Prior to the 2012 legislative session, statutory authority allowed but did not require judges to impose an additional penalty to increase the funding for crime labs when they were used in the successful prosecution of a defendant. Invoking this additional fine was rarely imposed and it was not uniformly applied.AAThisAcreatedAsignificantAshortfallsAthatAtheASheriff’sAofficeAandA the County then had to subsidize with local funding. Efforts led by ECI throughout 2010 and 2011 culminated in successful changes to mandate cri me lab fees in 2012 legislation. Specifically, language was passed that would require a $100 fee to be mandated when a person was convicted of a crime and the local crime lab was utilized. ThroughAECI’sAstrongArelationshipsAwithAtheABrowardAdelegation, support for the language to change the statute was garnered early in the process. This support resulted in Senator Bogdanoff (who was essential in previous efforts) committing to making it a priority during Budget negotiations. ECI worked tirelessly thr oughout the appropriations process attending all Budget meetings and worked alongside Senator Bogdanoff to gain the support of both the House and Senate leadership to secure the House acceptance of the mandatory $100 fee language. We were successful in ge tting the House to accept the language and Senate Conforming Bill 1968 passed both the House and Senate unanimously. Our understanding is that this language will provide an estimated $5 Million funding for the crime labs. However,AourAworkAwasAnotAfinishedAatASession’sAend.A During the veto periodAweAworkedAdiligentlyAwithAtheAGovernor’sAOfficeAtoAanswerA questions and educate them on the user fee funding source contained in the legislation. Our arguments were persuasive and the bill was ultimately approved by the Governor. Medical Examiner s During the 2011 Legislative Session ECI facilitated a meeting with the Director of Government Relations for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, regarding allowing our me dical examiners to be given direct access to the DAVID database [Driver & Vehicle Informatio n Database] for the purpose of determining the identification of a deceased individual . ThisAdatabaseAcontainsAaAmotorist’sAidentifyingAandA emergency contact inform ation . The agency was concerne d about the number of examiners who would be allowed to gain access. We had multiple meetings that resulted in the DHSMV signing off on agreed upon language that would limit the access points to the database as well as includi ng an inter local agreemen t. Unfortunately, time was an issue and we agreed with the sponsor to wait until the following year to pursue the change. With the groundwork already set we started the 2012 Session touching base with DHSMV to make sure the Depar tment was still supportive of our efforts. After being given the green light and we immediately met with the House sponsor, Representative Albritton a nd his staff, to explain why Medical Examiners should have direct access to the DAVID database. He under stood our concerns but also made it clear that only language that was agreed on by both sponsors (House and Senate) would make it into the final cut of the legislative package. We had our marching orders and went directly to Senator Latvala's office and m et with his staff to explain at length the need we saw for direct access to the database and why we should be included in the legislation. From that point we were on constant follow -up with both offices up until the strike -all amendment was made public . O ur language ultimately passed allowingAtheAstate’sAMedicalAExaminersAaccessAtoAthisAmuchAneededA identification tool. Both of these bills are examples of our sustained , successful efforts on behalf of our clients. ERICKS CONSULTANTS, INC. Governmental Consulting City of Delray Beach Submitted 10/1 1 /2012 205 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 850 -224 -0880 - 1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................................ - 2 - Expertise and Experience ............................................................................................................ - 7 - Appropriations ............................................................................................................................ - 9 - Federal ........................................................................................................................................ - 9 - Execution ................................................................................................................................... - 10 - Some Examples of Successes .................................................................................................... - 12 - Price Proposal ........................................................................................................................... - 20 - Closing ....................................................................................................................................... - 20 - Appendix 1 – ECI Client List ....................................................................................................... - 21 - Appendix II – Professional References ...................................................................................... - 28 - - 2 - It is with great pleasure that Ericks Consultants, Inc. (ECI) teaming with Adams St. Advocates (ASA), submits the following proposal to represent the City of Delray Beac h on matters of governmental affairs before the Florida Legislature, Cabinet and executive branch agencies, as well as assisting on Federal matters. Our experience provides us with a keen understanding of the issues that local governments face as well as an understanding of new initiatives that the City will undertake. With vast experience representing local governments, we understand that legislative representation is critical to your success. We as a team offer unparalleled knowledge and experience in the political process, gained from years of direct participation. Through experience, dedication, knowledge of the political process and strong relationships, ECI is a highly effective full -service governmental consulting firm representing both corpora te and public entity clients with legislative and state agency issues. Equipped with an in -depth knowledge of Florida government, we are trained to interact with all state and local agencies, legislative committees and executive staff. ECI has joined forc es with ASA to form an extremely strong alliance in the political arena toAmeetAtheACityAofADelrayABeach’sAcurrentAandAfutureAgoals,AADavidAEricksAhasAbeenAaAgovernmentA consultant since 1980. Candice Ericks joined the firm in 1998. Marty Cassini joined as general counsel 2009,AASinceAitsAfoundingAinA1985.AEricksAConsultants.AInc,AhasArepresentedAsomeAofAFlorida’sAtopA corporationsAandAlargestAassociationsAandAhasAsecuredAaAplaceAinAFlorida’sApoliticalAarenaAatAbothAtheA state, county and municipal levels of g overnment. ECI has offices one block from the Capitol in downtown Tallahassee and in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. ASA is a Florida -basedAconsultingAfirm.AestablishedAinAresponseAtoAtoday’sAfluidAeconomicAandApoliticalA landscapes. ASA is a forward thinking, client centered group that provides extensive management experience in both the private and public sectors. ASA is passionate about helping clients reach their goals through a collaborative effort, all the while remaining focused on their needs from beginning to end. Simply, Adams Street Advocates, as the name implies, are advocates -willing and ready to be part ofAaAteamAthatAwillAchampionAtheACityAofADelrayABeach’sApriorities,AAWhileArecentlyAformedA - its team members, as discussed in more deta il later in this proposal, have a long history at all levels in state and local government. Together they are a collective force committed to excellence and will work endlessly to achieve the results not only the City desires, but deserves. We have extens ive knowledge and expertise in dealing with our South Florida Environment, specifically transportation, energy, public safety, solid waste, growth management, beach renourishment, rail, airports, seaports and tourism. We currently represent the City of Co conut Creek [almost 6 years] the City of Coral Springs [12 years] the City of North Lauderdale [since 2009 and previously represented], the City of Pembroke Pines [for over 6 years], the Town of Davie [cumulatively almost 6 years], the City of Plantation [more than 7 years] and recently the City of Fort Lauderdale. We have represented the Cities of Hollywood and Pembroke Park in the past. We also represent Broward County [over 15 years] and Palm Beach County [over 6 years]. We believe that the experience ga ined from representing these local governments provides us the capability and understanding to meet the needs of the City of Delray Beach. Please meet the members of Ericks Consultants, Inc. (ECI) - 3 - DAVID ERICKS is founder and President of Ericks Consultan ts, Inc. Dave moved to Fort Lauderdale when he was 13 years old and graduated from Stranahan High School. After returning from College at C.W. Post (Long Island University) on a football scholarship he took a position as a police officer with the City of Plantation, which transitioned him into the world of Florida politics. Dave Ericks has been a registered lobbyist in the State of Florida for almost 30 years, starting with his representation of the State of Florida Fraternal Order of Police while at the City of Plantation Police Department in 1980. Mr. EricksAwasAaAregisteredAlobbyistAforAtheABrowardACountyASheriff’sADepartment.AtheADepartmentAofA Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and the 3M Corporation before founding Ericks Consultants, Inc. in 1985. P rior to establishing his own firm, Mr. Ericks was employed by the 3M Corporation as Regional Administrator and Registered Lobbyist in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. Mr. Ericks served as Senior Executive Assistant to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Administrative ssistantAtoAtheABrowardACountyASheriffAandAservedAonAtheACityAofAPlantationAPoliceAForce,AMr,AEricks’A past experience allowed him the opportunity to work with various police and criminal justice organizations, in cluding the Steering Committee for Constitutional Amendments and the State Law Enforcement Job Task Advisory Committee for the Florida Police Standards and Training Commission. He has also represented members statewide as the President of the Fraternal Ord er of Police. His service in those positions has given him both law enforcement and administrative expertise at the local, county and state levels. Moreover, since establishing Ericks Consultants in 1985, Mr. Ericks has represented a multi -faceted group of clients, giving him a wide array of expertise in multiple subject areas, including the electric and telecommunication utilities, law enforcement, entertainment, healthcare, travel, corrections, solid waste, growth management, automobile, gaming, and trans portation industries; as well as in the many diverse issues which face local governments on a day to day basis. Dave is a pioneer member of the Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists. Dave served as Chairman of the Tallahassee Downtown Improvement Authority for 3 years and currently serves on the Board. He presently serves on the Advisory Board of Keiser Universi ty’sATallahasseeACampusAandApreviouslyAservedA as a Board Member of the Florida State Fair Authority. Dave received his B.A. Degree from Long Island University and earned his Master of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from Nova University. He is also a graduateAofAtheAF,B,I,A cademy’sALawASpecialistASchoolA in Quantico, Virginia and has taught as an Adjunct Faculty Member for Nova University. Mr. Ericks resides in Tallahassee, Florida. CANDICE ERICKS is a consultant with Ericks Consultants, Inc., based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Candice was born in Broward County and grew up in the City of Plantation. Prior to joining the firm 14 years ago, Candice began her career in corporate sales in New York City, specializing in outdoor advertising and temporar y staffing. Upon her return from Manhattan in 1998, Candice opened the Fort Lauderdale branch of Ericks Consultants, Inc. Candice has developed an extensive network of contacts and relationships within state and local governments and the business community and works closely withAtheAfirm’sASouthAFloridaAbasedAclients,ADueAtoAherAworkAwithAanAextensiveAarrayAofAclients.ACandiceA has developed broad expertise in numerous subject areas. Candice is active in many charitable organizations and serves as a Board Member of ChildNet, a not -for - profit organization working to protect Broward County's abused, neglected and abandoned children; the Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists (term ending January 2010), an organization committed to establishing and mai ntaining high standards for the lobbying profession; and Broward Days, an - 4 - independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan group of people advocating for diverse needs and concerns of Broward County, Florida. CandiceAwasAaAmemberAofALeadershipABroward’sAClassAofA XXV, an organization that seeks to prepare members for leadership roles in their community. Candice was also recently featured by Gold Coast MagazineAasAoneAofABrowardACounty’sAleadingAyoungAprofessionalsA]40AUnderA40[AwhoAwereArecognizedA for their profess ional and civic involvement in Broward County. Candice worked with Ericks Consultants, Inc. while attending Florida State University and interned during the 1994 Legislative Session in the Florida Senate. She graduated with a Public Relations and Polit ical Science degree from Florida State University. Candice Ericks resides in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. MARTY CASSINI was born in Miami and subsequently raised in Miami Shores. He attended Miami Country Day School for most of his young life and then went on to Barry University. While at Barry, MartyAearnedAaABachelorAofAScienceAinASociologyAwithAaAminorAinAHistoryAandAalsoAplayedAonAtheAMen’sA Soccer team. After college, Marty moved to Alpharetta, Georgia. He worked for the well -respected real estate firm McCalla Raymer. During his time there, Marty administered many real estate transactions and gained a deep love for the law and moved back to South Florida to attend Nova Southeastern Law School. In 2006, Marty graduated from Nova and immediately became policy adviser and legal counsel to the Florida Senate Minority Leader. With such an opportunity, Marty acquired an in depth knowledge base of many different subject matters, including local government, gaming, insurance, health care, transportation and tax issues. Marty worked with various stakeholders on a variety of subjects. Most notably, he was involved in the property insurance rewrite of 2007, gaming bills that expanded poker rooms and slots machines at pari - mutuels, stem cell research invest ments, Sun Rail, removal of the affordable housing fund cap, the property tax rollback and ad valorem assessment changes, voluntary condominium termination, and high occupancy vehicle travel for hybrid cars . Since 2009, Marty has collaborated with Ericks Consultants Inc. on an array of different issues but concentrates mainly on local government, tax and gaming issues. With his legal and policy background, Marty is the analytical arm of the firm, providing detailed and in -depth reviews of all legislation m oving through the process. He drafts bills and amendments and he also creates comprehensive policy initiatives. Marty offers insight and guidance on how policy changes affect the firm's clients. Marty is also a practicing attorney in the areas of corpora te, business and finance law as well as local government law. Marty has served as counsel for campaigns, political action committees and other political groups. Marty serves as pro bono counsel to a local developmentally disabled school and has also lobbie d pro bono for Autism related initiatives. Marty has also served as in -house counsel for campaigns, political action committees and other political groups. JANET MORRIS is the Office Manager for Ericks Consultants and works out of the Tallahassee office. Janet has an in -depth knowledge of the operation of the Florida Legislature and state government. Janet - 5 - retired from the Florida House of Representatives in 2006 as a Senior Legislative Analyst in the Committee on Business Regulation. In her capacity on c ommittee staff, Janet was responsible for the analysis of legislation dealing with alcohol, tobacco, general business and all gaming venues [lottery, pari -mutuels, slots, etc.]. Prior to her service on the Business Regulation Committee staff, Janet served as an Executive Assistant to the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader. Please meet your team from Adams St. Advocates (ASA) DAVID ERICKS is one of the founding partners of Adams St. Advocates. In addition to Dave, other foundin g partners that will be dedicated to your issues incl ude Claudia Davant, Robert Beck and Tanya Jackson. CLAUDIA DAVANT , Managing Partner, was the former Managing Partner of NSI, Florida where she lead the national firm's Florida practice for almost 4 yea rs. While there she built a broad multi -client practice that included information technology, local government, telecommunications, transportation, gaming, appropriations, healthcare, aging, education, environmental issues with a niche practice around proc urement driven clients and sales/business development strategy. She has extensive experience in government and private sectors. Prior to NSI, Claudia was on the national business development team for Accenture, a global information technology firm, whe re she led sales campaigns for large, complex integrated systems opportunities. At Accenture she was also responsible for government relations in Florida as well as many other states and worked closely with government entities at both the state and local level in that role. Claudia moved to Florida in 2000 as AT&T's State President for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs where she worked hand in hand with key decision makers in both the Florida legislative and executive branches for 5 years. She subseq uently was promoted to Regional Vice President for Legislative Affairs for AT&T where she successfully led legislative and regulatory reform campaigns in the Southern Region before the merger with BellSouth. In addition to her corporate experience, Claudi a worked in government on bothAtheAstateAandAfederalAlevels,AASheAservedAasAU,S,ASenatorAStromAThurmond’sALegislativeA ideAinA Washington, D.C. for 3 years providing legislative analysis, constituent service and external communications. As a Policy Advisor to the Michigan House of Representatives, she led the staff effort to rewrite the Michigan Telecommunications Act. And as General Counsel and Communications Director for the South Carolina Department of Commerce, she negotiated economic development incen tives with corporations wanting to do business with the state. Claudia currently serves on the Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) IT Council, Florida TaxWatch Board’sAExecutiveASteeringACommitteeAandABoard.AtheATakeAStockAinAChildrenABoardAandAtheAFl orida Afterschool Network Board. One of only nine recipients nationwide, she was recently honored by the fterschoolA llianceAasAFlorida’sA fterschoolAChampionAofAtheAYearAatAtheA“BreakfastAofAChampions”AinA Washington, DC. A South Carolina native, Claudi a earned her BA from the University of South Carolina Honors College and Law degree from the University of South Carolina. ROBERT BECK brings unique and invaluable skills in public and private sector budgeting and appropriations, assisting our clients to build effective business cases that resonate with government decision -makers and procurement evaluation teams. Having served in senior roles in government - 6 - including Staff Director of Senate Appropriations, Budget Director for the Governor of the State of Florida, Policy Advisor to the Senate President on Appropriations, Medicaid, and General Government, Robert has leveraged his extensive public sector experience to position private sector clients to effectively compete and win multiple agency procurements since reentering the private sector in 2008. Robert’sAexperienceAinAhealthAcare.AcriminalAjustice.AandAextensiveAexperienceAwithAMedicaidAhasAallowedA him to effectively assist his clients in developing value propositions and procurement opportunities th at resonateAinAtoday’sAfiscallyAchallengingAenvironmentAwhereAagenciesAareAcontinuallyAconfrontedAwithAaA growing workload and shrinking resources to meet these demands. Robert effectively leverages his executive branch relationships, having served in the Departments of Elder Affairs, Children & Families, Agriculture, Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, and Management Services to create opportunities and interest by state agency stakeholders through effective communication and knowledge of agency needs. Robe rt understands the importance of effective business cases and sound return on investment analyses in a state government market that is becoming more and more driven to operate like a business, increase efficiency and reduce costs. Robert leverages his dee p relationships in government and combines these relationships with solid business skills to create opportunities and encourage state government stakeholders to pursue them as good public policy. JIM HENRY has been involved with state government for over forty years. The last ten years he was with The Department of Children & Families as Legislative Director – most recently for Secretary Wilkins. There he coordinated the full legislative package including budget and all substantive program areas. He al soAservedAonAtheAdepartment’sAexecutiveAleadershipAteam,AA Before that he was legislative coordinator for The Florida Lottery for four years under then Governor Jeb Bush. Jim also was the executive director and lobbyist for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers. He came to Tallahassee in 1971 and stared to work as staff director in the Florida legislature both in the Senate and House of Representatives. This unique alliance between ECI and ASA offers the City of Delray Beach a proven, dedicated and resp ected South Florida based team, as well as a seasoned Tallahassee based team that works and lives in Tallahassee year round. Combining the intimate knowledge of the South Florida based team with the Tallahassee year round presence is invaluable and critic al to the City. Many committee, administrative and rule making hearings and other important meetings take place outside of the legislative calendar. Having the ECI/ASA dual representation allows for firsthand knowledge and insight into what is happening throughout the year and the direct effects it may have on the City. In these tough economic times the regulatory and administrative process is equally important as the legislative process. Environmental permitting issues, economic development incentives and the process of determining the economic impact of unfounded mandates are just a few examples of issues that agencies address throughout the year. We are aware of the importance of economic incentives to the City of Delray Beach and our team has solid relationships with the Department of Economic Opportunity, as well as Appropriations in both the House and the Senate. - 7 - Our experience and knowledge, combined with our strong relationships throughout the Legislature, allows us to cover a lot of ground within the legislative process. Our capabilities are supported by in - house legal counsel and interns, as well as an extremely seasoned Office Manager with 30 years of experience in the legislative process. We pride ourselves on effic ient coordination and organization that allows us to handle numerous tasks for multiple clients simultaneously. We believe that our long -term relationships with the majority of our clients are indicative of our past performance. In addition, ASA brings anotherAteamAtoAtheAtableAtoAchampionAtheACityAofADelrayABeach’sAefforts.AwithAadditionalAexpertsA in the consulting and lobbying fields. Session moves fast and decisions and legislation changes quickly so having a large team at the capitol every day and l iving in Tallahassee during session is invaluable to your representation and success. Another advantage to having a team that lives in Tallahassee during Session is that travel has become so costly and difficult many members of the Legislature and staff s pend their weekends in Tallahassee which provides additional opportunities to spend time with decision makers while the decisions are actually happening. Our approach will be an informed and educated one. Our relationships with leadership in both the Hous e and the Senate afford us the knowledge of what the Legislature will be focused on and an insight into what their challenges will be. We will proactively develop a strategy to successfully integrate the City’sAneedsAintoAtheAoverallAplanAforAtheALegislatu re’sAplan,AAA sAsoonAasAprioritiesAareAidentifiedAweAwillA immediately secure bill sponsors for general or special legislation if needed, in addition to educating our local delegation. ECI has a reputation for working within the legal and ethical guidelines of the political world. Experience and personal relationships give us the ability to organize strong political support for ourAclients’Aissues.AoppositionAtoAamendmentsAthatAareAdisadvantageousAtoAourAclients.AandAsponsorshipA of legislation that is vital toAourAclient’sAagenda,AReputation.Aaccess.AandAexpertiseAisAtheAstrengthAofAtheA ECI/ASA Team. ECI is uniquely situated by having a Tallahassee -based firm with an extremely active South Florida office, bothAequippedAtoArespondAtoAclients’Aneeds,AAThisAdua l presence allows constant visibility in both the southern and northern regions of the state. Our firm is fortunate to have very good relationships with both sides of the political aisle, which allows ECI to represent our clients in a highly effective man ner. Term limits have made it such that there is no longer an off season from the legislative session. We at ECI spend the entire year in close contact with Legislators and their staff regarding interim projects, campaigns and possible legislation for th e upcoming year. In addition, we continue to focus on leadership in both chambers, and of course, the strength of our tri -county delegations. We believe that being present at all times when decision makers and their staff are physically at the capital is vital to yourArepresentation,AKnowingAthatAECIA“lives”AatAtheACapitolAduringAtheAlegislativeAsessionAisAtoAtheAcity’sA benefit. We believe that our most effective resources are those relationships that we have formed over the years. We take pride in the fac t that we have outstanding professional and personal relationships with Legislators from both parties and their staffs, the Governor ’s office, with Cabinet officers and staff, and with key decision makers in state agencies. In fact, during a recent team p lanning meeting the ECI/ASA team went through the organizational charts of every executive branch agency and determined that we have good relationships and access to every agency! This access will be invaluable to the City for any and every issue that need s to be addressed. The Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists [FAPL] was created to provide on -going training and professional development and is committed to promoting the highest ethical standards of professional - 8 - conduct among its membership. David Ericks is a pioneer member of the Association and Candice Ericks has served on its Board of Directors for several years and has recently been reappointed. ECI values its professional reputation and has spent years cultivating trust -based relationsh ips within Palm Beach County and state government. ECI has a strong relationship with each member of the Palm Beach County Delegation and staff. We are confident that each current member of the Delegation is comfortable working with ECI. With elections ar ound the corner and qualifying over we are now spending our time getting to know all of the candidates that may become new members of the Delegation. We historically attend the annual Florida League of Cities and Florida Association of Counties statewide and legislative conferences. ECI is also a member of Florida Association of Intergovernmental Relations (FAIR). Being a member of this group affords us the opportunity to utilize an additional resource. During Session this group meets twice a week to dis cuss and strategize on all Legislation that will affect your City, whether it be transportation, growth management, public safety etc. We have been a member of this group for many years and through this we have cultivated many working relationships and cl ose ties between different levels of government. This participation enhances our knowledge and understanding of the challenges and trends that face South Florida cities, as well as municipalities across the state. We work particularly close with the Flori da League of Cities and Association of Counties during the Legislative Session. It is especially beneficial to the citizens of the City of Delray Beach that ECI and ASA have enduring relationships with House and Senate leadership. As you know, the Legisl ature and the Governor ’s office is led by an overwhelming majority if Republicans and we maintain strong relationships with the Majority Party in Tallahassee at both the Legislative and Executive Branch levels. Only a couple of committee chairman and lead ership roles have been announced for the new Senate President Gaetz or incoming House Speaker Weatherford. However, we are confident that based on our current relationships we will be well positioned regardless of which members will be appointed to key po sitions. For the ones who have been announced, such as the House Appro p riations Chairman and the Senate Pro Tem, we have very good trust based relationships with those members. Currently we have solid relationships with the Incoming Senate President and S peaker, as well as their recently announced Chiefs of Staff. As for South Florida, we are well positioned with the Senate Minority Leader Chris Smith and House Minority Leader Perry Thurston. Both Senator Smith and Representative Thurston have worked clo selyAwithAECIAthroughoutAtheAyears,AWhileAtheAGovernor’sAofficeAisAcurrentlyAtransitioningAtoAaA new Chief of Staff, we have close relationships with key deputies as well as decision makers and key influencersAinAtheAGovernor’sAOfficeAofAPolicyAandABudgetA(OPB). Our ability to represent our clients is reflected in the duration and loyalty of our business relationships throughout the State of Florida. ECI has a history of familiarizing themselves and forming strong, professional relationships with the membe rs of city and county commissions, the Florida Legislature, cabinet offices, state agencies and staff. ECI has the proven ability to recognize the changing trends in the corporate and political worlds and uses those skills to organize, monitor, maneuver an d communicate between government and client, giving both the comfort of understanding and the ability to offer compromise. - 9 - Our team is also actively engaged in Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) and other business related lobbying organizations so th at we understand what the business priorities are for the Legislative Session and how they will impact the City of Delray Beach. Being successful in the Appropriations process today requires an effective strategy that builds a compelling business case to support your appropriations request. Our team will work with you to build effective business cases needed to support your appropr iations issues. The competition for state fundingAhasAbeenAnothingAbutAfierceAforAtheApastA6AyearsAdueAtoAFlorida’sArevenueAchallengesA – for six years in a row, state revenue collections have been insufficient to fund base budget expenditures. The need to develop a high -levelA‘returnAonAinvestment’AanalysisAtoAsupportAyourAappropriation’sAprioritiesA will also be key and we will work with your team to develop the business case needed to support your appropriations priorities. As your advocate and consultan t in Tallahassee and back at home in South Florida, our focus will be on our communication, knowledge, expertise, ability and relationships to assist the City of Delray Beach with current priorities, as well as planning and laying the ground work for futu re goals. We understand the needs and challenges that local governments face on a daily basis and the challenges of planning in tough economic times. Our goal in supporting and advocating on behalf of theACityAofADelrayABeach’sAappropriationsAprioritiesA will always be to present a strategic, compelling, and focused message that differentiates and positions your appropriations requests. ECI has in depth knowledge of the state appropriations process and has been successful in obtaining line item appropri ations for our clients. However, the addition of Robert Beck to our roster brings an extraordinary insight and experience to the ECI Team. Robert is uniquely qualified in the legislative appropriations arena having been an appropriations staff director for the Florida Senate. In addition, Beck held the role of chief policy advisor on appropriations for the Florida Senate President in 2004 and 2005. In addition to his legislative appropriations experience, Beck has held senior executive appointments in budge tAleadershipAactingAasAtheAGovernor’sAbudgetAdirectorAunderAGovernorACristAandA also holding the budget director jobs for other executive branch agencies. Beck brings the most solid experience in state budgeting and legislative appropriations possible to ac hieveAthisAclient’sAgoals,ABeckA provides a level of knowledge to the appropriations process which has helped him to achieve results in multiple policy areas including health care -specifically home and community care for seniors, Medicaid, criminal justice, technology, education and transportation. Our team will provide continuous assistance throughout the budget process, advocating for full -funding ofAtheACity’sAprojectArequests,AAPleaseAnoteAthatAMr,ABeckAwithA S AhasAextensiveAknowledgeAofAtheA Florida budget process and has proven to work successf ully within the extremely complicated appropriations world. In addition, we will also identify relevant funding opportunities and assist with grant requests. Keep in mind that many opportunities come up outside of the timeframe of the regularly scheduled Session and having a full -time extended team living in Tallahassee continuing to work at the Capitol is key. Members of our team will continue to work throughout the year with the Florida League of Cities and the Palm Beach League of Cities to review the ir policies. We will also maintain follow -up and appreciation correspondence throughout the process when appropriate. - 10 - Please be aware that out team has very strong relationships at the Federal level. In addition, many issues that we deal with a t a state level are contingent on the Federal components. We have worked for years collectively with clients such as Broward County, Palm Beach County, other cities, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority and JM Family on issues that require fede ral cooperation to succeed on a state or local level. We are very familiar with coordinating efforts with our Congressional Delegation, as well as other members from around the state to achieve the desired goals . As most of the Florida Congressional Deleg ation came from the Florida Legislature , we ha ve worked with them for years. For example, w e have worked on transportation issues with Congressman Mica from Florida [Chairman], Congressman Shuster of Pennsylvania [next Chairman] and Subcommittee Chair Cong ressman Sam Graves of Missouri. We have also worked closely with the Administration for Children &AFamilies’A ssistantASecretary.AGeorgeASheldon , who served as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Family Services before leaving for DC. Areas of representation for th e City of Delray Beach, will include but will not be limited to: transient or vacation rental issues; community residential group homes [sober homes]; economic opportunities; financial incentives; energy; beach nourish ment; transportation; communications services tax; pensions; and local preemptions. We are familiar with the transient rental issue and the history of the legislation that was passed. Our team has excellent working relationships with all parties involve d including Senator Evers and representativesAofAtheAVacationARentalAManagers’A ssociation,AFromAourArecentAconversations we understand the challenges regarding this issue but believe that we can be an effective advocate for the City’sAposition, It is important to point out that, especially regarding to the sober homes issue, our team has an extremely close trust -based relationshi p with the Department of Children and Family Services, the Florida League of Cities , and the discussed potential sponsors in the House and Senate. We plan to collaborate ourAeffortsAonAtheAcity’s behalf with both the Palm Beach League of Cities and the Florida League of Cities who are making this the top prior i ty for this legislative session. ECI, along with ASA, will provide u nparalleled representation to the City of Delray Beach. We will work closely with the Mayor, Vice -Mayor, Deputy Vice -Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager and staff in the coordination and development of the annual legislative agenda and appropriations reques ts, including holding workshops as necessary. Once the agenda and budget priorities are set we will then identify key legislators.AasAwellAasAstaffAinAtheAGovernor’sAOffice.AtheACabinetAandAexecutiveAbranchAagenciesAregardingA our specific legislative and budget priorities. We will then continue to develop and implement strategy on proposed special or general legislation in coordination with the Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation. Our team will be involved in drafting and analyzing proposed legislat ion, developing strategies and recommending amendments as necessary. ECI will create white papers, talking points or other educational documents to distribute to members as needed on important issues. We will arrange initial educational/ informational meet ings amongst staff and members of the Legislature and executive branch agencies and will facilitate follow -up meetings as the priorities move through the legislative session. Members of our team will continuously track legislation throughout Committee wee ks and Session, monitoring all state legislative committee meetings and agency hearings prior to, during and after Session and testifying as needed. - 11 - Our approach will be an informed and educated one. ECI is a committed consulting/lobbying firm that acts as an extended arm of our clients in every aspect. Whether it is on a state, local or federal issue, ECI works closely with each client to identify their specific needs. We recognize that each client has unique assets and needs and has their own style f or achievement reports and distribution of workload. Many of our clients are team -based; therefore, the responsibilities, as well as the efforts, are shared. In other cases.AweAareAaAclient’sAsoleArepresentation,AMembersAofAourAfirmAwillAbeAavailableAa t all times via phone, text, fax, or email to maintain vital lines of communication throughout Legislative Committee weeks and Session. One of our strengths is the ability to take large amounts of information and present it to the City of Delray Beach e very committee week or week during session. With two attorneys on the ECI/ASA team bills and policy changes are given very thorough analyses and reviews. You will receive informative and concise reports on policy matters that will detail any negative or positive effects from any particular piece of legislation. We have staff dedicated to bill tracking and reporting, updates, legislative intent, and answering any questions you may have. ECI believes that communication is the most valuable component of a client/lobbyist relationship and is the key to their mutual success. Insight and ongoing communication between the lobbyist and the client provides a better understanding of exactly what the client wants, allowing us to be successful in achieving the desir ed result. ECI will provide written reports and updates on a regular basis, during both the legislative session and the interim, on those issues and concerns identified by the City. During Session, the City will receive official weekly reports, as well as phone calls and emails during the week as needed,AInAtheseAweeklyAreportsAtheACityAwillAreceiveAupdatesAonAtheACity’sApriorities.AotherAlegislationA that City should be aware of, the overall political climate, anticipated action for the upcoming week and a suggested action plan if needed. In addition, ECI will continuously apprise the City of developing initiatives of which we believe the City should be aware, and will submit a status report on priority issues one week prior to the end of Session. At the close of Session, ECI will submit a priority report and soon after a thorough end -of -session report on specific legislation and new requirements effecting the City. Also note that should there be a specific issue that needs detailed research, we have done and will do that for our clients. We will provide that privileged information to decide on the best strategic approach with options. For example; what cities, businesses, and other legislatures are doing in other states on a particular issue. After session we would like to come to the City to talk about what transpired. Prior to the start of Interim Committee Meetings, we would like to conduct a workshop with the Mayor, Vice -Mayor, Deputy Vice -Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager and staff to discuss what has happened in the interim and what we should expect to see in the upcoming session. This will lead us into developing the Legislative Agenda for the year to come. Our team takes pride in the fact that we are in constant communication with our clients, wheth er it be at community events, through reports and correspondence or by phone. Although the hustle and bustle of Tallahassee calms down when session is over, we know that the City will constantly have issues with proposed bills, rule -making, administrative bodies, court cases and perhaps even issues between the state and federal government. Administrative agencies routinely promulgate new and revised rules/regulations. Ericks Consultants, Inc . and Adams St. Advocates constantly monitors the development of these proposes rules which are developed via a formal “rules hearing process ” under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. During these rule workshops, we work with the StateAtoAensureAourAclient’sAinterestsAareAnotAundulyAburdenedAbyAaAnewlyAproposed/revisedAru le. During the course of rule promulgation, we analyze the proposed policies for client impact – from a legal, - 12 - operational, and fiscal impact – and provide public testimony during the rule -making process to shape the final outcome. S outh Florida Regional Transportation Authority For historic background, almost ten years ago ECI was instrumental in helping to pass legislation which transformed the Tri -County Commuter Rail Authority (TriRail) into the South Florida Regional Tran sportation Authority (SFRTA.) The new Authority was created with a vision to provide greater mobility in South Florida, thereby improving the economic viability and quality of life of the community, region and state. The ECI Team was instrumental in the passage of major legislation that gave the Authority the power to issue.AreissueAorAredeemAbonds,AAThroughAECI’sAefforts.AtheAbillAprovidedAforAdiscretionaryAbondingAabilityA and gave the Authority the potential to receive matching funds of at least $45 mil lion if Broward, Miami - Dade and Palm Beach counties imposed a local -option funding source. This provision guaranteed that a dedicated funding source, either from the state, counties and/or a local -option funding source, was always available to the Authori ty. Throughout 2008 and 2009, ECI worked with the SFRTA team to educate the legislature and other key executive agency decision makers on the critical need for additional dedicated funding. In December 2009, the Florida Legislative Special Session culm inated in successfully gaining Legislative approval for additional funding; specifically, the Legislature appropriated an additional $15 million a year for five years to close the gap needed to run a full complement of 50 trains which directly benefits not just the counties but also the City of Ft. Lauderdale. This funding was critical to the on -going operation of the rail and picks up the shortfall caused by reduced funding from the county. The Team successfully secured an additional $1 million in fundi ng during the 2010 Legislative Session. With a state budget short fall of over $4 Billion, any increase in funding was a monumental accomplishment. During the 2012 Legislative Session, Legislation was introduced to dramatically change the governance of th e SFRTA Board based on recommendations by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). It would have eliminated the three local representatives currently on the Board and provided for the ability to completely privatize the agency. After weeks of int ense lobbying, a compromise was negotiated between SFRTA , FDOT and the Governor ’s office to preserve the local representation and allowAtheAGovernorAadditionalArepresentationAwithoutAjeopardizingASFRT ’sAoperatingAauthority,AAThisA amendment required a complicated legislative strategy that was successfully implemented in multiple committee meetings on multiple legislative vehicles, floor support and passage. Ultimately, HB 599 was signed by the Governor and ECI is proud of the teamwork between SFRTA, Br oward, Miami -Dade and PalmABeach,AAThisAhugeAundertakingAthatAaffectedAmultipleAcountiesAclearlyAdemonstratesAECI’sA leadership abilities to lead on complicated political and policy issues directly affecting local government. JM Family Enterprises - 13 - Histori cally, ECI has fought franchise legislation that would be harmful to the operation of JM Family Enterprises (Southeast Toyota). In the automobile industry, JM is unique in the sense that although they are a distributor, they also own a dealership. JM Famil y has a wonderful business relationship with its dealers, however, when it comes to franchise legislation JM normally takes the manufacturer stance. Overall, ECI has been successful in defeating franchise language or in negotiating legislation that is less injurious to JM Family. For example, during the 2009 legislative session there was a push to enact legislation that would have made it virtually impossible for a dealer to ever relocate. The language would also have nullified a provision requiring a franc hisee to maintain and honor facility improvements that were in place through an already negotiated franchise agreement. ECI was successful in stripping the offensive language out of the bill on the last day of Session. Energy With the assistance of Sena tor Bogdanoff and Representative Moraitis, we were successful in amending both the House and Senate versions of the Energy Legislation (HB 7117) to include the words "commercial property". Adding this language expanded the ability of local governments to partner with commercial properties to further energy efficient projects which benefits local business and improves energy consumption. The energy legislation is an initiative, backed by the Commissioner of Agriculture, which would extend $16 million doll ars of tax credits for renewable energy. The bill also makes a number of changes to energy laws to streamline and help implement a renewable energy plan state -wide. In addition to expanding the ability for biofuel permits the bill allows utilities to rec over costs from consumers if the PSC makes such a determination after petition. Additionally, there is information on vehicle charging stations and privately owned electric charging on both energy consumption and the impact of the electric grid on the stat e. We mention some details of this bill because energy will continue to be a focus of future legislation and we know how important it is to the City of Delray Beach regarding vehicle charging and fueling stations, as well as green energy initiatives. There was recently a workshop in Tallahassee that ECI attended specifically on electric vehicle charging and the electrical grid. We expect a rule -making workshop soon probably in Central Florida to deal with these issues, where we will be in attendance. Seap orts During the 2010 Legislative Session ECI and the coalition of Florida Seaports gained support for significant changes to port regulations. HB 963 by Representative Ray and SB 2000 by Senator Ring was Port Policy/Regulatory Relief legislation dealing specifi cally with the following: port conceptual permits, stormwater management systems serving overwater piers, reduction of match for rehabilitation of wharves and piers, flexibility language for FSTED program, funding process, dredging permits issued by DEP, p ublic/private partnership authority, as well as providing an expedited process for the submission of work program amendments for seaport projects. ECI attended all committee meetings, as well as numerous meetings with the sponsors, other legislator and sta ff to ensure its passage. In 2011, ECI helped pass HB 283 by Representative Young/SB 524 by Senator Latvala. Florida at that time was the only state subject to both state and federal seaport requirements, including duplicative background checks and access cards. This of course put the state and specifically Port Everglades at a competitive disadvantage with other ports, as well as being costly to port users and workers. HB 283 repealed these duplicative regulations and was signed into law by Governor Scott at a special bill signing - 14 - ceremony. (This legislation settled the differences of the FDLE card and the TWIC (Transportation Worker ID Card). Please note that this was an ongoing battle since 2009 and we are very proud of passage of this legislation. In 2 011 ECI was instrumental in working with the Ports Council to help pass language geared toward environmental processes, permitting language and seaport planning language. (Senator Ring and Representative Ray – HB 399) This legislation is beneficial to Por t Everglades because of the maintenance dredging and streamline permitting language. InA2012.AspecificAportAfundingAforAtheASouthPortATurningANotchAwasAeliminatedAfromAFDOT’sAfiveAyearA work plan. ECI strategically led a coalition of business leaders fro m Broward County that included Port Everglades Board Members, members of the Greater Fort Lauderdale Business Alliance and Broward County Commissioners. We then facilitated critical meetings with key legislators and agency decision makers to reinstate tha t funding in the appropriations process. ECI was instrumental in working along side the Ports Council to help pass monumental seaport legislation. Increased financial assistance, as well as streamline permitting legislation was put into place to benefit F lorida’sA14Aseaports,AWeAworkedAhardAtoAsecureAadditionalAmoneyAforAtheAFSTEDAProgram.AasA wellAasAsettingAupAaAStrategicAPortAInitiativeAtoAbenefitAtheAfutureAofAFlorida’sAports,AOurAeffortsAresultedAinA an increase from the previous year and specific appro priations for Port Everglades are as follows: Port Everglades $1,100,000 for the Southport Turning Notch (project funded through FSTED Port Everglades $12,000,000 for Southport ICTF on Port Rail Improvement (project funded through FDOT) Port Everglades $12,214,668 for Southport Turning Notch Expansion (project funded through FDOT) FEC/ Port Everglades ICTF $30,000,000 (project funded in the Intermodal line item) Crime Lab CrimeAlabAfundingAhasAbeenAaApriorityAforAtheABrowardACountyASheriff’sAOfficeAa nd Broward County for the last few years. Florida has five crime labs that are underfunded by the state. Prior to the 2012 legislative session, statutory authority allowed but did not require judges to impose an additional penalty to increase the funding for crime labs when they were used in the successful prosecution of a defendant. Invoking this additional fine was rarely imposed and it was not uniformly applied. This created significant shortfalls that the Sheriff ’s office and the County then had to s ubsidize with local funding. Efforts led by ECI throughout 2010 and 2011 culminated in successful changes to mandate crime lab fees in 2012 legislation. Specifically, language was passed that would require a $100 fee to be mandated when a person was co nvicted of a crime and the local crime lab was utilized. There are 5 local crime labs that are located in Broward, Palm Beach, Miami -Dade, Indian River and Pinellas Counties. ThroughAECI’sAstrongArelationshipsAwithAtheABrowardAdelegation.AsupportAforAt he language to change the statute was garnered early in the process. This support resulted in Senator Bogdanoff (who was essential in previous efforts) committing to making it a priority during Budget negotiations. ECI worked - 15 - tirelessly throughout the ap propriations process attending all Budget meetings and worked along side Senator Bogdanoff to gain support of both the House and Senate leadership to secure the House acceptance of the mandatory $100 fee language. We were successful in getting the House t o accept the language and Senate Conforming Bill 1968 passed both the House and Senate unanimously. Our understanding is that this language will provide an estimated $5 Million funding for the crime labs. During the veto period we worked diligently with t heAGovernor’sAOfficeAtoAanswerAquestionsAandA educate them on the user fee funding source contained in the legislation. Our arguments were persuasive and the bill was ultimately approved by the Governor. Afterschool Programs During the 2012 Legislative Session Claudia Davant helped lead the charge to prevent the passage of legislative changes that would have made 32,000 low -income children ineligible for participation in the afterschool programs they were currently enrolled in . She met with legislators and facilitated language supported by the Florida AfterSchool Network and other advocates for children and education so that theAlegislationAthatAwasAultimatelyApassedAmetAtheirAgoalsAforAimprovingAchildren’sAschoolAreadinessA wit houtAblockingAaccessAtoAimportantAafterschoolAprograms,AClaudiaAwasAnamedAFlorida’sA“ fterschoolA ChampionAofAtheAYear”AforAherAsuccessfulAproAbonoAworkAonAbehalfAofAtheAFloridaA fterschoolANetwork, Budget Robert Beck, a founding partner with Adams St. Ad vocatesAleadsAourAFirm’sA ppropriationsAwork,AARobertA hasAaAsolidAunderstandingAofAtheAStateAofAFlorida’sAbudgetAprocessAhavingAheldAnumerousAseniorA appointmentsAinAtheAExecutiveAbranch.AtheAGovernor’sAOfficeAandAinAtheASenateALegislativeA Appropriations Co mmittee. Since leaving government in 2008 after 22 years, Robert has helped secure millions of dollars in appropriations increases as well as preserves base budget funding on behalf of his clients. These accomplishments include: • FY 2010 -2011 – Preserv ed funding for home and community -based programs serving seniors in while over $4 Billion was cut from programs in the State Budget. During the worse fiscal times the State of Florida has ever faced, Mr. Beck was able to secure several million dollars to increaseAFlorida’sA gingA & Disabled Medicaid Waiver program. • FY 2011 -2012 - $40 million increase for home and community based care programs for seniors includingAforA lzheimer’sAProjectsA&AServices:ANursingAhomeAdiversionAprogram.ACommunityACareAforAth e Elderly, and local service programs serving Broward and Miami -Dade Counties. • FY 2012 -2013 $ 23 million increase for home and community based care programs for seniors $ 11.4 million for the AIDS Insurance Continuation Programs which serves Broward C ounty $ 2.5 million increase for AIDS Drug Assistance Program $ 4.4 million for Juvenile delinquency prevention programs $ 1.0 million of the Health Council of South Florida InAadditionAtoAtheseArecentAappropriationsAsecuredAthroughAMr,ABeck’sAadvocacyAef forts, he also was an integralAmemberAofAtheA2012ATeamAledAbyAEricksAConsultantsAtoAprotectAtheASFRT ’sAbaseAbudgetAfundingA for commuter rail transportation and secured $2 million for rail bridge replacement in Central Florida. Finally, Mr. Beck has helpe d his clients achieve success in the budgeting process in numerous cases - 16 - through the development of State Budget Proviso language and development of numerous budget conforming bills critical to ensuring proper implementation of the budget following legisla tive session. Charter Schools ECI was instrumental in obtaining increases in appropriations each year for charter schools. We represent the City of Coral Springs and the City of Pembroke Pines on charter school issues. This has been an uphill battle over the years to gain support and appropriations for the charter school effort. 2001 - Increased from $20 million to $27.7 million 2006 - Increased from $27.7 million to $53 million During the 2007 and 2008 Legislative Sessions - over $54,000,000 2010 - $56,112,466 2011 - $55 million appropriated with additional money for high performing charter school systems (note that both Coral Springs and Pembroke Pines are part of a high performing charter schools system) 2012 - $55,209,106 (plus additional funding available after allocation to the lab schools) Broward Center for the Performing Arts In 2012, ECI was successful in helping pass a bill for the Broward Center of the Performing Arts. The bill grants a public record exemption for publicly owned and operated performing arts centers. Before the billApassedAconfidential.Asensitive.AandApersonalAinformationAofAtheAcenters’AdonorsAwereAsubjectAtoA public records requests. The bill was signed by the Governor and donors are now protected. Crimes Against T he Homeless This effort was attempted for many years, prior to passage in 2010. HB 11 by Representative Porth and SB 506 by Senator Ring, added homelessness into the statute of Hate Crimes (reclassifying offenses evidencing prejudice based on the homeles s status of the victim). Florida leads the nation in attacks on the homeless. After Maryland enacted a law based on some of the horrific incidences that we as a community faced here in Broward, Sheriff Lamberti contacted members of our Delegation to pursu e this effort yet one more time. ECI worked with the sponsors, Commander Rick Wierzbicki and Broward staff through every committee meeting and numerous discussions with Legislators in both the Senate and the House to ensure passage of this legislation. A lthough it did not pass unanimously [25 yeas/10 nays], there was virtually no discussion on the floor when Senator Ring presented the bill to the Senate. However, some members of the House were quite vocal in their opposition to adding another Hate Crime t o the statute that already included nine classes. Representative Porth gave a passionate argument and defense of the legislation. Ultimately, the vote was not close [80 yeas/28 nays] and HB 11 passed. Medical Examiner During the 2011 Legislative Sessio n ECI facilitated a meeting with Steven Fielder, Director of Government Relations for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, regarding allowing our medical examiners to be given direct access to the DAVID database [Driver & Vehicle Informatio n Database[,AThisAdatabaseAcontainsAaAmotorist’sAidentifyingAandAemergencyAcontactAinformation.AforAtheA purpose of determining the identification of a deceased individual. Fielder was concerned about the numberAofAexaminers’AabilityAtoAgainAaccess,AThrough a lengthy discussion we agreed upon a number of roughly 20 (as the number across the state) that, pursuant to an interagency agreement, would have - 17 - secure access to the database. Once DHSMV signed off on the agreed upon language we went back to Representat ive Moraitis who we had briefed prior to our meeting with DHSMV. With the groundwork already set we started the 2012 Session touching base with Steven Fielder to make sure the Department was still supportive of our efforts. He gave us the green light and we immediately met with Representative Albritton and his staff to explain why our Medical Examiners should have direct access to the DAVID database. He understood, but also made it clear that only language that was agreed on by both sponsors (House and S enate) would make it into the final cut of the legislative package. We had our marching orders and went directly to Senator Latvala's office and met with his staff to explain at length the need we saw for direct access to the database and why we should be included in the legislation. From that point we were on constant follow -up with both offices up until the strike -all legislation was made public. We were very pleased that the database language was incorporated. Palm Beach County In 2011 ECI was ins trumental in securing language in the reorganizational legislation for enterprise zone boundary designations on behalf of Palm Beach County. Also, we were able to secure $1.4 million in the budget during the Conference process for the Glades Senior Center/West County Homeless Resource Center. Although the $1.4 M passed in the budget, this particular item, along with many other items, wasAsubjectAtoAGovernorAScott’sAvetoApower, Property Appraiser Issues ECI worked with Senator Ring and Representative Holde r to pass SB 1580 - partial property payments. This piece of legislation proved to be more difficult than we expected. There were many hurdles; however, with the help and dedication of Senator Ring, Representative Holder, Representative Bogdanoff and Repre sentative Murzin, among others, we were able to get it through both chambers in the last few days of Session. What SB 1580 ultimately does is allows for taxpayers to pay their property taxes in partial payments. Before passage of this legislation the law d id not legally allow the tax collector to collect the payment unless it was paid in full. This piece of legislation will be helpful to the Florida citizens in these difficult economic times. Seminole Compact After years of negotiation, the Seminole Trib e of Florida and the State finally came together on a compact. The agreement comes after the Legislature challenged the first compact in 2008 and rejected compacts in 2009. The compact will allow the state to collect at least a billion dollars over five ye ars. The Seminole Tribe is authorized to conduct gaming at the following locations: Seminole Indian Casino – Brighton, located in Okeechobee, FL, Seminole Indian Casino – Coconut Creek, located in Coconut Creek, FL, Seminole Indian Casino – Hollywood, located in Hollywood, FL, Seminole Indian Casino – Immokalee, located in Immokalee, FL, Seminole Indian Casino – Big Cypress, located in Clewiston, FL, Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino – Hollywood, located in Hollywood, FL, and Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino – Tampa, located in Tampa, FL . - 18 - As a part of the Revenue Sharing Agreement between the state and local governments, the State will remit 3% of revenue received from the Tribe. Out of this 3%, Broward County shall receive 22.5% for revenue collected from the Seminole Indian Casino -Coconut Creek facility, and 25% for both Seminole Indian Casino in Hollywood and the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Hollywood. (The share is less for Coconut Creek due to more cities being included in the share tha n for the Hollywood facilities.) ECIAwasAsuccessfulAinAnegotiatingAaA5%AfeeAtoAaffectedAcitiesAandAcountiesAinAtheAoriginalAGovernor’sA compact that was overturned by the courts. ECI then helped negotiate the eventually agreed upon 3% (down from 5% becaus e the legislative compact was requiring a larger guarantee from the Seminoles in the final agreement) on the legislative compact. ECI was instrumental in ensuring the percentage cuts to Broward County and the City of Coconut Creek. Law Enforcement ECI w as responsible for numerous pieces of legislation dealing with all areas of public safety. SB 214 which set the statewide standards for the training and use of dart firing stun guns. SB 428 which raised the per diem rates for travel expenses of public emp loyees. HB 251 which created the Marvin Clayton Act, which is the database to fairly and correctly dispense the allocation for local law 175/185 premium tax revenues. HB 295 which increased the penalties for violators that attempted to flee or elude law en forcementAofficers,AHBA749AtheADuvalACountyASheriff’sAofficeApensionAplanAlegislationAaddedA correctional officers to special risk of their local law plan. SB 1792 which revised the number of members sitting on the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Co mmission and added the 180 day tolling or limitation period of actions against a law enforcement officer. HB 123 law enforcement officers’AbillAofArights.AthatAstoppedAtheA180AdayAtollingAofAanAinvestigationAduringAaAdeclaredAstateAofA emergency and clarifi ed that law enforcement officers were entitled to be interviewed last during an investigation. HB 143 set state wide training standards for firearms training, bringing Florida in line with Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Local Governments In 2008, ECI was able to obtain $500,000 for the Fire Training Simulator Tower for the City of Coral Springs. In 2008, Claudia Davant was retained to help the City of Tavares secure funding from the FDOT for the development of commuter rail in Tavares. In a dditionAtoArailAfunding.ADavant’sAteamAhelpedAtheACityAwithA various permitting issues related to the redevelopment of downtown Tavares. The Department of Environmental Protection had been unwilling to grant the City approval for the reconstruction of an ov erwater pavilion on Lake Dora. The Davant Team worked with state and local officials, as well as the LegislatureAandAGovernor’sAoffice.AtoAgetAapprovalAforAtheAproject,ATheACityAwasAnotAonlyAgrantedAallA permits for construction, but the permits were expedi ted, saving the City over 12 months of project delays. ECI was responsible for obtaining $7 M for the Plantation Preserve Golf Course. CBIRS - Back when community budget requests were part of the budget, ECI was extremely knowledgeable and successful i n securing them for our local governments. Florida Atlantic University - 19 - EC I worked with Tom Barlow, Director of Governmental Relations for Florida Atlantic University, to secure funds for identified FAU programs. ECI was initially hired to work on the FAU Davie Campus expansion. During the time ECI represented the University we exceeded our assigned goal and were instrumental in securing substantial funding for the university. In 2007, $94 million in PECO funding, $4.3 million recurring for their medical school expanding as 4 year program; $18 million for a new engineering project; $10 million for a general classroom building; $18 million for the Davie campus expansion; $8 million for the Harbor Branch Oceanic Research Center; and, an $500,000 increase for a student -teacher program. During the 2008 Legislative Session, ECI successfully secured the final $4.3 appropriation for the medical school as well as $8.75 million for an ocean to energy project, $52 million in PECO funding, $9 million in student proje cts, and $5 million for the Wellness Center. Local Preemption Experience Local preemption language is a constant battle in Tallahassee in numerous areas and we fight all session long for our local governments. Some examples of our experiences in this are a include: Growth Management InA2009AECIAworkedAwithARepresentativeASchenk’sAofficeAtoAplaceAaAconformingAamendmentAonAHBA73A regarding contracting with the Department of Environmental Protection. The language extends the ability to expedite permitting to charter counties with population over 1.2 million that have delegation agreements with DEP or WMD if they do so by resolution. (This bill was amended and passed.) Solid Waste In 2010, ECI worked closely with local governments and other interested partie s to defeat preemptive language that would have ultimately dissolved solid waste franchise agreements between a city or county and a vendor. That language would have changed the definition of Construction and Demolition debris and would have put an end to previously negotiated and operating contracts. The last time there was a real attempt to change this language was about five years ago. We were also instrumental in defeating that initiative at that time. Recycling SB 570 by Senator Constantine was qu ite contentious during the entire 2010 Session. ECI worked with all interested parties to ensure that unachievable mandates to local governments and private business were not in the final piece of legislation. From the beginning we felt comfortable with ho lding unfriendly language at bay in the House, knowing that we had a fight on our hands in the Senate. The House introduced their language as part of a committee sponsored bill [HB 7243] under Representative Williams’Adirection,A sAtheAnextAfewAweeksAunfol ded, through countless discussions, amendments and negotiations, we were successful in ensuring that acceptable language was included in the legislation. Taxi Cabs ECI has fought against and has always been successful in defeating pre -emptive language re garding taxi cab regulation for many years. The proposed language prohibits state and local governments from regulating the transfers of taxi cab licenses or shares in the corporation that owns those licenses. The - 20 - language usually shows up within the las t few weeks of Session. In 2009 it was filed as an amendment to SB 424 and onto HB 1021. In 2010 the language showed up during the last 2 weeks filed as an amendment onto HB 1271. The 2011 Session was a bit different. The legislation was drawn only to affect Hillsborough County. We met with the sponsor to ensure it would not affect Broward. Last year there was not an appetite to entertain the efforts although there was discussion. Traffic Enforcement Cameras ECI worked on and helped pass House Bil l 325 that formalizes and governs the specifications for the red light cameras across the state. The bill allows local governments to contract with private contractors to install red light cameras at intersections. The bill provides that any red light in fraction will result in a fine of $158. If the county or municipality operates the camera, then the local government will retain $75. If the state operates the cameras, then the local government will receive $45. Under both scenarios, $10 will go to the Department of Health Administrative Trust Fund and $3 will go into the Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund. During the 2012 Legislative Session there was legislation introduced and an attempt to repeal the red light camera law. HB 4087 by Representa tive Corcoran passed the House but was never taken up in the Senate. Since the Senate did not consider the repeal, the sponsor offered amendments to other transportation bills. One particular amendment seemed to gather support toward the end of the Sessio n and may be back next year. The amendment would have required traffic studies to show that red light cameras would in fact make intersections safer. Other amendments that were debated included the prohibition on citations for red light right hand turns and enactment of specific yellow timing standards. ECI worked alongside interested parties against this effort for our cities, Palm Beach County and ACS. We do expect to see this issue in the 2013 Legislative Session. Ericks Consultants, Inc., together with Adams St. Advocates, would be pleased to accept this one year contract for lobbying services for the City of Delray Beach for an annual fee of $40,000, payable in twelve monthly installments. This contract includes but is not limited t o scheduled, extended and special legislative sessions as well as other times throughout the year deemed necessary by the City or the Consultant. The ECI/ASA team would like the opportunity to partner with the City of Delray Beach. We want to thank the City for the opportunity to present this unique and exciting strategic alliance that will allow the City to enter the 2013 Legislative Session with confidence and trust. Should you have any questions or need additional information on any part of this proposal, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you. - 21 - – The following Client List offers insight into the varied nature of our experience and current endeavors and provides contact information for each of our clients. A merican Ambulance Service, Inc. Charles Maymon 2570 South Park Road Pembroke Park, FL 33009 954 -868 -6668 cmaymon@AmericanAmbulanceSvc.com ECI began representing American Ambulance before local governments in 2010. American Marketing & Management, Inc. Austin Forman 888 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 501 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 954 -522 -1969 af01@bellsouth.ne t ECI has represented American Marketing for more than 12 years. BAGS, Inc. Craig Mateer 6751 Forum Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32821 407 -447 -5547 craig@airportbags.com ECI resumed representing BAGS, Inc. in Broward County in 2011. Broward Center for the Performing Arts Kelley Shanley 201 SW 5th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 -7112 954 -522 -5334 kshanley@browardcenter.org ECI has represented the Center for over 12 years. Broward County Eddie Labrador 115 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 954 -357 -7575 elabrador@broward.org - 22 - ECI has represented Broward County for more than 14 years. Broward County Property Appraiser Lori Parrish 115 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 954 -357 -6904 lori@bcpa.net ECI has represented the Broward County Property Appraiser for over five years. Broward County Sheriff’s Office Sheriff Al Lamberti 2601 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 954 -321 -4605 allamberti1@aol.com ECIAhasArepresentedAtheABrowardASheriff’sAOfficeAforAoverAthreeAyears, Broward Health (formerly North Broward Hospital District) Charlotte Mather 303 SW 17th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 954 -355 -4174 charlotte.mather@nbhd.org ECI has represented Broward Health for over seven years. Cash Bond Onl ine Pat McDonough 1750 Archmont Circle Dacula, GA 30019 888 -726 -6301 pmcdonough@cashbondonline.com ECI began representing Cash Bond Online in 2011. Center Stage Attractions Joe Gehl 1815 Cordova Road, Suite 211 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315 954 -522 -4146 jgehl912@aol.com ECI has represented the Gehl Group for over 20 years. - 23 - City of Coconut Creek David Rivera 4800 West Copans Road Coconut Creek, FL 33063 954 -973 -6720 drivera@coconutcreek.net ECI has represented City of Coconut Creek for almost six years. City of Coral Springs Erdal Donmez 9551 West Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 954 -344 -1142 edonmez@coralsprings.org ECI has represented City of Coral Springs for over eight years. City of Fort Lauderdale Lee Feldman 100 N. Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954 -828 -5364 lfeldman@fortlauderdale.gov ECI began representing the City of Fort Lauderdale in October 2012. City of North Lauderdale Ambreen Bhatty 701 SW 71st Avenue North Lauderdale, FL 33068 954 -724 -7041 abhatty@nlauderdale.org ECI resumed representing the City of North Lauderdale again in 2009. City of Pembroke Pines Mayor Frank Ortis Charlie Dodge 10100 Pines Boulevard Pembroke Pines, FL 33026 954 -431 -4884 cdodge@ppines.com ECI has represented the City of Pembroke Pines for at least six years. City of Plantation - 24 - Mayor Diane Veltri Bendekovic 400 NW 73rd Avenue Plantation, FL 33317 954 -797 -2227 mayor@plantation.org ECI has represented City of Plantation for over seven years. Diplomat Properties Limited Partners, LLC Francis X. Lilly 3555 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, FL 33019 202 -898 -2270 flilly@independentfiduciary.com ECI began representation of this world class resort and spa in 2011. Federation of Public Employees AFL -CIO Dan Reynolds 1700 NW 66th Avenue Suite 100 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33313 954 -797 -7575 x 221 taflaco@aol.com ECI has represented the FOPE since 2009. Florida Power and Light Company Paul Hamilton 215 South Monroe Street, Ste 810 Tallahassee, FL 32301 850 -521 -3915 paul_hamilton@fpl.com ECI has represented FP&L for over 13 years. Florida Sunshine Entertainment Association Angelina Spencer 4340 Beechwood Lake Drive Naples, FL 34112 216 -965 -7527 angelina001@comcast.net ECI has represented the Association since 2007. Fort Lauderdale Swap Shop Preston Henn 3501 West Sunrise Boulevard - 25 - Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33311 954 -931 -8148 swshop@aol.com ECI has represented the Swap Shop for over 20 years. The GEO Group, Inc. George Zoley Jorge Dominicis One Park Place, Suite 700 621 Northwest 53rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33487 561 -999 -7326 gzoley@geogroup.com jdominicis@geocareinc.com Gerstle, Rosen & Goldenberg, PA Ron Nadler 2630 NE 203rd Street Aventura, FL 33180 305 -937 -0116 rnadler@gerstlerosen.com ECI began representing the Gerstle CPA firm in Septembe r 2012. Herzog Contracting Norm Jester Post Office Box 1089 St. Joseph, MO 64502 954 -970 -3970 njester@herzogcompanies.com ECI has represented Herzog for over 14 years. JM Family Enterprises Sonya Deen 100 NW 12th Avenue Deerfield Beach, FL 33443 954 -429 -2404 sonya.deen@jmfamily.com ECI has represented JM for over 16 years. Kendall Properties & Investments Austin Forman Bill Murphy 4300 North University D rive, Suite D -103 Lauderhill, FL33351 - 26 - 954 -522 -1969 af01@bellsouth.net ECI has represented Kendall Properties for over seven years. Palm Beach County Todd Bonlarron 301 North Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 3340 1 561 -310 -7832 tbonlarr@co.palm -beach.fl.us ECI has represented Palm Beach County for over eight years. Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Sheriff Donald F. Eslinger Chief Peggy Fleming 100 Bush Blvd. Sanford, FL 32773 407 -665 -6650 pfleming@seminolesheriff.org ECIAbeganArepresentingAtheASeminoleACountyASheriff’sAOfficeAonAOctoberA1.A2012, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Joe Giulietti 800 NW 33rd Street, Suite 100 Pompano Beach, FL33064 954 -788 -7918 giuliettij@sfrta.gov ECI has represented SFRTA for over 17 years. Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District Austin Forman 888 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 501 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 954 -522 -1969 af01@bellsouth.net ECI has represented Tindall Hammock for over seven years. Town of Davie Richard J. Lemack 6591 Orange Drive Davie, FL 33314 954 -797 -1023 richard_lemack@davie -fl.gov - 27 - ECI resumed representing the Town of Davie in 2010. United Healthcare of Florida Tom Moore 3100 SW 14th Avenue Miramar, FL 33027 813 -890 -4531 thomas_w_moore@uhc.com ECI began representation of UHC in 2010. United Pawnbrokers Group Thomas E. Sams 4527 Arnold Avenue Naples, FL 34104 239 -825 -0714 tomsams@c apitalpawn.com ECI has worked with the United Pawnbrokers Group or members of the pawnbroker community since 2003. Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. Russell Mackie 2101 W SR 84 Longwood, FL 32779 305 -651 -7011 rmackie@wasteprousa.com ECI began representing Waste Pro in 2011. - 28 - – Ericks Consultants is pleased to present the following professional references: Company Name: American Marketing & Management Address: 888 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 501, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Contact Name: Austin Forman Telephone: 954 -763 -8111 E -Mail Address: af01@ammi.net Fax: 954 -522 -1969 ECI has represented this client since 2000 Company Nam e: South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Address: 800 NW 33rd Street, Suite 100, Pompano Beach, FL 33064 Contact Name: Vicki Wooldridge or Joe Giulietti Telephone: 954 -788 -7934 E -Mail Address: wooldridgev@sfrta.fl.gov Fax: 954 -786 -7505 ECI has represented this client since 1995 Company Name: Broward Health Address: 303 SW 17th Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Contact Name: Charlotte Mather Telephone: 954 -355 -4174 E -Mail Address: charlotte.mather@nbhd.org Fax: 954 -355 -4774 ECI has represented this client since 2005 CompanyAName;ABrowardACountyASheriff’sAOffice Address: 2601 West Broward Blvd, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 Contact Name:Al Lamberti or Danielle DiNicola Telephone: 954 -321 -4605 E -Mail Address: danielle_dinicola@sheriff.org Fax: 954 -763 -4917 ECI has represented this client since 2009 Company Name: JM Family Enterprises Address: 100 NW 12th Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL 33443 Contact Name: Sonya Deen Telephone: 954 -429 -2404 E -Mail Address: sonya.deen@jmfamily.com Fax: 954 -429 -2677 ECI has represen ted this client since 1996 Company Name: Broward County Property Appraiser Address: 115 South Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Contact Name: Lori Parrish Telephone: 954 -357 -6904 E -Mail Address: lori@ bcpa.net Fax: 954 -357 -8474 ECI has represented this client since 2006 Company Name: City of Plantation Address: 400 NW 73rd Avenue, Plantation, FL 33317 Contact Name: Mayor Diane Veltri Bendekovic Telephone: 954 -797 -2222 E -Mail Address: mayor@plantation.org Fax: 954 -797 -2223 ECI has represented this client since 2005 - 29 - Company Name: City of Coral Springs Address: 9551 West Sample Road, Coral Springs, FL 33065 Contact Name: Erdal Donmez Telephone: 954 -344 -5906 E -Mail Address: edonmez@coralsprings.org Fax: 954 -344 -1043 ECI has represented this client since 2000 Adams St. Advocates LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company established in 2011. Our office hours are Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM; however, we are always available to our clients via cell phone, text message or email. ASA has two Tallahassee offices and also works from the ECI office in Fort Lauderdale. W e encourage you to visit our website at: www.adamsstadvocates.com for more information on our firm. Professional Reference for Claudia Davant : Company Name: Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. Address: 2 073 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 300, Tallahassee, FL 32317 Contact Name: Chuck Cliburn Telephone: 850 -210 -1302 E -Mail Address: chuck.cliburn@acs -inc.com When was your contract awarded: 2008 Profession al Reference for Robert Beck : Company Name: Aging & Disability Resource Center of Broward County Address: 5300 N. Hiatus Road, Sunrise, FL 33351 -8701 Contact Name: Edith Lederberg Telephone: 954 -745 -9603 E -Mail Address: lederbee@adrchbroward.org Fax: 954 -745 -9584 When was your contract awarded: 2008 Cit y of Delray Beach - Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Florida Strategic Group Contact Information: David A. Shepp 1 . Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach 2 David Shepp – Consultant Alex Cutts – Administrative Assistant 2 . List types of additional costs above the annual fee , if any (i.e. travel, printing , etc.) None 3 . Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: X = Yes a. Lobby State Legislature X b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies X c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). X – as necessary d . Meet regularly with City elected official s and/or staff (i.e., in - person, conference call, etc.) X e . Develop City’s state legislative agenda X f . Provide weekly legislative updates during session X g . Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and State Agencies X 4 . Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. Yes. We currently provide federal consulting for the City of Lakeland and can develop a similar program for the City of Delray Beach. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. n/a b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partner s with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. 5 . Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session , and provide a summary of the final result. 1. HB 615, by Rep. Horner – create a ‘blacklist ’ for retailers who refuse to pay wholesale distributors as well as classifying roll -your -own (RYO) tobacco stores as ‘manufacturers ’. T h e bill stalled at the end of Session, but we were able to am end the retailer/distributor issue on to HB 887 by Rep. Ingram. The bill was signed by Governor Scott and went into law on Oct 1, 2012. The RYO provision was removed, but later passed by Congress and signed by the President. 2. HB 4025, by Rep. O ’Toole – elimination of local business taxes. Fought the proposal to repeal F.S. Chapter 205, the “Local Business Tax ” statute, which would have eliminated local business licenses and the resulting revenues. Worked with members of the House Finance & Tax Committee to prepare questions during the Committee Workshop to discredi t the bill and keep it from reaching a vote. The bill was TP ’d and did not advance beyond the Committee. City of Delray Beach - Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig Contact Information: Leslie Dughi, Assistant Director of Government Affairs, 850 -521 -8571; cell 850 -519 -3903 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach Hayden Dempsey , Chair, Florida Governmental Affairs Practice Leslie Dughi, Assistant Director of Government Affairs Note: There are five lobbying professionals on our team. While these two professional s will be primary for Delray Beach, to ensure the highest level of representation is provided, the other team members stand ready to assist. GT also has 2 full -time legislative services professionals that provide support for all legislative needs. 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) Expenses in addition to the annual fee would include travel (primarily for face to face meetings with Delray Beach staff and Commissioners which may also be done through conference calls). We expect to keep these additional costs to a minimum. Further, we typically include in our proposals that any expenses over a certain amount be subject to the client’s written approval. 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Our proposed contract would focus on lobbying on the state level for Delray Beach. However, our team and other members of Greenberg Traurig have strong working relationships with local agencies. In particular, our South Flo rida professionals have experience working with Palm Beach County policymakers and the South Florida Water Management District. Further, in Florida and in DC, we have professionals with extensive expertise working with the US Army Corps and the Corps of E ngineers. d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., in - person, conference call, etc.) Yes – Regular meetings will ensure we provide the highest level of representation for the City. We are willing to meet with staff and Commiss ioners in the manner (in person or by conference call) that best suits Delray Beach. e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes – It is imperative that the lobbying team gains an in -depth understanding of the issues important to Delray Beach. Develop ment of a legislative agenda should be a collaborative effort between Delray Beach leaders and the lobby team. f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes. During session, legislative language can change quickly. It is important that close contact is maintained with the Commissioners and staff to ensure we are appropriately advocating your position. g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying servic es? If so, please describe. Yes. Our DC Governmental Affairs team has successfully provided legislative representation and lobbying at the federal level for a number of municipal clients. Our team has achieved fiscal and policy successes on behalf of ou r municipal clients, securing more than $250 million in funding over the past decade. These funds have been instrumental in a variety of economic development, housing, infrastructure, environmental, homeland security, and community -related programs. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. N/A b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. N/A 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. Our team, for more than 20 years, has been involved in major legislative initiatives on varied policy and appropriation issues. We are happy to provide you with an extensive list of issues we have worked on over the last several years. Outlined below are a few of the issues we worked on for our clients. Local Business Taxes – On behalf of a municipality, we worked to change language originally proposed by Rep. O’Toole which would have prohib ited any increases in local business tax rates beginning in FY 2012 - 13. Working closely with Rep. Roberson, the language that ultimately passed exempted individuals licensed and operating as a real estate sales or broker associate from paying a local busi ness tax. The bill also provided an option for certain counties and municipalities to continue levying local business taxes, provided that at least 25% of their local tax revenue in local FY 2012 -13 comes from local business taxes. Counties and municipalit ies opting to continue levying local business tax would not have been able to increase their ad valorem millage rates above those levied in local FY 2012 -13, unless they discontinue levying their local business tax. Further, the bill provided that certain counties and municipalities that pledged their local business tax revenue stream as security for bonds or certificates issued before March 9, 2012, could have continued to levy their tax to meet obligations required by the bonds or certificates. Septic T anks - On behalf of a local municipality, we worked with Rep. Dorworth and others on HB 999 (which ultimately was added to HB 1263 by Rep. Hudson). This bill repealed the statewide onsite septic system evaluation program and required a county or municipal ity with a first magnitude spring to develop and adopt by local ordinance a septic system evaluation and assessment program, unless the county or municipality opts out. All other counties and municipalities may opt in. Further, existing septic system inspe ction programs are grandfathered in unless they contain a mandatory inspection at the point of sale in a real estate transaction . The bill also ensured that owners are given at least 60 days’ notice that their system is due for an evaluation. Finally, the bill required DEP to notify a municipality of potential funding under the Clean Water Act or Clean Water State Revolving Fund and assist such counties or municipalities to model and establish low -interest loan programs. Failure to Return Vehicles - On be half of an international rental vehicle company, we successfully drafted and passed proactive legislation (HB 729 by Rep. Pilon) that ensured stolen vehicles would be added to the law enforcement "hot sheet" to ensure quick retrieval of the vehicle. The b ill also increased, for an evidentiary standpoint, the weight given to the evidence that the person in possession of the vehicle received the demand for return notice from the company and failed to return the vehicle. Medicaid Reform - Over the last thre e legislative sessions, on behalf of a national health care organization and a statewide business association, we played a significant role in the 2011 comprehensive rewrite of the state's Medicaid program. We worked very closely with legislative leadersh ip and the Governor's office to craft and implement this landmark legislation. Our work continued in the 2012 session as implementation of the reform began and as changes were proposed. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com ©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved . GT Overview of Greenberg Traurig’s Proposal for State Lobbying Services Presented to City of Delray Beach, Florida October 12, 2012 Contact: Leslie Y. Dughi Assistant Director, Governmental Affairs Greenberg Traurig, P.A. dughil@gtlaw.com Direct: 850.521.8571 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. | ATTORNEYS AT LAW | WW W.GTLAW.COM Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 1 GT Table of Contents Section Page About Greenberg Traurig’s Tallahassee Office 2 Qualifications and Experience 3 Representative State Experience 4 Greenberg Traurig’s Team for Delray Beach 7 Legislative Support Services 9 Proposed Fee Schedule and Expenses 10 Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 2 GT About Greenberg Traurig’s Tallahassee Office Greenberg Traurig’s Tallahassee office is home to a multidisciplinary legal team with deep Florida roots. For more than 20 years, our lawyers and governmental affairs professionals have worked at the intersection of business, government and the law. We provide our clients with a wide range of practical legal counsel and services, from dispute resolution and transactional representation to governmental advocacy and day-to-day corporate advice. Located just one block from the state’s capitol and legislative buil dings, and three blocks from Florida’s Supreme Court, GT’s Tallahassee office gives our clients an immediate physical and political link to the heart of the nation’s fourth largest state. Greenberg Traurig merged with the Tallahassee offic e of Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard in 1992 with approximately 14 lawyers who maintained a successful practice for over 15 years. The union provided GT with not only the strong state go vernmental presence that RBL&R had but the ability to expand this presence statewide. The f ruit of these years has been not only strong relationships with governmental and elected officia ls, but also deeply-rooted relationships with the staff of these officials — whose longevity, man y times, exceeds the terms of their bosses. We have clients across the entire political spectrum. Our practice includes banking, local government, procurement, campaigns and elections, d ata security and privacy, economic incentives, energy, environmental, financial servic es, gaming, growth management, health care, housing, insurance, public relations and medi a strategy, state appropriations, taxation, telecommunications, and transportation. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 3 GT Qualifications and Experience The Florida Governmental Affairs team at Greenberg Traurig has been in the mix of every major legislative battle for the past 18 years. We’ve wor ked to develop and pass such notable legislation as the creation of the Dade County Expr essway Authority, Florida's Catastrophic Hurricane Fund, Workers’ Compensation Reform, Nursi ng Home ‘Tort Reform’ Legislation, the 1995 Telecommunications Act, Privacy and HIPPA Impl ementation Legislation, Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act (GLB Act) Implementation Legislation, th e first state definition of ‘Green Energy,’ Rate Rebalancing Legislation, and Florida’s Unified Buil ding Code. We have annually navigated the appropriations process to obtain funding for munici palities and numerous other clients. We’ve helped maintain markets for Florida’s independent p ower producers and developed new markets for Florida’s life, health, and auto insure rs. Each legislative session, the GT Tallahassee Govern mental Affairs Team advocates for clients seeking state funding for a variety of programs and projects. Annually our team defends current substantive policy and seeks to amend it on behalf of our clients. Moreover, we are involved in the development of yearly appropriation requests, i ncluding the drafting of substantive legislation with both statewide and local fiscal im pact. We determine the appropriate sponsors, research and develop oral and written materials to support the issue, and intricately follow each movement through the House and Senate. On appropriat ion projects, as negotiations progress through the end of the session, we rely on our stro ng relationships with House and Senate leadership, appropriations leadership and staff to ensure that our clients’ requests survive the maze of House and Senate offers resulting in passag e of the final Appropriations Act. The Florida Governmental Affairs practice extends f ar beyond legislative representation. We are experienced in appearing before the Cabinet and all executive agencies on behalf of a wide range of clients. Our knowledge and expertise in al l facets of Florida administrative law have given us the reputation as one of the “go to” firms for resolving matters with state government in Tallahassee. Our administrative law litigators are recognized throughout the state as highly skilled and successful in their efforts, and combin ed with our executive agency lobby team, form an unbeatable combination of access and substance t hat is rarely found in one firm. Our governmental affairs team is supported by a full -time staff of support personnel dedicated to making sure the team and our clients are kept ab reast of any and all relevant state government activities. This includes ongoing monito ring of executive and legislative branches, legislative tracking services, monitoring of commit tee and floor debate, defensive review of filed legislation and amendments, access to live calendar s, monitoring of the press, reviewing the Florida Administrative Code announcements, reviewin g proposed rules, preparing reports for clients, and research and drafting services. These services are provided year-round to our clients by one of the largest, most experienced, legislativ e support staffs of any firm in Florida. Greenberg Traurig’s lawyers and lobbyists have deca des of experience with the Florida Governor’s Office, the State Legislature, and with a ll the Florida state agencies, as well as the long-term relationships necessary for success. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 4 GT Representative State Experience Following is a representative list and description of work performed on behalf of a number of clients which includes both public and private enti ties. We would be happy to provide additional details upon request. City of North Port, Florida Scope of Services: Federal & State Legislative Repr esentation Length of Contract: 7 Years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Jonathon Lewis, City Manager Contact Phone: 941-429-7165 The state and federal GT Governmental Affairs Team has been the lead lobbyist for the City of North Port since 2005. During these years of repres entation, we have piloted the city through yearly offensive and defensive legislative efforts of concern to the municipality as well as successfully procured over $1.65 million in state a ppropriations for major municipal projects. On behalf of North Port, GT has also successfully: Defeated state legislation which would have prevent ed a freestanding emergency room from being opened within the City of North Port’s c ity limits. Included language in the State General Appropriatio ns Act requiring the Department of Community Affairs to provide technical assistance t o North Port to address antiquated lots and assist in growth planning. Defeated state legislation which would have signifi cantly restricted the city’s ability to conduct public works projects within the city. Florida Association of Court Clerks Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 36 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Ken Kent, Executive Director Contact Phone: 850-921-0808 Our longstanding general counsel representation of t he Florida Association of Court Clerks (FACC) has placed us at the forefront of debate on local government issues involving court and county revenues, child support depository, public r ecords, and judicial management. Our representation of the Association included a mul ti-year effort that has resulted in the authorization and funding of a statewide Comprehens ive Case Management System, which is operational in each clerk of court’s office to prov ide a single portal for access to all court case Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 5 GT data maintained by the clerks. We have also been i nstrumental in the Associations’ development and operation of a statewide portal to provide access to the Official Records which contain the deeds, mortgages and other docume nts that are required by statute to be recorded in the county. AT&T Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 4 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Joe York, Vice President, Legislative Affairs Contact Phone: 850-577-5500 In 2009, Greenberg Traurig represented this nationa l telecommunications company in passing the Consumer Choice and Protection Act, legislation aimed at increasing competition in the growing telecommunications market. In the previous session, our team’s efforts prevented a cell phone warranty company from obtaining a statewide m onopoly in providing warranties for cell phones and service. In the 2007 Legislative Sessio n, the GT Legislative Team overcame a slue of negative television ads by the Florida Cable Teleco mmunications Association and other national cable providers and obtained the passage of major l egislation on behalf of AT&T. The legislation broke up longstanding government sponsored monopoli es in the cable television industry. Enterprise Holdings Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 8 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Jay Ryan, Vice President of Finance Contact Phone: 954-354-5104 Enterprise Holdings is the privately-held entity wh ich operates Enterprise, Alamo and National Rental Car as well as a large fleet management subs idiary. The GT Legislative Team defeated legislation which would have imposed vicarious liab ility on rental car companies. On behalf of this international company, we worked over several years to secure reforms to the Personal Injury Protection (PIP) provisions for automobile insuranc e coverage. Further, we gained approval for legislation that streamlined the agent licensing pr ocess required of all rental car companies in Florida. We worked closely with the Department of F inancial Services to ensure their support of this new structure. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 6 GT Meridian Behavioral Healthcare Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 5 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Maggie Labarta, President & CEO Contact Phone: 352-374-5600 ext. 8221 During the 2009 Session, we assisted in the passage of legislation to restore the Medicaid reimbursement rate for this mental health provider. From the 2005 through 2007 Legislative Sessions, we secured a combined appropriation of ne arly $3 million in the General Appropriations Act for the development of a residen tial treatment program. The funding created and maintained these programs in 11 Florida counties. In fiscally constrained years, the team strategically worked with the leadership and m embers in order to make mental health a budgetary priority. Florida Assisted Living Association Scope of Services: State Legislative Representation Length of Contract: 4 years Status: Current Client Contact Name: Pat Lange, Executive Director Contact Phone: 850-383-1159 On behalf of this professional health care associati on, we secured an additional $2.6 million to increase the rate for the Assisted Living for the E lderly (ALE) waiver. This increase was the only Medicaid provider increase not vetoed by the Govern or in 2006. In 2007, GT successfully passed legislation requiring the Department of Elder Affai rs to adopt a curriculum training program and minimum qualification standards for trainers of Ass isted Living Facility administrators and staff. GT also was successful in securing continuing funding for the Assisted Living for the Elderly Waiver of approximately $35 million. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 7 GT Greenberg Traurig’s Team for Delray Beach Greenberg Traurig is uniquely qualified to represen t Delray Beach in Tallahassee. GT’s professionals are experts at representing municipal ities at the state level. We understand the dynamics of municipal representation and the pressu res and challenges faced by local officials and their staffs. Our team possesses a broad array of substantive and political experience. The team includes a former chief of staff to the Senate President, a former counsel to the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, and a former Legislative Affairs Director and Deputy General Counsel for Governor Jeb Bush. Fred Baggett would serve as Greenberg Traurig’s tea m leader for Delray Beach. Below is a brief outline on the professional qualifications of our t eam members. Full biographies can be provided on request. Fred W. Baggett is a senior member of the firm’s National Governme ntal Affairs Practice. For the past 30 years, Fred has represented a broad range o f general business community, associations, and governmental entities before federal, state and local agencies and legislative bodies. A significant portion of his practice focuses on matt ers relating to health care, insurance, environment regulation, banking and finance, and bu siness and professional regulation. Fred’s practice also includes policy development and advoc acy as well as administrative litigation. Hayden Dempsey is the Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Florida Govern mental Affairs Practice and focuses on representing clients before the Florida Legislature and its executive branch agencies. Prior to joining Greenberg Traurig, Hayden served a s Director for Legislative Affairs for Governor Jeb Bush where he gained an in-depth knowledge of t he Legislature and state government. Most recently, he served as Special Counsel to Gov. Rick Scott, overseeing the Governor’s legislative and public policy initiatives. He also worked closely with the Governor’s state agencies in promoting their legislative agendas. H ayden has been named a member of the Board of Directors of Enterprise Florida, Inc., the State of Florida’s official economic development organization. His broad legislative experience pro vides him unparalleled insight into all levels of state government. Gus Corbella is the Director of the Governmental Affairs Practi ce of the firm’s Tallahassee office. Gus has a formidable background in state government , having served as Chief of Staff of the Florida Senate, as well as staff director for the M ajority Offices in both chambers. Gus has been appointed by two Governors to serve as a Commission er on Judicial Nominating Commissions and also serves as the Chairman of the Florida Film and Entertainment Advisory Council. His role as chief advisor to the Legislature’s most prominen t leaders provided Gus with an extensive knowledge of the process and issues before the Legi slature. Leslie Dughi is the Assistant Director of Governmental Affairs, Tallahassee. Leslie's state practice spans more than 20 years and includes all areas of the executive and legislative branches of government. From her representations, Leslie has ga ined in-depth knowledge on the inner- workings of Florida government. Further, she serve d as the Director of Government Affairs for the 135,000-plus member Florida Chamber of Commerce whe re she developed strategic relationships and led many legislative initiatives important to both public and private employers. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 8 GT In addition to her lobbying experience, Leslie has considerable experience in political communications, serving as the Political Director f or Associated Industries, Florida’s largest statewide business association. Throughout her care er she has coordinated numerous grassroots advocacy campaigns and has worked with many Florida statewide and legislative campaigns. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 9 GT Legislative Support Services In addition to our attorneys and lobbyists, Greenbe rg Traurig provides full legislative support services on a continual basis to ensure that our cl ients’ interests never take a backseat at the Capitol. If the legislature is there, we’re there. And if the legislature’s not there, we’re still t here, building staff-to-staff relationships that open doo rs at those critical late-night hours when access and inside information are crucial. This team is led by Director, Anne Bevis, who has o ver 20 years of experience in the legislative process, 15 of those serving the needs of GT client s. Assistant Director, Katie Juckett, who joined the GT team after completing her Master’s Degree in Applied American Politics and Policy, has 6 years of experience. They provide vital services of fered to our clients, including the following: Legislative Tracking Services – We identify and follow all bills of interest to our clients with up-to- the-minute notification of hearings and actions in committee as well as on the House and Senate floors. A focused tracking list is develope d for each client and updated on a daily basis to ensure notification of any movement on priority bills of interest. Moreover, we make sure that clients receive bills texts and amendments of impac t for review and comment on a timely basis. We work to develop a client-directed report ing plan to ensure that clients are kept up-to- date at their desired frequency. Monitoring of Committee and Floor Debate – In addition to the presence of our lobbying team , our support team monitors all debates on legislatio n of major impact to our clients. We also are equipped, in-house, to monitor committee hearings a nd floor actions via audio transmission, The Florida Channel, and internet access. Defensive Review of Filed Legislation and Amendments – Our support team conducts full text searches of all legislation and amendments filed fo r language impacting our clients. This is done through keyword and statute cite searches. This ca pability affords us immediate notification of language entering the process that might be detrime ntal to our clients. Access to Live Calendar – Our firm has access to a live House and Senate Fl oor Calendar. This provides us with the opportunity for up-to-the-minu te review of amendments as they are filed and discussed on the House and Senate Floors. Monitoring of the Press – Our support team daily monitors Florida newspaper s and blogs for press coverage that is applicable to our clients. Research and Drafting Services – The Tallahassee support team is equipped to draf t proposed legislation, amendments and talk sheets on a moment ’s notice. We also have complete research capabilities. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | gtlaw.com 10 GT Proposed Fee Schedule and Expenses We at Greenberg Traurig look forward to the opportu nity to represent the City of Delray Beach. Our Governmental Affairs team typically provides ser vices on a monthly retainer which allows us to offer a broad range of services and gives our cl ients more value for their money. For this monthly fee, we would commit to provide all of the services enumerated, regardless of the hours required to perform such services. Our proposed fee for the City of Delray Beach is $60 ,000 per year split into 12 monthly installments of $5,000. Based upon past experience , expenses should not exceed $1,000 annually for travel, registrations and other miscel laneous costs. No expense over $100 would be incurred without prior approval by the City. To assist the City in evaluating the scope of work performed under the monthly retainer, we will provide detailed monthly bills outlining the hours worked and work performed. Further, we will meet periodically to evaluate the services performe d to ensure that fair value is provided to the City. City of Delray Beach ‐ Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Ronald L. Book, P.A. Contact Information: Ronald L. Book, 18851 NE 29 th Avenue, Suite 1010, Aventura, FL 33180, (305) 935 ‐1866, ron@rlbookpa.com 1. Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach Ronald L. Book, P.A. will assign three firm lobbyists to the City of Delray Beach, including: Ronald L. Book, Esq., President and CEO, Kelly C. Mallette, Director of Government Affairs and Rana G. Brown, Government Affairs Consultant. 2. List types of additional costs above the annual fee, if any (i.e. travel, printing, etc.) None 3. Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes c. Lobbylocal and other agencies (i.e. Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes d. Meet regularly with City elected officials and/or staff (i.e., in ‐ person, conference call, etc.) Yes e. Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes f. Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes. During session, we provide written reports weekly and phone and e ‐mail updates as necessary for priority issues. We also provide written reports and updates coinciding with all interim committee meeting weeks in December, January and February. g. Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes 4. Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. We do not provide federal lobbying services, but can assist with arranging meetings with federal representatives. a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, please describe the type of assistance that may be available. We can assist with arranging meetings with federal representatives, congressional staff and federal agencies. We are e xtremely well accessed within the entire Florida Delegation and with many members outside of the Florida Delegation. b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partners with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. We do not partner with any firms that provide federal lobbying services, but could provide a short list of firms that we believe the city should consider for fe deral lobbying services. 5. Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session, and provide a summary of the final result. HB 465 – (Representative Diaz) District School Board Bonds. Our firm represents the Miami ‐Dade County School Board. This bill did a couple of things to allow District school boards additionally flexibility on bonding issues. First, the bill increased the period within which district school board bonds must be retired without approval from the Department of Education, from 20 years to 30 years. It also removed the requirement that certain bonds be callable within 10 ‐years from date of issuance and allows the district school board to determine the callable term of bonds. This was the second year our firm worked to pass this bill for the school district. In 2011, the bill was approved by legislative committees, but stalled when the Governor’s staff raised concerns. We worked with the Office of the Governor, the bill sponsors and school district staff to address the Governor’s concern. We were successful and the bill was approved by the Legislature in the 2012 session, and later signed by the Governor SB 58/HB 985 – (Senator Flores/Representative Pilon) Lopez Claims. This bill was a claims bill against the City of North Miami. For a number of reasons, the City opposed the claim, and asked us to work against its passage. The plaintiff in the claim hired a prominent Tallahassee firm to work for passage of the bill. When the bill was scheduled for a hearing in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee, we met with the members of the Committee to discuss the details of the case and the City’s position on the bill. The committee voted against the bill and it died in committee on a vote of 7 nays/6 yeas. It was the only claims bill heard last session that was defeated by the House Civil Justice Subcommittee. SB 862/HB 609 – (Senator Simmons/Representative Goodson) Wage Theft. This bill would have completely preempted Miami ‐Dade County’s wage theft ordinance. Miami ‐Dade County has opposed this legislation. We have been successful in killing the measure for the past two sessions, despite a strong lobbying effort by Florida business groups. Cit y of Delray Beach - Additional Information for Annual State Lobbying Services Firm Name: Weiss, Handler & Cornwell, P.A. Contact Information: Henry B. Handler ; hbh@weissandhandlerpa.com 1 . Number and titles of lobbying staff to be assigned to City of Delray Beach Henry B. Handler Ken Pruitt Meghan Hoza 2 . List types of additional costs above the annual fee , if any (i.e., travel, printing , etc.) Any additional expense must be agreed upon by the City of Delray Beach before it is incurred. 3 . Does your firm provide the following services as part of a comprehensive annual state lobbying services agreement: a. Lobby State Legislature Yes , we maintain an office in Tallahassee. We are in Tallahassee full time during committee weeks and legislative session and frequently when the legislature is not in session. b. Lobby Executive Branch and State Agencies Yes , we maintain close working relationships with professionals in the Gove rnor's office and state agencies. c. Lobby local and other agencies (i.e., Palm Beach County, South FL Water Management District, US Army Corp. etc.). Yes , we currently lobby Palm Beach County for other clients and have close contacts and experience worki ng with Palm Beach County Commissioners, Constitutional Officers and their respective staffs and the South Florida Water Management District. d . Meet regularly with City elected official s and/or staff (i.e., in - person, conference call, etc.) Yes , we make ourselves available to our clients as requested . We are able to meet with City officials and/or staff in Delray Beach or by conference call at any time. e . Develop City’s state legislative agenda Yes , we will also work closely with the Florida League of Cities on any item approved by the City of Delray Beach. f . Provide weekly legislative updates during session Yes . D uring legislative s ession we will provide a weekly summary report detailing legisl ative action taken during the week, status of legislative issues, and anticipated action during the upcoming week . g . Set up meetings with State Legislative Offices, Executive Branch and Yes State Agencies 4 . Does your firm provide federal lobbying services? If so, please describe. Yes, we have many relationships with the Executive Branch, numerous agencies, and both H ouses of Congress. We work on both legislative initiatives and Executive Branch implementation of adopted legislation. The Firm’s Federal lobbying services are coordinated through Joseph Abruzzo . a. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but maintains contacts at the federal level that could assist the City with federal level issues, ple ase describe the type of assistance that may be available. b. If your firm does not provide federal lobbying services, but partner s with a firm that does, please describe the partner firm(s) and services available. 5 . Provide information on at least two (2) bills that your firm lobbied for or against during the past state legislative session , and provide a summary of the final result. 2012 - Successfully passed SB 694 "Specialized Alzheimer's Services Adult Day Care Act ,” which raises the standard of care for adult day care centers by creating a voluntary specialty license for centers that specialize in Alzheimer’s disease and dementia - related disorder services. Approved by the Governor on April 6, 2012. 2012 - Successfully advocated for the passag e of HB 37 “Caylee’s Law ,” a bill that would increase penalties for lying to police when a child goes missing. Caylee’s Law makes it a third -degree felony and increase the penalty from a year to f ive years in prison to give false information to a law enforcement officer in the event of missing child . Approved by the Governor on April 6, 2012. 2012 - Our F irm also successfully advocated for a number of appropriations including: - $1.5 million recurring to fund ten dementia specific daycare centers in Palm Beach, Martin & St. Lucie Counties. - $150,000, which will be used to provide specialized equipment in the care and treatment of dementia specific clients. - $500,000 in funding which will be used to expand the Children’s Crisis Stabilization Unit on New Horizons’ St. Lucie Campus. - $1,083,635 in funding for ChildNet, which was included in $4,665,811 allocated to 10 community -based care agencies to minimize the impacts of the community based care equity model. C:\Documents and Settings \ds \My Documents \City of Delray - Additional Information Sheet.docx Page 1 DRAFT – 11/13/12 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DRAFT 2013 KEY STATE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES TAX REFORM, FINANCE & OTHER BUDGET RELATED ISSUES Develop Fair and Equitable Tax Structure: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides a fair and equitable tax structure an d allows municipalities the flexibility to provide the level of services desired by their citizens. Legislation should be developed that SUPPORTS simplifying and stabilizing Florida’s state and local tax revenue structure in a manner that provides fairness for both citizens and businesses of our state, while addressing the realities that the current statewide constitutional taxing structure imposes on all levels of government. Arbitrary caps on property assessments, municipal e xpenditures or municipal revenues , i ncluding Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) proposals, should be OPPOSED . Unfunded Mandates to Local Governments: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that strengthens the prohibition on existing and new unfunded mandates, requires enhanced staff analyses and quantification of the costs to cities and ensures full funding sources be assigned whenever unfunded mandates are identified. The legislature should SUPPORT revisions to the current unfunded mandates provision of the Florida Constitution that would eliminate unnecessary exemptions. The revision should also ensure that any proposed law which contains an unfunded mandate contain only a single subject matter and be enacted by three-fourths vote of each house of the Legislature, only after a duly noticed public hearing at which a current fiscal analysis is available. Communication Services and Local Business Taxes - The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES legislation that restricts or eliminates the authority of municipalities to levy, collect and/or expend the communications services tax and the local business tax. Page 2 DRAFT – 11/13/12 Municipal Pension Plans: The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES legislation that diminishes municipal control over municipal employee pension plan management and funding or that increases municipal funding liabilities. The City will SUPPORT legislation that provides comprehensive municipal firefighter and police officer pension reform and any comprehensive pension reform package sh ould address the issue of flexibility in the use insurance premium tax revenues in place of the previous requirement that additional revenues be used for new, “e xtra” pension benefits. Police Officer and Firefighter Disability Presumptions: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that modifies the current statutory disability presumptions for firefighters and law enforcement officers relating to tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension. HOME RULE Public Officers/Severance Pay: The City SUPPORTS the repeal of SB 88, passed in 2011 , that restricts severance pay for any public officer, agent, employee or contractor. The bill removes Home Rule authority over severance pay by creating a limit of up to 20 weeks of severance pay. Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition: The City SUPPORTS the repeal of HB 45, passed in 2011, which prohibits the City from implementing enforcement action policies regarding firearms and ammunition regulation. PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES Fireworks Regulation: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that strengthens state and local regulations on the sale of fireworks and their illegal use. The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES legislation that limits local regulation, or enforcement, of illegal fireworks. Texting While Driving: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS the modification of traffic statutes to include texting while driving as an element of careless driving. Sober Houses: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides for more stringent local regulation of these facilities. The City also SUPPORTS full enforcement of existing state regulations on substance abuse provider licensing. Pursuant to 65D-30.003, Florida Administrative Code, all substance abuse components must be provided by persons or entities that are licensed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), unless otherwise exempt from licensing. Page 3 DRAFT – 11/13/12 Synthetic Drugs: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation banning the manufacture, possession, distribution, purchase or sale of synthetic drugs, including herbal incense, bath salts, synthetic marijuana and/or any cannabinoids in the state of Florida and also encourages funding for drug abuse education. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Transportation Funding: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides proportionate, dedicated and recurring revenue sources for multi-modal municipal and regional transportation projects to ensure that local conditions and needs are addressed. The City will SUPPORT legislation that: Authorizes the Florida Department of Transportation to increase funding to support local and regional transportation and transit alternatives, including “complete street” programs Prohibits the transfer of State Transportation Trust Funds for non- transportation purposes Transportation Funding : The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that provides opportunities for additional revenue options to fund municipal transportation infrastructure projects. South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA): The City of Delray Beach OPPOSES any changes to the membership of the SFRTA that would remove the SFRTA’s independent authority to appoint three (3) local citizen appointees. The City also OPPOSES any changes to the SFRTA’s statutory authority to expend local funding that is provided to the SFRTA. Red Light Cameras: The City OPPOSES legislation that repeals the current authorization in the Florida Statutes for red light camera programs. PLANNING RELATED ISSUES Outdoor Advertising : The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation th at provides the home rule authority of municipalities to more strictly regulate outdoor signage, including billboards. Internet Cafes : The City SUPPORTS legislation that will either regulate businesses operating internet “sweepstakes” gaming activities under the gaming commission, or find them in violation of Florida Statues - Chapter 849 and prosecuted accordingly. Page 4 DRAFT – 11/13/12 H ou sing : The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation providing $300 million for the national foreclosure settlement agreement to designated neighborhood stabilization programs to be used for existing local government affordable housing initiatives. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Beach Renourishment: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation preserving funding within the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund, to support beach restoration projects throughout the State . This funding is important to the City of Delray Beach due to the ongoing renourishment project for our 2.65 mile beach. Both State & Federal Funding for this project are critical to this important, ongoing project. Water Management District Governance and Authority : The City of Delray Beach will support legislation that amends the powers and duties of the water management districts. Such legislation should: Require legislative ratification of any proposed rule change proposed by a water management district that imposes a financial impact on a local government, and Specify that water management districts have no authority to require local government adoption or repeal of ordinances or to mandate the review or approval of any ordinance. VOTING & PUBLIC INFORMATION Referendum Campaign Involvement: The City of Delray Beach will SUPPORT legislation to remove restrictions in F.S. 106.113 that prohibit a local government, or any person on the local government’s behalf, from spending public money to advocate for the passage or defeat of any issue, referendum, or amendment going to a public vote. Early Voting Sites: Th e City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation which would permit the Supervisor of Elections with the option to designate any permanent public facility as an early voting site. Public Notices: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS legislation that would authorize municipalities to provide public notice and advertising by means other than newspapers (i.e. Internet posting and other suitable alternatives). Page 5 DRAFT – 11/13/12 APPROPRIATION ISSUES Judicial System Funding: The City of Delray Beach strongly SUPPORTS the full funding of the State Attorney, Public Defender offices and the Judiciary. Reduced court funding has a significant impact on public safety due to the inability to complete the processing of cases. The City makes arrests, but the court system is so overwhelmed d ue to reductions in funding that cases are “no filed” or “nolle prossed” by the State Attorney’s office or lost in court due to speedy trial requirements. Thus, full funding of the court system to include the Juvenile Assessment Centers statewide is critical to public safety. The City also SUPPORTS the following revenue enhance me nts for the court system: Expansion of the $65 mandatory court fee to be applied to civil cases in addition to the already allowed criminal cases. This fee would allow for additional revenue to fund the state court system. Continuation and enhancement of the $2.00 recording fee to be distributed to counties to fund court-related technology needs. Full funding for statewide traffic hearing officer programs. EMS Grants: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS continued funding of the Florida Emergency Medical Services’ (EMS) matching grant programs provided by the Florida Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. The programs are authorized to improve and expand EMS statewide. Parks and Recreation Funding: The City of Delray Beach SUPPORTS expanded funding of the Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This program provides important financial assistance to local governments for development and/or acquisition of land for public outdoor recreational purposes. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Bruce Koesser, Human Resources Director THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 19, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 10.I. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 REVISED AGREEMENT/ TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH/ EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER (ADDENDUM) ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a revised agreement b etween the City and the Town of Highland Beach to provide additonal language regarding the shared limited medical services with the City of Delray Beach's Wellness Center. The Wellness Center will o nly provide physicals for the Town of Highland Beach's full-time Police Officers. BACKGROUND On October 16, 2012, Commission approved an agreeme nt with the Town of Highland Beach to allow full-time Highland Beach police officers shared limited medical services at the Employee Health and Wellness Center. The regulated medical services wou ld include physical examinations by a physician and other optional services. The Town of Highland B each is aware there will be a change in medical providers beginning in 2013. The revision provides additional language to Sectio n 3. of the Agreement: 3. HIGHLAND BEACH shall provide to DELRAY BEACH the name, date of birth, social security number, and any other required information of the H ighland Beach police officers who have been approved to receive the services to be rendered und er this agreement. DELRAY BEACH shall maintain the confidentiality of such information, or maintai n its status as exempt from disclosure, in accordan ce with Florida ’s Public Records Laws, as amended from time to time . However, DELRAY BEACH shall provide such information to its selected Medical Se rvice Provider to facilitate the receipt of service s by Highland Beach police officers. Providing this service to the Town of Highland Beac h will give the City some additional revenue to help offset the cost of the City's Wellness Center. FUNDING SOURCE The City of Delray Beach shall invoice the Town of Highland Beach for medical services rendered for its full-time Police Officers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the revised agreement. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ da y of October, 2012 by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA (DELRAY BEACH) and the TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA (HIGHLAND BEACH). WHEREAS, DELRAY BEACH desires to share limited services o f its Medical Services Provider with HIGHLAND BEACH by allowing pol ice officer personnel from the Highland Beach Police Department to receive services in a ccordance with the contractual arrangements between DELRAY BEACH and its M edical Services Provider. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mut ual covenants contained herein the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The recitations referred to above are hereby incor porated herein. 2. Qualified Highland Beach Police Department police officers shall receive medical services as described on Appendix “A”, as attached f rom DELRAY BEACH’s Medical Service Provider. 3. HIGHLAND BEACH shall provide to DELRAY BEACH th e name, date of birth, social security number, and any other required i nformation of the Highland Beach police officers who have been approved to receive the se rvices to be rendered under this agreement. DELRAY BEACH shall maintain the confi dentiality of such information, or maintain its status as exempt from disclosure, in accorda nce with Florida’s Public Records Laws, as amended from time to time. However, D ELRAY BEACH shall provide such information to its selected Medical Service P rovider to facilitate the receipt of services by Highland Beach police officers. 4. HIGHLAND BEACH shall pay DELRAY BEACH for the me dical services rendered according to the prices listed in Appendix “A”. DELRAY BEACH shall issue to HIGHLAND BEACH an invoice after the services are provid ed. 5. HIGHLAND BEACH is aware that DELRAY BEACH plans t o contract with a new Medical Service Provider by the end of 2012. HI GHLAND BEACH agrees to pay any differences in price for the medical services set by th e new Medical Service Provider. 6. This agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause, by providing the other party at least ten (10) days p rior written notice. 7. This writing embodies the entire agreement and un derstanding between the parties hereto, and there are no other agreement s and understandings, oral or written, with reference to the subject matter hereof t hat are not merged herein and superseded hereby. 2 8. No alteration, change, or modification of the term s of the Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by both par ties. 9. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall b e governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Florida and venue shall be in Palm Beach County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement for the purposes expressed herein. ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA a municipal corporation ________________________ By: ____________________________ City Clerk NELSON S. McDUFFIE, MAYOR Approved as to form: ________________________ City Attorney CITY OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA Witnesses: ________________________ By: ________________________ ________________________ 3 APPENDIX “A” Employment and Annual Physicals- Police Officers (r equires two visits at least) Complete Physical Examination by Physician Lab Services: • Urinalysis (UA with dip stick) • HEMGPD (CBC [Hemogram] with Platelet count & Differential) • CMP/Lipid Panel • PSA (Age 40 and above) • Micro UA (if needed) • AHCA Urine 10 Panel Drug Screening • Vital signs (Height, Weight, Temp, Waist, Blood Pre ssure and Pulse Oximetry) Snellen Vision Screening Audiometry – Sound Proof Booth Standard ECG Cardiovascular Fitness: *Stress ECG: Annual Physicals Only Age: 39 and below Baseline only (Relax) Age: 40 and above (Relax and on T readmill) Chest X-Ray (2 view) Baseline and every five years Spirometry Cost = $500 without Stress Test and *$600 with Stre ss Test Other Options: Hepatitis C Screening = $7.00 HIV Baseline (optional test – would be completed af ter employment) =$9.00 Tobacco Free Testing = $28.00 Tetanus Diptheria Toxoid (Every 10 years) = $34. PPD (TB Testing) Pre-employment and Annual = $4.50 Hepatitis B Vaccination (3 doses) = $32.50/dose Hepatitis B Titer (administered after last immuniza tion – every 5 years or as CDC recommended) $18.00 Influenza (Option) = $10. MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:November 9, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 11.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 31 -12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This ordinance is before Commission for second read ing to consider a city-initiated amendment to Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, of the Code of Ord inances, by amending Section 117.01, “Permit Required”, to remove the reference to the rental pa yment amount. BACKGROUND At the first reading on November 6, 2012, the Commi ssion passed Ordinance No. 31-12. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 31-12 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE NO. 31-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 117, “LANDLORD PERMITS”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 117.0 1, “PERMIT REQUIRED”, TO REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO RENTAL PAYMENT AMOUNT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission has the authority to p rotect the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach desires to update the landlord permit submission requirements in order to streamline the landlord p ermit application process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSI ON OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 117, “Landlord Permits”, Sect ion 117.01, “Permit Required”, shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 117.01. PERMIT REQUIRED. (A) No person, company or other entity may offer t o or lease, sublease, rent, license, sublicense or have any other arrangement allowing o ccupancy of any residential units unless a landlord permit is obtained or in existence for the units. A ll oral rental arrangements shall be included within the scope of this Section, but the operation of a h otel shall not be included in this Section (any buildi ng which fits the definition of hotel but also fits the definition of another use which requires a landlord permit shall be interpreted to require a landlord perm it), nor shall any facility licensed by the State as a Group Home or Community Residential Home or Assisted Living Facility. Whenever Chapter 117 refers to “lease(s)”, “leased”, “rent(s)”, or “rente d”, it shall hereinafter include leases, subleases, r entals, licenses, sublicenses and all other arrangements for the occ upancy of property. (B) A separate permit shall be required for each le ased unit. However, where a building contains a number of leased units under the same owner, or wher e a number of different owners in one building authorize the same person or company to act as their agent for the purposes of applying for a permit, a single permit may be obtained for all qual ifying units within a single building which are under the same owner or agent, provided that the permit fee is paid for each individual unit. Any such permit issued by the City for residential unit(s) being leas ed for the first time shall be conditioned upon the applicant providing the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee a current copy of all leases, subleases and/or agreements to occupy the building or unit(s) therein and providing updated copies of all leases, subleases and/or agreemen ts to occupy the building or unit(s) therein within thirty (30) days of any changes. In the even t of an oral agreement between the parties instead o f a written lease, the terms of these agreements shal l be reduced to writing, specifically including, but n ot 2 ORD. NO. 31-12 limited to, duration of the lease term, rental paymen t, and number of tenants, such information to be provided to the City at the time of application and wi thin thirty (30) days of any modification thereof. Any such permit being renewed by the City shall be c onditioned upon the applicant providing to the City’s Director of Community Improvement or his/her designee all required information with the application. Nothing in this Section shall require a permit for any unit enrolled in Federal housing programs or under Federal [Department of] Housing and Urban Dev elopment general supervision. (C) Leased residential dwelling units seeking such p ermits shall be limited to four (4) vehicles per dwelling unit, for which residential pa rking stickers may be obtained, provided that, upon good cause shown, specifically including availability of garage space, additional parking stickers may be issued by the Community Improvement Director, if the additional stickers will not affect the quality of the neighborhoods. Section 2. That should any section or provision of t his ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision s hall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effectiv e immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and f inal reading on this the _____ day of ___________________, 2012. ____________________________________ ATTEST M A Y O R _______________________________ City Clerk First Reading__________________ Second Reading________________ MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and Ci ty Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director , Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:October 31, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM 12.A. - REGULAR COMMISSION MEET ING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 31 -12 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consider a City-initiated amendment to Chapter 117, "Landlord Pe rmits", of the Code of Ordinances, b y amending Section 117.01(B) Pe rmit Required to Eliminate the "Ren tal Payment" as a requirement to the City. BACKGROUND The City adopted Ordinanc e 08-12 at its regular me eting of February 21, 2012, providing for multiple changes to Chapter 117 governing La ndlord Permits. Staf f is in the middle of the annual renewal process. One of the major objecti ons from property owners is the re quirement to include the monthly rental amount on the lease. Thus , we are recommending amending th e Chapter 117 to eliminate this specific requirement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Commissi on approval of Ordinance 31-12 on first reading, providing for the public hearing and second r eading on November 20, 2012. Pa g e 1of 1 Coversheet 11/9/2012 htt p ://itweba pp /A g endaIntranet/Bluesheet.as p x?ItemID=6157&Meetin g ID=393