The URL can be used to link to this page

04-11-95 Workshop · CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - APRIL 11, 1995 - 6:00 P.M. FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ The City will furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph 243-7127 (voice) , or 243-7199 (TDD) , 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accom- modate your request. Adaptive listening devices available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ AGENDA 1. Location of Beach Patrol headquarters. 2. Busch's Restaurant request for deck on the right-of-way. 3. Naming the rooms at the Golf Course. 4. Review condition of city streets. 5. Policy for sidewalk construction. 6. Policy for street light installation. 7. Policy on funding for non-profit organizations. 8. Commission Comments. ****************************************************************** Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. . -,. - .a.:.¡.w-,:71.~!!..!.t.:.:..:.¡;:_ .~. .. F' 02 "'-. ---.- . -,-- LlI"lq~ H A11D ou.:f Venture Concepts Intemational, Incorpol~ted "~ $ sr#llirt¡c_:tk~~ . ry¡Uðuit 0/ 3Z L~~nu'4()xur, .!iJWUll. " , r 11**** Fax transmission ~**** To; Tom Lynch, David Harden, Barbara Smith, Jay Alperin. DaÚd RandQlph. ~ Eliag,wortD From: Prank McKinne D8tc: April 11 . 199~ Re: pJ;oposed Lifeguard Headquarters In effort to that the "sl1ndoway House " restored an B@e 16 an the new lifeguard headquarters, 16 u5ed a5 a public "beach education center " and to p-reserve and enhance our beachfront p~rks, I propose thE! following to make funding the acquisition D bit easier: Ph~~e 1 : Acquisition ~ $625,000 ($25,000 less than market) Acquisition to take place under mutual terms contained 10 an installment .£.Q.!.Û.,[' a C 1-. Undf!r the terms of this agreement the City would not have to plQdge revenue Bources or borrow funds to CQmplete the transactiQf'. $300,000 paid dU['ing fiðca1 yE'ar: 1995 $325,000 paid during fiscal year 1996, balance carried at a rate of interest equal to a muni.cipal bond rate or Wa 11 Str~et Journal prlme rate. whiche\'er 15 lower. -- -. Phase 2 ; plau Revisions In order to effect additional cost savings congider the following plan rt!viaion&: I 1 ) Eliminate the need for the sepat"ate storagê building for the rescue boat8 by locating the boat stor8ge 10 t.he existing garages (may need to elongate). 2 ) Relocate the I and , lockers upstairs, directly men s women s above the existing garJages or, utilize th~ proposed " aSlSistant'g office " and " expansion/storage " office for the location of these lockers. 3) Utilize a common wall by locating the proposed public rARtroowa on the South aide wall (facing Ingram Park) of lhe existing "Sllndoway Houae". ....-- - ..___ Not only 'Would t.he City have a unique, multi-use beachfront pavilion, but it would b~ adding valua'ble park and open ¡¡reen6pace. a mandate contained 1n Visions 2000 (P8 18). 11.!""'t,,;. '¡~'" I . _....~':"--:'~r':'. --. '--111- r 72 S~lllth(:as( 6rh Avenue. Delray Beach. Flnrida 334R3~5J16. Ú-S.Ä:···· .. -- .. .~ T..1~~h".,.·. {A(17\ J7A 0'<0'< - -..------------ ú"'"llll'::l'::l~ rjl::i: 42 407-243-7221 CITY OF DELRAY PAGE 02 adjaC8"t land use concerns. No eddltlonal automotive uses should be øermitted within the central business district or the area extending 'our bloCkS north and three blocks south or Atlantic Avenue along the Federal Highway paIrs. AdditIonal automotive uses should be prohibited on the east side 0' Federal Highway. Related automotive uses should be discouraged on Federal Highway and channeled toward aøpropriate industrial use areas. The City should discourage small used car lot businesses. 1. The City should consIder using tiered parking garages with mixed use developments to ease the downtown parking shortage and promote downtown development. 8. The City should support upscale hotel and resort development at A.l-A and Atlantic Avenue and at ./ J..t' <St. ~inton Boulevard and 1-95. ~ ." (\~ ,'.., ~t;. Th. City should incr.ase parks and open space "r'~ \ acquIsition effort.. 10. Th. City fire station should be relocated to the West Atlantic Avenue af.8, east of 1-95, be well landscaped, and hive a small park with some recreational amenities. e. The City Of De1ray eeach ne.ds to devel~D an 1nf111 development strategy to encourage development Of -18- - ------- · ( , I Venture Concepts Intemational, Incorporated "~akaM $ 5~ ~ .9UMtdtCJ¡ ~ ~ ~tÆanb" March 29, 1995 David Harden City Manager City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FI 33444 Hand Delivery Dear David, I have supplied Jose Aguila with cop1es of the site and floor plans as well as my rough cost estimates for the proposed lifeguard headquarters at "Sandoway House " located at 142 , South Ocean Boulevard. I have taken my original estimate a bit further and included items that were discussed at our 3/28 meeting. For your benefit, I have enclosed cop1es of printouts that are often used by appra1sers when performing a comparative market analysis on a subject property in order to determine fair market value. Due to my experience with the oceanfront market, as well as single family home restorations, I believe the accompanY1ng information 1S true and correct when used to determine feasibility of the site and sales price of the same. Any omissions or errors can be attributed to this work taking place in a relatively short period of time. J4 u,/ é-- The 11th of tß;&/menrk is fine for an answer. I am available to work out the details at your convenience. Any discussions regarding the above prior to the 11th would not be premature and I would encourage you to engage the same. ;:¡,cerelY !. ,....- ~J(þ, Frank E. McIÚnn FEM/j enclosures 72 Southeast 6th Avenue, Oelray Beach, Florida 33483-5316, US,A. W·S.Jl/ Telephone (407) 274-9696 Fax (407) 274-0850 " , PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER NAME: 14:~ South Ocean Blvd. City Of Delray Beach Delray Beach, FL 3348 HOUSE SITE & NEW BLDG FILLING & GRADING N/A $ 1,000 TAMP & TREAT N/A $ 200 BEAM CONCRETE, STEEL & LUMBER N/A N/A SLA.B MESH & STEEL $ 400 $ 500 CONCRETE FINISHER $ 300 $ 500 SLA.B CONCRETE & PUMP $ 500 $ 500 LUMBER $ 3,500 $ 8,500 ROOF TRUSSES N/A $ 3,300 INSULATION $ 750 $ 750 DRYWALL & METAL CEILING WORK $ 2,000 $ 2,500 AIH CONDITIONING $10,000 N/A PLUMBING(NO FIXTURES) $ 5,000 $ 6,000 ROOFING $ 1,500 $ 3,000 ELECTRIC WIRING $ 8,000 $ 5,000 PAINTING $ 9,000 $ 2,500 TRASH HAUL $ 1,000 $ 500 CARPENTRY $15,000 $ 12,500 GENERAL LABOR $ 5,000 $ 3,800 GARAGE DOORS N/A $ 1,500 PA VING DRIVEWA VI PARKING N/A $ 5,000 INTERIOR DOORS $ 500 $ 100 EL=CTRICAL FIXTURES $ 1,000 $ 500 DOOR HARDWARE $ 1 ,500 $ 250 HANDRAILS & RAILINGS $ 1,500 N/A SHOWER DOORS & MIRRORS $ 50 $ 50 WI,\JDOWS & DOORS $ 2,500 $ 800 CABINETRY $ 2,000 N/A LA~DSCAPING & IRRIGATION N/A $ 10,000 REFINISH WOOD FLOORS $ 9,000 N/A BA THROOM TILE $ 1,000 $ 1,000 PL~MBING FIXTURES $ 2,000 $ 1,500 FANS $ 500 N/A SHUTTERS $ 500 $ 500 COST TO CONSTRUCT $84,000 $ 72,250 ¡ CONTRACTOR FEE To Be Determined . . - - ---------------------------- l/:I SJ\NI)()WJ\Y PJ \1 ~ K I I I I I I - - --l ./ Cb[§Þ> I <rCJ]IJ> N8-J I r~I'-iN'1 I uiÍ ( '1 ~$) I NtH I liod~( I I -------------------~ I I I)J\I~KING I I L()T I I ------ I I - - - - - - INGRAM- DRIVE- - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ - - -J ----~~ I / II I I þ-i (/)z~ IO OO::U :ECfTl fTl-ii: ::u(/)O -< Oþ fTlr rJJ -3 0 ::J:1 :x> CJ ~ "" ~ 0 ::r: t%j z ~ 0 ::0 ~ ::0 0 1""Ij ~ 0 :::ot%j E:: "'--4 Ot%j ~ 0-3 E::Z UJ () ~ :::0 t%j ~ 00 "%jt%j r "%j'ü --3 01j 0- t"jO ~O~ z ""'- ~~O G¡ 1j ~1jO II' r CfJ 7- ~ M 0: Z U . UJ. tj M M 0 :;;: (1 0 Z U MW X...j "'00 >::d Z> Wp -M 0",,- Z lÞI ~ > W OW - "%j(J.) "%j...j .....> °z tr:1'i (J.) W c:: ""Ij Otr:11J: 0 ~::dtr:1 tD ~<> (J.) --n O:M n(J.)::r:: tr:10 M'~ ::d. O:<=:: ~:> (J.) ...j - 0 z . · RECEIVED APR 0 7 1995 David Miller and Ass 0 cia t e s, P.A. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DavidR. Miller. A.I.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Weldon FROM: David Miller ..---.-. DATE: April 6, 1995 PROJECT: BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS SUBJECT: Alternative Site Analysis - 142 S. Ocean Blvd. Attached please find a narrative analysis and cost analysis of the alternative location proposal 'offered to the City of Delray Beach for the above referenced project. The narrative analysis examines the practicality of the alternative location as it relates to the programmatic requirements we have developed jointly with your staff. The cost analysis reviews the costs submitted with the alternative proposal by comparing them to our cost estimate prepared with our preliminary design. The potential additional costs are provided as a part of this analysis, It appears the total construction cost for the facility could exceed $274,000 in addition to the purchase price of the property. The costs of the alternative proposal and our preliminary design estimate are also attached for your reference. Please let me know if you have any questions about these analyses or the project. Architecture Planning Construction Management Interior Design 105 South Narcissus Avenue ,West Palm Beach· Florida' 33401 (407) 655-1775 " , - · CITY OF DELRA Y BEACH PROPOSED BEACH PATROL FACILITY 142 S. OCEAN BLVD. NARRATIVE ANALYSIS PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to examine the above referenced proposal and make a determination of the appropriateness for a new beach patrol headquarters. PROJECT The existing structure is a 190's era two-story residence located at 142 S. Ocean Blvd. in Delray Beach. The preliminary plans have been prepared by Brewer Vigneault Architecture. The plans indicate renovating the existing residence as the patrol office area, and constructing new structures for public restrooms and storage 'of equipment. SPACE REQUIREMENTS The space available for office, storage, and staff meeting functions is adequate. The space available for locker rooms, staff restroom areas, and showers is inadequate and would need to be increased by approximately 50%. (Note: this would not be feasible within the existing envelope of the residence and would require demolition and/or additional new construction to be achieved,) The space available for the boat storage is not adequate and not oriented on the site properly. The size of the new construction would need to be increased by approximately 15-20%. The public restrooms are shown as a detached structure and are sized adequately to meet the expected needs. A new space (sea turtle education) is shown on the plans and was not previously considered as a part of the programmatic requirements for the patrol facility. The City would need to make a determination as to the appropriateness of this public function at the facility. MISCELLANEOUS The existing finishes at the residence (specifically wood floors and wood trim) are not appropriate for the functions associated with the patrol facility, as the expected daily traffic and use will create ongoing maintenance problems. The requirements of handicapped accessibility (ADA and Florida codes) are not addressed by the proposed plans and can pose considerable costs in addition to those costs outlined in the following analysis. The existing residence and site will need to be thoroughly examined relative to its structural integrity, existing systems (electrical, mechanical, plumbing), weather tightness, pest infestations, soils conditions and appropriate functioning with the City property on each side. It is feasible there ar substantial costs associated with these items which have not been included in the following cost analysis. - · SUMMARY The proposed alternative site will most likely cost the City more for renovation and associated new construction than proceeding with the construction of a new facility at this or another City owned location. The potential is also greater for ongoing maintenance and building management costs due to the age and construction of the existing structure, Should the City choose to proceed with this alterative proposal, it would be advisable to conduct a comprehensive examination of the property and structures. The cost of and appropriateness of the purchase price has not been considered in this analysis. " · City of Delray Beach Beach Patrol Facility 142 S. Ocean Blvd. ADDITIONAL COST ANALYSIS The following costs are extrapolations made by comparison with the costs supplied by property owner and the preliminary estimates prepared for the project. ITEM ESTIMATED COST Div. 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS $12,000 Supervision Temporary Facility Cleanup/Trash Removal Insurance Equipment/Tools 02 Site Work $ 5,000 Demolition Excavation Cleaning Termite Protection Water & Sewer Lines Ramps/Sidewalks 03 Concrete $ 4,000 04 Masonry N/A 05 Metals Inc. above - 03 06 Wood & Plastics N/A 07 Thermal & Moisture Protection $14,500 Roofing Insulation Flashing " , - · Cost Analysis 142 S. Ocean Blvd. Page 2 08 Doors and Windows $10,000 Door Windows Shutters Garage Doors 09 Finishes $15,000 10 Specialties $ 5,000 Restroom Accessories Fire Extinguishers Signs . 11 Equipment N/A 12 Furnishings N/A 13 Special Construction N/A 14 Elevators (if req'd) $25,000 15 Plumbing/MechanicallHV AC $ 7,000 16 Electrical No Change Sub Total Additional Costs $ 97,500 Quoted Prices (see attached) 84,000 72,250 Overhead & Profit (8 % ) 20.300 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $274,050 " ' · PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER NAME: 142 South Ocean Blvd. City Of Oelray Beach Delray Beach, FL 3348 HOUSE SITE & NEW BLOG FILLING & GRADING N/A $ 1,000 TAMP & TREAT N/A $ 200 BEAM CONCRETE, STEEL & LUMBER N/A N/A SLAB MESH & STEEL $ 400 $ 500 CONCRETE FINISHER $ 300 $ 500 SLA.B CONCRETE & PUMP $ 500 $ 500 LUMBER $ 3,500 $ 8,500 ROOF TRUSSES N/A $ 3,300 INSULATION $ 750 $ 750 DRYWALL & METAL CEILING WORK $ 2,000 $ 2,500 AIH CONDITIONING $10,000 N/A PLUMBING(NO FIXTURES) $ 5,000 $ 6,000 ROOFING $ 1,500 $ 3,000 EL::CTRIC WIRING $ 8,000 $ 5,000 PAINTING $ 9,000 $ 2,500 TRASH HAUL $ 1,000 $ 500 CARPENTRY $15,000 $ 12,500 GE NERAL LABOR $ 5,000 $ 3,800 GARAGE DOORS N/A $ 1,500 PAVING DRIVEWAYI PARKING N/A $ 5,000 INTERIOR DOORS $ 500 $ 100 EL::CTRICAL FIXTURES $ 1,000 $ 500 DOOR HARDWARE $ 1,500 $ 250 HANDRAILS & RAILINGS $ 1,500 N/A SHOWER DOORS & MIRRORS $ 50 $ 50 WI.\JDOWS & DOORS $ 2,500 $ 800 CABINETRY $ 2,000 N/A LA~DSCAPING & IRRIGATION N/A $ 10,000 REFINISH WOOD FLOORS $ 9,000 N/A BATHROOM TILE $ 1,000 $ 1,000 PL~MBING FIXTURES $ 2,000 $ 1,500 FANS $ 500 N/A SHUTTERS $ 500 $ 500 COST TO CONSTRUCT $84,000 $ 72,250 I CONTRACTOR FEE To Be Determined " , . DEL~Y BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS Sheet 1 of 7 ARCHITECT: DAVID MILLER & ASSOCIATES, AlA Estimator: Dennis Crampton & Associates Preliminary Design Stage Estimate, 24th February 1995 (rev1sed 02/27/95) ESTIMATE SUMMARY 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS $19,900 02 SITE WORK $19,819 03 CONCRETE $15,320 04 MASONRY $34,652 05 METALS $0 06 WOOD & PLASTICS $12,037 07 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION $21,830 08 DOORS & WINDOWS $15,850 09 FINISHES $31,913 10 SPECIALTIES $6,010 11 EQUIPMENT $0 12 FURNISHINGS $0 13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0 14 CONVEYING SYSTEMS $0 15A PLUMBING $19,950 15B FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM $0 lSC HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING $8,050 16 ELECTRICAL $14,000 SUB-TOTAL $219,331 + CONTINGENCY, (NOT REQUIRED) $0 SUB-TOTAL $219,331 + GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S PROFIT, 5% $10,967 SUB-TOTAL $230,298 + ESCALATION TO MID-POINT OF CONSTRUCTION, 3' $6,909 ESTIMATE TOTAL $237,207 . , . "' . . .. ~ ¡.:u= .. '; . MAR 3 1 1995 Jardin del Mar· Association, Inc. CiTY IV.!" 200 South Ocean Boulevard De1ray Beach, Florida 33483 ; March 29, 1995 David T. Harden, City Manager Mayor Lynch and City Commissioners 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: Relocation of lifeguard Headquarters to McKinney Property on South Ocean Boulevard Dear Mayor, Commissioners and Mr. Harden: This letter is forwarded on behalf of Jardin del Mar Association, located at 200 s. Ocean Boulevard, by action of its Board of Directors. They request it be read as an official correspondence at the meeting of April 4, 1995 and any subsequent meeting which considers the above subject. Our 38 unit complex adjacent to the above site is the most directly affected by the consideration of this site for the relocation of the lifeguard headquarters, beach equipment, maintenance facility and public rest rooms. We wish to voice strong objection to this relocation to this site for numerous reasons, including the following: A) Cost Effectiveness - Prior considerations for relocation contemplated a cost of $220,000.00, whereas this site proposes a $650,000.00 purchase price plus a "guesstimate" of $75,000.00 for renovation. The "guesstimate" bears Little relationship to the cost realities of renovating. The purchase price alone is three times more than budgeted. This is unreasonable and cost ineffective for lifeguard and beach service, which does not rise to the same level as fire, police and medical emergency services to residents. What profit does the present owner seek from this recent purchase of the property? The reality is that this cost cannot be justified to any of the property owners of Delray, including the residents of Jardin del Mar. Fiscal responsibility dictates that the . ~ . . David T. Harden, City Manager Mayor Lynch and City Commissioners Re: Relocation of lifeguard Headquaners to McKinney Property on South Ocean Boulevard Page 2 March 29, 1995 City stay within the budget of '220,000.00 and not squander more than three times that amount to provide alternate lifeguard facilities. B) Zoning and Land Use Considerations - News coverage indicates that the relocation involves personnel, equipment, maintenance functions and public rest rooms and that the price is finn, subject only to repayment tenns. Most of these functions are not appropriate land uses immediately adjacent to residential uses such as Jardin del Mar, Ocean Place, and the singLe family homes along Gleason and Ingraham Street. If a private developer sought those uses, they would be contrary to the land use zoning and would require a variance. The proposed uses are just as inappropriate as a public use and the cloak of a "municipal purpose" cannot alleviate that fact. Since we assume that Dew.ay is not planning a tax reduction for adjoining propenies adversely affected by these proposed uses, it is incumbent that Delray justify the special reasons and positive benefits this relocation would provide before any funher consideration of this site. We are doubtful that those special reasons exist. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, JARDIN del MAR ASSOCIATION, INC. By: ~~ ,/):f2.,,-A ~ CATHERINE D'ISA, resident · 'K [" J ')t CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP DOCUMENTATION TO: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER ~~ FROM: D E DOMINGUEZ~ECTOR DEPARTMENT OF P NNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: WORKSHOP MEETING OF APRIL 11, 1995 DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH BUSCH'S RESTAURANT BACKGROUND: In 1993, a license agreement was executed between the City and Highbridge Associates and Coastal Partners Limited (property owners) , in order to allow construction and use of a dock associated with Busch's Restaurant. The agreement is renewable annually for a period of up to twenty-five years. It includes the payment of a license fee starting at $1,200 per year, with annual 5% increases beginning in the fourth year. In addition to the base fee, a supplemental fee of $37,092 is to be paid over time for construction of a river walk. The owners and operators of the restaurant are requesting permission to construct a deck for outside dining within the Canal Street right-of-way. In order to install the deck, it will be necessary to amend the license agreement between the City and the property owners to allow for the use of the additional right-of-way. PROJECT PROPOSAL As proposed, the deck would be located immediately adjacent to the east side of the restaurant. It is approximately 2,000 square feet in size, and is to include landscape planters and benches. The plans do not indicate a canopy, however, it is staff's understanding that the deck is to be covered by an awning. An 8' wide paver block walkway for use by the public is to be constructed between the deck and the existing dock. Planning staff has forwarded comments to the project architect, Digby Bridges, regarding technical aspects of the proposal. One concern is that the paved walkway be of sufficient width so as not to discourage its use by the public. It will also be necessary to amend the existing parking agreement for the lot that was constructed for Busch's, to include the 7 additional parking spaces that are required for the deck. A/S.J· - . - . City Commission Documentation Worksession Meeting of April 11, 1995 Busch's Restaurant Deck - License Agreement Page 2 The terms of the amended agreement, including the fee, have not yet been negotiated. The deck addition and associated improvements will require the processing of a minor site plan modification. As the subject property is located within the Marina Historic District, the development proposal must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Board. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COMMISSION Prior to proceeding with full project review and negotiation of the amended agreement, staff is requesting a review of the proposal by the City Commission. The Commission is asked to provide direction as to whether or not the agreement should be amended to accommodate the proposed deck, and if so, to provide input as to the possible terms of the agreement and the proposed project plans. Attachment: * Proposed plan for dining deck T:CCBllSCHS.DOC . - . . Á:rt..A A./I/<!.- j (/~¡Jvc£ ,YC CURB :'IRlc/( WALK t 'W{:~NTER - AI f, < ~ ::::; i':!: f:] Q: Vi :2 rh <r¡ '<J 0) " <0 §è " f2 Q: V¡ & <\¡ c<: "\:1 --.. ?eo~eb --~~1>eCI::. ~ '" N ~ ¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~.' 'ò1 ~ ~ S &. ~ ~ III'-\' ... f- . ~ ~ : ~ ..; ~ ~ 8 ~ f- ~ ):1 .~ PIiO(J()S5b DecK _\~;'_ ,.::o¡t¿ 7?()~cH S R£st7k#A1vr , ·' ¡'-' ,\ ¡.it ) MEMORANDUM TO: David T. Harden, City Manager FROM: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 11, 1995 ROOM NAMES - MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE DATE: April 7, 1995 ACTION City Commission is requested to approve the following names for rooms at the Municipal Golf Course by resolution: Grill Room: Donald Ross (Golf Course Designer) Lounge: Tommy Armour (Golf Professional) Ballroom: Betty Jameson (Golf Professional) Multi-purpose Room: Louise Suggs (Golf Professional) BACKGROUND Golf Course management is recommending the above listed names for rooms at the golf course clubhouse. These names were selected because of their historic significance and association with our course. Input was received from the golfers. Commission is being re- quested to approve these names at this time because the con- tractor needs to get the room name signs ordered and installed. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of resolutions naming rooms at the Municipal Golf Course. golf. doc U·S· 3· . RESOLUTION NO. 31-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, NAMING THE GRILL OF THE DELRAY BEACH GOLF CLUB, 2200 HIGHLAND AVENUE, II DONALD ROSS II , IN RECOGNITION OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS A GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT. WHEREAS, Donald James Ross, one of Scotland's most celebrated twentieth century architects, designed some 600-700 golf courses around the world; and, WHEREAS, he designed the first nine holes, the old front nine, of the Delray Beach Golf Club in 1923; and, WHEREAS, his accomplishments in golf course design, especially at the Delray Beach Golf Club, be recognized, acclaimed and permanently recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, in recognition of his work on behalf of the City of Delray Beach, does hereby name the Grill at the Delray Beach Golf Club, IIDonald Ross II , and said room in said building, shall hereafter be know as same. Section 2. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this day of April, 1995. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk . . RESOLUTION NO. 32-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, NAMING THE LOUNGE OF THE DELRAY BEACH GOLF CLUB, 2200 HIGHLAND AVENUE, II TOMMY ARMOUR II IN RECOGNITION OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL GOLF. WHEREAS, Thomas Dickson Armour, born in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1924, became a naturalized citizen in the United States, established himself as a premier player, teacher and legend of the game; and, WHEREAS, he is a member of the golf's Hall of Fame since 1941; and, WHEREAS, he served as a professional at the Boca Raton Hotel and Club, Congressional CC, Tam O'Shanter in Detroit and Medinah CC; and, the Delray Beach Golf Club; and WHEREAS, he was uniquely responsible for the great popularity of golf in America; and, WHEREAS, he was a champion drinker; and, WHEREAS, his drinking chair, liThe Throne II , was housed at the Delray Beach Golf Club; and, WHEREAS, he lived in Delray Beach for many years until his death in 1968; and, WHEREAS, he had a long time relationship with the Delray Beach Golf Club, both as a player and professional instructor, may IITommy Armourll be recognized, acclaimed and permanently recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, in recognition of his accomplishment and friendship given to Delray Beach Golf Club, does hereby name the Lounge at the Delray Beach Golf Club, II Tommy Armour II , and said room in said building, shall hereafter be know as same. Section 2. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. . . PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this day of April, 1995. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk -2- Res. No. . . RESOLUTION NO. 33-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, NAMING THE BALLROOM OF THE DELRAY BEACH GOLF CLUB, 2200 HIGHLAND AVENUE, "BETTY JAMESON" IN RECOGNITION OF HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL GOLF. WHEREAS, Elizabeth May Jameson amassed a brilliant amateur golfing record, she won 14 significant championships; and, WHEREAS, she is a Founder and Charter Member of the Ladies Professional Golf Association; and, WHEREAS, she is one of four original inductees into the LPGA Hall of Fame in 1951; and, WHEREAS, she has had a long time relationship with the Delray Beach Golf Club, both as a player and professional instructor, "Betty Jameson" be recognized, acclaimed and permanently recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, in recognition of her accomplishments and friendship given to Delray Beach Golf Club, does hereby name the Ballroom at the Delray Beach Golf Club, "Betty Jameson " and said , room in said building, shall hereafter be know as same. Section 2 . That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this day of April, 1995. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk . · RESOLUTION NO. 34-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, NAMING THE MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM OF THE DELRAY BEACH GOLF CLUB, 2200 HIGHLAND AVENUE, "LOUISE SUGGS" IN RECOGNITION OF HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL GOLF. WHEREAS, Mae Louise Suggs, amassed a brilliant amateur golfing record, she won the Georgia State Amateur Championship, the Southern Amateur, a three-time winner of the North/South, two-time winner of the Western Amateur and the Western Open, the Titleholders, the U.S. Women's Amateur and the British Amateur; and, WHEREAS, she is a Founder and Charter Member of the Ladies Professional Golf Association; and, WHEREAS, she is one of four original inductees into the LPGA Hall of Fame in 1951; and, WHEREAS, she is the holder of 50 LPGA Championships, eight of which are major golf titles; and, WHEREAS, she served as LPGA President three times; and, WHEREAS, she captured the 1957 Vare Trophy for löwest scoring average on the LPGA Tour; and, WHEREAS, she was nicknamed "Miss Sluggs", by Bob Hope; and, WHEREAS, she was the first woman elected to the LPGA Hall of Fame in 1951; and, WHEREAS, she has had a long time relationship with the Delray Beach Golf Club, both as a player and professional instructor, may "Louise Suggs" be recognized, acclaimed and permanently recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, in recognition of her accomplishments and friendship given to Delray Beach Golf Club, does hereby name the Multi-purpose Room at the Delray Beach Golf Club, "Louise Suggs " , and said room in said building, shall hereafter be know as same. - . . Section 2. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this day of April, 1995. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk -2- Res. No. .' . - - /\ )".. ..) / . ,~ POLICY FOR SIDEWALK REPAIR AND CONSTRUCTION Purpose: To provide guidelines for sidewalk repair and new construction within the City of Delray Beach. Policy: 1. Requests for sidewalk repair and new construction will be processed by the Public Works Departments. 2. Requests for sidewalk repair will be scheduled by the Public Works Department and will be paid for by the City. 3. Sidewalks will be required for new construction projects both residential and commercial, and will be paid for by the developer. Sidewalk requirements to be waived by the authorized approving Board. 4. When new sidewalk construction is requested in existing residential neighborhoods, the City will pay 50% of the costs and the property owners 50%. Property owner's share may be paid for through an assessment at prevailing rates. New sidewalks may be installed if requested by a majority of the property owners affected. System must make sense and connect to something. 5. New sidewalks requested in an existing commercial area will be processed as per residential neighborhoods. 6 . New sidewalk construction required for child safety to and from schools will be planned and paid for by the City and/or other governmental agencies. Clarify that this doesn't apply to new developments. 7. All new sidewalks will comply with ADA requirements. RAB/kwg/bg N.S. .Jf5 . . ~12t? {Ie 'h 7'Þ/ ~ Q ~~.~ ~ [IT' OF DELIA' BEA[H :'~ ..:' (~~: r: i ~ ( r: ~'\, L" ',"' ,_ v ._l1 DElRAY BEACH MAR 2 8 ' 1995 f \ 0 II 0 A tze.d C¡T\i í~/jti\¡ All-America City ~ lilt! MEMORANDUM 1993 TO: Richard Corwin, Deputy Director of Public Works FROM: ~obert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: SIDEWALK I STREETLIGHTING POLICIES DATE: March 23, 1995 The above policies were discussed at Commission meeting last week. The following information is requested: Sidewalks .:: <J!9,oo L. F. cost 5' wide sidewalk Streetlights 1. Monthly rental rate for each: 9 500 Lumens <.h 7. 20 5 800 Lumens .;. 6. 57 , 22,000 Lumens .. 11 .97 16 000 Lumens 1> 8.22 , 2. Upgrade cost for ¡umen upgrades as follows per pole/light: 5,800 to 9,500.100.00 each light (average) 9,500 to 16,000,flliL.Jlli each light (average) 16,000 to 22,000 1'50 - 00 each light (average) 3. * Cost to add a light to existing pole: 5,800 Lumens N/C 9,500 Lumens N/C 16,000 Lumens N/C 22,000 Lumens N/C *$2,000.00 IF TRANSFORMER IS REQUIRED. @ Pnnt&d on R&Cyc/&d Paper THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS . - . 4. Cost to change pole and light (i.e., like in Pines East) 5,800 Lumens'.Ìl. 000.00 9 500 Lumensc} 1,000.00 , ~ 16,000 Lumens 1,000.00 22,000 Lumensf> 1 ,000.00 Need this information as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call me. RAB:kwg File:g:memos/rab Doc.:StrLght,Etc . ,- ( f...\ ,. t. 1 r >-" . POLICY FOR STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION Purpose: To provide guidelines for installation of street lights within the City of Delray Beach. Policy: 1. The City's minimum standard for street lighting in residential neighborhoods shall be 5,800 lumen Cobra style fixtures, Fixtures shall be located at all intersections, and at mid block locations, such that fixtures are spaced at least 250 feet and not more than 500 feet apart. In residential neighborhoods, 9,500 lumen fixtures may be installed if the higher lighting level is requested by a majority of the residents affected. 2, When additional lighting is requested, the City will pay all costs associated with installing new lighting or brighter lighting within the parameters of paragraph 1. AU capital costs of installing additional or brighter lighting outside the parameters of paragraph 1 shall be assessed against the property owners in the area benefitting ITom the increased lighting, Likewise, the cost of changing the type of lights (i.e. from post top to Cobra style) shall be assessed the property owners in the area, 3. Requests for new or modified street lights will be processed by Public Works Department. 4. Street lighting on collector and arterial roads which is installed and maintained by Florida Power and Light Company may be either 16,000 or 22,000 lumen, depending upon the characteristics of the roadway, City staff, in consultation with Florida Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County when appropriate, will determine the most appropriate level of lighting for such roads, 5. State Road AlA, between Casuarina Road and the north end of the Municipal Beach, is a special situation not covered by these guidelines. This area will continue to be lit by low-pressure sodium vapor street light fixtures, or other fixtures acceptable to environmental agencies, to protect nesting sea turtles and their hatchlings, t1/S dfh . . ~/2(? (lC- 'h7Þ/ ~ -z; ~~.~ . '. ~ [IT' OF DELRAY BEA[H --, .. ; ~ ; , -' -- ' , -- - DElRAY BEACH M~H 2 B í995 , to. n A t:r.ttd All· America City "111: MEMORANDUM I ')LJ ) TO: Richard Corwin, Deputy Director of Public Works FROM: Ø'R0bert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: SIDEWALK / STREETLIGHTING POLICIES DATE: March 23, 1995 The above policies were discussed at Commission meeting last week. The following information is requested: Sidewalks ~ ok9, co L.F. cost 5' wide sidewalk Streetlights 1. Monthly rental rate for each: 9 500 Lumens ~ 7.20 5 800 Lumens ~ 6. 57 , 22,000 Lumens cj 11 .97 16000 Lumens $ 8.22 , 2. Upgrade cost for ¡umen upgrades as follows per pole/light: 5,800 to 9,500.100.00 each light (average) 9,500 to 16,000}.iliL....Q..Q. each light (average) 16,000 to 22,000 11)0.00 each light (average) 3. * Cost to add a light to existing pole: 5,800 Lumens N/C 9,500 Lumens N/C 16,000 Lumens N/C 22,000 Lumens N/C *$2,000.00 IF TRANSFORMER IS REQUIRED. @ Pf/(I:f:K1 on RðGyc/8d Paper THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS . . ,. . . . 4. Cost to change pole and light (i.e., like in Pines East) 5,800 Lumens41. 000.00 9 500 Lumens~ 1,000.00 , f; 16000 Lumens 1,000.00 , 22,000 Lumens1> 1,000.00 Need this information as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call me. RAB:kwg File: g: memos / rab Doc.:StrLght.Etc " , . - FPL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PREPARED BY: A G RUSSILLO, JR. DATE:MAACH 29, 1995 (!Or:J-S ¡"'.I¡¡_III.lliiJl_lIr--·· STREETUGHTS 107-2-427 LAKE IDA RD/ROAD WIDE 82793 12/1 95 INST STLTS µþ 108-2-427 LAKE IDA RD/ROAD WIDE 8 27 93 12/7,95 INST STLTS 10/ C!.. 7115-2-454 NE 8 AVE 42094 42994 2 1795 2/13/95 INST 1 STLT /V/e 7116-2-454 NE 9 AVE 4 20 94 4 29 94 4 19 95 INST 2 STLT /NEED EASM'TS µI C-- 7126-2-454105SW9AVE 51194 52394 31095 3/6/95 INST1 STLT ji-'/G 7279-2-454 HOMEWD BLV 8 8/94 8 22 94 3 28 95 9500 TO 16000 "305'0 7371·2-454 SW 10 ST E/O CONGRESS 8 8/94 8 22 94 3/2/95 3/13/95 INST 2 STLTS ~ C 7255-2-454 410&520 SE 1 AVE 9 18 94 10/4 94 3 10 95 3 3/95 INST 2 STLTS u( C 7256-2-454 214 N OCEAN AVE 10 11/94 10 11 94 3 10 95 3/14/95 RELC 1 STLT MO,,", ~ 0 -'- ~ þ,Ø 7277-2-454 SE 1 AVE TO SE 4 A 10 25 "94 10 3194 628"95 üFGAADE 4. SilTS v..4tf;¡OV 7276-2-454 400 BLK OF NE 3 AVE ' 10 25 94 10 31 94 3 10 95 3/3/95 INST 2 STLTS ~'! c:. 7342-2-454 DOWNTWN LIGHTS 11 23 94 12 94 5 25 95 9500 TO 16000 f'\ 7381-2-454 OOWNTWN UGHTS(NE7AVE) 11 23 94 12 94 7 28 95 2STLTS ~ 7397-2-454 DOWNTWN UGHTS(SWlNTON) 11 2394 12 94 5 24 95 1 STLT '~306D 7399-2-454 DOWNTWN LlGHTS(NE1ST) 11 2394 12/7 94 52495 1 STLT 7403-2-454 DOWNTWN LlGHTS(NE2AV) 11 2394 12/7 94 52495 1 STLT 7404-2-454 DOWNTWN LlGHTS(SE4AV) 11 23 94 12/7 94 5 24 95 1 STLT 7405-2-454 DOWNTWN LlGHTS(SE1ST) 11 23 94 12794 52495 1 STLT 7382-2-454 NW 3 DR 12 12 94 12 22/94 3 16 95 3/17/95 4-5800 TO 95Q0/HLC FOR $'S Co \ 00 7411-2-454 360NE4ST,18NE5ST,NE5ST&US1 122294 23/95 4'7/95 INST3STLT LJ->I c-, 7394-2-454 NUS1,ATL TONE8ST 22/95 31/95 11 13/95 108-16,000 TO 22,000 ~2S")ooò 1-'13 7387-2-454 SCHOOL"S" 21095 2/17/95 4'7/95 INST7STLT J1." 7418-2-454 SUDAN SUBDMSION 221 95 3/1/95 5/19/95 5-5800 TO ~ '1'5 Cft) -'"'57 CHAMBER/UBRARY PARK LOT 2 21 95 3/13/95 5 2/95 UPGRADE 2,INST 3 STLTS ~~O 7219-2-454 GERMANTOWN RD 3/3/95 3/21/95 5/12/95 UPGRADE 9 STLTS I, 715"0 *O~ 16<~ ?If.--'C;S <2'0-s;t cl~ -p~ 4"3 ~ G::,~ 14e.~ $43,000 WELLS, LIFT STATIONS & IRRIGATION MORIKAMI PK WELLS 1/15 94 UG TO WELLS(PREUM} 5314-1-454 BAYST 3/1194 4/21/95 UG SVCFORSTORM PUMP 0472-7-454 UFST STATION,SCH"S· 2/9/95 5/12/95 UG SVC TO LS W ATlANTIC SPRKLRS 2/14/95 UG SVC FOR CLOCKS E ATLT AVE STORM WTR PMP 3/1/95 I . NEW UG SVC TO PMP LS7&8 MOTOR UPOGRADE 3/20/95 I NEW UG SVC'S FOR LS'S RELOCATIONS 8143-4-427 LAKE IDA! DEPOT-NW4 89/93 1 6/95 2/14/95 RELOCATE POLE 8365-4-427 LAKE IDA! E-3 89/93 12 15/94 2/9/95 UG CANAL X-ING 6273-4-454 NW 2 ST & 3 AVE 10 20/93 6 8/95 RELC POLES FOR SIDEWLK 6341-5-454 E ATL AVE CONVERSION 10 25/93 12 29/95 OH TO UG CONVERSION 6508-4-454SW10ST,PHASEII 81/94 4/17/95 SW4TOGERMANTWN 653().4.-454 NE 7 AVE & 1 ST 8 8/94 3/10/95 3/2/95 RELC POLE 6603-4-454 SW 9 AVE 10 10/94 CANCELLED NO RELOC WORK REC'D RENOVATIONS 5694-1-454IPOMPEY PARK POOL I 2/21/95 I I 4/10/95 I IREPL TRANSFRMRS 6768-4-454 I SCOUT HUT I 2/21/95 I I 5/31/95 I OH TO UG SVC CHANGE 1 . . , . /\ City of ADMINISTRATIVE SUBJECT: GENERAL _. ADMINISTRATIVE: CHARITABLE Defray POLICIES AND PROCEDURES and BENEVOLENT- CONTRIBUTION MANUAL Beach NUMBER REVISIONS PAGE GA-23 1 / 1 OF 3 ~@ SUPERSEDES A 23, Rev 0 GA-23 Purpose: The purpose of this policy, as approved by the City Commission on September 30, 1986, is to provide formal procedures for charitable and benevolent contributions from City Funds. GA-23.1 Procedures: The presentation and consideratJon of requests for City funding by agencies will comply with the following guidelines. l. Agencies desiring funding from the City of Delray Beach are required to complete the City's "Charitable and Benevolent Contribution Request Application" for review and action by the Commission to determine eligibility prior to any award. All applications shall be accompanied by a letter outlining the intent of use and signed by the . , head requestlng agency s or representative. 2. Those requesting agencies be agencies which supply a benefit to the Citizens of Delray Beach which in the absence of assistance, the City could provide supplemental assistance from it's own resources. 3. Funding eligibility will be determined or denied by a majority vote of the City Commissioners at their first Commission meeting following acceptance of the request with at least a two week notice for review. 4 . The total funding for eligible requesting agencies should not exceed 1% of the Ad Valorem tax revenue annually. These guidelines are designed to be consistent with funding criteria which seek to provide funding for agencies that are involved in projects that serve Delray residents and that the City's contributions be relevant to the Delray people and the agency served. All requests will be considered on it's own merit and should meet one or more of the items on the application in Section(s) 2 and 3. /AIS Jk¡ - . . - APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE and BENEVOLENT CONTRIBUTION REQUEST CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 1. NAME OF ORGANIZATION ADDRESS CITY PHONE CONTACT PERSONS NAME POSITION WITH ORGANIZATION 2. Does the organization meet the following criteria? (a) Incorporated, private, and non-profit (b) Tax exempt status under IRS Code 501 (c) (3 ) (c) Not a private foundation (d) Charitable contributions to agency are tax deductible (e) Charitable, health, or human services are delivered to residents of Delray Beach (f) Volunteer Board of Directors is the governing body (g) Agency has current affirmative action plan (h) Independent audit is performed each year (i) Annual budget is approved by Board of Directors 3. Does the organization address any of the following priority needs? Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Alzheimers Services A.I.D.S. Services Affordable Health Services (Physical & Mental) Affordable Day Care Transportation Housing Foster Care/Placement Community Service Educational or Cultural Enrichment Program YOU MUST BE PRESENT WHEN YOUR REQUEST IS REVIEWED -1- . . - 4 . How many participants are currently utilizing this agency/ program? (Within City limits of Delray Beach?) 5 . What will the" requested funds be used for? Please explain. 6 . From what other sources does your agency/program receive funds or donations? Please explain. 7 . What is your agency/program's total budget? Please explain. CITY COMMISSION Date Reviewed: Vote on the Request: YES NO Approved Denied MAYOR DATE CITY MANAGER DATE -2- . . . . 4 3/27/95 TO: City Clerk, For next work session. FLOR¡'ÕÄm <i' If\NOVÀTION GROUP .:.¡ E C 1:: ¡ \/ ¡:. i MAR 2 7 1995 March 24, 1995 l;íTY (ViP'" David Harden City Manager City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1st Ave Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear David: Thank you for your inquiry requesting information on how other cities determine funding for non-profit organizations. I contacted a number of jurisdictions with the following results: * Clearwater, FL. Tina Wilson, Budget Director, (813) 462-6930. Requests from non-profit organization are submitted to the City Commission. They receive either aYes or a No answer for the amount requested. The City does not fund very many organizations - the most notable funding they do is to Ruth Eckerd Hall - approximately $400,000. Other much smaller funding is given to the Florida Orchestra, Clearwater Bombers, and Special Events such as the Jazz Festival. * Gainesville, FL. (904) 334-201l. The only funding they give to non-profits is limited to 15% of the Community Development Block Grant funding they receive. A citizen committee takes applications from non-profit organizations and makes site visits to them. The committee then makes a recommendation to the City Manager. He then reviews the material and makes his recommendation to the City Commission who make the decision. * Hollywood, FL. Ken Fields, Director of Management and Budget, (305) 921-3316. The City of Hollywood determines the amount of funding they will provide in total. Grant applications are submitted by the non-profits. It is a competitive process. The staff fills out rating sheets for each application. Determining factors include 1) service provided, 2) number of people served, 3) stability of the non-profit organization, and 4) whether or not they serve a targeted group of people. After the rating sheets are completed, the budget department makes recommendations. These recommendations are submitted to the City Commission. Usually only minor changes occur at that point in the process. * Pensacola, FL. Richard Barker, Assistant Finance Director, (904) 435-1817. A set dollar amount is allocated each year for funding of non-profit organizations. The United Way handles all applications. Mr. Barker finds this to be an efficient way to handle the process because the United Way is familiar with the activities and funding of non-profits in the community and can identify true needs of those organizations. The United Way submits recommendations to the City Manager. Usually he makes no changes. The requests are then submitted to City Council for final approval. * Sarasota, FL. Nora Patterson, Mayor. (813) 954-4215. The County of Sarasota funds the non-profit organizations - if the City were to use its taxes for non-profits it would be a case of double taxation. 6604 Hamey Road, Suite L P.O, Box 16645 Tampa, Flor1da 33687-6645 813'622·8484 Fax 813'664·0051 . . - . * Pinellas Park, FL. Denise Cowdrick, Finance Secretary. (813) 541-0710. Non-profits make application for funding to the City Commission. The City Commission decides which they will fund. Some examples of the organizations funded are: 1) Boys' and Girls' Clubs, 2) Pinellas Opportunity Council, 3) St Petersburg Free Clinic, 4) SPCA, 5) Deaf Service Center, 6) Neighborly Senior Services, 7) Center against Spouse Abuse, 8) Hospice, and 9) Operation PAR. I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely p~~ Sandra Peek PS We are currently seeking information on local government experience with Internet We would appreciate your sending your comments. Thank you! " , . . lCtJA . SéPV IC::: M A'I A GE fooE N T INF-:JRMATION REFER E:-.¡CE NUMBER I 11~O22 ! Handling Grants of Local Public Funds: Guidelines to Secure the Public Purpose By E.A. Mosher, Executive Director James M, Kaup, General Counsel League of Kansas Municipalities EDl1DR'S NOTE: This is a revised and expanded edition public trust and any power conferred must be exercised of a similar article which appeared in (he March /988 is· for the public good (see 2 E, McQuillin. The Law of Muni- sue of Kansas Government Journal, cipal Corporations. Section 10.31 (3rd Ed)), The public pur- pose rule of common law is basic to a system of The local chamber of commerce requests $10.000 from responsible. representative government. It will not be the city to help promote economic development. The Red found in explicit terms in the Kansas statutes, nor in the Cross chapter has some financial problems, and requests Kansas Constitution. It is a rule of law so inherent that $5.000 from the county, An historic preservation group. its enumeration in statute is superfluous, The public pur- a local non-profit corporation. wants a contribution to help pose doctrine has been cited in innumerable court cases save a local landmark building, A garden club. which does throughout the country. but usually is used in an attempt a lot of volunteer beautification work throughout the com· to define its ,lpplication to a specific fact situation. not to munity, wants some help, at least to pay for the plants and reestablish the basic principle, flowers, The board of education requests some city finan- What Are Public Funds? cial assistance to support a drug abuse education program If the rule is that public funds may be used only for pub- for young people, A volunteer. not-for-profit corporation lic purposes, one must first ask what are public funds? The established to help battered women needs at least $100 answer is simple-public funds are those moneys in the a month to help pay the renl. A community development hands of J public or governmental agency. Contrary to the corporation says they have raised $75.000. and another belief of some peopl!', the source of the money is not rel!'- $25.000 would permit them to build a spec building for V,1I11. Some local offici,lls tend to think th,lt there are differ· a potenti,ll industry. Maya public agency give public ent kinds of public moneys that l1),lY be handled moneys lO such entities. for these kind of purposes? differently, with different standards, For example. federal The answer to this question. given its precise wording. General Revenue Sharing (GRS) moneys were treated by is no-a governmental unit cannot simply give away its some governing bodies as if it were somehow different public funds. no matter how pressing the need. how nota- than property tax money; it was "given" (allocated) to so- ble the purpose or how benevolent the recipient. But cial service é1gencies in a manner as if it were not public rephrasing the question may give you a different é1nswer, funds, and occ,lsionally for purposes which would not be For example. may a public agency provide public moneys allowed by the governing body if the money were from to a community service agency to secure a public purpose? the general fund, Similarly. some feder,ll Community De· The answer is yes. Even if the payment is to a private. for- velopment Block Grant (CDBG) moneys have been allo· profit company. the answer is yes-if it will achieve a law- cated as if the public agency were not spending its own ful public purpose, funds. As another example, special tax levies for economic development have sometimes been spent for purposes The Public Purpose Doctrine which could be considered more private than public, Fundamental to the answer to these kinds of questions The essential point to remember is that public funds are faced by local officials is the public purpose doc!rine- public funds. whether they come from property taxes. sales governments exist for public purposes; public funds may taxes. utility charges. federal grants. state aid, or any oth- be spent only for public purposes. er source. The governing body charged with the manage- To paraphrase McQuillin, the authoritative writing on ment of public funds has the same level of stewardship municipal law, a municipal corporation is a public insti- responsibility. regardless of where the money comes from, tution created to promote public. as distinguished from and the public purpose doctrine applies 10 any expendi· private, objects, All of its powers and offices constitute a ture of public funds. 204 KANSAS GOVERNMENT JOURNAL, SEPTEMBER ]989 .. , . --- What Is a Public Purpose? and a statute authorizing cities and counties to buy stock What is a lawful public purpose? This is the big but short in a corporation organized to develop mineral resources question, which comes with a very long answer if fully (1895), explored. A short and admittedly rough answer is that a While repeatedly striking down efforts to aid industry public purpose is wh,lt the courts say it is, ,lI1d the courts as not having a valid public purpose, the Supreme Court are at least influenced by what an elected governing body of Kansas, as early as 1871, had decided that cities and finds and declares it to be, counties could lawfully grant aid to railroads, saying ..,..the The problem with the public purpose doctrine is that transportation of passengers and freight for the public is it is often difficult to distinguish between what is a public a public purpose although operated by a private agency...... versus private purpose or benefit. A portion of 64 C,J,S, The extent of the court's change in philosophy in re- Municipal CorpO((1tiOIlS, Section 1835, which follows, is of· gard to how it would review economic legislation, and how ten cited to illustr,lte the distinction: it viewed "public purpose" in the area of economic de- There is no uniwrs,ll test for distinguishing between velopment became clear in the 1980s. In 1984 the court a purpose which is public or municip,11 and, there- Iwld: fore, a proper object of expenditure and one which What is for the public good or what are public pur- is private, and, therefore, an improper object to poses for which appropriations may be made are which to devote public money. Each case must be questions which the legislature must in the first in· decided in the light of the existing conditions, with stance decide, In determining those questions, a state respect to the objects sought to be ,1(complished, the legislature is vested with a broad discretion, which degree and manner in which that object affects the cannot be controlled by the courts, except when the public welfare, and the nature and character of the action is clearly evasive or violative of a constitu· thing to be done, but the court will give weight to tional provision. It has been said that a strict formu- a legislative determination of what is a municipal la to determine public purposes for all times cannot purpose as well as widespread opinion and general be formulated, since the concept expands with the practice which regard as city purposes some things population, economy, scientific knowledge, and which may not be such by absolute necessity, or on changing conditions. As people are brought closer a narrow interpretation of constitutional provisions, together in congested areas, the public welfare re- Where an appropriation of public funds is primarily quires governmental operation of facilities which for public purposes, it is not necessarily rendered were once considered exclusively private enterprises, violative of constitutional provisions against gifts and and necessitates the expenditure of tax funds for pur- loans of public credit by an incidental result which poses which were not classified as public, Ulrich v. may be of private benefit. On the other hand, if the Board of Thomas County Commissioners, 234 Kan. 782,789 (1984). result is chiefly that of private benefic. an incidental In 1985 the court refused to strike down the below- or even ostensible public purpose will not save its market value sale of land by a city to an industry, holding const it utional ity. that the courts should defer to the judgment of lawmak- The lack of precision regarding what constitutes a pub· ers as to whether an action promotes the public welfare, lie purpose is further illustrated by 15 E. McQuillin, The and that actions taken should be invalidated only where Law of Municipal Corporations, Section 39.19 (3rd Ed.): that judgment is "entirely devoid of a rational basis" (To- What is a public municipal purpose is not suscepti- masic v. City of Kansas City, 237 Kan, 572). ble of precise definition, since it changes to meet new In 1988 the court upheld a city's grains to revitalize and developments ,1I1d conditions of the times. Indeed, reh,lbilitate a downtown business area, The court said that it has been recognized that "public purpose" should the need for redevelopment is an important public con- be broadly construed to comport with the changing cern and making city development grants to private in- conditions of modern life, While the question of what dividuals to promote the public welfare is a legitimate is and what is not a public purpose is initially a legis- public purpose (Duckworth v, City of Kansas City, 243 Kan, lative responsibility to determine, in its final analy- 386), sis, it is for the courts to answer. Nevertheless, the The purpose of this article is not primarily to give the courts pay grl'at deference to the initial legislative legal history of what has been defined as a public pur- dell'rmin,ltion that a particular project Sl'rVl'S ,1 public pose, to predict Wh,lt the courts may today accept as a pub- purpose and will presume that municip,ll offici,lls are lic purposl', or to predict wh.1{ may become accepted as propl'rly performing their dutil's when thl'Y m,lke a 1,1wful public purpose tomorrow, However, these guide· such decisions. Each case must bl' dl'cided with lines can be oifered for local officials to consider when reference to the object sought to be accomplished faced with questions on the propriety of the use of public and to the degree and manner in which that object moneys: affects the public welfare, · Is the proposed purpose commonly accepted as a pub- The public purpose doctrine was applied to public aid lic purpose by other governmental units? to private industry a number of times in the late 1800s. · Does the public itself generally consider it to be an ap- The Kansas Supreme Court declared void: bonds issued propriate use of public funds? (Note: While this certainly by a city to aid a bridge manufacturer to relocate in the is not definitive, it is, after all, the public's money.) city (1893); city bonds issued to help construct a private- · Can the results of the expenditure be identified. and is Iy owned mill (1876); statutes authorizing townships to the governing body willing to characterize those results obtain stock in a manufacturing company (1875 and 1880); as public benefits? KANSAS GOVERNMENT JOURNAL, SEPTEMBER 1989 205 . Statutes vs. Home Rule same governmental unit. But this does not mean there can' Prior to home rule in Kansas (constitutional for cities not be public service agreements between governmental in 1961. statutory for counties in 1974), requests from the units. for example. a city could contribute money to the private sector for grants or contributions of public moneys county to help support a service 01 benefit to the city, and were not so common as in recent years. There have never vice versa. A number of cHies have been asked to buy been many Kansas laws authorizing this practice. and, pri- equipment. or contribute towards capital improvements or to home rule, this absence of statutory authorization for county hospitals, which benefit city residents, A city was viewed as an absence of legal power. This was due or county may provide money to a local school district for to the pre-home rule adage that legislative silence equat- a public service, such as is done when the local share of ed to the inability to take action, By contrast. under home the 10 percent drink tax money is used for drug and ako- rule, cities and counties have the power to make gifts and hol abuse education programs operated by the board of grants-for public purposes-subject to limitations that education. might be enacted by the state legislature. It might be not- As in the case 01 "contributions" to priv,lte or non,profit ed that even the state legis\ature may not authorize the agencies, a service agreement. discussed below, should be state or local units of government to use public funds for used for public money exchanges between governmental private purposes, A state legislative declaration that grant· units, ing public moneys for a certain purpose is a use of money Profit vs, Non-Profit Agencies that wi\! be of benefit to the public may help convince the courtS of its lawfulness, in the same manner that a local Some loca\ officials seem to think that "giving" money governing body declaration may help. But the public pur- to non-profit agencies is more proper than giving money pose doctrine, created by the courts. is ultimately defined to a for-profit business, This ignoreS the crucial Question and applied by the courlS. not by legisl.1tive bodies, 01 whether the benefit5 are public purpose benefits, Who, or what, is the "actor" is of little or no relevance. The mere Using a Conduit fact that the recipient is recognized by the U.S. Treasury Maya municipality do indirectly that which it may not as tax exempt, for example, does not mean the municipal do directly? Put another way, may a city lawfully give man· grant will be used for a public purpose of that municipal· ey \0 a non-profit corporation to use for a purpose that ity, The slow trend toward privatization-the performance may not be a public purpose? Running public money of traditional public services by private business under through a conduit does not make sonlething that is un· contract with a city-clearly shows the legitimacy of us' lawful into something lawful. since the test of publiC pUT' ing private p.>rties to accomplish public purposes, although pose depends on the final purpose for which it will be it does not create the public purpose in Jnd of itself. used. Nonetheless. some "insulation" may help, For ex' ample, it appears dear that a city may contract for secm· Service Agreements ing economic development services with a local. non-profit In broad terms. every expenditure of public funds reo corporation. If proper procedures are followed by the city, Quires some kind of a contract. The payment of an em· as discussed below. this corporation may be able to do ployee's salary results from a "contract" for personal some things that would be questionable if done directly services; the purchase of materials or supplies is the reo by the citY-like buy land and rent it to a new business suit of a contract. A contract is essentially an agreement at a low cost. The use of proper procedures. and some ac- where there is an exchange of something of value, "Giv- countability as \0 the ultimate use of the money, seem es· ing" public money 10 someone or some agency, without sential. A conduit that is arm's length away, so as to gelting something in return. is where local units can get remove the public purpose Question. is probably ODe into trouble-there is no contract. Nor wi\! ca11ing it a which destroys the accountabHity of public officials for the "grant" or "contribution" help. When public funds are use of the public's moneys, There is a quandary: if you spent. there must be received in return something of val- know the money may be used for a non-public purpose, ue which will be of benefit 10 the pub1iC. you may be in trouble; if you don't know how the money Local governments should not allocate public funds to wí11 be spent, you're also in trouble. other agencies for clearly non-governmental purposes without some kind of service agreement (contract), The The Community Benefits Question agreement should be in writing, even if only as part of the Implicit in the public purpose doctrine is that the pub- motion or resolution authorizing the expenditure, The de· lic which benefits is also the same public that raises the tail of the description of the public service \0 be provided money, or at least controls its expenditure. for example. by the "grant" recipient wi\1 normally depend on the contracting for services by a non-profit agency when the amount. but some description is necessary to explain why services will actually be performed in alìother town is it is being done, ,1nd for what purpose. questionable, Some public benefits must accrue locally if If there is any Question as to the public purpose nature local funds are used, and a\! public funds under the con- of the service to be purchased by the agreement. a legis- trol of the governing body are local funds, regardless of lative (governing body~ finding and declaration of this pur· their source. pose should be included. Significant difficulty in defining Grants to Other Governments what that public purpose is will usually serve as an ac- curate indicator that it should not be done, May one governmental unit simply give public funds to another government? The answer is nO, when H is a AccountabiHty "simply give" question, The public funds of one govern· How does the municipality know the "grant" is actual· mental unit must be used for the public purposes of that Iy being used for the purpose for which it was made? Lo' 206 KANSAS GOVERNMENT JOURNAL, SEPTEMBER 1989 ~ .~ . ·.- . : ca! officj,lls ,m' heJd accounuble ior (he carl' of public 4. M,lke sure Ih,lt ¡he rt'cipiel1l underslands Ihal Ihe pub· funds. This fiduci,uy duty is made more diificult when the lie ,1gl'ncy is buying a public service - that you Me not funds are paid out before the service or commodity is just giving them public money to spend as they deem lit provided. Most public expenditures, to an employee. con, S. Make sure that the proposed benefits are actually de- tractor or vendor. are in the form of reimbursement for livered. and that some. or all. of the benefits are local. somelhing already received, Grants often assume a future 6. Keep in mind that a "grant" to one group will proba- delivery of service, bly result in a request for a "gr,ll11" by another group. ,1nd Given this reality. a periodic report from the recipient th,lt "unequal" trealment of similar proposals by similar I is advisable. and should be made a condition of the grant. groups can lead to allegations of unlawfully arbItrary ,1nJ How much was spent? For what purpose? What public benefits accrued to the city (county)? In some instances, capricious action. the service agreement should also stipulate the right of 7. Because legislative actions of governmental units en· the local unit to examine the relevant financial records of joy a presumption of legali!y when challenged. it is prob- the recipient. ably beller to have the governing body, rather than an administrative officer (e.g, city manger or economic de- Some Policy Recommendations velopment director). make the decisions to grant public funds to other agencies (public or private), The following is a nonexclusive listing of policy recom- B. If the city's aClion is going to be done by an adminis- mendations to use when considering making grants or con- (rative officer rather than the governing body. make sure [fibutions. 1. Use public funds only for public purposes-it is un- that action is done under clear guidelines set by the lawful to do otherwise, governing body. This should help to color the city's ac- 2. If there is doubt that the proposed use of the money tion as a nondiscretionary, ministerial implementation of wilJ meet the public purpose doctrine, check with your a legislative policy, and thereby retain the presumption of legal counsel. If doubt remains, either don't do it, or clearly legality referred to above. define that purpose in writing. and document the expect- 9. Place into the governing body minutes or in [he serv- ed benefits to the public that will flow from the expen- ice agreement approved by the governing body. specific diture, statements as to what the public purpose behind a partic- 3. Consider and treat such allocations of public funds ular action or expenditure is, and how that action or ex- as a service contract-an agreement to perform a public penditure is going to promote that public purpose (i.e. a service. r,ltional ends-means relationship), r-----------------------, I TAKING AN EXAM? I I We have a Career Examination Guide to help I I YOU prepare for and to pass your examination __----==:- --- ~ INOW you can pass that exam and take It with Questions and answers. providing step-by- ~2-:--;;; -- I confidence because you will have solved Similar step InstruCtion. together with Impressive I types of Questions and problems In your Career amounts of practice and drill materiaL I Examination GUide These books have been If the study gUide of your chOice is not listed I used successfully by hundreds of. thousands here. call our toll free number and we'lI assist I of test candidates throughout Amellca, you In making a selection from over 4.000 JROl I Each Passbook' contains multiple-choice different career examinatIOn titles, A'R JRAff\C COM I I :J ATS·9 College-Level Eumlnation Program- :J C·258 fireman Examination-All States S12 00 SPEC\AUSJ lAtCS) I General Euminations (CLEP) S 1395 :J C ·261 Foreign Service Olficer S 19 95 o ATS·21 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SATI $1395 D CS·50 High School EQuivalency Diploma Call ToII.Free 1.800.645.6337 East"n T,me 10 ATS·22 Examen Oe EQuivalencla Para EI Examlnallon . . ,$13.95 d . . 1m 10 5 pm I 0IplomaEscuelaSuperior(EEE)...S1995 DC·376 Internal Revenue Agent .. ,$1500 ~ In coupon. o ATS·30 Test 01 English As A foreign Language , D C·462 Mail Handler (USPS) $'200 N C N.loonll LUI.'''9 CO/pollloon I (TOEfL) ....$1795 DC·591 Plumber , ,$1400 ~~f6~'¡~~'~~~~"t 5,mtl ~Y 117911 o ATS·95 Pre Professional Skills Test (PPST) $1395 DC· 1 939 Pollee Officer. . . $1200 YES please rusn me tne Career Eum,naloon Gul(elSI _ iJ C·68 Air TraHlc Control Specialist . . . . $1800 D C-2441 Police OHlcer (LAPOI . . ,$ 14.00 I n.vecheckeO aDOve I o C'1 131 Automotive Mechanic . . . $12,00 D C-619 Probation OHlcer . __$12 00 f I 0 C-115 Border Patrol Agent. $1500 0 C·643 Programmer Ap1itude Test (PAT) .. . $1500 ~A'" I o C-1 04 Building Inspector. ' $1600 0 C·666 Real Estate Broker $1500 400RfSS D C-143 Clerk· Carrier (USPS) . . . . .. . . . .$12 00 0 C·668 Real Estate Salesman" . . . . $15.00 loC-147 Clerk,Typlst .... ..... .$1200 OC-678 RuraICarrler(USPS). . ..$12.00 NY SI4Tf_Z'P I o C-30 19 Correction OHicer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1200 0 C· 733 Sergeant. Police Department ...". $15.00 0 Money OrOer 0 Vrs.t 0 MisterClrO 0 AmE< 10C'17S Custodian .... ....$1400 DC-746 Social Worker. ......$14.00 OIIIIIIJIIII]]] ITIDI oC,177 Customs Inspector. ... .... $1500 OC,1060 Special Agent FBI .--... ... .$15.00 [XPOAII OC·224 Electrician. ....$16.00 DC·757 State Trooper ............. .....$15.00 COST 01 10 C-229 Electronic Technician $18.00 0 C·3487 U.S. Citizenship Examination .. .$15.00 SiG~AluRf 800..51 s I OVER 4,000 TITlES TO SElECT FROM! ~ IJ 7\ ", - $, OO..en ....,~.' S"'PPI~G S L KGJ·10·89 ,. -."'''....,... lOlAl. S ~ ----------------------- KANSAS GOVERNMENT JOURNAL. SEPTEMBER 1989 207 . . APR--. 3-85 MON 12: 15 CITY OF ORLANDO FAX NO, 4072462868 P,Ol , OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: D~vJ H a.rJ!N\ FROM: l1¡kl S+,~lvr -~ ð{. (jr4wuk C~ MA{(~Eþ fÚ NAME D<A r~ ß ~-4~ FAX # RETURN FAX # (407) 246-2!l69 407- L"I3' 7166 TEL # RETURN TEL # (407) 246-2358 # OF PAGES TO FOLLOW / 0 .-.- . MESSAGE: I J1AÅ t4 c;l SV(Y/(}1ftI1 of- Jv(' ¡J,o(,.( S$. M_~_lrvw~ ~J.gr:Á'" rrAÂ'~ I~ cMt ¡I'It J 'foH'I6 -'J-b€¡ wn1 :r '<1 It ifW fA /,df- J:5,~w ~III\\ /Wl__S-« V~ ~_ f II k,;t.;... f f 1I¡vJ;. rY -~---_. ; . I I Report of the Human Services Council Review Board Purpose The Human Sel'/Ìces Council Review Board was formed by Orange County and the City of Orlando to: 1) assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current system of allocating County and City tax dollars to fund human service agencies; 2) research and idemify funding formulas for the future allocation of these tax dollars; and, 3) evaluate the feasibility of greater coordination or potential consolidation of the HSC and United Way evaluation and funding activities. Process To accomplish its task. the Committee met iD full froro October 1994 through Febmary 1995, and also established MO subcommittees - an Evaluation and Methodology Subcommittee and a Funding Formula Subcommittee, The full committee and ~ubcoro.mjttees heard detailed presentations and obtained information from the Human Services Council, Vnited Way, HRS, Healthy Community Initiative, and human service agencies funded through the HSC The committee also researched the fundi.ng mechanisms utilized by counties and cities throughout Florida and selected national models. The findings and reconul1elldations of the committee are outlined below. Subcommittee Recommendations . Decisions on allocation. of County and City taxpayer dollars must be based on the unique needs of the community from which the funds derive, and must be spent in a fasmon that ensures a direct benefit to the residents of that coromuOlty. Thef>e decisions can best be made through a citízens' review panel appointed by the County and City elected officials. . The total funding allocation by the County and City should be set by formula, to provide funding stability and to al!ow for multì~year planning to meet ongoing . human service needs The recommended formula for future funding allocation is the existing level, multiplied by a..uy population increase, and multiplied by the increase in the national cost of living index (CPl), plus one percent This one percent accommodates tbe lag time between population a.nd COLA increases artd . . APR- 3-95 MON 12:17. CITY OF ORLANDO F AX NO, 40724b¿èJötl . 11........... fund distribution, and also wi1J help accommodate emerging needs Consideration should be given by the citizens' review panel to reserving or setting aside funds to meet these emerging needs. . The administrative burden on human service providers should be minimized by: 1) changing the local governmental funding allocation cycle to match the HRS and United Way cycles, utilizing a July 1 fiscal year; 2) continuing efforts to provide for better integration, and shortening of application founs; and, 3) increasing coordination and consolidation, where feasible, of the program evaluation process. . Collaborative Model - Our community should establish a collaborative model to address the growing human serv.ice issues facing Central Florida. The mission of this colla.borative model is to enhance human services on a community-wide basis. To meet this goal, this Committee recommends that \1,.'ithin t.hirty (30) days, the County Chairroan, the J\Jayor of Orlando aod the fiRS District AdministratOJ:, in cooperation with the community's major funders, appoint a design team to develop a collaborative approach to hum.an services funding in this c.ommunity. The mission of this team will be to create and implement a structure that wilt at a minimum: · Conduct comI1lunity~wide needs assessment and long range strategic planning; · Create a IIcolIaboratíon" where funders meet together, 'with each funder making Índependent funding decisions, in a context of overall cooperation and coordination, t() avoid duplication while at the sa.me tÍme ensuring that the priority needs of the community are met; and, · Obtain greater efficiencies in the application and evaluation processes, and in the mtegration of servìces provided by the humtul service agencies, to reduce costs and relleve administrative burdens for service providers. Conclusions This community is blessed ,"vith a wealth of dedicated and caring individuals, who continue to devote their time and talents to meeting human service neçds. The time is upon us when ,,,'e must harness this talent and go fOf\vard as a team, IÎ we are to succeed in meeting our goals as a community, we must develop a coUaborativ'e approach to . human services, where all the major funders work together and where the human service providers and volunteers are invited to work hand-in-hand as full colleagues in this collaborative process. APR~ 3-85 MON 12:1( . Gin Ur UKLfìNUU t'H^ ¡'Iv. '+U{c:'+uc:ouo 1 I v-r APPENDIX Table of Contents Consolidated Report of the Evaluation Alethodology Subcommittee and the Funding Forrnula Subcommittee I Purpose II Recommendations of the Subcommittees A. City of Orlando and Orange County EvaluatioIl Process B Funding Formula for City of Orlando & Orange County Funds C Admìnìstrative Issues and Collaborative Model 1. Funcfžons .., Implementation Issues ., 3. Long Term Goals D. Role of the Human Services Council III Findings of the HSC Revlev.' Board SubcQmm.ittees A HuOlau Servíces Council B. United Way C Funding EvaluatÍon Process D. Funding Needs and Levels IV Research by tbe HSC Review Board Subcomm.ìttees A. Consolidation Efforts B. Survey of Other Local Governments V Goals Qf the ESe Reviev.¡ Board . . HrK~ j-~O nUN l¿; lö viII Ut' UKLHNUU t'HI', NU, qU{¿qb¿öb~ r. U:::J Consolidated Report olthe Evaluation Methodology Subcolnmittee and the Funding Forl11ula Subcom111ittee I. Purpose The Human Services Council Review Board established nvo subcommittees The Evaluation Methodology Subcommittee was given the task of reviewing and making recomm.endations for changes to the HSC funding allocation process. The Funding Formula Subcommittee was given the ta.~k of establishing a formula to detennine the total level of General Fund revenues to be distributed through the current ESe allocation process (or future process) Other funding provided to non-profit agencies by the City and County should not be subject to this formula. \Vhile researching these assignments, the subcommittees realized that today there exists a dear opportunity and a critical need to identify and develop a strategic planning process to assess Orange County's overall human service needs. This strategic planning process must be comprehensive and include the different stakeholders in the human services field, including the following: · Funding bodies; · Clients served; · Agencies providing services; and, · Community volunteers that participate in the evaluation process. Thus, the subcommittees went beyond the original scope to study how other funders as well as other communities are addressing human service needs. It is the consensus of these subcommittees that we are entering a new era - one where public funding may diminish and better coordination and accountability is critical. Community involvement, t1exible solutions, and dynamic leadership are required for our communÍty to make a smooth transition into ~~1Ìs new . environment. I . , . . APR- 3-95 MON 12:19 CITY OF ORLANDO F AX NO. 4072462869 P. 06 II. Recommendations of the Subcommittees A. Cíty of Orlanllo and Orange (-:ounty Evaluation Proces-s · It is recon.JJJ.1ended the funding allocation process be separated ÍÌ"om the HSC to allow the HSC to concentrate on expanding their management consultant role, and information and referral service · A Citizens1 Review Panel should be established to make recom..mendatÍons on the allocation of City of Orlando and Orange County dollars currently distributed through the HSC process. · The City of Orlando and Orange County should apPoÌIlt the volunteers to the Citizens' Review PaneL . 2 . , . . II. Recommendations of the Subcommittees B. FU11diJ1.g FOrJmi.lafor City ofOrlattdo & Orange County Funds Orange County and the City of Orlando have long recognized the link bet\veen a healthy community and continued economic development. Since 1975, the City and County have provided General Fund revenues 10 human service agencies through the HSC allocation process. The total General Fund revenues are decided upon by the local elected officials. As the future of human service funding at the federal and state levels is in Question, there becomes a critical need to establish a permanent formula for determining those General Fund revenues ProTJQ.'Ìed Formula - · Funding from the City of Orlaúdo and Orange County should not [aU beneath their respective fiscal year 1994i95 funding allocation levels · Annual increases should rencer: · Inflation as defined by the incr"ease in the Consumer Price Index from year to year. (Source: [JS Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Staristics: News. fl1e ConSUfrler Price Index) · The increase in population from year to ,.'ear. (Source: The Bureau (~f Economic and Business Researçh at the University of FlorMa. The City of Orlando should use the increase 11/ithin the City on[.y- Ormlge County should use countywide population figures.) · An additional one percent. (This percentage accommoŒ1tes gro'wth in emerging needs and helps to offset any negath,'e impact stemming from the fCler lhat both Î/!flatioTl and population statistics 1villlag at least one year. The cltizens' review panel should el'aluate the needfor a contìngel1L)'fundfor mid-,vear need.'ì and agen'~v appt.'als.) · If the change in intlation or population is negative, the percent used in the . formula should be O. ... J , - JU .I\. ...J v..... JJUi1 it:- I LV V ill vï Vr..LnnUV r n^ ~v, LfUrC:LfOC:OO;:; r. UO II. Recommendations of the Subcommittees B. Funding Fornmlafor City of Orlando & Orange County FUlld.5 (continue) Example - Assuming a 2,5% increase in population and a 3% inflation rate. the resulting increase injunding levels "W'oltld be 2.5% + 3.0% + 1.0% =< 6.S%. 1994/95 1995/96 Actual Estimate City of Orlando 794,742 846,400 Orange County 2,047,788 2,180,894 . 4 , , . . APR- 3-95 MON 12:20 CITY OF ORLANDO FAX NO, 4072462869 p, 09 r-..., EVALUATION COMMITTEE PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES , In accordance ~ the Human Services Council's agreement with Orange County and the City of Orlando, the Evaluation Committee is formed to review and evaluate proposals from non- profit agencies m our community which provide human services and to then make funding recommendatiOA'l to the County Chairman and Commissioners and the Mayor of Orlando and the CommissiOlJX'lJ. During this proc:as, the Evaluation Team Members are asked to assess three main concerns related to the agmcies and the programs they provide. 1. CAPABILITY - Is the organization applying for funding a viable entity; one we believe will responsibly handle government dollars and provide quality services? 2. RFSPONSIBILITY - Have they done what they said they would do? ie: Have they met their contractual responsibilities for their present funding? 3. NEED - Is there a need in the community to begin, to continue or to expand the services proposed? ~ TOOLS AVAIl-ABLE TO mE COMMr[l1:£ TO MAKE ASSESSMENTS: 1. Eligibility Criteria, if applicant has not been funded previously. 2, Summary of last year's review and the Committee's recommendations for this funding year. 3. Application for Funding for 1994-95, 4, Quarterly Report Summaries wìth notes. The agencies are required to report quarterly on the provision of Units of Servic.es, Unduplicated Clients served and projected Outcome Measures, s. New Applicants will make oral presentations to the full Evaluation Committee. 6. Site visits which wì1l include a presentation by the agency I a review of materials and interviews with Board, Staff, volunteers and clients. You wiH have a form called the "ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW" which is segmented by Focus Area. The form can be used throughout the review of the agency. You can make notes on it as you read materials in preparation for the site visit and when you ~ actually conduct the site visit, The form contains a section for summarizing strengths of the agency and for listing Focus Areas which need improvement. . . . . .. . ~ .... "'"'''-" .."'"'.. ...~ '--... 'w'''' I I ",""J v.t~.l-.JUU../V /. /'Ul l1VI ïVJL-ïVL..UVV , I .1...... . ,.,-, PROCEDURE TO UTILIZE: The Evaluation Committte has been divided into FIVE TEAMS. Each TEAM will assess and make an initial funding recommendation for 8 to 10 agencies. Each TEAM Member will have a Focus Area to assess: Governing Board PersonneU Administration Fiscal Management or Program TEAM members will review the following written materials on their own. 1. 1994-95 applications 2, 1993-94 Evaluation process summaries 3. Quarterly re¡XJl1 summaries 4. Additional documents sped fie. to members Focus Are.a. TEAM members will prepare questions relevant to their Focus Area for the site visit. ~ TEAMS have found it helpful to meet prior to the SITE VISIT to plan specific areas to stress in the visit. NEW AGENCIES - Agencies requesting funding for the first time will follow a slightly different procedure than those presently funded. 1. Each new agency will be assigned to a TEAM. 2. The TEAM will review application and Eligibility Criteria, 3. The Agency will present t.o the full Evaluation Committee at the Supervisors of Elections Office. 4. Discussion will foHow the presentation, and a decision will be made as to whether the Committee wants to consider recommending funding for the services the agency provides, If the Evaluation Committee decides to consider funding the agency's request, a Site Visit will be scheduled. 5. The remainder of the procedure will follow that for presently funded agelicies. ,-.... . , . . Mrl"í.- ,J-tl::J IIUI'! lcé·cécé viI T ur UI"í.LHI'!UU r H^ I'!U. 4U r é.40é.OOtl r. 11 . I"", SITE VISIT: Agencies will make a 30 Minute presentation. General questions can be asked at this time. The Committee and agency representatives wm break into FOCUS areas for further interviews. In some cases TEAMS may want to consolidate questioning formats to focus on specific area5 of concern. At the conclusion of the Site Visit or after the second Site Visit scheduled for the day I the Agency Coordinator and Team Leader should consolidate the information from the various Focus Areas and complete Page 2 of the Orga.nizational Review Form (Strengths/Areas that need Improvement) and FIRST ROUND FUNDING RECOMMEND A TIONS. FUNDING DECISION MAKING PROCESS: After all the Site Visits have been completed the committee members will receive a copy of all of the first round recommendations for funding. The Evaluation Committee will meet two to three times to discuss and finalize recommendations for funding, This is a difficult process because the needs are ~ great and the dollars limited, The Recommendations will be submitted to Orange Count)' and the City of Orlando. Agencies will be notified of the Committee1s recommendations. Appeals will be heard by the Team Leaders if necessary. ETHICAL AND PHI:kOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: We work from the assumption that aU Evaluation Committee Members and Agenc)' providers are committed to providing the best human services as possible to the citizens of our community. No one wants scarce public dollars spent wastefully, Although the Evaluation Committee has difficult decisions to make and difficult questions to ask of providers, we will all act respectfully toward each other. All agency client information is confidential. If you see someone you know participating in a program, you may want to approach that person, explain why you are there, and assure them that you will not disclose to anyone that you saw them. ~ Evaluation Committee members should disclose any potential conflict of interest they may have which could bias their decision making regarding an agency. " , , .