02-15-94 Special/Workshop
.
DELIA., lEACH
. . . . . . .
. bed·
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA - CI1Y COMMISSION ;Iiir
SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING - FEBRUARY 15. 1994 - 6:00 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS 1993
The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where
necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal oppor-
tunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program,
or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Doug Randolph, (407)
243-7127 at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the program or
activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request.
AGENDA
Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made
by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at th~s
meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these
proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that
a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The
City will neither provide nor prepare such record.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
1. REOUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION/ATLANTIC HIGH SCHOOL EAGLETTES: Consider
a contribution in the amount of $2,500.00 in support of the
Atlantic High School Eaglettes to participate in upcoming national
competitions and championships. Funding is available from General
Fund Contingency (Account No. 001-6111-519-99.00).
2. CHANGE ORDER NO. 6/CHAZ EOUIPMENT CO. . INC. : Consider Change
Order No. 6 in the amount of $111,371.50 and a time extension of
thirty (30) calendar days to the contract with Chaz Equipment Co. ,
Inc. for the installation of a new 8" C-900 water main: and
individual services on Vista Del Mar; with funding from Renewal
and Replacement - Water Mains (Account No. 442-5178-536-63.50) ,
pending transfer.
3. . SETTLEMENT OFFER/BOTHE v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH:
/ . '}-
~'~V^-,:I I !J~( /1,0.-9(.' IO-'-{;f
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
WORKSHOP AGENDA
1. Presentation by Ernst & Young of the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1993.
Copies of the report were previously provided to the Commission.
(10 minutes)
2. Quasi-Judicial Proceedings -- Snyder and Jennings decisions - Land
use actions/procedures (Joint session with the P&Z Board and Cha~r
of HPB, SPRAB, BOA) . (20 minutes)
~
3. State of Schools Report. (20-30 minutes)
4. Presentation by merchants from the 600 block of West Atlantic
Avenue. (10 minutes)
5. State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP). Housing Incentive Plan.
Consideration of proposed Housing Incentive Plan by the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee, pursuant to regulations established
under State Regulations, Section 420.9076. (20 to 30 minutes)
6. Joint session with Community Redevelopment Agency on CRA Plan
Amendment. (30-40 minutes)
7. Presentation by Golf Course Clubhouse architect. (20-30 minutes)
8. Pavilion Rental/Veterans and Atlantic Dunes Parks. (10 minutes)
9. Proposed Bill setting retail electric territorial service areas -
HB 405 filed by Rep. Randy Mackey and Senator Fred Dudley.
(5 minutes)
10. Department Head contracts. (10 minutes)
11. Commission comments.
.
.
£IT' DF DELHA' BEA£H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243·7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Commission
FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager ~1
SUBJECT: ATLANTIC HIGH SCHOOL EAGLE-ETTES - FUNDING REQUEST
DATE: February 11, 1994
We did write to the Eagle-Ettes when we were preparing this
year's budget, asking if they wanted to submit a request for
funding. We did not receive a response.
Since we will not be having and election this year, funds
budgeted for the election expense can be used for the $2,500
requested by the Eagle-Ettes.
DTH : s k
~S-O
-$ .;2J6oo
S p-J
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
· u Cw-<--f - ~6Ò
J3o~ v----.J / ~ ,;)~
Í0R-S'~ wt ~ ..¡-~
o ~ ~ (}V\. l[ fl-"'1. , C
We are coming tonight on behal f of some shining stars J'l~ ~
among the youth of Iielray and Boynton Beach. During the last !
twenty-five years, the Eagle-ettes and company hdve prourlly
represented our cities in I oca 1, state, nationiil and
international dance and drj I J chdwpi onsh i IHi. Edg le-ettt~s
have eagerly represented both cities In pd ['ddes finO civic
functions at local requests. We have dflflced tor mdny
multicultural events to heiirtily promote kindred spirits and
unity in our neighborhoods. We have made our communities
proud as we have won many awards in all areas of jazz,
ballet, tap, novelty, and prop.
We come to this meeting with hope that our cities wi I 1
provide much needed funas in order to continue the quality
represent.ation necessary for competition this year in March
in two national championships. The students in Eagle-ettes
do much needed fund-raising and collections through-out the
year. We se 11 conc,~ssions through the support of our parent
group at all football games. -fh is year it wi II cost
approximately $30,000 to fund our competitions. We are only
half-way there, having rdised ahout $15,000. We are asking
that each city support us through a $2500 grant this year.
If each city helps us, then we will he $5000 closer to our
goal. It is imperative that we reach our goal by t.he end of
February. ì
We realize that many groups request funds from time to time.
We feel, however, that we have shown from past performance
what we can and wi 11 do. We ask you to support the youth
who truly should be applauded for their good actions and
deeds.
Thank you for your time and patience in this matter
Sincerely,
A H S Eagle-ettes and Co.
.
. . .
.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN
CITY MANAGER P.E.~
FROM: WILLIAM H. GREENWOOD,
~ DIRECTOR OF ENV. SVCS.
DATE: February 11, 1994
SUBJECT: ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION PLAN (EAST OF INTRACOASTAL)
(VISTA DEL MAR WATER MAIN)
PROJECT No. 92-02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is an Agenda Request for the Workshop meeting on February
15, 1994, requesting change order #6 for the referenced project to
Chaz Equipment Co., Inc. The change order amount is $94,038.00
plus an extension of thirty ( 30) calendar days added to the
contract time.
This change order is for the installation of a new 8" C-900 water
main and individual services on Vista Del Mar. This new main is
the continuation of the replacement main previously authorized in
change order #5 and will complete the "loop" on Vista Del Mar.
The funding source for change order #6 iir.:J.-~ I~
is ~ Sl 536-63.50 for
$94,038.00 pending the transfer of funds into this account by
Public utilities.
Please place this item on the agenda for commission approval.
~~
RH: kb ~ f¡9ioð8'
Attachments
S-ð
File: Project No. 92-02 (D)
Memos to city Manager
AR9202.C036
5P. c;2 .
·
Agenda Item No.:
AGENDA REOUEST
Date: February 11, 1994
Request to be placed on:
_____ Regular Agenda
_____ Special Agenda
__X__ Workshop Agenda When: February 15, 1994
Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff requests City
Commission to approve Change Order #6 to Chaz Equipment Co., Inc. for the
Roadway Reconstruction Plan (92-02) and SE 5th St (93-15). Change Order #6
includes the installation of a new 8" C-900 water main and individual services
on Vista Del Mar. This new main is a continuation of the replacement main
previously authorized in change Order #5 and will complete the "loop" on Vista
Del Mar. Service for the properties is presently provided by an existing 2"
galvanized and a 6" cast iron main at the back of the properties. change Order
#6 is for an add amount of $ 94,038.00 and a time extension of thirty (30)
calendar days. Funding Source is 441-5181-536-63.50.
ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES~RAFT ATTACHED YES~
Recommendation: Staff Recommends approval of Change Order #6
D~partment Bead ~~ ~ ~ \.....>*i /h
s~gnature: ..
Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (r~ired on all items involving expenditure of funds):
Funding available: YE$!NO
Funding alternatives ía¡'n:-~
Account No. & Descri~tion
Account Balance C C7~
City Manager Review:
Approved for agenda: 6i/NO m1
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Placed on Agenda:
Action:
Approved/Disapproved
/agen9202.doc
.
. . .
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
CHANGE ORDER TO ORIGINAL CONTRACT
CHANGE NO. 6 PROJECT NO. 92-02, 93-15 DATE:
PROJECT TITLE: Roadway Reconstruction Plan (projects East of Intracoastal Waterway)
SE 5th street (Pavement and Utility Improvements)
TO CONTRACTOR: Chaz Equipment Co., Inc.
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THIS PROJECT AND TO PERFORM THE WORK ACCORDINGLY, SUBJECT TO ALL CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AND
COVENANTS.
JUSTIFICATION:
Construct the remainder of the 8" C-900 water main "loop" on Vista Del Mar (partial
replacement of existing cast iron main already authorized per Change Order #5). Scope of
work to be per attached Schedule "A". Payment will be made at the respective unit prices
for actual field measured quantities.
SUMMARY OF CONTRACT AMOUNT
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $1,349,381.45
COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES PREVIOUSLY ORDERED $ 254,585.20
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER $1,603,966.65
COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER $ 94,038.00
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER $1,698,004.65
PER CENT INCREASE THIS CHANGE ORDER 7.0 %
TOTAL PER CENT INCREASE TO DATE 25.8 %
INCREASE IN CONTRACT TIME OF THIRTY (30) CALENDAR ·DAYS FOR THE WORK INCLUDED IN THIS
CHANGE ORDER
CERTIFIED STATEMENT: I hereby certify that the supporting cost data included is, in my
considered opinion, accurate; that the prices quoted are fair and
reasonable.
for Chaz Equipment Co., Inc.
(SEAL)
TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER
Fund Source W/S Renewal/Replacement 441-5181-536-63.50 for $ 94,038.00
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
RECO~ND' q£[, vJl By its City Commission
By:
William H. Greenwood, Director Thomas E. Lynch, Mayor
of Environmental Services
ATTEST:
APPROVED: By:
City Attorney City Clerk
.
·
Schedule "A"
Roadway Reconstruction Plan
(Streets east of Intracoastal)
92-02
&
SE 5th St (from FEC RR to SE 4th Ave)
93-15
Change Order #6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Item Description +/- C.o. Unit Total
I tem No. #6 Qty Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Water Main - Construct 8" C-900 water main loop on Vista Del Mar
1 Maintenance of Traffic 1 ls$21,500.00 $21,500.00
-- Road base removal and replacement 1 ls$12,600.00 $12,600.00
47 8" C-900 water main 1400 lf $18.90 $26,460.00
49 8" gate valve and box 6 ea $450.00 $2,700.00
58 1 1/2" water service (single) 30 ea $604.00 $18,120.00
55 Fill and Flush Connection 2 ea $1,564.00 $3,128.00
56 Furn;sh and Install Sample pt 2 ea $330.00 $660.00
53 10" x 8" tapping sleeve and valve 1 ea $1,820.00 $1,820.00
-- T;e-;n to existing system 1 ea $2,750.00 $2,750.00
-- Tie-in to new system at valve 2 ea $500.00 $1,000.00
-- Conflict Utility Allowance (based on using 4 MJ
fittings/conflict 2 ea $1,650.00 $3,300.00
---------------------------
Net amount of Change Order #6 $94,038.00
Contract amount thru Change Order #5 $1,603,966.65
---------------
Revised Contract amount thru Change Order #6 $1,698,004.65
--------------
--------------
1 - 9 4 F R I 6 :~:a: C H ÂZ E QUI P _ CO- I N C _ P - 0:2
-._. .. ......oJ/ I
. ..... ... WA
._. \.' ". ;ERW......
~ .. -....-..... ............. r
'I¡, 'JI ;~'':::'i- ·""EIi;... 1/Wr,"j.
~ .r~. ,
'-. . , :\'::,-
.~. ·A:";~~ -h
. . .",.~
'" I \M .
... .,~, b ..
III ~ ...' = .~ ~ ~1
w I ~:(t
.....
~ ~ ~
.. ~
'J' f ,''! ",
- ... , .'
- .... '.
..., " " ""
~~. ~ 4 ~(;f..J
. ~
.'
~ ,,~:'I.' . ~
, Z
I) ... "
; C 'I, U) ,.....,
, m ~
¡ QD ___.',DS '-!.'...~ ~ ~ f) m
L_LLt.&t'__. .!'f ~ ~ c:n r OJ
,... II. -.... Q) .
! "', ... ,,;.... ~ .2 ~
,... ... tw, ,.., - . ;0 rr1
'. ~ ~ ~ ~.
I- ~ .þ.
, I , , tu OJ ¡ ~,'T1 \Ø 0\ .........
.~......JJJ...t;...._.. '" ~ I (., ~ C 1,.01 ~ >
I"" Or....4 . ... CD 1..1')
"','" I, ,. C\ ,.
¡~ \0\) ~ ¡' "Ii ~ ~ '
I :\I 0 i~U_~' .:.. Q., ';J:J ~
Ii' !l1ltl'll~" 'I ~ : ',,! ..,
"J.ñii!~4ir~ 4. À" ¡ ',J m rn ~ CO \..
I \::: ~ '" ~~ r" J rn [ï1 :J:
¡ ~ ~ ~ ~,J¡ 1..',......",,,:.- i . ~' (;0 ; ~
I ~. ,- -- ~~.1(: 'J!01'" ll' "
~I. .__.......r... "
~J...I'. "" I "I '0 ~
rm. .~_ .. (,,¡.. ."( 1/1 (t1 >' \. J
I ~ W .. CI'j ;0 r ...,..
~ ~ ..{ ~ 0 ;: ......
_._II¡. a.".."
I I~.. ",. . __..u;;..v_ I I~¡ r ~ ~.. ,...,..,
I ..!"t "I~ ::Þ ""'M t I'
" I. t, \,I <..... C,t\ n ' ,
I .., . "'I... " r. ..,. ~ C/)
~ 'V .." i "<~~..
. w .'" 0 ii'
I _---::U..L!.._ "\ 0 C· ¡.
... ~ ... Ù' __ ('
".. ! ~ · c. ~ ..,...,
¡. .0. \0 hi V\.2 ___ \J
~ t j' h\ q ~ ,...., r-
~ ~ ~ ~
".-i . ~
~- 11 >
' r"
t¡,¡::' >-
fI,) , ~f!#' Z
!.II .____LZ:..JU.... ... _.J +.~
l. ... "
r /' '-......- ~.. :>
\ ~ ~ ~þ.
f-n'/i ' , .. .. ~ '1.. . :{
hilt' ~ 1l~ I ~t. ._
",,a, . . ....
.. .....I.__tJ~.)...... ,.1 ... ~ .. 0
¡ ~t' ~
~ ., I.... 'Ii I'
. ... ... '" ..... ...
~'W .... ':t:! ",1\ ... I
' 0\ ...¿ , .. .... ~. .. ' fi'7
'u",..___.._ .. ..II "
:- r~. -- 1./11_/ . "~ t :
~ I 4 "I...:J..., , " . I
~ . : II " " ,,. . I
AVENUE ~' ..., ;
I ~ ~,,'p'. - "--,.,.,, "-'r-'':':' . "''''' _J, ...,J :
~ ..... ¡" ~~' I '. i ,....
:: ~ ~ ...11." I... lid, , ro(
r
Clyol~'~
Depatb........ Budget Transfer
10-Feb-94
(1) Dep&r1rn8nt8I Une Transfer (2) Date
(3) Interfundllnterdepar1mental Transfer (4) Batch Number
Linda Turnage for R. Hasko
(5) Requested By:
(6) ACCOUNT NUMBER (7) DESCRIPTION (8) TRANSFER OUT (9) TRANSFER IN
442-5178-536.61-84 R & R Manhole Rehab 94,038
442-5178-536.63-50 Water Mains 94,038
94,038 94,038
(10) TOTAL
JUSTlRCATlON: Transfer required to fund water main construction on Vista Del Mar.
Change Order No.6 to Chaz Construction (proj No. 92-002) Commission Special Meeting of 2/15/94.
Department Head Asst City Manager
t Officer City Manaaer f!)),~. D
....
(11) Budget Revision Date (12) Control Number
(13) Period (14) Count
ORIGINAL-BUDGET CANARY-FILE PINK-DEPARTMENT
,
,
~
DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAV:ID T. HARDEN
CITY MANAGER ,
FROM: WILLIAM B. GREENWOOD, P.E.~/¿:(
DIRECTOR OF ENV. SVCS.
DATE: February 11, 1994
SUBJECT: ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION PLAN (EAST OP INTRACOASTAL)
(VISTA DEL MAR WATER MAIN)
PROJECT No. 92-02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is an Agenda Request for the Workshop meeting on February
15, 1994, requesting change order #6 for the referenced project to
Chaz Equipment Co., Inc. The change order amount is $111,371.50
plus an extension of thirty (30) calendar days added to the
contract time.
This change order is for the installation of a new 8" C-900 water
main and indi vidual services on Vista Del Mar.' This new main is
the continuation of the replacement main previously authorized in
change order #5 and will complete the "loop" on Vista Del Mar.
The funding source for change order #6 is 441-5181-536-63.50 for
$111,371.50 pending the transfer of funds into this account by
Public utilities.
Please place this item on the agenda for commission approval.
RH: kb
Attachments
-
File: Project No. 92-02 (D)
Memos to City Manager
AR9202.C036
·
~
Agenda Item No.:
AGENDA REOUEST
Date: February 11, 1994
Request to be pla~ed on:
_____ Regular Agenda
_____ Special Agenda
__X__ Workshop Agenda When: February 15, 1994
Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff requests city
Commission to approve change Order #6 to Chaz Equipment Co., Inc. for the
Roadway Reconstruction Plan (92-02) and SE 5th st (93-15). Change Order #6
includes the installation of a new 8" C-900 water main and individual services
on Vista Del Mar. This new main is a continuation of the replacement main
previously authorized in Change Order #5 and will complete the "loop" on Vista
Del Mar. Service for the properties is presently provided by an existing 2"
galvanized and a 6" cast iron main at the back of the properties. Change Order
#6 is for an add amount of $111,371.50 and a time extension of thirty (30)
calendar days. Funding Source is 441-5181-536-63.50.
ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES~FT ATTACHED YES~
Recommendation: Staff Recommends approval of Change Order #6
Department Head ~ /' It
Signature: v"lih" D_ _ ~_~ 7-/rl(Qcl
Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable)
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds):
Funding available: YES/NO
Funding alternatives (if applicable)
Account No. & Description
Account BalAnce
~ C-ff::t
city Manager Rév~:
~
Approved for agenda: YES/NO
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Placed on Agenda:
Action:
Approved/Disapproved
/agen9202.doc
·
CXTY OF DELRAY BEACH
CHANGE ORDER TO ORXGXNAL CONTRACT
CHANGE NO. 6 PROJECT NO. 92-02, 93-15 DATE:
PROJECT TITLE: Roadway Reconstruction Plan (Projects East of Intracoastal Waterway)
SE 5th Street (Pavement and Utility Improvements)
TO CONTRACTOR: Chaz Equipment Co., Inc.
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THIS PROJECT AND TO PERFORM THE WORK ACCORDINGLY, SUBJECT TO ALL CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AND
COVENANTS.
JUSTIFICATION:
Construct the remainder of the 8" C-900 water main "loop" on Vista Del Mar (partial
replacement of existing cast iron main already authorized per change Order #5). Scope of
work to be per attached Schedule "A". Payment will be made at the respective unit prices
for actual field measured quantities.
SUMMARY OF CONTRACT AMOUNT
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $1,349,381. 45
COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES PREVIOUSLY ORDERED $ 254,585.20
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER $1,603,966.65
COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER $ 111,371. 50
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER $1,715,338.15
PER CENT INCREASE THIS CHANGE ORDER 8.3 ,
TOTAL PER CENT INCREASE TO DATE 27.1 ,
INCREASE IN CONTRACT TIME OF THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS FOR THE WORK INCLUDED IN THIS
CHANGE ORDER
CERTIFIED STATEMENT: I hereby certify that the supporting cost data included is, in my
considered opinion, accurate; that the prices quoted are fair and
reasonable.
for Chaz Equipment Co., Inc.
:-~~ ~~t (SEAL)
.::::~:--:~--.
TO BE PI~ OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER
Fund Source WIS ReftèØal/Replacement 441-5181-536-63.50 for $111,371. 50
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
By its City Commission
RECOMMEND: By:
William H. Greenwood, Director Thomas E. Lynch, Mayor
of Environmental Services
ATTEST:
APPROVED: By:
City Attorney City Clerk
.,
,
Schedule "A"
Roadway Reconstruction Plan
(Streets east of Intracoastal)
92-02
&
SE 5th St (from FEC RR to SE 4th Ave)
93-15
Change Order #6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Item Description +/- C.O. Unit Total
Item No. #6 Qty Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Water Main - Construct 8" C-900· water main loop on Vista Del Mar
1 Maintenance of Traffic 1 ls$21,500,OO $21,500.00
-- Road base removal and replacement 1 ls$12,600.00 $12,600.00
47 8" C-900 water main 1600 lf $18.90 $30,240.00
49 8" gate valve and box 8 ea $450.00 $3,600.00
58 1 1/2" water service (single) 30 ea $604.00 $18,120.00
54 Furnish and Install Fire Hydrant 2 ea $1,633.00 $3,266.00
55 Fill and Flush Connection 2 ea $1,564.00 $3.128.00
56 Furnish and Install Sample Pt 4 ea $330.00 $1,320.00
53 10" x 8" tapping sleeve and valve 1 ea $1,820.00 $1,820.00
-- Plug existing 6" water main 1 ea $2,127.50 $2,127.50
-- Tie-in to existing system 1 ea $2,750.00 $2,750.00
-- Tie-in to new system at valve 2 ea $500.00 $1,000.00
-- Conflict Utility Allowance (based on using 4 MJ
fittings/conflict 6 ea $1,650.00 $9,900.00
---------------------------
Net amol.l'1t of Change Order #6 $111,371.50
Contract amount thru Change Order #5 $1,603,966.65
----------...----
Revised Contract amount thru Change Order #6 $1,715,338.15
--------------
--------------
~
"
.
1-94 FRI ..s.I'.::S;:3 CHAZ EQUIP. CO. INC. P.02
.. . .. .....;Ii A,I
-. .... , '" W Â ...
.... ',' ... ~'£RWÂLÞ
'. __-..- "'r
IJ, '. ,~::=:.:. '''''E ¡).. 4/,,,
'I, . · .. , '~.'. ·.'1
~ {~'.
"
. . \.. ,.' ...
I"'~ '<':ì-'~-\
I';' "., / ... . ~
~ ~ ~~I .~ ~.: 0..
c~...., I
,... W . ',to
..~ .
.! "l ~ ~ ft1
",,' I
, '~1::w
.. "/I.e>-' .;. ., .- t:
.. ... 01 ,f,\" ",
.... .." "
w, ~ ~ ~
lilt... ~. ,~., .~ ~
. '" CI ~' W'
.., ..' ~: .....
. ~ ., \.!, ....
,,_,2....!1--:. .(_. ' ~
:¡ :~'. l,oM -r~
"\)Iõ - ~
. _ _..tPI... '; __ .. Z
,I) I Q ~ U) r-\
. m \..,I
~ ~ '''1 ,It.' I.... (,.. (')
; ..~_.., '0 .-- ,. Q,). m
I, J1~ !ij; r OJ
.. Cþ .. "!Þ ., .
.. '" ~ ~ -i .,.,
, ~, Ç\ X).',..., rn
It _ ~ ~
l2."TI \,þ 0\
c' ~c ~ CJ) :J' >
0. " It " . - ")
"It ~ ) ,
~" Q.. -of?"' ~
'tJ m (T\ t, c:o \,..J
I'" J fT1"'" :J:
~. QD ~ , ' ,
'tl'" -..,..".
" "0 ~
~ ~ ' ..~ c1cø ~ (')
::i ~ eM 0-. ~ ..~ t~ ~ :t
,1I.. 'oil' 11\ CI' Q ~--
... h ~ ~ .",..,..,
::t CJI \.1 < > CI' t I I
i~~X L. t" I
., is''O C VI 1
lit -. ("'\ ,
CII ~ · Co ...,., ...,...,
... ~... ~ 2 ~ \J
.. '-1 ,...., ,....
10M . .-i ..-< ;; t
~: ç: >
fI,) ~+.' 2
'" .__..tl~...jIh" ... _.J .-
/ .. "
r ,.... .... ......- I f\ »
f-n-,.. ';....n1l· ' ~ ~ .~r.
'1'" .", ....
I .. '~ ...,
.. ';tà__"".)4:....1 '..' t 0
¡ "11~ I. i& I'
. II, ¡ ~ ' ~J; ...~ ...
~... .. ' 'a: III, ... I
t'.., ... .. . ... .. . (7j
. ~" . - - - .. - "
~ :,. - ,."-,,.
t *. " .'W'.~.
. .... ,", - !
AVENUE "'I e, ,
T - .~- - ..-..... ····r·'.:.:. 'JO'''' _I,...,J :
~O~
.__ ... I.... I ",1"
~ ~ '" i..J ..:, 1... 1',1 ,". r:<
City «Delray Beach
. .
Dep8rtmenIaI Budget Transfer
(1) Departmental Une Transfer (2) Date 2/11/94
(3) Interfundllnterdepartmentäl Transfer (4) Batch Number
(5) Requested By: R. Rasko
(6) ACCOUNT NUMBER (7) DESCRIPTION (8) TRANSFER OUT (9) TRANSFER IN
441-5181-536-99.01 þonnection Fees-Proj.
~eserves $100,108
441-5181-536-63.50 ~onnection Fees-Water
~ins $100,108
(10) TOTAL $100,108 $100,108
JUSTIFICATION:
Transfer required ~o fund water main construction on Vista Del Mar, Change Order
No.6 to Chaz Construction (Proiect No. 92-002).
... ~-:
c
~
I I ,/)
/1 '"'
'Á.'--.c J Æ \ tttJ~ 01 f
~~~ -' __ ,_ ~ '2-./1 ff Asst City Manager
Budget Officer City Manaaer
(11) Budget Revision Date (12) Controt Number
(13) Period (14) Count
ORIGINAL-BUDGET CANARY-FILE PINK-DEPARTMENT
.,
ú/\
tþÎ
[ITY DF DELIA' BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
FACSIMILE 407/278-4755 W~~~_~'. D~~_a~ L~n_
(407) 243-70.1
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 8, 1994
To: City Commission
From: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
Subject: Bothe vs. City of De1ray Beach
Our office has received an offer of settlement in the above
stated case. You may remember that a previous Offer of
Judgment in the amount of $39,999.99 was presented to you at
your January 25, 1994 meeting. Our office recommended
rejection of the offer of settlement. You authorized our
office to file a Counteroffer of Judgment in the amount of
$19,999.99, which we did.
Subsequently, we have received an offer to settle (not an Offer
of Judgment) in the amount of $28,500.00 which would cover all
attorney's fees and costs for the claims of Fred and Valerie
Bothe. This settlement would be contingent upon obtaining
appropriate releases. As a further condition of settlement the
City would agree to give a neutral employee reference. The
City's general policy is to provide a neutral response (i.e.
dates of employment, etc. ) so this condition is not at variance
with general City policy. Mr. Bothe would agree never to seek
re-employment with the City of Delray Beach.
Mr. Bothe was terminated from his employment on November 30,
1990 during his probationary period. Mr. Bothe filed a
complaint in Circuit Court alleging violations of the Whistle
Blowers Act, Deprivation of the First Amendment Rights, Due
Process and for Defamation. Mrs. Bothe filed a claim for Loss
of Consortium.
If successful in the Whistle Blower suit the remedies Mr. Bothe
would be entitled to would be reinstatement to the same or an
equivalent job, reinstatement of benefits and seniority, loss
wages and other payment for losses, and payment of all costs
including attorney's fees.
Our office recommends settlement because it is our judgement
that it is in the City's best interest to liquidate any
potential damages in the amount of $28,500 which includes all
attorneys fees and costs while assuring that no reinstatement
occurs.
SP-3
.
,
By copy of this memorandum to David Harden our office
recommends that this settlement be placed on the City
Commission February 15, 1994 Agenda as a Special Meeting Item.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
SAR:ds
cc: David Harden
'.
-
Agenda Item No, :
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: 01-31-94
Request to be placed on:'
Regular Agenda Special Agenda X Workshop Agenda
When: 02-15-94
Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much):
Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year
ended September 30. 1993. Presentation to be made by Ernst and Young.
ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES@ Draft Attached: YES@
Recommendation: N/A
Department Head Signature:
Determination of Consistency
N/A
City Attorney Reviewj Recommendation (if applicable):
N/A
Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure
of funds):
Funding available: YESj NO (if 'applicable)
Funding alternatives:
Account No, & Description:
Account Balance:
City Manager Review:
Approved for agenda: YES/ NO
Hold Until:·
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Action: Approved/Disapproved
0/s.1-
.
·
,
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2()O NW 1st AVENUE' DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA 33444
FACSiMILE 4()7 /278-4 755 Wr~t.r·B D~r_ct L~n_
(407) 243-7091
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 9, 1994
To: City Commission
From: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
Subject: Quasi-Judicial Proceedinqs
The purpose of this memorandum and attachments hereto is to
provide further information regarding the conduct of quasi-
judicial hearings before the City Commission. Attached you
will find an article contained in the Local Government Law
Section program materials for their meeting which discussed the
Snyder and Jenninqs cases. In addition, we have attached
procedures we previously issued for quasi-judicial hearings and
previous memos regarding the standard of review for rezonings
and conditional uses.
The Jenninqs case prohibits ex parte communications. Ex parte
communications are any written or oral communications with
Commission members other than those made on the record at the
time of the hearing.
The following procedure is suggested for handling ex parte
communications:
(a) All written communication received by Commission
members concerning an application or pending case
should be immediately turned over to the Planning and
Zoning Director and the City Clerk to be included in
the record. Once identified as a written communi-
cation regarding a pending matter, the written
communication should not be read further.
(b) For oral communications, as soon as it is determined
that the communication relates to a matter which will
be heard by the Commission, the conversation
regarding that subject must end.
The basis of all decisions by the Commission must be based on
the evidence presented to the Commission at the hearing on the
case which shall include the staff file, testimony of all
W5¿
'.
,
,
City Commission
February 9, 1994
Page 2
witnesses and other evidence presented. The conduct of the
hearing should be as set forth in the procedures for quasi-
judicial hearings.
The purpose of the procedures for quasi-judicial hearings is to
ensure due process. Time limits may be imposed on the
applicant, the public, staff and other witnesses.
The proposed rules apply to all site specific, rezonings,
conditional use proceedings and at any time the City Commission
sits in an appellate capacity.
It may be necessary from time to time to revisit our procedures
for quasi-judicial hearings as we gain experience with the
hearing process in order to provide due process in the most
efficient manner.
.
As you may have noted when you read the article, "The Snyder
Slide Down the Slippery Slope", that the Snyder and Jenninqs
decisions raise a lot of questions that are as yet unanswered.
We will try to update you from time to time as the law becomes
settled in this area.
There are currently several bills before the legislature
dealing with access to local public officials which may
eliminate the presumption of prejudice of an ex parte
communication. We will be watching these bills and will let
you know the outcome which may negate some of the prohibitions
we have previously mentioned regarding ex parte communications.
P~if you have any questions.
SAR:ds
Attachments
cc: David Harden, City Manager
David Kovacs, Planning Director
Diane Dominguez, Planner III
quasi-3.sar
.,
·
~;;;;\~L· -.--.----.-...-----'-- ~
TIm SNYDER. SLIDE DOMII TIm SLIPPERY SLOPE
by: TholDas J. Wilkes
Alison M. Yurko
I. BEFOU SlIYDER.
A. The "black letter" law in Florida
historically said that the act of rezoning land was
quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial. Florida Land
Co. v. Cit.y of Wint.er Springs, 427 So. 2d 170 ( Fla.
1983); Schauer v. Cit.y of MiamlBeach, 112 So. 2d 838
( Fla. 1959); Cit.y of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461
So. 2d 160 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. den. , 469 So. 2d
749 (Fla. 1985); Palm Beach Co. v. Tinnerman, 517 So.
2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. den., 528 So. 2d 1183
(Fla. 1988).
B. In reality, court opinions were far from
unanimous or consistent.
1. For example, courts have applied the
deferential "fairly debatable" standard of review to
rezoning appeals, which is appropriate for
quasi-legislative proceedings, but have then reviewed
the case by certiorari, which would seem to be
appropriate only for quasi-judicial proceedings. cf. ,
St. . Johns Count.y v. Owings, 554 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1989); Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So. 2d
699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
2. An excellent discus. ion of the apparent
contradictions among various Florida opinions is
contained in Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. ,
619 So. 2d 996 ( Fla. 2nd DCA 1993) (hereinafter,
Sunbelt Equities).
C. Whether a local government proceeding, such
as a rezoning of land, is quasi-legislative or
quasi-judicial will depend on its nature:
, - ,
t :> . .
I
I
,
,
" -"
- .', -.----. .:-.....~:t;.. .
1. Quasi-legislative acts:
!
a. future oriented
b. change esisting conditions by
making a new rule to be applied thereatter
c. applies generally, not to
specific parties
2. Quasi-judicial acts:
a. oriented to past events
b. investigates, declares, applies
and enforces rules
c. applies and enforces rules based
on esisting facts
d. involves specific parties and
controversies
D. The ramifications of whether an act is
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial are numerous:
1. Quasi-legislative acts:
a. due process is greatly diminished
b. the qeneral public should be
heard. not just specific parties. and standing issues
have no relevance
c. lobbyinq (a.k.a. es parte con-
tacts) is permitted and even expected
d. notice must go to the public. but
not always to specitic parties
standard ot . ..... the higbly
e. reV1ew, 1. S
deferential "fairly debatable" rule
3.2
,
J'':'' :.£f1E:.ç;.~f_~;; ',~,-; ~- -.- -----..
-
2. Quasi-Judicial Acts:
a. due process requirements are
heightened
b. particular parties, especially
affected landowners and residents, are entitled to
notice
c. Ex parte communications (a.Jc.a.,
lobbying) are prohibited (see below)
d. discovery and evidentiary rules
may apply, at least in part
e. testimony may need to be under
oath; witnesses may be subject to cross examination
f. decision must be based on evidence
g. standard of review is the less
deferential "substantial competent evidence" rule
E. One particular aspect of quasi-judicial
proceedings, the issue of ex parte contacts, or
"lobbying," was the subject of ' a widely discussed
case, Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.
3d DCA 1991), rev. den., 598 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1992).
l. Jennings involved not a rezoning of
land, but a zoning special exception, which
historically has been treated by Florida courts as a
quasi-judicial proceeding (unlike rezonings).
2. Jennings held that (1) an ex parte
contact with a quasi-judicial officer is presumed to
be prejudicial, and ( ii) upon proof of it, the
aggrieved party is entitled to a new hear ing unless
the defendant proves the contact was in fact not
prejudicial.
3. Jennings and o the r cases suggest that
a quasi-judicial zoning proceeding will meet due
process requirements if:
- "\
'.,j
-'-.--'---. ,-_._.....~.
(
a. parties are provided notice,
b. parties are provided the
opportunity to be heard.
c. parties are able to present
evidence.
d. parties are able to cross examine
"witnesses." and
e. parties are informed of all the
facts upon which the quasi-judicial body acts. Id, at
1341: Coral Reef Nurserie6. Inc. v, Babcock Co, , 410
So. 2d 648, 652 ( Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
F. Although the Jennings opinion was issued 5
days before the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued
its Snyder opinion, it set a somewhat dramatic stage
for the ensuing clamor over Snyder:
l. It siqnalled that heightened due
process would be expected by the courts in
quasi-judicial zoning actions, such as the granting of
variances and special exceptions.
2. In its concurring opinion (J.
Ferguson) , it once again recited the long held belief
that a rezoninq of land was a leqislative act. Id, at
1343. Little did the Third District know, apparently,
that the black letter rule had unraveled in the Fifth
District and would soon unravel statewide.
II. S1frDEll I.
A. The case, Snyder v. Board of County
COlll1llissioners of Brevard County. 595 So. 2d 65 ( Fla.
5th DCA 1991) , involved a request by a husband and
wife who owned a one-half acre parcel to have the land
rezoned from GU. "general u...., to multi -family
residential. up to 15 units per acre. The neighbors
were opposed, the county denied it. aDd the circuit
court upheld the deÐial.
;.!.
.,
,
..:....;.,. _.~-_. --- ------- .----+- -.
"- ,-, ....
B. The Fifth District overturned Brevard
C~unty's denial, holding among ot~er things that:
1, Rezoning of land, after original
adoption of zoning districts, is quasi-judicial in
nature, not legislative.
2. Rezonings will be subject to "close"
judicial scrutiny.
3. Cities and counties must make written
findings of fact to support denial of a landowner's
request for rezoning.
4. The petitioning landowner must show
that the request (i) is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and (ii) complies with all
procedural requirements. At that point, the burden
shifts and the government must grant the request or
show by "clear and convincing" evidence that
"specifically stated public necessity" requires a more
restrictive use, thus justifying denial.
C. After the Fifth District ruled, there were
two other districts, the First and the Second, that
were asked to adopt Snyder I.
1. On May 14, 1993, in Sunbelt Equities,
supra, the Second District adopted the rationale and
holding of Snyder I with respect to the quasi-judicial
nature of rezoning proceedings, but declined to accept
the Fifth District's holding on burdens of proof and
the property owner's presumed right to land use
consistent with a county comprehensive plan.
2. One week later, the First District
issued its opinion in Leon County v. Monticello Drug
Coçany, 619 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), Rev.
granted September 23, 1993, in which it rejected
Snyder I on both points.
5.5
'.
,
--.---.-" ._----~.. -
III. SNYDER II.
A. The Supreme Court of Florida asserted
jurisdiction based on the conflict between Snyder I
and earlier cases. The appeal drew eleven amici
curiae. including state agencies, cities. counties,
private organizations. and one individual. The
opinion. Board or County Commissioners or Brevard
County v. Snyder. 18 FLK 5522 ( Fla. 1993 ). Oct. 7.
1993, issued nearly two full years after Snyder I,
quashed the Fifth District, but affirmed in several
parts.
B. The court agreed in part with the Fifth
District by holding that:
1. A rezoning is legislative in nature
when it affects "a large portion of the public."
2. A rezoning is quasi-judicial:
a. "when it has impact on a limited
nwnber of persons or property owners, on identifiable
parties and interests;"
b. "where the decision is contingent
on a fact or facts arrived at from distinct
alternatives presented at a hearing." ~
c. "where the decision can be
functionally viewed as policy application. rather than
policy setting."
3. Rezoning decisions are indeed subject
to strict judicial scrutiny.
C. '!'he court disagreed with the Fifth District
by further holding:
1. '!'he Growth Management Act (Ch. 85-55,
Laws of Florida, codified primarily in Part II of Ch.
163, Fla. Stat. ) vas intended to ensure orderly
development, not to preclude it. ,
'.
.
- ,
;. ~
.,
.
~~ '-~, :Jl:.?lißk6: ---- - ------- .
t
2. Comprehensive planninq contemplates
"qradual and ordered qrowth, and the local qovernment
can refuse to approve the maximwn density otherwise
allowable under the plan, as lonq as ~ development
consistent with the plan is allowed."
3. The property owner is Mt
presumptively entitled to a land use once he/she
proves it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
4. Once the property owner proves the
requested rezoning to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan, the burden shifts to the
government, but only to prove that the ezisting zoning
"accomplishes a legitimate public purpose."
a. The legitimate public purpose is
proven by showing that the rezoning denial was not
arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable.
b. The standard of review is the
"competent substantial evidence" rule, not the "clear
and convincing evidence" rule.
c. The government is AQt required to
make findings of fact.
D. In summary, the court ...ms implici tly to
have adopted the rationale and holdings of Sunbelt
Equities, .supra, ezcept the requirement for written
findings of fact. Th. reader is urged to review the
thorough and well-ordered reasoning in that opinion.
IV. MBJœB US WE?
A. As of this writing, Snyder II has pending
the county's motion for clarification, so the opinion
may not yet be final.
B. Assuming no material chanqe in the opinion
occurs, we would seem to be certain of the following:
3.7
---- -_._._---_._-~-- ..---.---.- -----.---- - -..--.-.-- .--.
.
.
__ _ _ _. .'·h____._ .. .___~________
t
¡
.
1- "Limited" rezonings are
quasi-judicial, but larger-scale rezonings remain
legislative.
2. To the extent a particular rezoning is
quasi-judicial. the judicial standard of review is the
competent substantial evidence rule.
3. Cities and counties are not required
to make written findings of fact.
4. Land use designat.ions on city and
county comprehensive plans do not create rights for
the owners of the affected property. Stated from the
planner's perspective. the court has nov eX1?ressly
sanctioned the separation of planning from zoning.
C. Unless there is some considerable change in
Snyder II on clarification, 'ole seem to be mired in a
host of uncertainties:
1- When is a rezoning ··limited. " thus
quasi-judicial, and when is it not?
a. When only one owner makes the
request? What about two? three? . . .
b. What if it is the government that
ini tiates the proceeding? Sunbelt Equit.ies suggests
that this makes it legislative. 619 So. 2d at 999.
Snyder II vas silent about this element.
c. What about rezoninqs vhere many
citizens show up at the bearinq? Do large numbers in
attendance mean it altects "a large portion ot the
public" and. thus. is leqislative?
NOTE: This is a potentially
contradictory part of the court's reasoning, 1'he
Snyders vere t aced wi th "a nwnber ot residents living
. . . north of the property" that vera opposed to the
rezoning, 595 So. 2d at 67. If the aff.cted pðr~ of
the publi c is "largo." enouqh. the ,.proceeèi:::q is
supposed to metamorphose from quad-judicial to
;.~
"
"
,j :... ';,; ,.:, . ..¡. p'. \:~, ~- ' --~--_.~- - _. -- --.,--- .- .
~L""\~··,:~~ .I.'~ :~ .
,
legi.s:ative. Just when does this occur? Why wouldn't
thi, principle have governed in the Snyders' request?
d. Will it mãke a difference if no
one appears to object?
e. Will it matter if the surrounding
lands are undeveloped -- is the public less affected
in that situation?
f, What difference does the size of
the property make'? The Snyders had one-half acre.
What if it was a full acre'? Two acres'? Ten acres?
. . .
g. What about rezoning for a single
tract of land, with a single owner, that constitutes a
DR I -- a development of reqional impact: By
definition, won't this be a legislative proceeding?
What about mixed development, like PUD "s?
2. Stepping beyond rezonings: what about
comprehensive plan amendments requested by the
property owner? Does the same teat for '"1 imi tednea a II
apply, or are comp plan amendments per $e
legislative? Stay tuned for City o~ Melbourne v,
Puma . 616 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), rev.
granted, 624 So. 2d 264 ( Fla. 1993), where the issue
may be decided.
3. What about standing? Note the
repeated reference in Jenning$ to "parties. '" Who are
the parties? Who has standing to intervene or
otherwise participate?
a. Certainly, the ownerS of affected
property must have standing, but what about abutting
property owners and residents? Nearby owners and
residents? Not-so-nearby persons? Neighborhood
groups? Environmentalists? Competitor businesses?
b. Do the tests for standing to
contest zoning actions set forth in Renard v. Dade
County. 251 So. 24 832 (Fla. 1972) apply to limi t
:.9
~----~-- -_._~--_._--_.----_...._----_.----'-._-
.,
,
'.-.... ,.
- .-..-- .- .._~-.......~
I
I
I
those ",ho may be heard at the public hearing, or only
upon appeal to the courts? I
I
I
c. But see the exceptionally broad
basis for standing contained in Subsection
163.3215(2), Fla. Stat. , regarding enforcement
of comprehensive plans in rezonings. Will this be the
standard, at least when comprehensive plan consistency I
,
is the issue?
4. Is not a 'Dub lie hearing' inherently I
inconsistent with a Quasi-judicial hearing? As
Jennings noted, due process in a quasi-judicial I
hearing requires that the parties be allowed to cross
examine "witnesses."
a. Who are the witnesses? Is any
member of the public who speaks at the public hearing
a "witness" and subject to cross examination? That
will surely come as a surprise to many.
b. If all members of the public are i
:
targets for cross e::camination, what about a lawyer
representing and speaking for a rezoning applicant or
a rezoning opponent? Why would lawyers be e::cempt? I
c. If members of the public are not
per se witnesses, who are? Only consultants? Only
e::cperts? What about abuttinq or nearby property ¡
owners in opposition? Environmentalists? Homeowner
associations? I
I
d. What about qover:ment staff? Are
the parties entitled to cross examine staff members?
What if no staff member testifies? Can particular
staff membe r s nevertheless be "called" to testify.
especially the staff members who prepared the staff
report and recommendations?
1) How can a party ascertain
which staff member prepared the report? Will
interroqatories be necessary?
5.10
"
~."" ----" ------------. --
'_-IÎÍ.~\ÓÓ -. ..t- ;.:.E;~:~:.-:.-.....- ....
.-:-J.. ., ., .__I.....~ .. . '""
2) How can a party ensure the
staff member is available and present to testify?
will subpoenas be necessary?
5. Must the "testimony" offered by
members of the public, or the landowner/applicant or
his/her attorneys or consultants be under oath, before
it qualifies as "competent substantial evidence"?
6. Has the standard for judicial review
really changed? Is there really much difference
between the "competent substantial evidence" rule and
the "fairly debatable" rule?
NOTE: See Sunbelt Equiti.es, supra, for a
good discussion of how these two rules may be a
distinction without a difference.
v. TBB SlIYDERIJENlIINGS TAG TEAM ABD TEŒIB ETHICS
EMABA:rIOBS.
A. Snyder declares tha t, at least, small
rezonings are quasi-judicial, and Jennings says that
ez parte contacts (occasionally known as lobbying) are
"presumed prejudicial'· and entitle the prejudiced
party to a new hearing.
B. In arguing its case in Snyder II, Brevard
County asserted that: If if its rezoning decision
. . .
is quasi-judicial, [under Jennings] the commissioners
will be prohibited from obtaining community input by
way of es parte communications from its citizens." 18
FLW 5523 (!'la. 1993), Oct. 7, 1993.
C. Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of
Snyder and Jennings is the inference drawu not just by
Brevard County, but by a number of persons around the
state, that there is an ethical dimension to those
decisions.
1. Ez parte contact, whether in a
judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, potentially has
5,11
--- -. ._- ---"
-------.----..-
,
~. ..-------
two separat.e ramificat.ions: ( 1) d-..:.e process; (2 )
ethics.
a. The due process ramification is
simply that the part.y prejudiced may have reversible
error available to it. on appeal.
b. The ethical ramificat.ion is that
t.he party making the contact (if it is a lawyer) 2.£
the judicial officer may be quilty of a breach of some
et.hical code or standard. It is t.his lat.ter issue
that is most troublesome.
D. One searches Snyder and Jennings for an
explanation of the ethical dimension for ex parte
contacts, but finds precious little.
1. Snyder is silent, except for the one
sentence (quoted above) about Brevard County's
argument.
2. The only reference in Jennings hinting
at any element of ethics is the statement t.hat:
Ex parte communication are in-
herently improper and are
anathema to quasi-judicial
proceedings. Quasi-judicial of-
ficers should avoid all such
cont.acts where they are identi-
fiable. However, ve recognize
the reality that commissioners
are elected ofticials in which
capacity they may unavoidably be
the recipients of unsolicited ex
parte cODIIIUDicatioDs regarding
quasi-judicial matters they are
to decide.
'!he statement is unquestionably dictum and does not
create any ethical standard for cit.y or county
officials. The balance of the opinion d~a~s only with
the due process 'dimension of ex parte contacts.
- 1'"
) . -.;.
"
.
. '~-'~i~~:-':"">.· ...'.. ~ _.n _
.. '. >." . ru~·r-..-....<."':''''''·;''''_·~~''7-
~' ': "J' '-"r~--.. ,,,,¡¡to "..
E. by inference that Snyder and Jennings
create -- or, indeed, that the judiciary has the power
to create -- an ethical standard for city or county
elected or appointed officials is incorrect.
1. The Supreme Court of Florida has
authority to requlat. the conduct of only persons
admitted to the practice of lav. Art. V, §15, Fla.
Const. This includes especially the conduct of
judqes. CE. Art. V, §12(d), Fla. Const.
2. Section 8 of Article II of the
Constitution of Florida, "Ethics in Government,"
suqqests that ethical standards to ensure that public
office remains a public trust and to "secure and
sustain that trust aqainst abuse" are to be enacted by
the leqislature into lav and enforced by an
independent ethics commission. See §§S(f) and S(q),
Art. 11, Fla. Const. The only exception carved out
from this leqislative jurisdiction are the "officers
or employees . . . within the jurisdiction of the
judicial qualifications commission." §S(f), Art. II,
Fla. Const.
3. Thus, while there seems never to have
been a case on the point, and while the Florida
Constitution addresse. it only implicitly, the power
to prescribe ethical standards for city and county
zoninq officials, whether elected or appointed,
resides in the leqislature, not the judiciary.
F. The Florida Leqlslature has never
prohibited ex parte contacts in 20ninq proceedinqs, 0-
no r has it prescribed any ethical rule prohibit1nq a -,
city or county co_issioner or a 20111119 board member I
from entertaininq them. CE. , Part III, Ch. 112; Part
II, Ch. 163; and Ch. 286, Pla. Stat. i
;",:
1. Ex parte contacts are expressly ii
prohibited in proce.dinqa qoverned by the ~
Administrative Procedure Act, aDd the penalties apply ~
to both the petson makinq the contact as vell as the i
hearinq officer that receive. these contacts but fails
to place them on the record. SUO. 66, rla. Stat. ..t
.~
.~
5,13
. '
------_.~---_._------ ..-,' 4. ..
.
,-
40_ _...__... ~, ':i...~
,
I
i
I
2. Howeve r , t.he ~A. does not apply to
cities and counties except in limited circumstances,
which would seem not to include zoning proceedings.
Cf" §120.S2(1), Fla. Stat.
3. The legislature has expressly declared
that:
It is . . . essential that the
people be free to . . . express
their opinions to all government
officials on current issues and
past on pending lecrislative and
executive act.ions at every level
of government. §1l2.311(3),
Fla. Stat. [emphasis added]
Thus, while the legislature has made implici t
distinctions between legislative and quasi-judicial
actions, and has even addr25sed ex parte contacts, it
has not spoken in the context of zoning proceedings.
G. In swnmary, there is no ethical prohibition
whatsoever for city council or county commissioners to
entertain discussions with either landowners or
interested citizens before action is taken in a zoning
proceeding.
H. A separate issue is whether lawvers may
breach the Rules of Professional Conduct by
approaching a decision maker in a zoning pr9ceeding.
1. Rule 4-3.5, "Impartiality and Decorum
of the Tribunal, ,. does As:z.t limi t the prohibition
aqainst ex parte contacts only to judicial proceedinqs:
(a) IúluenciDq Decision
Maier. A lawyer shall not seek
to influence a judqe, juror,
prospective juror, or other
decision maker except as
permi tted by law or the rules of
court. ..
.
_. ..-
j
----
,
.
,
, '
-i"'·'·~;'>·'~,:,:i,·~:"' .:" ';'~.<. , . . _. . --". ---
¡, '...;. _.';f~'-"~"!:~"'';.:~;'~' 1-..1i....a:;;,.;...~'.£...J:,.:..IIL· . , .-..- '-'
(b) CoøaW1ication With
Judge or Official. In an
adversary proceeding a lawyer
shall not commwÙcate or cause
another to communicate as to the
merits of the cause with a judge
or an official before whom the
proceeding is pending . . . .
[Emphasis added.]
2. Furthermore, Rule 3-4.3 of The Florida
Bar's Rules of Discipline says that "the commission by
a lawyer of any act that is . . . contrary to honesty
and justice . . . may constitute a cause for
discipline. "
3. In other words, what will be the
result when a grievance is filed against a lawyer for
lobbying in a zoning proceeding that is
quasi-judicial? There clearly is language in The
Florida Bar's rules that would justify a finding that
a violation occurred.
/' --"
VI. REPEAL OF JEllllDlGS?
A. Representative Lee Constantine (Seminole
County) has int:roduced House Bill 77 (Att:achment 1)
which would repeal the presumption of prejudice that.
Jennings says. arises upon proof of ex parte
communication.
B. The bill has some 80 sponsors and.
consequently. appears likely to be enacted.
C. The bill should have several ramifications.
if enacted s
1. Procedure. On appeal, the burden on a
par~y challenging the quasi-judicial rezoning is
increased. Se or she must prove not only that the
contact occurred. but also that it vas prejudicial and
reversible error.
S.15
-'--
"-. -
..
.
._--~- :-:n~
- _.~- I
I
\
I 2. Ethics/Public Officials, ':.'he bill I
t should dispel any lingering notion that Snyder and
i
j Jennings create an ethical standard for ci~y and
.
t county officials.
I
3. Ethics/Lawvers. The bill may likewise
ease the ominous threat of Rule 4-3.5: The ex parte
, contact may then be "permitted by law, " or at least
not clearly prohibited by law.
VII. COHCLUDING OBSERVAXIOHS.
i
A. The good news: Planners can now plan, I
I
without their long-range land use plans being ¡
contorted by property owne r s into legal property i
righ ts . Snyder seems implicitly to endorse the I
I
separation of planning from zoning. i
B. The not-so-good news:
1. By inflicting quasi-judicial standards
on rezonings, the court has fu::.dameJ:.tally altered the
public hearing processes set up by Florida
legislatures over the past several decades. i
:
~ Quasi-judicial proceedings and ,
a. :
public hearings are fundamentally inconsistent with ¡
each other. I
I
b. Any such fundamental change ,
I
I
should have been done by the legislature, not the I
judiciary.
2. Usually, the substantive outcome ot a
proceeding is the thing that will vary greatly with
the facts. Now, not only the outcome of a zoning
hearing will vary, but the very procedures to be used
will vary wildly with the facts of the case. One
searches for some other 189al proceeding where this
occurs.
-.
a. This _ inev.itably ;wi1.1- ,\áe-ate the,
appearance 'too the ,:p~li-c:. :.of ~wild~r .. ~inconS'ist.Dt
behavior on the part of local ofticial~.·
5,1 Ó
J
- ---..-...- --. .._-
,
·
j ._~~../_,~" '. --------- ---.--
b. Where is the city attorney or
county attorney that can advise his/her council or
board members, with any degr~e of comfort and
certainty, on exactly how to proceed? Often, the
procedural issue will not arise and become evident
until the hearing convenes. How quickly can the
lawyer process the facts vis-a-vis Snyder and render
sound advice?
C. Snyder, especially when combined with
Jennings, is not a good result from the standpoint of
public policy. The land use/environmental/local
government bar would do the state well to petition for
passage o! House Bill 77 and other curative
legislation.
=- 1-
...J . _ :
-
.
'.
PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS
Generally the quasi-judicial proceeding will proceed in the
following manner:
l. The Mayor will announce that the item is before the
Commission for a hearing.
2. The City Clerk, with the authority vested in her as a
notary of the State of Florida, shall ask all persons
who plan to give testimony before the Board to stand
and raise their right hand and "swear or firm that the
testimony they are about to give is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
3. City staff will make a presentatio'n describing the
nature of the application, summarizing the issues, and
reporting the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Board.
4. The applicant or his/her representative will make a
presentation.
5. Persons other than the staff or applicant who are in
. favor of approval shall speak. The Mayor may limit the
ntl'mber of witnesses speaking on behalf of an
application.
6. Persons may testify in opposition to the applicant's
request. The Mayor may limit the number of persons
speaking in opposition.
7 . The applicant or his/her representative shall have the
opportunity to cross examine staff and experts retained
to represent the City.
9. Staff shall have the opportunity to cross examine or
ask questions of the applicant/his designee and experts
retained to represent the applicant.
10. The Mayor and the City Commission may ask questions of
the staff, applicant or any witness.
1l. The applicant shall have the opportunity to make a
closing argument.
12. Staff shall have the opportunity to make a closing
argument.
1
.
13. No further testimony shall be taken and the Board shall
begin its deliberations.
14. After concluding its deliberations, the City Commission
shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law on
the record.
15. Burden of Proof - Rezonings
a) The applicant has the burden of proving that the
proposed rezoning is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and is compatible with the
surrounding area. If the landowner meets this
burden of proof, the City may choose to rezone the
property.
b) If the City wishes to deny the rezoning request,
the burden shifts to the City to demonstrate that
maintaining the existing zoning classification
accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. The
city has the burden of showing that the refusal to
rezone the property is not arbitrary,
discriminatory, or unreasonable.
16. Burden of Proof - Conditional Use
a) The applicant has the burden of proving that the
proposed conditional use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. If the landowner meets
.--.-....., his/her burden of proof and meets the other
requirements of the City's ordinances, the
applicant meets his/her burden of proof and the
City may choose to grant the conditional use with
or without conditions.
b) If the City wishes to deny the conditional use
request, the burden shifts to the City to
factually demonstrate that the conditional use
will have a:
1. Significant and detrimental effect upon
the stability of the neighborhood within
which it will be located; or
2 . That it will hinder development or
redevelopment of nearby properties.
3. In addition, the Commission must
identify facts which provides
substantial competent evidence to
conclude that the public interest would
be adversely affected by granting the
applicant the conditional use.
quasi. sar
2
,
I
,
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ' , , , ~..: . !~¡·Lj..;..·\Y BL.\Ci! Fi.OldD..\ .,_,~,:~
- - Wr~t_r·_ D~r_ct L~n_
. .," .
(407) :243-709~
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 8, 1993
To: City Commission
From: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
Subject: Standard of Review - Conditional Uses
I. Definition of Conditional Use - Purpose
The Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach
identifies in section 4.3.2(B)(3) the following definition of
conditional use: a use which may not be appropriate generally,
or without restriction, within a zoning district. The purpose
of identifying such conditional uses and regulating them in a
special manner is that they possess certain characteristics
which may make them incompatible with existing uses, contiguous
zoning, permitted uses, or future uses. Through special
conditions imposed through procedures set forth in section
-- adverse impact of such be mitigated.
2 . 4 . 5 ( E~"'"the a use may The allowing of a conditional use is discretionary.
II. Appropriate Conditions
Section 2.4.5(D)(4) establishes that conditions may be imposed
pursuant to section 2.4.4(C). In addition, limitations on the
hours of operation and/or the longevity of the use may be
imposed. Section 2.4.4(C) provides for the imposition of
conditions as follows. In granting approval to any development
application, the granting body may impose whatever conditions
it deems necessary in order to ensure: the compatibility of use
with nearby existing and proposed uses; concurrency; consistency
with objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan; the
fulfillment of requirements of these regulations which should
have or could have been fulfilled prior to the approval action
but which were not, due to conditions beyond the control of the
applicant; the fulfillment of requirements of these regulations
which could have been fulfilled prior but remain outstanding;
thus, providing that they will be accommodated at a later stage
of processing.
.
.
,
III. Specific Conditional Use Findings
Section 2.4.5(E)(5) provides that in addition to provisions of
chapter 3 which sets forth performance standards, the City
Commission must make findinqs that establishing the conditional
use will not: (a) have a significant and detrimental effect
upon the stability of the neighborhood within which it will be
located; (b) nor that it will hinder development or redevelopment
of nearby properties.
Land Development Regulations section 3.1.1 requires that
findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to
approve or deny the development application.
IV. Burden of Proof - Standard of Proof
In order to deny the conditional use the Commission must
identify facts which provide substantial competant evidence to
conclude that the public interest would be adversely affected
by granting the applicant the conditional use applied for.
City of Apopka vs. Oranqe County, 299 So.2d 657 (Fl. 4th DCA
1974) . Substantial competent evidence has been described as
such evi~nce as will establish a substantial basis of fact
from whi~1the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred. It is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. De Groot vs. Sheffield, 95
So.2d 912 (F1. 1957)
A conditional use is a permitted use to which the applicant is
entitled unless the Commission determines according to the
standards set forth above that the use would adversely affect
the public interest. Opinions of residents are not factual
evidence and not sound basis for denial. Pollard vs. Palm
Beach County, 560 So.2d l358 (FL. 4th DCA 1990).
Therefore I would suggest that your motion include factual
findings to substantiate either your support or denial of the
conditional use application and further the facts must be such
that it would be adverse to the public interest.
4/-
/ ,-/
I,
, - ..... '--
SAR/ds·
cc: David Harden
David Kovacs
.
.
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COMMISSIONERS
THROU ,~T' ~RDEN' CITY MANAGERtþü1
FROM: l ~'--\ tGû(1~
. ID J. KO ACS, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
DATE: JUNE 8, 1993
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REZONING REQUESTS
Under separate memorandum, Susan Ruby, City Attorney, has
provided information as to what should and should not be
considered during a rezoning action. The purpose of this
memorandum is to provide new Commissioners (and to refresh
continuing Commissioners) with information about the process
which is followed in Delray Beach.
1. Upon receipt of a rezoning petition, the subject is raised
at a worksession (2nd Monday) of the Planning and Zoning
Board. At this time the Board may provide direction as to
any specific items it wishes to be included in the staff
analysis. If appropriate, the Board may direct that the
applicant appear before them for a presentation during a
worksession prior to the public hearing.
2. The request is distributed for comments. Following receipt
of comments, a staff report is prepared. The staff report
addresses all relevant factors which must be considered
pursuant to the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan. A list of
findings (and the basis for the findings) is provided. In
many instances alternative "findings" are presented for the
Board's consideration.
3. If there is a worksession review (2nd Monday of the month,
Monday preceding the public hearing), a courtesy notice is
sent to representatives of homeowner groups, interest
groups, and individuals who have expressed an interest in
the project and/or its impact area. The worksession allows
the applicant to make a presentation and respond to
questions from Board Members. Limited public comment is
taken.
4. At the public hearing the applicant makes a presentation.
Public testimony is accepted. The Board concludes the
hearing and refers to the staff report to assess the
information provided for the "findings". The Board then
makes a recommendation based upon the finding criteria. A
roll call vote is taken.
.
To: City Commissioners
Re: Consideration of Rezoning Requests
June 8, 1993
Page 2
5. An enacting ordinance is prepared and placed before the
City Commission at the next available meeting. The P&Z
Staff Report and a report of the testimony and findings of
the Board is provided in the documentation. The normal
(historic) handling at first reading is as follows:
A. Reading of the ordinance caption.
B. Acceptance of public comment in order to identify any
issues of which the Commission needs to be aware.
C. Direction to staff as to additional information which
individual Commissioners may want as a part of the
documentation for the public hearing.
At this time, the following actions should be considered by the
City Commission:
( 1 ) If there was a unanimous (or 6-1, 5-1 vote)
recommendation of DENIAL, the Commission could deny
provided that the applicant had an opportunity to make
a presentation.
(2 ) If there was a split vote from P&Z, the Commission
should ascertain the basis for the split; but proceed
with first reading and give direction re issues to be
considered at second reading (public hearing).
( 3 ) If there was a unanimous recommendation for APPROVAL,
or the vote was in the order of 6-1, 5-1- etc. , the
Commission should proceed with first reading and give
direction re issues to be considered at second reading
(public hearing).
In the latter situations, the applicant is given an opportunity,
at the public hearing, to make his presentation before the City
Commission. Long ago we discouraged the practice of the
applicant making a presentation at both first and second
reading.
It is never appropriate to deny a rezoning ordinance on first
reading if any of the following circumstances exist:
- there was a unanimous or 6-1, 5-1, 5-2 vote of the P&Z
Board recommending approval; or,
- the applicant was not allowed to make a full
presentation; or,
- there are not specific findings stated in the motion
of denial.
,
To: City Commissioners
Re: Cons~deration of Rezoning Requests
June 8, 1993
Page 3
A good practice is not to express comments about whether the
proposal (petition) is good or bad during first reading. It is
appropriate to seek information and approve the ordinance on
first reading with a comment that based upon responses to your
inquiries, your vote on second reading may be different.
6. Following the public hearing, the City Commission is faced
with affirming the recommendation of the Planning and
zonifq Board -- in which case the motion need only to state
"Ado tion (or denial) of Ordinance No. 93 based upon the
find ngs and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Boartl"; or, in making its own findings and acting on the
petition.
If Commission members desire to make a finding which is contrary
to that of the Planning and Zoning Board, they are advised to
meet with the Director of Planning and/or City Attorney to
discuss the basis for such an action and what appropriate
"findings" may be.
c:
Susan Ruby, City Attorney
David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney
Diane Dominguez, Current Planning
DJK/T:CCREZONE.doc
. .-----.--. ---------- --.
,i ~_ ~:::-~ ~~ ~_~~' :~~ i ¡! \:
: 1:
: I !
J.l 61993 'Ull
~
~--===-----.J~
.,.
,
·
SHARING FOR EXCELLENCE IN SCHOOLS 1994
AN UPDATE OF
THE DELRAY BEACH PLAN
A proposal in furtherance of efforts to revitalize area schools,
reduce overcrowding, enhance facilities, achieve racial balance
and address unique considerations with educational excellence
in the public schools of Delray Beach, Florida.
Adopted by the City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida,
February - , 1994.
W..s -3
'.
Prea.ble
The City of Delray Beach, an All-America City, prescribes to
the precept that the quality of public schools plays a vital
role in the economic and social well-being of our community;
that in order to achieve this economic and social well-being and
to attract families with children, our public schools must be
racially balanced, overcrowding must be reduced, and we must
offer facilities and programs at least equal to those offered in
developing areas of Palm Beach County; and that the School
Board, City and County working together can achieve excellence
in our schools for all of our students.
Background
In April, 1989, the City of Delray Beach, by unanimous vote
of its City Commission, adopted a plan, entitled Sharing for
Excellence in Schools 1990 - The Delray Beach Plan, that set
forth the City's findings and conclusions regarding the state of
public schools serving the student population of the City,
together with detailed proposals designed to address such
matters.
The City's findings in 1989 included the following:
· School Board programs and policies had not succeeded in
achieving racial balance in Delray Beach public schools;
· neighborhoods located in the area bounded by 1-95,
Swinton Avenue, Lake Ida Road and Linton Boulevard were
divided into thirteen different elementary school
districts with students residing in these neighborhoods
attending nine different elementary schools;
· strong and pervasive negative perceptions existed
concerning public schools in Delray Beach, inhibiting the
achievement of proper racial balance;
· Delray Beach was slated to receive disproportionately
inadequate levels of funding with respect to construction
of new schools and renovation/expansion of existing
schools.
Following its adoption, the City submitted the Plan to the
School Board of Palm Beach County for its consideration and
later received from School Board staff their response.
At a July, 1989, joint meeting of the City Commission and
the School Board, the Plan and staff response were addressed,
resulting in the creation of a Joint Task Force consisting of
four members appointed by the City, four members appointed by
the School Board, and a ninth member, to serve as chairll1an,
jointly selected by the City and School Board. The Joint Task
Force deliberated the merits of the Plan and staff's response,
2
.
,
and produced a Consensus statement encompassing elements of the
Plan and other factors. The Consensus Statement was adopted by
the City and the School Board in November, 1989. Implementation
of the Consensus Statement's provisions is ongoing.
Status of IIIPlelRentation
Since the adoption of the Consensus Statement, many of the
recommendations contained herein have been accomplished and/or
set in motion. These accomplishments have had a positive impact
on our community and are a result of the cooperative spirit
that has existed between the School Board. the City of Delray
Beach. and their respective staffs.
As a consequence of cooperative measures undertaken by the
School Board and the City,
· (1) the physical plant, educational programs (in
particular, the Montessori instructional program).
vehicular access and neighborhood conditions
associated with S.D. Spady Elementary have
significantly improved, resulting in the achievement
of racial balance in keeping with School Board goals
together with the virtual eradication of negative
perceptions previously associated with Spady;
· (2 ) the City has undertaken substantial measures to
improve roadways, intersections, access and
neighborhood conditions at the Pine Grove
Elementary school.
· ( 3 ) a new middle school is under construction in a
central Delray Beach location, equally accessible
to the diverse student populations of the City;
· (4 ) the School Board and City have selected a site for
construction of a new elementary school and
associated park in the City;
· (5) improvements have been made to the Pine Grove
Elementary and Atlantic High School facilities;
· (6 ) improvements to recreational fields at Atlantic
High School and Carver Middle School have been
jointly implemented by the School Board and the
City;
· ( 7) plans for further upgrade and expansion of the
Pine Grove Elementary and Plumosa Elementary
campus/facilities are nearing implementation with
funding allocated; and
Also noteworthy are several initiatives originally proposed
in Sharing for Excellence, ancillary to improvements of school
facilities, which have since been institutionalized. These
include:
3
.
· creation of an advisory board to the City Commission,
the City's Education Board;
· creation of the S.D. Spady School Advisory Council; and
· enhanced City code enforcement activities surrounding
all schools in Delray Beach.
Current Situation
Notwithstanding the joint accomplishments to date the
following conditions exist:
· almost all schools In Delray Beach are overcrowded
· racial balance at Pine Grove Elementary school is
unacceptable 1ý% Black 76% Other
· still have too many school attendance zones especially
at the elementary school level
· Delray Beach neighborhoods remain intolerably divided:
11 different elementary school districts
Ý different middle school districts
4 different high school districts
· non-contiguous school boundaries continue to exist
· construction of new middle school two years behind
original target date.
With the delay in implementation of the middle school and
elementary school construction programs, overcrowding and racial
imbalance have been exacerbated. Even with the opening of
School "S-2" (Military Trail @ Linton Boulevard), neither the
overcrowding, nor racial imbalance, at Pine Grove Elementary
will be significantlY relieved. Meanwhile, the physical
conditions at Atlantic High School have substantially
deteriorated as that school also is experiencing an unacceptable
level of overcrowding. Even though completion of the new Carver
Middle School will undoubtedly yield an improvement in racial
balance; overcrowding at the middle school level is still an
area of conCern, The current status of Delray Beach public
schools with respect to overcrowding and racial balance is as
follows:
DELRAY BEACH SCHOOLS
I'4HITE BLACK ASIAN/ AMERICAN
NON % NON % i' PACIFIC i' INDIAN/ % MEMBERSHIP 2ND 9 I'4EEKS
SCHOOL NAME HISPANIC HISPANIC HISPANIC ISLANDER ALASKAN 93/94 SCHOOL YEAR
---~--~--~
TOT CAP
BANYAN CREEK ELEM. 756 57% 406 30i' 122 9% 45 3i' 7 1% 1336 700
PINE GROVE ELEMENTARY 125 14% 630 72% 106 12% 8 1% 0 0% 869 600
PLUMOSA ELEMENTARY 260 49% 212 40% 50 9% 5 Ii' 3 1% 530 590
S.D. SPADY ELEMENTARY 343 55% 247 40% 23 4% 6 1% 0 0% 619 560
CARVER MIDDLE 368 37% 462 47% 138 14% 15 2% 2 0% 985 1275
ATlANTIC HIGH 1269 61% 532 26% 183 9% 74 4% 6 0% 2064 1818
4
'.
·
Conclusions
Although, together, we have been successful in making
physical plant improvements and program changes in some of our
schools which have led to natural integration and excellence
(i . e . , S.D. Spady, Banyan Creek, Atlantic) perceptions
associated with public schools located in Delray Beach, in many
respects outside our community, remain unsatisfactorily
negative. A recent example of this negativism was demonstrated
with the proposal to establish a 6th grade center at Carver
Middle School.
The current challenges associated with Delray Beach public
schools are not new to the School Board. These matters, and the
situations that have led to them, have been chronicled in
Project MOSAIC and its successor activities. Indeed, on
February 3, 1994, the School Board and the Palm Beach County
Commission met in joint session to discuss, among other items,
"Revitalization of Coastal Schools/Communities", and an
Education Element for the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The City Commission continues to rate as a top priority the
overall conditions, both real and perceived, of public schools
serving the City's student population. Accordingly, the City
Commission of the City of Delray Beach unanimously reaffirms its
conclusion set forth in the Plan dated April 25, 1989, updated
as follows:
"The circumstances above recited, particularly those
concerning persistent and false negative public perceptions,
cannot be overcome by promotional campaigns or by isolated
or occasional measures implemented piecemeal. A
comprehensive plan affecting public elementary, middle and
high schools remains urgently necessary. This plan must
account for social realities. It must employ a cooperative
effort jointly undertaken by the ,citizens of Delray Beach,
their City Government, the School Board of Palm Beach
County, and Palm Beach County Government. It must also
address long term, as well as near term, objectives. The
commitment to this plan must be more than merely symbolic,
and must: be cont:inuing, since the quality of life and the
social and business vitality of the City of Delray Beach in
the long terms is literally at stake, "
The City Commission of the City of Delray Beach has
unanimously adopted, and requests the School Board of Palm Beach
County adopt, in its entirety, the program herein set forth
known as Sharing for Excellence in Schools 1994 - An Update of
The Delray Beach Plan. Without the School Board's help we
cannot reach our goals or provide the excellence in education
that each and everyone of our students deserve.
5
GOALS
1 . Achieving and maintaining a satisfactory and stable racial
balance in each and every elementary, middle and high school
attended by student residents of Delray Beach.
2, Minimizing the bussing of Delray Beach students to schools
outside of Delray Beach.
3. Minimizing overcrowding.
4. Enhancing existing public school campuses and facilities,
meet Southern Association standards, including special
facilities/programs to the benefit of the school and the
surrounding community.
5, Encouraging the cohesiveness of residential neighborhoods by
lessening the number of school districts to which the
students residing in such neighborhoods are assigned.
6, Drawing school district boundaries so that each district
comprises a contiguous area around a school, minimizing to
the extent possible the creation of non-contiguous enclaves.
7. Flexibility to protect individual schools by adding or
subtracting areas adjacent to their existing school
districts rather than by employing enclaves located
elsewhere.
8. Overcoming the lingering negative public perceptions which
inhibit achieving and maintaining a proper and stable racial
balance in the public schools of Delray Beach.
6
ACTION PLAN
The proposals herein set forth, coupled with those
heretofore accomplished, those currently under implementation,
and those being prepared for implementation, are interrelated
and form an integral plan. The City urges that each and all of
these proposals be adopted and implemented concurrently. (The
party responsible for implementation of each element of the plan
is identified in parenthesis).
Proposal I - Elementary School S-2 (Blood's Hammock Groves site)
Delays associated with the opening of School S-2 create a
"domino effect" with respect to relieving overcrowding and
achieving improvements in racial balance at other elementary
schools in the area. The School Board is urged to proceed with
utmost haste to open School S-2 by September, 1995. The City
pledges its cooperation in support of this objective.
- Immediately consummate the purchase of the site
identified and approved in 1993 by the School Board,
located on property presently known as Blood's Hammock
Groves west of and contiguous to the Foxe Chase
subdivision, and commence construction of the elementary
school presently designated "School S-2" by the School
Board for completion by commencement of the 1995/96
school year,(School Board)
- Immediately consummate the purchase of the site
identified and approved in 1993 by the City, located
north of and contiguous to the site for School S-2.(City)
- As and when appropriate, process necessary applications,
pertinent to the sites set forth above, for annexation,
site plan approval, conditional use approval and
rezoning.(City)
Proposal II - New Elementary School
Reviewing existing school population data and considering
the impact of schools S-2 and S-l, it is evident that additional
facilities are needed to alleviate overcrowding.
- Promptly identify and purchase a suitable site for, and
as soon as practicable commence the construction of, an
elementary school within the corporate limits of Delray
Beach, targeting the Southeast area. Emphasis should be
placed on selection of a site which is inviting to all
student populations designated to attend the
school.(School Board)
7
'.
-.
Proposal III - Plumosa Elementary School
In order ~o bring the facility up to standards of other
elementary schools, the following is recommended:
- Complete the construction of improvements currently
planned and approved in time for the commencement of the
1994/95 school year, including reconfiguration of entry
way and bus drop-off/parking, and construction of media
cen~er and administrative space,(School Board)
Proposal IV - Pine Grove Elementary School
The following elements of this Proposal IV are intended to
facili~a~e the utilization of Pine Grove for several specific
educational needs, one or more of which might be considered
"magnets," to stimulate voluntary attendance by white student
populations. This school should no longer be assigned specific
a~tendance dis~ricts and, therefore, would be removed from
concerns surrounding it with respect to districting and its
racial balance. Proposals I and II above are integral to, and
should be undertaken in concert with, the implementation of this
Proposal IV.
- Purchase the undeveloped acreage west of and contiguous
to the Pine Grove Elementary campus (School Board) and
proceed with steps necessary to rezone the property as
"Community Facilities" (City) ,
- (School Board) Commence the construction of improvements
currently planned and approved by the School Board,
including, wittlout limitation, the following:
· media center
· additional classrooms
· music lab
· art lab
· administrative offices
· other specialty rooms
(School Board) utilize Pine Grove as a Special Resources
Educational Center which might include, among others,
some, or all of the following programs (the City
acknowledges that certain of the following programs are
presently in place; the City supports the continuation
thereof):
· preschool intervention/Head Start
· ESOL
· performing arts "magnet.. program
· foreign language immersion of FLEX "magnet" program
· other such "magnet" program(s) that will both
encourage an increase in white studen~ attendance and
serve to the benefit of the student population residing
in areas immediately surrounding the Pine Grove campus
8
-,
Proposal V - S.D. Spady Elementary School
The conversion of S.O, Spady to a Montessori School,
physical plant improvements, and neighborhood improvements have
all contributed to increasing the school population at S,O.
Spady and racially balancing the school, In fact, there is now
a waiting list for the school with applicants from all over
south county. Due to these factors, it is recommended that:
- the only SACs assigned serve the immediate neighborhood
as described by the following geographical boundary:
Atlantic Avenue to the south, 1-95 to the west, Lake Ida
Road to the north and Swinton Avenue to the east.
- in addition, delayed renovation to Buildings D and E must
be accelerated along with renovations to rest room
facilities.
- finally, coordination must occur to insure construction
of the special bus access with attendent facilities
commensurate with the widening of Lake Ida Road.
Proposal VI - (Old) Carver Middle School Campus/Facilities
Taking into consideration the proposals generated by the
School Board/City of Oelray Beach joint task force and
committees established to study the matter, a plan for the
continued use of the existing Carver facilities should be
adopted forthwith such that implementation thereof may commence
'" coincident with the opening of the Carver Community Middle
new
School. Insofar as practicable, the Carver facilities should be
utilized, along the lines of a Full Service School, in a manner
that enhances the economic and social well-being of residents in
surrounding neighborhoods, and should not lie idle for any
significant period of time subsequent to the opening of the
replacement Carver Community Middle School.(City and School
Board)
Proposal VII - New Middle School
School Board statistics and studies show the need for
additional middle schools in south county, Due to this need the
School Board is requested to:
- Consider the construction of a second new middle school
within or proximate to the corporate limits of Delray
Beach in furtherance of efforts to alleviate overcrowding
in existing middle schools. A target date for the
opening of such new middle school within five years of
the date of this Plan is realistic.(School Board)
Proposal VIII - Atlantic High School
Significant improvements, both in physical plant and
educational programs, have been accomplished at Atlantic High
School during the past five years. Nonetheless, Atlantic houses
a sizable student population, many of whom attend the school for
9
.
special purposes, and remains in need of further attention.
Facility improvements are needed to adequately meet student
needs and meet Department of Education standards even when the
new high schools in Boynton Beach are completed and the student
population decreases.
- Review the 1992 D . 0 , E . survey and begin planning and
development of funding sources to add and renovate
facilities to meet minimum D.O. E. standards. Facilities
to include:
- expand cafeteria space (food service)
- expand gymnasium
- add wrestling and weight rooms
- add rest rooms to meet minimum State code requirements
- provide handicapped accessibility to all facilities
Proposal IX - New High School
Residential growth continues to expand in the areas west
from Lantana to Boca Raton. Two new high schools are planned
for construction in and west of Boynton Beach. These high
schools, however, are not planned for completion until the
'97-'98 school year and are based on existing, outdated growth
projections. It is felt that even with these additional schools
- Atlantic High School will continue to be overcrowded. In view
of these assumptions we propose:
- a revised study of growth projections for the high school
population and if projections warrant it, consideration
of the construction of a new high school within or
proximate to the corporate limits of Delray Beach.(School
Board)
- accelerate the construction of the proposed high schools
in and west of Boynton Beach.
These recommendations will assist in relieving projected
overcrowding at Atlantic High School.
Proposal X - Neighborhood Considerations
The City pledges to continue and expand its focus with
respect to the quality of life in neighborhoods surrounding each
of the public schools located within the corporate limits and
jurisdiction of Delray Beach. Emphasis shall remain on such
areas as code enforcement, crime prevention, and promotion of
community groups and neighborhood associations dedicated to such
social enhancements. Contact will continue through liaison with
the City's Education Board and individual School Advisory
Councils (SACs) at each school.(City)
10
.
Supplemental Recommendations
- The School Board and the City should cooperate in
developing factual information and a marketing strategy
for Delray Beach schools to help offset negative
perceptions.(School Board and City)
11
'.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
The City maintains its belief that the negative matters that
continue to reflect on Delray Beach and its public schools can
be solved in the very immediate future QY the adoption and
implementation, in its entirety, of Sharing for Excellence in
Schools 1994 - An Update of The Delray Beach Plan, Below is a
--
matrix showing the City's goals, as hereinabove set forth, and
the Ii ke ly consequences of this Plan's Proposals toward
achieving these goals.
Table 1 - Matrix Analysis of Proposals and Goals
~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Improve Minimize Reduce Enhance Cohesive Minimize Boundary Improved
Racial Bussing Over- Existing Neighbor- Enclaves Flexibility Perception
Proposal Balance crowding Facilities hoods
I
School S-2 v' v' V v' V v' v'
- ---- ---- --------- __u_ _ ---- ---.-_-- --1-- -- --- --- - -- --_.----
II
New Elem v' v' v' v' V v' v'
_.' --- -' ------ ------ ---- .--- -- - - -- . -- - - ~ - - n_ __ ____a - --.-.
III
Plumosa v' v'
-- _ ,--- ----- ---- - - -------- - -- -- - 1- - - ---
IV
Pine Grove v' v' v' V v' v'
-- --.---.-- ---~ -_._---~ ~-----_._-- --- ------ ---- -----.-- --- ..----. --- ,---
V
Old Carver v' v'
-~~-- -- ---- ---- --- 1----- ---- ----
VI
New Middle v' v' v' v' v' v'
- ------------ - ----------- ---,-- --- - -- .---- --- - -- .-- --- ----- - -- - a_ ----
VII
Atlantic v' v' v' v'
V III
New H.S. v' v' V V v' v'
-_._~~ --- ----- -.--- -~---- ------ ---- -'- -- ---.-- ~-- --- ----- ----
IX
Neighborhood v' v' v'
As expressed in the original Sharing For Excellence, halfway
measures are not enough . . immediate and dramatic actions are
necessary and appropriate - actions as herein set forth.
The City of Delray Beach calls upon the School Board of Palm
Beach to continue its cooperative undertakings with the City by
accepting and implementing each and every element of this
Sharing for Excellence in Schools 1994 - An Update of the Delray
--
Beach Plan.
12
.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT~
FROM: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR,
RE: STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM (SHIP) I
HOUSING INCENTIVE PLAN
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1994
ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
Consideration of proposed Housing Incentive Plan developed by the
appointed Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, pursuant to
regulations established under State Regulations,
BACKGROUND:
Section 420.9076 of the Florida State Statutes required the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committed appointed by the City
Commission to review the established policies and procedures,
ordinances, development regulations, adopt a comprehensive plan
and recommend specific initiatives to encourage or facilitate
affordable housing while protecting the ability of the property
to appreciate in value. The advisory committee was required to
make recommendations on 11 affordable housing incentives, The
proposed plan developed by the advisory committee incorporates a
review and recommendation on the following:
1. Affordable Housing definition in appointing resolution
2, Expedited process of permits
3 . Impact fee modification including waivers, reductions and
payment from other sources
4. Increased density levels
5, Reservation of capacity for infrastructure for housing for
very-low-income households
6 . Transfer of development rights (TDR'S) as a financing
for housing for very-low income persons
7. Reduction of parking and setback requirements
8 . Zero lot line
9 , Modifications to street and sidewalk requirements
\;1/5-5
·
,
SHIP/Housing Incentive Plan
February 11, 1994
Page 2
10. Establish a process by which impact of proposed new policies
procedures, ordinances and regulations are considered prior
to approval.
11. Preparation of a printed inventory of locally-owned public
lands suitable for affordable housing
12. Other
The proposed Housing Incentive Plan lS now before you for
discussion, State regulations requlre formal adoption of the
approved plan by the City Commission after a public hearing on
the plan, The public hearing will be done at the next regular
City Commission meeting of February 22, 1994,
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff lS recommending City Commission direction to forward the
Housing Incentive Plan as proposed by the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee for public hearing and adoption at the next
regular meeting,
LB:DQ
DQ2
SHIP. HIP
,
·
DRAFT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE PLAN
Pursuant to Section 420.9076, Florida Statutes, the City of
Delray Beach Affordable Housing Advisory Committee held meetings
to review existing policies, procedures, ordinances, land
development regulations and comprehensive plan in order to make
specific recommendations aimed at encouraging and facilitating
affordable housing while also protecting property values. The
following incentives are recommended as a result of this review.
1. The affordable housing definition in the appointing
resolution.
" Affordable Housing" shall mean the development or
redevelopment of vacant parcels within the City of Delray
which can be purchased and monthly mortgage payments,
including principal, interest, taxes and insurance
(PITI), does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the median
annual adjusted gross income for households in Palm Beach
County as defined by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
The development and redevelopment of new land shall result
in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall
continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's
demographic profile.
2. The expedited process of permits for affordable housing
projects.
The City has in place "One Stop Shop Permitting" providing
for a coordinated review and approval of all developmental
applications submitted through the Development Services
Group. Emphasis is placed on providing efficient, timely
review and approval of all application types from one point
of contact by the customer. The system features a fully
automated application tracking software package that
provides the opportunity to readily identify delays in
review time from various departments within the development
function.
The "One stop Shop Permitting" incorporates an expedited
review and approval process of building permit applications
submitted under a subdivision development, using one set of
architectural plans for various lots. This process reduces
the average number of days for review from 15 days to 5
days. A second part of our program incorporates same day
inspections on construction projects. The combination of
expedited review and approvals and same day inspections
minimizes delays in construction activity and costs
associated with such delays.
·
It is recommended that this expedited review process be
applied to the City's Affordable infill housing program in
cases where one set of architectural plans are used for
various infill lots throughout the target area.
3. The modification of impact-fee requirements, including
reduction or waiver of fees and alternative methods of
fee payment. Land Development Regulations, Section 2.4.3(k)
The current impact and other fees associated with the
development of a typical affordable single family unit,
valued at $50,000 with between 800 and 1300 square feet
total approximately $5730. These fees include:
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH-IMPOSED IMPACT FEES
Deposit $ 75.00
Water System Connection Fee $ 788.00
Meter Installation (1") $ 525.00
Sewer System Connection $1084.00
Parks & Recreation impact fee $ 500.00
Total City Impact Fees $2,972.00
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Building Permit $ 660.00
Paving Permit fee $ 63.50
Irrigation permit fee $ 63.50
Total Permit Fees $ 787.00
PALM BEACH COUNTY-IMPOSED IMPACT FEES
Road Impact Fee $1,650.00
Parks Impact Fee 123.91
Law Enforcement 5.30
Public Bldgs. 51. 76
Schools 140.25
Total County Impact Fees $1,971.22
There is currently no provision for waiving impact fees
through either the City or the County. Therefore funding
will be made available through SHIP and/or other dollars for
the payment of these fees when it can be determined that the
result of this subsidy will be a more affordable unit for
the homebuyer.
Current policy (Commission action 1/21/92) provides
for a 70% reduction in building permit fees (excluding
impact fees and water connection fees) for non-profit
(501(C) (3 » agencies. This represents a $550 reduction to
the overall fees imposed on new construction. This policy
2
,
·
also provides for a 100% waiver of all fees assessed under
Section 2.4.3(K)(1) of the Land Development Regulations
(Development Applications, i. e. Site Plan Review, Plats,
etc. ) .
The Palm Beach County Board of County Commission will be
formally petitioned for an exemption from the requirements
of impact fees for the entire CDBG target area. This
exemption would provide a $2000 reduction in the cost of
constructing one single family unit.
4. Allowance of Increased Density Levels. (Comprehensive Plan,
Housing Element, Policy C-3.1)
The Housing Element provides for increases to density when
it can be demonstrated that such increases will lead to an
affordable unit, provided that other policies of the
Comprehensive Plan are maintained. No change is necessary.
5. Reservation of Infrastructure Capacity for housing for
very low and low income persons. (Comprehensive Plan,
Housing Element, Policy A-2.3)
Infrastructure facilities currently exist throughout the
target area. However, where there is visible signs of
deterioration, Comprehensive Plan policy provides for
prioritization in scheduling necessary improvements. No
change is necessary
6. Transfer of Development Rights as a financing mechanism
for housing for very low-income and low-income persons.
(Land Development Regulations, Section 4.6.20)
Current policy provides for TDRs when the use of the
property advances the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Developers may be offered development
rights within areas designated on the Land Use Map as
"Redevelopment Areas" and within geographic areas where
height increases are allowed pursuant to LDRs Section 4.3.4
(J) (4) in exchange for development rights of the "regulated"
property. Thus TDR's may be used as a mechanism to achieve
affordable housing. No change is necessary..
7. Reduction of parking and set back requirements. (Land
Development Regulations, Section 4.6.9(C)
Current regulations require 2 parking spaces per dwelling
unit in Single Family zoning districts. As an incentive to
affordable housing, it is recommended that one of the
required parking spaces may be located within the side set
back within one foot of the property line, provided the
3
,
·
impervious area used for parking is sloped to drain on the
lot being developed. The Chief Building Official supports
this recommendation.
S. The allowance of zero-lot-line configurations.
(Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, B-2.3(f»
Current policy provides for a mix of housing types,
including zero lot-line, single family conventional, and
multiple family housing. No change is necessary.
9. Modifications to street and sidewalk requirements.
Due to concerns for safety and aesthetics there shall be no
modifications to current regulations governing sidewalks and
streets. In order to address affordability, the City
currently considers on a case by case basis provisions for
funding street and sidewalk requirements. No change is
necessary.
10. Establish a process by which impact of proposed new
policies, procedures, ordinances, and regulations are
considered prior to approval.
It shall be the long-term function of the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee along with appropriate staff to serve in
this capacity.
11. Preparation of a printed inventory of locally owned
public lands suitable for affordable housing.
An inventory of locally owned public lands suitable for
affordable housing shall be prepared on or before July 1994.
12. Other:
A. Establish list of properties scheduled for demolition.
The City shall make available to the public a list of
properties scheduled for demolition at least 30 days
prior to demolition. This listing should provide
owners' names and all lien-holders.
B. Solicitation of Assistance to Effect Increases in
Appraisals through the Florida Energy Center.
The City shall request the Florida Energy Center to
take on as a project, tests of energy savings additions
to units which save homeowner dollars. This
effort is for the purpose of the Florida Energy Center
to influence the appraisal industry into recognizing
these measures as added property value.
4
'.
·
c. Reduction of Landscape Requirements (LDRs Section
4.6.16(8)
Current requirements at Section 4.6.16(H} for Single
Family housing is that 20% of all pervious lot area be
planted in shrubs and ground cover and the remaining
%80 of the area be planted in turf.
In support of projects participating the City's
Affordable Housing Programs the requirements of the
landscape code are to be reduced to allow for only 10%
of the pervious single family lot area be planted in
shrubs and ground cover and that the requirements be
installed in front and sidestreet setbacks. It is
estimated that $1200 would be reduced from the cost of
producing one unit.
D. Waiver of Requirements of Final Engineering Plans
Current policy at Section 2.4.3(F) requires that
Engineering Plans be prepared and submitted as
specified by the various regulating agencies, i.e.
utility providers, City Engineer, South Florida Water
Management District and HRS. It is recommended that the
requirements for calculating water drainage and other
off-site improvements for infill lots, particularly
where improvements are in place, be waived.
5
.,
. . .
.
, .
. Agenda Item No.1 .
I
. AGeNDA REQUEST
Date: 2/11/94
Request to be placed on:' .
X Reqular Agenda Special Agenda . Workshop Agenda
When: 2/15/94 ,
De8cri~tion of a~enda item (who, what, where, how much),
ate Housing nitiative Program/Housing Incentive Plan .
ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommenda t ion: Commission action
,
Department Head S1qnaturel /~ /~,¿ ~ ~
c/ . /
Determination of Consistency with Compre~ensive Plan:
City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable)a
Budget Director Review (required OD all iteas involving expenditure
of funds):
Funding available: YES/ NO
Funding alternatives: (if applicable)
Account No. & Description:
Account Balance:
-
City Manager Review:
Approved for agenda: @¡ NO fJÆJ
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received: .
Action: Approved/Disapproved
W /S f)
.
·
City Commission Workshop Meeting - February 15, 1994:
Item 8. Pavilion Rental/Veterans and Atlantic Dunes Parks.
During discussion, the Commission made the following comments:
Did not feel it was necessary to have definite time restrictions
as to when the facilities could be reserved; to be determined by
the City Manager or Director to schedule as available and
appropriate.
Whatever rental fee is decided upon, it should be the same for
both Veterans and Atlantic Dunes.
The possibility of having an additional clean-up deposit which
would be refunded if facility is cleaned up satisfactorily was
suggested. Since it may be hard to differentiate between who
made what mess, the consensus seemed to be to look at a higher
rental figure commensurate with what the potential costs may be.
Commissioner Alperin suggested establishing an initial policy for
the rental of the facilities, which may have to be modified based
on actual experience.
Mayor Lynch suggested trying to leave it open as much as possible
to the discretion of the City Manager or Director. For example,
if someone wants to rent a facility at the height of the season,
it may be reasonable to charge a higher fee at times when the
parks are being used more and the facilities are more in demand.
Perhaps start with a minimum rental fee, subject to it being
higher at city's discretion. The Commission concurred.
To be brought back to the Commission at a regular meeting upon
refinement.
·
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15. 1994
PAVILION RENTAL/VETERANS AND ATLANTIC DUNES PARKS
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1994
In an attempt to generate revenues from fees as opposed to taxes, it is
recommended that the Veterans Park and Atlantic Dunes pavilions be made
available for rental for private functions, Concern that the
facilities remain available for the general public, the time periods
when they are least used have been identified as the most likely times
to permit private use, with the stipulation that the public has open
and free access, The least used time periods by the general public are
Monday through Friday, from 8 a,m. to 5 p,m, and Saturday and Sunday
from 8:00 a.m, to 12:00 noon.
A Veterans Park pavilion rental fee of $50,00 for a two hour rental
period is suggested, This fee would be room rental only, and would not
include tables, chairs, public address system, etc, It is further
recommended that the City do the same for the pavilion at Atlantic
Dunes Park for a fee of $25,00 for a two hour period, with the same
conditions.
WS8'
.
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA£H
100 N.W, 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243- 7000
traaII
D-AllBk:aCfty
, III I!
1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Harden
City Manager
FROM: Joe Weldon
Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Pavilion Rental at Veterans Park
DATE: January 25, 1994
Per your memorandum concerning the rental of the pavilion at Veterans
Park, I checked with Dane Mark who indicated he has had several
requests to have weddings in the pavilion followed by a reception and
cruise on the Ramblin' Rose. These requests are predominantly for
Saturday. Additionally, I checked to see how many reservations were
made at Atlantic Dunes Park for which there is no charge. There were
seven reservations made since August 1, 1992 with the following
breakdown:
Mondav Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
none 1 in AM 1 in AM none 1 in AM & 1 in AM & 1 in PM
1 in PM 1 in PM
If we are going to make the pavilion available for rental to the
general public, it appears we are going to have to include Saturdays.
Therefore, I recommend the pavilion be made available for rental Monday
through Friday from 8 AM - 5 PM and Saturday and Sunday from 8 AM - 12
Noon. I recommend a fee of $50 for a two hour period. This would be a
rental fee only and would not include tables, chairs, PA system, etc.
Further, since we are charging for the pavilion at Veterans Park, I
recommend we do the same for the pavilion at Atlantic Dunes Park for a
fee of $25 for a two hour period with the same conditions.
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
...
~
-2-
Please review and advise.
,
J
D Parks and Recreation
JW:cp
Ref:dhpavrnt
"
/;>/'0 J(j3-0
¡--J- 9r S'Tðrtl Ý fJL ~A-.5e
1- -2~-.,t/ .J' ?;4 rv $ p¿e19 .fE 0,0__
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
DElRAY BEACH
f lOll: D A
b.e:d 100 NW. 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243-7000
AII·America City
1111 I! MEMORANDUM
1993
TO: Joe Weldon, Director of Parks and Recreation
FROM: David T. Harden, City Managerf1}/1
v .
SUBJECT: VETERANS' PARK PAVILION
DATE: December 9, 1993
I think we need to take advantage of every opportunity to
generate revenues from fees as opposed to taxes. Therefore, I
think we should rent the Veterans' Park Pavilion for private
functions on appropriate occasions. At the same time, we need
to be very sensitive to keeping the facilities available for the
general public. My suggestion is to identify those times when
the facility is least used by the general public and make it
available for private use during those time-frames. I would
like you to consider that approach and outline for me the times
when you feel we could make the pavilion available for private
functions. Before making it available, I would want to have a
policy on private use approved by the City Commission.
DTH:mld
~- THE EFFORT ALWAYS M ATTFRS
.,
. t'f/)
I
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
100 N,W. 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Harden
City Manager
FROM: Joe Weldon
Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Veterans Park Pavilion
DATE: November 19, 1993
We have been receiving numerous requests to exclusively rent the new
pavilion at Veterans Park for weddings, parties, etc. , particularly on
weekends. I have done it a few times on a trial basis and am not
comfortable because the park has become much more popular since its
renovation and will probably continue to be so with the new playground.
We do allow people to hold these types of functions at the pavilion at
Atlantic Dunes Park at no charge with the stipulation the public has
open and free access. If we were to approve all these requests for
exclusive use of the pavilion, the general public essentially would be
shut out from using the pavilion during these times.
We have been denying requests for exclusive use and feel that we should
continue in this policy unless it is a City sponsored event. However,
I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
J
Parks and Recreation
JW:cp
Ref:vetpkpav
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
, ,
EXCERPT FROM THE CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP HELD FEBRUARY 15, 1994:
ITEM NO, 9
HB 405 - PROPOSED BILL SETTING RETAIL TERRITORIAL SERVICE AREAS
The City Manager stated a letter has been received from
the Mayor of Orlando and the Florida League of Cities has
contacted the City regarding this Territorial Bill and the impact
it might have on our franchise agreements in the future, He
requested permission from the City Commission to work against
this particular bill, In addition, the City Manager commented
that the Commission might like staff to work on The Joint and
Several Liability Bill that happens to be in the same document,
The City Attorney stated that is their recommendation also,
Dr, Alperin asked where this information came from,
The City Manager responded that it came from the Investor-owned
Utilities, who do not like it when someone, such as the City of
Orlando that has their own utility company, annexes an area and
takes over the electrical system in the area that is annexed,
Florida Power and Light does not like to give up that part of
their system,
Dr. Alperin questioned if Florida Power and Light has
been able to show any benefit to the public by enactment of this
bill. The City Manager stated he did not have the answer to his
question.
The Commission unanimously concurred to adopt a
resolution opposing this bill.
Mayor Lynch requested when the Florida League of Cities
is notified, that the local Municipal League be contacted as well
regarding both HB 405 and The Joint and Several Liability Bill,
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
100 N,W, 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243-7000
March 3, 1994
Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation
301 N. Olive Avenue, 10th Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re: HB 405 (Mackey) and SB 1704 (Dudley)/Territorial Bill
Dear Members:
The City Commission of the City of Delray Beach has directed me
to advise you of their position concerning the proposed bills
which would vest exclusive authority to unilaterally establish
the territories of electric utilities with the Public Service
Commission and prohibit anyone else from providing electric
service within a utilities' territory.
The City Commission is opposed to this legislation because it
will substantially impair the ability of municipally owned
electric utilities to expand their territorial boundaries and
will substantially impair the ability of municipalities to
negotiate favorable electric franchise agreements. In essence,
these bills detract from municipal Home Rule freedoms and expose
future customers to higher electric rates.
Your serious cons~deration and support of Delray Beach's position
is appreciated.
Sincerely,
tt::,~ -r~t-.~
David T. Harden
City Manager
DTH/amh
cc: Palm Beach County Municipal League
Florida League of Cities
Kathleen Daley
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
,
,
£1" DF DELIA' BEA[H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243-7000
March 3, 1994
Palm Beach County Legislative Delegation
301 N. Olive Avenue, 10th Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re: SB 1008 (Weinstein) and HB 1425 (Trammell)/Joint and Several
Liability Bill
Dear Members:
The City Commission of the City of Delray Beach has directed me
to advise you of their position concerning the proposed bills
which would prohibit a jury from assigning a IIpercentage of
faultll to a negligent person unless the person is actually named
a defendant in the lawsuit.
The City Commission is opposed to this legislation because it
will undoubtedly result in an increase in the cost of liability
insurance for municipalities. Additionally, if successful with
this proposal, there is no reason to believe the trial lawyers
will not propose additional legislation in future sessions to
further erode the gains made in 1986.
Your serious consideration and support of Delray Beach's position
is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Jl':4\ -t, (J C\-''<~
David T. Harden
City Manager
DTH/amh
cc: Palm Beach County Municipal League
Florida League of Cities
Kathleen Daley
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
..
·
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~~
SUBJECT: SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15. 1994
HB 405 -- PROPOSED BILL SETTING RETAIL TERRITORIAL SERVICE
AREAS
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1994
At a meeting of the Florida Urban Partnership, the mayors of Florida's
largest cities voted unanimously to oppose the above-referenced bill,
They ask that the cities each adopt resolutions opposing this bill and
that these resolutions be sent to their legislators.
Florida Power Corporation and Florida Power and Light, along wi th the
rural electric cooperatives, have filed this bill which, among other
things, freezes the service area of all municipal electric utilities,
At present City Commissions grant a franchise to investor-owned
utilities, From that the cities are paid a franchise fee, This bill
would not affect the current franchise agreement; however, it would
remove a city's power of eminent domain as to existing electric
facilities, and would give property inside the cities as service areas
to the investor-owned utilities, With the future franchise areas being
awarded by the Florida Public Service Commission, the cities would be
at a great disadvantage in negotiating franchise fees,
This bill also prevents a city from ever creating its own municipal
electric utility, and prohibits running electric lines down the streets
where they now exist, In effect, the bill takes away from a city's
Home Rule and gives that decision to the Florida Public Service
Commission, All of Florida's cities rely on the fees paid to them by
the utilities,
In addition to adopting a resolution opposing HB 405, it is suggested
that our legislators and the Florida League of Cities be contacted and
made to understand how important it is that this territorial legisla-
tion be denied,
W5 c¡
.,
2-// s- wtrlL ~
1/18/94 c: Commission, Manager, Joe Safford, Kathy Daley
-
RECEiVED
RAB:m1d 1 Ô \994
JAN
CITY COM!v11SSIŒJ
Q} 1ft! ûf QJ]}r Ittnh û
OFFICE OF CITY HALL, ONE CITY COMMONS rf'lEPHON f'
GLENDA E, HOOD 400 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE (407) 246-222\
FAX
MAYOR ORLANDO, FLORIDA
(407) 246- 2842
32801-3302
January 17, 1994
The Honorable Thomas E. Lynch
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444-2698
Dear Mayor Lynch:
RE: Proposed Bill Setting Retail Electric Territorial Service Areas - HB 405 Filed By Rep. Randy Mackey and Senator
Fred Dudley
Florida Power Corporation and Florida Power and Light, along with the rural electric cooperatives, have filed a territorial bill
(referenced above). This bill, among other things, not only freezes the service area of all municipal electric utilities like
Jacksonville and our utility, but greatly affects all cities, including your own.
Today your City Council grants a franchise to investor-owned utilities. From that, you are paid a franchise fee. Although the
bill does not affect your current franchise agreement, it takes away your Council's future bargaining power. Specifically, it
removes your city's power of eminent domain as to existing electric facilities and gives property inside your city as a service
area to the investor-owned utilities. With the future franchise areas being awarded by the Florida Public Service Commission,
you will be at a great disadvantage in negotiating your franchise fees.
As electric technology improves, your city may want to get into the electric utility business, just like Jacksonville, Orlando
and 30 other municipalities. You may not be able to change the current (or future) provider of your retail electric service. No
matter what black box may be on the horizon, this bill prevents you from ever creating your own municipal electric utility.
Your city is prohibited by this bill from ever running electric lines down the streets where they now exist. In essence, this bill
takes away from your city Home Rule and gives that decision on retail electric service in your community to the Florida Public
Service Commission. All our cities rely on the fees paid to us by the utilities, whether it be ours or investor-owned utilities.
I would ask you to read the bill and contact the Florida League of Cities lobbyists, Chip Morrison and Mike Sittig. We should
make this a priority for their lobbying efforts this session. I encourage you to immediately contact your legislators and impress
upon them how important it is that this territorial legislation be denied. It would be beneficial to have your council adopt a
resolution opposing this bill and send it to your legislators.
At last week's meeting of the Florida Urban Partnership, our state's largest city mayors voted unanimously to oppose this
legislation. Tampa Electric and Gulf Power have expressed opposition to this bill, as well as the Public Service Commission
staff itself. Our continued active objection is critical if we are to defeat this legislation. This bill is not only bad public policy,
it is a land grab by the cooperatives and the two investor-owned utilities to take away any future competition and lock in all
of the property of Florida into their service area. This bill robs your city of many of the Home Rule freedoms which it now
enjoys and exposes future customers to higher electric rates.
I will keep you informed of future developments.
Sincerely,
~6 ¿CL [. ~cI
Glenda E. Hood
Mayor
,
~nl.tr¡ I( ';'uIJ ("?".>' ; roc' ,,'.' I ED
~ S'V5/f d 7£/17' (/ J
..... FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC.
Memorandum Jy~C
To: Selected City Officials 1~8 ~/v~
C'1l} ~ {)
From: Chip Morrison, General Counsel ~~ ~~~
. 1 t' . / . . t r,.('(>
Re: 1994 Leg1.S a l.ve SeSS1.on Pr1.or1. y Issues 'I, :5"(
:l1-f"/¿ .
Date: February 7, 1994 E
The legislative session is again upon us and I wanted to
respectfully request your help with two issues in particular: the
"territorial bill" and the "joint and several liability bill."
The Territorial Bill
Elements of the electric utility industry are again seeking a
"territorial bill." HB 405 (Mackey), and a Senate companion to be
filed by Senator Dudley, will vest with the Public Service
commission the exclusive authority to unilaterally establish the
territories of electric utilities.
We are opposed to the "territorial bill" because it will
substantially impair the ability of municipally owned electric
utilities to expand their territorial boundaries and will
substantially impair the ability of municipalities to negotiate
favorable electric franchise agreements.
The "territorial bill" will undoubtedly be heard early on by
the Senate Commerce Committee. As your Senator sits on this
Committee, I'd appreciate it if you would write him/her a brief
letter expressing your opposition to the "territorial bill."
The Joint and Several Liabilitv Bill
In an effort to inject a sense of fairness into the situation,
the 1986 legislature modified the doctrine of joint and several
liability. Unfortunately, the trial attorneys are seeking
legislation this year that would negate a portion of the gains made
in 1986. SB 1008 (Weinstein) and a House companion to be filed by
Representative Trammell, would prohibit a jury from assigning a
"percentage of fault" to a negligent person unless the person is
actually named a defendant in the law suit. If successful, the
effect of this proposal would be to substantially increase the
instances in which the doctrine of joint and several liability
would be applied to "deep pockets," including municipalities.
201 West Park Avenue . P.O. Box 1757 . Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1757 . (904) 222-9684. Sun com 2H2-501O
.,
,.
Selected City Officials
February 7, 1994
Page Two
We are opposed to the bill because it will undoubtedly result
in an increase in the cost of liability insurance for
municipalities. Additionally, if successful with their proposal,
there is no reason to believe the trial lawyers will not propose
additional legislation in future sessions to further erode the
gains made in 1986.
The "joint and several liability bill" will undoubtedly be
heard early on by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate
JUdiciary Committee. As your Representative and Senator sit on
these Committees, I'd appreciate it if you would write them a brief
letter expressing your opposition to the "joint and several
liability bill."
I'd also appreciate it if you would copy me with your letters.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Thank
you very much for your assistance.
CM/thr
enclosures
'.
·
(S) JUDICIARY (H) JUDICIARY
Democrats: Weinstein, Chairman; Boczar: Jenne; Jones Democrats: Trammell, Chairman; Rush, Vice Chairman; Burke;
Republicans: Dudley. Vice Chairman; Grant; Scott; Siegel Cosgrove; Crady; Feren; Harris; Hill; Klein; Mackey; Mitchell;
STAFF DIRECTOR: Glenn Lang ROOM: 424, SOB Ritchie; Schultz; Stafford
SeCRETARY: Katherine Chandler PHONe: 487-5198 Republicans: Bitner; De Grandy; Laurent; Merchant; Posey;
Sanderson; Sembler; Thomas; Warner; Webster
STAFF DIRECTOR: Richard Hixson ROOM: 412, HOB
SeCRETARY: Lynn Hough PHONE: 488-1663
(S) COMMERCE (H) BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
Democrats: Childers, Chairman; Forman: Holzendorf; Jenne; Democrats: Tobin, Chairman; Bush, Vice Chairman; Bronson;
Silver; Wexler; Williams Burke; Clemons; Cosgrove; Dawson; Hafner; Jamerson;
Republicans: Jennings, Vice Chairman; Beard; Burt; Casas; Uppman; Logan; McClure; McMahan; Miller; Rayson; Reddick;
Dudley; Grant; McKay; Scott Roberts; Rudel; Sindler; Stafford
STAFF DIRECTOR: Pamela Burch Fort ROOM: 410, SOB Repub/ú:tuu: Benson; Jones; Merchant; Morse; Ogres; Safley;
SECRETARY: Joan Kinsey PHONE: 487-5361 Star/cs; Valdes; Warner; Wise
STAFF DIRECTOR: Lucretia Shaw Collins ROOM: 218. HOB
SEC!'ETARY: Eva J. Kypreos PHONE: 488-0996
"
·
Territorial Bill
Elements of the electric industry are aqain seekinq a "territorial
bill." HB 405 (Mackey), and a Senate companion to be filed by
Senator Dudley, will vest with the Public Service commission the
exclusive authority to unilaterally establish the territories of
electric utilities.
The League is opposed to the bill for two reasons: the bill will
substantially impair the ability of municipally owned electric
utilities to expand their territorial boundaries and will likewise
substantially impair the ability of municipalities to neqotiate
favorable electric franchise aqreements. Florida's municipalities
annually receive rouqhly $250 million in franchise fees from
electric utilities.
The impact of the bill on the municipally owned electric utilities
is clear: the service areas of those utilities will be essentially
frozen as they exist on the effective date of the bill. The
municipal utilities will no lonqer have the ability to expand their
electric service to the surroundinq urban areas as the areas
expand.
The impact of the bill on other municipalities is subtle but
equally clear. Electric utilities aqree to pay franchise fees in
return for three qrants of authority from municipalities durinq the
term of franchise aqreements: municipalities agree to permit the
utilities to provide service within the municipalities' boundaries;
the municipalities aqree not to compete with the utilities and
aqree to prohibit other utilities from providinq services within
the boundaries of the municipalities; and the municipalities qrant
the utilities the permission to use the municipalities' riqhts-of-
way.
The bill completely eliminates two of the three essential
components of a franchise aqreement. The electric utilities will
no longer need the municipalities' permission to provide service in
their boundaries because the authority to qrant the permission will
be vested with the PSC. The electric utilities will no longer need
the municipalities' non-compete covenants and their covenants to
prohibit other utilities from competinq with the electric utility
because the bill vests with the PSC the authority to prohibit other
entities, includinq the municipalities, from providinq electric
service within the electric utility's territory. Finally, case law
reflects it is hiqhly unlikely the municipality's simple qrant of
riqhts-of-way use to a utility is sufficient consideration to
uphold a franchise aqreement.
While the bill contains several provisions designed to protect fees
derived from existinq franchise aqreements, the bills fall short of
protectinq the permanent authority of municipalities to franchise
electric utilities because the bill severely undermines the
necessity for electric utilities to obtain franchise aqreements
from municipalities once existing agreements expire. (Morrison)
.,
·
;. .
,
Joint and Several Liability
In an effort to inject a sense of fairness into the situation, the
1986 legislature modified the doctrine of joint and several
liability. The legislature's 1986 modification had a positive
impact on the cost and availability of liability insurance for
municipalities. Unfortunately, the trial attorneys are seeking
legislation this year that would negate a portion of the gains made
in 1986.
The League is opposed to the trial lawyers' proposal. If the trial
lawyers are successful with their proposal, it will undoubtedly
result in an increase in the cost of liability insurance for
municipalities. Additionally, if successful with its proposal,
there is no reason to believe the trial lawyers will not propose
additional legislation in future sessions to further erode the
gains made in 1986.
Assume a plaintiff incurred $100,000 in damages as a result of an
intersectional vehicular collision. Assume further the plaintiff
was negligent because he was speeding, the defendant was negligent
because he was driving drunk, and the municipal defendant was
negligent because its stop sign at the intersection was obscured by
overgrown foliage.
Historically, the doctrine of joint and several liability had a
substantial impact on the liability of municipalities because
municipalities were typically viewed as "deep pockets.-" If, in the
above example, a jury found that 20% ($20,000) of the plaintiff's
damages were attributable to the plaintiff's own negligence, that
10% ($10,000) of the damages were attributable to the defendant
municipality's negligence, and the remaining 70% ($70,000) of the
damages were attributable to other defendant, the plaintiff, under
the doctrine of joint and several liability, could require that the
defendant municipality pay $80,000 (all of the defendants' damages)
regardless of the fact only $10,000 of the damages were
attributable to the defendant municipality's negligence.
As a result of the 1986 modification, the doctrine of joint and
several liability can no longer be applied to a defendant if the
total damages exceed $25,000, and the defendant's "percentage of
fault" is less than the plaintiff's "percentage of fault." Today,
under the above example, a defendant municipality is not liable for
more than $10,000 because the plaintiff's total damages ($100,000)
exceed $25,000 and the defendant municipality's "percentage of
fault" (10%) is less than the plaintiff's own "percentage of fault"
(20%) .
Basically, the trial attorneys' proposal would prohibit a jury from
assigning a "percentage of fault" to a negligent person unless the
person is actually named a defendant in the lawsuit.
Thus, assume in the above example, the other "defendant," for one
reason or another, was not named as a party to the lawsuit (e.g.,
"
,
.". . .
.
~
,
the plaintiff could not properly serve the lawsuit on "defendant") ,
then the jury would not be able to apportion a "percentage of
fault" to the unnamed "defendant." In this case, the jury would
have to apportion the fault only between the negligent plaintiff
and the negligent municipal defendant, and the municipal defendant
would not be protected by the legislature's 1986 modification to
the doctrine of joint and several liability. If, for example, the
jury apportioned the plaintiff's "percentage of fault" at 60% and
the municipal defendant's "percentage of fault" at 40%, then the
municipal defendant would owe the plaintiff $40,000 rather than
$10,000. (Morrison)
"
,
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
100 N.W.1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . 407/243-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Commission
.sIC F"'¡z. tJ :'í.I-\
FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager
SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS
DATE: February ll, 1994
Usually when a department head is hired a letter is issued
stating the terms and conditions of employment. Occasionally,
as was the case with Chief Overman when he was hired, such a
letter may contain special provisions which require approval by
the City Commission.
In addition to new hires, I have been approached by two of our
present department heads requesting something in writing
regarding their terms and conditions of employment. A generic
letter comprising such an agreement is attached, together with
comments from the City Attorney. The major item in this letter
which requires Commission approval is paragraph 12. Since
department heads are at-will employees, paragraph 12 would ease
the transition for a department head who might be dismissed
without notice. I think this is a reasonable provision.
I request that the Commission give conceptual approval to the
employment agreement with department heads. I agree with the
City Attorney that paragraph 14 needs some more work, I propose
to rework the language in paragraph 14 and bring a final form of
this letter agreement back to the Commission for approval at a
regular meeting.
DTH : s k
attachments
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
.
-DRAFT-
Dear
I am pleased to define various conditions associated with continued employment in
your position as (Title ) for the City of Delray Beach. As you know,
your position as a department head with the City of Del ray is an at-will position, reporting
directly to the City Manager. The salary and benefits for this position are as follows:
1. The annual salary for this position during FY 199 _ - 9 _ will be $-,_. Upon
the anniversary date of your employment with the City, you may be considered for a
merit increase or other form of salary adjustment in accordance with then-existing City
policies. The salary for this position will be reviewed annually and will be recorded as
an amendment to this agreement.
2. Like other department heads you will be eligible to participate in the ICMA deferred
compensation plan. If you elect to participate, the City will deposit in the plan 9 1/2%
of your base salary.
~7f apt' ,t,J., 3. The City will provide for you an unmarked automobile equipped with approPriaj /Mi<'c- <.d
--r, a.L , ~-t mobile communications. You will be allowed unlimited local personal use of this Ftte. 0.,)(7.
k.tÁ,s". automobile which shall be insured and maintained by the City.
-OR-
You will be provided an automobile allowance in the amount of $ monthly.
4. The City will provide life insurance, health insurance, Workman's Compensation
coverage and disability insurance under the same terms and conditions as provided for
other department heads.
5. The City will defend, save harmless and indemnifY you trom any claim or demand or
action arising out of the performance of your duties as (Title ) In
accordance with State Statutes and the City's ordinances. The City shall bear the cost
of any bonds required of your position under any law or ordinance.
6. You will be entitled to sick and vacation and F.S.L.A. leave benefits under the terms
and conditions provided to other department heads and general employees of the City
not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. You will also be allowed reasonable
unpaid management leave each year for teaching, personnel assessment or consulting
purposes.
7. It is recognized that you must devote a great deal of time outside normal office hours
to business of the City. You will, therefore, be allowed to take reasonable
compensatory time off as shall be deemed appropriate during normal office hours.
8. The City will pay for professional dues and subscriptions necessary for your continued
participation in national, regional, state and local associations necessary for your
1
.
,
.
continued professional growth and advancement and for the good of the City. You
are also authorized to hold elected or appointed offices in state or national professional
organizations, however all travel and per diem expenses related to elected offices shall
be the responsibility of the professional association. Time away from the City
pertaining to duties of elected positions shall be charged against personal leave time
unless the meeting is of general benefit to the City. Under these circumstances leave
will not be charged against personal leave. In addition, the City will pay your dues for
one civic club as well as reasonable business expenses for attendance at breakfast,
luncheon and dinner meetings.
9. The City will also pay travel and subsistence expenses in accordance with the standard
travel policies as required for your attendance at Conferences.
10. The City will provide you with an annual physical.
11. You will be entitled to participate in the City's Tuition Reimbursement Program.
12. In the event that you are dismissed for any reason other than official misconduct you
shall be given ninety (90) days written notice, or payment equal to ninety (90) days
pay at the then prevailing rate of pay, as well as payment for 100% of all sick leave
and vacation time accrued at the time of dismissal. Payment shall be based on the
prevailing rate of pay.
13. You may resign at any time your position with the City, thereby terminating this
agreement, provided you furnish the City sixty (60) days written notice prior to the
effective date of said resignation. Upon receipt of said notice the City Manager, may,
at his option, request that you terminate at an earlier date provided, however, that
should an earlier termination date be requested by the City Manager, you will be paid a
lump sum amount equal to a full sixty (60) days pay at the then prevailing rate of pay.
14. While employed by the City of Delray Beach you will receive salary and benefit
adjustments at least equal to those received by other department heads and employees
not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
I am looking forward to having you continue with our management team.
Sincerely,
David T. Harden
City Manager
2
'.
~ #
/ [ITY OF DELRAY BEA[H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2lJu NW Is! AVENUE' DELRAY I3E/,CH, FLORIDA 33~44
j-,\CSI1\IILE ,\()7/27'-;-~755 Writer's Direct Line
(407) 243-7091
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 29, 1993
TO: David Harden, City Manager
FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Employment Aqreements
As we discussed verbally, I am of the opinion that such
Agreement should be submitted to the City Commission for
approval.
I would also suggest that Paragraph 14 be modified. It appears
to at least guarantee a salary increase equal to that received
by the Department Head receiving the lowest adjustment. This,
in my opinion, does not comport with the spirit of merit
increases when there is such guarantee.
As we discussed, if approval by the City Commission is not
desired, perhaps a Management Policy could be formulated which
applies to all Department Heads. I believe Paragraphs 12 and
13 are almost the only paragraphs th~t purport to give
more than that required by City policies. The rest of
the paragraphs seem to comport with policies now in effect.
Please call if you have any questions.
q;}2
SAR:ci
..
,
~'~
~161~~ 'P.
TABLE I
CRA AREA AND CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
ASSESSED VALUE mSTORICAL TREND
Tax Value Tax Value
Year CRA Area % Change City of Delrav Dcb % Cbantle
1985 $245,631,0671 --- $1,460,222,405 ---
1986 257,332,681 4.60 1,660,886,068 12.08
1987 263,245,810 2.30 1,781,267,288 7,25
, 1988 261,310,202 (0.70) 1,847,231,360 3.70
1989 290,330,431 11.00 1,919,202,547 3.90
1990 296,731,668 2.20 2,201,749,552 14.70
1991 303,808,099 2.40 2,337,148,027 6,20
1992 312,009,293 2,70 2,518,897,622 7,80
1993 309,475,0262 (0.81) 2,435,480,625 (3.31)
Footnotes:
1. 1985 is the CRA's base year.
2, 1993 values are based upon a preliminary assessment, prior to adjustments.
2194
~/15/q'l
wls -iI:~
,
TABLE IT
CRA HISTORICAL TAX REVENUE
CRA Delray Dch Palm Dch Children's P.D. County
Year CITY TIF County TIF Svcs TIF Health Dist. TOTAL
1986 $ ---- $ ---- $ ---- $ ---- $ ----
19871 56,611 48,285 0 0 104,896
1988 88,675 74,366 1,545 0 164,586
1989 79,400 70,755 2,290 0 152,445
1990 238,900 197,544 8,191 53,081 497,716
1991 198,555 223,310 10,864 60,681 593,410
1992 342,663 239,355 12,965 0 594,983
1993 390,968 272,278 0 0 663,246
19942 416,071 262,489 0 0 678,560
Footnotes:
1. The CRA's first year of collections was 1987. The fiscal year commences on October 1st
of each year,
2, 1994 revenues are based upon a final valuation.
2/94
TABLE HI
HISTORICAL CITY TAX RECEIPTS ON CRA ASSESSED VALUE
VS. CRA TIF RECEIPTS FROM CITY
City City
Assessed City Receipts Receipts Total CRA
Value Millage 100% Bs 5% of Tax City Receipts
Year CRA Dist ~ x Millage Increment Receipts From City
1985 $245,631,067 0.4978 $1,222,776 $0 $1,222,776 $0
1986 257,332,681 0.5093 1,250,876 2,980 1,253,856 56,661
1987 263,245,810 0.5299 1,301,624 4,667 1,306,291 88,675
1988 261,310,202 0.5331 1,309,361 4,179 1,313,540 79,400
1989 290,330,431 0,5626 1,381,896 12,574 1,394,470 238,900
1990 296,731,668 0,6150 1,510,631 15,713 1,526,344 298,555
1992 312,009,293 0,6200 1,522,913 20,577 1,543,490 390,968
1993 316,936,901 0.6860 1,685,029 24,458 1,709,487 464,700
prelim
1993 309,475,026 0,6860 1,685,019 21,898 1,706,928 416,071
final
1993 Final - $48,629 to be refunded to City
2/94
,
Table IVa
Expenditure Summary
Expenditures
FY Prqled Expenses General and
Debt Servke % AdmiDlstntive % Total %
Residential % Non-Residential %
1986/1987 $0 0 $57,121 41 $25,766 19 $56,325 40 $139,212 100
1987/1988 $0 0 $204,431 66 $37,854 12 $67,873 22 $310,158 100
1988/1989 SO 0 $92'2,011 82 $95,380 8 $106,377 9 $1,123,768 100
1989/1990 SO 0 $106,931 21 $281,148 55 $120,864 24 $508,943 100
1990/1991 $4,485 1 $473,105 54 $180,560 21 $217,226 25 $875,376 100
1991/1992 $46,497 6 $288,406 39 $153,287 21 $251,048 34 $739,238 100
199']J1993 $77,778 3 $632,825 22 $1,829,588 6S $295,041 10 $2,835,232 100
1993/1994 $216,398 5 $3,181,035 79 $323,869 8 $307,169 8 $4,029,071 100
1994/1995 $144,500 5 $1,973,465 10 $370,249 13 $315,885 11 $2,804,099 100
1995/1996 $144,500 11 $530,023 39 $370,827 1:1 $31:1,150 24 $1,372,500 100
1996/1997 $144,500 13 $291,023 25 $370,835 32 $344,288 30 $1,150,646 100
1997/1998 $144,500 12 $291,023 25 $370,271 32 $361,834 31 $1,167,628 100
Table IVa Note: Residential Projects include Zero-Interest Loan Program (Residential Component), Affordable Housing Program and T.E.D. Center Assistance
.
-
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Y/E
9/30 Total Year G&A %G&A
1986 $ 125,223 $ 47,723 38.1
1987 139,212 56,325 40,5
1988 310,158 67,873 21.9
1989 1,123,768 106,377 9.4
1990 508,943 120,864 23,7
1991 875,376 217,226 24.8
1992 739,238 251,048 34,0
1993 2,835,232 295,041 10.4
1994 Budget 4,029,071 307,769 7.6
1995 Budget 2,804,099 315,885 11.3
1996 Budget 1,372,500 327,150 23,8
1997 Budget 1,150,646 344,288 29.9
1998 Budget 1,167,628 361,834 31.0
Total 13- Year Average % 23.4
2/94
,
-
TABLE VI
CRA PROPERTY INVENTORY
Date of Acquisition
Purchase Property Description Cost CRA Project
12/86 18 SW 1st Avenue $ 161,000 South County Courthouse
Pink Apartments
3/87 122 West Atlantic Avenue 205,000 South County Courthouse
Convenience Store/Laundry
7/90 Block 28, Lot 14 (West 112) 35,000 Peach Umbrella I
Georgia Town Tavern
9/90 Block 28, Lot 14 (East 112) 27,011 Peach Umbrella I
Taxi Stand
11190 100 West Atlantic Avenue 304,007 South County Courthouse
Discount Auto Store
5/92 Block 76, Lots 8 & 9 45,311 Block 76 Parking
6/92 Currie Subdivision: Struble Lot 34,552 Banker's Row
5/93 Conveyed to City of Delray
Beach for Banker's Row Parking Lot
7/92 Clinton & Morgan Subdivision 16,133 Affordable Housing
NW 5th Avenue, Block 26, Lots 1&2
10/93 Sold Lot 2 (7,844)
12/92 NW 5th Avenue, Block 26, Lot 18 7,000 Affordable Housing
12/93 Indpendent Life Building 278,850 Downtown Mixed Use
1194 Margaret Dill Property 90.529 Downtown Mixed Use
$1,196,548
2/94
,
-
TABLE vn
1993 TAXABLE ASSESSED (AFTER HOMESTEAD & TAX-EXEMPT)
Commercial $120,640,856 39%
Residential 170,652,658 55%
Other 18.181.512 6%
TOTAL $309,475,026 100%
2/94
,
82/08/94 l~,: 40 '5'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS ~OO2
\ " \".
".. ~
I f-{tß i~~ f
..,.,
~ 523-119-1-4
f;
~
A bill to be ent~d , : bee
t
2 An act relating to co~e velopmentl 1 .2
3 amending 51. 1~ ' 163.346,.
4 163'35~~ .357, 163.360, 163.362. , . 3
1 , 163.387, 163.400, 163.405,
S ~445' r.s./ including the development
-
6 ' , 5
7 and provision of affordable housing within
,
8 provisions for establishing and developing , . 7
9 community redevelopment areas, authorizing 1.8
1 0 community development agencies to adminis~er , .9
1 1 the disposition of certain real property under
12 certain circumstances, providing an effective , , , 0
13 date. '.
..
14
15 Be It Enacted by the Legislature ot the State of Florida: , : enc
, 6
17 Section 1. Subsections (8) and (12) of section 1 . , 2
18 163.340, Florida Statut.., are amended to read: , . 1 3
1 9 163.340 Definitions.--'rhe following terms, wherev!!!r 1 . , 4
20 used or referred to in this part, have the following meanings: 1 . , 5
21 (8 ) "Blighte4 area" means e~~he~: , . 1 6
22 <a> An area in which there are a substantial number of 1 . 1 8
23 slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structure. and· conditions
24 which endanger life or property by fire or other causes or one 1 . , 9
2S or more of the following factors which substantially impairs 1 .20
26 or arrests the sound growth of a county or municipality and is , . 2 ,
27 ' a .menace to the public health, ,safety, morals, or welfare in 1 ,22
28 its present condition and use:
29 1 , Predominance of defective or inadequate street 1 ,23
30 layout;
31
,
CODING: Words s~.~ekeft are delet:ions~ words underlined are additions.
i
",
~
, rI/s to
'-.'
.
02/08/94 15: 42 e904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS I4J UU3
,
. .
..
i
523-119-1-4
1 2. Faulty lot lay.out in relation to size, adequacy, , .25
: 2 accessibility, o~ us.eulne..; 1.26
~.
~, ..
~. 3 3. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; 1.27
~" . . 'i'1
z· .' " " '.
; 4 4. Oeterioration of site or· other tSl\pr9yementi, , .28
'," ,
,5 S. T~X or special aS8essmen~ delínquency exceedin9 the , ,30
" -
6 eair value of the land, and 1.31
7 6. Diversity of ownership or deeectlve or unusual 1.32
-
8 conditions of title which prevent the free alienability of 1,33,
9 land within the deteriorated or hazardous area; O~ 1.34
10 (b) An area in which there exists faulty or inadequate , .36
11 street layoutJ inadequate parking facilities; or roadways,
12 bridge., or public transportation eacilities incapable of 1.37
;:.'
;' 13 handlin9 the volume of traffic flow into or through the area, 1 .38
;
14 either at present or following proposed constructlonL-2!T 1.39
1S (c) An area in which inadequate residential housing 1.40
16 exists for the residents of the area.
17
18 However, for purposes of qualifying for the tax credits 1.42
19 authorized in chapter 220, "blighted area" means an area
20 described in paragraph (a). 1.43
21 (12) "Related activities" means: 1,44
22 (a) Planning work for the preparat~on of a general 1,45
23 neighborhood redevelopment plan or for the preparation or t ,46
24 completion of a communitywide plan or program pursuant to s. 1,47
25 163.365~T-aft.
26 (b) The functions related to the acquisition and 1,49
27 disposal of real property pursu.nt to s. 163.370(3).
28 (c) The develogment oe affordable housin; for 1 :lus
29 residents of the ar... t .52
30 Section 2. Section 163.345, Florida Statute., is 1,52
31 amended to read:
~ 2
CODING: Words at~~ekeft are deletionsJ words underlined are aaditions,
. ~.
,
,Q2I08/94 15:43 'ð'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GaS ~OO4
,
. .
.
523-119..1-4
'.
163.345 Encouragement of private enterprise.-- 1 .53
1
2 ( 1 ) Any county or municipality, to the greatest extent , .55
3 it determine. to 'be fe..ible in carryi~g out the provisions of , .56
4 this part, shall a~ford maximum opportunity, consistent with 1 ,57
5 the sound needs of the county or municipality al a whole, to , . sa
- the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the community
6
7 redevelopment are. by private enterprise. Any county or , .60
.
8 municipality shall give consideration to this objective in , . 61
9 exercising itl powers under this part, including the
10 formulation of a workable programJ the approval of community 1 .62
11 redevelopment plans, communitywiàe plans or programs for 1. 63
12 community redevelopment, and general neighborhood , .64
13 redevelopment plans (c~n8istent with the general plan of the
14 county or municipality), the exercise o~ its zonin9 powersJ 1 .65
15 the en~orcement of other laws, codes, and regulations relating 1 .67
16 to the use of land and the use and occupancy of buildin9s and 1 .6 a
17 improvements, the development of affordable housin;J the 1 .69
18 disposition of any property acquiredJ and the provision o~ 1 .70
19 necessary public improvements.
20 ( 2) In 9iving consideration to the objectives outlined , . 71
21 in subsection (1), the county or municipality shall consider 1 .72
22 making available the incentives provided under the Florida
23 Enterprise Zone Act of 1982 and chapter 420. 1. 73
24 Section 3. Section 163.346, Florida Statutes, ia , .74
25 amended to reada
26 ' 153.346 Notice to taxing authoriti.s.--Sefore the I .75
27 90verning body adopts any resolution or enactl any ordinance 1 .76
28 required under s. 163.355, .. 163.355, s. 163.357, or s. , ,77
29 163.387; creates a community redevelopment agencYJ approves,
f
30 adopts, or amend. a community redevelopment plan; ~r issues , . a 1
31 redevelopment revenue bonds under s. 163.385, the 90verni~g
3
CODING: Words .t~*e~eft are deletionsJ words underlined are additions.
'.
O~/08/94 15: 45 'ð'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS @005
I
. .
.
523-119-.1-4
1
1 body must provide public notice of such proposed action , ,82
2 pursuant to s. 125.&6(2) and (4) or s. 166.041(3) and, at , .83
3 least 15 days before such proposed action, mail by registered 1.84
, .
4 mail a notice to each taxing authority which levies ad valorem 2.2
5 taxes on taxable real property contained within the 'geographic ' 2.3
-
6 boundaries of the redevelopment area, and to each housing
7 authority functioninq within the qeoqraphic boundaries of the 2.4
..
8 redevelopment area.
9 Section 4. Section 163.350, Florida Statutes, is 2.5
10 .amended to read:
11 163.350 Workable program.--Any county or municipality 2,6
12 for the purposes of this part may formulate for the county or 2.9
13 municipality a workable program for utilizing appropriate
14 private and public resources to eliminate and prevent the 2,10
1S development or spread of slums and urban blight, to encourage 2.11
16 needed community rehabilitation, to provide for the 2.12
17 redevelopment of slum and blighted areas, to provide housing
18 affordable to re.idents of low or moderate income, including 2,13
19 the elderly, or to undertake such of the aforesaid activities 2.14
"
20 or other feasible county or municipal activities as may be 2.15
21 suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such workable
22 program. Such workable program may include provision for the 2,16
23 prevention of the spread of blight into areas of the county or 2,17
24 municipality which are free from blight through diligent 2,18
25 enforcement of housing, zoning, and occupancy controls and
26 standards; the rehabilitation Qr conservation of slum and 2,19
\', 27 blighted are.1 or portions thereot by replanning, removing 2,20
~
~ 28 conge.tion, providing p.rks~ playgrounds, and other public 2,21
fJ'
r 29 improvements, encouraging voluntary rehabilitation, and 2.22
30 compelling the repair and rehabilitation of deteriorated or
31 deteriorating 'structures; t:he development of affordable 2.23
t CODING. Words st.ieken are deleti:nsl words underlined are additions.
""':".,
;',
.
1'-
,
Q2I08/94 15:46 '5'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS ¡a¡ 006
.
,
523-'19-1-4
, housinq; and the clearance and redevelopment of slum and 2,24
2 blighted areas. or portions ehereof. 2.25
.
3 Section 5. Subsection (2) of section 163.155, Florida 2.26
4 StatuelS, is amended to read:
5 163.355 Finding of nec..aity by county or 2.21
..
6 municipality.--NO county or municipality shall exercise the 2.28
7 authority conterred by this part until after the governing 2,29
~
8 body has adopted a re.olution finding thae: 2.30
9 ( 2 ) The rehabilieation, conservation, or 2.31
10 redevelopment, or a combination thereof, of such area or 2.32
11 areas, incïudin;, if appropriate, the development of housing 2,33
1 2 which residents of low or moderate income( including the
13 elderly, can afford, is nece.aary in the interest of the 2.35
14 public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents of 2.36
1S such county or municipality.
16 Section 6. Subsection (2) of section 163.357, Florida 2.37
17 Statutes, 1s amended 'to read: 2..38
18 163.357 Governing body as the community redevelopment 2.40
19 agency.--
20 ( 2) Nothing in this part prevents the governing body 2 . 41
21 from conferring the rights, powers, privileges, duties, and 2.42
22 immunities of a community redevelopment agency upon any entity 2.43
23 . 1n existence on July 1, 1977, which haa been authorized by law 2.44
24 to function a. a downtown development board or authority or as 2,45
25 any other body the purpose of which is to prevent and 2.46
26 eliminate slums and blight throu9h community redevelopment 2.47
27 plans, or a houling authority created pursuant to chapter 421, 2.48
28 Any entity in existence on July 1, 1977, or a housing 2,50
29 authority created pursuant to chapter 421, which has been
30 vested with the rights, powers, privileges, duties, and 2,53
31 immunities of a community redevelopment agency is subject to 2.54
5
CODING: Words se~*ekeft are deletions; words underlined are additions.
~,...~
,"
,02/08/94 15:48 '5'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS [aJ 007
,
".
. .
,
,
523-119-1-4
1 all provisions and re.ponsibilities imposed by this part,
2 notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any law or 2.55
3 amendment thereto which established the entity. Nothing in 2,57
4 this act shall be construed to impair or diminish any powers 2,58
5 of any redevelopment agency or other entity as referred to
-
6 herein in existence on the effective date of this act or to 2.59
1 repeal, modiey, or amend any law establishing such entity, 2.60
..
8 except as specifically set forth herein.
9 Section 7. parairaph (c) is added to subsection (2) of 2.61
10 section 163.360, Florida Statutes, and subsection (7) of said 2.62
, 1 section is "amended, to read:
12 163.360 Community redevelopment plans.-- 2.63
13 ( 2) The community redevelopment plan shall: 2.65
14 . (c) Provide for the development of affordable housing 1 :lus
15 in the area, or state the reasons for not addressing in the 2.67
16 plan the development of affordable housing in the area. 2.69
17 (7) If the community redevelopment area consists of an 2.71
18 area of open land to be acquired by the county or the 2.72
"
19 municipality, such area may not be so acquired unless:
20 (a) In the event the area is to be developed in whole 2.74
21 or in part for relidential uses, the governing body 2.75
22 determine.:
23 1 . That a shortage ot housing of sound standards and 2.76
24 design which is decent, safe, affordable to resldents of low 2.77
2S or moderate income, including the elderly, and sanitary exists 2.78
26 1n the county or municipality;
27 2. ~hat the need for housing accommodations has 2.80
28 increased in the area, 2.81
29 3. That the conditions ot bli9ht in the area or the 2.83
30 shortage of decent, ..fe, affordable, and sanitary housing
"
31 cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease 2.84
t
t' 6
{,
r·
CODING: Words .e~*e~eft are deletions; words underlined are additions,
\'
"
f
i.
,
,
Q2/08/94 15:50 '5'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS ~ 008
. .
523-119-1-4
1 and crime or constitute a menace to the public health, safeey, 3 . 1
2 morals, or welfare, and
3 4. That the acquisition o~ the area for re,ideneial 3,3
, . .
4 uses is an integral part of and is essential to the program of 3,4
5 the county or municipality.
-
6 (b) In the event the area is to be developed in whole 3.6
7 or 1n part for nonresidential uses, the governing body 3.7
.
8 determines that:
\
9 1 . Such nonresidential uses are necessary and 3,9
10 appropriate to facilit~te the proper growth and development of 3. , 0
11 the community in accordance with sound planning standards and 3 , , 1
12 local community objective., and
.
13 2. Acquisition may require the exercise of 3. 1 3
14 governmental action, as provided in this part, because of: 3. 1 4
15 a. Defective, or unusual conditions of, title or 3. 1 5
16 diversity of ownership which prevents the free alienability of 3. 1 7
17 such land,
18 b. Tax delinquency, 3. , 8
19 c. Improper subdivisions: 3.20
20 d. Outmoded str.et patterns, 3.21
21 e. Deterioration o~ site, 3,22
22 f. Economic disuse, 3.24
23 g. Unsuitable topography or faulty lot layouts, 3,26
24 h. Lack o~ correlation o~ the area with other areas of 3,29
25 a county or municipality by streets anð modern tra~~ic
26 requirement., or 3,30
27 1. Any combination o~ such factors or other conditions 3. 31
28 which retard development o~ the area. 13. 33
29 Section 8. Sub.ection (8) of section 163.362, Florida 13.34
I
,
30 Statutes, is amended to read: I
31 I
I
i 7
,
h
} CbDING: Words at~*ekeft are deletions; words underlined are additi~n5.
~
"
:i
i
,
·
.02108/94 15:51 '5'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS ~OO9
523-1'9-1-4
, 163.362 Contents of community redevelopment plan.-- 3.35
2 Every community redevelopment plan shall: 3.36
3 (8) Provide an element of residential use,~n the 3.38
4 redevelopment area if such use exists in the area prior to the
5 adoption of the plan or if the plan is intended to remedy a 3.39
-
6 shortage of housing affordable to residents of low or moderate 3.40
7 income, including the elderly~ or if the plan is not intended
..
8 to remedy such shortage, the reasons therefor. 3.4'
9 Section 9. Subsection (2) of section 163.365, Florida 3.42
10 Statute., is amended to read:
11 163 ~'365 Neighborhooå and communitywi~e plans.-- 3,43
12 ( 2) Any county or municipality, any housinq authority, 3.44
13 or any public body authorized to perform planning work may 3.45
14 prepare or complete a communitywide plan or program for 3.46
15 community redevelopment which shall conform to the general 3.47
16 plan for the development of the county or municipality as a
1 7 whole and may include, but not be limited to, identification 3,48
18 of slum or blighted areas, measurement of blight, 3.49
19 determination of resourcel needed and available to renew such 3.50
20 areas, identification of potential project areas and types of 3,51
21 action contemplated, includinq the develo~ment of affordable
22 housing if needed and appropriate for the area, and scheduling 3.52
23 of community redevelopment activitie.. 3.53
24 Section 10. Paragraphs (c), (e) , (h), and (i) of 3.54
2S subsection (1) and paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 3,55
26 163.370, 'Florida Statute.., are amended to read:
,27 163.370 Powers; counties and municipalities; communicy 3,56
28 redevelopment agencies.-- 3.57
29 ( 1 ) Every county and municipality shall have all the 3.58
3'0 powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the 3.59
31
8
CODIHGz Words ser~e~eft are deletions; words underlined are additions.
, -
UU08/94 15:53 'Ö'904 222 0095 WATSUN .l)ALLY GUS 4I:J Ul.U
523-119-'-4-
1 purposes and provisions of this part, including the following 3.60
2 powers in addition to others herein granted: 3,61
3 (c) To undertake and carry out community redevelopment 3.63
4 and related activities within the community redevelopment 3.64
5 area, which. redevelopment may include:
-
6 1 . Acquisition of a slum area or a blighted area or 3.66
7 portiòn thereof.
IO
8 2. Demolition and removal of buildings and 3.69
9 improvements.
10 3. . Installation, construction, or reconstruction of 3.72
11 streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds, public areas of major 3.73
1 2 hotels that are constructed in support of convention centers, 3.74
13 including meeting rooms, banquet facilities, parking garages,
14 lobbies, and passageways, and other improvements necessary for 3,76
15 carrying out in the community redevelopment area the community 3.77
16 redevelopment objectives of this part in accordance with the 3.78
17 community redevelopment plan.
18 4. Disposition of any property acquired in the 3.80
19 community redevelopment area at its fair value for uses in 3.81
20 accordance with the community redevelopment plan. 3.82
21 5. Carrying out plans for a program of voluntary or 3,83
22 compulsory repair anå rehabilitation of building, or other 4 . 1
23 improvements in accordance with the community redevelopment 4.2
24 plan.
25 6. Acquisition of real property in the community 4.5
26 redevelopment area which, under the community r.edevelopment 4.6
27 plan, i, to be repaired or rehabilitated for dwelling use or 4,7
f 28 related facilitiel, repair or rehabilitation of the structures
~ 29 for guidance purposes, and resale of the property. 4.8
~
-i'
h 30 7. Acquisition of any other real property in the 4. 1 1
¡.
~ 31
, community redevelopment area when necessary to eliminate 4, , 2
í;
\ 9
~:\.
'j.
CODING: Words It~~ekeft are deletions; words underlined are additions,
.f.
"
It
t
,
02/08/94 15:54 e904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS ~Oll
. .
523-119-1-4
1 unhealthful, unsanita~y, or unsafe conditions, lessen density:
2 eliminate obsolete or other uses àetrimental to the public 4. , 3
3 welfare, or otherwise to remove or prevent the spread of 4. , 4
'I¡~~, .
4 blight or deterioration or to provide lanà for needed public 4. , 5
5 facilities.
-
6 8. Acquisition, without regard to any requirement that 4. 1 6
7 the area be a slum or blighteà area, of air rights in an area 4. , 9
. "
8 consisting principally of land in highways, railway or subway 4,20
9 tracks, bridge or tunnel entrances, or other similar 4. 21
10 facilities which have a blighting influence on the surrounding
11 area and over which air rights sites are to be developed for 4,23
12 the elimination of such blighting influences and fOl the 4.24
13 provision of housing (and related facilities and use.) 4.25
14 designeà specif~cally for, and limited to, families and
15 individuals of low or moderate income. 4.26
16 9. Construction of foundations and platforms necessary 4.29
17 for the provision of' air rights sites of housing (and related 4.30
18 facilities and use.) dellgned specifically for, and limited
19 to, families and individuals of low or moderate income. 4.31
20 , O. Development of affordable housin; within the area. , : 1 us
21 (e) Within the community redevelopment area: 4.33
22 1 . ~o enter into any building or property in any 4,35
·23 community redevelopment area in order to make inspections, 4,36
24 surveys, appraisals, soundings, or test borings and to obtain 4.37
25 'an order for this purpose from a court of competent
26 jurisdiction in the event entry is denied or resisted. 4.38
27 2. To acquire by purchase, lease, option, gift, grant, 4.39
28 bequest, devise, eminent àomain, or otherwise any real 4.40
29 property (~r personal property for its administrative 4.41
30 purposes), c0gether with any improvemencs thereon; except that
31 a community redevelopment agency may not exercise any power of 4.42
1 0
CODING: Words .e~*e~eft are deletions; words 'underlined are aåditions.
;;.
) ,
r
t"
,-
,
02/08/94 15:56 '5'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS ~O12
.
523-119-1-4
1 eminent domain unless the exercise has been specif~cally 4.43
2 approved by the governing body ot the county or municipality 4.44
3 which established the agency.
4 3. To hold, improve, clear, or prepare tor 4.46
5 redevelopme~t any such property. 4.47
-
6 4. To mortgage, pledge, hypothecate, or otherwise 4.48
7 encumber or dispose of any real property. 4.49
..
8 S. To insure or provide for the insurance oe any real 4.5'
9 or personal property or operations of the county or 4.52
10 municipality against any risks or hazards, including the power 4.53
11 to pay premiums on any such insurance.
12 6. To enter into any contracts nec...ary to effectuate 4.54
13 the purposes of this part. 4.55
14 7. To solicit reQuests eor proposals for redevelopment 1:1us
15 at parcels of real property contemplated by a community 4.57
16 redevelopment plan to be aCQuired for redevelopment purposes
17 by a community redevelopment agency and, as a result of such 4,58
18 reQuests for orooosals, to advertise for the disposition of 4.59
19 such real property to private persons pursuant to 8. 163.380 4.61
20 orior to acquisition of such real property by the community 4.62
21 redevelopment aGency.
22 (h) Within its are. of operation, to make or have made 4.64
23 III surveys and plans necessary to the carrying out of the 4.65
24 purposes of this part, to contract with any perlon, public or 4,66
25 private, in making and carrying out such plans, Ind to adopt 4.67
26 or approve, modify, and amend such plans, which plans may 4.68 \
27 include, but are not limited t~:
28 1 . Plan. for carrying out a program of voluntary or 4.70
29 compulsory repair and rehabilitation of buildings and 4,71
30. improvements.
31
1 1
CODING I Words I~~ie~.ft are deletions; words underlined are additions.
i_ar;
i?,
,.
,
.
02/08/94 15:57 '5'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS ~O13
, .
523-119-1-4
2. Plans for the enforcement or state and local laws, 4.73
1
2 coðes, and regulations relating to the us. of land and the use 4,74
"
~
'1:'.'
, and occupancy of buildings and improvements and to the 4.75
,,' 3
~
, 'r ;~,
~ compulsory repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal of 4.76
, 4
f
c,
5 buildings an~ improvements.
- Appr.lsall, title searches, surveys, studies, and 4.78
6 3.
7 other· plans and work necessary to prepare for the undertaking 4.79
..
8 of community redevelopment and related activities.
9 4. Development of affordable housing within the area. 1 : lus
10 ( i ) To develop, test, and report methods and 4,82
11 techniques, and carry out demonstrations and other activities, 4,83
12 for the prevention and the elimination of slums and \urban 4.84
13 blight and developing and d~monstratin9 new or improved means 5. ,
14 of providing affordable housing for families and persons of 5.2
15 low income.
16 ( 2) The following projects may not be paid for or 5.4
l' financed by increment revenues I
18 (b) Installation, construction, reconstruction, 5.6
19 repair, or alterationo! any publicly owned capital
20 improvements or projects which are not an integral part of or 5,7
21 necessary for carrying out the community redevelopment plan if 5.8
22 such projects or improvements are normally financed by the
23 governing body with user fee. or if such projects or ' 5, , 0
24 improvements would be installed, constructed, reconstructed,
25 repaired, or altered within 3 year~ ot the approval of the S, , 2
26 community redevelopment plan by the governing body pursuant to 5, , 3
27 a previously approved public capital improvement or project
28 schedule or plan of the governing body which approved the 5, , 4
29 community redevelopment plan. This paraqraph shall not apply 1 : lus
30 to any capital improvement or project providinQ affordable 5, , 7
31 housinq with the area.
,
, 2
~.
, CODING: Words s~~~e~eft are deletions; words underlined are additions,
t
.
.
~
-,
t·
.'
,
;<
.
02/08/94 15:59 'ð'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS ~U14
, .
523-119-1-4
1 Section 11. paragraph (9) is added to subsection (6) S. 1 8
2 of section 163.387, Florida Statutes, and'sub.ection (7) ot 5. 1 9
3 said section is amended, to read:
4 163.387 Redevelopment trust ~und.-- 5.20
5 ( 6 ) Moneys in the redevelopment trust tund may be 5.22
-
6 expended from time to time for the following purposes, when ,
7 directly related to ~inanci~g or refinancing of redevelopment. 5,23
.
8 in a community redevelopment area pursuant to an approved 5.24
9 community redevelopment plan:
10 (9) The development of aftordable housinq within the , : lui
, 1 area.
" 12 (7) On the last day of the fiscal year of the 5.26
13 community redevelopment agency, any money which remains in the 5.28
14 trust fund aftet the payment of expenses pursuant to
15 subsection (6) for .uch year shall be:
16 (a) Returned to each taxing authority which paid the 5.31
17 increment in the proportion that the amount of the payment ot
18 such taxing authority bears to the total amount paid into the 5.33
19 trust fund by all taxing authorities within the redevelopment
20 area for that year, 5.34
21 (b) Used to reduce the amount' of any indebtedness to 5.35
22 which increment revenues are pledgedJ 5.37
23 (c) Deposited into an escrow account for the purpose 5,38
24 of later reducing any indebtedn... to which increment revenues 5.39
25 are pledged, ell
26 ( d) Ceposited into a fund or account to· be u.ed to pay , : Ius
27 costs of develooinq affordable hou.inq within the area, or 5.41
28 1!.1.t«!t Appropriated to a specitic redevelopment , : lus
29 project pursuant to an approved community redevelopment plan 5,44
30 which project will be completed within 3 years trom the date
31 of such appropriation. 5,45
>- 13
~.
~... ' CODING: Words ser~e~eft are deletions; words ~nderlined are additions.
,
'02/08/94 16: 00 0904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS 141 015
.
523-"9-'-4
1 Section 12. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 5.46
2 163.400, Florida Statutes, are amended to read: 5.48
3 163.400 èooperation by public bodies.-- 5.49
4 (1) For the purpose of aidinc¡¡ in the planning, 5.51
5 undertaking, or carrying out of community redevelopment and 5.52
-
6 related activities authorized by this part, any public bodYL 5,54
7 including a housing authority, may, upon such terms, with or 5.55
.
,
8 without consideration, as it may determine: 5.56
9 (a) Dedicate, sell, convey, or leas. any of its 5.51
10 interest in any property or grant easements, llcenses, or 5.58
l' other rights or privil,ge. therein to a county or
, 2 municipality. 5.59
13 (b) Incur the entire expense of any public 5.60
14 improvements made by such public body in exercising the powers 5,61
15 9rant~d in this section. 5,62
16 (c) 00 any and all things nece.sary to aid or 5,63
17 cooperate in the planning or carrying out of a community 5.64
18 redevelopment plan and relatea activiti... 5,65
19 (d) Lend, grant, or contribute funds to a countYL e~ 5,66
20 municipalitYr or housing authoritYJ borrow money, and apply 5.67
21 for and accept advance., loans, grants, contributions, or any 5,69
22 other form of financial assistance from the Federal 5.70
23 Government, the state, the county, another public body, or any
24 other source. 5,71
25 (e) Enter into agreements, which may extend over any 5,72
~ 26 period, notwithstanding any provision or rule of law to the 5,73
l
t 27 contrary, with the Federal Government, a county, a 5.74
t; 28 municipality, a housing authority, or another public body
: 29 respecting action to be taken pursuant to any of the powers 5,76
30 granted by this part, incluðin9 the turnishing of tund. or 5,77
31
I~' 14
I;:!~.~ CODING: Words .t~*e"eft are deletion., words underlined ,are additions.
":"
."
.
.
02108/94 16:02 '5'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS lØ Ulô
. .
.~
..
523-119-1-4
1 other assistance in connection with ,community redevelopment 5.78
2 and related activiti...
3 ( f ) Caul~ public buildings and public facilities, 5.80
~¡
4 including park~, playgrounds, recreational, community, 5.81
5 educational, water, sewer, or drainage facilities, or any 5.82
...
6 other works which it is otherwise empowered to undertake to be 5.84
7 furnished, furnish, dedicate, close, vacate, pave, install,
.
8 grade, regrade, plan, or replan streets, roads, sidewalks, 6. 1
9 ways, or other places, plan or replan or zone or rezone any 6.2
10 part of the public body or make exceptions from building
11 regulations, and cause administrative and other services to be 6,3
'2 furnished to the county or municipality. 6.S
~ 13
14 If at any time title to or possession of any property in a 6.6
15 community redevelopment area is held by any public body or 6.7
16 governmental agency, including a houling authority, other than 6.8
.
17 the county or municipality, but including any agency or 6.9
18 instrumentality of the United State., which 1s authorized by 6.10
19 law to engage in the undertaking, carrying out, or 6 . 1 1
20 administration of community redevelopment and related 6. 1 2
21 activities, the provisions of the agreements referred to in 6. 1 3
22 . this section. shall inure to the benefit of and may be enforced
23 ' by such public bodYL e. governmen~al agency, or housing 6.14
24 authority. As used in this subsection, the term ~county or 6.17
25 . municipali ty" also includes a communi ty redevelopment.. agency. 6.18
26 ( 2 ) Any sale, conveyance, lèase, or agreemen~ provided 6,19
27 for in this section may be made by a public body or housing 6.20
"
{1. 28 authority without appraisal, pub~ic notice, advertisement, or
¡;. 6,22
,
~'
~. 29 public bidding_
:'
r
30 Section 13. Section 163.405, Florida Statutes, is 6,23
t
i 31 amended to read:
-, 1 5
~
.
CODING: Words s~~~e~eft are delet1ons: words underlined are additions.
,
.
ð2/08/94 16:04 'ð'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GOS IaJ 001
-
. .
. .
523-"9-'-4
, 163.405 Title of purchaser.--Any instrument execut_d 6.24
2 by any county, municipality, housinq authority, or community 6.25
3 redevelopment agency and purporting to convey any right, 6,27
4 title, or interest in any property under this part shall be
5 conclusively presumed to have been executed in compliance with' 6.28
-
6 the provisions of this part insofar as title or other interest 6.29
'7 of any bona fide purchasers, lessees, or transferees of such 6.30
..
8 property i. concerned.
9 Section 14. Section 163.445, Florida Statutes, is 6.31
10 amended to read: ,
11 163~44!5 Assistance to community redevelopment by state 6.32
12 agencies.--State agencies may provide technical and advisory 6.33
'3 assistance, upon request, to municipalities, counties, housing 6.34 ~
14 authorities, and community redevelopment agencies for 6.35
1 5 community redevelopment as defined in this part. Such 6.37
16 assistance may include, but need not be limited to, 6.38
17 preparation of workable programs, relocation planning, special
,18 statistical and other studies and compilations, technical 6.39
19 evaluations and information, training activities, professional 6.40
20 service., surveys, reports, documents, and any other slmilar 6.41
2' service functions. If sufficient fundi and personnel are 6.42
22 available, the.e .ervices shall be provided without charge. 6.43
23 , Section 15. This act shall take effect July 1, '994. 6.44
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
16
¡ "
CODING: Words I~~ie~en are deletionsJ words underlined are additions,
,
'02108/94 16:05 'ð'904 222 0095 WATSON DALEY GaS [4J 002
. , .
. .
,
, 523-'19-1-4
1 **************************.*.***.******** , :hbs
2 HOUSE SUMMARY , : hbs
3 Includes the deŸelopment of affordable housing, within 6.47
provisions providing for community r.development~' See 6.48
4 bill for details.
5
-
6
7
..
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
"
18
19 .
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
~: 17
'r;-
t CODING: Words .~~*e~.ft are deletions; words underlined are addit~ons,
I>,
,