The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Reg 09-04-01City of Delray Beach Regular Commission Meeting Tuesday. September 4. 2001 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. Commission Chambers Delray Beach City Hall 100 N~ 1st Avenue Deltay Beach, Florida 33444 Phone: (561) 243-7000 Fax: (561) 243-3774 RULe8 FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: The public is encouraged to offer comments with the order of presentation being as follows: City Staff, public comments, Commission discussion and official action. City Commission meetings are business meetings and the right to limit discussion rests with the Commission. Generally, remarks by an individual will be limited to three minutes or less. The Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to adjust the amount of time allocated. A. Public Hearings: Any citizen is entitled to speak on items under this section. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public: Any citizen is entitled to be heard concerning any matter within the scope of jurisdiction of the Commission under this section. The Commission may withhold comment or direct the City Manager to take action on requests or comments. Regular Agenda and First Reading Items: When extraordinary circumstances or reasons exist and at the discretion of the Commission, citizens may speak on any official agenda item under these sections. 2. SIGN IN SHEET: Prior to the start of the Commission Meeting, individuals wishing to address public hearing or non-agendaed items should sign in on the sheet located on the right side of the dais. If you are not able to do so prior to the start of the meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The primary purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Therefore, when you come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet if you have not already done so. 3. ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: At the appropriate time, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. All comments must be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to individuals. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speaking further, unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a majority vote of the Commission members present. APPELLATE PROCEDURF.~ Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services to afford an individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243- 7127 (voice) or 243-7199 (II)D), 24 hours prior to the event m order for the City to accommodate your request. Adaptive listening demces are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. 2. 3. 4. 5. o o ROLL CAI.L. INVOCATION. PLEDGE OF ALI.EGIANCE TO THE FLAG, AGENDA APPROVAL. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: · August 21, 2001 - Regular Meeting PROCLAMATIONS: A. Kids Day Amezaca - September 22, 2001 B. Sickle Cell Awareness Month - September 2001 PRESENTATIONS: A. Delray Beach Residents Academy CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. A. MODIFICATION OF PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT (KYOTO SUSHI & SAKE LOUNGE): Approve a request from Kyoto Sushi & Sake Lounge to modify the Parking License Agreement by reducing their valet parking queue by two (2) parking spaces (from five to three) by eliminating the two (2) recently created customer pick-up spaces on the west side of NE 2nd Avenue (Pineapple Grove Way). B. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND Co D° COUNTY/JP MORGAN CHASE TENNIS CHALI.ENGE BENEFIT (VENUS & SERENA WILLIAMS EVENT): Approve the agreement providing for reLrnbursement to the City in the amount of $25,000.00 for the JP Morgan Chase Tennis Challenge Benefit (Venus & Serena Williams Event) extending the date for the City to provide information to the County until December 31, 2001. 2001 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (LLEBG): Approve acceptance of the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant m the amount of $210,539 with a City match of funds in the amount of $23,393 for a total amount of $233,932. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/SUNSHINE STATE GAMES: Consider a request by the Palm Beach County Sports Commasszon to use our beach (between Sandoway and Anchor Park) for a beach volleyball tournament June 14 through June 17, 2001 as part of the Sunshine State Games. The Florida Sports Commission ~s to provide sports eqmpment, manpower and event insurance. -2- 09-04-01 Ho Jo CHANGE ORDER #1/WEEKLY ASPHALT PAVING, INC. (2000 ROAD BOND RESURFACING): Approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $2,000.00 to Weekly Asphalt Paving, Inc. for additional remobilizafion costs, and a 12% increase for all other unit prices, however with quanfittes being less then originally estimated, the contract amount remains the same. Funding is from 370-3162-541-65.40 (2000 Roadway Bond Resurfacing). SERVICE AUTHORIZATION #9/MATHEWS CONSULTING, INC. (WATERTREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY UPGRADE PERMITTING): Approve Service Authorization #9 with Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $17,300.00 for the Water Treatment Plant Capacxty Upgrade Permitting. Funding is available from 441-5181-536-31.90 (Other Professional Sermces). RESOLUTION NO. 53-01: Approve Resolution No. 53-01 assessing costs for action necessary to abate nuisances on thirteen (13) properties throughout the City. RESOLUTION NO. 54-01: Approve Resolution No. 54-01 assessing costs for action necessary to remove junked and/or abandoned vehicles from three (3) properties throughout the City. AMENDMENT #1/JANUS RESEARCH, INC. (DELRAY BEACH COMPREHENSIVE HISTORIC STRUCTURES SURVEY, PHASE II): Approve Amendment #1 to the agreement with Janus Research Inc. which contains provisions that the State of Florida requires ~t grantees to include in any agreement where the State is contributing grant money. FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Ko (FRDAP) GRANTS/CATHERINE STRONG CENTER & BARWICK PARK: Authonzauon to apply for two (2) grants from Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP); Catherine Strong Center grant for a total of $143,000 for tennis courts (includes a City match of $35,750); and $50,000 grant for playground equipment at Barwick Park. ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT DEED: Approve and accept an easement deed which allows the City the means to install and maintain a water mare along the west sxde of Lot 14, South Ridge Subdimsion. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period August 20, 2001 through August 31, 2001. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: Purchase of a trailer mounted Vac-Con umt from Southern Sewer Equipment Sales m the amount of $25,950.00 via the City of Gainesville contract. Funding is available from 441-5123-536-64.90 (Other Machinery & Equipment). 09-04-01 9. REGULARAGEND~ Ao APPEAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD ACTION: Consider an appeal of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board decision regarding approval of a Class V Site Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Elevations associated with the Hotel Vista Del Mar, located approximately 300 feet south of Aflanuc Avenue on the west side of Ocean Boulevard, (State Road A-l-A). Quasi- Judicial Heating_ MODIFICATION TO LIEN REPAYMENT PERIOD/DAVID HARGROVE: Consider a request that the repayment period be extended from 12 months to 24 months for the David Hargrove lien in the amount of $3,301.02. REQUEST TO WAIVE LIENS/CLIFFORD BELL: Consider a request to waive liens on a vacant lot located at NW 6th Avenue whach was purchased by Clifford Bell through a tax sale. The liens currently total $4,167.31; the C~ty's actual out-of-pocket costs are $1,322.36, which Mr. Bell is prepared to pay. D. REOUEST FOR IN-LIEU PARKING FEE/RENAISSANCE VILLAGE: H° Consider a request by Renaissance Village for the purchase of one (1) in-lieu parking space and the construction of three (3) on-street parking spaces. Renaissance Village is a twenty (20) unit townhouse development located m the Central Business Dismct (CBD) at the southeast comer of NE 6th Avenue and NE 2"d Street (Martin Luther Krug Boulevard). REQUEST FOR IN-LIEU PARKING FEE/BOB'S FAMOUS BAR (fka POWERS LOUNGE): Consider a request by Bob's Famous Bar (fka Powers Lounge/Pdchwagon Cycle) for the purchase of two (2) m-lieu parking spaces. Bob's Famous Bar site is on the north side of Atlantic Avenue just west of the FEC Railroad. ITEM REMOVED CANCEIJATION OF CONTRACT (DRAVO LIME INC.) /AWARD OF CONTRACT (CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY): Consider cancellation of the contract with Dravo for pallettzed lime due to inferior quality of product and failure to meet minimum specifications; and award of contract to Chemical Lime Company, second /oJvest bidder, for the purchase of bulk lime at $107.$6/ton. Funding is available from 441-5122-536-S2.21 (Chemicals FY2001-2002) REVISION TO CITY POLICY AND PROCEDURE/CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY: Consider a revision to the City's policy and procedure with respect to the City's Investment Policy reflecting Florida State Law and updated recommendations made by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). FY 2002 GOLF RATES/MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE: Consider approval of the proposed FY 2002 golf rates for the Mumcipal Golf Course. -4- 09-04-01 FY 2002 GOLF RATES/LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE: Consider approval of the proposed FY 2002 golf rates for the Lakeview Golf Course. FY 2002 TENNIS RATES/TENNIS CENTER: Consider approval of the proposed FY 2002 tennis rates for the Tennis Center. PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT IN RAIL v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, et al.- Consider a proposal for settlement in the case of James and Dawn Rail versus the City of De[ray Beach for $85,000.00. Staff recommends deniM. APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION APPEALS: 10. 11. Appoint four (4) regular members to the Board of Construction Appeals for two-year terms ending August 31, 2003. The appointments will be made by Commissioner McCarthy (Seat #4) Architect; Mayor Schrmdt (Seat #5) General Contractor; Commissioner Perlman (Seat #1) Master Plumber; and Comrmssioner Archer (Seat #2) S~gn Contractor. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A0 RESOLUTION NO. 49-01 {TENTATIVE MILLAGE LEVY): A resolution tentatively levying a tax on all properties within the City of De[ray Beach for operation and maintenance and for payment of principal and interest on bonded indebtedness for FY 2002. RESOLUTION NO. 50-01 {TENTATIVE MILLAGE LEVY/DDA): A resolutton tentauvely levying a tax on all properues within the Downtown Development Authority Taxing District of the City of Dekay Beach for FY 2002. RESOLUTION NO. 51-01 {TENTATIVE BUDGET ADOPTION FOR FY 2002): A resolution tentatively making appropriattons of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the City of Delray Beach for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002. Do RESOLUTION NO. 52-01: A resolution authorizing the sale of City-owned property, a portion of Tract "A", Lakemew, abutting Lot 21, Block 4, Lakeview (Walkers property). The property is a vacant strip of land approximately 10 feet by 90 feet abutting Lakeview Golf Course. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC- IMMEDIATELY FOIJJOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. B. From the Public. 09-04-01 12. 13. FIRST READINGS: ORDINANCE NO. 45-01: An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1-98, which comprises Waterford Place SAD (Special Activities District), to eliminate the condition of approval requiring a certificate of occupancy for the hotel to be issued prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final multi-family building, located on the south side of Linton Boulevard between Interstate-95 and Lmdell Boulevard. If passed, a pubhc hearing will be scheduled for September 19, 2001. ORDINANCE NO. 46-01: An ordinance amending Chapter 52, "Water" of the Code of Ordinances by amending Section 52.34, ''Water Rates", to provide for increased residential, nonresidential and irrigation rates for FY 2002. If passed, a pubhc hearing will be scheduled for September 19, 2001. ORDINANCE NO. 47-01: An ordinance amending Chapter 53, "Sanitary Sewers", of the Code of Ordinances by amending Section 53.130, "User Charges; Wholesale Sewer Rates; Calculation of Sewer Surcharge", to provide for increased residential and nonresxdential/commercial rates for FY 2002. If passed a public hearing will be scheduled for September 19, 2001. ORDINANCE NO. 48-01: An ordinance amending Chapter 51, "Garbage and Trash", of the Code of Ordinances by amending Section 51.70, "Regular Charges Levied", to provide for contracted garbage, trash, recycling, vegetation and bulk waste collection service rates for FY 2002. If passed a public hearing will be scheduled for September 19, 2001. ORDINANCE NO. 49-01: An ordinance amending Chapter 96, "Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Section 96.66, "Emergency Medical Transportation Fees", of the Code of Ordinances to adjust the fee schedule for emergency medical transportation m accordance with the National American Fee Schedule. If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled for September 19, 2001. F0 ORDINANCE 50-01: An ordinance repealing Chapters 57 and 58 of the Code of Ordinances, and creating a new Chapter 57 entitled "Pdght-of-Way Application Process for Commumcattons Facilities"; amending Chapter 50, "Utihues Generally; Pubhc Service Tax", by deleting all references to Telecommunications Facilities; amending Chapter 93, "Cable Television" by removing the reqmrement to pay Franchise Fees to the City; providing for reservation of rights and remedies. If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled for September 19, 2001. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. A. City Manager B. City Attorney C. City Commission -6- 09-04-01 AUGUST 21~ 2001 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor David Schmidt in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 21, 2001. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Patricia Archer Commissioner Jon Levinson Commissioner Alberta McCarthy Commissioner Jeff Perlman Mayor David Schmidt Absent - None Also present were - Assistant City Manager Robert A. Barcinski City Manager David T. Harden City Attorney Susan A. Ruby City Clerk Barbara Garito Deputy City Clerk Angela Wong e Reverend Neil Hickem with First Baptist Church delivered the opening prayer. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. e AGENDA APPROVAL. Mr. Levinson inquired about the Special Event Request for Skate the Sunshine State and noted that the charity is Vanderbilt University. Mr. Levinson inquired about when the City is asked to support a charity event and the funds are going out of state does the City have a policy regarding this? In response, the City Manager stated the City does not have a policy regarding this issue. With regard to the bids and contracts, Mr. Levinson stated there were two in- house projections on those bids that were very low. Mr. Levinson asked whether or not the City is current with regards to our internal staff being able to estimate these because all three bids were low; two of those bids being extremely low. The City Manager stated he would be glad to look further into this matter and bring back to the Commission. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. -1- 08/21/01 $. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mayor Schmidt noted a typographical error to page 18 of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of August 7, 2001. In the last paragraph from the bottom the word "Manger" should read "Manager". Mrs. Archer moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 7, 2001 as amended, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting of August 14, 2001 as presented, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. e PROCLAMATIONS: OF NOTE: 6oA. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month - September 2001 Mayor Schmidt noted a proclamation hereby proclaiming September 2001 as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. PRESENTATIONS: 7°A. Kathleen Daley~ Lobbyist - 2002 Legislative Agenda Kathleen Daley, City Lobbyist, congratulated the City Commission and staff for winning the All-America City Award. Ms. Daley stated she has received comments and requests from the City Manager's office regarding what the Commission would like to see addressed. Ms. Daley stated she looks forward to reviewing the Visions 2010 document and see is looking forward to reading more documents that are forthcoming. After she reads the other documents, Ms. Daley stated she would compile the information into a study or list for the Commission. Regarding the timetable before the session begins, Ms. Daley stated everyone knows this is redistricting year and the session will begin the third week of January. The committee meetings will start in September and will go through December; then they will go right into the session in the month of January. At this point, Ms. Daley recognized State Representative Bill Andrews and stated he is a good member and they work well together. -2- 08/21/01 Ms. Daley suggested holding a Special Workshop Meeting on Wednesday, September 19, 2001, and invited local delegation to give their input whether they feel something is reasonable or not. Ms. Daley stated the major issue everyone is facing is redistricting. She stated many members are turned out and they want Congregational seats or many house members are turned out and want Senate seats. Ms. Daley stated usually in the House there are interim projects that most committees work on. Each committee submits a list of things and some committees have received a full-blown rejection and some have not been answered yet. Ms. Daley stated she has been waiting to receive these interim projects from some of these committees but does not really know what they are. All the Community Affairs, which most local government issues go through, were rejected. However, Ms. Daley stated they resubmitted different projects. Ms. Daley stated that they will focus on what needs to be done, redistricting and funding issues. With regard to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), Ms. Daley stated they are looking to redo the CRA and commented that CRA's are very different around the State. Ms. Daley stated she would need the City's input on what they would like do regarding the CRA. Ms. Daley stated water issues would be a big issue because of what is going on with water statewide. With regard to grants during the water process, Ms. Daley stated the legislature has put together a Water Advisory Panel and those who want to get water projects must submit an application. Ms. Daley stated this is legislatively awarded and stated any water projects the City may have needs to be narrowed down and the applications need to be submitted to the appropriations committee as soon as possible. Ms. Daley stated last year with all good intentions the City of West Palm Beach tried to pass a special tax for revenue sharing. Ms. Daley explained if this had passed the City of Delray Beach would have received less money in the revenue sharing. With regard to the communication between she and the Commission, Ms. Daley noted that as far as reporting to the Commission she wrote in her contract that she is willing to make conference calls, send the Commission monthly and/or weekly reports. Ms. Daley stated she is here to accommodate the Commission and will do whatever the Commission requests of her. Ms. Daley suggested that there be a joint meeting between Mike Langton, with Langton Associates, the CRA, the DDA and anyone in the community who is requesting any grants. Ms. Daley stated she would be happy to attend any community meetings the Commission feels are important for her to do so. Ms. Daley announced that Palm Beach County Day is January 22, 2002 and invited everyone to attend. Lastly, Ms. Daley stated if staff or anyone in the community needs to get in touch with her, she has an open door policy and the City Manager's office has all the numbers where -3- she can be contacted. Mr. Pedman asked Ms. Daley when they will be heating about another Senate seat being added in Palm Beach County, which is a high priority of the Delray Beach Chamber of Commerce and other businesses. Ms. Daley stated this is a countywide concern and stated on Wednesday, September 5, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. the Redistricting Committee will be coming to Palm Beach County and will hold a public hearing. With regard to the City's wish list for funding, Mr. Perlman stated if the Commission needs to do things for the agencies, does Ms. Daley feel it would helpful to write, call or visit in order to help the Commission work the maze of Tallahassee. Ms. Daley stated she feels it is a good idea for the Commission to come to Tallahassee if they are willing to do so. Mr. Levinson stated the League of Cities asked for all the cities to put in their wish lists with the League of Cities. Therefore, Mr. Levinson stated that this way they can be consolidated if there were commonalties then they would make it a League priority. Ms. Daley stated the Commission may also want to consider inviting Jamie Titcomb, Palm Beach County League Executive Director, to attend the Special Workshop Meeting of September 19th. ge CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.A. INITIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT RELATING TO SCHOOL CONCURRENCY: Approve the initiation of Comprehensive Plan text amendment relating to school concurrency. Pursuant to LDR Section 9.2.1, the City Commission must formally initiate amendments to the Plan. 8.B. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/BOSTON'S ON THE BEACH: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement associated with the installation of an awning at Boston's on the Beach. The property is located at 40 South Ocean Boulevard, on the west side of Ocean Boulevard just south of East Atlantic Avenue. 8.C. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT/SOPRA RESTAURANT: Approve a Hold Harmless Agreement associated with the installation of awnings at SOPRA Restaurant. The property is located at 110 East Atlantic Avenue, on the south side of Atlantic Avenue between SE 1st Avenue and SE 2nd Avenue. 8.D. SERVICE AUTHORIZATION#24/DAVID MILLER (YOUTH TEEN CENTER): Approve Service Authorization #24 with David Miller in the amount of $22,000.00 for consulting services renovations to the Youth Teen Center. Funding is available from 334- 611-572-62.09 (General Construction/Youth Teen Council). 8.E. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/7TM ANNUAL DELRAY BEACH STREET CRAFT FESTIVAL: Approve a request for special event to hold the 7th Annual Delray Beach Street Craft Festival on September 22' and September 23, 2001, including a temporary use permit, and approval of police security with the sponsor paying all police overtime costs, contingent on the sponsor providing liability insurance and a hold harmless agreement. -4- 08/21/01 8.F. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/SKATE THE SUNSHINE STATE: Approve a request to endorse an event called the Skate the Sunshine State which will pass through Delray Beach on Saturday, November 17, 2001, including a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(H) for the use of Anchor Park as a pit stop are, and approval of staff assistance for escorting the skaters through town and trash pick up. Approval is contingent upon receipt of a hold harmless agreement and certificate of insurance. 8.G. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/COLUMBUS DAY: Approve a request to endorse the 2nd Annual Columbus Day Italian Fiesta sponsored by the Order Sons of Italy in America Lodge #2719, to be held on October 13, 2001, including staff assistance for traffic control and security, and trash removal and clean up. Approval is contingent upon receipt of hold harmless agreement and certificate of insurance. Event sponsor paying 50% of overtime. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period August 6, 2001 through August 17, 2001. g.I. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: Contract renewal for one year to Commercial Chemical for the purchase of Sodium Hypochlorite at an estimated annual cost of $20,240.00 for the Water Treatment Plant. Funding is available from 441-5122-536-52.21 (W&S/Chemicals). Housing Rehabilitation grant awards through Community Development Division Housing Rehabilitation Grant in the amount of $19,026.00 to South Florida Construction for 1412 SW 4th Street, $21,078.75 to Hatcher Construction for 44 NW 8th Avenue, and $20,265.00 to South Florida Construction for 133 SW 8th Avenue. Funding in the total amount of $60,369.75 is available from 118-1924-554-49.19 (SHIP Rehab Program). Mr. Perlman moved to approve the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Prior to the vote, the City Attorney stated there has been an appeal filed on the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) action regarding Vista Del Mar. e REGULAR AGENDA: 0.A. AGREEMENT FOR LOBBYING SERVICES/KATHLEEN E. DALEY: Approve an agreement for consultant/lobbying services between the City and Kathleen E. Daley for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002 in the amount of $48,000.00 with funding from 001-1111-511-34.90 (City Commission - Other Contractual Services). Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is the Agreement for -5- 08/21/01 Lobbying Services with Kathleen Daley and Associates, Inc. from October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002 in the amount of $48,000 with funding from the City Commission account. Mr. Barcinski stated the amount of the agreement is the same as it has been the last several years. There have been some additions to clarify some of the duties and functions included in the document. For example, written reports every two weeks during session and once a month out of session. Meetings are specified that Ms. Daley would attend at the Commission's request as well as the development of the City's legislative platform. Mayor Schmidt stated because of the short nature of the session, he would like to see Ms. Daley's reports weekly instead of every two weeks. Ms. Daley stated she would be happy to do this and noted that she will be posting as much as possible via e-mail addresses. Mr. Levinson moved to approve the Agreement for consultant/lobbying services between the City and Kathleen E. Daley for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002, in the amount of $48,000, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.B. LICENSE AGREEMENT/FLORIDA TELEPORT INC.: Consider approval of a License Agreement with Florida Teleport Inc. (FTI) in order to accommodate the landing of undersea cable and use of City infrastructure for placement of cable. The term of the agreement is for fifty (50) years. The City Attorney noted the revised pages 7, 9, and 10 and stated it is her understanding these revised pages are accepted by Mr. Dave Brache, Chief Executive Officer. Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney, read the following revisions as listed on page 7, paragraph #10 - Installation of Cable: "If FTI fails to shall install Cable in tho City Infrastructure the beach manholes --';+~;- ~ ...... ,.~ +~ ,~,~ ^c ...... ,;^, ;-.+...+;^. ,,.;. Agreement -~'a~l all b~ con';~e-ed null and by January 1, 2003. If FTI fails to do so, FTI shall make payment to the City in the amount of $50,000.00 which shall be due on January 1, 2003, and annually thereafter; provided, however, if the City determines, in its sole discretion, that FTI failed to install Cable in City Infrastructure or beach manholes by January 1, 2003 because of events beyond the control of FTI, the City, in its sole discretion, may or may not extend the payment date. If by January 1, 2005, FTI has not installed Cable in City Infrastructure or the beach manholes, the City, in its sole discretion may declare this Agreement null and void." Mr. Shutt read the following revisions into the record as listed on page 9 and 10, -6- 08/21/01 paragraph #16 - Default: "If FTI fails to make payment to the City as required under the terms and conditions of this Agreement or if FTI abandons its Facilities or fails to maintain its Facilities and if the following occurs: either the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all or part of the assets of FTI or a general assignment by FTI for the benefit of creditors or any action taken or suffered by FTI under any insolvency or bankruptcy act during the term of this Agreement, then, at City's election, be deemed a breach of this agreement." "If FTI fails to make payment to the City as required, and during the term of this Agreement, FTI is adjudicated bankrupt or insolvent or takes the benefit of any federal reorganization or composition proceeding, makes a general assignment, or takes the benefit of any insolvency law; or in the event of abandonment or desertion by FTI; or if this License Agreement is transferred or passes to or devolves upon any persons, firms partnerships or corporation other than FTI by operation of law or otherwise, then these events may constitute a default under this Agreement, as determined by the City in its sole discretion, in which the City could avail itself of all remedies herein reserved or otherwise available by law." Mr. Shutt stated this clarifies that if FTI goes into bankruptcy or seeks any sort of stay in bankruptcy and if FTI fails to make payments to the City or if they abandoned their facilities in the City's Infrastructure, then, it is at the City's election whether or not to terminate the agreement. Ms. McCarthy moved to approve the License Agreement with Florida Teleport with the revisions as presented by the Assistant City Attorney, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.C. CONTRACT AWARD TO LUXURY LIMOUSINE SERVICE~ INC.: Consider approval of a contract award to second low bidder, Luxury Limousine Service, Inc. for an annual contract for bus rental and driver service for the Parks Department at an estimated annual cost of $128,547.00. Funding is available in FY 2002 Budget from 001-4106-572-44.90 (Summer Camp), 001-4121-572-44.90 (Special Events), 001-4105-572-44.90 (After School) and 115-4912-572-55.30 (Rocks Football). Joseph Weldon, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated the City received three bids for the bus service contract. The apparent low bidder was Quality Transportation Services, Inc. but they did not meet the minimum specifications. Mr. Weldon stated there are three sites with a Junior and Senior camp at each one. There are 55 children in each camp and at least four -7- supervisors that go on the bus trips. Therefore, Mr. Weldon stated the Parks and Recreation Department needs a minimum 59 capacity bus to accommodate all 59 passengers. Mr. Weldon stated it is staff's recommendation to award the bid to the Luxury Limousine Service, Inc. (second low bidder) in the amount of $128,547. Mayor Schmidt commented that there is a substantial difference in the bids and questioned whether or not Quality Transportation Services, Inc. was advised after the bids were open that they did not meet the specifications and were they give an opportunity to correct that? In response, Mr. Weldon stated the City has used Quality Transportation Services, Inc. in the past and cancelled their contract because the City was dissatisfied with their service. Mr. Weldon stated Quality Transportation Services, Inc. was not give the opportunity to correct it because they did not meet the minimum specifications. Mr. Levinson stated on the materials provided to the Commission regarding Luxury Limousine Service, Inc., they did not identify that they were using 59 passenger buses. Roger Ribiero, Recreation Superintendent, stated he was informed by Coach USA that they do provide 59 passenger buses. The City Manager stated to his understanding all of the companies listed on the last page are the companies, which provide vehicles to Luxury Limousine Service, Inc. Mr. Weldon stated that this is correct. Mr. Perlman moved to approve the contract award to Luxury Limousine Service, Inc. (second low bidder) in the amount of $128,547.00, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.D. LEASE AGREEMENT/WEED AND SEED: Consider approval of a lease agreement between the City and Weed and Seed for office space at 200 NW 1st Avenue (City Attorney's Office). The term is for one (1) year, with a one-year renewal. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, stated this is a request to approve a lease agreement for a period of one year with a one-year renewal between the City and Weed and Seed for office space located at 200 N.W. 1st Avenue. Mr. Barcinski stated an amended lease agreement has been provided to the Commission and noted that there has been a change to paragraph #9 to make this in line with the lease agreement they currently have with their current space. The payment is $550 per month and they will have three office spaces with a restroom in this space. With regard to how staff arrived at the amount of $550, the City Manager stated this is to cover the utilities, other maintenance, and to recover the City's capital costs. The City Manager stated Weed and Seed is an agency doing work in the City. However, the City Manager explained there are costs involved from making the space ready for them. Therefore, -8- 08/21/01 over the two-year period the City would get back what they spent to bring this space up to a usable condition. Mr. Levinson asked if there is an issue with document security? In response, the City Attorney stated part of the renovation is to secure the office. Mr. Barcinski reiterated the City Attorney's comments and stated the renovations include doors being closed, adding insulation both in the wall and overhead, new carpeting, and the restroom. Ms. McCarthy moved to approve the lease agreement between the City and Weed and Seed for office space at 200 N.W. 1st Avenue (City Attorney's office) as amended, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9ogo RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD: Approve and ratify the appointment of Robert Costin as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) representative on the Parking Management Advisory Board to fill a two (2) year term ending July 1, 2003. Mr. Perlman moved to approve and ratify the appointment of Robert Costin as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) representative on the Parking Management Advisory Board to fill a two-year term ending July 1, 2003, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.F° RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD: Approve and ratify the appointment of Elaine Morris as the Planning and Zoning Board representative on the Parking Management Advisory Board to fill a two (2) year term ending August 31, 2003. Mr. Levinson moved to approve and ratify the appointment of Elaine Morris as the Planning and Zoning Board representative on the Parking Management Advisory Board to fill a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Mrs. Archer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.G. APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Appoint two (2) regular members and two alternate members to the Board of Adjustment for two-year terms ending August 31, 2003. The appointment of the regular members will be made by Commissioner Archer (Seat #2) and Commissioner Levinson (Seat #3). Commission McCarthy (Seat #4) and Mayor Schmidt (Seat #5) will make the appointment of the alternate members. Mrs. Archer moved to reappoint Bernard J. Federgreen (incumbent) as a regular member to the Board of Adjustment for a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes. Said motion passed -9- 08/21/01 with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Levinson moved to reappoint Randee Schatz (incumbent) as a regular member to the Board of Adjustment for a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Mr. Perlman. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Ms. McCarthy moved to appoint Jullian M. Woelkens as an alternate member to the Board of Adjustment for a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mayor Schmidt moved to appoint Clifford Torres as an altemate member to the Board of Adjustment for a two-year term ending August 31, 2003, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarthy - Yes; Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. At this point, the Commission moved to Item 11, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public. ll.B. From the Public. ll.B.1. Jean Beer, 2145 S.W. 26th Terrace, thanked the City Manager and the Planning and Zoning Department for providing a map to her of all the properties in the City that do not contribute to City taxes. Mrs. Beer displayed a copy of the map to the Commission and stated perhaps an analysis needs to be done when looking at the tax base by taking out the CRA and find out what is left to meet the ever-increasing needs of the operating budget. ll.B.2. Bill Schwartz, 3863 Live Oak Boulevard, stated after Ms. Beer's presentation he now realizes that since we have so much exempt property, it means it takes more for the rest of the taxpayers to make up for. Secondly, Mr. Schwartz commented about the valet parking on Atlantic Avenue and in the Pineapple Grove area. Mr. Schwartz stated looking to our neighboring communities; almost exclusively there is no charge for valet parking. Mr. Schwartz stated this is because the restaurant operators pay for the valet parking or the valet firms that do this work on gratuities. Mr. Schwartz stated he feels it was of little consequence when the parking fee was $2.00. However, he feels when the parking fee is raised to approximately $5.00 to park, this is big City time and is not for the "Village by the Sea". Regardless of whether or not people can afford this fee to park, Mr. Schwartz stated people should not have to pay the parking fee for the benefit of the restaurateur who would like to have that kind of service. In addition, Mr. Schwartz stated he resents the fact that the valet parking firms take up an enormous amount of parking spaces on Atlantic Avenue and commented that most of the time those spaces are vacant. Mr. Schwartz -10- 08/21/01 feels it is unfair to those people who do not wish to use valet service and stated the City is loosing that parking. Mr. Schwartz stated parking is a paramount interest and concern in our downtown district and is vital for survival. Mr. Schwartz stated this issue needs some serious looking into even though it may not be one of the major issues of priority for the Commission. 11.B.3. JoAnn Peart~ 107 N.W. 9th Streeh stated last evening she spoke for the Lake Ida Property Owners' Association and the Board asked her to speak against changing the zoning to allow homeless shelters in Delray Beach. Mrs. Peart stated Palm Beach County has the most rehabilitation facilities in the State and within the County, West Palm Beach and Delray Beach have the most facilities. Mrs. Peart stated Delray Beach is also one of two cities that is the magnet for Haitian refugees and in her opinion feels the word "refugee" means one is also homeless. Mrs. Peart stated Delray Beach has other facilities such as Crossroads, the South County Mental Health Facility along with 45-75 unlicensed residential facilities in the neighborhoods of social services that Delray Beach provides. Ms. Peart suggested that the Commission take time and study to see if there is an absolute need for a homeless facility. Ms. Peart asked how many times the Police Department really has someone that truly need shelter or help in a week or month whom they cannot find shelter for and stated she would like to see the numbers for this. Mrs. Peart urged the Commission to look into other alternatives such as teaming up with the Palm Beach County Homeless Coalition and asked that the City make every attempt to keep the community balanced. ll.B.4. John Benneth 137 Seabreeze Avenue, as a follow up to Mr. Schwartz's comments, Mr. Bennett stated when the valet queue in front of Yama's it was free if you went to Yama's or $3.00 otherwise. Mr. Bennett stated remembering back when he was a young urban professional in Washington, D.C. and also New York, there were parking garages. Mr. Bennett explained that you would take your ticket to whatever restaurant you were going to and they would validate the ticket and thus you would not pay to park. However, Mr. Bennett stated it seems that the restaurants here view this as a profit center. Mr. Bennett asked what does the sticker that vegetative maintenance is suppose to get if they work in lawns that has citrus trees. Mr. Bennett stated he noticed a number of different firms around his neighborhood working out of yards with citrus that do not appear to have any sticker on them. Mr. Bennett asked for a description of the sticker so he knows what he is missing or not missing. Secondly, Mr. Bennett asked how many of these stickers have been purchased by landscaping/maintenance firms. Lastly, Mr. Bennett asked why the agenda appears to be getting less informative rather than more. Mr. Bennett stated approximately two years ago if a special event was listed, the name of the street would be listed and the street the City intended to be closed. Mr. Bennett stated unless someone goes to the City Clerk's office and reads the agenda backup, there is no way of knowing where the special event is going to be with the exception of the special event held at Anchor Park. ll.B.5. Jim Smith~ 1225 S. Ocean Boulevard~ thanked everyone involved for cleaning up the graffiti along Ocean Boulevard and stated it looks wonderful. However, he asked that two other concerns regarding the graffiti be addressed. Mr. Smith suggested that the City use the -11- 08/21/01 Citizen Observer Patrol (COP) as spotters. Mr. Smith stated the reason for this is the graffiti team only works on the graffiti removal and spends no time on the spotting. Mr. Smith stated it gives the City a valuable double check that the graffiti has been cleaned up and commented that graffiti only attracts more graffiti. In conclusion, Mr. Smith reiterated that he would like the City to claim this area as a "graffiti free zone". Mr. Smith reiterated the public safety concern regarding the Seagate Beach Club. If the City has not already done so, Mr. Smith encouraged the Commission to send the Police Chief there to explain the situation that people cannot make a left-hand turn because people are going to get hurt. Mr. Smith feels it is very simple to move the valet parking service for the Seagate Beach Club across the street. Mr. Smith suggested the following proposed change in the pre-printed agenda to read as follows: "At the conclusion of the public comments, the Commissioners or City Manager may respond to citizens complaints or suggestions. In the event that the Commissioner or City Manager needs additional time for research before they can answer a suggestion or a complaint, that the item will be carded forward as an unfinished item and identified as such in the next pre-printed Commission Meeting Agenda until it is addressed." Mr. Smith stated that if this were worded in the pre-printed agenda, citizens would then know in advance when they pick up the agenda if their complaint is going to be addressed that evening or will be addressed at the next time. At this point, the Commission moved to Item IlA, City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. ll.A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquiries. With regard to Mr. Smith's comments, the City Manager stated that the City's normal practice to respond to public comments and inquiries is to address the concerns at the next meeting or as soon as information is available. The person making the inquiry may not be at the meeting but in either case, the City Manager stated the normal practice is to give a written response. With regard to Mr. Smith's concern about the Seagate Beach Club, the City Manager stated a left turn is really not a problem there. However, there is a problem there with U-tums. It appears the majority of the violators making U-tums are club members rather than valets. The valets have been instructed that illegal U-tums are not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Members of the club will be notified of the problem and asked not to commit illegal tums. The City Manager stated the members would also be warned that if they do commit illegal U-tums, they would be subject to a traffic citation. To elaborate on the map that Mrs. Beer presented, the City Manager stated the estimate on the total acreage that is completely tax exempt is 1,098 acres. This is approximately eleven percent of the total acreage in the City that is completely exempt from property taxes. -12- 08/21/01 With regard to a comment about an incumbent on one of the Board's not being reappointed, the City Manager stated all applicants are contacted by telephone by the Board Liaison to see if they are still interested in serving. The City Manager stated at the time, Mrs. Pat Warren was the Board Liaison who phoned Mrs. Borchardt and left a phone message. Apparently, Mrs. Borchardt was out of town at the time. However, Ms. Warren included Mrs. Borchardt's name on the memorandum dated July 13, 2001 to the Commissioners advising them of their appointments and available applicants. Mrs. Borchardt subsequently phoned Mrs. Warren to advise her that she was indeed still interested in serving. Her name was included on the Commission memorandum dated July 24, 2001 along with the attendance records. Therefore, the City Manager stated all of the appropriate information was made available to the Commission and Mrs. Borchardt was contacted about her willingness to continue serving. With regard to a previous comment regarding free handicap parking at the beach, the City Manager stated per State Statute free handicap parking is required for four hours. Local government may extend the time allowance but is not permitted to decrease the time. The City Manager stated because the City receives County funding for Beach Renourishment, the parking at the beach has to be made available to all residents (County & City) on the same basis. Furthermore, the City Manager stated the City couldn't discriminate against classes of residents. With regard to the graffiti on the beach sidewalk, the City Manager stated this is seen frequently when there are a lot of surfers on the beach. The City Manager explained that surfers use surfboard wax to make the graffiti and it is very difficult to get off. It usually takes approximately 2-3 times to totally remove the graffiti. Staff takes as much off on the first attempt and then retums the following day to remove the rest using pressure cleaners, chemicals, and other methods as needed. The City Manager stated as far as the City is concerned, the entire City is considered a "graffiti free zone" and attempts to remove graffiti anywhere in the City within 24 hours. The City Manager stated Mr. Smith is absolutely correct with his statement about "graffiti attracts more graffiti". The City Manager explained that the lifeguard staff would be more diligent about watching the beach sidewalk to be sure that the graffiti is caught. With regard to the all the fireworks in the neighborhoods on the 4th of July, the City Manager stated during July staff was inundated with calls regarding fireworks but made every effort to respond to each call. The City Manager stated in general, July is an extremely busy time. On July 4th, staff received 281 for service, 35 of which were calls relating to fireworks, one of those resulting in injury. During the month of July, the City seized hundreds of fireworks being used by adults and minors. Fireworks were also seized from businesses that were engaged in the sale of fireworks within the City's jurisdiction. In addition to answering these calls officers provide extra patrol in areas where the City receives an inordinate number of fireworks calls. The Police Department resources were also tasked during this period with large block parties. The City Manager stated in some cases a large number of officers were required to take care of the traffic and other associated problems. With regard to Mr. Levinson's inquiry about the Fire Department providing education on the dangers of fireworks, the City Manager stated the Fire Department has been contacted by the Beta Theta Pi Fraternity at Florida Atlantic University who have a strong interest in this type of program. The City Manager stated that the Fraternity has an alumnus who -13- 08/21/01 is a plastic surgeon and has become alarmed about the number of children being injured in various kinds of hazards such as fireworks, electricity, chemical burns from household products, etc. The City Manager explained the City is working with them in developing an educational effort to be focused on the after school programs in the City. At this point, the time being 7:00 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 39-01 (FIRST READING/TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-02): Consider on first reading an ordinance adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001-02 and associated Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendments, and authorize transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs. Amendment 2001-02 includes: The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 39-01' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-2 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE "LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT", FLORIDA STATUTES SECTIONS 163.3161 THROUGH 163.3243, INCLUSWE; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ENTITLED "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-2" AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 39-01 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Future Land Use Map amendment from LD (Low Density Residential 0-5 du/ac) to CF (Community Facilities) for a parcel of land located at 36 NW 4th Avenue to accommodate an off-street parking lot associated with the Atlantic Grove Redevelopment project. w Corrective Future Land Use Map amendment for the Rinaldi parcel (approximately 0.03 acres) from MD (Medium Density Residential 5-12 du/ac) to CC (Commercial Core) for a parcel of land located on the east side of Bronson Avenue approximately 100 feet south of East Atlantic Avenue. -14- 08/21/01 Mayor Schmidt clarified that the modification for the Coastal Management Element has been pulled from the agenda. Dan Marfino, Principal Planner, stated the item before the Commission is that of consideration of those items which will be transmitted as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001-2 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. This amendment represents the second amendment of the City's twice a year amendment process. Mr. Marfino explained that this amendment is comprised of eight individual items: five City initiated text amendments, two City initiated Future Land Use Amendments, and one privately initiated text amendment. Mr. Marfino briefly summarized the five City initiated text changes. The first item is a general update of goal area D of the Future Land Use Element relating to schools. Mr. Marfino stated several policies and objectives were modified in order to reflect current data information and policies of both the City and the Palm Beach County School Board. The modifications relate to specific racial balance numbers, school location and siting policies, reaffirming the City's desire for neighborhood schools, as well as a new Objective D-5 which reads: "In order to increase student achievement in Delray Beach School's, the City supports the School Board's adopted "Achievement Matters For All" plan." Mr. Marfino stated the next item is the creation of Policy C-4.8 that provides that "The City will participate, along with the CRA, in funding the development of public/private parking lots in the Pineapple Grove Main Street area." Mr. Marfino stated this is related to recent amendments to the CRA plan, which the City also adopted. Mr. Marfino stated the next items relate to modifications of several maps and tables within the Transportation Element. Map #12 - Future Traffic Network, Map #14 - Functional Classifications & Maintenance Agency, and Table T-1 - Street Classification, Responsible Agency and Ultimate Right-of-Way, were modified to reclassify the segment of S.W. 4th Avenue from S.W. l0th Street to Linton Boulevard, as a "City Collector". In addition, Mr. Marfino stated Map #15 - Existing (1995) Annual Average Daily Traffic Conditions and Map #16 - Existing Park Season PM Peak Hour Peak Director Traffic Conditions were updated to reflect the most current available data for those maps. Mr. Marfino stated the final City initiated text change is the modification of the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the Capital Improvement Element in order to reflect changes associated with the adopted 2001-02 Capital Improvement Budget. Mr. Marfino stated this is not included in the packet, as this Budget has not yet been adopted. Mr. Marfino stated it would be inserted into the amendment upon adoption of it. At its meeting of August 20, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of all the items listed above on a (7-0) vote. Jeff Costello, Principal Planner, stated this proposal is an amendment to the Future Land Use Map changing the land use designation for this property from Low Density -15- 08/21/01 (LD) Residential to Community Facilities (CF). Earlier this month, the Commission approved a rezoning and conditional use request to establish a 24-space parking lot on this site, which is associated with the overall Atlantic Grove Development. In order to be consistent with the adjacent land use designations in this area of Community Facilities (CF) and General Commercial (GC), staff is amending the Future Land Use Map. Positive Findings can be made with respect to Future Land Use Element Policy A-1.7, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and the West Atlantic Avenue Redevelopment Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of this amendment. Mr. Costello stated the next item is corrective Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment from MD (Medium Density Residential 5-12 du/ac) to CC (Commercial Core) and rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD (Central Business District) for a portion of the Rinaldi property. This site is primarily commercial and is located on the east side of Bronson Avenue approximately 100 feet south of Atlantic Avenue and contains 0.03 acres. Positive findings can be made with respect to this Future Land Use Map Amendment and rezoning that the designations were established in error. Mr. Costello stated the next item is a text amendment to the description of the transitional land use designation found in the Comprehensive Plan. The request is to modify the description to allow the following statement: "In RO zoning, a maximum of 20 units per acre shall be permitted as a conditional use if the zoning adjacent to the RO property is CBD-RC or CBD." The designation provides for a transition between less intensive residential use and higher intensive commercial uses. In other instances, this designation allows the establishment of uses, which are compatible with adjacent residential use. In 1986, the RO Zoning district was adopted to encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of deteriorating structures by allowing a mix of residential and office uses in the area generally between Atlantic Avenue and N.E. 4th Street. At that time the area in question included the R-1-A (Single Family Residential) and RM-6 (Multi-family Dwelling District - 6 du/ac) zoning districts. The area later became a part of the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). With the Citywide rezoning and adoption of the Land Development Regulations in October 1990, the RO zoning designation was applied to the properties located in Del-Ida Park, generally between N.E. 4th Street and George Bush Boulevard, and the FEC Railroad and N.E. 2nd Avenue. It also included properties on the north side of N.E. 4th Street, between Swinton Avenue and N.E. 2nd Avenue. Most of these properties were either converted to or were developed as offices under the previous RM-10 (Multi-Family Dwelling District) zoning designation, which allowed professional offices as a conditional use. Although this is not an actual Future Land Use Map Amendment, it does affect the intensity. Therefore, Mr. Costello stated Future Land Use Element Policy A-1.7 was used in the analysis of this request. The applicant's justification relates to the need for a transition of 30 units per acre allowed in the CBD and CBD-RC. Staff feels a maximum 12 units per acre provide that transition between the higher intensity commercial and the lower intensity residential to the north. Allowing increased densities for properties surrounding the CBD -16- 08/21/01 (Central Business District) will impact the desired medium density transition and bring higher densities closer to single family neighborhoods. Staff feels that higher density is more appropriate downtown where it supports commercial development. Mr. Costello stated on March 3, 1998, the Commission approved the Seacrest/Del-Ida Park Neighborhood Plan and at that time in that plan it called for down zoning of multi-family zoned properties. The properties that were zoned RM and RL were down zoned to single family residential. Mr. Costello clarified that multi-family is allowed at a low density of 3-6 units per acre in this zone district and the RO zoning did not allow it. The RO zoning does allow single family duplex and office type uses. Mr. Costello stated if this amendment is approved then the Seacrest Del-Ida Plan should be amended accordingly to address the increase of 20 units per acre in that area. Mr. Costello stated N.E. 4th Street is a County Collective roadway and it provides a transition between higher density and more intense commercial uses to the south and a low density residential to the north. These properties that have the transitional designation directly abut low density residential consisting of single family and duplex units and staff is concerned with respect to compatibility. With respect to consistency, Mr. Costello stated if this amendment is approved the RO zoning regulations will need to be amended to allow the multi-family use of up to 20 units per acre. It is noted that at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of August 20, 2001, the applicant did have a sketch of what was proposed for the site. It is also noted that in order to construct 10 units on the applicant's property there would need to be other amendments to the RO zoning to reduce setback requirements or a variance would need to be obtained from the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Staff recommends denial of the text amendment request and noted that at its meeting of August 20, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the text amendment by a (4-3) vote. Bill Andrews~ 801 Palm Trail #7, speaking regarding the property at 207-217 N.E. 4th Street, stated his street has approximately fifty times more traffic volume compared to N.E. 5th Street. Mr. Andrews agrees with the concept of the Seacrest Del-Ida Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Andrews stated that he has done an analysis on his property and based on speaking to realtors in the community and based on talking to a firm that has done this all over the United States, they have informed Mr. Andrews that what he proposes is what is good for today and at the highest and best use for that property. In addition, these townhouses could potentially sell in the $320,000 range. Mr. Andrews stated someone changed their mind and all of a sudden came up with an office building. Mr. Andrews stated he pointed out what if the development were 8 units per acre and he was informed that based on that number crunching it would take approximately 5-6 years before anyone would want to build a development on the property. With regard to 6 units on this site, Mr. Andrews stated he was informed it would take approximately 12-15 years before someone would want to build a development on the property because "Pineapple Grove hasn't come to you yet". Mr. Andrews suggested building something on the site that would help "jump-start" that existing neighborhood. Or, Mr. Andrews stated to take the duplexes out and sit and wait for the wave to come up the street. Mr. Andrews agrees with Mr. Jess Sowards who is a member of the Planning and Zoning Board and feels that the issue is not about the number of units. Mr. Andrews stated the Commission could count on him because he is a developer that will stick by his word. Mr. Andrews stated the Commission is not getting the entire neighborhood picture. Mr. Andrews stated he lives on a collector street and feels nothing will happen in this area until some people make visual changes that will attract -17- 08/21/01 people deeper into the neighborhoods. Mayor Schmidt declared the public hearing open. Henry. Williams~ 310 N.W. 3ra Avenue, stated with regard to the construction along West Atlantic Avenue, he feels it would make more sense to tear down one side of the street and finish it, instead of tearing down both sides of the street. Mr. Williams stated he has experience in the construction business and feels it would be more feasible to do one side of the street and finish it before starting the other side of the street. Mr. Williams stated this way all the people can stay to one side of the street when they begin tearing up the other side of the street and it will help with all the congestion. Mr. Williams stated this is poor management and encouraged the Commission to look into this matter. Bill Schwartz~ 3863 Live Oak Boulevard, stated it has not been too many years ago when someone wanted to build a house, store or service station when they would just go ahead and build it. Mr. Schwartz explained that there were no zoning, no planning, and no permits required, etc. and feels the City has come a long way. Mr. Schwartz stated that the City of New Orleans does not have a zoning plan and yet no one has ever put up a service station or 7-Eleven in the middle of a residential district. Mr. Schwartz stated Dallas, Texas only got its zoning plan about 10-12 years ago. Mr. Schwartz stated zoning was thought to be a concrete cut in stone affect. It was the core area which would be business and professional; the rest would be residential and maybe some outlining area industrial. Mr. Schwartz stated mixed use is best for the City. After listening to the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting last evening where this presentation was made in great detail, Mr. Schwartz stated he saw the condition of these homes that are in that location. He feels the homes are seriously dilapidated and does not feel there is a prayer of rehabilitating them. Mr. Schwartz stated he would not object to townhouses which are owner occupied in comparison to apartment houses of consequence were there is leasing instead. The private ownership means a lot and would create the whole neighborhood affect of everyone wanting to fix up his or her homes. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz supports this project and feels this is a good issue for the Commission to adopt. Scott Christensen~ 10 N.E. 13th Streeh President of the Seacrest Neighborhood Association, expressed concerns over the RO zoning that currently exists in the RL zoning district. Mr. Christensen stated on of the cornerstones of that was the down zoning of the neighborhoods and the quality of life in the neighborhood. Mr. Christensen explained that they looked at the RO and RL zoning that existed in Del-Ida at that time knowing that it had been underdevelopment as a mixed use along with the density uses. No attempt was made to change that because they felt it was perfectly acceptable to keep it at that level. In addition, they felt that 10 units to the acre transitional along 4th Avenue were acceptable. Mr. Christensen stated this current request is not just for Mr. Andrews' property but this is for the entire stretch fi.om the railroad tracks to halfway across between Swinton Avenue and 2nd Avenue. Mr. Christensen stated there is potential for putting in 10 units on a ½ acre parcel along two or three places along the strip. Mr. Christensen stated at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of August 20, 2001, that in order for this particular parcel to meet 10 units and have the applicant's desired square footage and size of units, he would not only have to come back with a change in the zoning in the transitional density but would also have to have the setbacks altered and would -18- 08/21/01 have to go from a 25 foot setback to a 15 foot setback. Mr. Christensen stated the use can be either residential or commercial and feels the real issue is regarding density. In conclusion, Mr. Christensen stated he is strongly opposed to this proposal. Sarah Greele¥~ 109 Dixie Boulevard and speaking as President of the Del-Ida Park Neighborhood Association~ and graduate architect with Business Experience and former Zoning Chair for a neighborhood of 10~000 in Fort Lauderdale, stated Del-Ida Park is historically significant and very rare in South Florida. Primarily this has been a single-family neighborhood since 1923, and it displays a mosaic of charmingly detailed old Florida homes and small office buildings, despite its proximity to nearby bustling Atlantic Avenue. Ms. Greeley stated Mr. Andrews wishes to double thc current allowable density to 20 units per acre. Mrs. Greeley stated the Del-Ida Park Neighborhood Association thanks and encourages Mr. Andrews for his enthusiasm in planning to upgrade his property but they will not accept the density and the scale by which he wishes to accomplish his improvements. Ms. Greeley stated Mr. Andrews 10 unit townhouse project and any future projects of light density which it might spawn either along N.E. 4th Street in Del-Ida's RO District or elsewhere in thc City, arc incompatible with low density small scale residential development. Sandy Jamison, 515 N. Swinton Avenue, stated that he would like everyone to be aware that the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) has denied this request. Mr. Jamison expressed concern over the RO zoning and stated he has a problem with the transitional zoning. He stated whatever the Commission decides to do with the RO or the transitional zoning, it will have a future impact on us. From thc property line on George Bush Boulevard proceeding southbound to 4th Street. There are approximately 54.76 acres and 237 lots in the district. The lots in the RO zoning area consist of 105 lots, which is 44.3% of the total lots in the historic district. Thus, in the RL zoning area is 49 lots, which constitutes 20.6 of thc total lots in Del Ida. The R-l-AA is 83 lots or 35% of the total lots. Mr. Jamison stated Mr. Andrews's project has promise but he does not want to see 20 units per acre. Barbara Drowne, 2 Dixie Boulevard N., stated she is strongly opposed to this project. While driving east from N.E. 2nd Avenue to Federal Highway Mrs. Drowne stated this is a main route that most people in this area use to get to Federal Highway. She feels the increase in traffic will be horrendous. Bonnie Altenhein~ 106 N.E. 5th Street, stated she appreciates the efforts of the Planning and Zoning Board and feels the effort it takes to get something changed is very important and these laws help to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. She stated she travels N.E. 4th Street on her way to work and on her way to the Publix and feels this route is a tremendous bottleneck. Although she appreciates the effort and good intent of this plan, Ms. Altenhein feels this will create serious traffic problems and will compromise the integrity of the area. Ms. Altenhein stated she lives on the outskirts of Pineapple Grove and she is not interested in "jump starting" the neighborhood. She is strongly opposed to this project and urged the Commission to vote against this project. -19- 08/21/01 Ann Gannon~ 236 N. Dixie Boulevard, discussed the property values in the neighborhood and stated a house located on the corner of Dixie Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard sold for nearly $350,000 last year. Ms. Gannon stated she does not feel that property values are really the issue. Ms. Gannon stated she challenges Mr. Andrews to sit down with the people in her neighborhood association and work with them. She stated they feel the density is too high and is not necessary for this neighborhood. Ms. Gannon urged the Commission to vote against this project but to let them work with Mr. Andrews to see if something could be developed that is suitable for this property. Jerry. Gomes~ 106 N.E. 5th Street, stated he has lived here for six years and stated he is strongly opposed to this project. Mr. Gomes stated he plans to live in this home the rest of his life and stated he did not move to this neighborhood to live next to the development that Mr. Andrews is proposing. Mr. Gomes stated he moved to the neighborhood because of its low density, charm and quietness. John Bennett~ 137 Seabreeze Avenue, commented about the 4-3 vote at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and stated it is not as clear-cut as it may seem. There was a lot of discussion because of the issue of the timing with regard to the Comprehensive Plan going to DCA. Some of the three were voting in favor of passing it in the hopes that it could go to the State and things could be worked out with the neighborhood in the meantime. Mr. Bennett stated it is also not an issue whether or not the State is interested in another four units but besides the entire "gray strip" there is the possibility in the future of another area becoming our own that would be meet the criteria for this particular change. Mr. Bennett emphasized that this has to be factored in and even if this were granted, it does not set up the project because there are changes needed for setbacks, etc. With regard to the proposed education changes, which include moving Atlantic High School by Congress Avenue, Mr. Bennett stated this might or may not be a good idea. Mr. Bennett brought to the Commission's attention that there are studies that suggest the learning environment is seriously degraded when you get in the neighborhood of 2,800 students. He urged the Commission to give this some consideration to whether or not it is a good idea to build a larger school for the students. Bill Andrews~ State Representative, stated the State has passed a law about the size of high schools, which are 900 students not 2,800. Mr. Andrews stated they could build a school within a school, which would accommodate 1,800 students. After the Columbine shooting in Colorado, the Senate did hearings all over the State and determined the common denominator of anything if you are going to reduce violence on campuses is to build small schools. In addition, Mr. Andrews stated it is a matter of proven fact that grade performance enhances nearly a full letter grade from smaller schools. Mr. Andrews stated if the City is interested in the quaintness and quality of life, he does not understand how the City can consider sending everyone to a 2,800 student high school. Mr. Andrews stated this is the wrong thing to do because he feels it does not work with regard to grades or safety. Mr. Andrews suggested that the Palm Beach County School Board rebuild Atlantic High School at a different size and use the other building for a completely different type of high school. Mr. Andrews stated the best thing the City will get out of putting 2,800 students in one high school is more guards and Police to -20- 08/21/01 make sure that an incident like Columbine does not happen again. There being no one else from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding this issue, the public hearing was closed. Discussion by the Commission followed. Mayor Schmidt inquired about the time restraints staff is under in order to get this to the State on time? In response, Mr. Dorling, Planning Director, stated there are no amendments that are time sensitive. If the City transmits the Comprehensive Plan then we are under deadlines per Florida Statute. With regard to the amendment on the Atlantic Grove property, Mayor Schmidt asked if the proposed amendment would have a detrimental affect? In response, Mr. Dorling stated this change would not affect the resolution of that item. It is consistent now and the reason for making this change is staff feels CF (Community Facilities) is more appropriate. Mayor Schmidt asked if we start the process of this amendment to CF, and six months down the road something is worked out to keep it there, can this process be stopped? For example, Mayor Schmidt asked if someone is going to put an office there, he asked if this would be inconsistent with the CF zoning? Mr. Dorling stated this would be inconsistent and staff would have to reverse this decision and go through an additional land use change and a rezoning. Mrs. Archer asked for clarification regarding the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan. She inquired if the City does not transmit this is the Mayor talking about the possibility of delaying for 30-60 days, or delaying altogether and then transmitting in six months? Mayor Schmidt suggested to table this for a period of time to allow some of the neighbors to work out a compromise with Mr. Andrews and inquired if this will this hurt one or the other items that is being proposed to be amended? In response, Mr. Dorling stated if this is what the Commission would like to do, the entire amendment can be transmitted and it would be about 45 days at DCA. Mr. Dorling stated a report would be returned to the City and at that point, the City would have 60 days to either adopt the amendment, adopt the amendment with changes, or to not adopt the amendment at all. The City Attorney asked Mr. Dorling if the Commission waited 30 days or so before transmitting anything to DCA, would that destroy the twice a year requirements? Mr. Dorling stated the potential affect would be it would force this amendment into next year and would limit the City for one additional amendment for next year. Mayor Schmidt asked what the City's deadline is to transmit the Comprehensive Plan and still be within this year so that we would have two next year? Mr. Dorling stated we could delay it for a maximum of three or four weeks. If this were delayed for another four weeks, it could potentially be adopted by the end of the year. However, Mr. Dorling stated we would have to be in a scenario where they did not have any objections or comments. Mr. Perlman stated regarding Mr. Andrews' proposal, he feels the equitable -21- 08/21/01 resolution would be that Mr. Andrews take time to work with the neighborhood. With regard to Mr. Christensen's comments about the potential domino affect this zoning will have on the neighborhood, Mr. Perlman politely asked staff to elaborate on this. Mr. Dorling stated currently there is a scenario where there are 30 units to the acre allowed, potentially 12 units to the acre in the Residential Office (RO) zoning district and then six units to the acre to the north of that. If the Commission allows 20 units to the acre it is quite possible that you would have people making the argument that abutting it they should be entitled to have 12 units per acre because that is a transition between 20 and 5. Staff feels the transition that exists today is appropriate. For the knowledge of the public regarding the relocation of Atlantic High School, Mr. Perlman stated there was discussion at the Education Board Meeting last night that there is potential of moving Atlantic High School to a more centralized location within or adjacent to the City. Mr. Perlman stated there is potential that it could be moved outside the current City limits. Mr. Levinson stated he has some mixed emotions regarding this issue. He would like to see something worked out between Mr. Andrews and the neighbors. On the hand, Mr. Levinson would not like to loose any time and have the second go into next year which then precludes the City from having two more next year. Mr. Levinson stated one option for the Commission would be to kill it or any part of it within 45 days. This would give all interested parties a chance to see if some of these issues can be worked out. Mr. Levinson stated if an agreement cannot be worked out and the neighborhood would like to see it remain as is, then when it comes back from DCA, the Commission could delete it and send it back with comment. Mr. Levinson stated he does not feel anything is lost by moving this along and is concerned that if this is not moved along we loose the ability to do three. Ms. McCarthy stated she had a telephone conversation with Sandy Jamison as well as Representative Bill Andrews and remembering what the neighborhoods went through, Ms. McCarthy stated the neighborhoods got together and came to a viable plan that was a very good plan. Ms. McCarthy stated there are many concerned citizens speaking this evening and intelligent property owners on both sides of the fence. She suggested that the Commission table this item to the Regular City Commission Meeting of September 4, 2001 to give these property owners the opportunity to work out a compromise between themselves and Mr. Andrews. Mr. Andrews stated he is leaving for Ireland on August 29th and will be gone for approximately one week. Mr. Andrews explained that he will be attending important meetings with State Cabinet Officers and the Governor and he has to report back to the State. In addition, if he is put on this short time frame, he will be up in Tallahassee at least every third meeting from now until January. Mr. Andrews stated he would like to propose that the group meet with an architect since he will be out of the country. Ms. McCarthy moved to table this to September 4, 2001 on First Reading/First Public Hearing. Mayor Schmidt stated the motion died due to lack of a second. Mayor Schmidt stated if the Commission passes this on First Reading and schedule the second reading for September 19th, would this meet the deadlines? In response, Mr. Dorling explained that this is a transmittal hearing on first reading that would go to the State and -22- 08/21/01 then a second reading would be held approximately 45-60 days from now. Mr. Levinson stated this is what his point was that the second reading comes far enough down the road that there will be enough time to talk about it. At that point, if there has been no agreement reached, then it would just be pulled from the agenda. Mrs. Archer inquired as to whether or not it is possible to make a motion to approve with the understanding that if there is no agreement reached within 45 days that this item would then be pulled? The City Attorney stated the Commission would need to consider it further not dependent on the agreement on the parties but emphasized that this is a planning decision about what is appropriate. Mrs. Archer moved approval of the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001-02 to the State Department of Commtmity Affairs (DCA) on First Reading, with the understanding that prior to second reading the Commission will reexamine and make a final determination as to whether or not to continue, modify, or withdraw this amendment, seconded by Mr. Levinson. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Schmidt - Yes; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - Yes; Mr. Levinson - Yes; Ms. McCarthy - No. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. At this point, the Commission moved to Item 13, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. CiW Manager. The City Manager announced there would be Staff Budget Meeting on Monday, August 27th at 7:00 p.m. and invited the Commission to attend. Secondly, with regard to Mrs. Archer's comment requesting assistance from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on the replanting of the interchanges, the City Manager stated the landscaping has been designed and is included in the cost of reconstruction. The interchanges at Linton Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue but also the overpasses at Lake Ida Road and S.W. 10th Street have never been landscaped. The City Manager stated the only thing FDOT did not agree to do was provide irrigation at Lake Ida Road and the southwest overpasses. The City Manager suggested that the City might want to do this independently. Unlike the County, the City Manager stated Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has made it a policy to replace landscaping in areas they disrupt. Nancy Davila, City Horticulturist, has been working very closely with their landscape architect during the planning stages and she is under the opinion that our gateways will be beautiful once the project is completed. Lastly, the City Manager gave the City Commission two separate evaluation forms. He explained that one form is a little more detailed than the other. -23- 08/21/01 13.B. City A~orne¥. The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C. 13.C.1. Ci~. Commission. Commissioner Levinson Mr. Levinson asked whether City staff was able to communicate with the "BRET" people. The City Manager stated a meeting has not been scheduled yet. With regard to a correspondence from Ms. Jamison who is a member of the Historic Preservation Board (HPB), Mr. Levinson stated there seems to be concern about the data that was provided to the HPB members on the Bill Andrews issue. Mr. Levinson stated he has attended some of the HPB meetings and noted there has been a problem in terms of the timely delivery of the materials. Mr. Levinson stated that in previous discussions regarding Board review, one of the things he hoped to include is the following question: "Are the Boards meeting on the right night of the week to meet the schedules of the workloads?" He requested that it be communicate to the Department Heads that the Board members are having a problem with getting the material for the meetings in a timely fashion. Mr. Levinson stated that some of the Boards may be meeting too close together and suggested moving some of the Board meetings further apart in order to even out the workload for staff. Mr. Levinson stated someone brought to his attention that when they attended a Commission Meeting they were unfamiliar with the process. He stated there was a general lack of knowledge about working with government. Thus, Mr. Levinson stated the question came up that could the City not provide a document to people when they made an application for a building permit, site plan, or anything related that would have a "check-off" list that would indicate the places to go (i.e. SPRAB, P&Z, HPB, or City Commission) and when the Boards meet. Mr. Levinson suggested contacting other cities to see what their procedures are and possibly do something similar. Mr. Levinson stated this way the City will be able to distribute something in an effort to better inform people of how to deal with government. Mr. Levinson stated he had lunch yesterday with Tom Gustafson and Commissioner Mike Ferguson regarding a Transit Greenway Program that Tom Gustafson has been doing. Mr. Levinson stated he had an opportunity to participate in some of the work because of the Museum of Discovery Science in Fort Lauderdale. Mr. Levinson stated it is an opportunity for funding of transit areas and emphasized that you do not have to necessarily build high-speed rails. Mr. Levinson stated this might be a good opportunity for West Atlantic Avenue. Lastly, Mr. Levinson congratulated Angela Wong in her new position as Deputy City Clerk and Barbara Garito who was recently officially appointed City Clerk. -24- 08/21/01 13.C.2. Commissioner McCarthy Ms. McCarthy gave a letter to the City Clerk written by a resident opposing Item 10.A., Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001-2. Secondly, Ms. McCarthy gave the City Manager a list of legislative things she would like to see addressed. 13.C.3. Commissioner Perlman Mr. Perlman asked when the Capital Budget would be ready? In response, the City Manager stated he is hopeful this will be ready by Friday evening. With regard to the Downtown Charrette, Mr. Perlman stated he is very pleased with the work that Treasure Coast did. Mr. Perlman stated he had a conversation with the Urban Design Director for Treasure Coast regarding funding and stated she would supply a list of funding opportunities, grant programs and different strategies that other communities have done through similar processes. Mr. Peflman congratulated Vice-Mayor McCarthy and Commissioner Archer on winning the Carver Estates GolfToumament. He stated they beat everyone else by two strokes. Mr. Perlman welcomed the new Deputy City Clerk. With regard to Mrs. Beer's statistics, Mr. Perlman stated he would be curious to see how the eleven percent of the total acreage compares with some Palm Beach County cities. 13.C.4. Commissioner Archer Mrs. Archer concurs with comments expressed by Mr. Perlman regarding Mrs. Beer's statistics and stated she too would be interested in seeing how the City of Delray Beach compares to other cities. Secondly, Mrs. Archer informed Mr. Schwartz that he may want to attend the Parking Management Advisory Meeting which is held the fourth Tuesday of every month. Mrs. Archer stated the items Mr. Schwartz expressed as concerns are reviewed and generated in that particular Board. Thirdly, Mrs. Archer stated she had lunch today at the Rotary Club and Frank Duke, Palm Beach County Planning Director, gave a presentation. Mrs. Archer stated that Mr. Duke stated that one of the problems Palm Beach County is going to have to deal with in general and in specifics is how to negate that factor that density has become a dirty word. Mrs. Archer stated one thing the City will have to look at very carefully is how to increase density appropriately in the downtown area and that this would be the biggest problem for Delray Beach in the upcoming 20 years. -25- 08/21/01 13.C.5. Mayor Schmidt With regard to the convention, Mayor Schmidt asked the Commission to take a few moments after the meeting so they can determine what seminars everyone will be attending and where they will be going. There being no further business, Mayor Schmidt declared the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. City Clerk ATTEST: MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the minutes of the meeting of the Regular City Commission Meeting held on August 21, 2001, which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official minutes only after review and approval, which may involve some amendments, additions or deletions. -26- 08/21/01 WHEREAS, our community seeks to support parents in carrying out their responsibility for the Health and well-being of their children; and WHEREAS, the Safety of our children is a significant concern of parents, community leaders and health care givers; and WHEREAS, our children's awareness of Environmental Issues is of universal concern and deserves the utmost attention; and WHEREAS, if started in childhood, proper Health, Safety and Environmental habits can be maintained for a life time, producing a valued member of society, and enhancing our community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, DAVID W. SCHMIDT, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission, do hereby proclaim the 22net day of September, 2001 as KIDS DAY AMERICA in the City of Delray Beach, and urge all citizens to learn about health awareness, fire safety, bike safety, recycling, drug awareness, and many more important topics to keep our children safe and make Delray Beach a healthier and happier place to live. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 4th day of September, 2001. DAVID W. SCHMIDT MAYOR Atlantic Avenue Dr. Tanya Hlinka 110 E, Atlantic Avenue, Suite 300 Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phone: 561-278-8382 Fax: 561-278-8856 To: Mayor Schmidt Fax: 243-7199 Pages (including cover): 7 I:~or~: Date: 8/24101 Re: Requesting a proeJamation if you did not receive all pages please call 561-278-8382. Comments: Following is a request for a proclamation for "Kids Day AmericaJlntemational" on Sept. 22, 2001. The originals will follow in the mail. I'8 ~EB'ON O~IH9 2AU 3IINU~IU WdlP:E~ Kids Day America/International~ Proclamation September 22, 2001 WHEREAS, children the Health and well-being is our responsibility; and, of WHEREAS, the Safety of a significant concern community leaders and givers; and, our children is for parents, health care WHEREAS, Environmental universal concern and utmost attention; and, welfare is of deserves the WHEREAS, i f proper Health, habits lifetime, society, started in childhood, Safety and Environmental can be maintained for a producing a valued member of and enhancing our community; ~'d SES'OW C~IHD 3A~ DIINU91~ WWE~:EI ~08'~'PE'gflW Now, Therefore, If Governor the 22nd as "Kids in / Mayor, do hereby proclaim of September 2001 Day America / InternationalTM'' ~n~ U~ge that this day be dedicated to the efforts of Doctors of Chiropractic in helping educate all citizens on the importance of Health, Safety Environmental issues affecting community. and our Mayer $chmidt. We a~ excited to aeneunce ta )mu that chiropractors' offices around the world will be hosting the seventh onnucd 'Kids Day/~merico/:~nternotion~l'~4" event on $¢pteml~r ;?2,200L This is an international Health. Safety, and Environmental Awareres$ Day thcrr focuses on these important issues to educate local families and communities. To date, over 1,000,000 children and their families have been able to en~oy this dm/throughout the world. With the help and support of local police d~poetmentS, county sheriff office, dentists, and photographers who volunteered their time, we we.t'e able to complete Cbilcl S~ety T.b ca~ds foe nfl Meyers, &eveeaees, end 5enat~ across the ~tien. have signed, the "Kids Dm/, · ~nternatio~" .proclamation, making their towns, cities and states of~ick31 are thrilled'to hma~ a place to go to learn about health awareness, fir~ safety, bicycle safa~/, recy¢ling, drug awareness and many other important topi~ that address keeping our children and making the world a healthier and iiappier place. While learning about important issues, children can have fun and receive valuable information to take home from this free event, "lCJds b~ America/]:nternation~F~' also benefits local charities across the entire country. E~H_nsed are a fe~ copies, of sigeed proclamations aed medi~ press releases and oeticle~ ~hich. eere generated as a ne. suit of the event. Zn addition, the event was covered by radio stations.a~ ne'h~ork affiliates m~tionwide, Lnclucling Fox 5 NV, NBC, and O,,IN. We leak fer~ard ta your cit~/s participation in this extram-dinm,y inteemtionat eventl Yburs in health, Founders, lads bey amer~ernationa[n'' E'd ~88'0N C~IH3 3^U 3IINUqIU Wd2P:SS Atlantic Avenue Dr. Tanya HIinka August 22. 2aa! We look fopwnrd to our role ag=in os the official Chiropractic office representir~j the seventh anmml "Kids D~y Amerim/J;nterrtrtional~" event in Delray Beach on September 2;~, ZOO1. 'Ki~ b~/ Americn/]:~er~ionorm" is a special d=y set ~side to address health, safety and environmental issues that affect us ~ individuals and as a community. Zt was founded for the purpose of educating f~milJes and communities about these important social concerns. To date, more then 1300 communities have Ixmticilxrted in this event and more than Z,000,000 children and their familie~ have enjoyed this day throughout the world. With the help and support of thousands of local police clelxmtment$, county sheriff offices, dentists, and photographers who volunteer their time, all of these children completed Child Safety Ib ca,ds. Mayors. 6overnor~, and Senators acros~ the nm'ion have signed the official Kids bay America/International"' proclamation. We ~re ~sking the Town Council to support this communi~/ event by signing the I~OClamation fo~ betray Beach, Included a~e several previously signed p~oclamations for your reference. There is currently enough support from Mayors and ~ove~nors across North America to bring this program to the White House, crewing a national day that recognizes the enormous contribution chiropractors have made in helping the children of thei~ communities. This year our event will benefit the newly opened Toua~int L'Ouverfure High School for Arts a~l Social 3ustice. Once again, the Delr~y Beech Police belx~ment will be on hand to fingerprint ED children. The belray Be~ch Fire bepertment p~ns to support this even? by providing fire s~fety tips and bringing thei~ fire truck. In addition, my offic~ will offer free computerized spinal exams, scoliosts screenings, and distribute essential info,ma?ion on dise,~e I~evention and health promotion. We would love to have you and any council member that i~ able to attend, join us for the festivities. Our Children's Empowerment Award Ceremony is scheduled to take place at 12:$0 PM when we would like you to re~d the signed proclamation. Please ~oin us in supporting this momentous national evenfl Thank you for your dedication to the childrer~ Yoga!rte,.children, br. Ta~yb Hlinka and St~ff 110 East A~ Avenue, Suite 300, Delray Beach, Florida 33444.561.278,8382 · Fax 561. 278,8856 ~'W .S~8'ON 08IHO ~4W DI£N~71~ WW~:~ [00g'~'gRU £1TIF aF gEl, Ill:IV //lB~ " 100 N,W. 993 WHEREAS, our community seeks to support parents in carrying out their rcspons/bility for the Heaitb and well-being of'heir children; and WI~REA$, the Say'fry of our children is a significant concern of parenL% community leadcrs md health care giving; and WHEREAS, our children's awareness of Em,/m~me/~ei/.rs=es is of u~'vct~ concern and deserves the unnost attention; and WHE~S, if started in childhood, propar Health, Safety and F. nv/wnmental habits can be maintained for a life time, produc~ a valued member of socieIy, and cnhancin/ our community. NOW, THEREFORE, !, DAVID W. $CHMIBT, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf oflh¢ Ci~, Commission, do hereby procldm the 15#' of September, 2000 as DAY AMERICA in thc C!Iy of Deb'ay Beach, and urge all citiz~os ~o learn about health awamne~, fire safety, bike safety, recycling, drag awareness, and many more/mponant topics to keep our children safe and make Delray' Beach a healthier and happier place to live. IN WITNF.~S WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused thc Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 7~ day of September: 2000. DAVID W. $CHlVilDT MAYOR 9'd SE8'ON O~IH3 3A~ 3IANUqI~ WdEI~:EI TOOZ'~Z'Df~ _ SEI~TOR RON KLEIN THE FLORIDA SENATE L.ombtiv. Om~mi~e on Inte~vemm~nl~l Kids Day America/Interna tional Proclamation May 5,1999 the Health and well-being of children is our respon~ility; anal, Whereas, the Safety of our children is a signi~t concern/or parents, rammmnity leaders andhealth caregivers; and, ~, if started ~n childhood, proper Heal~ Safety and Envirormu~tal can be ma~tamed/or . ~fetOne, produc~g a vdud member of soc~y, Now, ~, I, Ron ~ State Senator, do hereby proclaim tlie lSth of May 1999 as ~ Day Amoica/International' in Senate ~ystrict 28 and urge that tl-ds day be dedicated to tl~ ~corts of Doctors of chiropractic in helping educate allcitizens on the importance of Health safety and Environmental issues affecting our community. State Senator D~v~-t 28 404 8oulh Monroe Etfget, TIl]lli~, ;,'loddta 32399,1100 (850) 4BT-~OO1 TONI JENNING$ WILLIA~ G, "DO(;' MYERS Pmsld~t Pm Tempo~e O~IHO 3^U 3IINURIW $00E ' ~E' 9RU WHEREAS, the health and welfare of our ~es~dents are vital state and nattonal concerns; and WHEREAS, the hereditary blood disorder known as Sickle Cell Anemia is a serious disease with no known cure; and ~7HEREAS, Sickle Cell mainly affects African Americans, but is a global disease that affect all mc. mi and ethmc populations, especmlly members of the darker races including Greeks, Slcilmns, Turks, I-hapamcs, and East Inchans; and WHEREd~, the Sickle Cell Foundation of Pakn Beach County, Inc., located m West Palm Beach, Florida, atds individuals and families affected by Sickle Cell Disease and conducts outreach and education to increase commumty awareness about ttus disease; and WHEREAS, the month of September is National Sickle Cell Month, and the Smkle Cell Foundauon of Palm Beach County, Inc. will be conducting various actlmtles to make residents throughout Palm Beach County aware of the disease. NOW, THEREFORE, I, David W. Schmidt~ Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Eon&, on behalf of the City Comrmssion, do hereby proclaim the month of September, 2001 as SICKLE CELL AWARENESS MONTH m Delmy Beach, and urge all residents to lorn m learning more about this serious disease and to support the efforts of the Sickle Cell Foundation of Palm Beach County, Inc. m educating the pubhc, as well as seelung a treatment and cure for Sickle Cell Drsease. IN WITNESS llTI-IEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Offic. ml Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Honda, to be affixed tlms 4* day of September, 2001. DAVID W. $CHMIDT MAYOR FOUNDER Eva W. Mack PRESIDENT Charlie B. Hudnell EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Yvette L. Coursey, DPA 1600 North Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407-5621 (561) 833-3113 · Fax (561) 659-4505 The Honorable David W. Schmidt Mayor City of Deiray Beach City Hall 100 N.W. First Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 August 20, 2001 CITY C0rvi ;lSSJ0 Dear Mayor Schmidt: Sickle Cell Foundation of Palm Beach County, Inc. is a voluntas3' health organization that has been in existence since 1973. Incorporation papers were filed with the Secretary of State in 1979, and the organization later received its 503 © O) designation from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. ~ince its inception, the Foundation's mission has been to improve the quality of life for persons affected by Sickle Cell Disease/Trait and members of their families, and to educate the public about this blood disorder. Sickle Cell Foundation is the only entity in Palm Beach County that is dedicated to serving persons affected by Sickle Cell. September is National Sickle Cell Month and there will be several activities in celebration of this recognition. We will host an Open House at our facility on September 27, 2001 from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. A medical seminar will be conducted for physicians September 11, and the National Sickle Cell Conference will take place in Arizona September 19-22, 2001. Various educational presentations and blood drives are also scheduled during the month throughout Palm Beach County. The religious community has been asked to participate in the celebration and we anticipate a positive response from several religious institutions. We are requesting the City of Delray Beach to issue a proclamation declaring September as Sickle Cell Month in the City of DelrayBeach. All proclamations will be on display in our facility. If we have advance notice of when this will be on the agenda, we will make every effort to have a representative at the Council meeting to accept the proclamation. We appreciate your support of The Sickle Cell Foundation of Palm Beach County, Inc. and look forvaard to your participation in the celebration/recognition of National Sickle Cell Month. Please feel free to contact our office should you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, 'y~af~, DPA E~butive Director CHII.DRENS SERVICES COUNCIL PAL~ ~..AC H CCX.'ND PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the health and welfare of our residents are vital state and national concerns; and WHEREAS, the hereditary blood disorder known as Sickle Cell Anemia is a serious disease with no known cure; and WHEREAS, Sickle Cell mainly affects African Americans, but is a global disease that affect all racial and ethnic populations, especially members of the darker races including Greeks, Sicilians, Turks, Hispanics, and East Indians; and WHEREAS, the Sickle Cell Foundation of Palm Beach County, Inc., located in West Palm Beach, Florida, aids individuals and families affected by Sickle Cell Disease and conducts outreach and education to increase community awareness about this disease; and WHEREAS, the month of September is National Sickle Cell Month, and the Sickle Cell Foundation of Pakn Beach County, Inc. will be conducting various activities to make residents throughout Palm Beach County aware of the disease; NOW THEREFORE, I of September, 2001 as do hereby proclaim the month SICKLE CELL AWARENESS MONTH in , and urge all residents to join in learning more about this serious disease and to support the efforts of the Sickle Cell Foundation of Palm Beach County, Inc. in educating the public, as well as seeking a treatment and cure for Sickle Cell Disease. the IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereumo set my hand and cause the official seal of Florida to be affixed this ~O'd gOg~-6~g-Igg ~os$~ ~s~s~ LL~D aLgOlS dI~:gO IO-Zg-~nv TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: DAVID T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER ~ LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTf/~'~ MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 DELRAY BEACH RESIDENTS ACADEMY The Community Improvement Department is hosting a "Residents Academy'; which will be held for the first time starting in October. The 6-week program will acquaint residents of Delray Beach with the structure of City government. The Academy will provide residents with the information, resources, and tools to become knowledgeable community members and effective neighborhood leaders. It will help enable a citizen to better understand how departments that make up our local government serve our community, and help to enable them to successfully navigate and unravel the "red tape" syndrome of what can be a complex system of government operations and services. A General Information sheet, Class Schedule and Application are attached for additional information. Discuss and provide direction. Attachments: · General Information · Application · Schedule DELRAY BEACH Gener'ol Infor'motion 2001 Overview: The Delray Beach Residents Academy is a 6-week program to acquaint residents of Delray Beach with the structure of City government. The Academy provides residents with the information, resources, and tools to become knowledgeable community members and effective neighborhood leaders. City staff will conduct Sessions with expertise in their respective departments. Program Objectives: · To provide an introduction to City Leaders and Staff. To provide information and materials that will enable citizens to understand how departments that make up our local government serve our community and understand the processes involved. · To provide citizens with information to enable them to successfully navigate and unravel the "red tape" syndrome of what can be a complex system of government operations and services. · To create a closer working partnership between the residents of Delray Beach and its local government. Program Description: The Delray Beach Residents Academy is a six (6) week program. Each session is three (3) hours, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., one evening a week (Thursdays), ending with a graduation ceremony. Classes will include an overview of City government and pertinent information from City departments. At the end of the semester, participants should have an increased understanding of the organizational structure and operations of the various City departments that impact the quality of life in the City of Delray Beach. Graduates of the Academy will be prepared to have a role in the future of their neighborhoods and the City overall through government/citizen interaction. Eligibility: The applicant must be a resident of the City of Delray Beach and must be 18 years or older to participate in the program. Classes are limited to 25 participants, with a minimum enrollment of twelve. Class rosters will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis. Cost: YOUR TIME! There is no charge for the program. The only cost is your time, effort, and commitment. DELRAY BEACH 1993 2001 Delray Beach Residents Academy Schedule bate Activity Location ,me - 10/4/01 Session 1: ,4t fhe l-/elm City Hall, 1st Floor 6:00p.m. City Manager, City Commission, City Conference Room Attorney, and City Clerk 100 KIWIst Avenue 10/11/01 Session 2: Behind fha Scenes City Hall, 1s* Floor 6:00p.m. Finance/Risk Management/M]:S, and Conference Room Human Resource 100 NW 1st Avenue 10/18/01 Session 4: 8uildincj for. Tomor.r.ow City Hall, 1st Floor 6:00p.m. Planning and Zoning Department, Conference Room Building & ]:nspections, and 100 NW 1st Avenue Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) 10/25/01 Session 3: Who you t;onna CaE Fire Station #1 6:00p.m. Fire and Police Departments Training Room A/B 501 West Atlantic Ave 11/1/01 Session 5: Civic Pr/de City Hall, 1s* Floor 6:00p.m. Community ]:mprovement Conference Room 100 KIW 1st Avenue 11/8/01 Session 6: Basic Necessities City Hall, 1st Floor 6:00p.m. Environmental Services, Public Conference Room Works, Parks and Recreation 100 KIWIs* Avenue 11/9/01 ~RADUAT~ON belray Beach ~olf Club 7:30a.m. 2200 Highland Ave DELRAY BEACH Application for Enrollment 1993 2001 The applicant must be a resident of the City of Delray Beach and must be 18 years or older to participate in the program. Classes are limited to 25 participants, with a minimum enrollment of twelve. Class rosters will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis. Applications are due on or before September 24th to be considered for the fall Academy, which begins on October 4, 2000. Please Print or Type: Name: Home Address: Home Phone: E-mail Address: Occupation: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Community affiliations if applicable: Briefly explain why you wish to enroll in the Citizens' Academy and what you would like to gain from the Academy?. Signature: Date: Please return the completed Application to: Janet Meeks Education Coordinator City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33445 Phone: (561) 243-7231 Fax: (561) 243-7221 Date: 8/30/01 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Request to be placed on: __ Consent Agenda __ Special Agenda When: 9/4/01 Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Presentation - Residents Academy __ Workshop Agenda Depatmient Hea&~0, ~ Signature: ~/~ ~ ~L~ IA,. ~'T\- ~ '1(~ City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding Available: Yes / No Initials: Account Number Description Account Balance: Funding Akematives: City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda: &/ No Initials: Hold Unul: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: EXHIBIT A (~f applicable) TO: THRU: FROM: D~D~H~,._CITY MANAGER ,.~~~ECTOR OF PLANNING & ZONING SCOTT ARONSON~, PARKING MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST SUBJECT: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 - CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM KYOTO SUSHI & SAKE LOUNGE TO MODIFY THE PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT BY REDUCING THEIR VALET PARKING QUEUE BY TWO PARKING SPACES, FROM FIVE TO THREE, BY ELIMINATING THE TWO RECENTLY CREATED CUSTOMER PICK-UP SPACES ON THE WEST SIDE OF NE 2ND AVE. (PINEAPPLE GROVE WAY). At the May 1, 2001 City Commission meeting approval was given for the modification of the Parking License Agreement with Kyoto Sushi Sake Lounge increasing their valet parking queue from four spaces to five spaces to accommodate the creation of a separate pick-up area located on the west side of NE 2® Avenue (Pineapple Grove Way), just north of Atlantic Avenue. When originally approved it was anticipated that the creation of an independent customer pick-up area, separating incoming and outgoing traffic, would provide greater efficiency in the management of the valet queue. Unfortunately, due to problems created from customers which approach from the north insisting on using this area as a drop-off point the owners of Kyoto Sushi & Sake Lounge have requested the elimination of these two spaces (see attached). An amendment to the agreement has been drafted by the City Attorney's Office and is attached for your review and approval. At their regular meeting of August 28, 2001 the Parking Management Advisory Board in an 8-0 vote (Onnen abstaining), recommended approval of the applicant's request. Approve the elimination of the two parking spaces on the west side of NE 2nd Ave., reducing the Valet Parking Queue for Kyoto Sushi & Sake Lounge from five spaces to three spaces. Attachments Q Request form Applicant Q Amendment KYOTO SUSHI SAKE LOUNGE 25 NE 2~ AVE- STE 208 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 561-330-2275 FAX 330-2276 Mr. Scott Aronson Parking Specialist City of Deiray Beach 100 NWIst Ave Delray Beach, FL 33444 June 18,2001 Dear Mr. Aronson, As per our phone conversation earlier today, please make the proper arrangements to eliminate our two valet parking queues that now are located on the West side of 2ud Avenue earmarked "Valet Returns". Although, when first suggested it seemed to be a good idea to replace the one queue spot lost due to NE 2ua Ave's renovating and provide a better car return mechanism, the two spots across the street have become a second drop off for the customers instead which has created a problem. Thank you for your help in this matter. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH KYOTO SUSHI SAKE LOUNGE DATED AUGUST 87 1996 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Agreement dated May 1, 2001 is made this day of , 2001 by and between the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH (the City) and KYOTO SUSHI SAKE LOUNGE ("Kyoto"). W I TNES SETH: WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Parking License Agreement dated May 1, 2001, to provide for the use of a certain number of public parking spaces along NE 2nd Avenue for valet parking queues; and, WHEREAS, Kyoto wishes to reduce the number of parking spaces that it is using for valet parking queues from five to three. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The A~eement dated May 1, 2001, is hereby amended to provide that the two parking spaces on the west side of N.E. 2nd Avenue located at 25 N.E. 2nd Avenue will no longer be used by Kyoto as valet parking queues, all other terms and conditions of th~ Agreement dated May 1, 2001 shall remain the same. 3. Th~s Amendment together with the original Agreement and any written amendments hereto, constitute the entire Agreement between the parries relating to the subject matter hereof. It is the final expression of agreement between the parries, thus, neither part3, shall be entitled ro rely upon any conflicting oral represemations. assurances, claims or disclaimers, made either prior to or simultaneous with the execution of this Amendment. 4. Except as expressly modified in writing herein or as modified by subsequent written amendments, all other terms and conditions of the original Agreement and any amendments thereto survive this Amendment and are deemed to be incorporated herein and are binding on the parties. IN WITNESS WI-IEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Parking License Agreement on the day and year first hereinabove written. ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to legal form and sufficiency: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: David Schmidt, Mayor City Attorney WITNESSES: (please type or print name) (Name printed or typed) KYOTO SUSHI SAKE LOUNGE By: (please type or print name) STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of .200__, by of person ac 'knowledging). Signature of Notary Public ~ State of Florida day (name Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public Personally Known OR Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced: CITY OF DELRrlY BEI:I£H CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 Writer's D~rect Line' 561/243-7091 993 DATE: August 28, 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: City Commission David Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Modification of Agreement Between the City and County on JP Morgan Chase Tennis Challenge Benefit (Venus & Serena Williams Event) On July 10, 2001 the Commission approved the attached agreement providing for the reimbursement to the City in the amount of $25,000.00 for the above named tennis event that was held on April 7, 2001. The approval of this Agreement is scheduled for the October 2, 2001 County Commission agenda. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Agreement provide that the City shall furnish information to the County by September 30, 2001 and that the term of this Agreement shall expire on September 30, 2001. As this Agreement will not be approved by the County until its October 2, 2001 meeting, the County has requested that these dates be changed to December 31, 2001. Please place this item on the September 4, 2001 City Commission agenda for approval. Please call if you have any questions. Attachment CC: Barbara Garito, City Clerk Robert Barcinski, Asst. City Manager I~:60 NO~ TO/LZ/~O AGREEMENT BETWEEN PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FOR FUNDING OF THE JP MORGAN CHASE TENNIS CHALLENGE BENEFIT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on , by and between PaJm Beach County. a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County", and the City o1 Delray Beach. a Florida municipal corporation, hereinafter refen'ed to as 'Delray Beach". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Delra¥ Beach owns the Delray Beach Tennis Center. which is located on N.W. 3rd Avenue in Delmy Beach; and WHEREAS, Delray Beach sponsored the JP Morgan Chase Tennis Challenge Event (Event)featurlr~j Venus and Serene Williams on April 7, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Event was attended by 4,500 people from throughout the County. and WHEREAS. tic, et proceeds benef'~ted the Oracane Williams Learning Foundation (The OWL Foundation), whose mission is to fund education programs for individuals who need specialized education programs; and WHEREAS, the Event was created and managed by C & H Events, Inc.. at a cost of approximately $33,187; and WHEREAS, Delray has requested that County provide $25,000 to help offset costs for said Event to benefit the OWL Foundation, to Include costs for the creation and management of the Event paid to C & H Events; and WHEREAS, funding for said Event in an amount not to exceed $25,000 is available from District 5 ($10,O00) and District 7 ($15,D00) Recreation Assistance Program reserves; end WHEREAS. the Event was open to and benefitted ail residents of Palm Beach County; and WHEREAS, both parties desire to enter in.t? this Agreement. [~£g~ ON ~/~] t~:6o NO~ tO/LZ/~O NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereby agree to the following terms and condiUons: 1. On April 7, 2001, Delray Beach held the JP Morgan Tennis Challenge Event to benefit the OWL Foundation, with expenses including costs paid to C & H Events to create and manage the Event. as specifically sat forth in 'Exhibit A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. County agrees to fund an amount not to exceed $25,000 on a reimbursemant basis to Delray Beach for the Event as delineated in 'Exhibit A', attached hereto and Incorporated herein. 3. County will use its best efforts to provide said $25,000 to Delray Beach on a reimbursement basis within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the following information: a. A written statement that the Event has been completed; and b. A Contract Payment Request Form and a Contractual Services Pumhases Schedule Form, attached hereto and mede a part hereof as "Exhibit B", which are required for each and every reimbursement requested by Delray Beach. Said information shall list each invoice as paid by Delray Beach and shall include the vendor invoice number;, invoice date; and the amount paid by Delray Beach along with the number and date of the respective check for said payment. Delrey Beach shall attach a copy of each vendor invoice paid by Deiray Beach along with a copy of the respective check and shall make reference thereof to the applicable item Jisted on the Contractual Services Purchases Schedule Fo~n. Further, Dell'ay Beach's Project Administrator and Project Financial Officer shall certify the total ~nds spent by Delray Beach on the Project and shall also certify that each vendor invoice as listed on the Contractual Services Purchases Schedule Form was paid by Delray Beach as indicated. c. The Event was initiated by Delray Beach on ApriJ 4. 2001. Those costs incurred by Delray Beach subsequent to the date of said Event initiation are eligible for reimbursement by County pursuant to the terms and conditions hereof. d. Recreation ASsistance Program and Bond funds may be used es a match for other local, State, or Federal grant programs, but Delray Beech may not submit reimbursement requests for the same expenses to the County or other funders to receive duplicate reimbursement for the same expenses. 4. Delray Beach wan'ants that it hss completed the Event end will provide accounting data and a reimbursement request to County for same on or before September 30, 2001. 5. The term of this Agreement shall be until September 30. 2001. 6. Delray Beach warrants that the Project described in *Exhibit A', attached hereto and roads a pa~t hereof, was open to the general public on a non-discriminatory basis regardless of residency, race, color, religion, disability, sex, age, national origin, ancestry, roarit~l status, or sexual orientation. 7. Prior to execution of this Agreement by the County, Delray Beach shall provide either a certificate evidencing insurance coverages as required herein or a statement of serf insurance fram D®lray Beach's Risk Manager. Delray Beach shall, during the term of this Agreement, maintain In full force and affect self insured or commercial general liability insurance, including contractual liab~ity and completed operations liability, in the amounts specified in Section 768.28. Florida Statutes, to specifically coverall exposures associated with the Project and terms and conditions of this Agreement. Where permissible with [espect to the above coverages, such policy shall include Palm Beach County as additional insured and shall contain a clause providing the County with at least thirty (30) days prior notice in the event of cancellation, non-renewal, or material adverse change in coverage. Compliance with the foregoing recluirements shall not relieve Delray Beach of its liability and obligations under this Agreement. Delray Beach agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County for any liability arising out of any negligent act or omission of Delray Beach to the extent the insurance described in this paragraph fails to cover the County. Nothing in this paragraph shall constitute a waiver of either party's sovereign immunity beyond the limits set forth in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. Delray Beach shall maintain, during the life of this Agreement, adeqldate Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in at least such amounts as are required by law for all of Its employees providing sen/Ices in accordance with this Agreement. 8. Delray Beach shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence which sufficiently and properly reflect all costs of any nature that were expended in the performance of this Agreement for a period of not less than five (5) years. Upon advance notice to Delray Beach, County shall have the fight to respect and audit said books, records, documents, and other evidence during normal business hours. g. The County and Delray Beach agree that this Agreement sets forth the entire agre~iment between the parties and that there are no promises or understandings other than those stated herein. None of the provisions, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement may be added to, modified, suspended or otherwise altered, except by written instrument executed by the parties hereto. 10. The parties may pursue any and all actions available under law to enforce this Agreement including, but not limited to, actions arising from the breach of any provision set forth herein. 11. 'This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida, and any and all legal action necessary to enforce this Agreement sha~l be held in PaJm Beach County, 12, Any notice given pumuant to the terms ofthis Agreement shall be in wrffing and hand delivered or sent by U.S, Mail. All notices shall be addressed to the following: As to the County: Director of Parks and Recreation Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Depar~rnent 2700 Sixth Avenue South Delr'ay Beach, Flodde 33461 As to the City of Delmy Beach: City Manager City of Delray Beach 10{3 N.W. 1 ~ Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 IN wrI'NESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have signed this Agreement on the date first above written. ATTEST: DOROTHY H. WILKEN, Clerk PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By:. Deputy Clerk By: Warren H. Newell, Chairman AI'I'EST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Ely: County Attorney CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY ITS CITY COUNCIL Mayor APPROVED AS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS By: Dennis L. Eshleman, Director Parks and Recreation Department TO/~/~O L The j'PMor~an Cha.~ T~nb Challenge Oracene Willim~ Crated and Mnnagsd by:. eduction pmgnuns. Spore+Plus and C ~: H Ev=~, ~ Site: The Deb'ay Bmcb T,m,~,~ C,.~_ Iklnty Beach, Florida 4,500 T~ievidon two-hour five pmgra~ was bmade~ live ~ ~ ~ ~ S~ N~ ~ ~. ~ cv~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ut ~c ~ ~ ~o~y ~ ~ ~ ~le ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ N~ FOX S~ N~ R~ ~ S~ S~ ~d ~/~ ~t ~ s~le ~o~ ~ ~d ~ The event lz=clv~ exposme regionally nnd nationally in ne~. all local television networks, radio, Intender, rcgioml and national tenn~ publica~ons and Fridey, April 6 Sanad~y, April 7 7:00 p~n. - 10:00 9:00 ~ - 10:00 ~n~ 10:00 12:30 pm. 3~ Spoamr Clinic P.~$A Te~,!, Carnival Am:ly Roddick vs. Justin Gimelstob Vemm v~. Serem Bmtl~s I I i Susan Yinger- OWl. exhibit, dm: Page ofl~lray l~cach- Owl Foundnflon/JP Morgan Chase Tennis Held on Alii 7, 2001. Thc following t~ble shows thc City's =XlXmSC relmive m t~c Owl Foundetion/~ Morgan C2~ase Tennis Challenge. ~ Poundation $ 2~000.00 Police ,, 3~049.32 Fi~ 738.81 Public Works , 3;876.43 Tot. al Overtime 7,664.5~ TOTAL: $ Ex.'bi! A [~C99 ON ~H/~&] T~:60 NOR T0/£~/90 PALM BEACH COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONTRACT PAYMENT REQUEST EXHIBIT 6 Grantee Billing · (Date) Project Billing Period Contractual Service Salary and Wages ( % of Salaries) Materials, Supplies, Direct Purchases Grantee Stock Equipment Travel Donated Real Property .... Indirect Costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS Certification: I hereby certify that the above expenses were incurred for the work Identified as being accomplished in the attached progress reports. Project Costs This Billing Cumulative Project Costs Certification: I hereby certify that the documen* ration has been maintained as required to suppor~ the project expenses reporled above and is avail- able for audit upon request. Administrator/Date Financial Officer/Date PBC USE ONLY County Funding Pa~icipation Total project costs to date County obligation to date County retainage L___'~) County funds previously disbursed County funds due this bill,n8 Reviewed and Approved by: PBC Projec~ Adff/inistrator/Date Department Director/Date 1 OF2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM # o~- REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 2001 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (LLEBG) DATE: AUGUST 31, 2001 This is before the Commission to approve the acceptance of the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) award of $210,539, with a City match funds of $23,393 for a total of $233,932. The suggested distribution of funds is as follows: Police Overtime Volunteer Program Eqmpment (Shields, AED's, Stop Sticks) Training (Dale Carnegie) $100,000 15,000 89,000 29,932 Recommend acceptance of the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the total amount of $233,932, which includes the City's match grant of $23,393. ref agmemo17.2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM David T. Harden, City Ma~n~er David Junghans, Direct~J \' Administrative Services ',,,.._) August 20, 2001 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) The Delray Beach Police Department has made application for the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. We have actually been awarded $210,539, and we will be required to "match" $23,393. As a final step in the process, we are required to received approval from the City Commission to accept this award. We have attached Minutes to our meetings which were held to discuss the distribution of funds. The August 2, 2001, meeting was held for Command Staff to discuss the money's use, and the August 16, 2001, meeting was held to receive approval from our Advisory Board. Also attached are the award letters from the U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs indicating the award and match amounts. We would like to have this item placed on the September 4, 2001, agenda for Commission approval. DJ/mcm Attachments Minutes to 2001 LLEBG Command Staff Meeting - August 2, 2001 3:00 p.m. - Chief's Conference Room (Discussion on use of the 2001 grant money) Present: Chief Overman, Major Schroeder, Capts. Gillard and McCollom, David Junghans, Mada C. Marino Absent: Capts. Licata, Phillips, and Davis We have actually been awarded $210,539.00 , and we will be required to "match" $23,393.00. Suggested distribution of money: Block Grant 2001 - O/T (Holiday TF) (WAATF) Volunteer Program Special Operations $233,932 $100,000 $50,000* - one-time event covered under the grant $50,000* - one-time event covered under the grant $25,000 $8,5oo $135,500 We have $100,432 left to spend Discussion on what we would like to have the money earmarked for. We have 90 days from July 6, 2001, (October 6, 2001) to Request for Draw-down (RFD). If we want to change things, we can with justification at the end of the grant- period. · David to find out if call-outs can be charged retroactively to OT for events. Special Operations to replace "Training" · Major Schroeder would like to have the Dale Carnegie training funded out of this. Network Engineer - we agreed to fund for one year only from the 2000 Block Grant; however, if we are deemed to continue with funding, we must be prepared to do so. Discussed cost of mobile substation -approximately $165,000 · Can designate monies for substation from previous grant and justify it as Special Operations: $100,000 from 2000 grant; $100,000 from 2001 grant. · We can spend money until it is "spent-out"; we don't have to have it spent by October 1st. 1999- 2002 = 2000 - 2003 = 2001 - 2004 = $87,005 + interest (what we have left) $203,330 + 3,300 (interest) [Encumber $35,703 for the Network Engineer's position] *We actually have $167,627 ($203,330-$35,703) to spend for 2000 grant. $233,932 · We have some volunteer money that has not been spend-out yet in the grants. · Concurrence from this meeting regarding the distribution of monies: Block Grant 2001 - $233,932 O/T $100,000 (Holiday TF) $50,000 (WAATF) $50,000 Volunteer Program $15,000 Equipment $89,000* Training . $30,000** $234,000 *Equipment: Shields, AED's, and stop-sticks **Dale Carnegie training Summation of money to spend, including money that we haven't spent yet from previous grants: $87,005 $167,627 $233,932 $488,564 · Schedule Advisory Committee meeting for next week (08/06/01) to include the following participants: Jim Martz or Jonathan Wasserman - Prosecutor's office (355-7305) Chuck Ridley- Community Cathy Weigle - Atlantic Community High School Tom Lynch - School Board Commissioner Chief R. Overman - P.D. representative Major J.L. Schroeder- P.D. representative Cathy Kozol - Legal Advisor (P.D.) David Junghans- Administrative Services Director (P.D.) Maria C. Marino - Police Planner (P.D.) ~ccept'Award Confirmation FY 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Delray Beach City, FL /~pplication Award RFD Grant Changes Reports Correspondence Page 1 of I Award Handbook Overx lex,, Rex ~exx CEO Information Accept Award V~ex~ Award Document Financtal lnstflut~on Information Dechne Axx ard Help/Frequently Asked Questions LLEBG Home Log-Off Accept Award Confirmation Congratulations! You have accepted your jurisdiction's FY 2001 LLEBG Award and its corresponding special conditions. FY 2001 LLEBG Final Award Amount: Matching Amount: LLEBG Award Number. LLEBG Award Date: $ 210,539.00 $ 23,393.0O 2001-LB-BX-1311 06-JUL-01 Remember, acceptance of this Award and special conditions DOES NOT result in an automatic payment of LLEBG funds. You must submit the RFD in order to receive funds, and you must submit it within 90 calendar days from the award date. You may begin the RFD process now by clicking on the RFD Tab above. Click here to view and print your official FY 2001 LLEBG Award documents and special conditions. https//grants ojp usdoj gov 8004/gms user/plsql/award accept award confirmation 07/06/2001 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of the Director Waskington, D.C. 20531 July 6, 2001 Mr. Harden City Manager, Delray Beach City 100NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 32~a.~ 2612 RE: Fiscal Year 2001 Local Law Enforcemem Block Grants Program Dear Mr. Harden: I am pleased to inform you that I have approved the application for funding under the Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) Fiscal Year 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program in the amount of $210,539 for Delray Bea0h City. The purpose of the LLEBG Program is to reduce crime and improve public safety. This Block Grant Award may be used for any of the purpose areas described in the statute. Enclosed you will find the Grant Award and Special Conditions documents. If you have any programmatic questions regarding this award, please contact BJA's State and Local Assistance Division at (202) 514-6638. In addition, all financial questions regarding this award should be directed to the Office of the Comptroller, Customer Service Division at (800) 458-0786. I look forward to a continuing partnership with Delray Beach City in furtherance of this important criminal justice program. Sincerely yours, Richard H. Ward, II1 Acting Director Attachments U~q. Depm'tment of Justice Office of Justice Programs O~¢e for C~t RigMs Wask~ngton, D.C. 20531 July 6, 2001 Mr. Harden City Manager, Delray Beach City 100 NW 1 st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33~.~.~, 2612 Dear Grant Recipient: Congratulations on your recent award. Because you have submitted Certified Assurances that your agency is in compliance with applicable civil rights laws, this office has determined that you have met this requirement in the Department of Justice regulations governing ~cipients of Federal financial assistance (see 28 C.F.R. sec. 42.204, Applicants' Obligations). As Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of Justice Programs, I would like to offer you my assistance in completing the conditions of these Assurances, specifically Nos. 13, 14, and 15, as the grant goes forward. As you know, equal opportunity for the participation of women and minority individuals in employment and services provided under programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance is required by law. Therefore, if there has been a federal or state court or administrative agency finding of discrimination against your agency, please forward a copy of such order or consent decree, as required by Assurance No. 14, to OCR at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, 810 Seventh Street, N.W., Room 5107, Washington, D.C. 20531. ~dditional Instructions For Grantees Receiving $500,000 Or More: In accordance with Assurance No. 15, each grantee that receives $500,000 or more (or $1,000,000 in an 18- month period), and has 50 or more employees, must submit an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP)within 60 days from the date of this letter to OCR at the above address. ! Alternatively, the grantee may choose to complete an EEOP Short Form, in lieu of sending its own comprehensive EEOP, and return it to OCR within 60 days of the date of this letter. This easy-to-follow EEOP Short Form reduces paperwork and preparation time considerably and will ensure a quicker OCR review and approval. The enclosed Seven-Step Guide to the Design and Development of an EEOP (which includes an EEOP Short Form) will assist you in completing this requirement. Please be reminded that the above requirements apply to primary grantees and to each of their subgrantees or contractors that meet the criteria outlined in this letter. Therefore, all primary grantees should apprise subgrantees of these responsiblities and those meeting the criteria should send their EEOPs or EEOP Short Forms directly to the Office for Civil Rights within 60 days of the date of their award. NOTE: If agency has under 50 employees, regardless of amount of award, no EEOP is required; however, grantee must return applicable portion of Certification Form to OCR within 60 days. PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITION REGARDING EEOPs GOVERNING THIS AWARD, RECIPIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ACCEPTABLE EEOP IS A VIOLATION OF ITS CERTIFIED ASSURANCES AND MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF DRAWDOWN OF FUNDS UNTIL EEOP HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE OFF/CE FOR CML 1LIGHTS. ~dditional lnstruc~ons For Grantees Receiving $25,000 Or More, But Under $500,000: Putsuam to Department of Justice regulations, each grantee that receives $25,000 or more and has 50 or more employees is required to maintain an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) on file for review by OCR upon request. (However, if the grantee is awarded $1,000,000 in an eighteen (18) month period, it must submit an acceptable EEOP to OCR.) Please complete the applicable section of the attached Certification Form and return it to OCR within 60 days of the date of this letter. NOTE: If agency has under 50 employm, regardless of amount of award, no EEOP is r~luired; however, grantee must return applh:able portion of Certification Form to OCR within 60 days. If you have already submitted s~ EEOP as part of another award from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) or the Or, ce of Commnnit~ Orienl~! Pohcing Services (COPS) withm this grant period, or if you have cemfied that no EEOP is requited, it is not necessm3r for yon to submit another at this time. Simply send a copy of the letter you received from OCR showing that your EEOP or cemfication ts acceptable. Additional Instructions For Grantees Recdvi~ U. der $25,000: A recipient of under $25,000 is not required to maintain or submit an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) in accordance with Assurance No. 15. No Certification is required. l~tructions for All Grantees: In addition, aH recipients, regardless of their type, the monetary amount awarded, or the number of employees in their workforce, are subject to the prohibitions against discrimination in any fimded pro.am or activity. Therefore, OCR investigates complaints by individuals or groups alleging discrimination by a recipient of OJP funding; and may require all recipients, through selected compliance reviews, to submit data to ensure their services are delivered in an equitable manner to all segments of the service population and then' employment practices are in compliance with equal employment opportunity requirements. 2 If you have any questions, please call OCR at (202) 307-0690. Additional information and technical assistance on the civil rights obligations of grantees can be found at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ocr/. CC: Grant Manager Financial Analyst Sincerely, Michael L. Alston Acting Director, Office for Civil Rights 2 The employment practices of certain Indian Tribes are not covered by Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U S.C sec. 2000e I GRANTEE NAME AND ADDRESS II'ndudmg Zip Codel Dclra¥ Ek-ach 100 \'W I..~ Asenuc Delray Ek-m,h. FL 33444-2612 IA GRANTEE I~NDOR NO ~315 2 SUBGRANTEE N-XME AND a. DDRESS IIncluding Zq~ Cede) 2A SLOGRANTEE IRSS, TNDOR NO 3 PROJECT TITLE FY ~1OI Local Law Enfim:¢mcnt Block Gram, AWARD 1~ GRANT ] COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 4 AWARD ~,%'MBER _"~OI-LI~I3X-1311 5 PROJECT PERIOD FROM IO. Ol 2{NX! TO 09 ~! ~)O2 BUDGET PERIOD- FROM IO. OI/_-~}o TO O9/.'ff),2oo2 6 AW.~RD DATE O7,06 8 SUPI~,EMENT NUMBER 7 ACTION ] Inmal ] Supplemental 9 PREVIOLS AgARD AMOUNT PAC_~ 1 OF 5 lO AMOUN'T OFTIIIS ,s. WARD 539 I I TOTAL asWARD $210.5~9 12 SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Check. d'applw, ablel ] TI IE ABOVE GRANT PROJECT IS APPRO~,~:D SUBJECT TO SUE I I CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTII OX. TIlE ATTACIIED 4 PAGES 13 STATUTORY AL TI IORITY FOR GRANT ] TITLE I OF TI IE OMNtBUS CRIME CON'TROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF Iq6J4 42 U S C 37OI, ET SEQ. AS AMENDED ] TITLE2OFTIIEJLVE\ILEJUSTICEA\DDELI\QUENCYPREVEN'TIONACI'OF 1974 42 U % (- 564)1. ET SEO AS AME\DED VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984. 42 U S C IO60 I. ET SEQ. PUBLIC LAW 9g.-473 ~.S AMENDED OTIIER {Sr~,s.~ty} Fl,.talYcar2001.EkTrartmentsofC'onumrcc. JugtKc. andStal¢ thcJu&oary andRdatedAt!coclc,,AlvOxq~nat~m~ &ctlPub 14 FL-I'LRE FISCAL YEAR~S) SUPFORT SEC OND YEAR .'S BUDGET PERIOD- N A AMOL]NT OF FLNDS: \, A TI IIRD st'EAR'S BUDGET PERIOD N,A Ab.K)L'NT OF FL NDS %,'A TYPE OF FUNDS TYPE OFFUNDS 15 METIIOD OF P~,YME\T TI IE (;RAN'TEE WILL RECEIVE CA,SI I VIA A LL I I I:R OF CREDIT ] YES [] NO AGENCY APPROVAL Ih T~'I~ D NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING OJP OFFICIAL Rt~h~d H WanLIli 17 SIGNATURE OF -%PPROVING OJP OFFICIAL ~ GRANTEEA(.CEPTANCE ~ Ig TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF AL'TI IORJZED GRANTEE OFFICIAL Dav~,l I limlcn Crud Manager 19 SIGNATLRE ~ ALTII~ED GRANTEE T 19A DATE 1 II I ~) AC C OL'NTI\G C LASSIF~'( AT1ON (_ ODES FIS('AL FL'ND BLD DIV StEeR (.()DE A(T OFC REG SLB POMS X B LI {~) (10 O0 A(ilZ~( Y LSE ONLY 21 LISMI4 LlOlLOl311 II OJP FORM 40~0/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE b s vrP^~t~ o~ ~us~[ AWARD CONTINUATION OFFK I' or JL'STK r ~MS SHEET CilECK A~ROPR~ ~X ~O~ NUMBER 2~I-L~BX-1311 AWA~ DA~ SPECI. dL CONDITIONS I. T~ r~ipienl agrees to ~mply with the financial ~d admimstmtive r~ul~menls set fo~h in the cu~nt ~ition oft~ O~ce ofJu~ice Pr~mms {OJP} Fma~ial Grade. 2. T~ <c~pient agrees to comply w~lh Ihe or~n~ational audil ~qmrements of OMB Circular, A-133, Audits of Slates~ L~al Gove~ents and Non-Profit Organ~at~ons. as further descried m OJP's Financial Grade, Chapter 19 3 The rc<ip~ent acknowledges lhat fadure to submu an acceptable Equal Employmenl O~m~ Plan rc~mred lo submu o~ purstmnl lo 28 CFR 42.302 L that is approved by the Office ofCivil R~ghls, ~s a v~olation of us Certified Assurances and may ~sult m sus~ns~on or recreation of funding, untd such tm~e as Ihe recipient is m eomphance 4 The r~p~enl ag~es that federal funds under this award will ~ used lo ~pplement but not supplant state or I~al funds, pu~uanl to s~t~on 101{g} of H.R. 728, I~th Cong. (1995) 5. The r~ip~enl shMI submit o~ copy of all reports and pro~s~ publications resulting from this ag~menl Iwemy (20) days prior to pubhc release. Any pubhcattons (written, v~sual, or sound), w~th~ published at the recip~enl's or government's expense, shall contain ~e following statement {NOTE. ~is excludes p~ss releas~, neg sletlers, and ~ssue analys~s. ) ~his project was sup~H~M by Gmnl No. 2~I-LB-BX-1311 awaMed by the Bureau of Just~ce Assistance, O~ce of Jusuce Programs, U.S. D~a~ment of J~t~ce. Points ofview in th~s d~ument are tho~ oft~ author and do n~ necessarily represent the o~c~al posmon or pohc~es of the U S. ~paHment of Justice" 6 The rec~p~enl agrees Io ~o¥ide infom~at~on reqmmd for any ~t~onal evaluation conducled by the U S. Depa~ment of Jusllce, 7 The rec~p~enl ag<es. ~f the fun~ a~ umd for t~ hiring and employing ofn~. additional law enforcement o~cers and/or suppo~ personnel, as de<n~d in the applicable pu~ose area ofSubpaH A motion 101{aR2) of ll R. 728. l{Mth Cone { 1995), Ihat the recipient umt of I~al government wdl achieve anel gain in the number of law enforcement o~cers who perfo~ non-admimstmtive pubhc safety ~tce. If the fun~ a~ u~d for the htrmg and employing of new. additional law enfo<emenl o~ce~ anchor sup~n ~nnel, the unil of local govemmem estabhsh procedures to give mem~rs oft~ ~ Fo<~ who, on or after October I, 19~, were or a< selected for invol~t~ ~pam~on (as d~cfi~d m ~tion 1141 of Title 10, United Stat~ C~e), approved for secretion un&r s~l~on 1174a or I 175 of such I~tle, or mti~ pu~uant Io the authonW pmvi~d under ~etion ~03 of the ~fen~ Convexly. Reinvestmem. and Tmnsiuon Ass~stame Act of 1992 {d~vision D of Pubhc Law 102~84. l0 U.S.C. 1923 note), a suitable p~fe<nee m the emplo~l of pe~ons as a~monal law enforcement o~cers or sup~n ~onnel. OSP FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE ~ ~ ~'~c£ o~ :',:ST~C£ ~o~P.X~s SHEET cl IE(.'E APPROPRIATE 13OX PROJECT ,~L;MI3FR. .-q#.q -LB--BX- 1311 AWARD DATE 07/06~.--~O01 SPECI,41. ¢O,~IDITIO~V$ ¢O~VTlJVIJED ~, The recipient agrees this award document constitutes thc obligation of federal Funds For usc by Ibc recipient in execution of the program or project covered by the award. Such obligation may be terminated without further cause if Ihe recipient £ads to affirm ~ts timely utilization ofthe award by accepting the award and special condluons within 45 calendar days lmm ibc date of award. 9. The recipient agrees Io submit the Request for Drawdov, n via Ihe Imcrnet system within 90 calendar days from the date of award, or to have all funds deobhgatcd for redistribution during thc nc×t funding cycle. I O. The recipient agrees to one 24 momh obligation and cxpendnure period, as estabhshed at the approval of the Request for Drawdown All funcL~ must be cxpend~ by the end of this 24 month period with no cxecpuons. 11. Thc recipient is reqmrcd to establish a trust Fund account. This fund may not be used to pay debts incurred by other activmcs beyond thc scope o£tbe Local Law En£orccmcm Block (~rants Program Thc rec~picnt also agrees to obhgatc and expend thc grant funds in the mist fund (including any interest earned) during thc 24 month period. Grant funds (including any interest earned) not expended by thc end of the 24 month period must be returned to thc 13urcau ofJusucc A.c~s~stancc (BJA) by thc end oftbe 27th month, along with thc final submission el'the Financial Status Report (SF-269A). 12, Thc recipient agrees to ~bmit one final progress reporl via the Internet systcrn at thc end of Ibc 24 month obligation and expenditure period. 13. Thc rcc~plem agrees, ff funds are u~d by thc recipient or subrcc~p~cnt for enhancing sccurny, that thc recipient or subrcclp~en! ~ - (al has an adequate process to a.~scss the impact o£any enhancement ora school ~eurity meagre that is tmdertakcn under subparagraph (O) of~ction ]Ol(a)(2). on thc ~ncidcnec ofcrimc in the geographic area v, hcre thc cnhanecmem is undertaken, (b) will conduct such an assessment with respect to each such cnhanccmenL and. (c) will submit to thc Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) an annual a.~ment report ¥ia the ]mcrnct system. OJP FORM 4000/2 (REV $$7) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE I.~ S DEPARTMEN-I' OF .I~STICE AWARD CONTINUATION OFFI£ E OF JLSTICE PRO(;RAI',,I$ SHEET CI IEC K APPROPRIATE BOX PROJECT %;b MIJ, ER ~(I I -L E:t,.B.X* 1311 AWARD DATE 07,~,~00 I SP£CI. dL COA'iTITION$ CO~VTINU£D 14. Thc r~.~lplem agrees to comply with 28 CFR Pan 23 if t'ederal funds are used to support Criminal Intelligence Syslems 15. The rccip~enl agrees lo assist B.IA m complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl and other related federal em, Ironmemal ~mpact analyses requirements ~n the usc of these grant l"unds, either directly by the rcclplem or by a subreclp~cnt Accordingly. prior to obligating grant funds, the recipient agrees to first determine Il'any of ibc follov, mg act~Vll~eS w~ll be rclalcd to thc usc ol'thc grant funds. The rec~p~em understands thai Ihis special condmon apphes to its following new ac.vi,cs, whether or nol they are being ~eclfically funded with these gram funds. That is. as long as the activity is being conducted by the recipient, a subrccipicnt, or any third party, and the activity needs to be undertaken ~n order to use these grant funds, this special condition must firsl be meL Thc activmcs covered by this spccml condition arc i. New construction. 2. Minor renovaimn or rcmodehng ora property cilhcr (al listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of thstonc Places or (b) located V, lihm a IO0-year flood plain; 3. A renovation, lea.sc, or any proposed usc ora building or facility that wdl either (al rcsuh m a change in its basic prior use or (b) significantly change ~ts size; and. 4. lmplemcma.on of a new program ~nvolvmg the use ofchemlcals other than chemicals Ihat are (al purchased as an ~nc~demal component ora funded act,~,~ty and (b) traditionally u~d. for example, in office, household, recreational, or educational en¥1ronments Apphcal~on of This Special Condmon to Rccipicni's Existing Programs or AclivilleS. For any of the rccip,¢m's or its subreclpient's existing pro.ams or activities that will be funded with these grant funds, the recipient, uixm spec,tic request from BJA, agrees to cooperate wllh BJA in any prcparallon by BJA of a naliooal or program env Ironmemal assessment of that funded program or acl~Vlty. i 6 The rec~psent agrc¢~, to ensure that the State Information Technology Point of Contact receives written notification regarding any ml'ormat~on technology proJect funded by this grant during the obhgat~on and expenditure per,od This ~s to t~clhtate communication among local and slate governmental entllleS regarding various information technology projects hcmg conducted v, ~th these grant funds. In addition, the reclp~em agrees to mainlmn an admlnlStralive file documenting Ihe meeting of Ibis requiremenl For a list of State lnformallon Technology Points of Contact. go to http z/www.ojp usdoj gov/ec/staies.htm 17. Thc recipient agrees lo provide and expend a I0 pcrcem cash malch (calculated as 1/9 of thc t'ccleral award amount) before the end ofibe 24 month obligation and expenditure period. Thc rccipiem is rem~ndcd that thc matching funds arc audliable under Special Condition//2 and will bc binding to thc recipient. OJP FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE u ~ ~P~,~'r~'~'T o~ JcsTIc£ AWARD CONTINUATION , (~FI( [ OF JLSTIC[ ~iRA~IS SHE~ CI I[( K APPROPRIA~ BOX PR~E~ NU~ER ~NJI-L~X-I 311 AWA~ DA~ 07,~,~1 · PECI4L CO.~DITiO~ CO~TI~'UED ! g. T~ ~ipicm ~g~s Ibm prior to lk obligmion or cx~ndit.~ of~y LLEBG f~dg al leas o~ ( 1 ) public h~fing will ~ held ~garding r~ pm~cd us~s} oFt~ ~anl fu~s. The ~ipiml must ~1~ pmv~ verification to BJA. vm i~ lnlcmcl sysl~m, ofl~ ~blic h~rin~ Al the ~anng. ~mo~s s~ll ~ ~vcn an op~lly IO provldR ~nllcn and onl views lo thc rcc~picm on Ibc propped us~s) ofl~ grant funds. Thc ~picnt wdl hold the public hc~ing t~me and place thai allo~s and cncou~gcs pubhc alienate and p~mciDtion. Thc rcclplcm may nol r~quosl dnwdown of fu~s until th~c ~quiremcnm am mci ~d thc focal budgc~ allo~l~OnS arc adopted by thc rcc~p~cm 19. Thc ~lplcnt ~m ~hm prior to t~ obligmion or cx~ndilurc o[any LLEB(i funds, a previously ~sl~na~cd or ~wly Nabhsh~ ndv~D ~ard will mom Io discuss thc pro~d m~s) oFIhc gmat [un~. ~c ~cipicnl will dcsiDalc thc advmo~ ~ard lo make nonbmding r~commc~tions on Ibc m~Js) of funds under thc LLEBG hog~m Membership on ibc adv~so~ ~ad must include a repr~nmuvc from Ibc following, though il ~y ~ broader: al Ibc Io~l ~hcc dcpanmcnl ~ sheriffs dR~mcnl: b) ~hc Iool pros~utor's o~cc: ~) t~ 1~1 c~n d) thc Io~1 ~h~l syslcm: and. c) a l~al nonprofll. ~u¢all~al. ~lig~s. or co~umty ~roup ac~wc m crime prcvcm~on ~ drag usc p~vcmion or Thc r~lp~cnt may nol r~u~t a drawdown of funds umfi ~c~ rcqm~mmls ~rc mm and thc [omal budget allocations a~ adopicd by t~ r~p~nl. 20 Thc r~picnt has ccmfid ~1 is m compliance with thc Public Safely O~ccrs' I Ic~hh ~ls Provmmn of t~ F~scal Y~r 2001. ~pa~mcnts of Commerce. Jumicc. and Stoic. Ibc Judicial. and Related (Pub. L No. 10~-553~ and agrc~ to rcm~m m compha~c during thc hre ofthc gram Ibc ami of local govcmm~nl ~h~ch cmplo~ a ~bhc ~fcly o~ccr ires dcfin~ by s~lmn I:(H ofTillc i o[lhe Omnibus Cnmc Comrol and Safe Streets Acl of I~g. as am~d~) io aEord such pubhc safety of~ccr who ~rc~ or m s~lCd from sen'icc du~ to lnju~ suffc~d as ~ direct ~nd proximate rcsull ora ~l inju~ smstalned m hnc of dray while resuming to an emergency Sll~ll~ o~ h~ p~Jt (~s such !~ ~r~ d~R~ by Sml~ l~w) WJlh lh~ s~m~ or ~llRr level of hcallh ~msumncc ~ncfim al thc lime of r~llr~m~RI or ~pnrnl~on ~s I~ o~ccr r~civcd while on duty. If Iht recipient dcm~sl~l~ nmc~plia~e dun~ I~ Ii~ o~1~ amou~l ~llgl b~ ~Ju~d IO BJA. 21. Thc r~ip~cm ag~ lhm funds provid~ under this a~rd m~y n. ~ ~ Io o~lg a "Dy-lo-s~y' pmg~m in any I~al jml T~ ~picnt [uahcr a~s not to s~ward f~s Io ~al jails ~ich o~mlc "p~y-lo-slay" pro. ms OJ*F FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Request to be placed on: X Consent Agenda When: September 4, 2001 Description of agenda item: AGENDA REQUEST Date: August 27, 2001 Special Agenda Workshop Agenda Approval of the 2001 Federal Block Grant, amount $233,539.00. The Grant is in the amount of $210,539.00, with a City of Delray Beach match of $23,393 00. All the Federal requirements of the Grant have been met, and City Counsel approval is required as a condition of the Grant. The Grant will fund the following areas; Overtime $100,000, Dept. Volunteer Program, $15,000, equipment, $89,000 and training, $29,53~. ?,~,,,~ ~_ . ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES NO X Draft of Resolution Attached: YES NO X Recommendation: Approval Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attomey Review/Recommendation (if applicable): l~.:l~Director Review (reqaired on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: Yes No/V/'' Funding alternatives (if applicable). Account Number: Account Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda: Hold Until: No Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved: Disapproved: Minutes to 2001 LLEBG Command Staff Meeting - August 2, 2001 3:00 p.m. - Chief's Conference Room (Discussion on use of the 2001 grant money) Present: Chief Overman, Major Schroeder, Capts. Gillard and McCollom, David Junghans, Maria C. Marino Absent: Capts. Licata, Phillips, and Davis We have actually been awarded $210,539.00 , and we will be required to "match" $23,393.00. Suggested distribution of money: Block Grant 2001 - O/T (Holiday TF) (WAATF) Volunteer Program Special Operations $233,932 $100,000 $50,000* - one-time event covered under the grant $50,000* - one-time event covered under the grant $25,000 $8,50o $135,500 We have $100,432 left to spend Discussion on what we would like to have the money earmarked for. We have 90 days from July 6, 2001, (October 6, 2001) to Request for Draw-down (RFD). If we want to change things, we can with justification at the end of the grant- period. · David to find out if call-outs can be charged retroactively to OT for events. Special Operations to replace "Training" · Major Schroeder would like to have the Dale Carnegie training funded out of this. Network Engineer - we agreed to fund for one year only from the 2000 Block Grant; however, if we are deemed to continue with funding, we must be prepared to do so. Discussed cost of mobile substation - approximately $165,000 · Can designate monies for substation from previous grant and justify it as Special Operations: $100,000 from 2000 grant; $100,000 from 2001 grant. We can spend money until it is "spent-out"; we don't have to have it spent by October Ist. a, ccept Award Confirmation FY 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program ~ Delray Beach City, FL /~pplication Award RFD Grant Changes Reports Correspondence Page 1 of I ISw.ch to ... Award Handbook Accept Award Confirmation 01. elW lev~' Review CEO Intbrmation Accept Award V~ew Award Document Congratulations! You have accepted your jufisdiction's FY 2001 LLEBG Award and its corresponding special conditions. FY 2001 LLEBG Final Award Amount: Matching Amount: LLEBG Award Number. LLEBG Award Date: $ 210,539.00 $ 23,393.00 2001-LB-BX-1311 06-JUL-01 Financml Instttution Information Dechne Award Remember, acceptance of this Award and special conditions DOES NOT result in an automatic payment of LLEBG funds. You must submit the RFD in order to receive funds, and you must submit it within 90 calendar days from the award date. You may begin the RFD process now by clicking on the RFD Tab above. Help/Frequently Asked Questtons Click here to view and print your official FY 2001 LLEBG Award documents and special conditions. LLEBG Home ' Lgg-Off https//grants ojp usdoj gov 8004/gms _user/plsql/award accept award confirmation 07/06/2001 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice ~4ssistance Office of the Director Washington, D.C. 20531 July 6, 2001 Mr. Harden City Manager, Dciray Beach City 100 NWI st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444-2612 RE: Fiscal Year 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Dear Mr. Harden: I am pleased to inform you that I have approved the application for funding under the Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) Fiscal Year 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program in the amount of $210,539 for Delray Beach City. The purpose of the LLEBG Program is to reduce crime and improve public safety. This Block Grant Award may be used for any of the purpose areas described in the statute. Enclosed you will fred the Grant Award and Special Conditions documents. If you have any programmatic questions regarding this award, please contact BJA's State and Local Assistance Division at (202) 514-6638. In addition, all financial questions regarding this award should be directed to the Office of the Comptroller, Customer Service Division at (800) 458-0786. ! look forward to a continuing partnership with Delray Beach City in furtherance of this important criminal justice program. Sincerely yours, Richard H. Ward, III Acting Director Attachments U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs O~ce for Civil Rights Washington, D.C. 20531 July 6, 2001 Mr. Harden City Manager, Delray Beach City 100 lqW 1st Avenue Dclray Beach, FL 33~.a.a.-2612 Dear Grant Recipient: Congratulations on your recent award. Because you have submitted Certified Assurances that your agency is in compliance with applicable civil rights laws, this office has determined that you have met this requirement in the Department of Justice regulations governing recipients of Federal financial assistance (see 28 C.F.R. sec. 42.204, Applicants' Obligations). As Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of Justice Programs, I would like to offer you my assistance in completing the conditions of these Assurances, specifically Nos. 13, 14, and 15, as the grant goes forward. As you know, equal opportunity for the participation of women and minority individuals in employment and services provided under programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance is required by law. Therefore, ii'there has been a federal or state court or administrative agency finding of discrimination against your agency, please forward a copy of such order or consent decree, as required by Assurance No. 14, to OCR at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, 810 Seventh Street, N.W., Room 5107, Washington, D.C. 20531. /Idditional Instructions For Grantees Receiving Under $25,000: A recipient of under $25,000 is not required to maintain or submit an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) in accordance with Assurance No. 15. No Certification is required. Instructions for Ail Grantees: 6o In addition, all recipients, regardless of their type, the monetary amount awarded, or the number of employees in their workforce, are subject to the prohibitions against discrimination in any fimded program or activity. Therefore, OCR investigates complaints by individuals or groups alleging discrimination by a recipient of OJP funding; and may require all recipients, through selected compliance reviews, to submit data to ensure their services are delivered in an equitable manner to all segments of the service population and their employment practices are in compliance with equal employment opportunity requirements. 2 If you have any questions, please call OCR at (202) 307-0690. Additional information and technical assistance on the civil rights obligations of grantees can be found at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ocr/. cc; Grant Manager Financial Analyst Sincerely, Michael L. Alston Acting Director, Office for Civil Rights 2 The employment practices of certain Indian Tribes arc not covered by Title VII of thc Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U S.C sec. 2000e. U S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Cl IECK APPROPRIATE BOX I GRANTEE NAME AND ADDRESS Ilncludmg Zip Codel Delray i~ch C~ly I00 N~/ I,.t Avenue Defray i~'ach. FL 33444-2612 IA GRANTEE IRS/VENDOR NO. 596000315 2 SUBGRANqrEE NAME AND ADDRESS {Ir~l~ling Zip C~lc) 2A SLB(,RANTEE IRg'vTNDOR NO 3 PROJECT TITLE FY 20OI Local Law Enfiwcement Block Gram, AWARD ] (;RANT ] COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 4 AWARD NUMBER 2001-LB-BX-1311 5 PROJECT PERIOD. FROM BUT)GET PERIOD:. FROM IO, OI,'__2~XI TO lO, BI/_-~00 TO 6 AW ARD DATE 8 SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 9 PREVIOUS AWARD -M~IOL%T I0 AMOUNT OFTiIISAWARD PAGE 1 OF 5 O9 30,2002 09/30/2002 7 ACTION ] Imtlal ] Supplemcmal ${I O0 $210,539 I I. TOTAL AWARD $210 539 12 SPECIAL CONDITIONS IChocL ffapphcable} ] II [E ABOVE (;RANT PROJECT IS APPRO~TD SUBJECT TO SUCli CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTtl ON TIlE ATFACIIED 4 PAGES 13 STATL'TORY AUTIIORI'FY FOR GRANT ] TITLE I OF TI IE OMNIBUS CRIME CON-I-ROL AND SAFE STREETS Ac'r OF 1968. 42 U S C 3701. ET SEQ.. AS AMENDED ] TITLE 2 OF TI IE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974 42 U S.C 5601. ET SEQ. AS AMENDED ] VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF Igg4. 42 U S C IO601.ET. SEQ. PUBLIC LAW gg-473. ASAMENDED ] OTI IER (Sr,~ty} F~:al Year 20OI. Eh.-partmcnts of Commerce. Justice. a~d State. thc Ju&cmry. and Related Agcnclc~ A[voR}prlatlim, ~.(.! { P~ L No 106-553} 14 FUTLRE FISCAL YEAR/SI SUPPORT SECOND YEAR'S BUDGET PERIOD' N/A AMOU,'NT OF FUNDS \,A TIIIRD YEAR'S BUDGET PERIOD:. N,A AM()L~T OF FUNDS N:A TYPE OF FUNDS TYPE OF FUNDS 15 METI IOD OF PAYMENT TIlE GRA\TEE ~,~, ILL RECEIVE CASI I VIA A LETTER OF CREDIT U YES ~IX[ NO AGENCY APPROVAL ~ GRANTEE ACCEPTANCE ~ iff TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING OJe OFFICI4. L lg TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF AU~FIIORIZED GRANTEE OFFIC Rtchard H Ward. I11 David Ilardcn I 7 SIG\ATURE OF -XPPROVING OJP OFFICIAL 19 SIGNATURE OF AU-H IORIZED GRANTLE IqA DATE I AGEN( Y USE ONLY 21) ACLOL~ITING CLASSIFICATION CODES 21 LIRMI4 FISCAL FL,%D BUD DIV LlOlLOl31 I YEAR CODE -XCT OFC RE(; SLB IN)MS OIP FORM 4000/2 {REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE US DEPARTMENr'FOF JUSTIC£ AWARD CONTINUATION OFFIC~ or JUS~C£ eROC;eAMS SHEET C [ I£CK APPROPRIATE BOX PROJECT NUMBER. ~#H-Lt3-BX-I 311 AWARD DATE 07,~rd2.00 I SPECIAl. CONDITIONS CONTINUED 8. The recipient agrees this award document constitutes the obligation of federal funds for use by the recipient m execution of the program or project covered by the award. Such obhgation may be terminated w~thout further cause if the recipient fads to affirm its t~mely utilization of the award by accepting the award and special condmons within 45 calendar clays from the date of award. 9 The recipient agrees to submit the Request for Dmwdown via the Interact system within 90 calendar days from the date of award, or to have all funds deobligated for redistribution during thc next fimdmg cycle. 10. The recipient agrees to one 24 month obligation and expenditure period, as estabhshed at the approval oft'he Request for Drawdown. All funds must be expended by thc end of this 24 month period with no exceptions. I I. The recipient is reqmred to establish a trust fund account. Th~s fund may not be used to pay debts incurred by other activities beyond the scope of the Local Law Enforcement Block (.;rants Program. The recipient also agrees to obhgate and expend the grant funds m the tn~s! fund (including any mtercst earned) dudng the 24 month period. Grant fimds (including any mtercst earned) not expended by the end of the 24 month period mt~t be returned to the Bureau of Justice A~s~stance (BJA) by the end of the 27th month, along w~th the final submission of the Financial Status Report (SF-269A). 12 The recipient agrees to submit one final progress report v~a the Internet system at thc end of the 24 month obligation and cxpend~tttre period. 13. The rec,pient agrees, if funds are used by the rcc~p~ent or st, brecipient for enhancing security, that the recipient or subrec~pic-nt - - (a) has an adequate process to assess the impact of any enhancement ora school security measure that is undertaken under subparagraph (B) of section 101(a)(2). on the incidence of crime in the geographic area where the enhancement ~s undertaken: (b) will conduct such an assessment w~th respect to each such enhancement; and. (c) will submit to the Bureau of Justice Assistance {BJA) an annual asse.~sment report via the Internet system. OJP FORM 4000/2 (REV 58?) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM # ~7~_ REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 2001 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (IJ.EBG) DATE: AUGUST 31, 2001 This is before the Commission to approve the acceptance of the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) award of $210,539, with a City match funds of $23,393 for a total of $233,932. The suggested distribution of funds is as follows: Police Overtime Volunteer Program Equipment (Shields, AED's, Stop Sticks) Training (Dale Carnegie) $100,000 15,000 89,000 29,932 Recommend acceptance of the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the total amount of $233,932, which includes the City's match grant of $23,393. ref. agmemol 7 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM David T. Harden, City[\~'\Ma~n~er, AD ~Vrr[ ~n ~.~1~ ~agfihvaen~ Dr~ [eceC~ ~r~ August 20, 2001 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) The Delray Beach Police Department has made application for the 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. We have actually been awarded $210,539, and we will be required to "match" $23,393. As a final step in the process, we are required to received approval from the City Commission to accept this award. We have attached Minutes to our meetings which were held to discuss the distribution of funds. The August 2, 2001, meeting was held for Command Staff to discuss the money's use, and the August 16, 2001, meeting was held to receive approval from our Advisory Board. Also attached are the award letters from the U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs indicating the award and match amounts. We would like to have this item placed on the September 4, 2001, agenda for Commission approval. DJ/mcm Attachments Minutes to 2001 LLEBG Command Staff Meeting - August 2, 2001 3:00 p.m. - Chief's Conference Room (Discussion on use of the 2001 grant money) Present: Chief Overman, Major Schroeder, Capts. Gillard and McCollom, David Junghans, Mada C. Marino Absent: Capts. Licata, Phillips, and Davis We have actually been awarded $210,539.00 , and wa will be required to "match" $23,393.00. Suggested distribution of money: Block Grant 2001 - O/T (Holiday TF) (VVAATF) Volunteer Program Special Operations $233,932 $100,000 $50,000* - one-time event covered under the grant $50,000* - one-time event covered under the grant $25,000 $8,5oo $135,5OO We have $100,432 left to spend Discussion on what we would like to have the money earmarked for. We have 90 days from July 6, 2001, (October 6, 2001) to Request for Draw-down (RFD). If we want to change things, we can with justification at the end of the grant- period. · David to find out if call-outs can be charged retroactively to OT for events. Special Operations to replace "Training" · Major Schroeder would like to have the Dale Carnegie training funded out of this. Network Engineer - we agreed to fund for one year only from the 2000 Block Grant; however, if we are deemed to continue with funding, we must be prepared to do so. Discussed cost of mobile substation - approximately $165,000 · Can designate monies for substation from previous grant and justify it as Special Operations: $100,000 from 2000 grant; $100,000 from 2001 grant. · We can spend money until it is "spent-out"; we don't have to have it spent by October 1st. 1999 - 2002 = 2000 - 20O3 = 2001 - 2004 = $87,005 + interest (what we have left) $203,330 + 3,300 (interest) [Encumber $35,703 for the Network Engineer's position] *We actually have $167,627 ($203,330-$35,703) to spend for 2000 grant. $233,932 · We have some volunteer money that has not been spend-out yet in the grants. · Concurrence from this rr~.cting regarding the distribution of monies: Block Grant 2001 - $233,932 O/T $100,000 (Holiday TF) $50,000 (WAATF) $50,000 Volunteer Program $15,000 Equipment $89,000* Training . $30,000** $234,000 *Equipment: Shields, AED's, and stop-sticks **Dale Carnegie training Summation of money from previous grants: to spend, including money that we haven't spent yet $87,005 $167,627 $233,932 $488,564 · Schedule Advisory Committee meeting for next week (08/06/01) to include the following participants: Jim Martz or Jonathan Wasserman - Prosecutor's office (355-7305) Chuck Ridley - Community Cathy Weigle - Atlantic Community High School Tom Lynch - School Board Commissioner Chief R. Overman - P.D. representative Major J.L. Schroeder - P.D. representative Cathy Kozol - Legal Advisor (P.D.) David Junghans- Administrative Services Director (P.D.) Maria C. Marino - Police Planner (P.D.) ~ccept'Award Confirmation FY 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Delray Beach City, FL ~pplication Award RFD Grant Changes Reports Correspondence Page I of I Isw.c. to ... Award Handbook Accept Award Confirmation OX efx Rex lexx CEO Information Accept Award %exx AwaM Document Congratulations! You have accepted your jufisdiction's FY 2001 LLEBG Award and its corresponding special conditions. FY 2001 LLEBG Final Award Amount: Matching Amount: LLEBG Award Number. LLEBG Award Date: $ 210,539.00 $ 23,393.00 2001-LB-BX-1311 06-JUL-01 Financial Instttut;on Informahon Dechne Axx ard Remember, acceptance of this Award and special conditions DOES NOT result in an automatic payment of LLEBG funds. You must submit the RFD in order to receive funds, and you must submit it within 90 calendar days from the award date. You may begin the RFD process now by clicking on the RFD Tab above. Help/Frequently Asked Questions Click here to view and print your official FY 2001 LLEBG Award documents and special conditions. LLEBGHome Log-Off https//grants ojp usdoj gov 8004/gms user/plsql/award accept award confirmation 07/06/2001 U.S. Department of Jn~tice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of the Director Washington, D.C, 20531 July 6, 2001 Mr. Harden City Manager, Delray Beach City 100NW I st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 324a.~. 2612 RE: Fiscal Year 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Dear Mr. Harden: I am pleased to inform you that I have approved the application for funding under the Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) Fiscal Year 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program in the amount of$210,539 Mr Delmy Beaoh City. The purpose of the LLEBG Program is to reduce crime and improve public safety. This Block Grant Award may be used for any of the purpose areas described in the statute. Enclosed you will find the Grant Award and Special Conditions documents. If you have any programmatic questions regarding this award, please contact BJA's State and Local Assistance Division at (202) 514-6638. In addition, all financial questions regarding this award should be directed to the Office of the Comptroller, Customer Service Division at (800) 458-0786. I look forward to a continuing partnership with Delray Beach City in furtherance of this important criminal justice program. Sincerely yours, Richard H. Ward, II1 Acting Director Attachn~nts U3. Department of Justtce Office of Jnstice Programs O~ce for Civil Rights Waskington, D.C. 20531 July 6, 2001 Mr. Harden City Manager, Delray Beach City 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 3~.~.~. 2612 Dear Grant Recipient: Congratulations on your recent award. Because you have submitted Certified Assmances that your agency is in compliance with applicable civil fights laws, this olive has determ/ned that you have met this t~luirement in the Depamnent of Justice regulations governing ~cipients of Federal financial assistance (see 28 C.F.R. sec. 42.204, Applicants' Obligations). As Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of Justice Programs, I would like to offer you my assistance in completing the conditions of these Assurances, specifically Nos. 13, 14, and 15, as the grant goes forward. As you know, equal oppmtunity for the parfcipation of women and minority individuals in employment and services provided under programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance is required by law. Therefore, if there has been a federal or state court or administrative agency finding of discrimination against your agency, please forward a copy of such order or consent decree, as required by Assurance No. 14, to OCR at the U.S. Department of Jnstice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights, 810 Seventh Street, N.W., Room 5107, Washington, D.C. 2053 I. ,4dditional Instructions For Grantees Receiving $500,000 Or More: In accordance with Assurance No. 15, each grantee that receives $500,000 or more (or $1,000,000 in an 18- month period), and has 50 or more employees, must submit an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP)within 60 days from the date of this letter to OCR at thc abovc address. ~ Alternatively, the grantee may choose to complete an EEOP Short Form, in lieu of sending its own comprehensive EEOP, and return it to OCR within 60 days of the date of this letter. This easy-to-follow EEOP Short Form reduces paperwork and preparation time considerably and will ensure a quicker OCR review and approval. The enclosed Seven-Step Guide to the Design and Development of an EEOP (which includes an EEOP Short Form) will assist you in completing this requirement. Please be reminded that the above requirements apply to primary grantees and to each of their subgrantees or contractors that meet the criteria outlined in this letter. Therefore, all primary grantees should apprise subgrantees of these responsiblities and those meeting the criteria should send their EEOPs or EEOP Short Forms directly to the Office for Civil Rights within 60 days of the date of their award. NOTE: If agency has under 50 employees, regardless of amount of award, no EEOP is required; however, grantee must return applicable portion of Certification Form to OCR within 60 days. PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITION REGARDING EEOPs GOVERNING THIS AWARD, RECIPIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ACCEPTABLE EEOP IS A VIOLATION OF ITS CERTIFIED ASSURANCES AND MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF DRAWDOWN OF FUNDS UNTIL EEOP HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE OFFICE FOR CML RIGHTS. Additional Instructions For Grantees Receiving $25,000 Or More, But Under $500,000: Pursuant to Depamnent of Justice regulations, each grantee that receives $25,000 or more and has 50 or more employees is required to maintain an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) on file for review by OCR upon request. (However, if the grantee is awarded $1,000,000 in an eighteen (18) month period, it must submit an acceptable EEOP to OCR.) Please complete the applicable section of the attached Certification Form and return it to OCR within 60 days of the date of this letter. NOTE: if agency has under 50 employees, regardless of amount of award, no EEOP is required; however, grantee must return applicable portion of Certification Form to OCR within 60 days. If you have already submitted aa EEOP as part of another award from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) or thc Office of Community ~ Policing Services (COPS) within this grant period, or if you have cemfied that no EEOP ts requital, ~t is not necessary for you to submit another at this time. Sunply send a copy of thc letter you ~ceived from OCR showing that your EEOP or cemfication is acceptable. Additional In, tractions For ~ra~tees Receiving Usder $25,000: A recipient of under $25,000 is not required to maintain or submit an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) in accordance with Assurance No. 15. No Certification is required. Instructions for ,411 Grantees: In addition, all recipients, regardless of their type, the monetary amount awarded, or the number of employees in their workforce, are subject to the prohibitions against disc~aination in any funded prograa~ or activity. Therefore, OCR investigates complamts by individuals or groups alleging discrimination by a recipient of OJP funding; and may require all recipients, through selected compliance reviews, to submit data to ensure their services are delivered in an equitable manner to all segments of the service population and their employment practices are in compliance with equal employment oppommity requirements. 2 If you have any questions, please call OCR at (202) 30%0690. Additional information and technical assistance on the civil rights obligations of grantees can be found at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ocr/. cc: Grant Manager Financial Analyst Sincerely, Michael L. Alston Acting Director, Office for Civil Rights 2 The employment practices of certain Indian Tribes are not covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C s~c. 2000e. U.S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS GRANTEE NAME AND ADDRESS Ilecludmg Zko Codc~ [k-lcay I~ach C~LY I~) ~' I~ A~e~c ~lmy &~h. FL 33~2612 AWARD ] GRANT ] COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 4. AWARD NUMBER 2001-LB*BX-1311 PROJECT PERIOD FROM 10,01 BUDGET PERIOi~ FROM 10,01/2000 TO PAC-~ 10~ 5 IA GRA.\-FEE IILg/VEX:DOR NO 596000315 6. AW ARD DATE 07,06 -'q~U 7 ACTION 2 SUBGIL~NTEE NAME AND ADDRESR I Including Zq~ C~de) Il. SUPPLEMENT ~R,'MBER Initial ] Su~pk-rncncal 2A SLBGRAN'FEE IRS, VENDOR KO ~ PREVIOLS A~t, ARD AMOU\T 10 AMOUN'T OFTIIIS AWARD 3 PROJECT TITLE FY 20OI Local Law Eufim~¢rncnt Pock Gram, I I. TOTAL AWARD $210.$39 12 SPECIM. CONDITIONS tCheck. ] TI IE ABOVE (,RANT PROJECT IS APPRO'~TD SUBJECT TO SUC I I COX;D[TIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTII ON TIlE ATTACIIED 4 PAGES 13 STATL-I'ORY ALTIIORITY FOR GRANT ] TITLE I OF TI · O&~,IBUS CRIME COYFROL AX;D SAFE ~VFREETS ACT ~ I~ 42 L SC 37OI. ~ SEQ. ~ AMEN~D T ~E 2 ~ TI IE ~ VENILE ~ICE AND DELIXQLENC Y PRE~XTION AC~ ~ 1974 42 L S C ~)1. ~ SEO- AS ~MENDED V I~IMSOFCRIMEA~OF 19~ 42LSC I~1 ET SEQ. PL~L~Wg~73.4SAM~DED L No U~553) 14 FLTLRE FISCAL YEAR~SISL'PPORT: e,E( OND YEAR~ BUDGET PERIOD- N A AMOL~,T OF FLNDS N,A TIIIRD YEAR'S BLDGET PERIOD N,A AMOL%T OF FL NDS %' A 'i%'PE OF FL'NDS 15 ML-TIIOD OF PAYMENT TIIEGRAN-[EEWILLRECEIVECASIIVIAALLIiERO~CRED[T [] YES [] NO AGENCY APPROVAL ~ GRANTEEA(CEPTANCE ~ TYPE OF FL'NDS Itl, TYI~D NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVY~G OJP OFFICIAL Richard H ~ard. ll| 17 SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OJP (~FIC IAL I # TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF AL-FIIORIZED GRANTEE OFFICIAL D~v~l I lanicn C #y M. ma~cr 19 SIGNATLRE OF ALTI IORIZED GRANTEE I AGEN( L.esE ONLY II IqA DATE 21) ACCOL~,TING C LAS%IFI( ATION CODES FISCAL FL'ND BUD DIV YEAR CODE ACT OFC REG SLB POIvIS 21 LIgMI4 LIOILOI311 OIP FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE U S DEPARTME.NTf OF JUSTICE AWARD CONTINUATION OFFK E Of JL'STK E PRCKiRAMS SHEET CIIECK APPROPRIATE BOX PROJECT NUI~IBER. 2001-LB-BX-1311 AWARD DATE SPE¢I. IL CONDITIONS I Thc r~iplcm .~grees lo eompl)' with thc fir~nelal ~nd -~dministrativ¢ r~qulr~ments set l`onh in thc CulTent edition ot' thc Office ol` Ju.~iee Pro~rams (OJP) Financial Grade. 2 Thc rcCiplCm ngmcs Io comply with thc or~nizationnl audit rcqulrcmcms ol`OMB Circulnr. A-133. Audits ol` Locnl Govcmmcms nnd .Non-Profit Orgamzatlons. ns l`ur~hcr doscnhcd m OSP's Fmnnclnl Guide. Chapter 19 3 Thc reciplcm acknc,~ledges that l`adur¢ lo submit an acceptable Equnl £mploymem Opportunity Plnn (il' rcciplcm IS r~mrcd to subm, one pursuant to 28 CFR 42.302), that is -~pproved by thc Office ol`Civil Rights, is a violation Ccndicd Assurane-'s and mn)' rcsuli In suspension or termlnntion of t'undmg, until such time as thc recipient Is m comphnnc¢ 4. The rccipJem agn;es thai l`ede~l £unds under this nward will hc used lo ~upplcmcnt but nol suppL~m '~tatc or l`unds, pursuant to sCCtlon 101(g) ol`H.R. 72~, IGlth Cong. ( 5. Thc rccJpicm sh.~ll subm,t one cop)' ol'.~ll r~pons nnd proposed pubhcnuons rosulun~ l`rom this -~grccmcm twenty (20) da)'s prior lo public rclcns¢ An)' publlcnuons (written. vlsu.~l, or sound], wbethcr published nt thc r¢cIpICm's or govcmmcm's expense, shall contain ~c l'ollowmg statement: (.NOT£: This cx¢lude~ press reichs--s, nc~ slcttcrs. issue anal)'sls ) "This projcm wns supported b)' Grnm .No. 2001-IB-BX-131 ! awarded by thc Burcnu of JusllC¢ Assistance. Office ol'JustJce Programs. U S. Department of Justice. Points ol`vlcw In this document ar~ those ol`thc author nnd do not ncccs.~nr,l¥ rcprescm thc officlnl position or pohcics ol' ~hc U $. Dcpnnmcnl o£JusUcc." 6. Thc recapture a~mes lo provide informauon rcqmred for an)' nnuonnl cvalu.~uon conducted b)' thc U.S. D~.~nmem ol' JU$11CR 7 Thc rCmplCm agrees, il'lhc funds arc used l'or thc hiring and cmplo)'lng o£ new. addlllonal law cnl'orccmcnt officers and/or support personnel, as dc~crlhcd in thc apphcablc purpose area el` Subpar! A ~ction 101(a)12) of ll R. 72g. 104th Cong (1995). tha~ thc rcmpicnl unit el` local government will achieve a net gain in thc numhcr of law cnl`orccmcnt officers who peri`erin non-admimstratlvC public sat`cry servmc. Il`thc l`unds arc used for thc hiring and cmplo)'ing el`new, additional law cnl'orcemcm officers and/or supper1 personnel, thc unit el`local govemmcm will establish procedures to give members el' thc Armed Forces who. on or after October I, 1990, were or arc sclcmed l`or involuntary separauon (a,s describcd in section 1141 el`Title 10, Unitcd States Codc], approved l`or separation under section 1174a or 1175 el` such talc, or retired pursuant lo thc authority provided under scmion 4403 el` thc Dcl`cnse Conversion. R¢lnvcstmcnt. and Transition Assistance Act el` 1992 (dwision D el'Public Law 102-484, 10 U.S.C 1923 note), a smlablc prcl`crcncc in thc employment el' p-'rsons as additional law cnl'orccmcm officers or support personnel. oJP FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE U S DEPARTMEN'r OF J~STICE AWARD CONTINUATION oF~CE O~ ~cs'nc~ ~o~s SHEET C! IEC'K APPROPRIATE BOX PROTECT NUMBER. ~)~H-L[I-BX-I 311 AWARD DATE O7,1~6~.-~OO I $1'ECI,4L CO.~IDITION$ CONTINUED 8 The recipient agrees this award document constitutes the obligation of federal funds for use by the recipient In execution of the program or project covered by the award. Such obhgation may be terminated without further cause if Ihe recipient fads to affirm ~ts t~mely utihzation of the award by accepting the award and special condmons w~thln 45 calendar days from rite date of award. 9. The recipient agrees to ~ubmlt the Request for Drawdov, n via thc Internet system w~thin 90 calendar days from the date of awarcL or to have all funds deobligatcd for rcd~stribuuon during the next funding cycle. 10. The recipient agrees to one 24 momh obligation and expenditure pcriod, as established at thc approval of the Request for Drawdown All funds must be expended by thc end oftMs 24 month period with no exceptions. I I. The reclpiem is reqmred to estabhsh a trust fund account This fund may not be u~cd to pay debts incurred by other activmes beyond the scope of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program. The recipient also agrees to obhgate and expend the grant funds m the trnst fund (~ncludmg any ~nterest earned) during thc 24 month period. Grant funds Onclud~ng any interest earned) not expended by the end of the 24 month period must be returned to thc Bureau of Justice A~s~stance (BJA) by the end of the 27th month, along with the final submission of thc Fmanc,al S~atus Re-port (SF-269A) 12. The recipient agrees to ~bmit one final progress repot! via the Internct system at the end of the 24 month obhgat~on and expenditure period. 13. The recipient agrees, if funds arc used by the recipient or subrec~plent for enhancing security, that the recipiem or subrec~plent - - (a) has an adequate process to asse~s thc impact of any enhancement ora school securily meagre thai is undertaken under subparagraph (B) of ~ecuon 101(a)(2). on the incidence of crime ~n thc geographic area v, here the enhancement ~s undertaken. (b) wdl conduct such an assessment w~th respect to each such enhancement; and. (c) will submit to the Bureau of.lUStlCe A~istanee (BJA) an annual a.sse~ment report via the lmemet system. o.IP FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE i L, S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AWARD CONTINUATION OFrI(*E OF JLSTICE PROGRAMS SHEET CI IE(. K APPROPRIATE BOX PROJECT NLMBER -~ff;U-LB-BX-1311 AWARD DATE 07,'06~1 SPECL4L CONDITIONS CONrINU£a 14 Thc r~plcm agrccs to comply with 28 CFR Pm 23 if fcdcra! funds arc used to suppor~ Criminal Intelligence Systems. 15. Thc rcciplcm agrees to assist B/A in complying with thc National Envlroomcntal Policy Act (NEPAl and other related federal cra, lrOnlncntal impact analyses requirements m thc usc of these grant funds, cipher directly by thc recipicm or by a subrcc~01cnt Accordingly, poor to obligating grunt funds, thc recipient agrees to first determine ffany of thc following ami,, race, v. ~11 bc related to thc usc ofthc grant funds Thc rcctp~cnt understands that this spc`cial condition apphcs to ~ts £ollow mg new act~ mcs, whether or not they are bcmg ~cc~fically funded wilh these grant funds That ~s, as IonE as thc activity is hcing condumcd by the recipient, a subrecipicnt, or any ~ird party, and thc actwity needs to bc undertaken m order to usc thc~c grant funds~ this special condmon must first bc met. Thc activities covered by th~s special condition arc' 1. New construction: 2. Minor renovation or remodeling ora property c~thcr (a) listed on or eligible for hsung on thc National Register of thstonc Plam.~ or (b) Iocat~xi within a 100-year flood plato: 3. A rcnoYat~on, lcasc~ or any proposed usc of a building or facihty thai will either (a) result in a change in its basic poor usc or (b~ slgmiqcamly change Its st,'c: and, 4. lmplcmcmatlon ora new program ~nvol,~ing thc usc ofchcmicals other than chemicals that arc (a) purchased as an incidental componcm ora funded acridity and (bt traditionally used, for example, in office, household, recreational, or cd~catlooa[ cn~, ironlYlcnts. Application of This Special Condmon to Rccipicnt's Ex~sting Programs or Actwitlcs. For any of thc reclplcm~s or its subrecipicnt's cx~stmg programs or activities that wall bc funded w~th these grant fumts, thc recipient, ~lx~ :~pc¢~fic request from B/A, agrees to cooperate w~th BSA tn any prcporatlon by BJA of a nationo~ o~ program coy ~ronmcntal assessment of that funded program or activity. 16 Thc rcmplcnt a~rcc,~ to ensure tha~ thc State Information Technology Point of Contact rcc¢i¥cs wrmcn nmlficat~on rcgardm~ any mformauon technology proJect funded by this grant during thc obhgauon and expenditure period This is to ['aclhtatc comrnumcat~on among local and state governmental entrees regarding variou.~ information technology 0rojcms hcmg condoctcd with these grant funds. In addmon, thc recipient agrees to maintain an admmtstrativc file documcmmg thc mcmmg ofth~s requirement Fora hst of State Information Technology Points of Comact. go to ht~p'//www.ojp usdoj gowcc/statcs.htm 17. Thc recipient agrees to provide and expend a I0 pcrccm cash match (calculated as 1/9 of thc federal award amount) before thc cod of thc 24 month obligation and expenditure period. Thc recipient is reminded that thc matching funds arc audllablc under Spcmal Condition #2 and will bc binding to thc rc`ciplcnt. OJP FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE U -~ DEP-~RTME\-r OF JUSTtC£ AWARD CONTINUATION OFF]( E OF JLSTI£ E PRCK;RAMS SHEET [] OJP [] BJA [] OJJDP [] GRANT PAGE 5 OF5 [] BJS [] NIJ [] OVC [] COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (_ i IEC K 4.PPROPRIATE BOX PROJECT NUMBER .~IOI-LI343X-13 II AWARD DATE 07,'06~_'2¢101 $1~ECI,41. CO,~llTltlO~'~ ¢O,¥FIN£tED Ig. The recipient agrees that prior to the obligation or expenditure ofany LLEBG funds, at lea~ one ( 1 ) public hearing will he held regarding the proposed use(si of the grant Funds. The recipient must also provide verification to BJA. via the lnternet system, oftbe public hearing At the hearing, persons shall be given an opportunity to provide written and omi views to the reclpiem on the proposed use(st oFthe grant funds The recipient will hold the public hearing at a time and place that allov, s and encourages public attendance and participation. The recipient may not request a dmwdown of funds until thee requlremenLR are met and the formal budget allocations are adopted by the recipient 19. The reciplem agrees that prior to the obligation or expenditure ofany LLEBG funds, a previously designated or newly e~4abhshed advl~ry board will meet to discuss the propo~d u.~-(s) of the grant funds The rectpient will designate the advisory board to make nonblndlng recommendations on the tLRe(s) Of funds under the LLEBG Program. Membership on the advisory board must include a represenlanve from the following, though it may be broader. a) the local pohc¢ department or sherilTs department; bi the local prosecutor's office; c) the local courl sy.~aem: dl the local school sy,~tem: and. e) a local nonprofit, educalional, religious, or community group active in crime prevention or drug uRe prevention or treatment The recipient may not request a drawdown of funds until the~ requirements are met and the formal budget allocations are adopted by the recipient. 20 The recipient has certified it iR tn compliance with thc Public Safely OFficers' llealth Benefits Provision ofthe Fiscal Year 2001. Depur~mentR of Commerce. Justice. and State. the Judiciary. and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub L No. 106-553) and agrees to remain in compliance during Ihe life ol'the grant. This provision requires that the unit of local government which employs a public ~fety officer (aR defined by section 1204 of Title i of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 196g. as amended) to afford such public ~fety officer who retlre~ or IS separaled from service due to injury suffered as a direct and proximate result ora per~,onal injury su.Rlaincd in the line of duty while responding to an emergency situation or ho~ pI, LrSUlt (as such IerITLR are defined by State law) with thc same or better level oFhealth insurance benefits at Ihe time ofretirement or separation as Ihe officer received while on duty. Il'the recipient demonstrates noncompliance during the life ofthe grant. 10 percent of the award amount musl be returned to BJA 2 I. The recipient agrees thai Funds provided under this award may nol be used to operate a "pay-to-slay" program in any local jail. The recipient Further agrees not to subaward fonds I~o local jails which operate "pay-to-slay" programs O.IP FORM 4000/2 tREV ,587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Request to be placed on: X Consent Agenda When: September 4, 2001 Description of agenda item: AGENDA REQUEST Date: August 27, 2001 Spec;al Agenda Workshop Agenda Approval of the 2001 Federal Block Grant, amount $233,539.00 The Grant is in the amount of $210,539 00, with a City of Delray Beach match of $23,393.00. All the Federal requirements of the Grant have been met, and City Counsel approval is required as a condition of the Grant. The Grant w~ll fund the following areas; Overtime $100,000, Dept. Volunteer Program, $15,000, equipment, $89,000 and traimng, $29,53g. ?~,,~ ~ . ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES NO X Draft of Resolution Attached: YES NO X Recommendation: Approval Department Head Signature: Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): ~Dimctor Review (mWaimd on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: Yes Funding alternatives (if t~ ~"~ applicable): ~J~,d(~ I ~ ~(.~ Account Number: '~ '[~P-'~ (~ ' FI Account Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Approved for Agenda: Hold Until: No Agenda Coordinator Review: Received. Acbon: Approved: Disapproved: 1999 - 2002 = 2000 - 2003 = 2001 - 2004 = $87,005 + interest (what we have left) $203,330 + 3,300 (interest) [Encumber $35,703 for the Network Engineer's position] *We actually have $167,627 ($203,330-$35,703) to spend for 2000 grant. $233,932 · We have some volunteer money that has not been spend-out yet in the grants. · Concurrence from this meeting regarding the distribution of monies: Block Grant 2001 - $233,932 O/T $100,000 (Holiday TF) $50,000 (WAATF) $50,000 Volunteer Program $15,000 Equipment $89,000* Training $30,000** $234,000 *Equipment: Shields, AED's, and stop-sticks **Dale Carnegie training Summation of money from previous grants: to spend, $87,005 $167,627 $233,932 $488,564 including money that we haven't spent yet · Schedule Advisory Committee meeting for next week (08/06/01) to include the following participants: Jim Martz or Jonathan Wasserman - Prosecutor's office (355-7305) Chuck Ridley- Community Cathy Weigle - Atlantic Community High School Tom Lynch - School Board Commissioner Chief R. Overman - P.D. representative Major J.L. Schroeder - P.D. representative Cathy Kozol - Legal Advisor (P.D.) David Junghans- Administrative Services Director (P.D.) Maria C. Marino - Police Planner (P.D.) U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of the Director ~shln~ton, D.C. 2~$31 July t, 2001 Mr. Harden City Manager, Deiray Beach City 100 NWI st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444-2612 RE: Fiscal Year 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Dear Mr. Harden: I am pleased to inform you that I have approved the application for funding under the Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) Fiscal Year 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program in the amount of $210,539 for Delray Beach City. The purpose of the LLEBG Program is to reduce crime and improve public safety. This Block Grant Award may be used for any of the purpose areas described in the statute. Enclosed you will find the Grant Award and Special Conditions documents. If you have any programmatic questions regarding this award, please contact BJA's State and Local Assistance Division at (202) 514-6638. In addition, all financial questions regarding this award should be directed to the Office of the Comptroller, Customer Service Division at (800) 458-0786. I look forward to a continuing partnership with Delray Beach City in furtherance of this important criminal justice program. Sincerely yours, Richard H. Ward, III Acting Director Attachments ,4dditional Instructions For Grantees Receiving $500,000 Or More: In accordance with Assurance No. 15, each grantee that receives $500,000 or more (or $1,000,000 in an 18- month period), and has 50 or more employees, must submit an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP)within 60 days from the date of this letter to OCR at the above address. 1 Alternatively, the grantee may choose to complete an EEOP Short Form, in lieu of sending its own comprehensive EEOP, and return it to OCR within 60 days of the date of this letter. This easy-to-follow EEOP Short Form reduces paperwork and preparation time considerably and will ensure a quicker OCR review and approval. The enclosed Seven-Step Guide to the Design and Development of an EEOP (which includes an EEOP Short Form) will assist you in completing this requirement. Please be reminded that the above requirements apply to primary grantees and to each of their subgrantees or contractors that meet the criteria outlined in this letter. Therefore, all primary grantees should apprise subgrantees of these responsiblities and those meeting the criteria should send their EEOPs or EEOP Short Forms directly to the Office for Civil Rights within 60 days of the date of their award. NOTE: If agency has under 50 employees, regardless of amount of award, no EEOP is required; however, grantee must return applicable portion of Certification Form to OCR within 60 days. PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL CONDITION REGARDING EEOPs GOVERNING THIS AWARD, RECIPIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN ACCEPTABLE EEOP IS A VIOLATION OF ITS CERTIFIED ASSURANCES AND MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF DRAWDOWN OF FUNDS UNTIL EEOP HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE OFFICE FOR CML RIGHTS. Additional lnstractions For Grantees Receiving $25,000 Or More, But Under $$00,000: Pursuant to Department of Jnstice regulations, each grantee that receives $25,000 or more and has 50 or more employees is required to maintain an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) on file for review by OCR upon request. (However, if the grantee is awarded $1,000,000 in an eighteen (18) month period, it must submit an acceptable EEOP to OCR.) Please complete the applicable section of the attached Certification Form and return it to OCR within 60 days of the date of this letter. NOTE: If agency has under 50 employees, regardless of amount of award, no EEOP is required; however, grantee must return applh:able portion of Certification Form to OCR within 60 days. If you have already submitted an EEOP as part of another award from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) or the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) within this grant period, or if you have certnfied that no EEOP is required, it is not necessary for yon to submit another at this time. Simply send a copy of the letter you received from OCR showing that your EEOP or certification is acceptable. ~ s V~l'^RT~.~rr O~ ~STtC~ AWARD CONTINUATION OFFICE OF JLSTI¢ r' PROGRAMS SHEET CIlECK APPROPRIATE BOX PROJECT NUMBER 20OI-LB-BX-1311 AWARD DATE 07106/2001 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. Thc recipient agrees to comply with the financial and administrative roqulremcnts set forth in the current edition of thc Office of Justlce Programs (OJP) Financial Guide. 2. The recipient agrees to comply with lhe organizational audit requirements of OMB Circular. A-! 33, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations. as further described in OJP's Financial Guide, Chapter 19 3. Thc recipient acknowledges that failure to submit an acceptable Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (if recipient is required to submit one purstmm lo 28 CFR 42.302), that is approved by the Office of Civil Rights, is a violation of its Certified Assurances and may rcsult in suspension or termination of funding, until such time as the rcctp~cnt ~s In compliance. 4. Thc recipient agrees that federal funds under th/s award will be used to .,mpplement but not snpplant state or local funds, pursuant to section IOl(g} of H.R. 728, 104th Cong. (1995) 5. Thc recipient shall submit one copy of all reports and proposed publications resulting from this agreement twenty (20) days prior to public release. Any publications (written, visual, or sound), whether published at the reciplcm's or government's expense, shall contain the following statement (NOTE: This excludes press releases, newsletters, and issue analysis ) "This project was supponcd by Gram No. 2001-LB-BX-131 i awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Ju~ice Programs. U.S. Departmcnt of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of thc author and do no~ ncccssarily represent thc official position or policies of thc U.S Department of Justice" 6. Thc recipient agrees to provide information required for any national cvaluation conducted by the U.S Dcpanmem of Jusuce. 7 Thc recipient agrees, if the funds are u.d for the hiring and ernploying of new. additional law enforcement officers and/or support personnel, as described in the apphcable purpose area of SubparI A ~ction 10Ira){2) of II R. 728. 104th Cong. ( 1995 L that the recipient unit of local government will achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement officers who perform non-administrative public safety service. If thc funds are u~d for the hiring and employing ofnew, additional law enforcement officers and/or support personnel thc unit of local government will establish procedures to give members of the Armed Forces who. on or after October 1. 1990. were or are selected for involuntary .~pamtion las described in section 1141 of Title I0, United States Code). approved for separation under s~..tlon 1174a or I 175 of such title, or retired pursuant to the authority provided under section 4403 of thc Defense Conversion. Reinvestmcnt. and Transition Assistance Act of 1992 Idivision D of Pubhc Law 102-484:10 U.S.C. 1923 note}, a suitable preference m the employment of persons as additional law enforcement officers or support personnel. OJP FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE U S DEPARTIVlENT OF JUSTICE AWARD CONTINUATION OFFI¢E OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS SHEET CIIELK APPROPRIATE BOX PROJECT NUMBER.. 200t-LB-BX-1311 AWARD DATE 07/06/20OI SPECL4L CONDITIONS CONTINUED 14. Thc reciplcn! agrees to comply with 28 CFR Part 23 if federal funds arc used to support Criminal Intelligence Systcms. 15. Thc rcciptcnt agrees to assist BJA in complying wtth thc National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and othcr related fedcral cnvironmcntai impact analyscs requlremcnts in thc usc ofthcsc grant funds, ctthcr dircctly by thc recipient or by a subreclpicnt Accordingly, prior to obligating grant funds, thc reclplcnt agrees to first dctcrminc if any of thc following activltics will bc relatcd to thc use of the grant funds Thc reclp~cnt understands that this special condition apphcs to its following new activmcs, whether or not thcy are being specifically funded with these grant funds. That is, as long as thc activity is being conducted by the reciprent, a subrccipicnt, or any third party, and thc acuvity nccds to bc undcrtakcn in ordcr to usc thc'sc grant funds, this special condition must ficst bc mcr. Thc activitlcs covcred by this special condition are. 1. New construction; 2. Minor renovation or remodeling ora property either (a) listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of thstonc Places or (b) located within a 100-year flood plain; 3. A renovation, lease, or any proposed use ora building or facility that will either (a} result in a change in its basic pnor use or (b) significantly change its size; and, 4 Implementation ora new program involving the use of chemicals other than chemicals that are (a} purchased as an incidental component ora funded activity and (b} traditionally used, for example, in office, household, recreational, or educallonal environments Application of This Special Condition to Recipient's Existing Programs or Acllvities: For any of the recipient's or its subrecipient's existing programs or activities that will be funded with these grant funds, the recipient, upon specific request from BJA, agrees to cooperate with BJA in any preparation by BJA ora national or program en~ ironmental assessment of that funded program or activity. 16 The recipient agrees to ensure Ihal the State Information Technology Point of Contact receives written notification regarding any information technology project funded by this grant during the obligation and expenditure period. Th,s is to facdltate communication among local and state governmental entities regarding various information technology projects being conducted with these grant ~nds. In addition, the recipient agrees to maintain an admimstrattve file documenting the meeting of this requirement. For a list of State Information Technology Pomts of Contact, go to hBp.//www.oj p. usdoj.gov/ec/states.ht m 17 The recipient agrees to provide and expend a l0 percent cash match (calculated as I/9 ofthe federal award amount} before the end of the 24 month obligation and expenditure period The recipient is reminded that the matching funds are atiditable tinder Special Condition//2 and will be binding to the recipient. OJP FORM 4000/2 (REV 587) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE £1TY OF I)ELRI:IY BEI:I[H DELRAY BEACH 1993 100 N.W 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 561/243-7000 MEMORANDUM TO: David Marden City Manager FROM: Joe Weldon Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Sunshine State Games - June 14 - 17, 2002 DATE: August 28, 2001 The Palm Beach County Sports Commission has requested the use of our beach for a beach volleyball tournament June 14-17, 2002 for the Sunshine State Games. The Sunshine State Games provide for amateur athletic contests in 23 sports at 30 different venues for approximately 8,000 participants throughout the state. Approximately 6-8 courts will be set up on the beach in an area between Sandoway and Anchor Park. The Florida Sports Commission will provide sports equipment, manpower and event insurance naming the City of Delray Beach as additional insured. Either Sandoway and/or Anchor Park will be utilized for event parking. I recommend this event be approved. Please place this on the September 19, 2001 agenda for City Commission consideration. i~fector of Parks and Recreation Attachment JW:cp Ref: flsptscm THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Prfntod on Recycled Paper ,, SPORTS COMMISSION Mr. Joe Weldon Director of Parks and Recreation City of Delray Beach I00 NW l't Ave. Delray Beach, FL 33444 2002 Sunshine State Games Dear Joe The Palm Beach County Sports Commission would like to reserve use of the Delray Beach beachfi-ont area for the Beach Volleyball tournament at the 2002 Sunshine State Games. The tournament dates are scheduled for Friday 15th, Saturday 16th, Sunday 17th June 2002, with set-up on Thursday 14m June. The venue specifications request an area large enough to service 6-8 courts, and any area or part thereof that you showed us on our site visit would be more than adequate. We would also like to utilize one of the car park areas across the street from the beach for participant parking. The Games are produced by the Florida Sports Foundation, whose Director of Events is Stephen Rodriguez. Stephen will be responsible for securing insurance coverage for the Games. At this point in time, I would request that you outline simply any particular insurance needs (such as minimum liability coverage), provide a list of each entity that you need to be named as an "additionally insured party" on the final policy, and note the number of days before the event that you need a copy of the documentation. Please send this to me for my records, and I will pass it directly on to Stephen. I have double-checked with Stephen, and it is strictly the venue space that we are requesting you to provide. The Sports Foundation is responsible for all equipment, manpower, and other needs. As part of our agreement with the Florida Sports Foundation, the Sports Commission is responsible for providing all venues for the Games. However, I'm sure Stephen would enjoy catching up with you, and explaining more about the Games and his needs, if you wished to contact him directly. His office number is (850) 410-5287. I would appreciate it if you were able to sign, date, and return the attached standard form that we are using for provisional reservations. Feel free to contact me for any further information. (~;ral~ Morris Director of Sports 200{ 1 555 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD., SUITE 1410, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 TEL (561) 233-1015 FAX (561) 233-1012 Web S~te Address. www palmbeachsports.com E-mad Address. PBCSC@palmbeachsports com 2 0 02 SUNSHINE S TA TE GA ME S FL_~_ _rw Facility Contract Please fill out and return to the Palm Beach County Sports Commission 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. # 1410 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 233-1015 Fax: (561) 233-1012 Date: Facility Name: Event: Dear Facility Operator: lelgtatj lleaeh Beaeht~nonYc w'tea has been identified as a competition site in connection with Palm Beach County's host effort of the 2002 Sunshine State Games. In accordance with the bid/contract procedures established by the Florida Sports Foundation/Sunshine State Games, Palm Beach County Sports Commission is required to obtain agreements with the operators of each of the various venues which will serve as competition sites for the Games. The agreement must contain the facility's guaran- tee that the facility has been reserved for use as a competition site for the 2002 Sunshine State Games beginning June 14 and ending June 17 ,2002. Please sign this letter in the space provided below to evidence your agreement to the terms set forth in the above letter. Very Truly Yours, Palm Beach County Sports Commission Florida Sports Foundation fal2iLiTY, OPERATOR AGENDAITEM NUMBER: Request to be placed on: AGENDA REQUEST Date: August 28, 2001 X Regular Agenda __,SpecialAgenda __WorkshopAgenda When: September 19, 2001 Descr~tion ofagendaitem: Request approval for Palm Beach County Sports Commission to hold a volleyball tournament for the Sunshine State Games on our municipal beach June 14-17, 2002. Florida Sports Foundation will provide sports equipment, manpower and event insurance naming ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: Draft Attached: Recommendation: Approval. the City of Delray Beach as YES NO X YES NO X additional insured. Department Head Signature: 't~Comp ~'~ -~~ Determination of Consistency rehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: Yes Funding alternatives: Account Number:. Account Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Approved for agenda:(~ Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved No (if applicable) ~ No Disapproved MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM ~.,- REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 CHANGE ORDER #1/WEEKLY ASPHALT PAVING, INC. ROADWAY BOND RESURFACING) AUGUST 31, 2001 (2000 This is before the City Commission to approve Change Order #1 to the contract with Weekly Asphalt Paving, Inc. in the amount of $2,000.00 for additional remobilizauon costs, and an additional 12% increase for all other unit prices for the 2000 Roadway Bond Resurfacing project. The increase encompasses additional mobilization and unit price adjustments for labor and petroleum costs that have increased since the contract was approved by Commission on March 21, 2000. In the past year prices for petroleum products (liquid asphalt, fuel for machinery and trucking) have increased substantially. Although unit prices are increasing, the total amount of the contract remains the same due to needed quantifies being less that initially estimated. Funding is from 370-3162-541-65.40 (2000 Roadway Bond Resurfacing). Recommend approval of Change Order #1 to the contract with Weekly Asphalt Paving Inc. Ref:Agrnemol 6.ChangeOrder#1.Weekly Asphalt Paving City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M To: From: Date: David T. Harden, City Manager Howard Wight, Dep Director of Cons August 28, 200'1 www delrayesd com Re: 2000 Road Bond Resurfacing Project (PN 00-49) Change Order #1 Attached for Commission approval is an agenda request for Change Order #1, to Weekley Asphalt Paving, Inc., on the above referenced Project. It encompasses additional mobilization and unit price adjustments to the Contract for labor and petroleum costs that have increased since Contract execution (see attached letter). In the past year prices for petroleum products (liquid for asphalt, fuel for machinery and trucking) have increased substantially. Prices for limerock aggregates used in the asphalt have also increased for the same reasons; and the supply/demand affect of the closure/ownership consolidation of limerock quarry pits west of Miami. We have seen higher asphalt and limerock base unit prices bid on projects recently as compared to last year. The Contract was bid in May of 2000 and was set up in two phases. The first phase was completed in June of 2000 and included roadways not requiring any utility infrastructure improvements. The second phase was to be completed after utilities, primarily water main upgrades, were completed. Utilities have been completed and we are now ready to complete phase 2 (see attached phasing schedule). Change Order #1 is for unit pricing changes only. Work completed in Phase 2 will include adding $2,000.00 for additional remobilization costs; and a 12% increase for all other unit prices. The awarded original Contract amount of $239,090.00 will remain the same. Based on the quantity of work completed in Phase I and the estimated quantities for completion of Phase 2 it appears that the final as-built Contract amount of $203,813.96 will be less than the original amount (see Change Order #1 Contract comparison schedule). Adjustment to the Contract amount will be made at Contract closeout based on actual final quantities after the completion of Phase 2. The comparison schedule includes the same increases for the other bidders assuming that they would be incurring the same additional costs as Weekley. The totals reflect that Weekley would still be the lowest total after the adjustments. It is our opinion that the requested increases by Weekly are justified. S ~Eng~4dmtn~Projects1200012000-O491CONSTRCT~colmem-050101 doc 08/28/0! ~002 06:30 FAZ ' ' -Week, P -- e¥ as halt paving, inc. BOX I~,~,0010 e ~OUTH FLORIDA.. FLORIDA 33082-0010 August 28, 2001' ' :. City of Del~ay 8~ach -- - '-- 434 South .Swinton'Avenue Deiray Beach,'FI. 33444' RE: City ProJect No. 2000-049 Bid No. 2000-14 ' ' Resu tracing Project.- With regards to-the above project and according'to our'conversations we were requested-to hold Off on paving certain areas due to other -commitments the City had to c.o. mplete.p, rior. to beginning our Work. We - have comple, ted all work requested up until that point and. held off as requested, however, now't, hat'these areas are r~ady we have incurred substantial p?ice increases. This projec~t.wa_s .bid Feb.·2000 and our prices have go.ne :up considerably to the. .PO[fit .thRt. we cann~_t.cp.f~plete .this work at the curr. ent-contract unit pr. ices, .Npt .o.nly. has payroll increased bdt'liquid asphalt, fuel and aggregates used to manufacture~ th'e a. sphal't'hav, e also increased: Aggregates have gone'up considerably and will cont[.nue to do so. We therefore have reqested-that the following change- order be Written in order to .con~plete the project which was delayed beyond our control; - A"~emobifizati0n 'cfi~r~le of $~',0.00,00 plus our item for mdbilfzation will have'to be p~id. aga~n, This Would come to $1750.00.'fdr th~ item plus -$2,000.00 for a totai of'$3,750.00. In addition to t'his we-~fequest b· 12% incre~-~e on all other items'to co~er addit-ional e~penses., Ple'as'~' p~esent to the necessary parties and respond' at yodr convenience. We are unable t_o comprimis.e any.of the above changes'due to the inc'reases which we have experienced.. Your attentio.n to. this is appreciated. Since'rely, ..... ~st. Secretary' PHONS: BROWARO (g-~4) 3895311 - DADE ('~8.'i} &2,~-313.t'- FAX (9.~4-) 31~.5121 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGERo~ AGENDA ITEM ~C,- REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 CHANGE ORDER #1/WEEKLY ASPHALT PAVING, INC. (2000 ROADWAY BOND RESURFACING) AUGUST 31, 2001 This is before the City Commission to approve Change Order #1 to the contract with Weekly Asphalt Paving, Inc. in the amount of $2,000.00 for additional remobihzation costs, and an additional 12% increase for all other unit prices for the 2000 Roadway Bond Resurfacing project. The increase encompasses additional mobili:,.ation and unit price adjustments for labor and petroleum costs that have increased since the contract was approved by Commission on March 21, 2000. In the past year prices for petroleum products 0tquid asphalt, fuel for machmeur and trucking) have increased substantially. Although unit prices are increasing, the total amount of the contract remains the same due to needed quantifies being less that initially estimated. Funding is from 370-3162-541-65.40 (2000 Roadway Bond Resuffacing). Recommend approval of Change Order #1 to the contract with Weekly Asphalt Paving Inc. Ref.'Agmemol 6.ChangeOrder#1.Weekly Asphalt Paving Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M To: From: Date: David T. Harden, City Manager ~,~ Howard Wight, Dep Director of Cons August 28, 2001 www delrayesd com Re: 2000 Road Bond Resurfacing Project (PN 00-49) Change Order #1 Attached for Commission approval is an agenda request for Change Order #1, to Weekley Asphalt Paving, Inc., on the above referenced Project. It encompasses additional mobilization and unit price adjustments to the Contract for labor and petroleum costs that have increased since Contract execution (see attached letter). In the past year prices for petroleum products (liquid for asphalt, fuel for machinery and trucking) have increased substantially. Prices for limerock aggregates used in the asphalt have also increased for the same reasons; and the supply/demand affect of the closure/ownership consolidation of limerock quarry pits west of Miami. We have seen higher asphalt and limerock base unit prices bid on projects recently as compared to last year. The Contract was bid in May of 2000 and was set up in two phases. The first phase was completed in June of 2000 and included roadways not requiring any utility infrastructure improvements. The second phase was to be completed after utilities, primarily water main upgrades, were completed. Utilities have been completed and we are now ready to complete phase 2 (see attached phasing schedule). Change Order #1 is for unit pricing changes only. Work completed in Phase 2 will include adding $2,000.00 for additional remobilization costs; and a 12% increase for all other unit prices. The awarded original Contract amount of $239,090.00 will remain the same. Based on the quantity of work completed in Phase 1 and the estimated quantities for completion of Phase 2 it appears that the final as-built Contract amount of $203,813.96 will be less than the original amount (see Change Order #1 Contract comparison schedule). Adjustment to the Contract amount will be made at Contract closeout based on actual final quantities after the completion of Phase 2. The comparison schedule includes the same increases for the other bidders assuming that they would be incurring the same additional costs as Weekley. The totals reflect that Weekley would still be the lowest total after the adjustments. It is our opinion that the requested increases by Weekly are justified. S ~Eng,4dmtnlProjects12000~2000-O49~CONSTRC~colmern-050101 doc CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CHANGE ORDER TO ORIGINAL CONTRACT CHANGE NO. 1 PROJECT NO. 00-49 DATE: PROJECT TITLE: 2000 Road Bond Rcsurfacing Project TO CONTRACTOR: Weekley Asphalt Paving, 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: Change Contract unit pricing for Phase 2 as per attached schedule titled "Change Order #1 Change Order #1 Contract Unit Price Adjustment" and per August 28, 2001 letter from Weekley Asphalt. Changes represent pricing adjustments due to increased labor and material costs and time between phasing as directed by City of Delray Beach. SUMMARY OF CONTRACT AMOUNT ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES PREVIOUSLY ORDERED ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER PER CENT INCREASE THIS CHANGE ORDER 0.00 TOTAL PER CENT INCREASE TO DATE 0.00% $239,090 00 $ 0 00 $239,090 00 $ o.oo $239,090.00 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 and in proper ratio to the cost of the original work contracted for under benefit of competitive bidding. Weekley Asphalt Paving, Inc. (Contractor to sign & seal) TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA by its City Commission RECOMMEND: for Environmental Services APPROVED: By: Mayor ATTEST: By: City A~orney City Clerk W 08/28/01 06:30 FAX we'ekiey ·asPhalt paving inc. '.:ia.O, i~lOX 82.O010 m 8C}UTH FI..ORID~ FLORIDA 33082-OO10 August 28, 2001' ' · .... City Of Del~ay 8~ch --' ...... 434 South Swinton:Avenue Deira¥ B'~a~h, FI. 33444' '- I~E: City Project No.. 2000-049. - ' Bid No. 2000-14 - - Resu rfacing Project. With regards to. the above proJect'and according'to our'conversations we were requested to hold off on paving certain areas due to other commitments the City had to c.o. mplete.prior.to beginning our Work. We have completed all work requested up until that 'Point and. held off as requested, however, now t-hat'these areas are' r&ady we have incurred substantial p.rice,increa.~e~, This proJect, was bid Feb: 2000 and our prices have go_ne.up considerably to.the..p.ci[~t' tha_t we cann~.t_c_on~lete ...this work at the curr. ent contra'ct unit pr. ices..Not _o. nly has payroll increased bLit'liquid asphalt, fuel and aggregates used to manufacture- th'e a. sphal't'have.also increased:' Aggregates have gone up considerably and will cont[..nue to do so.' We therefore have reqested that the following change- or,let be written in order to .con~plete the project whic~h was delayed beyond our control; - A"femobi'Jizati6n 'cfi~r~e. of $2-,000,00 plus our item for mobilization will have'to be p~id. again, This would come to $1 750.00.'fo:r thee item plus $2,00'0.00 for a total of'$3;750.00. In addition to t'his we:~equest ~. 12% lncre~-se on all oth'er it&ms'to co'er additional e~penses. Pl&'as'&' p~&se:nt to the necessary parties and ~.espond' at yo,~r conv'enien~:e. We are unable to comprim!s.e any of the .above changes'due to the inc'reases which we have. experienced.. Your a.ttentio.n to. this is appreciated. ~st.: Secretary' O02 PHONES: BROWAII[O (9~4)3,8~-5311..- DADS (305)62,1-313,t'- FAX (9,~4)3~-5121 2000 ROAD BOND RESURFACING LIST Phase I LENGTH WIDTH TOTAL EST ACT DESCRIPTION (FT) (FT) (SY) TONS TONS Lake Avenue NW 11th to 12th 850 24 2,267 142 212 05 NW 2nd Ave NW 6th to 7th 200 24 533 33 41 93 Enfield Circle Cul de Sac 250 24 667 50 63 36 NW 5th Ave NW 2nd St to 3rd St 600 24 1,600 100 106.07 NW 1st St Sw~nton to NW 1st Ave 350 24 933 58 63.74 NE 1st St NE 6th Ave to NE 7th Ave 300 24 800 50 63.72 SW 1st St Sw~nton to SW 1st Ave 600 24 1,600 120 106.17 SW 1st Ave SW 1st St to Sw 2nd St 300 24 800 50 106.00 SW 4th Ave SW 2nd St to SW 3rd St 600 24 1,600 100 106.65 SE 3rd St SW 4th Ave to Sw 5th Ave 300 24 800 50 30.72 SE 4th St SE 5th Ave to SE 6th Ave 300 24 800 50 65 15 SE 4th St Sw~nton to SE 1st Ave SW 4th Ave SW 4th St to SW 7th St SW 8th Ave SW 4th St to SW 7th St SE 8th St SE 6th Ave to SE 7th Ave Dogwood Drive Florida Blvd to Cul-De-Sac Jaeger Drive Delray Raquet to Heron Drive Curlew Road Heron to Lindell L~ndell Blvd Old Dixie to Bobohnk Lakewew Drive Lakewew Blvd to Lakeview Blvd 400 24 1,067 67 63.30 1,200 24 3,200 200 222 44 1,200 24 3,200 200 139 38 100 24 267 17 33 04 1,650 22 4,033 0 Move to Ph II 1,200 22 2,933 0 Move to Ph II 100 22 244 0 Move to Ph II 1,600 24 4,267 0 Move to Ph II 3,000 22 7,333 458 528 91 NW52nd Ave NW5th Stto Cul-De-Sac 250 24 667 50 62 43 V~sta Del Mar A1A to Andrews AIA 50' Each s~de of Water Connect Forest Road Imperial V~llas NW 18th Ave Don Francisco to Atlanbc Pompey Park Parking Lot NW 2nd Ave 1,000 24 2,667 0 Dele~d 100 48 533 0 Dele~d 100 24 267 15 30 31 150 24 400 22 52 45 800 22 1,956 122 128 88 4,300 237 208 63 TOTALS 49,733 2,t 90 2,435.33 Phase II LENGTH WIDTH TOTAL EST ACT DESCRIPTION (FT) (FT) (SY) TONS TONS Bunbng Drive Avocet to Blue Jay 850 24 2,267 170 2 Avocet Road @Cardinal Drive 800 24 2,133 133 3 Del Harbour A1A to Cul de Sac 800 24 2,133 133 4 Seasage Dr Tamannd to Melaleuca 300 24 800 50 5 NE 3rd St Ne 7th Ave to NE 8th Ave 600 24 1,600 100 6 Jaeger Dnve Delray Raquet to Heron Drive 1,200 22 2,933 183 7 Curlew Road Heron to Lmdell 100 22 244 15 8 Lindell Blvd Old D~x~e to Bobohnk 1,600 24 4,267 320 9 P~neapple Grove Way NE 1st, 2nd, 3rd @ NE 2nd St 1,000 24 2,667 240 10 SW24thAve Lowson Blvd to SW 10th Ct 125 24 333 25 1 Eagle Dr Blue Jay to Blue Jay 850 24 2,267 170 12 Dogwood Drive Florida Blvd to Cul-De-Sac TOTALS = 1,650 22 4,033 252 ;~-~'/~o'7 ~" 2t,644 1,540 Grand totals Ph I & Ph II 3,731 2,435.33 I-- LLI --~ 0 0 o, o ~ t-- IJ.I I-- 0 Z 0 0 0 r~ I-- Z 0 0 Z Agenda Item No. o~--,' AGENDA REQUEST Date: August 28, 2001 Request to be placed on: --X .... Regular Agenda __ Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda When: September 4, 2001 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Attached for Commission approval is an agenda request for Change Order #1, to Weekley Asphalt Paving, Inc., on the 2000 Road Bond Resurfacing Project (00-49). It encompasses additional mobilization and unit price adjustments to the Contract for labor and petroleum costs that have increased since Contract execution. Change Order #1 is for unit pricing changes only. Work completed in Phase 2 will include adding $2,000.00 for additional remobilization costs; and a 12% increase for all other unit prices. The awarded original Contract amount of $239,090.00 will remain the same. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED. Not required. Department head signature: Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attomey Review/Recommendation if applicable)i 'Budget Director Review (r~l~ed on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available:~/NO Funding alternative'~"(if applicable): _ Account No. & Description ~:;tO-~t[~2-~l.(~--L~0 Account Balance $130:12.3 u~s,~[ ~i~.~ City Manager Review: ~ .,~.j~ Approved for agenda: ¢~-p/NO Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved s:~..A0049~agreq1090401 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM-- ~' ~ - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 SERVICE AUTHORIZATION #9/MATHEWS CONSULTING, INC. {WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY UPGRADE) AUGUST 31, 2001 This is before the City Commission to approve Service Authorization #9 in the amount of $17,300.00 with Mathews Consulting, Inc. Engineering services include an evaluation of the existing Water Treatment Plant and capacity data obtained from previous studies and permit processing to upgrade the plant capacity to 28 MGD. The finding will be submitted to Palm Beach County Health Department to increase the permitted capacity from 22.4 to 28 MDG. Funding is available from 441-5181-536-31.90 (Other Professional Services). Recommend approval of Servace Authorization #9 with Mathews Consulting, Inc. for the Water Treatment Plant Capacity Upgrade Permitting. Ref'Agmemol 6.ServaceAuth.#9.Mathews.Consulting. WaterTreatmentPlantUpgrade City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David T. Harden City Manager C. Danvers Beatty, P.~ Deputy Director of P,~6 Utilities Augu~ 27,2001 Water Treatment Plant Capacity Uprate Project Number 99-054 Attached is an Agenda Request for Service Authorization No. 9 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. for professional engineering services related to the subject project. Services include engineering evaluation of existing plant systems and capacity data obtained from previous studies and permit processing to uprate the plant capacity to 28 MGD. This project will primarily consist of the compilation of two years worth of test data on the filters and clarifiers as well as the analysis of other plant systems. The findings will be submitted to Palm Beach County Health Department to increase the permitted capacity from 22.4 to 28 MGD. The total amount of Service Authorization No. 9 is $17,300.00 and funding is available from Account # 441-5181-536.31-90, Other Professional Services. (budget transfer is attached) Please place this item on the September 4, 2001 Agenda for consideration by City Commission. CCi Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental Services John Bullard, Manager of Water Treatment Plant City Clerk (Originals) Agenda File \~ESSRV002~2)EPARTMENTS~EngAdminLProjects\1999\99-054\OFFICIAL\agenda memo doc CITY OF DELRAY BEACH CONSULTING SERVICE AUTHORIZATION DATE: SERVICE AUTHORIZATION NO. CITY P.O. NO. CITY PROJECT NO. 9 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES CITY EXPENSE CODE: MATHEWS CONSULT. PROJECT NO. 1115 TITLE: Delray Beach Water Treatment Plant Uprat~ permit This Service Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and shall become an integral part of the Contract. TITLE: Agreement for General Consulting Engineering Services I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Palm Beach County Health Department (Department) has jurisdiction for permitting water treatment facilities in Palm Beach County. The Department has issued procedures by which capacities of treatment facilities can be uprated following specific field testing procedures. In 1998 and 1999, the City of Delray Beach conducted performance testing of the softening units and the filters to determine optimum treatment levels and capacities of the units. The test results show that the filters can be uprated from 3 gpm/sf to 4 gpm/sf and the softening units can be uprated from 8.4 mgd to 10 mgd without significant impact to finished water quali~', plant hydraulics, and production efficiency. This project involves providing permitting services to formally submit a permit application, engineering report and testing results to the Department for uprating the City's water treatment plant to 28 mgd. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES Phase I - Study and Report Phase Not Applicable. contract06/22/01 1 MATHEWS CONSU'LTING Phase II - Preliminary_ Design Phase Not Applicable. Phase III - Final Design Phase Not Applicable. Phase IV - BiddingfNegotiation Phase Not Applicable. Phase V - Construction Administration Not Applicable. Other - Permittillg Task 1: Task 2: Task 3: Task 4 Task 5 Consultant shall collect information regarding historical flow data and verify design flow conditions (e.g. Max. day, peak hour). Assign design flow for process and pumping units. Consultant shall evaluate wellfield capacity and compare well pumping rating to SFWMD allocation. Consultant shall collect information regarding hydraulic piping layout. Consultant shall Develop hydraulic profile for entire plant and verify proper pipe sizing between process units. Consultant shall review uprated testing information for clarifiers and filters. Consideration shall be given for Class I reliability with largest unit out of service. Consultant shall collect information regarding existing plant process and equipment ratings. Consultant shall review unit capacities for uprated value and shall consider Class I reliability with largest unit out of service. Processes include: * Well stripping towers · Aerators · Sludge Handling Facilities (Thickeners, Vacuum Filters) contract06/22/01 2 MATHEWS CONSULTING Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Task 11 Consultant shall collect information regarding existing pumping units. Consultant shall review pumping unit capacities/pump curves/system head curves for uprated value and shall consider Class I reliability with largest unit out of service. Units include: · Internal recycle pumps · High Service Pumps · Transfer Pumps Consultant shall collect information regarding existing chemical systems. Consultant shall review chemical system capacities for uprated value and verify dosage requirements, dosage capacities and storage capacities. · Chlorine · Ammonia · Polymer · Phosphate · Fluoride · Lime · Carbon Dioxide Consultant shall collect information for Electrical/instrumentation and control analysis and shall verify power loading and emergency generator backup capacity. For all deficiencies identified, Consultant shall prepare recommendations for modifications in memo format. Recommendations shall focus on identifying improvements that can be completed in-house by City staff, and those improvements that will need to be implemented through a Contractor. Preparation of engineering drawings/specifications for proposed modifications is not included. Consultant shall prepare a permit application for submittal to the Palm Beach County Health Department (Department) for uprating the City's filters and softening units. Application package shall consist of the following: · Completed FDEP Form 62-555.900 (1) · Engineering report detailing plant background, existing and proposed capacities of unit processes and pumping units, uprating procedures and test results. · Application fee of $2,000.00 Consultant shall conduct pre-application meeting with Health Department staff to discuss the project prior to submittal of permit package. Following submittal, Consultant shall respond to Department requests for information (RFIs) and coordinate responses with the City. contxact06/22/01 3 MATHEWS CONSULTING It is assumed the City will provide the following information to Consultant: Copies of previous uprating correspondence with the Department. Overall plant process flow diagram. Copies of current and/or previous water treatment construction permit and SFWMD water use penrdt. Copies of laboratory test results for raw and finished water quality during and after the testing period. It is understood that the goal of the project is to uprate the entire water treatment facility capacity. The permitted plant capacity may or may not increase depending on limitations with the wellfield capacity and allocated withdrawal rates. III. TIME OF PERFORMANCE The completion dates for this work will be as follows (starting at written notice-to-proceed). Engineering Services Permitting Tasks 1-9 Permitting Tasks 10-11 ~Note: IV. Time per Phase Cumulative Time 8 weeks 8 weeks 4 weeks 12 weeks Schedule only depicts time frame for Consultant to ~ubmit permit application to the Department. COMPENSATION The compensation for services provided shall be billed on an hourly basis plus reimbursable expenses for each phase of work in accordance with Article VII, Method II, up to the following not to exceed cost for each phase. Engineering Services Permitting: Out-of-Pocket Expenses TOTAL PROJECT COST Notes:. $ 17,100.00 $ 200.00o) $ 17,300.00 (l)Out-of-Pocket Expenses include the following: printing/reproduction and postage contract06/22/01 4 MATHEWS CONSULTING This Service Authorization is approved contingent upon the City's acceptance of and satisfaction of the completion of the services rendered in the previous phase whereas encompassed by the previous Service Authorization. If the City in its sole discretion is unsatisfied with the services provided in the previous phase or Service Authorization, the City may terminate the contract without incurring any further liability. The Consultant may not commence work on and Service Authorization approved by the City to be included as part of the contract without any further notice to proceed. Approve by: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: MATHEWS CONSULTING, INC. Date: David W. Schmidt, Mayor E., President Attest: Approved as to Legal Sufficiency and Form %,~. ~f' ~ Fd)mary 2L 2004 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument .~vas ackno/)vledged before me this~_.~_~ay of ._~(~_., 2001 by Rene Mathews, President of Mathews Consulting, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is (personally known to me) or (has ~roduced identification), Florida Driver's License and (did/did not) take an oath. Sign~ahare of]~son taking d~ acknowledg~rfent contract08/24/01 MATHEWS CONSULTING No. Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda AGENDA REQUEST Agenda Item ~F Date: August 27, 2001 When: September 4, 2001 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Staff requests Commission approval of Service Authorization No. 9 to Mathews Consulting, Inc. for professional engineering services related to the subiect project. Services include engineering evaluation of existing plant systems and capaci_ty data obtained from previous studies and permit processing to uprate the plant capaci_ty to 28 MGD. Total amount of Service Authorization No. 9 is $17,300.00 and funding is available from Account # 442-5181- 536-31.90 Other Professional Services. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO DRAFT ATTACHED YES/NO Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Service Authorization No. 9 for Mathews Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $17,300.00. Department head signature: Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (r~Vfi~ed on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding availablekYE~t/NO ~ Funding alternatives~/ ~_ . (if applicable) (//~5~ Account No. & Description qql- ~}gl- 53~,. 3~-5o ~q4~c ~c~es~;o~[ Sics. City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved S ~EngAdmtnLProjects\1999\99-054\OFFICIADAgendaReq - 090401 doc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM ~ - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 53-01 AUGUST 31, 2001 This is a resolution assessing costs for abatement action required to remove nuisances on thirteen (13) properties throughout the C~ty. The resolution sets forth the actual costs incurred and provides the mechanism to attach liens against the properties in the event the assessments remain unpaid. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 53-01. RefiAgrnemo.Res No. 53-01/CE RESOLUTION NO. 53-01 A I~ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF TH~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF TH~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSIN~ COSTS FOR ABATIN~ NUISANCES UPON C~TAXN LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN '£~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH AND PROVIDIN~ THAT A NOTICE OF LIEN SHALL ACCOMPANY 'r~ NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT~ S~TTIN~ OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY 'r~ CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING TH~ COST OF SUCH ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES~ PROVIDIN~ FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DU~ DATE AND INTEI~EST ON ASSESSMENTS~ PROVIDING FOR THE R~CORDIN~ OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND DECLARIN~ SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON TH~ SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS. WHEREAS, the City Manager or his desi~nated representative has, pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, declared the existence of a nuisance upon certain lots or parcels of land, described in the list attached hereto and made a part hereof, for violation of the provisions of Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances~ and, ~REAS, pursuant to Section 100.20, 100.21 and 100.22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, the City Manager or his desi~nated representative has inspected said land(s) and has determined that a nuisance existed in accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, and did furnish the respective owner(s) of the land(s) described in the attached list with written notice of public nuisance pursuant to Sections 100.20, 100.21 and 100.22 of the Code of Ordinances describing the nature of the nuisance(s) and sent notice that within ten (10) days from the date of said notice forty-two (42) days in the case of violation of Section 100.04 pertaining to seawalls) they must abate said nuisance, or file a written request for a hearing to review the decision that a nuisance existed within ten (10) days from the date of said notice, failing which the City of Delray Beach would proceed to correct this condition by abating such nuisance, and that the cost thereof would be levied as an assessment against said property~ and, W~EREAS, the property owner(s) named in the list attached hereto and made a part hereof did fail and neglect to abate the nuisance(s) existing upon their respective lands or to properly request a hearing pursuant to Section 100.21 and 100.22 within the time 14m4ts prescribed in said notice and Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances, or if the property owner(s) did request and receive · hearing, said property owner(s) failed and/or neglected to abate such nuisance(s) within the time desi~nated at the hearing wherein a decision was rendered adverse to the property owner(s)~ and, h~KEAS, the City of Delray Beach, through the City Administration or such agents or contractors hired by the City Administration was therefore required to and did enter upon the land(s) described in the list attached and made a part hereof and incurred costs in abating the subject nuisance(s) existing thereon as described in the notice~ and, ~REAS, the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach has, pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, subm/tted to the City Commission a report of the costs incurred in ~bating said nuisance(s) as aforesaid, said report indicating the costs per parcel of land involvad~ and, WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, pursuant to Chapter 100 of the Code of Ordinances desires to assess the cost of said nuisance(s) against said property owner(s), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R~SOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF T~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACh, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS~ Section 1. That assessments in the individual amounts as shown by the report of the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach, involving the City's cost of abating the aforesaid nuisances upon the lots or parcels of land described in said report, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby levied against the parcel(s) of land described in said report and in the amount(s) indicated thereon. Said assessments so levied shall, if not paid within thirty (30) days after mailing of the notice described in Sec. 3, become a lien upon the respective lots and parcel(s) of land described in said report, of the same nature and to the same extent as the lien for general city taxes and shall be collectible in the same manner as mortgages and foreclosures are under state law. Section 2. That such assessments shall be legal, valid and binding obligations upon the property against which said assessments are levied. Section 3. That the City Clark of the City of Delray Beach is hereby directed to immediately mail b~ first class mail to the owner(s) of the property, as such ownership appears upon the records of the County Tax Assessor, notice(s) that the City Commission of the City of Dalray Beach on the has levied an assessment against said property for the cost of abatement of said nuisance by the City, and that said assessment is due and payable within thirty (30) days after the mailing date of said notice of assessment, after which a lien shall be placed on said.property, and interest will accrue at the rate of 8% per annum, plus reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of collecting said s--m. A Notice of Lien shall be mailed, along with the Notice of Assessment and this resolution. Section 4. That this resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of adoption and the assessment(s) contained herein shall become due and payable thirty (30) days after the mailing date of the notice of said assessment(s), after which a lien shall be placed on said property(s), and interest shall accrue at the rate of eight (8) percent per s,,um plus, if collection proceedings are necessary, the costs of such proceedings including a reasonable attorney's fee. Section 5. That in the event that payment has not been received by the City Clark within thirty (30! days after the mailing date of the notice of assessment, the City Clark is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this resolution in the public records of PaLm Beach County, Florida, and upon the date and time of recording of the certified copy of this resolution a lien shall become effective on the subject property which shall secure the cost of abatement, interest at the rate of 8%, and collection costs including a reasonable attorney's fee. Res. No. 53-01 PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the · 2001. day of MAYOR ATTEST City Clerk Res. No. 53-01 COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER t00 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION DELRAY BEACH ESTATES, LOT 28, PB 21, P 13, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (2705 NO. FEDERAL HIGHWAY) 12 43 46 04 08 000 0280 CUST. ID # 8832 WINSTON CONDO, UNIT 1, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (137 SO. SWINTON AVE. # 1) 12 43 46 16 70 000 0010 CUST ID # 8831 TOWN OF DELRAY, N 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 30, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (125 SW 5TH AVENUE) 12 43 46 16 01 030 0051 CUST ID # 535 LAMBERT TRAILER COURT, W 80 FT OF E 440 FT OF LOT 6, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL I(VAC LOT WEST OF SE 12TH RD) 12 43 46 21 12 000 0062 CUST' ID # 2448 TOWN OF DELRAY, N 50 FT OF S 356.4 FT OF E 135 FT OF BLOCK 24, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (322 SW 5TH AVENUE) 12 43 46 16 01 024 0040 CUST. ID# 187 OWNER ANTHONY & PRIETO 2645 NORTH FEDERAL HWY. DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 VVYD CORP. 2643 SABLEWOOD COURT DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 AMY CHARLOW 125 SW 5TH AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 JONATHAN M. MAAS 3825 LONE PINE ROAD DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 ADELENE JENKINS PO BOX 1993 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33447 ASSESSMENT $ 128.63 $ 70.00 ADM. FEE $ 30.90 $ 70.00 ADM FEE $ 85.90 $ 70.00 ADM.FEE $ 347.63 $ 70.00 .ADM.FEE $ 65.90 $ 70,00 ;ADM. FEE Res. No. 53-01 COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER t00 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE NORTHRIDGE, LOT 10 & S 18 FT OF LOT 11, BLOCK 1, PB 23, P 168, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (2003 NORTH SWINTON AVENUE) 12 43 46 04 20 001 0100 CUST ID # 8875 WINSTON CONDO, UNIT 1, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (137 SO. SWINTON AVE. # 1) 12 43 46 16 70 000 0010 CUST ID # 8831 TOWN OF DELRAY, S 50 FT OF N 200 FT OF W 120 FT OF BLOCK 25, PB 1, P 3, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (300 BLK NW 5TH AVE. VACANT LOT) 12 43 46 16 01 025 0210 CUST ID# 181 'tOWN OF DELRAY, S 50 FT OF N 227 FT OF W 135 FT OF BLOCK 2, PB 3, P 1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (231 NW 8TH AVENUE) 12 43 46 16 01 002 0160 CUST. ID # 7258 RAY J. KARPELES 2003 NORTH SWINTON AVE. DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 WYD CORP. 2843 SABLEWOOD COURT DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 EDWIN C. IVY 519 SW 15TH TERRACE DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 JOSEPH PRICE =PO BOX 1432 BARNWELL, SC 29812 $ 30.90 $ 70.00 !ADM. FEE $ 30.90 $ 70.00 ~ADM.FEE $140.88 $ 70.00 ADM. FEE TOWN OF DELRAY, W 50 FT OF E 176 FT OF N 120 FT OF S 140 FT OF BLOCK 12, PB 3, P 1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (625 WEST ATLANTIC AVE.) 12 43 46 16 01 012 0030 CUST ID # 8178 DELRAY PHOENIX, INC. 130 NW 8TH AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 58.18 70.OO ADM. FEE 65.90 70.00 iADM. FEE Res. No. 53-01 COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE DELRAY SHORES 1ST ADD, LOT 18, BLOCK 15, i PB 28, P 2, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM SEC'Y OF HOUSING & BEACH COUNTY, FL URBAN DEVELOPMENT 12 43 46 07 02 015 0180 909 SE 1ST AVENUE # 500 CUST ID # 8389 $ 74.90 .$ 70.00 ADM FEE TOURIST NOOK DELRAY, LOT 5, BLOCK A, PB 11, P 47, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH J. & PEATROLIA STEPHENSON COUNTY, FL 245 NW 10TH AVENUE (245 NW 10TH AVENUE) DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 12 43 46 17 25 001 0050 CUST. ID# 8402 $ 58.18 $ 70.00 'iADM. FEE TOURIST NOOK DELRAY, LOT 6, BLOCK A, PB 11, P 47, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL ~ (239 NW 10TH AVENUE) ESTATE OF ORA WALLACE & 12 43 46 17 25 001 0060 ELOISE HUNTER I CUST ID # 6258 121 NW 11TH AVENUE I DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 $ 73.63 ~ $ 70.00 '.ADM FEE ¥1OI~TION I$: SF:C. 100-01 - I_~ND TO BI= KI::PT FRI=I= OF DEBRIS, VEGETATION, MATTER CONSTITUTING HAZARDS, DECLARED NUISANCE. I Res. No. 53-01 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~. AGENDA ITEM ~'/~ - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 54-01 AUGUST 31, 2001 This is a resolution assessing costs for abatement action necessary to remove junked and/or abandoned vehicles from three (3) properties within the City. The resolution sets forth the actual costs incurred and provides the mechanism to attach liens against the properties in the event the assessments remain unpaid. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 54-01. RefiAgmemo.Res.N o..54-0/AV RESOLUTION NO. 54-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATING NUISANCES BY REMOVING JUNKED AND/OR ABANDONED VEHICLES WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING SAID COSTS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ON ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF NOTICE OF LIEN. WHEREAS, the City Manager or his designated representative has, pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances, removed junked and/or abandoned vehicles owned by persons described in the list attached hereto and made a part hereof, for violation of the provisions of Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, the City Manager or his designated representative has determined that a nuisance existed in accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances, and did furnish the respective owner(s) of the land(s) described in the attached list with written notice of public nuisance pursuant to Sections 90.02 and 90.03 of the Code of Ordinances; and, WHEREAS, the property owner(s) named in the list attached hereto and made a part hereof did fail and neglect to remove said junked and/or abandoned vehicles, and thus failed to abate the nuisance(s) or to properly request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 90 within the time limits prescribed in Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances, or if the property owner(s) did request and receive a hearing, said property owner(s) faile~d and/or neglected to abate such nuisance(s) as required by Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances; and, WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, through the City Administration or such agents or contractors hired by the City Administration was therefore required to and did remove said junked and/or abandoned vehicles owned by persons described in the list attached and made a part hereof and incurred costs in abating the subject nuisance(s); and, WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach has, pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, submitted to the City Commission a report of the costs incurred in abating said nuisance(s) as aforesaid; and, WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances desires to assess the cost of said nuisance(s) against said property owner(s), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That assessments in the individual amounts as shown by the report of the City Manager of the City of Delray Beach, involving the City's cost of abating the aforesaid nuisances a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby levied against the parcel(s) of land described in said report and in the amount(s) indicated thereon. Said assessments so levied shall, if not paid within thirty (30) days after mailing of the notice described in Section 3, become a lien upon the respective lots and parcel(s) of land described in said report, of the same nature and to the same extent as the lien for general city taxes and shall be collectible in the same manner and with the same penalties and under the same provisions as to sale and foreclosure as City taxes are collectible. Section 2. That such assessment shall be legal, valid and binding obligations upon the property against which said assessments are levied. Section 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach is hereby directed to immediately mail by first class mail to the owner(s) of the property, as such ownership appears upon the records of the County Tax Assessor, notice(s) that the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach on the has levied an assessment against said property for the cost of abatement of said nuisance by the City, and that said assessment is due and payable within thirty (30) days after the mailing date of said notice of assessment, after which a lien shall be placed on said property, and interest will accrue at the rate of 8% per annum, plus reasonable attorney's fees and other costs of collecting said sums. Section 4. That this resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of adoption and the assessment(s) contained herein and shall become due and .~ayable thirty (30) days after the mailing date of the notice of said assessment(s), after which a lien shall be placed on said property(s), and interest shall accrue at the rate of eight (8) percent per annum plus, if collection proceedings are necessary, the costs of such proceedings including a reasonable attorney's fee. Section 5. That in the event that payment has not been received by the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after the mailing date of the notice of assessment, the City Clerk is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this resolution in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and upon the date and time of recording of the certified copy of this resolution a lien shall become effective on the subject property which shall secure the cost of abatement, interest at the rate of 8%, and collection costs including a reasonable attorney's fee. Res.No. 54-01 Section 6. That at the time the City Clerk sends the certified copy of this resolution for recording, a notice of lien, in the form of prescribed in Section 90.06 of the Code of Ordinances, shall be mailed to the property owner. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the , 2001. day of ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk Res .No. 54-01 COST OF ABATING NUISANCES UNDER CHAPTER 90 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OWNER I ASSESSMENT SUB OF N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4/REC LOT 5, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (820 SW 3RD STREET) THELIA J. SMITH 12 43 46 17 43 000 0050 1335 LEE STREET CUST. ID # 3574 DELI=AY BEACH, FL 33444 $ 30.00 ADM. I$ 15.00 FEE / SUB OF N 1/2 OF SE 114 OF SE 1/4 OF SW I/4/REC, I LOT 5, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL THELIA J. SMITH (820 SW 3RD STREET) 1335 LEE STREETI 12 43 46 17 43 000 0050 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 CUST ID# 3574 [ $ 15.00 ADM FEE TOWN OF DELRAY, S 150 FT OF W 135.5 FT OF ~BLOCK 26, PB 5, P 64, PUBLIC RECORDS OF I: (415 NW 2ND STREET),i;AMERIFRIST 12 43 46 16 01 026 0120/117500 NW 68TH AVENUE #210 ,CUSTID#114 iHIALEAH, FL 33015-4044 '$ 30.00 Ii il $ 15.oo ~ADM. FEE V~OI~T~ON ~S: SECTION ~0.05 - STORINO, PAR~INO OR LEA¥~NO ~ECKED OR INOPER~BI.E MOTOR H~..~RD$, DEClaRED NUl$ANCE 4 Res. No. 54-01 [ITY OF DELRrI¥ BEI:IgH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1993 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 Writer's Direct Line (561) 243-7090 MEMORANDUM August 30, 2001 City Commission David T. Harden, City Manager / Jay T. Jambeck, Assistant City Attorne~ Amendment No. 1 to Agreement regarding Delray Beach Comprehensive Historic Structures Survey, Phase II Attached please find the above-referenced Amendment. The Amendment contains provisions that the State of Florida requires its grantees to include in any agreement where the State is contributing grant money. Therefore, inclusion of the provisions was necessary in order to obtain the grant money for the Historic Structures Survey. The original agreement was approved by the City Commission and awaits the approval of this Amendment for final execution. By copy of this memorandum to the City Manager, our office would request that this item be placed on the agenda for the September 4, 2001 City Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Attachment CC: Barbara Garito, Acting City Clerk Ellen Uguccioni, Senior Planner (Historic) AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT The City of Delray Beach ("CITY") and Janus Research, Inc. ("CONTRACTOR") enter into this Amendment to the Agreement concerning RFP #2001-30, Delray Beach Comprehensive Historic Structures Survey, Phase I1. The parties recognize that certain additions to the original agreement are necessary to comply with grant requirements of the State of Florida. 1. The parties enter into this Amendment to amend the original Agreement in the following respects: A. Paragraph 12 is hereby added to read as follows: CONTRACTOR shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in that: No person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, political affiliation, beliefs, or disability be subject to discrimination under any program or activity which the CONTRACTOR has agreed to undertake by and through the covenants and provisions set forth in this Agreement. B. Paragraph 13 is hereby added to read as follows: CONTRACTOR shall keep and maintain financial, invoice, and employment records pertaining to the contractual obligation between the Parties for pre-audit and post-audit purposes for a period of five years following the completion of all project work, or until all claims and audit findings involving these records have been received, whichever is later. The Owner, the Florida Department of State, or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records of CONTRACTOR which are directly pertinent to this agreement, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcription. C. Paragraph 14 is hereby added to read as follows: In the event that CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement or otherwise violates any of the provisions of this Agreement, then the CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. D. Paragraph 15 is hereby added to read as follows: The survey contemplated by this Agreement shall commence upon the City's notice to proceed and shall be completed by May 31, 2002. The cost of the project is $25,085.75, with the City paying $15,085.75 and the state paying $10,000 by a matching grant. 2. Except as expressly modified in this amendment, the terms of the original Agreement remain in full force and effect. 3. This Amendment shall take effect upon execution by all parties. 4. Should any provision or part of this Amendment be declared illegal, invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining parts and provisions shall have no force and effect unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, on the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney By: David Schmidt, Mayor WITNESS: JANUS RESEARCH, INC. (print or type name) By: Name Printed: Title: (SEAL) STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ,2001 by , of a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me/or has produced (as identification). Signature of Notary Public [ITY OF O£LRI:IY BEI:I[H DI:I. RAY BI:ACH 100 N W. lstAVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 561/243-7000 MEMORANDUM 1993 TO: David Harden City Manager FROM: Joe Weldon Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: FRDAP Grant for Tennis Courts at Catherine Strong Center and Playground Equipment at Barwick Park DATE: August 31, 2001 Attached please find correspondence from Lisa King of Langton Associates concerning applying for a Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program grant for tennis courts at Catherine Strong Center and playground equipment at Barwick Park. As noted, our match for the tennis courts, estimated at $143,000, would be $35,750 (25%). The grant would be in the amount of $107,250. We would require no match for the playground equipment since it would be a 100% grant. We are requesting a grant of $50,000 for the playground equipment. I would appreciate it if you would place this on the September 4, 2001 agenda, requesting City Commission authorization to apply for these grants. DireCtor of Parks and Recreation Attachment cc: Nilza Madden Agenda Coordinator JW:cp Ref:frdapgrnt Prlnted ~ ~ec~led P~er THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS FRg~ ; LANGTOI',I H$SI:IC!I:ITES PHONE NO. : ?~4 38? ~364 lauc,j. 30 2001 04:20PH P2 LANGTO CC: From: Date: $oe Weldon, D~rcctor, Parks and David Harden, City Manager Lisa Krug, V~ce ~csiden~ F~nda Recreation Dex'elop~t ASSm~e Pro,ram (F~AP) ~nl fox Catherine S~ong and Bartok Parks Based on your p~oject CoSt esthete of $143,000, a FRDAP grant for $107,2~0 can be pursued for Catherine St~or~g Park. Th~s grant must be metched w~th $35,750 (2S% match), The gra~t budget woulc~ be as follows 2 ~ht~d tennis cot,tis General Conditions $~ 000 Clearing and Site work SI0,000 Fences and Gates $15,000 Concrete $3,000 Imgation 53,000 Landscapmg $5,000 Plumbing ~d Water fountains $2,(100 We eau also parsue a $50,000 no match grant For Barwick Park for playground equipment Lq order W unprove the City's scores there are several activities wc need to accomplish for each pro~,ect prior to the October 12 deadline. · Amend the CIP :o mclude these projccts or adopt a resolutxon vornrruttm~ to :nm:~ the C[P if the grants are ~ded The Ci~ would rccovc 20 pomta for C~ amend~ CIP or ! 0 ~ints for a resolution. - Hold sole-pa~se, ~r¢-adve~¢d pobhc mee~n~ ~bout each of the projccls (10 points) : L~TON ~BSOC~IES PHONE NO. : ~4 ~8Z ~364 August 30, 2001 · Discuss the pr~ects at a/~egularly scheduled tt0eetmg of an adwsory board such as the Pla.,mmg and Zoning or CRA Board (7 pom~s) * Present ~nfon'nanon about the projcclS at a cowmumly organization meeting, (4 points) I recommend that the City attempt to accomplish a~ ma~y of the above acfivioe~ as possible before the deadline The highcr score thai we can achieve the more compettt~ve our projects will be These activ~tie.~ y~clcl points that wc can achieve regardless oft, he other mgits of om: projccts, Many of thc olher points a pro.~ect can earn are based o~ pro3ect features such ~s :ypes or' recreation, populatioo. and ~¢gio~ and a~e out of ou~ ¢ontxol, Wc should strive to achieve as numy of ~he points that are w~thu~ our con~rol as posable, look forward to devclop~ng these apphcstious for you AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA REQUEST Date: August 31, 2001 X Regular Agenda Special Agenda Workshop Agenda When: September 4, 2001 Description ofagendaitem: Request City Commission authorization to apply for 2 grants from Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program: 1) $50,000 for playground equipment at Barwick Park; and 2) $107,250 for tennis courts at Catherine Strong Center (3/4 of estimated price of $143,000). ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES Draft Attached: YES NO X NO X Recommendation: Grant authorization to apply for 2 grants. Determination of Consistency wit~t~omprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: Yes No Funding alternatives: Account Number: Account Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: Approved foragenda:~ ~ No Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved Disapproved (if applicable) TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: D,~~..~T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER PAUL DORLING, DI~J~CTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING ASMIN ALLEN, PLANNER MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 *CONSENT AGENDA* REPORT OF APPEALABLE LAND USE ITEMS AUGUST 20, 2001 THRU AUGUST31, 2001 The action requested of the City Commission is that of review of appealable actions which were made by various Boards during the period of August 20, 2001 through August 31, 2001. This is the method of informing the City Commission of the land use actions, taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed by the City Commission. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day minimum has not occurred). Section 2.4.7(E) of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Commission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Commission may file an appeal. To do so: 1. The item must be raised by a Commission member. 2. By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting of the Commission as an appealed item. A. Approved (7 to 0), a conditional use modification request to allow the conversion of a service garage into additional square footage for the existing convenience store for Sherwood Texaco, located at the southeast corner of SW 10th Street and Congress Avenue. B. Approved (7 to 0), an internal adjustment to reduce the required side yard setbacks from 15 feet to 10 feet for Winterplace PUD located in unincorporated Palm Beach County at the southeast corner of the L-30 Canal and Military Trail. City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of September 4, 2001 Page 2 No other appealable items were considered by the Board. The following items will be forwarded to the City Commission for action. Recommended approval (7 to 0), of the transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001-02. Additionally, the Board made specific recommendations on the following items: Recommended approval (7 to 0), of a Future Land Use Map amendment from LD (Low Density Residential 0-5du/ac) to CF (Community Facilities) for a parcel of land located at 36 NW 4th Avenue to accommodate an off-street parking lot associated with the Atlantic Grove Redevelopment Project. Recommended approval (7 to 0), of a corrective Future Land Use Map amendment from MD (Medium Density Residential 5-12du/ac) to CC (Commercial Core) and rezoning from RM (Medium Density Residential) to CBD (Central Business District) for a parcel of land located on the east side of Bronson Avenue approximately 100 feet south of East Atlantic Avenue. The motion to recommend approval failed on a 4 to 3 vote for the privately- initiated amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan changing the description of the Transitional Land Use designation to increase residential densities to 20 units per acre for properties zoned RO (Residential office) which are adjacent to the CBD (Central Business District) and CBD-RC (Central Business District-Railroad Corridor). Continued (7 to 0), with direction to revise, an amendment to the Land Development Regulations Appendix "A" and Section 4.3.3 adding a definition and special regulations for "temporary emergency housing", and Section 4.4.9(D) adding "temporary emergency housing" as a conditional use in the GC (General Commercial) zoning district. Recommended approval (7 to 0), of a rezoning request for the Waterford Place SAD (Special Activities District) to delete the condition of approval requiring a certificate of occupancy for the hotel to be issued prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final apartment complex building. n Recommended approval (7 to 0), of the initiation of a Comprehensive Text amendment relating to the School Concurrency Element. Approved (6 to 0, Eliopoulos absent), a flat wall sign for Bru's Room Sports Grill, located with the Ocean City Lumber Complex on the east side of Pineapple Grove Way, north of Atlantic Avenue (35 NE 2nd Avenue) City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of September 4, 2001 Page 3 Approved (6 to 0), a blanket sign program for Town Square, located on the south side of NE 1st Street tN between NE 5 Avenue (southbound Federal Highway) and NE 8th Avenue (northbound Federal Highway) - 55 NE 5th Avenue. Tabled (5 to 0, Sneiderman stepped down), a fiat wall sign for Alpha Marble, located on the south side of Dr. Andre's Way, east of Congress Avenue (1874 Dr. Andre's Way). The Board requested that a complete sign package be submitted for the building. 4. Approved (5 to 0, Perez-Azua stepped down) a request for a color change for Stor Tech-Delray Park of Commerce Tract G, an existing industrial building located on the east side of NW 17th Avenue, north of Lake Ida Road. 5. Approved (5 to 0, Perez-Azua stepped down), a request for a color change for Lighthouse at Delray Beach, an existing multiple family building, located on the west side of SW 1st Avenue, south of SVV 1st Street (112 SW 1st Avenue). 6. Approved (5 to 0,Perez-Azua stepped down), a request for a color change for Toddle Town, an existing commercial building located on the east side of Pineapple Grove Way, north of NE 1st Street (149 Pineapple Grove Way). Approved (6 to 0), a request to eliminate the condition of approval for Palm Beach County Bank that required that the exterior columns be rounded. The proposed bank is located within the Delray Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Linton Boulevard and Military Trail. Approved (6 to 0), the architectural elevation plan associated with the installation of new windows and overhead doom for Ocean City Lumber, located on the east side of Pineapple Grove Way, north of East Atlantic Avenue (35 Pineapple Grove Way). Approved (6 to 0), a request for a color change to the signage and architectural elevation plan associated with the installation of light fixtures along the east elevation for SOPRA Restaurant, located at the southeast corner of East Atlantic Avenue and SE 2nd Avenue (110 East Atlantic Avenue). 10.Approved with conditions (6 to 0), a Class II site plan modification and the landscape plan associated with the reconfiguration of the existing parking areas for 234 Building, located on the west side of NE 5th Avenue (southbound Federal Highway), north of NE 2nd Street (235 NE 5th Avenue). 11 .Approved with conditions (6 to 0), a Class III site plan modification, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan associated with a 200 square foot building addition to an approved industrial building within Delray Park of Commerce-Tract E, which is located on the east side of NVV 17th Avenue, north of Lake Ida Road. City Commission Documentation Appealable Items Meeting of September 4, 2001 Page 4 12.Approved with conditions (6 to 0), a Class IV site plan modification, landscape plan and architectural elevation plan associated with the construction of a 1,200 square foot building for Security and Sounds, an existing contractor's office located at the northwest corner of SE 5th Avenue (southbound Federal Highway) and SE 8th Street (766 SE 5th Avenue). 13.Approved with conditions (6 to 0), a Class V site plan and landscape plan for Renaissance Village, a proposed 20 unit townhouse development, located at the southeast corner of NE 6th Avenue (northbound Federal Highway) and NE 2nd Street. The architectural elevation plan was tabled as the Board required the provision of additional architectural features on the rear of the buildings. Concurrently, the Board granted the following waivers: Reduced the site visibility corner at the intersection of NE 6th Avenue and NE 2nd Street from 40 feet to 25 feet and the intersection of NE 2nd Street and the alley from 40 feet to 28 feet. Approved the request to provide a decorative wall within the required 10 foot special landscape setback along Federal Highway. No Regular meeting of the Board was held during this period. By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: · Location Map CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLOR/DA - City Commission Meeting- SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 GI#.F STREAM ~_VD L-30 CANAL ~ ...... .r ...... , ~._, ~ ....... _r' ..... ~ ..,. I-' ~j I m J~ ~ L ...................... "l r'~ ~-.J i~ - iJ ! L ..... J I L LOWSON BOULEVARD i . ~ i. ..... _l ................... i.~'F~'~ ....................... NW 2NDST S W 2ND ST S.W Gl5 CAN4L S.P.R.A.B.: 1. BRU'S ROOM SPORTS GRILL 2. TOWN SQUARE 3. ALPHA MARBLE 4. STOR TECH 5. LIGHTHOUSE OF DELRA Y BEACH 6. TODDLE TOWN 7. PALM BEACH COUNTY BANK A T DELRA Y TOWN CENTER 8. OCEAN CITY LUMBER 9. SOPRA RESTAURANT fO. 234 BUILDING 11. DELRAY PARK OF COMMERCE TRACT- E 12. SECURITY AND SOUND 13. RENAISSANCE VILLAGE P.&Z.: A. SHERWOOD TEXACO B. WlNTERPLACE PUD UNTOH ......... CRY LIMITS ONE MILE GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 1999 - - DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM - - CITY OF DELRI:IY BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1993 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 ° FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 Writer's Direct Line: 561/243-7091 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 31, 2001 TO: City Commission David Harden, Ci~_..~Manager FROM: Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Acceptance of Easement Deed from Eugenio and Lucy Ortiz The following easement deed grants to the City the means to construct and maintain a water main along the east side of the subject property. Our office requests that this item be placed on the September 4, 2001 City Commission agenda for acceptance. Please call if you have any questions. Attachment cc: Barbara Garito, City Clerk Dan Beatty, Deputy Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: RETURN: R. Brian Shutt, Esq. City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 PID#: 12-43-46-20-13-005-0140 EASEMENT DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this .~./ day of ,l~]t(q4/.L,T6'- , 2001, by and between EUGENIO ORTIZ and LUCY E. ORTIZ, with a mailin~ address of 1120 S.W. 6~ Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 party of the first part, and the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, with a mailing address of 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, a municipal corporation in Palm Beach County, State of Florida, party of the second part: WITNESSETH: That the party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable considerations to it in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and release unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, a right of way and perpetual easement for the purpose of: installation and maintenance of utilities with full and free right, liberty, and authority to enter upon and to install, operate, and maintain such utilities well under, across, through and upon, over, under or within the following described property located in Palm Beach County, Florida, to-wit: DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit "A" Concomitant and coextensive with this right is the further right in the party of the second party, its successors and assigns, of ingress and egress over and on that portion of land described above, to effect the purposes of the easement, as expressed hereinafter. That this easement shall be subject only to those easements, restrictions, and reservations of record. That the party of the first part agrees to provide for the release or subordination of any and all mortgages or liens encumbering this easement. The party of the first part also agrees to erect no building or effect any other kind of construction or improvements upon the above-described property, except a fence may be constructed in this easement. If a fence is constructed in the easement, it shall be offset a minimum of one foot in relation to the underground utilities. It is understood that upon completion of such installation, all lands disturbed thereby as a result of such installation or spoilage deposited thereon, will be restored to its original condition or better without expense to the property owner. If a fence is constructed on the easement and is disturbed by maintenance activities of the City, the City shall repair or replace the fence to its original or like condition. In return for the Easement Deed, the City of Delray Beach agrees to install a four (4) foot ficus hedge along the east side of SW 6~ Avenue from the southern most right-of-way of SW 6~ Avenue to the existing ficus hedge approximately 300 feet north. The hedge will also extend across the south right-of-way of SW 6'" Avenue. This hedge shall be installed within 60 days of acceptance of this easement deed by the City Commission. Party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever claimed by, through or under it, that it has good right and lawful authority to grant the above-described easement and that the same is unencumbered except as provided above. Where the context of this Easement Deed allows or permits, the same shall include the successors or assigns of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Easement Deed set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. ? Print N~e:~ STATE OF FLOmDA COUNTY OF 2001 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _..DR/ day of by Eugenio Ortiz, who is personally known to me or who has produced F'~C;q~/~c ~//d'c'~$c as identification. ~ c -~.~TNEo. SES: ,. ? .-- A'QT, / Print Name:(.7 ~/~ ~,~/~ STATE OF FLOmDA COUNTY OF ~~ Signature gf l~$tar~--ffubh ,~ c PARTY OF THE FIRST PART By: f-,U ~._.~,..,w.~/ '~--'~ Print Name: ~_V C ~ { i'TI ~ ~ C~ CC~83~ ~ Ex~D~r ~7, 2~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _~[ day 2001 by Lucy E. Ortiz, who is personally known to me or who has p.?oduced ~(~e~'/,k~' -~"4v,,~ ',Z! o,~ as identification. ~ "~~~~ ~re ~f Notary ~blic MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM o6'''/~' - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS AUGUST 31, 2001 This is before the City Commission to approve the award of the following purchase award: Purchase of a trailer mounted Vac-Con unit from Southern Sewer Equipment Sales in the amount of $25,950.00 via the City of Gainesville contract. Funding is available from 441- 5123-536-64.90 (Other Machinery & Equipment). Recommend approval of the purchase award listed above. Ref'Btd Agrnemo.09.04.01 City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David T. Harden City Manager C. Danvers Beatty, P.E.~ Deputy Director of Public,I~il~s August 27, 2001 Purchase of Trailer Mounted Vae-Con Unit Attached is an Agenda Request and supporting documentation for the purchase of a trailer mounted vac-con unit. This piece of equipment was originally proposed in Level III of the 2001/2002 Operating Budget for Water & Sewer Network as a capital purchase. As a result of reduced overtime cost as well as other expenditures we have sufficient funds available to purchase the equipment at this time. Water and Sewer Network Division will use the machine for valve box/vault cleaning, pot holing and minor excavation around delicate utilities. The demo unit will be purchased from Southern Sewer Equipment Sales utilizing the City of Gainesville, Florida, contract in the Amount of $25,950.00. Funding is available from account # 441-5123-536-64.90, Other Machinery & Equipment. Please place this item on the September 4, 2001 Agenda for consideration by City Commission. Thank you. CCi Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental Services Scott Solomon, Manager of Water Water/Sewer Network City Clerk Agenda File \~ESSRV002~Daws\wwdataWIemo\agenda memo doc Z f .l. IOUTHIIIN tlWIR I(tUIPMINT IALll 3409 Induetrl~127th St. · Ft. Pierce, FL. 34946 ]vfr. Scott Solomon Water & Sewer Manaser ¢i~ o! Delny Beach 434 S. Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Augu~ 22, ~001 Deex/~o~ This letter is to eertit~ Southorn 9ewer Equipmont Sales will honor a p~ order Erom the C~ty of Delray Beach for a VASTRON trailer vamm ~mit. This puA~l~e, would be baoet on the City d Oaineoville Pu~hase Order Number 5244 ~m, .b/d number 22)00-136 line item 1 in the amount of $29,350.00. As an option the City of Delray Be ~ach may wish to purchaee our VAC-TRON demonstrator unit for 825, 950..00. Tho city could save thoueaud8 of dollar8 by purchasing this unit and it would have a now full factory warranty. Please contact Marcy Russ,,m or myself if we can be of further assistance. Fel~ Denmon (561) 595-9171 FAX 1-800-782-4134 (561) 595-6940 "A Certified MBE Woman Owned Business" TOTRL. P. 92 ~.UG-22-288~ t0:58 =_~UTHEI~N 5EWER E~UtP S61 595 9t'~1 ~ . 83/03 PURCHASE ORDER CITY Oz 8A]31T.,SVX~i,X GA211ESV3'LL~ 3UKGXOIIAL1JTZX, Z~:I:L'S P.O.BOX 147~17, STATZO~ XL30 GA~~, FL 32614-7117 (3S2] 334-3~00 tAX: (352) 334-2989 ~o: SOUTHZRNaEk'ERZQ~ZPHZN~ SALF~ 3409 INDUSTRTAL 27TH ST. FORT ~33~CE FL 34946 x~n: SHERRY DEL~qOM INVOICES RUST BE H3tILED ~0: Orders ~0S244 Ve~ston~o: 0002 08/~4/00 Sh~R To: rLEZT KANA~-t~gT 400 SE 5TH AVENUE 3260L 5h£;pLng Terms: B~ST ~AY, FOB (Mt33fESVIL.LS, PREPAY ALLO~ GRU, ACC~0~Z~G DIVISI0~, STATIOLVAIOS P.O. BO)C~47~37 OAINESV17,LE, FLORIDA 32614-7117 Unin Ex%ended 001 1.o0 EA 002 1. OO EA 29350.OOOO 29350.00 SOO GAl, ION CAPACITY VACUUM EXCAVA?OR VAC-TRON MODEL NO. ~I4]:)500DT Due Date 09/23/00 3L695.0000 31695.00 800 GALLO~CAPACITYVACUUM EXCAVATOR VAC-TRON HODEL NO. PHDGOODT DUG D&%o 09/23/00 In ecoord&nce v~h GRU's B~A specl£Xc&~ions (NO. 2000-136) end sou%hewn Sewer ~qutpuen~ Sales' b~ 4a~ed 7/5/00, Xncorpor~ed here~n by ~e~er~ce. C£~¥ Conmisston Approval: 8/14/00 For: Vater Di$%ribut~on Depa~mon~ Replaces U-725 To%el A~oun[ $61045.00 TOTRL P. ;L3 No. Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda __ Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda AGENDA REQUEST Agenda Item Date: August 27, 2001 When: September 4, 2001 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Purchase of a trailer mounted vac-con unit from Southern Sewer Equipment Sales in the amount of $25,950.00 utilizing an existing contract from the City of G. ainesville, Florida. Funding is available from Account # 441-5123-536-64.90 Other Machinery & Equipment. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO DRAFT ATTACHED YES/NO Recommendation: Staff recommends award of the purchase to Southern Sewer Equipment Sales in the amount of $25,950.00. Department head signature: ~_~~ _~-~ -~ } Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (rte~h-~d on all items involving expenditure of funds): Funding available.~k,Y.B~O f¢Funding alternatives (if applicable) Account No. & Descrip.[ion tqq~ Account Balance ' (J o City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: ~O Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved U \wwdata~elemoX, AgendaReq - 090401 doc TO: FROM: DA.VID T. I"L~RDEN, CLTY MANAGER PA[JL~'~'~OREIN(~, [~I~,-E~'OR OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001. APPEAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A CLASS V SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANT LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOTEL VISTA DEL MAR. The action requested of the City Commission is that of consideration of an appeal of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's approval of a Class V site plan approval landscape plan and architectural elevations for the Hotel Vista Del Mar. The subject property is located approximately 300 feet south of Atlantic Avenue on the west side of South Ocean Boulevard (State Road A-l-A). Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's actions were taken on June 20, July 11 and August 8, 2001. The actions were appealed on August 20, 2001 by Michael Weiner, attorney for Bostons Restaurant (owner of property immediately to the north). The appeal is being processed pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(E) Appeals. The development proposal includes the demolition of the Bermuda Inn, a 20 room, two-story motel (constructed in 1968) along with the associated pool and parking. The new hotel has a total of 70 rooms and a private gym/spa. The 1,333 sq.ft, restaurant component and the rooftop pool were eliminated from earlier plans. There are a total of 50 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There are six floors, including the sub- grade parking level and the structure will have an overall height of 48'. The development proposal was considered by SPRAB on June 20, July 11, and August 8, 2001. During the initial SPRAB consideration staff expressed concerns relating to height, loading, parking layout, and general compatibility of the proposal. In the succeeding meetings the applicant took significant steps to address staff concerns. The development proposal presented to SPRAB on August 8 met these concerns and staff gave a positive recommendation for approval. The staff also supported three minor waiver requests, which included waivers to: · LDR Sections 4.6.9.(D)(3)(c)(1) to reduce the required stacking distance for the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to14'; · LDR section 4.6.14 (A) to reduce the visibility triangle at the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 10' and the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from 20' to 8'; · LDR Section 6.1.3. (B) to eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue. City Commission Documentation Meeting of September 4, 2001 Appeal of SPRAB Action - Hotel Vista Del Mar Page 2 A complete analysis of the proposal is found in the attached Site Plan Review and Appearance Board staff reports. SITE PEA~I/RE'VIEW At its meeting of August 8, 2001 the Site Plan and Appearance Board approved the Class V site development plan, waivers, landscape plan and architectural design elements associated with the Hotel Vista Del Mar. The Board followed the established quasi-judicial procedures in considering the project. City Staff and the applicant offered testimony, which supported the development proposal. There was public testimony in opposition to the request. The objections mainly related to the size and mass of the proposed structure. In addition, concerns with the zero setback at the northeast corner of the site and its potential impacts on the redevelopment I of the property to the north were noted. Future redevelopment of the site (Boston's Restaurant) with a similar zero setback would potentially block the ocean view for 1/2 of the hotel rooms. In light of that, significant opposition would be anticipated from the new hotel owners. Further, with the elimination of only four rooms, a 12' setback could be accommodated which would assure ocean view regardless of future development to the north. To retain development equity, the owner to the north suggested entering into a private agreement to provide a similar setback with future development. The Board discussed these points at length. During discussions it was acknowledge that the proposal did meet the current regulations which allow a zero setback and the Board made positive findings with respect to the site plan, landscape elevations and associated waivers. The Board made appropriate findings with respect to the internal requests. II On August 20, 2001, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's action was appealed by Michael Weiner, attorney for Perry DonFrancisco owner of Boston's Restaurant (property immediately to the north). "The proposed basis of the appeal is that the actions taken by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, LDRs and the Laws of the State of Florida." The relief being sought is that the approval of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations be reversed and denied. ACT I ~/i~!i~: Uphold the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's decisions. Attachments: Site Plan Review and Appearance Board Staff Report Appeal Letter MICHAEL S. WEINER CAROLE J. ARONSON JASON $. MANKOFF WEINER & ARONSON, P.A. A'ITORNEYS AT LAW The Clark House 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Telephone: (561) 265-2666 Telecopier: (561) 272-6831 E-mail: delraylaw@bellsouth, net OF COUNSEL: ROBERT MARC SCHWARTZ, P.A. Flonda Bar Board Cerbfied Real Estate Lawyer August 20, 2001 City Clerk City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, Located on the West Side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), Approximately Three Hundred (300) Feet South of East Atlantic Avenue Our File No.: BOST002 Dear Clerk: Pursuant to Section 2.4.7(E) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida ("LDR"), this is an appeal to the City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida by an aggrieved party in writing directed to you. We are providing you with the following information: The action being appealed is the action by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board with respect to the above-captioned item which was heard at a meeting of August 8, 2001, being a continuation from July 11,2001 and a further continuation from June 20, 2001. 2. The action was taken by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and was taken as of August 8, 2001. 3. The basis of the appeal is as follows: a. The action taken by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board ("SPRAB") was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Delray Beach, Florida; b. The action taken by SPRAB was inconsistent with the LDR's; and RECEIVED AU6 2 0 2001 PLANNIL 6 & ZONING City Clerk August 20, 2001 Page 2 c. The actions taken by SPRAB was inconsistent with the laws of the State of Florida. The relief being sought is that the approval of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations be reversed and denied and such further action as the City Commission deems appropriate. The name of the appellant is Boston's, Inc., the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed project and Boston's on the Beach, Inc., the operator of the business at that northern site. These corporations, as the owner and operator, respectively of the property immediately adjacent to the north of the site, are aggrieved parties, with an interest that is more than the interest of the public at large. By way of example and not limitation, the approved Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations includes underground excavation, zero lot line construction and a design which depends upon the acceptance of inordinate burdens on this adjoining property owner and operator. Enclosed is a fee in the amount of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00). We are uncertain if this fee is due but in the abundance of caution, it is enclosed. Please notify us if it may be returned. As well, please notify me of the date and time of the hearing by the City Commission of this appeal. Very t~y(~rs, J - MSW:ab O:\BOST002\Letter City Clerk.Aug20.wpd SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD II CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: ITEM: August 8, 2001 (Continuation from July 11, 2001 meeting) IV.C. Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, Located on the West Side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), Approximately 300' South of East Atlantic Avenue. GENERAL DATA: Owner ............................................ Eugenia Kerstin, Trustee Applicant ........................................ Louis Capano Agent ...................................... Robert Currie, Architect Robert G. Currie Partnership Location ......................................... West side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), approximately 300' south of East Atlantic Avenue. Property Size ................................. 0.412 Acre Future Land Use Map .................... Commercial Core Current Zoning .............................. CBD (Central Business District) Adjacent Zoning ................... North: CBD East: OS (Open Space) South: West: Existing Land Use ......................... Proposed Land Use ....................... Water Service ................................ Sewer Service ............................... RM (Multiple Family Residential- Medium Density) RM Two-story motel with pool Demolition of existing motel and construction of a 5-story Hotel (48' high to roof deck), with 70 rooms, 50 parking spaces, private gym/spa and associated landscaping. Existing on site. Existing on site. WAY WINDEMERE HOUSEI CONDO STR[[T IV.C. ~1 T E M BEF O~,R'E T'H~E~,,,BO ARiD~-'? ~' The action before the Board is that of approval of a Class V site plan which incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal for Hotel Vista Del Mar, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): [] Site Plan; r-3 Landscape Plan; and, 1:3 Elevations. The subject property is located on the west side of South Ocean Boulevard (A-l-A), approximately 300 feet south of Atlantic Avenue and is zoned CBD (Central Business District). The subject property consists of Lots 6-10, of the Ocean Park subdivision and is approximately 0.41 acres in size. The site currently contains the Bermuda Inn, a 20 room, two-story motel (constructed in 1968), with a pool and associated parking. The parcel was zoned LC (Limited Commercial) until it was rezoned to CBD (Central Business District) with the Citywide Rezoning associated with the adoption of the Land Development Regulations in 1990. At its meeting of June 20, 2001, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed the site plan application to demolish the existing motel and to construct a new hotel to be known as Hotel Vista Del Mar. Staff presented the item and noted that revised plans were submitted the day of the meeting addressing many of staff's comments, except building height, loading, and compatibility. The Board also had concerns with the compatibility of the project with the properties to the north and west. The item was tabled. The Board reviewed revised plans at it meeting of July 11, 2001. After presentations by staff and the applicant, several residents spoke in favor of the proposal. Then, an attorney, representing an adjacent property owner, and several residents spoke in opposition to the proposal. After the public comments, the Board discussed the project and directed questions to the applicant. The Board members felt that the revised project did not adequate address their concerns, including, the overall scale of the project and its compatibility with adjacent properties; loading requirements and the impact on Salina Avenue; sight visibility on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard; and, traffic circulation and turning movements on Ocean Boulevard. The Board voted 5-0 to table the proposal. Revised plans have been submitted and are now before the Board for action. The new hotel has a total of 70 rooms and a private gym/spa. The 1,333 sq. ft. restaurant component and the rooftop pool were eliminated from the earlier plans. There are a total of 50 parking spaces accommodated within the building on the ground floor and below grade. There are six floors, including the sub-grade parking level. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 2 COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development applicationlrequest. Building Setbacks: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(2)(a) Setbacks, within this portion of the CBD zoning district, a front setback of not less than 5', nor greater than 10' shall be provided. As the property fronts on two streets, it is considered a double frontage lot. The proposed hotel is setback 5' from Ocean Boulevard and 10' from Salina Avenue, thus meeting this requirement. Normally, a side interior setback is not required when there is dedicated access to the rear of the building. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.4(A)(1) Commercial Zoninq Adjacent to Residential Zonin,q, a 10' setback is required where the rear or side of a commercially zoned property directly abuts residentially zoned property without any division or separation between them. Since the adjacent property to the south is zoned RM (Medium Density Residential), a 10' side setback has been provided. Since the property to the north is also zoned CBD, a side setback has not be provided along the north property line. Based upon the above, the building setback requirements have been met. Building Height: Pursuant to Section 4.3.4(K), within the CBD zone district, a maximum building height of 48' is allowed. The hotel has a height of 48' to the flat roof deck. Appurtenances, usually required to be placed above the roof level of a building and not intended for human occupancy, may be allowed to extend above the height limitations when approved by action of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board. This provision allows for elevators, stair towers, cooling towers, and mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof. The building has a parapet wall and decorative blue metal railing around the fiat roofline of the building. A stair tower and lower appurtenances for the elevator tower and other mechanical equipment project above the 48' high roof deck. The stair tower reaches a height of 58'-6" to the mid line of its roof. The height of the elevator tower, elevator equipment room, and the mechanical equipment area is not shown on the plans. This has been added as a site plan technical item. Open Space: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(F)(2) Open Space, within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway, there shall be no minimum open space requirement. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the body acting upon a development application within the CBD may require that open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. It is noted that 23% of landscape area has been SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 3 provided adjacent to Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue as well as along the north and south sides of the building. Room Size: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(M)(1), each sleeping room shall contain a minimum floor area of 325 square feet including closets and baths. The applicant has submitted documentation indicating that the size of the hotel rooms vary from 393 to 617 square feet. Therefore, this requirement has been met. Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(7)(e), hotels and motels are required to provide 0.7 spaces for each guest room plus 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to ballrooms, meeting rooms, restaurants, lounges, and shops. However, pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(G)(1)(d), within the CBD zone district, restaurants require 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area. The parking requirement has been met as 48 spaces are required [70 room x .7/room = 49 - 1 space reduction = 48] and 49 spaces have been provided. It is noted that an additional 2 spaces are provided as guest check-in spaces and are not included in the regular parking count. Handicapped Parking: Based on the total number of parking spaces provided, two handicapped accessible parking spaces are required and two have been provided, thereby meeting the requirement. Dead-end Parking Bays: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(c), Dead-end Parking Bays, a 24' wide by 6' maneuvering area is required at the end of dead-end parking bays. The maneuvering area provided on the sub-level parking floor meets this requirement. Loading: Hotels between 20,000 and 100,000 sq. f. shall provide 2 loading spaces. The applicant proposes to provide only one loading space. The body approving the site plan shall determine the adequacy of the provisions which are made for (un)loading. The applicant has submitted the following statement: "Based on the requirements of the hotel operator, and our experience, we are of the opinion that for this project, one will be sufficient. The time of loading operations will be control/ed to limit the impact on the guests and general public." The 45,860 square feet building area of the hotel is less than half of the range provided in the guidelines table for hotels requiring 2 loading spaces. Additionally, the proposed hotel does not have any of the components which would generate additional loading demand such as a restaurant or meeting/banquet facilities. Since the hotel also has its own laundry, a linen service will not be needed. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V S~te Plan Approval Page 4 In addition to the one loading space provided, smaller delivery vehicles can utilize the regular parking spaces in the garage or the drop-off and check-in spaces in front of the lobby to make deliveries. Based on these factors, one standard loading space should be adequate for the facility. However, it is important that the project's impact on Salina Avenue be minimized for compatibility with the residential developments fronting Salina Avenue. Therefore, no loading or unloading of vehicles, except trash pickup, is permitted on Salina Avenue. This has been added as a condition of approval. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.10(D)(1), single unit loading spaces must be 12' x 30' with a 30' maneuvering apron and 12' of vertical clearance. The loading space is located between two parking spaces which extend behind the loading space. To accommodate the required maneuvering area, the loading space has been widened to 14'. This allows a 30' turning radius in both directions. Drop-off Area: The applicant provided a traffic statement dealing with the adequacy of a two space drop- off area shown on an earlier version of the plan. The analysis indicated that the maximum number of trips entering the hotel requiring check-in and baggage drop-off would be 70 per day, assuming a daily turnover of all hotel rooms. Since the usual check in time is between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., an average of 12 trips during a one-hour period would require drop-off parking. With two spaces, 6 vehicles per hour could be accommodated in each space. This allows ten minutes for unloading and parking per vehicle, which should be adequate. As shown in the above analysis, at least two spaces are needed for guests checking into the hotel. Since the size of the drop-off area has been reduced, two of the parking spaces for the project, opposite the lobby are being converted to temporary spaces for check-in and luggage drop-off. This can be accomplished, since the parking requirement for the project has been exceeded. Stacking Distance: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), the required stacking distance from the right-of- way to the first parking space or aisleway is 20' when 50 parking spaces are provided in a parking area. The proposed stacking distance from Salina Avenue to the aisleway (ramp) is 14'. A waiver is required to reduce the stacking distance for this driveway entrance from 20' to 14'. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) (b) (c) (d) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 5 The proposed parking design provides for driveways to Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue. Therefore, the demand for stacking distance at any one driveway is reduced since the vehicle trips are distributed. Additionally, the reduced stacking distance only affects the exiting traffic. Since, incoming vehicles have a stacking distance of 24' to the down lane of the ramp, Salina Avenue is not impacted by the reduction. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Waiver Findings can be made. Although not requested at this time, it is noted that the establishment of a valet queue in front of the hotel lobby would not have adequate stacking with the current design. Therefore, a valet queue is not permitted at this time. The establishment of a valet queue will require design revisions to accommodate the required stacking and approval of a Site Plan modification. This has been added as a condition of approval. Point of Access: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(a), the point of access to a street or alley shall be a maximum of twenty-four feet (24') unless a greater width is specifically approved as a part of the site and development plan. The main access drive in front of the building is 36' wide at the property line. The additional width allows for a raised median to be placed in the center to restrict turning movements to right-turn in and right-turn out only. This is being proposed to minimize traffic conflicts due to the closeness of the Atlantic Avenue intersection. Visibility at Intersections: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A), a visibility triangle is required at the intersections of roads (corner lots) and driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility must be provided between the heights of three-feet and six-feet. The required visibility triangle at the intersection of two streets is 40' and 20' at driveways. The purpose of the triangle is to provide a sufficient line of sight for drivers to spot oncoming traffic. These triangles are required for walls, fences, and landscaping. The visibility triangles at the garage entrances are approximately 10' on Salina Avenue and 8' on Ocean Boulevard, where 20' is required. A waiver to this requirement has been requested. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) (b) (c) (d) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The building setback is setback 10' from Salina Avenue and 5' from Ocean Boulevard. Since the driveway entrance on Salina Avenue immediately enters the parking garage, the wall of the stair tower encroaches into the required 20' visibility triangle. Similarly the building columns on either side of the entrance on Ocean Boulevard encroach into the visibility triangle. Salina Avenue is a narrow roadway which dead-ends approximately 150' SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 6 south of the subject property. The 10' visibility triangle provided is adequate given the Iow speed and limited traffic on this roadway. In reality, visibility is only an issue for the exit lane of the garage. Upon exiting the garage, the visibility triangle from the exit lane is 20' in both directions. The visibility triangle for Ocean Boulevard is greater than 20' except for the encroachment of two major columns which reduce it to 8'. However, from the driver's position in the vehicle, the actual visibility triangle for the exit lane is approximately 20' in both directions. Also, there is an additional 12' between the property line and the travel lanes for Ocean Boulevard. Given these conditions, the reduction of the visibility triangle to 8' on Ocean Boulevard is appropriate. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), can be made. Sidewalk: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B), a sidewalk is required to be constructed in the right-of- ways that abut the subject property line. This would apply along Ocean Boulevard and Salina Avenue. A 5' wide sidewalk exists along Ocean Boulevard but no sidewalk exists along Salina Avenue. It is noted that the proposal includes installation of a new paverbrick sidewalk on Ocean Boulevard, adjacent to the subject property. Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(D)(2), where it is clear that the sidewalk will not serve its intended purpose, the requirement for installation of a sidewalk adjacent to the property being developed may be waived during site plan or plat approval. The applicant has requested a waiver from the installation of a sidewalk along Salina Avenue on the basis that there is no ability for an extension of the sidewalk to the north or south. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) (b) (c) (d) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Back-out parking exists along both sides of this roadway and there is not room to install a sidewalk within the existing right-of-way. Without a reasonable expectation that the sidewalk could be extended on either side, the sidewalk would not fulfill its intended purpose. Therefore, it is inappropriate to provide a sidewalk along Salina Avenue. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), can be made. Reduction in Right-of-Way Width: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D), the required right-of-way width for Salina Avenue is 60' and a 21.43' right-of-way currently exists. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4), a reduction in right-of-way widths for existing streets may be granted by the City Engineer upon SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 7 favorable recommendation from the Development Services Management Group (DSMG). The DSMG recommended that reductions in right-of-way width for Salina be granted. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8, site lighting must be provided within the proposed parking area. However, the location of the project also requires compliance with Section 91.51 of the City of Delray Beach Code of Ordinances, Lighting Restrictions Alonq Beach, stated as follows: "No artificial light shall illuminate any area of the beach which is used for turtle nesting and hatchlings. In order to accomplish this, all lighting shall be shielded or screened so that the light is not a visible source from the beach during the night period from April 1, to October 31 of each year. "Night Period"is defined herein as being that time from dusk to dawn." The location of this project requires that a complete lighting plan for the building indicating the location and fixture details for all lighting sources which could be visible from the beach be provided. This includes interior fixtures which could be visible through windows or other building openings. Details of measures that will be taken to screen the lighting must also be provided. Section 9.1 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code should be used as a guide for mitigation measures to screen lighting sources. The provision of this plan and mitigation details has been added as a condition of approval. Trash Compactor: An enclosed trash compactor area with a roll-down gate is provided under the building on the first floor. Trash pick-up will be from Salina Avenue via the roll-down gate. BFI has approved the configuration. To minimize the impact on the residential properties to the west, the enclosure area will be deodorized and air conditioned. This has also been added as a condition of approval. A trash chute system will be utilized to dispose of trash from within the hotel and a secondary access door, located on the side wall of the enclosure will be utilized to dispose of trash from the first floor. Bike Rack: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(1)(c)(3), bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in the designated area and by a fixed or stationary bike rack for any non-residential use within the City'sTCEA Since the subject property is located within the TCEA area, a bike rack has been indicated in front of the building on Ocean Boulevard. Coastal Construction Control Line: The building is located west of the Coastal Construction Control Line and does not require a DEP permit. Existing Site Conditions: The survey indicates that the buildings to the south encroach into the subject property by %". This encroachment will need to be accommodated in the final design of the hotel. Additional encroachments by an air conditioning unit and electrical box will also need to be SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 8 addressed. The applicant will need to notify the property owners of these encroachments and the need for their removal and/or relocation prior to construction. Site Plan Technical Items: While the revised site plan has accommodated most of the staff concerns the following items remain outstanding, and will need be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. Provide ex'filtration trench percolation test results; 2. Provide documentation that the Salina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional stormwater flow; 3. Provide FDOT driveway connection and drainage permits; 4. Provide fire flow calculations; 5. Show the height of the elevator tower, elevator equipment room and mechanical equipment area on the roof; and, 6. The Engineering Plan must be consistent with the site plan. As stated earlier in this report, there is no minimum open space requirement within the CBD zone district east of the Intracoastal Waterway. However, the body acting upon a development application may require that open areas, including but not limited to courtyards, plazas, and landscaped setbacks, be provided in order to add interest and provide relief from the building mass. The proposed building covers most of the site with most of the parking and service functions also under roof. Therefore, the proposed landscaping for the project is minimal. The main entrance to the building is on Ocean Boulevard. A planting area with a pair of Coconut Palms with Dune Sunflowers between them will be located on either side of the entrance facing the street. The Coconut Palms are relocated from elsewhere on the site and are listed as 25' - 35' in height. Given the height of the building, this height is necessary in order to be in ~cale with the building. The planting area on the north side of the entrance, in front of the hotel lobby, includes 3 European Fan Palms, Purple Crinum Lilies, Variegated Arboricola, and Green Island Ficus. The planting area on the south side of the entrance includes Purple Crinum Lilies, Variegated Arboricola, Ti Plants, Pathos Vines and Green Island Ficus. A line of (8) Coconut Palms are proposed on the south side of the building. The trees will be spaced every 20' to comply with the spacing requirements where commercial abuts residentially zoned property [ref. LDR Section 4.6.16(H)(3)(e)]. Triple trunk Pigmy Date Palms will be located between the Coconut Palms with Xanadu and Variegated Arboricola utilized under the tree canopy in the area. Boston Ferns will be located adjacent to the SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 9 parking spaces and (24) 8' high White Birds of Paradise will be planted along the property line. A 10' landscape strip is provided along the west property line between the building and Salina Avenue. Nine 25' 35' high Washingtonia Palms will be provided within the landscape strip with Purple Crinum Lilies and Xanadu located under the tree canopy. Podocarpus will be located immediately adjacent to the west building line to screen openings in the parking garage. A line of (6) Sabal Palms with Variegated Ginger underplantings are proposed on the north side of the building. An Arboricola hedge will be provided along the face of the building and Wart Fern will be utilized as a ground cover between the hedge and the property line. The floor plans indicate that a landscape area is provided on the fifth floor in the rear of the building in front of the balcony. However, the landscape materials for this planter have not been identified. This has been listed a landscape technical item. Several changes were made to the site plan after completion of the Landscape Plan. These changes reduced the size of the planting areas in front of the hotel. The Landscape Plan will have to be modified to incorporate these changes. This has been listed as a landscape technical item. The proposed landscape plan complies with LDR Section 4.6.16. Landscape Technical Items: The following Landscape Plan items remain outstanding, and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submission. 1. Identify the landscape materials in the planter in the rear of the building on the 5th floor. 2. The Landscape Plan must be consistent with the site plan. The proposed architectural elevations contain a mixture of design elements. The first floor of the east fa(;ade consists of a large arched opening and four smaller arched openings supported on columns along Ocean Boulevard. The central opening provides access to the parking garage. A sidewalk is provided on the north side of the entrance road and the hotel lobby is visible under the building. The columns on this floor are cast coquina, painted yellow. The next four floors contain the hotel rooms. The facade contains a series of step backs from north to south which follow the angled front property line. The design is repeated on the 2nd through 4th floors. Raised white banding is used to separate the floors. Each hotel room has a balcony accessed by a pair of white French doors with an arched top. The balconies project slightly from the wall face and are wrapped in blue metal railings. The window frames, which are painted white, are covered by green Bahama shutters. The walls are stucco, painted yellow. The 5th floor is stepped back slightly from the front and has the same design elements as the floors below, except the walls are covered with cementitous siding. A parapet is provided along the roof with a score line in the stucco near the top. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 10 The same color scheme and architectural details with some variations are found on the north and south facades. To maximize ocean views for the hotel rooms, the walls have a saw tooth design with angled balconies extending out from the building. Trellises have been added above the balconies on the top floor. Single glass doors are used to access the balconies as opposed to the double French doors found on the east elevation. Between the projecting balconies, flat walls with windows and Bahama shutters extend above the roof line. The areas between these walls is spanned by blue metal railings. Cementitous siding is utilized on the walls of the upper level. A stair tower with a green metal hipped roof is located on the west side of the south facade. The ground floor on the south elevation is open, exposing the parking garage. A 6' cbs wall, finished in the same style as the base of the building with painted stucco and horizontal score lines, has been added along the south property line to screen the vehicles. On the north elevation, the parking garage is completely enclosed. To break up otherwise blank walls, decorative shutters are used on both fa(;ades between the hotel room balconies and the front and rear of the building. A large arched opening provides access to the garage on the ground floor of the west fa(;ade. A column divides the opening in two with the ground floor of the garage and ramp area visible through the openings. An enclosed trash compactor area with a roll-down gate is located on the north corner of the building. A stair tower with a green metal hipped roof is located on the south corner and two faux windows with Bahama shutters are used on each floor of the tower. Above ground level, the wall plane is broken up by a recessed balcony in the center of the building on each level. The balcony is accessed via a central door and an additional door located on either side for direct access to hotel rooms. The wall plane of the upper level is stepped back an additional 8' with a planting area provided in front of the balcony. Cementitous siding is utilized on the walls behind the balconies and on the upper level. Two faux windows with Bahama shutters are utilized on each floor between the open walkway and the north corner of the building, matching those on the stair tower. The building is set back 10' from Salina Avenue which is a narrow roadway. The residential buildings across Salina Avenue will be less than 50' from the face of the building. At such a close distance, the building will have a major visual impact on these residential properties. The recessed balconies, step back on the 5th floor and the use of tall Washingtonia Palms in front of the fa(;ade will serve to break up the mass of the building and lessen its impact on the adjacent development. Architectural elements should be added to the plain sections of roof parapet around the building, such as decorative caps or mansard projections to match the proposed green metal roofing on the tower. Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body, which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 11 Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.1.1(A) - Future Land Use Map: The resulting use of land or structures must be allowed in the zoning district within which the land is situated and said zoning must be consistent with the applicable land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map. The subject property has a Zoning District Map designation of CBD (Central Business District) and has a CC (Commercial Core) Future Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(B), Principal Uses and Structures Permitted, hotels are allowed as a permitted use within the CBD zoning district. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to consistency with the Future Land Use Map designation. Section 3.1.1(B) - Concurrency: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided to new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shall be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. Section 3.1.1 (C) - Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): Compliance with performance standards set forth in Chapter 3 and required findings in Section 2.4.5(F)(5) shall be the basis upon which a finding of overall consistency is to be made. Other objectives and policies found in the adopted Comprehensive Plan may be used in making a finding of overall consistency. As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 2.4.5(F)($) (Site Plan Findings): Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Findings), in addition to provisions of Chapter Three, the approving body must make a finding that the development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with the adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The subject property is located at the south end of the CBD zoning district which extends southward from Atlantic Avenue along Ocean Boulevard. The development of a new hotel on the subject property is compatible with the existing commercial development in the area. East of the Intracoastal Waterway, the CBD zone consists primarily of resort-oriented retail businesses, restaurants and the Marriott hotel. Restaurants, shops and a 5-story condominium (New Monmouth) are located north of the proposed hotel site, south of Atlantic Avenue. The Marriott hotel complex is located just north of Atlantic Avenue. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 12 The CBD district is the highest intensity zoning district within the City and the development standards for the district were written to promote compact urban development in order to emphasize economic growth and business development. Since the type of development permitted and encouraged within the CBD is not always compatible with less intense development, it is important to minimize the impacts of new developments on adjacent properties along zoning district boundaries. The subject property is bordered by RM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density) zoning on the south and on the west side (across Salina Avenue). While the hotel use is compatible with this zoning district, the difference in scale between the proposed hotel and the existing residential development must be addressed. The property to the south is a two story condominium. The south fa(;ade of the proposed hotel has considerable variations in the wall plane and large Coconut Palms are to be planted along the fagade. This fa(;ade is compatible with the adjacent condominium. The west fagade of the hotel borders one and two-story residential buildings on the other side of Salina Avenue. The hotel is set back 10' from Salina Avenue. The proposed design includes recessed balconies, an 8' step back of the 5th floor and the use of tall Washingtonia Palms in front of the fa(;ade. With these design elements to break up the mass of the building and lessen its impact, the hotel will be compatible with the adjacent residential development. The Boards concerns regarding the abutting property to the north have been partially addressed by moving the majority of the building 8' back from the property line, thereby allowing the addition of foundation planting along that fa(;ade. However, concerns regarding ocean visibility from the northern hotel rooms if a building of equal height were to be constructed to the north have not be addressed. It is noted that the impact of this scenario would be reduced if the corner unit on each floor (4 units) were removed. The opening created between the two buildings would allow air, light and ocean visibility, albeit reduced. By not addressing this issue now and ensuring at least some ocean visibility, a potential problem with compatibility in the future may be created and may hinder redevelopment of the adjacent property. To avoid these potential problems, staff recommends that the corner unit on the each level be eliminated. If the applicant is unwilling to make this change, it is recommended that the applicant acknowledge on the record, the potential for loss of ocean visibility, light and air, and agree not to oppose the redevelopment of the property to the north on the basis of those issues. A positive finding can be made that the development will be compatible and harmonious with nearby properties and the City as a whole, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The prcj~ct wili fulfill the need for additional hotel rooms in the city and promote additional economic development. This should have a positive effect on property values in the area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable objectives or policies were noted: Future Land Use Element Objective A-l: Property shall be developed or redeveloped, in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 13 When the property is cleared (demolition of the existing motel) there should be no physical conditions that would prevent the redevelopment of the property. The site is located in a Central Business District and will be developed in a manner consistent with that zoning designation. The project will be complementary to the adjacent land uses provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The project fulfills the need for additional hotel rooms within the City. Housin.q Element Policy A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. As discussed above, the proposed hotel will be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood provided the conditions of approval outlined in this report are met. Trash is being accommodated via an enclosed, air conditioned compactor which will prevent odors. Noise will be minimal since the 70 rooms are accessed internally and the hotel doesn't have a restaurant or conference facilities. Traffic generated by the facility will only be 579 trips with Ocean Boulevard as the main access and Salina Avenue as the secondary access. The project is consistent with this policy in that it will not result in a degradation of the neighborhood. Coastal Management Element: Goal Area "C": Development and redevelopment in the Coastal Planning Area shall be compatible with the existing character of the area, and shall provide for a sensitive balancing of the needs for economic development, redevelopment, and environmental protection. Objective C-3: The development of vacant and under-developed land on the barrier island shall occur in a manner which does not change the character, intensity of use, or demand upon existing infrastructure in the Coastal Planning Area, as dictated in the following policies: Policy C-3.2: There-shall be no change in the intensity of land use within the barrier island and all infill development which does occur shall connect to the City's storm water management system and sanitary sewer system. This is a redevelopment project of an underdeveloped property within the Central Business District. The development promotes economic growth in the downtown and is consistent with the character of the tourist-oriented commercial development within this area of the Central Business District. It will provide needed hotel rooms within the City, which will serve the local beach community and tourists. The project must comply with the City's site lighting restrictions in order to protect the beach area used for turtle nesting and hatchlings. This site has a Commercial Core land use designation and no change in the intensity of land use designation is proposed. Due to the property's location, there is not SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 14 an opportunity to connect to the City's storm water management system. project will be connected to the City's sewer system. However, the Section 3.1.1 (D) - Compliance With the Land Development Requlations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made, provided Site Plan Technical Items and conditions of approval are addressed. Downtown Development Authority (DDA) The DDA reviewed the request at its meeting of May 16, 2001 and recommended approval subject to addressing the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are contained in this report. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) The CRA reviewed the request at its meeting of June 16, 2001, and recommended approval subject to addressing compatibility with adjacent properties and the technical site plan issues raised by staff, which are contained in this report. Courtesy Notice: Special courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowners and civic associations: · PROD- Progressive Residents of Delray · Property Owners of the Bahama House Condo · Beach Property Owners Association · Chamber of Commerce · Presidents Council A S S E S SM~EN 'T i*~A~N D ~:~'C~ ~ '~ ~ ~' ~ ..... "~ O.:N:~C.~L~U~S~[~O N $:?i' '~?'/ '~.~ ~ ~:i:I The development proposal to construct a 70 room hotel on South Ocean Boulevard will be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan provided the conditions of approval are addressed and the associated waiver requests regarding the rcduced stacking distance from Salina Avenue, the reduced site visibility triangles on Salina and Ocean Boulevard and the sidewalk along Salina Avenue are approved. The revised floor plans and building elevations seem to address the Board's previous concerns as they relate to the massing of the building and compatibility with adjacent development. Loading concerns have been significantly reduced since the restaurant has been eliminated. Consistency with Chapter 3 and 2.4.5(F)(5) of the Land Development Regulations will be achieved provided the conditions of approval are addressed. 1. Continue with direction. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar- Class V Site Plan Approval Page 15 Approve the Class V site plan, landscape plan and elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based on positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to conditions. Deny the Class V site plan, landscape plan, and elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based on a failure to make positive findings with respect to the Land Development Regulations. By separate motions: Waivers: 1. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(3)(c)(1), to reduce the required stacking distance for the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 14'. 2. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 4.6.14(A), to reduce the visibility triangle at the Salina Avenue driveway entrance from 20' to 10' and at the Ocean Boulevard driveway entrance from 20' to 8', based upon positive findings with LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5). 3. Approve a waiver to LDR Section 6.1.3(B), to eliminate the required sidewalk along Salina Avenue. Site Plan: Approve the Class V site plan for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(F)(5) (Finding of Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Site Plan Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans; 2. No loading or unloading of vehicles, except trash pickup, is permitted on Salina Avenue; A valet queue is not permitted under the current design. Redesign of the front entrance area to provide the necessary stacking and approval of the site plan modification will be required prior to operating a valet queue at this location. 4. A lighting plan which details mitigation measures for all light sources visible from the beach must be provided; and, 5. The trash enclosure area must be deodorized and air conditioned. SPRAB Staff Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 16 Landscape Plan: Approve the landscape plan for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. Address all Landscape Technical Items and submit three (3) copies of the revised plans. Elevations: Approve the elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6.18 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. That additional architectural elements such as a parapet cap or metal mansard roof projections be added to the parapet. Attachments: E3 Appendix A Ei Appendix B E! Reduced Floor Plans, Landscape Plan, and Building Elevations \\misrv001\departments\planning & zoning\boards\sprab\hotel vista del mar revised 2.doc CONCURRENCY FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 3.1.1(B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use and/or development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: Water service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to a 6" main located in the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. Sewer service is available to the site via a service lateral connection to an 8" main located in the Salina Avenue right-of-way. An existing fire hydrant is located at the NE corner of the site on Ocean Boulevard. A new fire line will be installed along the southwest corner of the property, connected to an 8" main in Salina Avenue. The Building will be fully sprinkled. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build- out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to these level of service standards. Drainaqe: A preliminary engineering plan was submitted by the applicant. Since most of the ground level parking area is covered by the second floor of the building, drainage of the parking surface will be minimal. Any storm water that enters the parking area will be accommodated via sheet flow into a swale along the south side of the property. Runoff from the roof will be discharged into catch basins at the northwest and southwest corners of the building and all the drainage will be diverted to ex-filtration trenches along the west property line. Exfiltration test results will be required prior to obtaining a building permit for the paving and drainage system. Since the drainage of the property is being directly almost exclusively to the rear of the property, documentation that the Safina Avenue drainage system has adequate capacity to handle the additional flow is required prior to obtaining a building permit. In addition, FDOT driveway connection and drainage permits will also be required. If these requirements are met, positive findings with respect to this level of service standard can be made. Streets and Traffic: The subject property is located within the TCEA (Traffic Concurrency Exception Area), which encompasses the CBD (Central Business District), OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) and the West Atlantic Avenue Business Corridor. The TCEA exempts the above- described areas from complying with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. However, a traffic statement has been provided by the applicant which indicates that the construction of the new hotel will generate 374 additional trips onto the surrounding roadway network. The additional traffic generated will not have an adverse impact on this level of service standard. Parks and Open Space: The 70 additional rooms will not have a significant impact with respect to level of service standards for parks and recreation facilities. However, pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2(C), Impact Fee Appendix A Standards for Site Plan Actions Page 2 Required, whenever a development is proposed upon land which is not designated for park purposes in the Comprehensive Plan, impact fee of $500.00 per dwelling unit (including hotel rooms) will be collected prior to issuance of building permits for each unit. Thus, an impact fee of $35,000 will be required of this development. Solid Waste: The Solid Waste Authority indicates that it has capacity to serve development in the County at its current LOS of 7.2 pounds per day per capita for the life of the existing landfill (approximately 2021). Based upon the Solid Waste Authority's trash generation rates, trash generated each year by the proposed 49,114 sq. ft. hotel will be approximately 4.7 pounds per sq. ft. or 115.4 tons per year. Since the total trash generated by this proposal can be accommodated by existing landfill facilities, a positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made. STANDARDS "FOR~SITE PLAN ACTIONS Cw Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X Provided relief is granted for the site visibility triangle on Salina Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Separation of different forms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-I and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-I of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent Vacant property shall be developed in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Even though the property is not currently vacant, it is noted that the project will provided needed hotel rooms in the City and will be complementary to adjacent uses, provided the conditions of approval contained in this report are met. Appendix B Standards for Site Plan Actions Page 2 Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development 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, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X This standard was addressed in the body of the report with the review of applicable comprehensive plan objectives and policies Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location, without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent II 1 ,I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~0 0 0 0 0O' 0 0 0~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0m 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~:;,~, ~¥~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = .,~:~',~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROBERT G. CURK PARTNERSHIP Architects, Planners & Interior Designers AA0002271 Robert G. Currie, AIA Jess M. Sowards, AIA Jos6 N. Aguila, AIA June 13, 2001 Mr. Ron Hoggard, Senior Planner Planning and Zoning Department 100 NW 1st. Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 334~,~~ Hol~l ~e'r,a del Mar No. 000001 Dear Ron: This will serve as our formal request for a waiver of the required five (5) foot sidewalk on Salina Avenue. As you know, there is no ability for an extension of the sidewalk to the north or south and as such, the sidewalk for this proposed project would be moot. In addition, the code requires two loading spaces for this project, and we have only indicated one. Based on the requirements of the hotel operator, and our experience we are of the opinion that for this project one will be sufficient. The time of loading operations will be controlled to limit the impact on the guests and general public. I am attaching the required check, payable to the City of Delray Beach. We request your favorable recommendation to the above. Sincerely, ROBERT G. CURRIE PARTNERSHIP, INC. j~~t~lA Principal Cal~ano FIle 000601 ~O0~l\letter~ron 061301 134 Northeast 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 ~)~-~\~ ~ Telephone: (561) 276-4951 Fax: (561) 243-8184 E-mail: rgcp@curriearc~com AIA Florida Firm of the Year 2000 BEACH PROPERTY 0~, ASSOCIATION, INC. ,--RS' ' ' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33447 A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT Aug-08-01 10:28A P.02 August 8, 2001 Via Facsimile Mr..leffi'ey A. ('ostello Senior Planner City of Delray Beach ] 00 Northwest I st Avcnuc Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: Vista Del Mar Hotel Dear Jeff: [ slrongly oppose thc above-rel'erenccd hOlel projecl' in its eulTellt lhrm, and xwmld encourage thc Site Plan Rev,c,,~ and Appearance Bmxrd to reject the current applicatkm. While l agz'c¢ tl~at r, hmel usc zs appropriate fin' the subject propcct'y, the size and dcs:L2n pnsiected by Ih¢ cra-rent plzms rue inappropriate for this particular property and location. Moreover. thc applicm~t's preqentation at the SRR AB meeting was, in my ~,icw, a broad "Floss o~cr" discussion that l'ailcd to addrc.~s very significant design and traffic problems. In my vie'a., Ihe current, re'~i,~ed plans, even with eliminating the restaurant and swimming pool, have not addrcs..sed thc nmst significant problems. The potential parking problems m~d tralllc congestk~n lbr an already dangcrouq and clogged inter,;ection and area (Atlantic Avenue and AIA) are significant. UnfOrtunately. if thiq prolcct is approved in ils current/bt'm, and thc parking and lraffic pmblem~ come to fiafition, there will bc no possible remedy to al!c~iato the problems, I'l~e appli~:'allt'q nnly respc, nqe to this isstlc is to say their traffic engincc~ ad~ ises of no problems. Ha~ing employed dozens ol traffic engineers over the last 15 years, I can say that, il' pressed, ! cmtld lind a traffic engineer to opine that 1-95 is not n busy highway. In thc present ease. the traffic engineer's opinion is overly broad and baqed on qualified assumptions. ,Xnyonc with any design experience or cmnmon sc~lse can appreciate thc pulential gridlock at lhi~ busy intersection. 277 Southeast Fifth Avenue ° Delray Beach, Florida 33483 'lFh 561.279.8952 · F,tx: 561.9-70.0011 - www. ironwoodpropertie~.com Aug-08-01 10:28A P.03 Mr. Jcffi'cy A. Ct>stcllo August 8. 2001 Palgc 2 '['hc massing ol tile proposed structure is inappropriate li)]' the area. Thc point raiqcd by thc applicant that thc Marmot l-lmcl's density and massing is greater is irrelevant. '['hc Marriot, like many other large buildings in the heath area, wm~Id e.~countcr much resistance today, and wmdd perhaps nt~t be approved under current Land Dcvclopmcnt Regulations. There i~ nothing architecturally distinctive about lhc propt~:,cd hotel elevations, which will bc visible l¥om man5 perspectives in the beach area, and. like a pair ol'bad teeth, will truly add m thc up-and-down appearance ~'¢ )cean l~{m]¢vard Take a look at Dccrficld Beach or l.'t. l.,audcrdalc Ileach to sec what a patchwork of out-of-scale, large and .~mall h~,tcl.s with no design consistency looks like. Add to thc nfix thc polcntial for immuring m~ o1' th~ n'~t,st logi.,,tically and ac,~thctically impm'tm~t int~rsectmns in our City, and I would suggcs~ ~hal lher¢ are much b~ttcr all.~rnatives here. Thank you fi)r ~{)ur attention to these concerns. Sincerely, c-'"TX~ry Glicks~cin President Memo To: SPRAB From: Dan Bums Subject: Proposed New Hotel - A1A Date: August 8, 2001 I am vehemently opposed to the proposed hotel. The property is too small and goes against everything we have been trying to do over the past lO years in Delray Beach. · Page 1 AUG O 8 2001 PLh,,,,,,,a ~/_Ul~li'JG 08/08/01 16:42 F.,k,.X 15612?65244 PLASTRIDGE ~002/002 THOMAS E. LYNCH P. o. Drawer 730 Delray Beach, FL 33447 TO: Site Plan Review and Appearance Board RE: Bermuda Inn Project DATE: 8/7101 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to you in reference to the project on A1A where the Bermuda Inn Motel is today. I empathize with the developer in that they have definitely made a lot of changes, removing the restaurant and improving the entrance and egress substantially from where it was several weeks ago. I know that a lot of work is being done to try and meet the requests of the citizens and the boards. I compliment the architect and developer for their willingness to work cooperatively. My comment is similar to what I wrote several weeks ago. The project is just too big for that lot. Perhaps if it was tiered back so that you would not have a 5-story building, 48' straight up slightly set back from the street, it would not be so oppressive. As I am sure you are aware, I am not opposed to density and not opposed to "change" as witnessed over the last 15 years as we have watched Delray evolve. My concern is the design, even though attractive, it is too massive for this lot. A major issue is once you approve it, it then becomes precedent for others. For example, the apartment project on Federal one block off Atlantic, the mass of the project and slight set back from Federal Highway takes away from the character of Delray Beach also. The major arteries of Atlantic Avenue, AIA, and Federal Highway are most important and we must preserve the integrity of our community and continue the village-like atmosphere that has been the theme for many, many years, and in particular the theme for the last 15 years during redevelopment. I think it is critical for this board to remember these first projects, that appear to be out of ~e ordinary, are the ones that wi~! set precedent and b~-come the standard. I appreciate your time and consideration. /~~/~//_.~T~iom.as E. Lynch MICHAEL S. WEINER CAROLE J. ARONSON JASON S. MANKOFF WEINER & ARONSON, P.A. AFrORNEYS AT LAW The Clark House 102 North Swmton Avenue Delray Beach, Flonda 33444 Telephone: (561) 265-2666 Telecop~er: (561) 272-6831 E-mad: delraylaw@bellsouth.net OF COUNSEL ROBERT MARC SCHWARTZ, PoA. Flonda Bar Board Cerbfied Real Estate Lawyer August 21, 2001 City Clerk City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 HAND DELIVERED RECEIVED , CITY CLERK Re: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, Located on the West Side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), Approximately Three Hundred (300) Feet South of East Atlantic Avenue Our File No.: BOST002 Dear Clerk: Enclosed are the following: 1. A copy of our letter to you dated August 20, 2001. 2. A copy of Land Development Regulation 2.4.7(E). 3. A copy of the Land Development Plan Review fees. 4. A copy of the proposed agenda for the regular Commission Meeting of the City of Delray Beach, Florida for Tuesday, August 21,2001. As you know from our letter previously submitted to you, on behalf of Boston's, Inc. and Boston's on the Beach, Inc., we have appealed the action of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board taken August 8, 2001. This action includes but is not limited to approvals of various site plans, landscape plans and architectural elevations and recommendation on certain waivers. Certain matters related to this action have been tentatively placed on the agenda of the regular Commission Meeting of August 21,2001. I am confirming with you that pursuant to Section 2.4.7(E)(6)(A), these items are stayed since an appeal has been filed. It has also come to our attention that appellants in similar situations have not been charged a filing fee. This was the case in an appeal by neighboring property owners in City Clerk August 21,2001 Page 2 connection with the consideration of a site plan modification for Mr. Patrick W. Lynch. We would appreciate it if you could resolve the issue of the filing fee with respect to these particular types of matters. We appreciate your assistance. Very t~ly yo,,urs, On Behalf of Appellants E nclosu res cc: Mr. Perry DonFrancisco (w/enclosures) Mr. Reeves Bright, Esq (w/enclosures) Ms. Susan Ruby, Esq. (w/enclosures; hand delivered) MSW:ctc O:\BOST002\Letter City Clerk.Aug21 .wpd .... 8U0-21-2001TUE 01:36 ?N OITY, NGR, DEL~Y, BOH 5612437199 P, 01/04 Memo ~ayor Schmld[ D~v~l T. Harclen, Cib' Manager ~ City Commission 0~21/01 Sight T~a~le Wa~er ~ V~ Del Mar Following this page i$ a c~py of Ihs section fram [he SPRAB staff report dealing w~h the sight trlangb waivers for Vista Del Mar about which you expressed c~cern, aa well a~ a copy ~ the ground floor ~an. The staff supports tha wa!var to allow an eight-foot sight tr'~ngle on Ocean Boulevard, The 20- foot triang!e is met for the near Jane of lmffic (soulh~und), and, although not met o~ the site, is in actuality met for the Par lane (north~und) as well due to the configuration of tile street and sidewalk at this location. Peet-it* Fax Note 7671 · Page 1 aUG-al-mO01TUE 01:38 PM OITY, ~GR, DEL~Y, BOH 5~12437189 P, 03/04 8PRAB Staff Report Hotel Vi~ Del Mar - Class V $i1= Plan Approval Psge 6 mouth of the subject property. The 10' visibility triangle provided is adequate given the Iow speed and limited traffic on this roadway, In reality, visibility is only an issue for the exit lane of the garage. Upon exiting the garage, the visibility triangle from the exit lane is 20' in both directions. The visibility triangle for Ocean Boulevard is greater than 20' except for the encroachment of two meier columns which reduce it to 8'. However, from the driver's position in the vehicle, the actual visibility triangle for the exit lane is approximately 20' in both directions, Aisc, there is an additional 12' between the propen'y line and tile travel lanes for Ocean Boulevard. Given these conditions, the reduction of the visibility triangle to 8' on Ocean Boulevard is appropriate. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2,4,7(B)(5), can be made. 81dewalk: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.3(B), a sidewalk is required to be constructed in the right-of- ways that abut the subject property line. This would apply along Ocean Boulevard and Salins Avenue. A 5' wide sidewalk exists along Ocean Boulevard but no sidewalk exists along Salins Avenue. It is noted that the proposal includes Installation of a new paverbrick sidewal~ on Ocean Boulevard, adjacent to the subject property. Pursuant to LDR Section 8.1.3(D)(2), where it is clear that the sidewall( will not serve its intended purpose, the requirement for installation of a sidewalk adjacent to the property being developed may be waived during site plan or plat approval. The applicant has requested a waiver from the installation of a sidewalk along Salins Avenue on the basis that there is no ability for an extension of the sideWalk to the north or south. Pursuant to LDR ISection 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (b) (c) (d) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; 8hall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; Shall not create an unsafe situation: or, Does not result In the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner, Back.out parking exists along bo'd~ sides of this roadway and them is not roan to install a sidewalk within the existing right.of-way. Without a reasonable expectation that the sidewalk could be extended on either side, the sidewalk would not fulfill its intended purpose. Therefore, it is inappropriate to provide a sidewalk along Safina Avenue. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety. Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(6), can be made. Reduction In Right-of-Way Width: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D), the required right-of-way width for Safina Avenue is 60' and a 21.43' right-of-way currently exists. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D)(4), a reduction in right-of-way widths for existing streets may be granted by the City Engineer upon flU0-~1-2001 TUE 91:37 Piti OlTY, MCR, DEL~¥, BOil 02/04 SPRAB 8taft Report Hotel Vista Del Mar - Class V Site Plan Approval Page 5 The proposed parking design provides for driveways to Ocean Boulevard and Salins Avenue. Therefore, the demand for stacking distance at any one driveway is reduced since the vehicle trips are distributed. Additionally, the reduced stacking distance only affects the exiting traffic. ,Since, Incoming vehicles have a stacking distance of 24' to the down lane of the ramp, Salins Avenue is not impacted by the reduction. The waiver will not affect the delivery of public services, and will not create an unsafe situation with respect to public safety, Similar circumstances on other properties would lead to the same conclusion. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), Waiver Findings can be macle, Although not requested at this time, It is noted that the establishment of a valet queue in front of the hotel lobby would not have adequate stacking with the currant design. Therefore, a valet queue is not permitted at this time. The establishment of a valet queue will require design revisions to accommodate the required stacking and approval of a 8ire Plan modif'~catlon. This has been added as a condition of approval, PolntofAooMe: Pureuant to LDR Section 4,6,9(O){3)(a), the point of access to a street or alley shall be a maximum of twenty-four feet (24') unless a greater width is specifically approved as a part of the alta and development plan. The main access drive in front of the building is 36' wide at the property line. The additional width allows for a raised median to be placed in the center to restrict turning movements to right-turn in and right-turn out only, This is being proposed to minimize traffic conflicts due to the closeness of the Atlantic Avenue intersection, Vlilblllty at Intemeotlone: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.8.14(A), a visibility triangle i~ required at the intersections of roads (corner lots) and driveways. An unobstructed view within this triangle visibility must be provided between the heights of three-feet and six-feet. The required visibility triangle at the intersection of two streets is 40' and 20' at driveways. The purpose of the triangle is to provide a sufficient line of sight for drivers to spot oncoming traffic. These triangles are required for walls, fences, and landscaping. The visibility triangles at the garage entrances are approximately 10' on Salins Avenue and 8' on Ocean Boulevard, where 20' Is required, A waiver to this requirement has been requested. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shell make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) (b) (d) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; Shall not create an unsafe situation; or, Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner, The building setback is setback 10' from Salins Avenue and 5' from Ocean Boulevard. Since the driveway entrance on Salins Avenue immediately enters the parking garage, the wa~l of the stair tower encroaches into the required 20' visibility triangle. Similarly the building columns on either side of the entrance on Ocean Boulevard encroach into the vi~ibility triangle. Salins Avsnuo io c3 narrow roadway which dea~i-end~ ~pp~uxlmut~ly 15§' ' ' ' ~UO-21-2O01 ?~ 01:~$ ?H 0I?Y, ~GR, D£L~Y, BOH 5612427199 ?, 04/04 GROUND FLOOR __..__~ DATA ~.. d'l.,~l~, ~ [IT¥ JIF DE£RI:I¥ DELRAY BEACH 1993 100 N W. Ist AVENUE August 21, 2001 Mr. Michael Weiner 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 DELRAY BEACH rLOR,~D~', 33A44 56!/243-7000 Re: Appeal of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's decision regarding Hotel Vista del Mar Dear Michael: This letter is provided to inform you that your request regarding the appeal of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's decision for Hotel Vista del Mar has been scheduled for the City Commission meeting of September 4, 2001. The meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. and is held in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall. The appeal will be conducted as a quasi-judicial hearing. It has been determined that a processing fee is not required and therefore is being retumed. Please direct your queries regarding the request to Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning at 243-7041. Sincerely, s~m~lle n~---~ nner c: Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning. Enclosure: Check No. 6784 £1T¥ UF DELI:II:I¥ BEI:I£H DELRAY BEACH 1993 August 21, 2001 Mr. Robert G. Currie Robert G Currie Partnership, Inc. 134 NE 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FI 33444 100N.W. IstAVENUE DELRAYBEACH, FLORIDA 33444 561~243-7000 Re: Appeal of the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's decision regarding Hotel Vista del Mar Dear Bob: This letter is provided to inform you that an appeal to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's decision regarding the Hotel Vista del Mar was submitted on Monday, August 21, 2001. The appeal has been scheduled for consideration by the City Commission on Tuesday, September 4, 2001. The meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. and will be held in the City Commission. The appeal will be conducted as quasi-judicial hearing. Please direct your quedes regarding the request to Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning at 243-7041. Sincerely, r~rAllen c: Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning Attachment: Appeal letter from Michel Weiner THE E=FOFT ALWAYS WEINER & ARONSON, P.A. ATrORNEYS AT LAW The Clark House 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 MICHAEL $. WEINER CAROLE J. ARONSON JASON $. MANKOFF Telephone: (561) 265-2666 Telecopier: (561) 272-6831 E-maih delrayiaw@bellsouth.net 'qECEIVED OF COUNSEl'- ROBERT MARC SCHWAR~-Z, PJL Flodda Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer August20,2001 AUG 2 0 2001 City Clerk 'City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1" Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 CITY CLERK Re: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, Located on the West Side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), Approximately Three Hundred (300) Feet South of East Atlantic Avenue Our File No.: BOST002 Dear Clerk: Pursuant to Section 2.4.7(E) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida ("LDR"), this is an appeal to the City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida by an aggrieved party in writing directed to you. We are providing you with the following information: The action being appealed is the action by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board with respect to the above-captioned item which was heard at a meeting of August 8, 2001, being a continuation from July 11, 2001 and a further continuation from June 20, 2001. 2. The action was taken by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and was taken as of August 8, 2001. 3. The basis of the appeal is as follows: ao The action taken by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board ("SPRAB") was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Delray Beach, Flodda; b. The action taken by SPRAB was inconsistent with the LDR's; and City Clerk August 20, 2001 Page 2 c. The actions taken by SPRAB was inconsistent with the laws of the State of Florida. The relief being sought is that the approval of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations be reversed and denied and such further action as the City Commission deems appropriate. The name of the appellant is Boston's, Inc., the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed project and Boston's on the Beach, Inc., the operator of the business at that northern site. These corporations, as the owner and operator, respectively of the property immediately adjacent to the north of the site, are aggrieved parties, with an interest that is more than the interest of the public at large. By way of example and not limitation, the approved Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations includes underground excavation, zero lot line construction and a design which depends upon the acceptance of inordinate burdens on this adjoining property owner and operator. Enclosed is a fee in the amount of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00). We are uncertain if this fee is due but in the abundance of caution, it is enclosed. Please notify us if it may be returned. As well, please notify me of the date and time of the hearing by the City Commission of this appeal. Very t~y(~rs, / On Behalf of Apl~llants MSW:ab O:~BOST002~etter City Clerk.Aug20.wpd WEINER & ARoNSoN, P.A. ATrORNEYS AT LAW The Clark House 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 MICHAEL S. WEiNER CAROLE J. ARONSON JASON S. MANKOFF Telephone: (561) 265-2666 Telecopier: (561) 272-6831 E-mail: delraylaw@bellsouth.net OF COUNSEl*' ROBERT MARC SCHWARTZ, P.A. Flonda Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer August 20, 2001 City Clerk City of Delray BRach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations for Hotel Vista Del Mar, Located on the West Side of South Ocean Boulevard (S.R. A1A), Approximately Three Hundred (300) Feet South of East Atlantic Avenue Our File No.: BOST002 Dear Clerk: Pursuant to Section 2.4.7(E) of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida ("LDR"), this is an appeal to the City Commission of Delray Beach, Florida by an aggrieved party in writing directed to you. We are providing you with the following information: The action being appealed is the action by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board with respect to the above-captioned item which was heard at a meeting of August 8, 2001, being a continuation from July 11,2001 and a further continuation from June 20, 2001. 2. The action was taken by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and was taken as of August 8, 2001. 3. The basis of the appeal is as follows: Bo The action taken bythe Site Plan Review and Appearance Board ("SPRAB") was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Delray Beach, Florida; b. The action taken by SPRAB was inconsistent with the LDR's; and RECEIVED AU6 2 0 2001 & ZONING ~City Clerk August 20, 2001 Page 2 c. The actions taken by SPRAB was inconsistent with the laws of the State of Florida. o The ~'elief being sought is that the approval of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations be reversed and denied and such further action as the City Commission deems appropriate. o The name of the appellant is Boston's, Inc., the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed project and Boston's on the Beach, Inc., the operator of the business at that northern site. These corporations, as the owner and operator, respectively of the property immediately adjacent to the north of the site, are aggrieved parties, with an interest that is more than the interest of the public at large. By way of example and not limitation, the approved Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations includes underground excavation, zero lot line construction and a design which depends upon the acceptance of inordinate burdens on this adjoining property owner and operator. Enclosed is a fee in the amount of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00). We are uncertain if this fee is due but in the abundance of caution, it is enclosed. Please notify us if it may be retumed. As well, please notify me of the date and time of the hearing by the City Commission of this appeal. Very t~y(~rs, J Midl'ta'el S. Weiner// On Behalf of Apl~llants MSW:ab O:\BOST002\Letter City Clerk.Aug20.wpd 08/20/01 ll0N 09:39 FAX $61 243 3774 Clear Day CITY Madden, Nilza To; Madden, Nllza Subject: RE: Regular Meeting of 08-21- CLEIfl[ -*-*-* W~IN~R ~ ~006 Page I of 1 8-17-01 Attached please find the Regular Meeting Agenda of 08-21-01. Thank you The City Commission Agenda and Minutes am now ava#able on the Web. Please visit our website at www. delmvplannin~.orq If you wish to have the agenda e-mailed to you rather than faxed, call us at 243-7050. 1~/20/01 SECTION 2.4.7 (D) (3) (b) (b) When Not Associated With Site Plan Review: A request for relief shall be considered on its own merit pursuant to administrative processing requirements. (4) Condition~: Conditions may be applied only as they relate to insuring that the situation under which the relief is sought does not, or will not, change. (5) _Findings: Prior to granting administrative relief, the administrative official shall find: (a) That the relief sought is consistent with the specific authorization provided for in these regulations; (13) That the intent of the affected regulation is preserved; and, (c) That the action will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. (E) Appeals: An appeal is a request for a review and reversal of any action which not appealed would be final. (1) J~ule: An appeal may be made of an administrative interpretation; or, of any finding m,ade by an approving body; or, of a decision made by an approving body. 'i'he appeal o'[ an administrator shall be appealed to the Board for which such power has been granted; an appeal of an approving boards action shall be made to the City Commission. All such actions are appealable unless an appeal is expressly prohibited. An appeal may be made by an aggrieved party. (2) Reo_uired Information: An appeal by an aggrieved party must be made in writing, direct(~,d to the City Clerk, and must provide the following information including the appropriate processing fee: [Amd. Ord. 50-97 t 1118197] * Identification of the action which is being appealed; * Identification of who took the action and when it was made; * The basis of the appeal; * The relief being sought; and, * The name of the appellant and the appellant's interest in the matter. (3) Procedure: The following procedures shall be adhered to in the processing of any appeal: (a) Receipt of the letter of appeal from the aggrieved party, by the City Clerk, within ten (10) working days of the action being appealed. When 2481 SECTION 2.4.7 (E) (3) (a) the appeal is by the City Commission, it shall be made no later than that meeting of the Commission at which the Board's action is reported to it. (1:)) Consideration of the appeal at the next regular meeting of the body who is to act upon it provided that the appeal has been received in time for proper placement on that agenda. (c) Consideration of the appeal at which time the appeal may be granted, denied, or set for further consideration. (4) ~.:onditions: (a) The granting of an appeal of an interpretation or application of regulations is not subject to conditions. (b) The granting of an appeal pertaining to a decision on a development application may be conditioned in the same manner as the development application may have been conditioned. (5) _Fiindings: (a) The granting of an appeal of an interpretation or application of regulations requires only a finding that the administrative officer was incorrect in the application of the regulation. (13) The granting of an appeal pertaining to a decision on a development application must consider those items upon which a finding is required and the appellate body must make findings on those items. (6) ~;ta_v of Previous Action: (a) General: Whenever an appeal is filed, the action being appealed shall be stayed i.e. the development application or appealed part thereof shall be considered neither approved or denied. (b) Proceeding at Risk: If an appeal is filed for an action that is precedent for another action (e.g. site plan approval preceding plat approval), the applicant may proceed with the submittal and processing of further development applications but only at his or her own risk. (F) _S_g.e_!~ial Provisions: The following special provisions for obtaining relief from compliance with a portion of the Land Development Regulations have been created to handle a sin!;~ular and unique circumstance and shall be applied accordingly. 2482 08/20/01 M0N 09:37 FAX 561 243 3774 CITY CLERK ~ WEINER M ~001 F Tuesday, Au~_ust 21~ 200! Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. Commission Chambers Delray Beach City Hall ~00 ~ 1st Awnuc Del~ Beach, l~!oricla 3~?-~. Phone: ($61) 243-7000 Faro (561) ~A-3-3774 RWL~ FOR ~IC PARTICIPATION 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Thc public is encouraged to offer comments w/th the order of presentation being as follows: City Stoff, public comments, Commis.~on discussion and official action. City Commission meetings are business meetings and the right to limit discussion rests with the Commlssion. Gene~lly, ~emaxlrsa by an illd~v/du~! w~l be limited to th-ce m/nutes or less. T~e Mayor or presiding officer has discretion to adjust the amount of time allocated. A, Public Hearings: Any citizen is entffied to speak on items under this section. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Itc~ns from the PubUc: Any citiz~ is cnt/tled to be heard concerrling any matter within the scope of jurisdiction of the Commission under this section. The Commission may withhold co~-ent or direct the City Manager to takc action on requests or comments. Regular Agenda a~d First Reading Items: When extraordinary c/rcmmstances or reasons exist and at the discretion of thc Corr~mis~ion, citizens may speak on any official agenda item under these sections. ~. SIGN IN 8HEI~I: Prise to the start of the Commission Mcctix~, individuals wishing to address public hearing or non-agenclaed items should .sign in on the sheet located on the right side of the dais. If you are not able to do so prior to the start of the meeting, you may still address the Commission on an appropriate item. The prixnary purpose of the sign-in sheet is to assist staff with record keeping. Therefore, when you come up to the podium to speak, please complete the sign-in sheet ~fyou have not already done so. 3. ADD~IIqG THE COMMISSION: At the appropriate time, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. All cornmc~nts must be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to/ndividuals. Any persan making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while ~ddrcssing the Commission shall be barred by the presiding officer from speak/rig further, maless pcrmission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a majority vote of the Commission members present. APPELLATE PROCEDURE~ Please be advised that ff a person deaidcs to appeal any dec/sion madc by the City Commission with respect to any matter conddered at this meeting, such person w/lI need to ensure that a verbatLm record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor 1;rrepares such record. The City will furnish auxil;-D' aids and senrices to afford an individual with a disability an opportuxdty to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, o~ acdvity conducted by thc City. Contact Doug Pamdolph at 243- 7127 (voice) or 243-7199 (TDD), 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to accommodate your request A&ptive listening dedces are available for meetings in the Commi.qsion Chambexs. 08/20/01 M0N 09:37 FAX 561 243 3774 CITY CLERE *** WEINER ~ ~002 3. 4- 5. IN'VOCATION. PLEDGE OF _AI.LEGIKNCE TO THE FLAG. AGHNDA APPROVAL. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: · August 7, 2001 - Regul~ Meeting · August 14, 2001 - Special Meeting PRO~TIONS: OF NOTE A. Prostate Cmcer Awa.teness Month - Septembc~ 2001 PRESENTATIONS: A. Kathleen Daley, Lobby/st - 2002 Legislative Agenda CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Kecornmend~ Approval. ~TIATION OF COMPREt:IENSIVE PLAN T..EXT AME~~ RELATING TO--SCHOOL CONCIJRRENC~.: Approve the initiation of Comprehensive Plan text anaencknent zelathag to school concumt.-ncy. I>urs-u~t to LDR Section 9.2.1, the City Commission must fomaally i~tiate ameaxdmeats to the Plan. HOI..D_HARMI.,1;:SS AGIll~.I~.MENT/BO_STO1N~S ON...THE BEACh: Approve a Hold H.rmless Agreement associated with the installation of an arching at Boston's on the Beach. The property is located at 40 South Ocean Boulevard, on the west side of Ocean Boulevard just south of East Atlantic Avenue. Co HOI.D I-I_6RMI.I~.S$ AG1H~.R~/SOPRA ~dESTAU _RANT; Approve a Hold Hsrmless Agreement ~so~t~ ~ ~e ~s~fio~ of a~n~ at SOP~ ~e prop~ ~ lomt~ at ~ 10 East Aflmfic Argue, on ~e sou~ side of Avenue b~e~ SE 1u Avenue ~d SE 2~a Av~. SERVICE AUTHORlZATION#24/DAVID ~I.~.R .(YOIYTH TEEN CENTER); Appzove Serdce Authorization #24 with David Miller in the amount o£ $22,000.00 for consulting sexxrices tenovafiom to the Youth Teen Centex. Funding i.q available fxom 334-611-572-62.09 (Genexal Construction/Youth Tern Council). SPECJAL EV'ElbIT REQUEST/ 7T~ ANNUAL DELR&Y BEACH STREE..~ CRAFT FESTI~.AL: Approve a ~equest fo~ special event to hold the 7~ A~nu~l Dekay Beach Street Cxaft Festival on September 9_2' and Septembcx 23, 2001, including -2- 08-21--01 08/20/01 M0N 09:38 FAX 561 243 3774 CITY CLERK -~-*-~ WEINER M [~003 a temporary use permit, and approval of police security with the sponsor paying ail police ovextime cos~, contingent on the sponsor providing liability insurance and a hold harraless a~een~nt SPECIAL..~s~NT 1LEOUEST/SK&TE THE,,,SUNSI4FN~ STATE- Approve a ~uest to ~e ~ ev~t ~ed ~e $~te ~e S,,-~b;-e $~ w~ ~ pass t~h De~y B~ on Samz~y, Now~ber 17, 2001, ~du~g a ~po~ ~e p~t p~ LDR Sec~n 2.4.6~ for ~e ~e of~chor p, rk as a pit s~p ~, ~d app~ of stuff ass~ce for ~co~ the ~t~ ~o~h to~ ~d ~ash pick up. &ppr~ is confu~t up~ z~pt ora hold h~less ~em~t md ~ficate ofms~ce. SPECIAL EVENT RE_OUEST/COLUMBUS~AY: Approve a request to endorse the 2na Annual Columbus Day Italian FiesTM sponsored by the Order Sons of Italy m America Lodge #2719, to be held on October 13, 2001, including sta~ assistance for traffic control and secdtity, and trash rc_,-noval and dean up. Approval is cond%~cuat upon ~eceipt of hold harmless agreement and certificate of insuxance. Event sponsor p~ying 50% of overtime. .REVIEW OF APpEALABI.1Z. LAND DEVlZ-I.OPMI~.NT BOAllD ACTIONS' Accept the actions and dcciaicrms made by the Lartcl Development Boards for the period August 6, 2001 through August 17, 2001. I. AW .AII.D OF BIDS AND C.ONTRACTS: Contract ~:enewal for one year to Cornrnez~l Chetnical for the purchase of Sodium Hypocklorite at an estimated annual cost of $20,240.00 £o~ the Water Treatment Plant. F~mding is available from 441-5122-536-52.21 Housing Rehabilitation grmt awards thro~gh Community Dcwelopment Division Housing Rehabilitation Grant in the mount of $19,026.00 to South Florida Gonstruction for 1412 SW 4th Street, $21,078.75 to Haw. hex Gomrruction for 44 NW 8~ Avenue, and $20,265.00 to South Florida Construction for 133 SW 8* Avenue. Funding in the total~mount of $60,369.75 is available from. 118-1924-554-49.19 (SHIP Rehab Program). REG~ AGRNDA: AGREEME~ FOR LOBBYING SERVICES/KATHLEEN E.. DALEY: Approve an agreement for consultaat/lobbyi~ services between the City and Kathlee~ E. Daley for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002, in the amount of $48,000.00 with ftmding from 001-1111-511-34.90 (City Commission - Other Contractual S~rices). LI~iENSE AGRER~/FLORIDA T~..I.I~.PORT INC.: Consider approval of a I.icense Agreement with Florida Teleport Inc. (FTI) in order to accommodate the Iandi~ of uncle~ea cable and use of City infrastructure for placement of cable. The term of the agreement is for fifty (50) y~ars. 08-21-01 -+-+-~ ~EINER li [~004 08/20/01 lffiN 09:38 FAX $61 243 3774 CITY CLERK ,.. 10. .CONTRACT.. AWARD TO LUXURY LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC.: Consider approval of a contract award to ~r0nd/,~ ~ Luxm-y l.imousine Service~ Inc. for a~ annual contract for bus rental and driver service ~ot the Paris DelY~i~eut at an estimated annual cost of $128,547.00. Funding is available in FY 2002 Budget from 0014106-572--44.90 (Summer Camp), 001-4121-572-44.90 (Specie! Events), 001-4105- 572 44.90 (After School) and 115-4912-572-55.30 (Rocks Football). I-RASE AGREEMENT/WEED ~ SEED: Consider a?pmvsl o£ a lease ~ent between th~ City and Weed and Seed for o/lice space at 200 N-W 1" Avenue (City Attorney's Office). 'l~e texm is for me (1) yeax, with a one-yeax renewal. RA~TIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO TIlE PARKING ~ANAGEMENT __ADVISORY BOARD:. Approve and ratify the appointment of Robext Costin as the Commgn~ i~developra~nt /lig~a~y (CRA) representative ot~ the Par&hag Management Advisory Board to filla two (2) year term endi~ July I, 200~. RAT.11zICATION QF APPOINTMENT TQ THE .PARKING MANAGI~.I~iENT ADVISORY BOARD: Approve md ratify the appointment of Elaine Morris as Me PJ~nMng at~d ZoM#g Board representative on the Parldng Management Advisory Bo~d to fill a two (2) year term ending Augt~t 31, 2003. APPOINTMENTS,. TO TIlE BOARD OF AD_IUSTMENT: Appoint two (2) reg~l~r membexs a~d two alternate members to the Bos_td of Adjustment for two-year terms ending August 31, 2003. The appointment of the regular members will be made by Commissioner Archer (Seat ~2) and Commissione~ Levkmori (Seat #3). Commission McCarthy (Seat #4) and Mayor Schmidt (Seat #5) will m~ke the appointment of the alternate members. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ORDINANCE NO. 39-01 .(FII~ST REAJ)ING/TRAN$.MITTIL ...I-IEAR~G F__OR COMPRF_,HF. NS~-VF, PI4kN A1VI-ENDMEgNWr 20O.1..-0Z): Considex on f_~t reading an ordin.~nce adopting Comprehemqive Plan j~xlenttrnent 2001-02 md associated Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendments, and authoaize tmm~ttal co the State Departmc~at of Community Affldrs. Amendment 2001-02 includes: Future Imad Use Map lrneutlment from LD (Low Density Residential 0-5 du/ac) co CF (CornmnniBr Faciliti, s) for a parcel of land located at 36 N-W 4t~ Avenue m accommodate an off-street parl~Cng lot associated with the Atlantic Grove Kedevelopment project. Corrective Future Land Use Map amenament £oz the Rinaldi parcel (approximately 0,03 acres) f~om MD (Medhxm Density Residentitl 5-12 flu/ac) to CC (Conwne_mial Core) for a paxcel of !and located on the east side of Bronson Avenue approximately 100 feet south of East Atlantic Avenue. _ A - 08-21-01 ~ON 09:38 FAX 561 243 3774 CITY CLERK ~.~ WEINER ~ ~005 08/20/01 11. 12. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC- IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. City Mlmager's £esponse to prior public comments and inquiries. B. F~:om the PubUc. FIRST READINGS: NONE COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. A. City Manage~ B. City Attomey C. City Commission PROM THE -5- 08-21-01 Memorandum RECEIVED AUG 2 S 2001 CITY MANAGER TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: David T. Harden, City Manager /) Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director~ Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator DAVID HARGROVE CASE August 16, 2001 The Lien Review Committee originally recommended that Mr. Hargrove's balance of $7,875 be reduced to $1,000.00. The City Commission approved a compromise settlement of $3,301.02 payable in 12 months. I contacted Mr. Hargrove and he is willing to pay the $3,301.02 but requested a repayment period of 24 months. Please advise on this request. RB:mh 210 Enfield Road, seconded by Ms. McCarthy. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor,Schmidt - No; Mr. Perlman - Yes; Mrs. Archer - No; Mr. Levinson - No; Ms. McCarthy - Yes. Said motion failed with a 3 to 2 vote, waiver denied. 9.B. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PRIOR LIEN REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Consider a motion to reconsider the Lien Review Committee's prior recommendation concerning Customer 55, David Hargrove. The City Attorney advises that if the Commission wants to reconsider this matter a motion to reconsider separate from the motion of substance of this matter needs to be made. The Lien Review Committee's recommendation presented to Commission at the March 6, 2001 meeting was that Mr. Hargrove's outstanding liens be reduced from $7,875 to $1,000, providing the $1,000 was paid within 7 days after Mr. Hargrove being notified and further providing payment being made by a certified check. The motion on March 6, 2001 was approved unanimously that Mr. Hargrove be responsible for paying $3,301.02 to the City within a twelve month period, and other recommendations by the Lien Review Advisory Committee as listed in the staff report. Lulu Butler, Director of Community Improvement, reported that the Lien Review Committee felt very strongly about this and felt that they treated this as fairly tis they possibly could. The Lien Review Committee felt that the City would have a difficult time recovering all of its the out-of-pocket costs and felt this was a compromise. In addition, the Lien Review Committee had made this decision early on because they probably felt it was in the best interest of both parties and would help expedite the process. Ms. Butler stated the Lien Review Committee respectfully requests the Commission to rescind their previous motion. Mr. Levinson asked if there was any approach made to Mr. Hargrove regarding any kind of payment? In response, Ms. Butler explained that in the beginning she had conversations with Mr. Hargrove informing him that the City was willing to set up a repayment schedule. Furthermore, Ms. Butler explained that although Mr. Hargrove has not spoken directly to her, he might have had conversations with members of the Lien Review Committee. Ms. Butler stated Mr. Hargrove has been informed about the decision made by the Commission. At this point, there was no motion to rescind the previous action. Therefore, the prior action by the Commission stands. 9.C. LIEN REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Consider approval of the Lien Review Advisory Committee's recommendation concerning outstanding liens on various properties. The City Manager explained each case has a demonstrable hardship that is beyond the control of the persons that were involved. Therefore, the City Manager stated staff supports the waiver of these outstanding liens as recommended by the Lien Review Advisory Committee. -6- 06/19/01 CITY OF DELIII:IY BEI:I£H DELRAY B,EAoCH* JUl-klSl~c~ 199~ 100 N W. 1st AVENUE June 28,2001 DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 561/243-7000 David Hargrove 318 Northeast Fifteenth Court Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 ,~,~.{.Dear Mr. Hargrove: ~) ~"~-- After your meeting with the Battles Initiative Advisory Committee to discuss liens held by the City against your property, the City Commission considered the recommendation made by the committee. As you will recall, the committee recommended that the outstanding lien balance be reduced to $1,000 payable within 30 days. However, the City Commission decided that $3,301 would be the settlement amount. Since this matter is now final, if you remit $3,301 to the City of Delray Beach no later than 30 days from the date your receive this letter, I will be able to write off the difference between your payment and the full amount due. Please take advantage of this offer. Please bring a certified check or money order payable to the City of Delray Beach in the amount of $3,301 no later then 30 days from the date that you receive this letter. Richard Bauer Code Enforcement Administrator RB:mh Certified Mail Receipt: 7000 1670 0013 1345 4619 Pnnted on Ftecycled Pacer THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS [ITY OF DELRI:IY BBICH DELRAY BEACH IOONW 1 st AVENUE June 28,2001 DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA 33444 561/242-7000 TO00 David Hargrove 318 Northeast Fifteenth Court Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 1670 Dear Mr. Hargrove: After your meeting with the Battles Initiative Advisory Committee to discuss liens held by the City against your property, the City Commission considered the recommendation made by the committee. 0013 1345 4619 j r--~~e recommended that the outstanding lien balance ~ ~ = t _l~Odavs _Howe~erLthe City_ Commission .,,, _ ..... , · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete ~ i0 ,tem 4 if Res, dcted DeliYery ,s desired. ~/.j ,/ I b I"~t Iq ' . Pnntyournameand address on the .verse Cx~.~~~./.~~AAgd:ntm.,eeD ' SO that we can return tho card ,o you. Ii; yd;;:eerYn~dr ~ ere~lv:~ff~e; te~r~;:mw: 17 · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front ff space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: ~'~'~ 3/~ h~/~-~ · 3.,~/vice Type "'~_.,,~ ~,, Cerbfied Mall [] Express Mad /1~)~% j/~~ . -~ "~ y~...~-- 1-1[] InsuredReg'steredMall [][] c.oReturnD. Rece, pt for Merchand,se 4. Restricted Dehve~? (Extra Fee) [] Yes RE 2. Article Number (Copy from serwce label) PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 Certified Mail Receipt: 7000 1670 0013 1345 4619 THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Memo To: From: Re:. David Harden, City Manager Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement/~'/-% August 30, 2001 Request for Release of Lien ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION: City Commission consideration of a request from Mr. Clifford Bell to waive the administrative and recording fees and the interest assessed on Code Enforcement liens resulting from the abatement of nuisances to a vacant lot he acquired in the amount of $2,845 12. BACKGROUND: The vacant lot acquired by Mr. Bell is located on NW 6th Avenue. It appears that he bought the lot in April, 2001through a tax sale from another investor without having a title search done. The City, through Code Enforcement, abated multiple nuisances on this property between 1989 and 2001. The liens total up to $4,167.31 as of today, which includes all of the interest and other fees assessed as a part of the liens. The City's actual out-of-pocket costs are $1,322.36. Mr. Bell is prepared to pay this amount but states he could not afford to pay the total amount owed. According to my conversation with him, this is the first time he has purchased investment property. He admits he did not understand the process or the potential impact of such liens when purchasing property under a tax sale. Mr. Bell is maintaining the vacant lot to standard. He wishes to address the Commission on this matter. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Commission consider the request after hearing Mr. Bell's statement and response to questions on this matter. LB:DQ · Page 1 Date: 8/30/01 ' ' AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Request to be placed on: ~ Consent Agenda When: 9/4/01 AGENDA REQUEST __ Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Request to Waive Administrative and Recording Fees and Interest Assessed Vacant Property on NW 6th Avenue Owned by Mr. Clifford Bell. City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all items involving expenditure of funds): Yes / No Initials: Funding Available: Account Number Description Account Balance: Funding Alternatives: City Manager Review: (if apphcable) Approved for Agenda: ~/ No Iniuals: Hold Unul: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: EXHIBIT A Memo To: From: Subject: Date: CiTY MANAGER David T. Harden - City Manager Jerome Sanzone - Acting Director, Community Improvement ~/'x--J Request to Waive Liens - Clifford Bell August 15, 2001 After speaking with Lula concerning Mr. Bell's request to waive a portion of the liens on his property, I met with him several weeks ago. After speaking with him, we learned that he purchased the property as an investment through a tax sale without having a title search done. Since this was not the City's fault, it is our position that Mr. Bell should pay the lien charges. If, however, the City would like to recoup some of this money, it is our suggestion that the Finance Department take the request before the City Commission. JSZ:DQ Cliffordbell.aug2001 (cna) epee1 MR450102 'City of Delray Beach Florida InvOice Inquiry 7/11/Ol 08:02:55 Customer ID . . . : Last statement : Last invoice : Current balance : Pending ..... : Type options, press Enter. l=Select -Opt Date Invoice # _ 11/20/00 18445 _ 3/14/00 16335 _ 8/03/99 14495 _ 10/05/98 12597 _ 12/03/96 8624 _ 2/29/96 7241 _ 4/25/95 5966 _ 7/21/94 3236 _ 11/30/92 18820 160 7/02/01 11/20/00 4,143.59 .00 Name: LASTER, IVERSON Addr: PO BOX 1225 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 334251225 Status: A ACTIVE Current 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Overdue 156 80 166 01 148 00 132 10 133 61 128 61 138 34 118 87 111 94 Total billed 156 80 166 01 148 00 132 t0 133 61 128 61 138 34 118 87 111 94 MR450102 Customer ID . . . : Last statement : Last invoice : Current balance : Pending ... . . : City of Delray Beach Florida Invoice Inquiry 160 7/02/01 11/20/00 4,143.59 .00 7/11/o1 08:02:55 Type options, press Enter. l=Select Opt Date Invoice _ 9/10/92 18036 _ 3/13/92 17228 _ 10/11/91 16458 _ 4/15/91 18715 _ 9/21/90 14767 _ 3/22/90 14068 _ 6/01/89 12823 _ 4/19/88 11282 _ 2/12/88 11123 Name: LASTER, IVERSON Addr: PO BOX 1225 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 334251225 Status: A ACTIVE Current O0 00 00 00 0O 0O 00 00 00 Overdue 123 66 137 82 122 50 110 84 102 00 97 17 102 33 277 14 77 30 Total billed 123 66 137 82 122 50 110 84 102 00 97 17 102 33 277 14 77 30 MR450102 City of Delray Beach Florida Invoice Inquiry 7/il/Oi 08:02:55 Customer ID . . . : Last statement : Last invoice : Current balance : Pending ..... : 160 7/02/01 11/20/00 4,143.59 .00 Name: LASTER, IVERSON Addr: PO BOX 1225 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 334251225 Status: A ACTIVE Type options, press Enter. l=Select Opt Date Invoice _ 6/25/87 9674 _ 7/30/84 5977 Current .00 .00 Overdue 87.19 57.64 Total billed 87.19 57.64 MR450102 City of ~elray Beach Florida Invoice Inquiry 7/ 1/o 08:03:3[ Customer ID . . . : Last statement : Last invoice : Current balance : Pending ..... : Type options, Press Enter. l=Select Opt Date Invoice _ 10/13/99 15086 160 7/02/01 10/13/99 11.50 .00 Name: LASTER, IVERSON Addr: PO BOX 1225 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 334251225 Status: A ACTIVE Current .00 Overdue 11.50 Total billed 11.50 F3=Exit F12=Cancel Charge breakdown Name _._~_. ~':(_L~_~,-; __,_,,Z~7_2/-' / ..... P~e~y location: ~g / -' ~- '~ - ......................... Delr¥ Beach, FL 33444-~ T '[ .......................... DATE INVOICE RECORDING ADMINIST~TIVE NUISANCE TOTAL FEE - FEE' -3-qk ~2q Z,6( ~c.~o ~7I. oo 7-Z~-~q ~G J.?7 70.00 ~-[o-qz ~?o~ ~.~0 70. ~, f.-~l~fo /~7~7 ,~. ~ ~0.~ frO. ~ $ - ~~ ~ 4z~~ .... 7/7 J-~-" $ ......... - :.~-:'g~ -fko-~ ~ $ -, ..... $ - $ $ $ - Interest $ - ~Cobments: /~, I ! Yq~o TO: THRU: FROM: DAV, I~ T. HARDEN, CITY MANAGER P~~CTOR OF PLANNING & ZONING SCOTT ARONSON', PARKING MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST SUBJECT: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 REVIEW A REQUEST BY RENAISSANCE VILLAGE FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE IN-LIEU PARKING SPACE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE ON-STREET PARKING SPACES. Renaissance Village is a proposed twenty unit townhouse development located in the Central Business District at the southeast corner of NE 6th Avenue and NE 2® Street (Martin Luther King Boulevard). Pursuant to Section 4.4.13(G)(1)(e) of the Land Development Regulations (LDR), the project would require 45 parking spaces. The approved site plan provides 44 parking spaces. The applicant is seeking to purchase one in-lieu parking space in accordance with Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(b)(2) of the LDR in the amount of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000). Upon approval by the City Commission, the applicant proposes to construct three additional on street parking spaces along NE 2naStreet for which reimbursement of the in-lieu parking fee will be sought pursuant to Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(e). At their regular meeting of August 28, 2001 the Parking Management Advisory Board voted unanimously (9-0), recommending approval of the applicant's request. By motion, approve the request by Renaissance Village to purchase one in-lieu parking space and construct three on-street parking spaces along NE 2® Street. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER~ AGENDA ITEM q~ - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 CANCEIJ.&TION OF CONTRACT AWARD (DRAVO LIME INC.) & CONTRACT AWARD (CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY)/PELITIZED LIME ANNUAL CONTRACT AUGUST 31, 2001 On May 15, 2001, the City Commission approved a bid award to Dravo Lime Inc. for the annual purchase of pelitized lime. The estimated annual cost for the City of Delray Beach was $320,250 at $105.00/ton. The original bid was a co-op of several City's in the area, including Lake Worth and Boynton Beach. Per the attached memorandum from Environmental Services, the quality of product does not meet required specifications. Lake Worth and Boynton Beach have also experienced problems as a result of the lime failing to meet the minimum specifications and Lake Worth has already cancelled their contract. Therefore, staff is recommending cancellation of the contract award to Dravo Lime Inc. and award the annual contract for bulk lime to Chemical Lime Company, second lowest bidder, at a cost of $107.56/ton. Funding is available from 441-5122-536-52.21 (Chemical FY2001-2002). Recommend approval of the contract cancellation and award to Chemical Lime Company for the annual pelitized bulk lime contract. Ref.'Agmemol4.Bld Cancellation &Award. Pehlazed Lime Contract City Of Delray Beach Department of Environmental Services M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: David T. Harden City Manager C. Danvers Beatty, P.E. ~~'~ Deputy Director of Public I,ki~ties ' ~ August 28, 2001 Cancellation of Existing Contract for Lime Purchase Award of New Contract for Lime Purchase Attached is an Agenda Request and supporting documentation for the cancellation of an existing contract with Dravo Lime Inc. for the purchase of peletized lime. The original contract was awarded at the May 15, 2001 City Commission Meeting (see attached bid tabulation). Since that time we have experienced numerous problems with our treatment process as a result of the lime failing to meet the minimum specification (see attached memo from John Bullard, Plant Manger). The original bid was a co-op of several City's in the area, of which Lake Worth and Boynton Beach have reported problems with Dravo Lime and Lake Worth has already canceled their contract (see attached letters). As result of the problems we have experienced I am recommending that we cancel our existing contract with Dravo Lime Inc. for the purchase of bulk lime at $105.00/ton and award a new contract to the second lowest bidder, Chemical Lime Company, in the amount of $107.56/ton. If you are in agreement, please place this item on the September 4, 2001 meeting for consideration by City Commission. Thank you. Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental Services John Bullard, Manager of Water Treatment Plant Jackie Rooney, Purchasing Supervisor City Clerk Agenda File U \wwdatahMemo\C~ty Manager\agenda memo-082801 doc City Of Delray Beach Department o fEn virontnentai Services M E M 0 R A N D U TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M DATE: www delrayesd, com C. DANVERS BEATTY JOHN M. BULLARD ~ WTP PROBLEMS CAUSED BY LIME FROM DRAVO LIME, INC. AUGUST 27, 2001 Since switching lime companies, from Chemical Lime to Dravo Lime, Inc. at the end of May, the Water Treatment Plant has experienced the following problems: · · · · · Increased grit (impurities) by about twice as much Increased depositing in the lime slurry tanks Increased lime slurry pump clogging Increased lime slurry line clogging Increased torque problems on the clarifier rake drives For these reasons, I am recommending that we end our contract with Dravo Lime, Inc. and return to Chemical Lime, the next lowest bidder on the latest City of Boynton Beach Co-op bid. Attached are shipping tickets from both lime companies for comparison of lime % purity. The minimum % purity required in the City of Boynton Beach Co-op bid contract is 92%. Chemical Lime was consistently above 92% purity while Dravo Lime has varied widely and was below 92% purity on seven of the twenty-six shipments delivered so far. U: ~memos from d Bullard~Dan Beatty Memo Ltme. doc Utilities Department Water Treatment Plant MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: SUB J: DATE: Tom Anderson Purchasing Supervisor Mike Thew Water Systems Su~9~i~endent Robert Douglas Wate~ PTai~it Sup&~-i-§o-r ........ Quality of Bulk Quicklime From Dravo Lime Inc. June 15, 2001 The Lake Worth Water Plant has experienced increase use of lime due to limited slaking ability of the new quicklime from Dravo Lime Inc. We are currently using an additional 1,500 to 2,000 pounds of lime per day over what we have been using from Chemical Lime Company. This is unacceptable even if the lime cost approximately $2.561ton less than Chemical Lime. We are also, generating more grit (impurities) from our lime slakers in one (8) hour shift than we would normally generate in a 24-hour period. At this rate we will have many more man-hours repairing and operating the lime slakers than you would norm, ally. The quicklime hms that we are using does not slake well at all in our existing lime slakers! In summary we are saving $2.56/ton but spending additional $105.00/ton more for lime per day on average. This in my opinion is unacceptable. [ proposed that we cancel the purchase order with Dravo Lime Inc. and establish a purchase order with the next lowest biddo, r who is Chemical Lime Company. I estimate that the Water Treatment Plant will need to spend an additional $10,000 just for the last four mouths of this fiscal year to cover the increase usage of quicklime. If you require further information on this matter, please call me at my ext. 1710. CCi Patrick Miller, Assistant City Manager/Utilities Director Bob Dillingham, Chief Operator 7/9/01 CITY OF LAKE WORTH PURCHASING DEPARTMENT City of Boynton Beach- Purchasing Dept. 100 E Boynton Beach Blvd Boynton Beach, FL 33435 1900 2ND AVENUE NORTIt LAKE WORTH, FL 33461 561-586-1676 561-586-1673 FAX i -CPIYED s :~/RCHASI DEPT. Arm: Karcn Risely Subject. Cancellation of Contract with Dravo Lime Dear Kaxen' Pursuant to our conversation last Thursday, thc City has cancelled its contract with Dravo Lime for bulk quicklime under the Co-Op Bid. Cancellation was approved at our City Commission meeting of 7/3/01. We have now awarded our contract to the next lowest bidder, Chemical Lime. This action was taken based upon the poor slaking qualities exhibited by the Dravo time, as detailed m the attached memo from our Water Plant Supervisor. Due to these poor slaking characteristics, the City suffered increased costs both for the purchase of additional quicklime and also for disposal of additional lime sludge. Please include th/s letter in your bid file as documentation of our experience. Sincerely; l'om Anderson Purchasing Manager encl. Water Plant memo c c.. Bob Douglas- Water Plant Supervisor P.O. file CDravo) ("mm-Dravo") MEMORANDUM I ____ ~ I., Plll l TO: All Participating Entities~. DATE: August 24, 2001 (see distribution list) pKroarcend'mcRin :e~e~rvic c~' ] ~- FROM: SUBJECT: "Co-Op Bulk Quicklime" Bid #052-2821-01/KR ' 'l ii i'l['r"dr ii i i [[ Attached please find a copy of a letter sent to Dravo Lime, Inc. due to on going complaints regarding the quality of lime received by many of the entities. We are putting them on notice that we will begin testing to determine if their lime is meeting bid specifications. Our City Attorney has reviewed the problem with Bill Atkins, Deputy Director of Financial Services/Purchasing Agent; and, since the bid is based on the QUALITY of lime we receive, it is his opinion that we should be testing the deliveries to verify the quality. This will allow us to document the situation in order to rescind the award to Dravo Lime and re-award to the next lowest bidder. As stated above, the City of Boynton Beach will begin testing their deliveries. I highly recommend you do the same in order to provide documentation of poor quality; then FAX the results to (561) 742-6306. There is also a provision in the bid specifications stating that a physical and chemical analysis MUST be furnished with each delivery, Page 11). Are these being provided, and are we checking them? If you have any suggestions or comments, please contact me at (56I) 742-6322. Thank you for your cooperation in resolvin8 this problem. DISTRIBUTION LIST: City of Delray Beaeh/Jackie Rooney (561) 243-7166 City of Lake Worth/Tom Anderson (5610 586-1673 City of West Palm Beach/Nora I .auderm~lk (561) 835-0028 So. Central Regional WWTP/Bryan Gayoso (561) 265-2357 Town of Highland Beach/Jack Lee (561) 998-9045 Village of Wellington/James Volkman (561) 798-5397 City of Boynton Beach/Bob Kenyon (561) 742-6298 City of Riviera Beach/Carl Staley (561) 842-5105 The City of Boynton Beach l¥~u#ement Ser~ie~s 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevanl P. O. B~ ~10 Boynt~ B~ch, Fiori~ ~3425-0~I0 Tele~hon~: (560 742-6320 F~: 061} 742-6306 August 23,2001 DRAVO LIME INC. LONGVIEW OPERATION P.O. BOX 37 SAGINAW, AL 35137 A'I-I'N. LARRY D. EZELLE RE' CO-OP BULK QUICKLIME BID #052-2821-O1/KR Dea~ Mr Ezelle: As you know, the City of Lake Worth has decxded to no longer be a part of this Co-Op bid due to "poor slaking quahfies" erdaib~ted hy Dravo lime. Ail participating entities have been notified of their action and I have requested comments f~om the Co-Op on the individual deliveries received by their utility departments. The comments received so far have not been altogether favorable. Due to lhcse on going problems, we axe hereby giving notice that we will begin testing qmcklime deliveries on a weekly basis to determine tf they meet bid specificatmns. As you know, failure to eom~is~atly meet required b~d specifications for product quahty will be grounds for contract terminatxon. I have enclosed a copy of the b~d specifications for your revmw If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (561) 742~6322. Sincerely, Bill Atldns D~pury Director of Financml Services Enclosure c,:' All Participating Ent~hes Central File File SPECIFICATIONS continued .... IN THE EVENT ANY SHIPMENT RECEIVED CONTAINS INSOLUBLE MATTER IN EXCESS OF 5.0 PERCENT, THIS SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE CANCELLATION. Its predominate physical size shall range from 1/4" to 3/8" with no more than 2" of each shipment passing through a No. 100 U.S. Standard sieve at the producer's plant. There shall not be more than 0.5% retained on a No. 100 mesh sieve and 99.5% passing, after slaking and wet washing. There shall be a minimum of 92% available Ca0 as determined by chemical analysis in accordance with A.W.W.A. Standard B202-77. Also, in accordance with this standard, there shall also be a minimum 40 degree C rise in temperature within three minutes; the slaking reaction is to be complete within 10 minutes. All requirements for National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) certification required by the Environmental Protection Agency, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or Palm Beach County Health Unit will be met. QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS A physical and chemical analysis MUST be furnished with each delivery. The analysis shall be certified and performed by a reputable recognized testing laboratory. A one pound air-tight sample MUST also accompany each load delivered. There shall be a minimum of 92% available Ca0. Added to that, each entity reserves the right to reject, at supplier's expense, any shipment which fails to meet the specifications given above. The supplier shall be given ten days after notification of any such failure to arrange for a reputable independent laboratory to analyze one (1) of the retained samples from the shipment in question. Both the entity and the supplier will be bound by such determination. The laboratory fee covering any such analysis will be paid by the entity if the results pass inspection, or by the supplier if they fail. If the material has been unloaded and placed in the entity's storage silos prior to obtaining final test results, the supplier shall reimburse the entity at the rate of 2% of the delivered cost per ton for each percentage point that the material fails to meet the 92% minimum available calcium oxide. II £0~ 6~ H3dBE ~b~gBC ~0 &il3 99~9S ~0, 4~ 9AM ~Sd 6S~ H3dBE At, qB6 =~D A_Li3 SOd 6S~ H3dB~ ~t~3C ~0 AIID 99Ii~19S No. Request to be placed on: X Regular Agenda Special Agenda __ Workshop Agenda AGENDA REQUEST Agenda Item Date: August 28, 2001 When: September 4, 2001 Description of item (who, what, where, how much): Cancellation of existing contract with Dravo Lime Inc. for the purchase of bulk lime at $105/ton. Dravo Lime Inc. has failed to meet the minimum specification for lime which has resulted in numerous plant operational problems. Award of a contract to Chemical Lime Company, the second lowest bidder, in the amount of $107.56/ton.. ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO DRAFT ATTACHED YES/NO Recommendation: new contract with Chemical Lime Company. Department head signature:ff ~ ~, Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: Staff recommends cancellation of existing contract with Dravo Lime Inc. and award of City Attorney Review/Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (r~6r,~d on all items involving expenditure of funds): ~ Funding available.~k.~$/NO ~/0X~/, Funding altematives . (ifal~plicable) y~px Account No. & Description 0ql - ~t Z Z - ~ ~. %Z ~ LI ~o~i ~[5 ~ Account Balance ~2Z:~t¢ * ~OZ b~~ 3~5~q~0 Ci~ M~ager Review: ~ ~ Approved for agenda: 0 Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Placed on Agenda: Action: Approved/Disapproved U \wwdata~Forms~a~genda Requests~a, gendaReq - L~me Purchase doc MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: City Commission David T. Harden, City Manager Revision to City Policy Number BF-2, Investment Policy Augua 27,2001 Attached is a revised Policy Number BF-2 with respect to City investments. Staff recommends that the following revisions are made so that changes in Florida State law and updated recommendations made by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) could be reflected. 1. Under BF-2.4 Suitable and Authorized Investments, we have added the following investment types: · Federal agencies and instrumentalities; · Securities and Exchange Commission registered money market funds with the highest quality rating from a nationally recognized rating agency; Securities of, or other interests in, any open-end or closed-end management-type investment company or investment trust registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. ss. 80a-1 et seq., as amended from time to time, provided that the portfolio of such investment company or investment trust is limited to obligations of the United States Government or any agency or instrumentality thereof and to repurchase agreements fully collateralized by such United States Government obligations, and provided that such investment company or investment trust takes delivery of such collateral either directly or through an authorized custodian; Also, further language was added to state that investments not listed in the investment policy are prohibited. 2. Under BF-2.6 Bid Requirements, language stating that the bid deemed to best meet the needs of investment objectives must be selected has been added. 3. Under BF-2.7 Reporting, language stipulating that the Director of Finance must submit an annual report to the Commission by investment type, average weighted yield to maturity, and maturity has been added. 4. BF-2.9 Recommended Practices to either update or add recommendations by the GFOA have been added. 5. A new section titled BF-2.10 Continuing Education has been added. This stipulates that the Director of Finance or the Treasurer must annually complete eight (8) hours of continuing education in subjects or courses of study related to investment practices or products. I concur with staff's recommendation to approve changes to the City's Investment Policy. MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: David T. Harden, City Manager Joseph M. Sa~rector of Finance Revision to City Policy and Procedure Number BF-2, Investment Policy August 27, 2001 On September 19, 1995, and January 23, 1996 the City Commission adopted and amended the above referenced policy and procedure. We recommend the following revisions be made. The revisions will reflect a change in Florida State law or update recommendations made by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). 1. Under BF-2.4 Suitable and Authorized Investments, we have added the following investment types: Federal agencies and instrumentalities; · Securities and Exchange Commission registered money market funds with the highest quality rating from a nationally recognized rating agency; Securities of, or other interests in, any open-end or closed-end management-type investment company or investment trust registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. ss. 80a-1 et seq., as amended from time to time, provided that the portfolio of such investment company or investment trust is limited to obligations of the United States Government or any agency or instrumentality thereof and to repurchase agreements fully collateralized by such United States Government obligations, and provided that such investment company or investment trust takes delivery of such collateral either directly or through an authorized custodian; Also, further language was added to state that investments not listed in the investment policy are prohibited. 2. Under BF-2.6 Bid Requirements, we added language stating that the bid deemed to best meet the needs of investment objectives must be selected. 3. Under BF-2.7 Reporting, we have added language stipulating that the Director of Finance must submit an annual report to the Commission by investment type, average weighted yield to maturity, and maturity date. 4. We have updated BF-2.9 Recommended Practices to either update or add recommendations by the GFOA. 5. We have added BF-2.10 Continuing Education which stipulates that the Director of Finance or the Treasurer must annually complete eight (8) hours of continuing education in subjects or courses of study related to investment practices or products. The investment policy requires that any changes must be approved by the City Commission. We, therefore, request that this item be placed on the City Commission's agenda for their meeting of September 4, 2001. City of ADMINISTRATIVE ~'c?: POLICIES AND PROCEDURESTn~estme~t Pol±cy D e I r a y MANUAL NUMBER REVISIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: PAGE Beach SUPERCEDES APPROVED BY: BF-2, Rev. 1 DAVID T. HARDEN, City Manager BF-2.0 Purpose: A. The purpose of this policy is to set forth guidelines for the investment of the City of Delray Beach's pooled cash, which includes cash and investment balances of the following funds: 1. General Fund 2. Special Revenue Funds 3. Capital Project funds 4. Enterprise Funds 5. Expendable Trust and Agency Funds 6. Debt Service Funds 7. Any new fund created by the City, Commission. unless specifically exempted by the City Bo The policies set forth do not apply to the Employee Pension Funds of the City, depositories for defeased debt, or assets under Bond Trust Indenture Agreements, when held by third party custodians and/or money managers. BF-2.1 Investment Objectives: A. The primary objectives in priority order of investment activities shall be: 1. Safety Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. a. Credit Risk Credit Risk is the risk of loss due to the failure of the security issuer or backer. Credit risk may be mitigated by: SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Two o o i. Limiting investments to the safest types of securities; ii. Pre-qualifying the financial institutions, broker/dealers, intermediaries, and advisors; and iii. Diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will be minimized. b. Interest Rate Risk Interest rate risk is the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general interest rates. Interest rate risk may be mitigated by: i. Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities on the open market prior to maturity, and ii. By investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities. Liquidity The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands (static liquidity). Furthermore, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio should consist largely of securities with active secondary or resale markets (dynamic liquidity). Yield The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return through budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Return on investment is of least importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. The core of investments are limited to relatively low risk securities in anticipation of eaming a fair return relative to the risk being assumed. Securities shall not be sold prior to maturity with the following exceptions: a. A declining credit security could be sold early to minimize loss of principal; b. A security swap would improve the quality, yield, or target duration of the portfolio; or c. Liquidity needs of the portfolio require that the security be sold. SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Three BF2.2 Standards of Care: A. Prudence The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported immediately and the liquidity and the sale of securities are carried out in accordance with the terms of this policy. Investments shall be made with judgement and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. B. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment program, or that could impair their ability to make impartial decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose any material interest in financial institutions with which they conduct business. They shall further disclose any personal financial investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with which business is conducted on behalf of the City. C. Delegation of Authority Authority to manage the investment program is granted to the Director of Finance by the City Manager through powers given by the City Commission per Article 4, Section 4.04 of the City Charter. Responsibility for the operation of the investment program is hereby delegated to the Director of Finance, who shall carry out established written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures should include references to: safekeeping, delivery versus payment, investment accounting, repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, collateral/depository agreements and banking services contracts. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the Director of Finance. The Director of Finance shall be SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Four responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate staff members. BF-2.3 Safekeeping and Custody: A. Authorized Financial Dealer and Institution The City shall only purchase investments from the State Board of Administration, financial institutions which are qualified as public depositories by the Treasurer of the State of Florida, primary securities dealers (or their agents) as designated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or by secondary securities dealers (or their agents) who act as investment banking arms of local qualified banking institutions. Financial institutions, with the exception of the State Board of Administration must have offices within a 50-mile radius of the City. All financial institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the following as appropriate and as requested: 1. Annual audited financial statements 2. Public depository certification 3. Proof of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Certification 4. Certification of having read the City's investment policy 5. Credit rating provided by a nationally recognized monitoring agency B. Internal Controls The Director of Finance is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgements by management. Accordingly, the Director of Finance shall establish a process for an annual independent review by an external auditor to assure compliance with policies and procedures. The internal controls shall address the following points: 1. Control of collusion. Collusion is a situation where two or more employees are working in conjunction to defraud their employer. SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Five Separation of transaction authority from account and record keeping. By separating the person who authorizes or performs the transaction from the people who record or otherwise account for the transaction, a separation of duties is achieved. Custodial safekeeping. Securities purchased from any bank or dealer including appropriate collateral (as defined by State Law) shall be placed with an independent third party for custodial safekeeping. Certifications of Deposit issued by a local bank or savings and loan association may be held in safekeeping at that institution. The institution shall issue a copy of the certificate of deposit, a safekeeping receipt, or some other confirmation of the purchase that is satisfactory to the Director of Finance. This will be kept on file in the Finance Department, and which will indicate the amount, interest rate, issue date and maturity date of the certificate of deposit. Avoidance of physically delivered securities. Book entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place. Delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physically delivered securities. Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members. Subordinate staff members must have a clear understanding of their authority and responsibilities to avoid improper actions. Written confirmation of telephone transactions for investments and wire transfers. Due to the potential for error and improprieties arising from telephone transactions, all telephone transactions should be supported by written communications and approved by appropriate personnel unless an agreement is executed with a financial institution as discussed in paragraph B.7. (Below). Development of a wire transfer agreement with a bank or third party custodian. This agreement should outline the various controls, security provisions, and delineate responsibilities of each party making and receiving wire transfers. The agreement should specify the person(s) authorized to process the telephonic wire. The agreement should also specify that wires can be made only to a City of Delray Beach account. C. Delivery versus Payment All trades where applicable will be executed by delivery versus payment (DVP). This ensures that the securities are deposited in the eligible financial institution prior to the release of funds. Securities will be held by a third party custodian as evidenced by safekeeping receipts. SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Six The City will execute third party custodial agreements with its bank(s) and depository institution(s). Such agreements will include letters of authority from the City that detail the responsibilities of each party, notification of purchases, sales, delivery, repurchase agreements and wire transfers, safekeeping and transaction costs, procedures in case of wire failure or other unforeseen mishaps including liability of each party. BF-2.4 Suitable and Authorized Investments: Consistent with the GFOA Recommended Practice on State Statutes Concerning Investment Practices, the following investments will be permitted by this policy and those defined by Florida State law. Those not listed in this section are prohibited. A. Investment Types 1. Direct obligations of the U.S. Government; 2. Federal agencies and instrumentalities: 3. Securities and Exchange Commission registered money market funds with the highest credit quality rating from a nationally recognized rating agency; Securities of, or other interest in, any open-end or closed-end management-type investment company or investment trust registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. ss. 80a-1 et seq., as amended from time to time, provided that the portfolio of such investment company or investment trust is limited to obligations of the United States Government or any agency or instrumentality thereof and to repurchase agreements fully collateralized by such United States Government obligations, and provided that such investment company or investment company or investment trust takes delivery of such collateral either directly or through an authorized custodian; 5. The Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund created by Section 218.405, Florida Statutes; Repurchase Agreements and Reverse Repurchase Agreements of which the underlying collateral shall be any U.S. Government Security authorized in paragraph 1 and 2 within this section. Time deposits and savings accounts in banks and savings and loan associations organized under the laws of Florida or the United States provided that such deposits are secured by collateral as prescribed by Chapter 280, Florida Statutes; 8. Investment grade obligations of state and local governments and public authorities; SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Seven 9. Fixed income mutual funds of only those investment instruments as authorized in paragraphs 1 and 2 within this section; 10. Without specific Commission approval, the City will not invest any funds in derivative investment products. This includes, but is not limited to, collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO's), interest-only (lO's), and principal-only (PO's), forwards, futures, currency and interest rate swaps, options, floaters/inverse floaters, and caps/floors/collars. Derivatives, if approved, should be consistent with the GFOA practice on Use of Derivatives by State and Local Governments. See GFOA Recommended Practices, Section BF-2.10, for definition and policy. 11. Guaranteed Investment Contracts (GIC's). GIC's must be insured. The GIC Insurer must have the claims paying ability of "AAA" or "Aaa" by Standard and Poor's Corporation or Moody's Investors Service, Inc., respectively. The Guaranteed Investment contract shall provide for collateralization with securities consistent with this policy and must receive specific Commission approval. B. Collateralization In accordance with Florida State Law and the GFOA Recommended Practices on the Collateralization of Public Deposits, collateralization will be required as follows: SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Eight 1. Repurchase Agreements Use of repurchase agreements should be consistent with GFOA Recommended Practices on Repurchase Agreements. Collateral requirements for Repurchase Agreements will be contained in the Master Repurchase Agreement, executed between the City and the broker/dealer or bank. See GFOA Recommended practices, Section BF-2.10. 2. Certificates of Deposit Collateral for public deposits is controlled by the State of Florida through Chapter 280, Florida Statues. See GFOA Recommended Practices, Section BF-2.10. BF-2.5 Investment Parameters: A. Diversification The investments will be diversified by security type and institution. B. Maximum Maturities Maximum final stated maturities should be limited to five (5) years unless specific authority is given to exceed that limit. To the extent possible, the City will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched with a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than five (5) years from the date of purchase. The City should determine what the appropriate average weighted maturity of the portfolio should be. Reserve funds may be invested in securities exceeding five (5) years if the maturity of such investments is made to coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of funds. Any investment of reserve funds with maturities greater than five (5) years must be approved by the City Commission. BF-2.6 Bid Requirements: When purchasing or selling securities, the Director of Finance or his designee shall select the investment which provides the highest rate of return within the parameters of this policy and given the current objectives and needs of the City's portfolio. The designee may only include the City Manager, Assistant City Manager or the Assistant Director of Finance. These selections shall be made utilizing one of the following methods: SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Nine Competitive bids, wherein the City solicits proposals from a minimum of three firms located within the fifty (50) mile radius of the City. The City may also seek bids from the State Board of Administration located in Tallahassee, Florida. The bid deemed to best meet the investment objectives must be selected. B. Comparison to the current market price as indicated by one of the market pricing resources available to the City. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Bloomberg Information Delivery System. 2. Wall Street Journal, or a comparable nationally recognized financial publication providing daily market pricing. 3. Daily market pricing provided by the City's Custody Agent or their correspondent institution. In most situations, the City shall utilize the competitive bid process to select the securities to be purchased or sold. Selection by comparison to a current market price, as indicated above, shall be utilized when, in the judgement of the Director of Finance, competitive bidding would inhibit the selection process. This might occur when: 1. A dealer brings to the City an unsolicited swap or proposal. 2. No active market exists for the issue being traded due to the age or depth of the issue. 3. Time constraints due to unusual circumstances preclude use of the competitive bidding process. 4. A security is unique to a single dealer, for example, a private placement. 5. The transaction involves new issues or issues in the "when issued" market. When using the competitive bid process, all bids shall become part of the record of the specific security involved. When selection is made based on comparison to current market price, the following information shall become part of the record of the security involved: 1. Reason for use of this method. 2. Source of the current market value used. 3. Price and/or interest rate quoted by said source. BF-2.7 Reporting: A. Methods The Treasurer shall prepare an investment report at least quarterly, including a succinct management summary that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investment portfolio and transactions made over the last quarter. The management summary will be prepared in a manner that will allow the City to ascertain whether investment activities SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Ten during the reporting period have conformed to the investment policy. The report should be provided to the Director of Finance. The report will include the following: 1. A listing of individual investments by fund and by institution and the percentage of total portfolio which it represents. 2 A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period. 3. Average weighted yield to maturity of portfolio on City investments as compared to applicable benchmarks. 4. Listing of investments by maturity date. The Director of Finance must submit a report in the above format annually to the City Commission. If any problem occurs affecting the principal or interest of any of the investments, the Director of Finance must report this fact immediately to the City Manager and the City Commission. B. Performance Standards The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the parameters specified within this policy. The portfolio should obtain a market average rate of return during a market/economic environment of stable interest rates. Portfolio performance should be compared to appropriate benchmarks on a regular basis. C. Marking to Market A statement of the market value of the portfolio shall be issued at least quarterly. This will ensure that the minimal amount of review has been performed on the investment portfolio in terms of value and subsequent price volatility. Review should be consistent with the GFOA Recommended Investment Portfolios and Investment Pools. See GFOA Recommended Practices, Section BF-2.10. BF-2.8 Policy: A. Exemption Any investment currently held that does not meet the guidelines of this policy shall be exempted from the requirements of this policy. At maturity or liquidation, such monies shall be reinvested only as provided by this policy. B. Amendment This policy shall be reviewed on an annual basis. Any changes must be approved by the City Commission and the Director of Finance, as well as the individual(s) charged with maintaining internal controls. SUBJECT: PAGE: BUDGET AND FINANCE Investment Policy Eleven BF-2.9 GFOA Recommended Practices: A. Governmental Relationships with Securities Dealers (1986 and 1988) B. Repurchase Agreements and Reverse Repurchase Agreements (1986, 2000) C. Collateralization of Public Deposits (1984, 1987, 1993 and 2000) D. Use of Various Types of Mutual Funds by Public Cash Managers (1987) E. Use of Derivatives by State and Local Governments (1994) F. Market Risk (Volatility) Ratings (1995) G. Reverse Repurchase Agreements, Leveraging, Management (1995) H. Mark-to-Market Practices for State and Local Investment Pools (1995 and 2000) I. Master Trust and Custodial Bank Security Lending Programs (1995) J. Use and Application of Voluntary Agreements and Guidelines (1995) K. Same-Day Funds Settlement Procedures (1994) L. Diversification of Investments in a Portfolio (1997) M. Maturities of Investments in a Portfolio (1997) N. Frequency of Purchased Securities Valuation in Repurchase Agreements (1999) O. Selection of Investment Advisors for Non-Pension Fund Assets (1999) 1995, 1998, and Prudent Investment Practices for Cash Government Investment Portfolios and BF-2.10 Continuing Education: The Director of Finance or the Treasurer must annually complete 8 hours of continuing education in subjects or courses of study related to investment practices and products. BF-2.11 Cash Management Policy: Terms of banking services contracts, wire agreements, collateral/depository agreements and repurchase agreements shall be approved by the City Commission and reviewed by the Treasurer as needed. B. Charges relative to the above mentioned contracts will be reviewed upon receipt of the billing. Any discrepancies should be resolved within a reasonable period of time. EXHIBIT A GFOA RECOmmeNDED PRACTICES CASH MANAGEMENT GFOA Recommended Practice Governmental Relationships with Securities Dealers (1986 and 1988) Background. State and local governments represent one of the largest sources of investment funds available to purchase U.S. Government Securities. Without broad participation by state and local government investors, the government securities market would lack liquidity and the U.S. Treasury's cost of borrowing would increase. At the same time, governmental investors are expected to protect public funds from losses arising from default and to ensure that securities are purchased and sold at the best price available in the competitive marketplace. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) makes the following specific recommendations to state and local government investors in selecting depositories and securities dealers for the purpose of investment transactions in government securities: Select or qualify depositories, custodians, and dealers through competitive procedures, including requests for proposals for banking services. All securities purchases should be made through competitive bidding. In the event that a governmental unit does not obtain competitive price bids, investors are urged to obtain written documentation of price markups prior to completing the transaction. Require securities dealers conducting transactions with governmental entities to comply with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's capital adequacy guidelines as a condition of doing business. Before investing public funds, governmental investors should obtain compliance certifications from the dealer and an independent auditor. Secure acknowledgment from depositories and dealers that they have received written copies of their investment policies, portfolio risk constraints, and investment trading requirements. Be aware of reasonably foreseeable risks of market price loss, illiquidity, nonmarketability, or default of investment instruments before they are purchased. Additionally, securities dealers have a responsibility to disclose unreasonable risks. References · An Introduction to Broker/Dealer Relations for State and Local Governments, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1994. · Investing Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. GFOA Recommended Practice Repurchase Agreements and Reverse Repurchase Agreements (1986~ 1995, 1998~ and 2000) Background. Where permitted by statute, local governments often enter into repurchase (repo) agreements to invest funds on a short-term basis. A repo transaction works as follows: an investor purchases securities from a bank or dealer. At the same time, the selling bank or dealer contractually agrees to repurchase the securities at the same price (plus interest) at some mutually agreed-upon future date. Repos are commonly used by public entities to secure money market rates of interest and are an integral part of an investment program of state and local governments. Governments should ensure that these investments are permitted under state law and investment policies. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), Statement 125, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities," generally provides that if the repo buyer (i.e., government entity) has the right to sell or re-pledge the securities and the repo seller (i.e., bank or dealer) does not have the right to substitute the securities or terminate the contract on short notice, the repo buyer will be required to record both the securities, together with any obligation to return the securities, together with any obligation to return the securities, on its balance sheet. The repo seller will be required to reclassify the securities from a securities inventory or investment account to a securities pledged account on its balance sheet. The Bond Market Association (TBMA) has published an optional substitution/ termination provision to its Master Repurchase Agreement which would allow the repo seller (bank or dealer) to retain effective control over the purchased securities, or the repo seller could elect to terminate the transaction prior to maturity on short notice to the repo buyer (government entity). Although governments may not be bound by FASB pronouncements, Statement 125 affects the counterparties to repurchase transactions with governments and may change the nature of the underlying repurchase agreement from a buy-sell transaction to a collateralized loan. Treating repurchase agreements as collateralized loans would make them illegal for local governments in many states. In a reverse repurchase agreement (reverse repo), an investor owns securities, such as a Treasury note, U.S. government agency bond or other security, that a bank or dealer purchases under an agreement to sell back to the investor on a specified date, at an agreed-upon interest rate. Reverse repos generally have two basic uses: first, reverse repos may be one way to avoid liquidating a portfolio to meet unexpected or immediate cash flow requirements. This straightforward use of the instrument is accepted by most public finance officers as a legitimate cash management practice. The second, potentially more controversial, use of the reverse repo is to enhance portfolio returns through the purchase of securities financed through repurchase transactions. The cash obtained can then be invested in another higher-yielding instrument. The conservative and prudent approach to this use of reverse repos involves short-term contracts in which the term of the reverse repo is matched with the maturity of the reinvestment. Losses of state and local government funds have occurred as the result of the inappropriate use of reverse repos in leveraging portfolios to increase investment returns and as a result of other unsound investment practices. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that state and local government finance officers develop policies and procedures to insure the safety of repos and reverse repos. The following actions are recommended: Governmental entities and investment officers should exercise special caution in selecting and evaluating the creditworthiness of parties with whom they will conduct repurchase transactions and be able to identify the parties acting as principals to the transaction. Proper securitization practices are necessary to protect the public funds invested in repurchase agreements. Safekeeping shall be performed by a third-party custodian. Duties of the custodian (either direct or tri-party) should be outlined in a written agreement. The purchased securities associated with the repurchase agreement should have a market value in excess of the value of the repurchase agreement (called margin, "haircut," or over-securitization). Market valuing the purchased securities regularly during the term of the repurchase agreement should be a mandatory practice in order to ensure the purchased securities maintain sufficient market value. Master repurchase agreements should be employed, subject to appropriate legal and technical review. Governments using the prototype agreement developed by TBMA should include appropriate supplemental provisions regarding delivery, substitution, margin maintenance, margin amounts, seller representations, and governing law as contained in the GFOA-developed Consideratio~s for Governments in Developing a Master Repurchase Agreement. Legal counsel should review TBMA's optional substitution/termination provision in its master agreement to assure no loss is incurred. In those jurisdictions where substitution of securities is permitted, a loss provision is provided that is intended to place the repo buyer in the same position it would have been had the repo seller not exercised the substitution/termination right. In those jurisdictions where substitution is restricted, however, the effect of FASB 125 may be troublesome depending on the relationship established with the bank or dealer, the jurisdiction's position with respect to the change in accounting treatment of the transaction, and whether the government has the ability to avoid the restriction on substitution of purchased securities. o Reverse repo proceeds generally should not be invested in securities whose maturity does not match the term of the reverse repo. For example, borrowing short to lend long can produce losses in adverse markets. Further, the possibility exists that other factors can go wrong, such as default by the dealer or adverse market changes that erode the value of the underlying securities. The use of reverse repos should be considered only by entities that have the expertise and resources required to successfully engage in the technique. Additionally, state statutes may prohibit or discourage the use of reverse repos. Government officials who engage in reverse repos should verify whether such uses of reverse repos are legally sanctioned. Public officials should not engage in investment practices, such as purchasing securities on margin (by borrowing funds from a counterparty), selling securities short (by borrowing the security from a third party and selling in anticipation of higher interest rates), purchasing long-term bonds with short-term funds, and trading futures contracts without an exact offsetting cash market position. References Considerations for Governments in Developing a Master Repurchase Agreement, Second Edition, GFOA Committee on Cash Management, 1988. · An Introduction to Broker/Dealer Relations for State and Local Governments, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1994. GFOA Sample Custodial Trust Agreement, 1995. · An Introduction to Collateralizing Public Deposits for State and Local Governments, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1996. e "Investor Alert: Repo Agreements," Public Investor, April 3, 1998. · Investing Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. GFOA Recommended Practice Collateralization of Public Deposits (1984~ 1987~ 1993~ and 2000) REVISED Background. The safety of public funds should be the foremost objective in public fund management. Collateralization of public deposits through the pledging of appropriate securities or surety bonds by depositories is an important safeguard for such deposits. State programs pertaining to the collateralization of public deposits have generally proven to be beneficial for both the public sector and its depositories. However, federal law imposes certain limitations on collateral agreements between financial institutions and public entities in order to secure public entity deposits. Under certain circumstances, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may be able to avoid a perfected security interest and leave the public depositor with only the right to share with other creditors in the pro rata distribution of the assets of a failed institution. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) favors the use of pledging requirements as protection for state or local government's deposits. GFOA further favors and encourages state and local governments to establish adequate and efficient administrative systems to maintain such pledged collateral, including state or locally administered collateral pledging or collateral pools. To accomplish these goals, GFOA recommends the following: Public entities should implement programs of prudent risk control. Such programs could include a formal depository risk policy, credit analysis, and use of fully secured investments. In the absence of an effective statewide collateralization program, local officials should establish and implement collateralization procedures. State and local government depositors should take all possible actions to comply with federal requirements in order to ensure that their security interests in collateral pledged to secure deposits are enforceable against the receiver of a failed financial institution. Federal law provides that a depositor's security agreement, which tends to diminish or defeat the interest of the FDIC in an asset acquired by it as receiver of an insured depository, shall not be valid against the FDIC unless the agreement · isin writing; · was approved by the board of directors of the depository or its loan committee; and · has been, continuously, from the time of its execution, an official record of the depository institution. 3. Public entities should have all pledged collateral held at an independent third-party institution, and evidenced by a written agreement in an effort to satisfy The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requirement for control. The UCC states that the depositor does not have a perfected interest in a security unless the depositor controls it. Control means that swaps, sales, and transfers cannot occur without the depositor's written approval. The value of the pledged collateral should be marked to market monthly, or more frequently depending on the volatility of the collateral pledged. If state statute does not dictate a minimum margin level for collateral based on deposit levels (e.g., Georgia statute requires 110 percent), the margin levels should be at least 102 percent, depending on the volatility of the collateral pledged. Substitutions of collateral should meet the requirements of the collateral agreement, be approved in writing prior to release, and the collateral should not be released until the replacement collateral has been received. 4. The pledge of collateral should comply with the investment policy or state statute, whichever is more restrictive. o The use of surety bonds and other appropriate types of insurance in lieu of collateral could be reviewed as an alternative to collateralization. If a public entity agrees to the use of surety bonds and other types of insurance in lieu of collateral, only insurers of the highest cre&t quality as determined by a nationally recognized insurance rating agency should be used. Note: As a result of the court case North Arkansas Medical Center v. Barrett, 963 F.2d 780 (8th Cir. 1992), the FDIC issued a policy statement in March 1993 indicating that it would not seek to void a security interest of a federal, state, or local government entity solely because the security agreement did not comply with the contemporaneous execution requirement set forth in Section 13(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 12 U.S.C. 1823(e). The policy statement was officially enacted by Section 317 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-325). Because of this change, the bullet item "was executed by the depository institution and any person claiming an adverse interest, contemporaneously with the acquisition of the asset by the depository institution" that appeared in previous versions of this recommended practice has been removed from this version. References · GFOA Sample Security Agreement, 1995. · GFOA Sample Custodial Trust Agreement, 1995. · An bztroduction to Collateralizing Public Deposits for State and Local Governments, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1996. · bzvesting Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. GFOA Recommended Practice Use of Various Types of Mutual Funds by Public Cash Managers (1987) Background. State and local government cash managers can sometimes benefit from investing public funds through mutual funds. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has endorsed the use of money market mutual funds by public cash managers through the Association's model investment legislation for state and local governments. Portfolio diversification, liquidity, and professional management are desirable features of these investment vehicles. Recommendation. The GFOA recommends that state and local governments using mutual funds study the fund's prospectus and statement of additional information to determine the integrity and experience of the investment company, sales fees and operating expenses, fundamental portfolio policies, and portfolio composition. State and local government cash managers should use special care when investing in bond mutual funds. Mutual funds investing exclusively in short- and intermediate-term instruments may be appropriate investments in some jurisdictions. However, mutual funds investing in long- term securities should be avoided by investors of short-term funds. Market price risks could impair the safety of assets, which is the foremost objective of public cash managers. References · An Introduction to External Money Management for Public Cash Managers, GFOA, 1991. · A Public Investor's Guide to Money Market Instruments, Second Edition, edited by M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1994. · Investing Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. GFOA Recommended Practice Use of Derivatives by State and Local Governments (1994) Background. Derivative products are financial instruments created from or whose value depends on (is derived from) the value of one or more underlying assets or indexes of asset values. Derivatives include instruments or features such as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), interest-only (Ios) and principal-only (Pos), forwards, futures, currency and interest rate swaps, options, floaters/inverse floaters, and caps/floors/collars. State and local governments may use derivatives in their roles as debt, cash, and pension fund managers. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) urges state and local government finance officers to exercise extreme caution in the use of derivatives and to consider their use only when they have developed a sufficient understanding of the products and the expertise to manage them. Because new derivative products are increasingly complex, state and local governments should use these instruments only if they can evaluate the following factors, among others, to determine their appropriateness: Governmental entities must observe the objectives of sound asset and liability management policies that ensure safety, liquidity, and yield. Because of the risks involved, the use of derivatives by governmental entities should receive particular scrutiny. Certain derivative products may not be appropriate for all governmental investors. Characteristics of such products can include high price volatility, illiquid markets, products that are not market-tested, highly leveraged products, products requiring a high degree of sophistication to manage, and products that are difficult to value. Governmental entities should understand that state and local laws may not specifically address the use of derivatives and examine such considerations as the constitutional and statutory authority of the governmental entity to execute derivative contracts, the potential for violating constitutional or statutory provisions limiting the entity's authority to incur debt resulting from the transaction, and the application of the governmental entity's procurement statutes to derivative transactions. Governmental entities should be aware of all the risks associated with use of derivatives, including counterparty credit, custodial, market, settlement, and operating risk. Governmental entities should establish internal controls for each type of derivative in use to ensure that these risks are adequately~ managed. For example, o o the entity should provide a written statement of purpose and objectives for derivative use; written procedures should be established that provide for periodic monitoring of derivative instruments; managers should receive periodic training and have sufficient expertise and technical resources to oversee derivative programs; recordkeeping systems should be sufficiently detailed to allow governing bodies, auditors, and examiners to determine if the program is functioning in accordance with established objectives; managers should report regularly on the use of derivatives to their governing body and appropriate disclosure should be made in official statements and other disclosure documents; and reporting on derivative use should be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and because use of these instruments is a complex matter, early discussion with public accountants is essential to determine if specialized reporting may be required. Governmental entities should be aware if their broker/dealer is merely acting as an agent or intermediary in a derivatives transaction or is taking a proprietary position. Possible conflicts of interest should be taken into consideration before entering into a transaction. Governmental entities should be aware that there may be little or no pricing information or standardization for some derivatives. Competitive price comparisons are recommended before entering into a transaction. Governmental entities should exercise caution in the selection of broker/dealers or investment managers and ensure that these agents are knowledgeable about, understand and provide disclosure regarding the use of derivatives, including benefits and risks. The entity should secure written acknowledgment from broker/dealers that they have received, read, and understood the entity's debt and investment policies, including whether derivatives are currently authorized under the entity's investment policy and that the broker/dealer or investment manager has ascertained that the recommended product is suitable for the governmental entity. Governmental entities are responsible for ensuring this same level of safeguards when derivative transactions are conducted by a third party acting on behalf of the governmental entity. References · A Public Investor's Guide to Money Market Instruments, Second Edition, edited by M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1994. · An Elected Official's Guide to Investing, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1995. GFOA Recommended Practice Market Risk (Volatility) Ratings (1995) Background. State and local governments have long relied on credit ratings as an independent analytical source to gauge the credit risk of an investment option. However, credit risk analysis alone is not sufficient to safeguard against the assumption of other risk components, including market, interest rate, and liquidity risks. Through the securitization and structuring process, AAA rated securities and funds also may carry extreme market and other risks that are wholly unaddressed by credit ratings. Rating agencies now provide market risk ratings that evaluate the volatility of the security under a wide range of potential interest rate and mortgage prepayment scenarios. Risk components, such as interest rate, prepayment, credit, spread and liquidity, and currency risks are analyzed to assess how aggressively a fund uses derivatives and leveraging, and what risks their use presents to fund managers and investors in the fund. Results indicate the degree of potential variability in the prospective fund performance. Historical performance and volatility of fund returns relative to appropriate benchmarks also are evaluated. When applied to individual collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), market risk ratings provide a useful benchmark to governmental entities as they establish guidelines for prudent management of derivative investments. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) encourages state and local governments to augment information they receive from brokers, dealers, or advisors with independent research when conducting due diligence of potential investments. Information sources include historical trading ranges, trend and volume data, brokerage firm research, cash flow and present value analysis, and credit ratings and research. GFOA encourages investment in only those CMOs and funds that seek market risk ratings from rating agencies to provide comprehensive disclosure of risks to public investors. Although volatility ratings currently are not mandatory, public investors may wish to consider limiting their investments to CMOs and funds that have received favorable volatility ratings from a nationally recognized rating agency. GFOA Recommended Practice Mark-to-Market Practices for State and Local Government Investment Portfolios and Investment Pools (1995 and 2000) Background. As the investment portfolios of state and local governments are subjected to increased scrutiny, it is essential that reporting standards be enhanced so that investors, governing bodies, and the public remain informed of the current market value of the portfolio. Regular disclosure of the value of a governmental entity's investments is an important step to furthering taxpayer and market confidence in state and local government investment practices. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has also recognized in GASB Statement 31 the need to report investments at fair value at fiscal year end. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that state and local government officials responsible for investment portfolio reporting determine the market value of all securities in the portfolio on at least a quarterly basis. These values should be obtained from a reputable and independent source and disclosed to the governing body or other oversight body at least quarterly in a written report. It is recommended that the report include the market value, book value, and unrealized gain or loss of the securities in the portfolio. Many state and local government officials are allowed to invest in various state and local government investment pools available in their state or region. GFOA recommends that pool administrators, on at least a monthly basis, determine the market value of all securities in the pool and report this information to all pool participants on at least a quarterly basis. These values should be obtained from a reputable and independent source. This information should be included in the report to the governing body prepared on at least a quarterly basis. References · An Elected Official's Guide to b~vesting, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1995. · GASB Statement 31 and Implementation Guide. · b~vesting Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. GFOA Recommended Practice Master Trust and Custodial [lank Security Lending Programs (1995) Background. The lending of securities helps to maintain an orderly market while providing incremental income to the participant. Broker/dealers borrow primarily to cover fails (the non~ delivery of a security expected to be delivered on a date certain) and short sales (the sale of a security not presently owned by the seller in order to take advantage of an expected lower market price), and to execute arbitrage transactions. Their preferred partners in these transactions are the master trust and custodial banks, since their huge portfolios basically offer "one-stop shopping." As part of their trust and custody management services, banks, like other money managers, offer to lend securities owned by institutional clients to brokers in exchange for collateral. The collateral, which is usually cash, is reinvested at a rate higher than the rebate rate paid to the broker. The resulting proceeds are subsequently split between the lending agent and the client. A security lending transaction is similar to a reverse repurchase transaction and subject to many of the same risks. While the indemnifications offered may vary, the lending agreement may provide that broker credit risk, broker default risk, and collateral maintenance are risks undertaken by the lending agent. The degree of risk assumed by the lending agent generally is reflected in the split of proceeds. Lending agent credit risk, lending agent default risk, and collateral reinvestment risk are undertaken by the institutional client. Unsound collateral reinvestment practices can result in some master trust and custodial banks incurring losses on behalf of their institutional security lending program customers. Additionally, rapidly changing interest rates, lending short and investing long, investing in speculative derivatives, and paying a fixed rebate rate while investing in floating rebate rate securities under adverse market conditions are examples of situations that can produce investment losses. Liquidity requirements are often accepted by and guaranteed by the lending agent upon one day's notice, as substitution of the lending client in large lending programs is easily accomplished and essentially riskless. Programs that require the client to undertake responsibility for managing the liquidity present greater risks and require that the client place limits on the amount of the portfolio which may be put on loan. The term of the securities on loan and the reinvestment of the proceeds must be carefully established by the client and strictly managed. Recommendation. While investment strategies that include security lending programs are not inherently risky when employed judiciously with appropriate precautions and controls, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) urges state and local government officials to exercise extreme caution in their use of security lending programs. Prior to participating in a security lending program, finance officers should carefully evaluate whether security lending is legally permissible under state statute and the jurisdiction's written investment policy; the terms of the lending agreements; the indemnification provisions; the reinvestment guidelines and terms of the lending, including the maturity of loans as well as the securities purchased; the liquidity provisions and risks; the credit risks to be undertaken; and the resources required to monitor compliance with the agreement. Reference · Investing Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. GFOA Recommended Practice Use and Application of Voluntary Agreem~ents and Guidelines and Support for Written Investment Policies for State and Local Governments (1995) .Background. Various participants in the investment process are seeking to clarify the relationship of parties in an investment transaction by undertaking voluntary efforts to develop model agreements and guidelines. Some of these documents contain legal assumptions that might affect the validity of a transaction. Others would require certain statements to be in writing in order to be effective. Although the enforceability of such guidelines is uncertain, state and local government investors should be aware of their existence and the possibility that their counterparties may be operating under these or similar guidelines. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that state and local governments consider carefully any agreement or guideline presented for their use because many of these documents affect a public entity's rights and responsibilities in a given transaction. Furthermore, GFOA recommends that: o Governmental investors be aware of the federal, state, and local laws that govern investment contracts and agreements, as well as statutes and regulations affecting suitability obligations of broker/dealers, which require that a broker/dealer should only recommend a product after that broker/dealer has taken steps to determine that it is suitable for the customer. Governmental investors use the GFOA-developed Broker/Dealer Request for Information, Sample Agreement for Securities Service and (Optional) Statement of Work in dealing with broker/dealers, modified as necessary, which have been formulated specifically by and for state and local government investors. Governmental investors use the GFOA-developed Sample Agreement for Investment Advisory Services when contracting for investment advisers. Governmental investors protect their existing statutory and regulat.ory rights by ensuring that such rights are not inadvertently waived through the use of "boiler-plate" language in contracts with counterpanies. Governmental investors develop written investment policies using the GFOA-developed Sample Investment Policy. References · An Introduction to Treasury Agreements for State and Local Governments, Linda Sheimo, GFOA, 1993. · An bttroduction to Broker/Dealer Relations for State and Local Governments, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1994. · GFOA Sample Custodial Trust Agreement, 1995. · GFOA Sample Investment Advisory Agreement, 1995. · GFOA Sample Security Agreement, 1995 (short and long version). · GFOA Sample Investment Policy, 1996. GFOA Recommended Practice Same-Day Funds Settlement Procedures (1994) Background. A variety of participants in the securities markets have determined ways in which the date, timing and type of funds paid to depositories should be modified to transform the securities settlement system from a "next-day" funds to a "same-day" funds system. The purpose of the recommendations of these market participants is to standardize payments, reduce risk, improve efficiency, and reduce costs involved in securities settlement and to coordinate with changes in daylight overdraft and settlement procedures mandated by the Federal Reserve. Recommendation. To ensure that principal and income payments will be made using same-day funds, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) endorses the following recommendations to state and local governments that have been made by other market participants: All new issues should be depository-eligible and principal and interest should be paid in same-day funds on the payment date. For all existing issues, payments of principal and income should be made to depositories in same-day funds on the payment date. 3. Each depository should pay bondholders in same-day funds on payment date. On, or prior to the morning of payment date, CUSIP number identification and dollar amount notifications should be sent to each depository using automated communications. GFOA also makes these additional recommendations: Issuers and their paying agents should enter into discussions to assure that funds are made available early on payment date for paying agents to pass on to depositories. Issuers should distribute these recommendations to everyone involved in the payment process, including bond counsel and investment bankers. o Issuers should appoint a staff person to be responsible for keeping the organization informed about changes in the payments system and to coordinate implementation of this process. Issuers should assure that all affected operations and systems personnel within the governmental unit understand these procedures. Issuers should request system specifications from the depository and additional questions about these procedures should be addressed to the depository. Reference · "Report of the Same-Day Funds Payment Task to the U.S. Working Committee," Clearance and Settlement Project, Group of Thirty, August 1993. GFOA Recommended Practice Diversification of Investments in a Portfolio (1997) Background. State and local governments are charged with observing the investment management objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield. Portfolio risk includes all the risks associated with investments, such as credit risk and market risk. Risks to safety and liquidity can be mitigated through diversifying the types and maturities of securities purchased. Because ensuring safety and liquidity are paramount, entities should seek to reduce portfolio risk as much as possible in their investment policies through appropriate diversification of investments in the portfolio and restrictions on maturity provisions. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that state and local governments diversify their investments to reduce portfolio risk through such means as limiting investments to avoid overconcentration in securities from a specific issuer or business sector, excluding U.S. Treasury securities; limiting investments in securities that have higher credit risks; investing in securities of varying maturities; and continuously investing a portion of the portfolio in readily available funds, such as local government investment pools (LGIPs), money market funds, or overnight repurchase agreements to ensure that appropriate liquidity is maintained to meet ongoing obligations. References GFOA Sample Investment Policy, 1997. b~vesting Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. GFOA Recommended Practice Maturities of Investments in a Portfolio (1997) Background. Securities are issued in a variety of maturities. To ensure that liquidity is maintained and to reduce interest rate risk in operating funds, most state and local governments limit the maximum maturity (the date on which payment of a financial obligation is due) on any specified purchased security and the maximum weighted average maturity (the average maturity or reset period of all securities that comprise a portfolio) of the entire portfolio. The longer the maturity horizon that is selected, the greater the price volatility. In accordance with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board reporting requirements, the portfolio could show unrealized losses or gains for any reporting period. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that, to the extent possible, state and local governments should match investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. GFOA supports the following practices to achieve this objective: Unless matched to a specific cash requirement, governments should not directly invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of purchase. Reserve or other funds with longer-term investment horizons may be invested in securities exceeding five years, if the maturities of such investments are made to coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of funds. The intent to invest in securities with longer maturities should be disclosed in writing to the legislative body through a written investment policy. Governments should adopt weighted average maturity limitations, which often range from 90 days to three years, consistent with the government's investment objectives. o Because of inherent difficulties in accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily available funds such as local government investment pools (LGIPs), money market funds, or overnight repurchase agreements to ensure that appropriate liquidity is maintained to meet ongoing obligations. References GFOA Sample Investment Policy, 1997. Investing Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. GFOA Recommended Practice Frequency of Purchased Securities Valuation in Repurchase Agreements (1999) Background. A repurchase agreement (repo) is a transaction between a bank or securities dealer and an investor in which the bank (dealer) sells the securities to the investor (governmental entity) with a simultaneous agreement to buy the securities back from the investor at a specific time and at a price that will result in a predetermined yield to the investor. Securities sold are usually U.S. Treasury obligations, although agency securities and other alternative securities are also used. Repo transactions can be effected overnight, for a specified number of days, or as a continuing open contract. The repo market encompasses a broad range of debt and other securities, is highly liquid, and offers returns slightly above Treasury bills for investors. Public funds have used repos since the 1970s. In September 1996, The Bond Market Association (TBMA) published a revised version of its Master Repurchase Agreement, which previously had been amended in 1987. The revised agreement includes modifications designed to reflect the expansion of the repo market and changes in the law with respect to liquidation and closeout. Policies of governmental entities regarding securitization and safekeeping for deposits and investments, including repos, must be disclosed under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 3. The valuation of securities is an important factor in managing the risk of default in repurchase transactions. To protect the buyer from a decline in the price of the security during the term of the repo agreement, the seller usually delivers underlying securities in an amount necessary to sufficiently cover the governmental entity's investment plus accrued interest. The value of the securities must be monitored frequently to insure that the market value remains above the principal and interest earned to date in case of default of a counterparty. If the counterparty does not default, the value of the securities will not affect the repo agreement. The frequency of the valuation depends on the duration of the investment, security types and any established margin percentage. Less frequent valuations should require higher margin percentages since the risk exposure period is longer; the risk of market price declines is greater over longer time periods. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that government entities establish a policy and procedure for monitoring the value of the purchased securities to insure that it does not drop below the value of the repo. Though unnecessary for overnight investments, government entities should periodically revalue longer-term purchased securities and continuous repo transactions to avoid incurring a loss. Government entities should consider the use of third-party financial sources in their valuation process to price and transfer purchased securities. In order to facilitate the determination of market value when negotiating a master repurchase agreement, government entities should specify both the types of securities that are acceptable for the transaction and the pricing source for the securities. Price information for the securities should be readily available from a generally recognized source. As of any specific date during the transaction, the purchased securities should be priced at market value (including the value of the accrued interest) before applying any margin percentage because the investor may need to liquidate the securities in the secondary market in the event the seller does not complete the repurchase agreement transaction. References Considerations for Governments in Developing a Master Repurchase Agreement, Second Edition, GFOA Committee on Cash Management, 1988. · An Introduction to Broker/Dealer Relations for State and Local Governments, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1994. · Master Repurchase Agreement, The Bond Market Association, September 1996. An Introduction to Collateralizing Public Deposits for State and Local Governments, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA, 1996. "Investor Alert: Repo Agreements," Public b~vestor, April 3, 1998. · Investing Public Funds, Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. · "Tri~Party Repo," Public Investor, GFOA, October 2, 1998. · "Flexible Repurchase Agreements," Public Investor, GFOA, January 1, 1999. GFOA Recommended Practice Selection of Investment Advisers for Non-Pension Fund Assets (1999) (Replaces 1992 Recommended Practice on "Selection of Investment Advisers") Background. Some state and local government cash managers have augmented their investment programs by retaining investment advisers to perform various portfolio services, ranging from advice-only consultation to fully discretionary management. In many cases, the results of these engagements have been favorable, but there have also been cases of reported losses resulting from governmental units transacting business with certain investment advisers. Federal regulatory scrutiny of the relationship between investment advisers and public funds is also increasing. Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has consistently recommended that state and local governments exercise caution in their selection of investment advisers, particularly because the responsibility for safety and liquidity of governmental funds cannot be delegated to an investment adviser. The Association urges state and local governments considering or retaining an investment adviser to develop policies regarding the procurement of investment advisory services. In accordance with state and local law or other requirements, these policies should address the following: The responsible public official or the governing board should appoint a consultant and/or review committee to conduct the search process. 2. A competitive, merit-based procurement process for selection should be employed. Determination of responsibilities as an investment adviser, investment manager or both should be stated. The consultant and/or review committee should determine the criteria to be used in the selection. Criteria should include but are not limited to · style parameters based on portfolio, including asset class and specialty focus as appropriate, years in business, assets under management, · investment performance versus benchmarks, and · delivery of Form ADV Part I and Part II (including Schedule I) prior to contract execution. The consultant and/or review committee should determine the sources for candidates to be considered, including but not limited to · consultants' database on investment advisory firms, · industry reports and articles, · marketing materials, · references from other jurisdictions, · other special research and reports in order to ensure diversity in candidate pool, and · other governmental entity resources and info,:marion. The consultant and/or review committee should perform due diligence on candidates, including but not limited to · quantitative information, · organizational structure of firm, · experience and depth of personnel in firm, including turnover, · firm-specific investment philosophy and portfolio management strategies, · trading process, · management fees, · references from other clients, · interviews with finalists, and · use of a request for proposal (RFP) process. After the consultant and/or review committee has made a recommendation regarding the selection of an investment adviser, the contract process should include the following: · establishment of account and assignment of management and fiduciary responsibility, ,, determination of professional liability insurance for errors and omissions, · establishment of fee and terms of invoicing and payment, · procedure for termination of contract by either patty, · specifications related to nondiscrimination in contracting and ethics rules, and · certification of the investment adviser that he has read and understood the investment policy. The finance officer managing the investment adviser contract should comply with the following ethical considerations: · adherence to all jurisdiction's ethics laws, rules and regulations related to procurement and involvement with contractors, including those related to political contributions, · disclosure to jurisdiction of any inherent or potential conflicts of interest in dealing with specific investment advisers prior to taking any official action, and * adherence to the GFOA Code of Professional Ethics. The jurisdiction should develop and implement an ongoing risk control program, including · ongoing compliance reviews, · delivery versus payment, · third-party custody, · prohibitions against self-dealing, · independent audits, · timely reconciliations, and · other appropriate internal control measures. References An Elected Official's Guide to Investing, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA. 1995. An Introduction to bzvestment Advisers for State and Local Governments, M. Corinne Larson, GFOA 1996. b~vesting Public Fund& Second Edition, Girard Miller with M. Corinne Larson and W. Paul Zorn, GFOA, 1998. Request to be placed on: x Regular Agenda When: September 4- 2001 Agenda Item No.: AGENDA REQUEST Date: 8/28/01 Special Agenda Workshop Agenda Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much): Adoption of a revised Investment Policy. ORDINA/4CE/ ILESOLUTION ILEQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of the City's revised Investment Policy. Department Head Signature: City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director- Review (requiTed of funds): ~ ~ Funding available: YES/ NO Funding alternatives: Account No. & Description: Account Balance: on all items involving expenditure (if applicable) City Manager Review: Approved for agenda: Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved/Disapproved [lTV JIF DELHI:IV BEI:I[H DELRAY BEACH F t 0 a ~ 0 4 AJ['AJ116dC~CJ~y 100 N.W 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 1993 2001 TO: FROM: David T. Harden City Manager Robert A. Barcinski Assistant City Manager DATE: August 29, 2001 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 PROPOSED FY 2002 MAXIMUM RATES - MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE ACTION City Commission is requested to consider for approval maximum rates proposed for FY 2002 for the Delray Beach Municipal Golf Course. BACKGROUND Attached is the proposed rate schedule for the municipal course along with a rate comparison with other municipal courses. Increases in rates are proposed for prepaid green fees, cart fees, daily greens fees, bag storage, locker rental, range balls, and charity cards. Rate increases for prepaid fees average about 3.5% overall. Other golf rate increases range from 0% to 16.7% and are based on market conditions. Golf fees, except for prepaid green fees, are in line with other golf courses. I would recommend; however, that the charity card fee be raised to $23.00. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed maximum rates for FY 2002 for the Municipal Golf Course with the change in the rate for charity card fee recommended. RAB/tas 561/243-7000 File. u:sweeney/agenda Doc:2002 rates munictpal golf course THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Pnnted on Recycled Paper - DELRAY BEACH GOLF CLUB PROPOSED MAXIMUM RATES 2001/2002 -- ~,ESIDENT NON - RESIDENT EXISTING PROPOSED PJERCEN~ EXISTING!PROPOSED PERC'ENi JAN t- MARCH 3t,2002 18 HOLES ...... $36.00 $37.00 2.8 $53.50 $54.00 0.9 9 HOLES $22.50 $23.50 4.4: $38.00 $39.00 2.6 APRIL 2002,NOVEMBER,DECEMBER 2001 18 HOLES $33.00 $34.00 3.0 $42.50 $44.00 3.6 ~ HOLES $20.§0 $21.00 2.4 $29.00 $30.00 3.4 MAY 1 -"OCTOBER 31, 2002 "' 18 HOLES $20.50 $21.00 2.4 $24.00 $25.00 4.2 9 HOLES '" $15.00 $15.50 3.3 $17.00 $18.00 6.9 ALL RATES ARE TAX INCLUSIVE MISCELANEOUS RATES ( ALL RATES ARE TAX INCLUSIVE) BAG STORAGE $82.68 $84.80 2.6 LocKER RENTAL $53.00 $58.30 10.0 PREPAID WALKERS $1.50 $1.75 16.7 PULL CART $3.50 $3.75 7.1 CLUB RENTAL-18 HOLES $21.00 $21.00 $$.00 FOR JUNIORS 0 - 9 HOLES $16.00 $16.00 $5.00 FOR JUNIORS 0 RANGE BALL $5.00 $5.25 $1.50 FOR JUNIORS 5.0 CHARITY CARD $21.50 $22.00 2.3 PREPAID GREEN FEES RESIDENT FAMILY $1,590.00 $1,643.00 3.3 RESIDENT SINGLE $1,022.90 $1,054.70 3.~" NON-RESIDENT FAMILY $2,522.80 $2,6t8.20 3.8' NON-RESIDENT SINGLE $1,987.50 $2,0,61.70 3.~' Book2-Xcel-sheet2-D B Golf Club GOLF COURSE SURVEY MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE (ALL RATES ARE BEFORE TAX) 2000101 2000101 2000101 2000101 2000/01 2001102 NAME OF COURSE BOCA BOYNTON WEST PALM NORTH PALM PALM BEACH DELRAY MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL BEACH BEACH GARDENS BEACH PERMIT SINGLE RES. 683.96 603.77 742.00 945.00 943.40 995.00 SINGLE NON RES 1050.00 980.50 1516.00 1037.74 1945.00 FAMILY RES 1128.30 ~ 1617.00 t 132.08 t550.00 FAMILY NON RES. 1672.64 '2668.00 t4t5.09 2470.00 RANGE BALLS 4.25 3.77 4.72 4.01 4.72 4.95 PULL CARTS 2.83 1.89 3.77 3.54 3.54 CART FEE SEASON 18 HOLE RES. 16.04 t2.26; 11.79 14.t5 12.26 12.26 18 HOLE NON RES. 19.81 12.26: 11.79 14.15 12.26 t2.26 GREEN FEE SEASON 18 HOLE RES. 2t.23 25.47 34.20 24.53 35.38 21.00 18 HOLE NON RES. 31.13 25.47 34.20 47.17 41.98 37.03 APRIL, NOV. - DEC. 18 HOLE RES. 21.23 18.87 34.20 t7.45 2t.23 18.t7 18 HOLE NON RES 31.13 18.87 34.20 35.14 27.83 27.60 CART FEE OFF SEASON 18 HOLE RES. 12.74 9.43 9.9~ t4.15 t2.26 10.84 18 HOLE NON RES. 16.04 9.43 9.9~ 14.15 12.26 10.84 GREEN FEE OFF SEASON 18 HOLE RES. 13.2t 12.26 1t.56 14.72 9.43 7.79 '~ HOLE NON RES. 16.51 12.26 11.56 22.54 13.21 11.09 ~ .KERS SEASON 9 HOLE RES. 18.98 15.67 24.76 13.54 9 HOLE NON RES 2t.23 J5.57 24.76 24.06 20.051 26.18 APRIL, NOV. - DEC. 9 HOLE RES. 16.98 11.79 24.76 11.32 7.08 9.20 9 HOLE NON RES. 21.23 1t.79 24.76 2t.70 8.73 t7.69 WALKERS OFF SEASON 9 HOLE RES. 10.38 7.55 11.56 8.02 7.08 6.42 9 HOLE NON RES. 12.74 7.55 11.56 11.32 8.73 7.78 BAG STORAGE 70.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 80.00 iCHARITY CARD RATE 20.00 18.86 21.70 20.75 20.75 COMBINED RATE - RIDING JAN - MARCH RES 37.26 37.73 45.99 38.68 47.54 34.91 NON RES, 47.17 37.73 NI/~ 61.32 54.24 50.94 NOV., DEC., & APRIL RES, 37.26 31.t3 45.99 31.60 33.49 32.08 NON RES. 47.17 31.13 NIA 49.29 40.09 4t.61 MAY - OCT. RES. 25.94 21.69 21.47 28.87 21.69 20.28 NON RES. 32.55 21.69 N/A 36.79 25.47 23.68 u:~puenle~gcsur~ey xls ~ Sheet1 .JAN 'i-MARCH 31, 2002 CART FEES -18 HOLES GREEN FEES 48 HOLES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TAX CART FEES - 9 HOLES GREEN FEES - 9 HOLES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 'tAX AP~)L 20D2,NOVEMBER,DECEMBER 200,~ CART FEES- 18 HOLES GREEN FEES- t8 HOLES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TAX CART FEES - 9HOLES GREEN FEES - 9 HOLES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TAX MAY 1-OCTOBER 31,2002 CART FEES 18 HOLES GREEN FEES 18 HOLES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TAX CART FEES - 9 HOLES GREEN FEES - 9 HOLES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TAX DELRAY BEACH GOLF CLUB PROPOSES MAXIMUM RATES o 200112002 RESIDENT EXISTING PROPOSED NON-RESIDENT EXISTING PROPOSED $11.80 $12.26 $20.75 $21.00 $33.96 $34.91~ $2.04 $36.00 $37.00 $8.50 $8.96 $11.32 $11.56 ~1.41 $1.65 $21.23 $22.17, $1.27 $~33 $22.50 $23.50 $11.80 $t2.26 $37.26 $37.03 $t.41 $1.65 $50.47 $50.94 $3.03 $3.06 ~53.50 $54.00 $8.50 $8.96 $25.94 $26.1~ ~1.4! $1.65 $35.85 $2.15 $2.2t $38.00- $39.00 $11.80 $12.26 $17.92 $18.17 $1.4~ SI.65 $31.13 $32.08 $1.87 $J.9~ ~33.00 $34.00 $8.80 $8.96 $9.43 $9.20 $1.41 $1.65 $19.34 $19.81 ~lJ6 ~1.19 ~2o.5o $21.oo $11.80 $12.26 $26.88 $27.60 $40.09 $41.61 )2.41, $2.49 $42.60 $44.00 $8.60 $8.96 $17.45 $17.69 )1.41 ~1.65' $27.38 $28.30 )1.64 $1.70 $29.00 $30.00 $10.38 $10.84 $7.66 $7.79 ~1.4t $1.65 $19.34 $20.28 $1.16 $1.22 $20.50 321.50 $7.08 $7.55 $5.66 $5.42 $1.41 $1.65 $14.15 $14.62 So.68 $0.68 $16.00 $15.50 $10.38 $10.84 $10.85 $11.09 $t.41 $t.66 $22.64 $23.58 $1.36 $1.42 $24.00 $25.00 $7.08 $7.55 $7.54 $7.78 $1.41 ~1.65 $16.o3 $t6.98 $0.97 $1.02 $17.00 CITY OF OELRI:IY BEACH DELRAY BEACH 100 N.W 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 1993 2001 TO: David T. Harden City Manager FROM: t~,~ Robert A. Barcinski Assistant City Manager DATE: August 29, 2001 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM CITY COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 PROPOSED FY 2002 MAXIMUM RATES - LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE ACTION City Commission is requested to consider for approval maximum rates proposed for FY 2002 for the Delray Beach Lakeview Golf Course. BACKGROUND Attached is the proposed rate schedule for the Lakeview Golf Course along with a rate comparison for other like golf courses. Changes proposed for all fees range from a 33.33% decrease for ride with a play card (November to December) to an increase of 13.3% for non-resident fees ride with a play card (December to April). Rate increases and decreases proposed are varied and are based on market conditions. Fees proposed are in line with other comparable courses. This course is price sensitive and I concur with fee reductions proposed especially during season. Our rounds in November, December and January this past year were down as compared to the previous year. I feel this was mainly due to our rates. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed maximum rates for FY 2002 for the Lakeview Golf Course. RAB/tas 561/243-7000 File. u: sweeney/agenda Doc:2002 rates lakeview golf course THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Z W 0 n W 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O~ 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 uO 0 W o ILl uJ o (/) 0 o 0 0 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO U~ I~ I-- Z 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 LO 0 0 0 L{') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 LO 0 0 12> 0 0 0 0 Z W 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r~ I-- Z w 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 .~-- ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L.~ 0 h'- 0 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z 0 0 0 U'") tt~ 0 0 0 C:) 0 n~ T W Lakev,ew Golf Club Golf Course Survey GOLF COURSE SURVEY i EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSES' (ALL RATES ARE BEFORE TAX) I L - oO~Ol OOlOl oo/ol NAME OF COURSE LAKEVIEW BOCA EXECUTIVE gELRAY C.C I RIDE 18 HOLES 12111/01 - 4/14/02 RESIDENT $ 26.42 $ 25.4.7 $ 28.30 NON-RES. $ 27.83 $ 25.47 $ 28.30 04/15/O2 - 11/11/02 RESIDEN'f' $ 12.97 $ 14.15 $ 14.15 NON-RES{ $ 14 15 $ 14 15.t $ 14 15 WALK 18 HOLES I J RESIDENT J i$ 17.45 $ 1698j J$ 16 98 NON-RES.1', IS 19.81 J J$ 16.98J i only afterlpm 04/15/02 - 11/11/02 .t-T~', J/ ~ [ RESIDENT I $ 9.43: ..................... J $ 849 i , $ 8.96j [ $ 10'85 I 'h ...... . *Boca Executive recognizes a shoulder season from April 1 to April 30 i , I~[J~ng this time, the 18-hole ride rate is the same for residents and non-residents at Th--e~alking rate ~s again the same for residents and non-residents at $13 21 ' T RATE0102.XLS £1TY DF I]ELAI:IY BERI:II DFLRAY BEACH 1 993 :,oo'~ TO: 100 N W. 1st AVENUE MEMORANDUM FROM: David T. Harden City Manager obert A. Barcinski ssistant City Manager DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 DATE: August 29, 2001 SUBJECT: AGENDA CITY COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 APPROVAL TENNIS CENTER - MEMBERSHIP RATES FY 2002 561/243-7000 Action City Commission is requested to approve proposed Tennis Center rates for FY 2002. Background Attached are proposed rate increases for the Tennis Center for next year. The proposed rate increase for court fees is from 0% to 11.1%. Proposed rate increases for membership range from 0% to 5.9%. All rate increases proposed are based on market conditions. Attached are copies of the proposed rate changes and rate comparisons with other facilities. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed rates for Tennis Center memberships for FY 2002. RAB:tas File:u:sweeney/agenda Doc: 2002 rates tennis center THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS Pnnted on Recycled Paper ¢ *K ° DELRAY BEACH TENNIS CENTER-FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 PROPOSED MAXIMUM MEMBERSHIP RATES OCTOBER 1,2001-SEPTEMBER 30,2002 - ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS (12 MONTHS) TYPE MEMBERSHIP EXISTING PROP(~SED % INCREASE RESIDENT SINGLE $ 255.00 $ 265.00 3.9 FAMILY $ 385.00 $ 400.00 3.9 JUNIOR $ 50.00 $ 50.00 0.0 NONRESIDENT SINGLE $ 425.00 $ 450.00 5.9 FAMILY $ 595.00 $ 625.00 5.0 JUNIOR $ 100.00 $ 100.00 0.0 MAY 1,2001-SEPTEMBER 30,2001 -SUMMER MEMBERSHIPS (5 MONTHS) TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP EXISTING PROPOSED %INCREASE RESIDENT SINGLE $ 110.00 $ 115.00 4.5 FAMILY $ 170.00 $ 180.00 5.9 JUNIOR $ 35.00 $ 35.00 0.0 NON-RESIDENT SINGLE $175.00 $ 185.00 5.7 FAMILY $ 250.00 $ 265.00 6.0 JUNIOR $ 55.00 $ 55.00 0.0 FAMILY=HUSBAND, WIFE AND CHILDREN UNDER 18 AND 21 ATrENDING SCHOOL MEMBERSHIP RATES DO NOT INCLUDE FLORIDA SALES TAX xl/public/tcfiscal rotes DELRAY BEACH TENNIS CENTER-FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 PROPOSED MAXIMUM DAILY RATES AND MISCELLANEOUS RATES COURT FEES - CLAY COURTS / PER PERSON COURT TIMES MORNING/EVENINGS COU~RT TIMES AFTERNOON NOV.1-APRIL 30 EXISTING PROPOSED %INCREASE EXISTING PROPOSED %INCREASE CITY RESIDENTS ADULTS JUNIORS 7.25 $ 7.50 3.4 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 4.50 $ 5.00 11.1 $ 3.50 $ 3.50 COUNTY RESIDENTS ADULTS $ JUNIORS $ 9.25 $ 9.50 2.7 $ 7.50 $ 7,50 6.00 $ 6.50 8.3 $ 4.50 $ 4.50 NON RESIDENT ADULTS , JUNIORS $ 12.00 $ 12.50 4.2 $ 9.50 $ 9.50 $ 8.00 $ 8.50 6.3 $ 6.50 $ 6.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MAY 1-OCT 31 EXISTING PROPOSED %INCREASE EXISTING PROPOSED %INCREASE CITY RESIDENTS ADULTS $ JUNIORS $ COUNTY RESIDENTS ADULTS $ JUNIORS $ NON RESIDENTS ADULTS JUNIORS 6.75 $ 7.00 3.7 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 3.50 $ 3.50 0 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 0.0 0.0 8.25 $ 8.50 3.0 $ 6.50 $ 6.50 5.00 $ 5.00 0 $ 3.50 $ 3.50 0.0 0.0 $ 10.75 $ 11.00 2.3 $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 6.75 $ 7.00 3.7 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 0.0 0.0 ALL PRICES INCLUDE FLORIDA SALES TAX xl.publtc/tcflscalrates2 MAXIMUM DALLY RATES 2001-2002 COURT FEES- HARD COURTS/PER PERSON COURT TIMES MORNINGIEVENINGS COURT TIMES AFTERNOON 1 I1-4130 EXISTING PROPOSED CITY RESIDENTS ADULTS $ 5.00 JUNIORS $ 3.00 511-10131 1111-4130 EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED 511-10131 EXlSTINGIPROI=OSED $2.50 I $2.50 $~.50 / $0.0 $4.00 $2.50152.50 $2.50 $1.50 / 0.0 COUNTY RESIDENTS ADULTS $ 6.00 JUNIORS $ 3.00 NON RESIDENTS ADULTS $ 7.00 JUNIORS $ 4.00 $3.00 I $3.50 $1.75 / $2.00 $3.50 I $4.00 $2.001 $2.50 $5.00 $3.00153.50 $3.50 $1.751 $2.00 $6.00 $3.50 1 $4.00 $3.50 $2.001 $2.50 ALL PRICES INCLUDE FLORIDA SALES TAX xl/publlc/tcdailymtes D.-LRAY BEACH TENNIS CENTER - FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 MISCELLANEOUS RATES EXISTING LIGHTS I 112 HOURS $ 4.72 PROPOSED %INCREASE $ 4.72 0.0 LOCKER FEE MONTHLY $ 10.00 $ 10.00 0.0 YEARLY $ 30.00 $ 35.00 0.0 BALL MACHINE RENTAL $10.00 PER HR SJ0.00 PER HR 0.0 RACKET RENTAL $ 5.00 $ 5.00 0.0 MISC. RATES DO NOT INCLUDE FLORIDA SALES TAX PRIVATE LESSON .F" ~'ES EXISTING '112 HR MAXIMUM PROPOSED %INCREASE MEMBERS $ 27.00$ 28.00 COUNTY RESIDENTS $ 30.00$ 32.00 NON RESIDENTS $ 32.00$ 35.00 JUNIORS $ 20.00$ 22.00 1 HR MAXIMUM EXISTING PROPOSED 3.7 $ 50.00$ 52.00 6.7 $ 55.00$ 58.00 9.4 $ 60.00$ 65.00 10.0 $ 40.00 $ 40.00 %INCREASE 4.0 5.5 8.3 0.0 xls/publlc/tcflscalrates3 [ITY (IF OELRI:i¥ BEI:ICH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755 Writer' s D~rect Line, 561/243-7091 1993 DATE: August 30, 2001 TO: FROM: City Commission David Harden, City Manager Brian Shun, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Proposal for Settlement in Rail v. City of Delray Beach, et al The City has received a Proposal for Settlement from the Plaintiff in the case of James and Dawn Rail versus the City of Delray Beach, et al. This action arose out of a stop, of the Rails' vehicle, on August 22, 1997 by police officers of the City after they were informed by employees of the Taco Bell restaurant on Linton Boulevard that the Rails had passed counterfeit money. After the Rails were stopped they were brought to the police department where they were held for several hours until a determination was made that the money was not counterfeit, they were then released. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false arrest and negligent hiring and training against the City. The Proposal for Settlement filed by Plaintiffs' attorney is for $85,000.00 inclusive of fees and costs. Our recommendation is to deny the Proposal for Settlement. Please place this item on the September 4, 2001 City Commission agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. CC: Barbara Garito, City Clerk Cathy Kozol, Police Legal Advisor Jay Jambeck, Asst. City Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM # ~/~ REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION APPEALS DATE: AUGUST 31, 2001 The terms for the following persons on the Board of Construction Appeals will expire on August 31, 2001. Claudio Camilucci Robert G. Currie James j. Muzic Russell A "Rusty" Warren (Sign Contractor) (Architect) (General Contractor) (Master Plumber) Mr. Currie and Mr. Warren have served two (2) complete consecutive terms and are not eligable for reappointment. Mr. Muzic will be moving to Georgia and Mr. Camilucci has served one (1) complete term. Mr. Carmlucci is eligible and would like to be considered for reappointment. A list of current board members and attendance records are attached for your information To quahfy for appointment, a person shall have actual previous experience in their respective trade or profession deemed sufficient by the Commission. Residency is not required. A person needs not own or operate a business m Delray Beach. The term is for two (2) years ending August 31, 2003. Attached is a list of applicants, including the incumbent who would like to be considered. The list has been categorzzed. A check to confirm that all are registered voters was completed; all were registered vath the exception of Claudio Camilucci. Also, a check for code violattons and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Architect John Baccari Jillian Woehlkens (recently appointed to BOA) General Contractor Ron Brito Dave Mayer Master Plumber Sal Pala Sign Contractor Claudio Camilucd (incumbent) Based on the rotation system, the appointments will be made as follows: Commissioner McCarthy (Seat #4) · Mayor Schmidt (Seat #5) · Commissioner Perlman (Seat #1 · Commissioner Archer (Seat #2) Architect General Contractor Master Plumber Sign Contractor Recommend appointment of four regular members to the Board of Construction Appeals for two year terms ending August 31, 2003. ~/cltyclerlOboard cormusmon memo bca. 8 29 O1 04/01 BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION APPEALS TERM REGULAR MEMBERS OCCUPATION TELEPHONE EXPIRES 08/31/2001 Claudio Camilucci (Appt. 8/99) Sign Contractor Office: 272-5137 1115 North Swinton Ave. Home: 276-6948 Delray Beach, FL 33444 08/31/2001 Robert G. Cuttle, Vice Chair (Reappt.. 8/99) Architect Office: 276-4951 134 N.E. 1~t Avenue Home: 276-4951 Delray Beach, FL 33444 Fax: 243-8184 08/31/2002 Michael Elsenrod, 2nd Vice Chart (Appt 09/98) Real Estate Work: 982-7776 6654 Villa Son_visa (Re-appt. 10/00) Home: 447-8191 Apt #411 Boca Raton, F1 33433 08/31/2002 James A. Griffis, Chair (Re-appt. 10/00) General Contractor Home: 276-0068 555 S. E. 6th Ave. Apt. 11-D (Unexpired 3/99) Delray Beach, FL 33483 08/31/2001 James j. Muzic (Appt.08/99) General Contractor Office: 274-2074 2210 N. E. 3rd Avenue Pager: 457-0094 Delray Beach, FL 33444 08/31/2002 Tim D. Onnen (Appt. 10/00) Master Electrician Office: 278-8362 x 330 946 Sea sage Drive Home: 272-4503 Delray Beach, FL 33483 08/31/2002 Chris Ryan (Appt. 10/00) Air Conditioning Office: 736-1043 1402 Cormorant Road Contractor Home: 274-6254 Delray Beach, FL 33444 08/31/2002 Leonard Sheppard (Appt 08/98) Engineer Home: 499-5294 6308 Dusenburg Road (Reappt. 10/00) Dekay Beach, FL 33484 08/31/2001 Russell A. "Rusty" Warren (Re-appt. 8/99) Master Plumber Office: 276-1011 1191 South Old Dixie Highway Home: 498-5325 Delray Beach, FL 33483 Contact: Karen Schell 243-7056 s C~tyClerlcBoard 01BCA Last · JUN-13-2000 15:05 P. 02/03 BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION ?lease ty~ or prim ',he following information: T. Last Name:: Bacc&r~ 2. Home Ad&ess: 112 N. E. 1st Avenue 3. I.cgal Residence 4. Principal Business Ad&ess: 5. Itom¢ Phone: 2~3-0055 What Bo&rd(s) ~re you interested in servin~ Site Plan Name John Delray Beach City City Business P~ne.'- 561-832-9110 S~ate YL State Slate I Middle In~tiai ; Zip Code 33&44 Zip Cod'F-- Zip Code 7 Li~ ali Ci~Boa~d~on whic~ you arecurrcnflyse~ing orba~epmviouslyserved:(PIc~einclu~da~s) Board of Adjustment - l~l-l~3/199f-~:ese~t-te:~ expi:es 8/31/00 Board of ConstructionAppeals 8." Educahonalqualifica~ons: B. A. in architecture, Syracuse Unlv~rsi~y List any related professional ¢~rtifications and licenses which you hold: ~eRlstered architeet~ G~neral Contractor anti Lice~%sed State Inspector 10. Give your present, or mo~t r~g~nt employer, and position: 11. D, eseribe experiences, skills or kflowledg¢ which qualify you to serve on this bOard: (Please attach ~ brief resume) I hereby certify that all the above statements are true, and I agree and understand that any mi_~taternent of rnat'erial facts contained in this application may cause forfeiture upon rny part ', ['? 'This appii~:ation'will rem~~p _odd--om the date it was "--" submitted It will be the applicant s respo ! a cun'ent application is on ilk. JUN 1 3 2000 CITY CLERK ."IJH-13-2000 13:,~7 SG! 24~J :3?'74 96'.':. P. 03 07/12/01 TItU 16:07 FAX 661 249 3??4 CITY CLEILK DELRAY BEACH BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION 1993 2.001 i~001. _Plcsse ,~pe q~ p~t ~he fo~o~ing in{on~o-'- 1. ~st Nam= Woehlkens N~e Jillian M 2. Home Ad~ess: 306 N.W. 7th ~ Delray Bch FL ~. l~ R~n~: Same C~ S~t¢ Zip Princilm! Bus~=as Ad&ess: 205 George Bush BLVD Ci~ Delray Beach . Stgte FL ~p Code 33444 2~4-9315 27~6011 j woehlkens~ A~ Zou a xe~tered voter.? If so. where are you tc~rc~ ~ ~-. xn t~ -proces~ recently just chang~dadaw~=,. I. ha.~e ~ked in ~°~d(~) ~re ~o iut=t~t~d ~ ,~h~? plea~ 5s~ ~ order of~f~c*: D~iray Bch lot a couple{ of years/~o~ever~ H.P.B and P t Z, and S.P.R.A.B reeehtlYettI ~t ~ G~ So~& on ~ich ~u ,~e ~mfly se~ ~ h~e ~one at present time. 10, List any rehtcd professional certification~ ~nd licenses which you hold: None at pr~_s~ t~m~- ll..Givevourp=esengozmtmtxec~temp~yer, mdpo~6ore 'Elioploulos & Associates~ Graduated Architect. Yormer ~ Present work experience under current board member of S.P.R,'A.B2' Extr~m~iy dedicated & eager to enhance my knowledge a skills especially related to community as we~ a~ pertaining to'future endevor~. t he.~ cevti~_ 3~at all ~e above smterr)~ts ~/j~ue, md I ~cc ~nd ~&s~d mat ~y ~)te' TNs app~ca~n ~ zemm on ~e ~ ~e Ci~, C]~'s Office fo= a pmod of 2 y~s uon~ ~e dgtc it ~'~ submm,-.d. I! will be the sppllcant's responsibili~ to RECEIVED JUL' 1'3 2001 CITY CLERK ELIOPOULOS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Architects, Planners & Interior Designers AA0003179 JILLIAN M. WOEHLKENS 205 George Bush Blvd. 33444 Phone: 561/276-6011 Fax: 561/276.6129 E-nxnil: ~oe~,aol.com OBIECTIVE EDUCATION WORK EXPERIENCE ACTIVITIgS To obtain a position on the City of Delray Beach's Historic Pms~mrafion Board to further donate my experience and dedicated opinions as well as ~in the experience and knowledge that will ~h.n~ the future of Delray Beach. Norwich Unh~rs~ty - Nottkfield, Vermont Masters of Architecture, Bachelors of Science in ~ral indies May 2001 Minors in Engineering and Art · Recipient of Leadership Scholarship for outstanding ~cular activities all four years. · One of a four person team to design and build an addition to existing home in a design-build studio. ,!~rQiect Architect- work on construction documents for both residential & comm~"lX~!fl projects, (~orrlln~te projects & delegate project t.~kc, prepare presentation drawings and assemble working drawing packages for obtaining building permits. Acquire field measurements to then be placed on CAD, produce general O~Ce lloeds, CI/~'fl~ interaction, ~ co~on mimini~dtion Norwich University, Notthfield, 'v'F 1996 - 5/01 Work Study Program- Hold thr~e positions _~imultaneously .Architecture Dcuartment Proctor - proctor for studio, attend meetings, report problems to depatUnem head, administer first aid as needed. Admini.,~rative Assistant for Swim and Soccer Coach - recruit proq~ective ~hletes, database mn.gemel]~ O~Ce clel'ic~ll sIJppoll,. Administrative Assistant for Hockey Coach - database mn,mgement, office clmcal support, recruit prospective athletes. JCPenney Co., Inc., Berlin, VT 12/99 - 5/01 C~.$hier - sell store items to public, provide quality customer service, ~ indivichmls to appropriate A. LD. ModeU Iac., Washington, NI 9]95 - 7/96 .A~istant - consm~ed trees, plants, furniture, etc.., for minism,r~ ~aled llx~lels, worked with machines for minintu~ n__ __ccee~es, assisted set up on 1al'gel $1~aled arghitecttlral l~xlels for Equipment - blueprint machine, variety of woodshop and i]idivJ!'ml po~ leo]l, some engilleerilq[ Computer - AuraCAD, Microstation, Studio Max, l~iech~nical Desktop, l~icl~sofl Word, Microsoft Excel, Word Perfect, Medic Compmer. · Norwich University Women's Soccer Team - Co-Cq~in 1,2,3,4 · AlAS - Member 1,2,3,4,5 · Girl Sooms - recipiem of gold and ~ awards, higl~ honors attninable · Architecture Competition - 2nd place for design nmi construction of scaled model REFERENCES kvnilshle ~ request Rug 13 01 1993 2001 Enterprise 561 243 3774 Contractors CITY OF DEL. RAY BEACH BOARD MEMBER APPL.ICATION ~ Please type or p~n! the £ol]ox~rmg mfo~m~uon: 1 L~stN;u~c State Zip C,?de 'k,p 7.,p Code / 7 What B,~axd(~) me you interested in serving? Please !,st tn o~der of preference: $. La~-t all C~ry [Joaxds on wJuch you axe cuxrendy serving et have prev~oualy ~crved: 0aleasc include dares) 9 Educanoufl quala ficauons /Y 10. last aay xclatud 1), ofessional cetuficauon~ and licenses which you hold. 11 C~wc yo~ plesem, ox most recent ~pIoyer, and 12 Desc'v~b* experiences, skiLk r~t knowledge wh,cb qu'ahfy you ~o serve on tlus boa.rd: ('Please ~Hach a btacf resnme) , (/,. // I hereby certify d~at all the above atatemenls arc tzuc, and I ~ee and und~tand d~at any ,msslatcm~t of matenal c~nt~ned :n this apphcauon may ca~ fozfet~e upOn my pa~ of any npl)r,lnt~cnt [ may rec~ve. SIGNn'~I~ - DA 1'~ / -- ~"4 ore l'has apphcataon x~,fl] remain on file laa the City Cl~k's Office for a period of 2 yeazs from the date ~t was ~ubrruttcd It wzl] be d~c apphcant'~ rc~pon~Jbdity to ensuze fi:at a current appbcauoH ~ on file RECEIVED AU6 1 3 2001 OITY CLERK Rug 13 O! 09:27a Enter~mise Contractom$ RON BRITO, GENERAL CONTRACTOR 198 S.E. 2~h Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida ($61) 573- 7115 WORK HISTOR Y: 1965- 1979 Fourteen }'ears as a framing and finish carpenter in Riverside, San Bernardino and Laguna Beach, Californta, Production.framing on several multi-family complexes, housing tracts, and high quahty custom finish work. Seven years as Carpenter, t~ years as Leadman, five years as Foreman on ne,v residential and commercial projects, as well as renovations and remodeling 1979- 1983 LICENSED BUILDING CONTRACTOR/CALIFORNIA Lic. B-388997 Spent five years subcontracting and running framing, siding, trussing, .floor joisting, and stair installation on multi-faintly complex'es from large contractors'. During this tzme, I conlracted new single-family homes, additions, remodehng, commercial roofing, and commercial tenant improvements. 1983- 1985 .lob Superintendent on custom housing in the Nashville, Tennessee Subcontracting framing, trussing, and siding jobs for the next two years. area for one year. 1986 - 1989 LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR/FLORIDA Lic. CGC-047369 Worked at "The Township" as Punch-Out Foreman .for one year. Worked for David ,Jones Constructton t~l Gleneagles, Polo Club as Lead Carpenter and Foreman .for one .Fear on 32 eight-ptex wood frame multi-family trails Worked .for Davis Brothers as Superintendent on Brighton Lakes in Boynton Beach, building 36 wood-frame duplexes. Constructed caviare housing from Manalapan to St. Andrews, Boca Raton. Received General Contractor's Lwcnse tn February 1989 1989 - 1991 LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR/U.S. ~IRGIN ISLANDS Lit: 2-01392-92 Traveled to St Croix after Hurricane Hugo for 5 days to bring supplies and help restore power and water to umts of condominiums for a friend Agreed to come back to restore two houses Restored [burteen residences, two commercial buildings and six rental units Also completed work in St Thomas and St. John on custom homes..4cqu:red General Contractor's License h, the V.'gin Islands in February 1990. Returned to Florida in July of 1991 and began new additions and remodeling projects After Hurrtcane Andrea,, 1 opened a field office tn Miami for restoration work. My Miami office completed 16 residential restorations and about 32 roofing projects. Ru~. 13 O1 09:27a Emtempmi~e Contractor~ (S61]275-0335 p.~ RON BRITO, GENERAL CONTRA CTOR Page 2 1992 - 1993 Was asked to take over operauons of Falkav Construction as General Mgr. and to qual!ty the company Falkav Construction was, at that time, under contract with the City of Delray Beach ./or the new Tennis Center (2.5 million-dollar conrracO and was engaged in school pro/ects Jor dtxlrtcts from Lake Worth lo Mtamt-Dade County Although, after a thorough research, I dectded not to qualify Falkav, I brought the Deb'ay Tennis Center to substantial completion m time for the Virginia Slim Tournament, and all of the school jobs were in line. 1994 - present Owner and President, Enterprise Contractors, Inc. Enterprise has completed many local residential and commercial projects since it ~ inception, including new construction, additions, remodehng and historwal renovations (such as the Sandoway House Nature Center in Delray Beach) In August 1995, I was appointed to the Construction Board of Appeals in Delrcly Beach, and I was the Board's Director for a 2 year term. PERSONAL HISTOR Y: I am 55 ),ears old, married, and have four children 1 have two years o.f college, majoring in Business Management I am an active member of my church (SDA), where I have been a Deacon ~or 14 years and am currently a Sabbath school teacher for young adults I also sit on the Church's Building Committee I own a home in Boynton Beach, where my family has lived for 16 )'ears, and ] am a member of the Architectural Review Board for the Vernon Heights ;'roperO' O*r~terx' A.v. vociation. I am also a ]6-year member o. f A.A. and am active on several committees. Tennis, surfing and. logging are my fizvorite pastimes. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH Please tb'pe or prim the following in£orrnafion: 2. Home Address: I to 'Sw 3: LegalResidet~e City ' Stale -~tate - Zip Code_ Zip Code 4. ~rii~ci-p~ Business Addrcsg, { C~ty ,- gt~te: -Zip Code 131~ St,,v ,2~h I~d II~z,,z?.¥ i~c.A ~L 'T~-. ~ ).our present, or most recen~ ernpl.,o)'er, and pos|fion: -[ l~-D~c-[ibe eVxP~r|en~e~,, s](iils c~ k~o~ledg~ which qualify you to serve b~this boar& (Pl~ase attach a brie]'~e~u~) ~ h v m and I agree and unde~tand that any ~isstatement of ~ateria~ facts contained in Zhis app#~t/on ~ag ~use fo~eiture upon ~ of ~y appoint~nt I ~ay receive. : -. ~ ~ ~ -- - AU6 0 9 1999 ~l&e~: Thi~ aPPl~catfon g41~main on file i~ ti~"l~ce for a ~od of 2 ye~s 50n~thdda~ ii Was' submiRed, h will be ~e applic~t's res~nsibiliw to ensme ~at a c~ent application is on file. E~I':_,HL-/F' PLUHBII IG CO. BOARD MEMBER APPLIC~,TIOI~I 1993 2001 ~_¢..g(~_ I ._.>.Joan / I .. i ('~. ~ ' . .s~ ~ z,~. ~. l, you t,~L(res ted m s,-4~-ing? Please N~r m osder of preference: / ~5 Lt=t all CiD' B, ,ards ,',n Nvhlch yr, u ~le currently ~c~,in$ o: Imve previously s~=-ed. FPlease include ct~te$) ~ he, ,-by c~r~ f'y thi4 ~tl the ~bo~;~C~a~li~¢nts are ~l~ac, ~ I agree and undcrstznd on may c~u~c fort~i~e upon my p~t or.ny - .... s~bm~tr~d, tr w~ be dm apphcant's rcsponsibfli~ to cnsu~ ~{t~ ¢ em'ten-- --' - ~ apphcamm ~s on file '111!! CITY OF DELRAY BEACH BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION 4.. r'nn~zl Bus,,',~ Add~:e~s: lc, I ~st ~in.~ tala. ced l~,r~-d:es$iona, l ¢¢rrifi. c~a.~,~s iud llc¢.~ses 11 ~ve v~ pzese~, cz mo~r ~ec~:~t ~nploy¢~. ~md po~.taor~ RECEIVED AU6 2 2 2001 ciTY CLERK MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER~ AGENDA ITEM lO ]~ - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 49-01 (TENTATIVE MILLAGE LEVY) AUGUST 31, 2001 Resolution No. 49-01 tentatively levies a tax on all properties in the City of Dekay Beach for FY 2002 as follows: 7.47 mills for operation and maintenance of the General Fund 0.63 mills for the payment of principal and interest on bonded indebtedness 8.10 mills -- tentative millage rate The tentative millage rate of 8.10 mills is fifteen one hundredths of a mill more than FY 2001. The rolled back rate calculated under the TRIM law for operating purposes is 6.6423 mills. The tentative millage rate is 12.46% above the rolled back rate. The assessed valuation on all taxable property within the City for operating purposes is $3,755,579,002. The assessed valuation for debt service is $3,756,057,545. The reason for the differential is the exemptions that were granted to historic properties in the City. They apply to ol~erating millage only. Pursuant to the City Charter and TRIM requirements, a public hearing must be held prior to the adoption of the resolution. Final adoption of the FY 2002 budget is scheduled for September 19, 2001. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 49-01. Ref:Agmemo20.Res 49-01 .Tentative Millage Levy. FY 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 49-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, TO TENTATIVELY LEVY A TAX ON ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION, AND TO TENTATIVELY LEVY A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON BONDED INDEBTEDNESS, AND TO ALLOCATE AND APPROPRIATE SAID COLLECTIONS THEREUNDER. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That a tax of $7.47 per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) of assessed valuation is hereby tentatively levied on all taxable property within the City of Delray Beach for the fiscal year commencing October l, 2001, and ending September 30, 2002. There shall be and hereby is appropriated for the General Fund operations of the City revenue derived from said tax for operating and maintenance expenses of the General Fund, and also in addition, all revenues derived by said City during said fiscal year from all other sources other than the tax levy for current bond service and that part of collection of delinquent taxes levied for bond service. The assessed valuation on all taxable property for operating purposes within the City of Delray Beach is $3,755,579,002. The tentative operating millage rate of $7.47 per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) exceeds the rolled-back rate of $6.6423 per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) by 12.46%. Section 2. That the amount of money necessary to be raised for interest charges and bond redemption which constitutes a general obligation bonded indebtedness of the City of Delray Beach is $2,213.475. There is hereby appropriated for the payment thereof, all revenues derived from the tentative tax levy of $0.63 per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) of assessed valuation, which is hereby levied for that purpose for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2001, and ending September 30, 2002, upon the taxable property of the City of Delray Beach, the assessed valuation being $3,756,057,545. Section 3. That the above tentative millage rates are adopted subject to adjustment in accordance with Section 200.065(5) of the Florida Statutes which provides that a municipality may adjust its adopted millage rate if the taxable value within the jurisdiction of the taxing authority as certified pursuant to Section 200.065(1) is at variance by more than one percent (1%) with the taxable value shown on the assessment roll to be extended. 4, 2001. 2001. Section 4. That a public hearing was held on the proposed budget on September PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 4th day of September, ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk 2 Res. No. 49-01 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER~L'1 AGENDA ITEM IO,..~ - REGUI.,KR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 50-01 {TENTATIVE MILI.&GE LEVY IN THE DDA TAXING DISTRICT) AUGUST 31, 2001 Resolution No. 50-01 tentatively levies a tax m the mount of 1.00 mill on all properties within the Downtown Development Authority Taxing District of the City of Dekay Beach for FY 2002. This tentative millage exceeds the 0.8564 rolled back rate calculated under the TRIM law by 16.77%. A copy of the DDA's Certification of Taxable Value is attached, along with a copy of the DDA budget for FY 2002. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 50-01. Final adoption of the DDA tax levy for FY 2002 is scheduled for September 19, 2001. RefiAgmemo20.Res 50 -01.Tentative Millage Lew. DDA.FY 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 50-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELR. AY BEACH, TO TENTATIVELY LEVY A TAX ON ALL PROPERTIES WITHII~ THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TAXING DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION, AND TO APPROPRIATE SAID COLLECTIONS THEREUNDER. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ~ CITY COMMISSION OF TNE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That a tax of $1.00 per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) of assessed valuation is hereby tentatively levied on all taxable properW within the Downtown Development Authority Taxing District of the City of Delray Beach for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2001, and ending September 30, 2002. There shall be and hereby is appropriated for the purpose of financing the operation of the Downtown Development Authority Taxing District revenue derived from said tax for operating and maintenance expenses of the Downtown Development Authority Taxing District, and also in addition, all revenues derived by saad Taxing District during said fiscal year from all other sources other than the tax levy for current bond service and that part of collection of delinquent taxes levied for bond service. The assessed valuation on all taxable property for operating purposes within the Downtown Development Authority Taxing District of the City of Delray Beach is $172,452,642. The tentative operating millage rate of $1.00 per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) exceeds the rolled-back rate of $0.8564 per one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) by 16.77%. Section 2. That thc above tentative millage rate is adopted pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 200.065(2)(e)(2), and subject to adjustment in accordance with Section 200.065(5) of the Florida Statutes which provides that each affected taxing authority, other than inunicipahties, counties, school boards, and water management districts, may adjust its adopted millage rate if the taxable value within the jurisdiction of the taxing authority as certified pursuant to Section 200.065(1) is at variance by more than three percent (3%) with the taxable value shown on the assessment roll to be extended. Section 3. That a public hearing was held on the proposed budget on September 4, 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 4m day of September, 2001. ATTEST: MAYOR Cxty Clerk CERTIFICATE OF TAXABLE VALUE SECTION I 2001 Year PALM BEACH County (Name of Taxing Authority) ~'--' ) Current Year Taxable Value of Real Property for Operating Purposes $ 172,452,642 t2) Current Year Taxable Value of Personal Property for Operating Purposes $ 0 (3) Current Year Taxable Value of Centrally Assessed for Operating Purposes $ 0 (4) Current Year Gross Taxable Value for Operating Purposes (1) + (2) + (3) $ 172,452,642 (5) Current Year Net New Taxable Value (New Construction + Additions + Rehabilitative $ 1,025,014 . Improvements Increasing Assessed Value By At Least 100% + Annexations - Deletions) (6) Current Year Adjusted Taxable Value (4) - (5) $ 171,427,628 (7) Prior Year Final Gross Taxable Value (From Prior Year Applicable Form DR-403 Series) $ 146,805,841 To Delray Beach - D.D.A. DR-42C R.01/95 I do hereby certify the values shown herein to be correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Witness my hand and official s~gnature at West Palm Beach, FI. , this th~ ,..-, 29TH day of, JUNE 2001 -Sigr~ature of Property Appraiser TAXING AUTHORITY: If this portion of the form is not completed in FULL your Authority will be denied TRIM certification and possibly lose its millage levy privilege for the tax year. If any line is inapplicable, enter N/A or -0-. SECTION II (8) Prior Year Operating Millage Levy (9) Prior Year Ad Valorem Proceeds (7) x (8) (10) Current Year Rolled-Back Rate (9) I (6) (11) Current Year Proposed Operating Millage Rate $ 1.0000 Per $1,000 $ 146,806 $ 0.8564 Per $1,000 $ 1.0000 Per $1,000 Check one (1) TYPE of Taxing Authority ___~r 'County [ ' Municipal,ty ~ Independent Special D~strict Dependent ~ Municipal Service Distdct Taxing Unit Multi-County Water Management District (13) (14) Current Year Millage Levy for VOTED DEBT SERVICE (15) Current Year OTHER VOTED MILLAGE DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS SKIP lines (16) through (22)] IF DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT OR MSTU IS MARKED, PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE. (16) Enter ,Total Prior Year Ad Valorem Proceeds of ALL DEPENDENT Special Districts & MSTU's levying a millage. (The sum of Line (9) from each District's Form DR-420) (17) Total Prior Year Proceeds: (9) + (16) (18) The Current Year Aggregate Rolled-back Rate: (17) / (6) (19) Current Year Aggregate Rolled-back Taxes: (4) x (18) (20) Enter Total of all non-voted Ad Valorem Taxes proposed to be levied by the Principal Taxing Authority, all Dependent Districts, & MSTU's if any. Line (11) x Line (4) at 7:00 p.m. (21) Current Year Proposed Aggregate Millage Rate: (20) / (4) (22) Current Year Proposed Rate as a PERCENT CHANGE OF Rolled-back Rate: [{Line 21 / Line 18) - 1.00] x 100 Date, Time and Place of the first Public Budget Hearing: September 4 ~ 200]. -0- Per $1,000 Per $1,000 n/a $ n/a n/a n/a n/a Per $1,000 n/a Per $1,000 % at ~ity Hall City Commission Chambers, 100 NW 1st Avenue. Delray Remch.. Flmridm ~qA/~A I do hereby certify the millages and rates shown herein to be correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. FURTHER, I cerbfy that all millages comply with the provisions of Section 200.071 or 200.081, F.S. WITNESS my hand and official signature a.l.t De[~'ay Beach , Florida, this the 25th__dayof Jul7' x~- ii ,[~ ~ [ ~ ~ David T. Harden 0[jhature and bile of Chief Administrative Officer' - Address of Physical Location 2001. Finance Director 100 NW 1st Avenue M~il[n~X~dress Delray Beach, FL CRy 33444 State Joseph M. Safford, Name of Con~act Person 561-243-7116 Z~p Phone Number SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE 561-243-7166 Fax Number MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER~ AGENDA ITEM /OP._,, - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4~ 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 51-01 {TENTATIVE BUDGET ADOPTION FOR FY 2002) AUGUST 31, 2001 Resolution No. 51-01 makes tentative appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the City for fiscal year 2002. The tentative appropriations are set forth in Exhibit "A" to the resolution. Pursuant to the City Charter and TRIM requirements, a public hearing must be held prior to the adoption of the tentative budget. Final adoption of the budget for FY 2002 is scheduled for September 19, 2001. Recommend approval of Resolution No. 51-01. Ref.'Agrnemo20.Res.51-01 .Tentatave Budget Adoption.FY 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 51-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, MAKING TENTATIVE APPROPRIATIONS OF SUMS OF MONEY FOR ALL NECESSARY EXPENDITURES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FOR THE PERIOD FROM THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001, TO THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002; TO PRESCRIBE THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS OF APPROPRIATIONS AND THEIR PAYMENT; AND TO REPEAL ALL RESOLUTIONS WHOLLY IN CONFLICT WITH THIS RESOLUTION AND ALL RESOLUTIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS RESOLUTION TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH INCONSISTENCY. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following sums of money, attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A", are hereby tentatively appropriated upon the terms and conditions herein set forth. Section 2. That, subject to the qualifications contained in this resolution, all appropriations made out of the General Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations, the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the ~-nounts herein named if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and other resources available during the period commencing the lst day of October, 2001, and ending the 30th day of September, 2002, for which the appropriations are made, are sufficient to pay all the appropriations in full. Otherwise, said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of realized revenue of the General Fund is to the total amount of revenues estimated by the City Commission to be available in the period commencing the 1st day of October, 2001, and ending the 30th day of September, 2002. Section 3. That all balances of the appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the City Treasury unencumbered at the close of business on the 30th day of September, 2001, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the City Treasury and may be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in any appropriation for the fiscal year commencing the 1st day of October, 2001. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to be applicable to unencumbered balances remaining to the credit of the Water and Sewer Fund, Sanitation Fund or any Fund created by the setting up of special revenue, but such balances shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these Funds for the fiscal year commencing the 1 st day of October, 2001. Section 4. That no department, bureau, agency or individual receiving appropriations under the provisions of this resolution shall exceed the amount of its appropriation, except with the consent and approval of the City Commission first obtained. If such department, bureau, agency or individual shall exceed the amount of its appropriation without such consent and approval of the City Commission, the administrative officer or individual, in the discretion of the City Commission, may be deemed guilty of neglect of official duty and may be subject to removal therefor. Section 5. That nothing in this resolution shall be construed as authorizing any reduction to be made in the amounts appropriated in this resolution for the payment of interest on, or retirement of, the debt of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Section 6. That none of the monies enumerated in this resolution in connection with the General Fund, Water and Sewer Fund, Sanitation Fund or any other Fund of the City shall be expended for any purposes other than those for which they are appropriated, and it shall be the duty of the Budget Administrator and/or Finance Director to report known violations of this section to the City Manager. Section 7. That all monies collected by any department, bureau, agency or individual of the City government shall be paid promptly into the City Treasury. Section 8. That the foregoing budget is hereby tentatively adopted as the official budget of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, for the aforesaid period. However, the restrictions with respect to the expenditures/expenses of the funds appropriated shall apply only to the lump sum amounts for classes of expenditures/expenses which have been included in this resolution. Section 9. That a public hearing was held on the tentative tax levy and the tentative budget on September 4, 2001. passage. Section 10. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the 4th day of September, ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk 2 Res. No. 51 -01 EXHIBIT A BUDGET SUMMARY CASH BALANCES BROUGHT FORWARD ESTIMATED REVENUES: TAXES AD VALOREM TAXES AD VALOREM TAXES AD VALOREM-DELINQUENT AD VALOREM - DDA Sales & Use Taxes Franchise Taxes Utility Taxes Other Taxes Licenses & Permits intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Miscellaneous Revenues Other Financing Sources TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES AND BALANCES 7.47 0.63 GENERAL FUND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE FUND FUNDS 26,651,470 2,248,000 64,000 1,600,400 2,904,000 3,910.000 3,635,000 2,435,690 6,168.370 5,245,940 731.500 3,226, 310 2,615,200 61,435,880 61,435,880 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS TOTAL 0 62.910 1.040,750 354.000 1,457,660 1,379,310 163,830 5,250 29,467,580 6,000 1,361,970 28,000 57.000 1,146,940 26.651,470 2,248,000 64,000 163,830 1,600,400 2,904,000 3,910.000 3,635,000 2.435,690 7,552,930 34,713,520 731,500 4.622,280 3,819,140 169,830 30,891,800 2,554,250 95,051,760 -~ 232.740 31,932,550 2,908,250 96,509,420 EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES: General Government Services Public Safety Physic, pi Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture & Recreation Debt Service Other Financing Uses TOTAL EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES Reserves TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND RESERVES 6.341,980 34,555,440 336,450 1,355,440 2,024,78O 131,000 8,783,100 4,801,100 3,023,480 61,352,770 83,110 61,435,880 232,740 232,740 0 232,740 16,338.600 3,348,140 6,809,590 5,242,290 31,738.620 193,930 31,932,550 14,000 1,902,380 700,760 271,620 2,888,760 19,490 2,908,250 6,341,980 34,569,440 16,675,050 1,355,440 4,159,900 131,000 12,832,000 11.610.690 8,537,390 96,212,890 296,530 96,509,420 Res. No. 51-01 [ITY JIF DELRrI¥ BErI[H CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFIC:E 200 NW ls! AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561,'278-4755 Writer's Direct Line. 561/243-7091 DATE: August 29, 2001 TO: FROM: City Commission David Harden, City Manager Brian Shun, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Sale of Vacant Land to Mr. & Mrs. Walker Approval of this contract will authorize the sale of an approximately a 10' x 90' vacant strip of property to the Walkers. The Walkers property abuts Lakeview Golf Course. The Walkers represent that approximately 20 years when they moved into their current residence a fence was located in the rear of the property. Recently, the Walkers replaced the fence with a new one in the exact same location. When they applied for a permit they were told that the property that the fence was located on was part of Lakeview Golf Course. The Walkers have requested that the City quit claim the property shown on Exhibit "A" to the Agreement to them so that the fence may remain in its current location. Our office requests that this item be placed on the September 4, 2001 City Commission agenda. Please call if you have any questions. Attachment CCi Barbara Garito, City Clerk Robert Barcinski, Asst. City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 52-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO SELL TO BUYER CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, HEREBY INCORPORATING AND ACCEPTING THE CONTRACT STATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, Florida, wishes to sell certain property located on Lakeview Golf Course; and WHEREAS, the Buyer hereinafter named desires to buy the property hereinafter described from the City of Delray Beach Florida; and property. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to sell said NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, as Seller~,_ hereby agrees to sell to Mr. & Mrs. Walker, as Buyers, for the purchase price of Eight Hundred a 00/100 Dollars ($800.00), said property being more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit "A" Section 2. That the costs of closing and transactions, title insurance, document preparation and attorney's fees shall be borne by the Walkers. Section 3. That the terms and conditions contained in the contract for sale and purchase and addenda thereto between the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the Buyer as hereinabove named are incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on the ~ day of ,2001. ATTEST: M A Y O R City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" A PORTION OF TRACT "A", LAKEVIEW, PLAT BOOK 30, PAGES 10 AND 11, CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA DESCRH'TION: A PORTION OF TRACT "A", LAKEVIEW, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30 A~f PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 21, BLOCK 4, LAKEVJEW, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE S00°00'00"W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF TRACT "A' OF SAID PLAT OF LAKE'VIEW FOR A DISTANCE OF 13.55 FEET; THENCE N85°08'34"W FOR 90.40 FEET; THENCE N00°07'34"W FOR 6 75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "A", SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON TI-IE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 21, BLOCK 4; THENCE S89°27'28"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "A' AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 21, BLOCK 4 FOR 90.09 FEET TO TIdE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LANDS SITUATE WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 914 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. NOTES: 1) THIS SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIFTION DOES NOT REPRESENT A FIELD SURVEY ("THIS IS NOT A SURVEY".) 2) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE ASSUMED AND WERE OBTAINED FROM THE RECORD PLAT OF LAKEVIEW, A,~ RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGES 10 AND l 1 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF TRACT "A" HAVING A BEARING OF S00°00'00"W. 3) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS USED: * LAKEVIEW, PLAT BOOK 30, PAGES 10 AND 1 I, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. * SKETCH OF SURVEY PREPARED BY GEE AND JENSON ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS, INC. UNDER JOB NO. 88-546, HAVING A LATEST DATE OF 2/3/89. it~:WEAVER AND SHEREMETA, INC. YLORID .4~', ST.,¥1'~ L.B. NO. 3449 BY: jOI-]Sl~. WEAVER PROfeSSiONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER FLORJ'~M~fSTATE REG NO. 3550 DATED: JULY 17, 2001 WORK ORDER NO. 15133.001 SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS FILE NO. 01-15133.001-SS 1 Heller-Weaver and Sheremeta, Inc. Engineers ... Surveyors ... Planners 310 Southeast First Street, Suite Four, Delray Beach. Florida 33483 Phone (561) 243-8700 · Fax (561) 243-8777 ~- ~' UTi.,~T,' AND DK':,~INAGE ~ ~. z~ .--- ~f-- ..~ .... I , B~ [:~1 WT 21, BLOCK 4 _ // OF LOT 21, BL~K 4, & o.o '1 . ~ 0.2~ ~ 90.~' ~.~ ..... ~ ~x-- 13.55 " ~ C~N UNK ~CE ~CT 'A' ~ 914+/- ~CT 'A" SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION J A PORTION OF TRACT "A'~ LAKEVIEW (Pl..AT BOOK 30, PAGES 10 AND 1 1) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED BY: HELL.ER-WEAVER AND SH£REMETA, INC. ENGINEERS ... SURVEYORS 310 SOUTH'EAST FIRST S'PRE~, SUITE 4 DELRAY BEACH, FLOR/DA 33483 (561) 2,~,~-~oo SHEET 2 OF' 2 SHEETS FILE NO. 01-15133.001-S$ 2 CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, ("Seller"), and, HELEN P. WALKER and JOHN J. WALKER, 3581 Lakeview Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 33445 ("Buyer"), hereby agree that the Buyer shall purchase the following real property ("Real Property") upon the following terms and conditions: I. DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit "A" II. PURCHASE PRICE ................................ US$800.00. IH. TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE; EFFECTIVE DATE: If this offer is not executed by and delivered to all parties OR FACT OF EXECUTION communicated in writing between the parties on or before October 1, 2001 any deposit(s) will, at Buyer's option, be returned to Buyer and the offer withdrawn. The date of this Contract ("Effective Date") will be the date when the last one of the Buyer and the Seller has signed this offer. IV. TITLE EVIDENCE: At least 1 day before closing date, Buyer may obtain a title insurance commitment. V. CLOSING DATE: This transaction shall be closed and the deed and other closing papers delivered on or before October 15, 2001,. unless extended by other provisions of this Contract. VI. RESTRICTIONS; EASEMENTS; LIMITATIONS: Buyer shall take title subject to: zoning, restrictions, prohibitions and other requirements imposed by governmental authority; restrictions and matters appearing on the plat or otherwise common to the subdivision; public utility easements of record (easements are to be located contiguous to Real Property lines and not more than 10 feet in width as to the rear or front lines and 7 IA feet in width as to the side lines, unless otherwise specified herein); taxes for year of closing and subsequent years; assumed mortgages and purchase money mortgages, if any; provided, that there exists at closing no violation of the foregoing and none of them prevents the use of Real Property for residential purpose. VII. TYPEWRITTEN OR HANDWRITTEN PROVISIONS: Typewritten or handwritten provisions shall control all printed provisions of Contract in conflict with them. VIII. ASSIGNABILITY: Buyer may not assign Contract. STANDARDS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS B. Survey: Buyer, at Buyer's expense, within time allowed ~o deliver evidence of title and to examine same, may have real property surveyed and certified by a registered Florida surveyor. If survey shows encroachment on real property or that m~provements located on real property encroach on setback lines, easements, lands of others, or violate any restrictions, agreement covenants or applicable governmental regulation, the same shall constitute a title defect. F. Place of Closing: Closing shall be held in the county where real property is located, at the office of the attorney or other closing agent designated by Buyer. G. Time: Time is of the essence of this agreement. Time per]ods herein of less than six (6) days shall in the computation exclude Saturdays, Sundays and state or national legal holidays, and any ume period provided for herein which shall end on Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday shall extend to 5:00 p.m. of the next business day. -2- I. Expenses: Documentary stamps on the warranty deed and recording corrective instruments shall be paid by Buyer. Recording warranty deed shall be paid by Buyer. -3- Ag and a~rcssed z: ...... ~n c ...... ~ ,k~ prevailing pa~y. P Agreement Not Recordable; Persons Bound; Notice: Neither this agreement nor any notice of it shall be recorded in any public records. This agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors zn interest. Whenever the context permzts, singular shall include plural and one gender shall include all. Notice given by or to the attorney for any party shall be as effective as ff gtven by or to that party. Q. Conveyance: Seller shall convey the property by way of Quit Claim Deed. R. Other Agreements: No prior or present agreements or representations shall be binding upon Buyer or Seller unless included m this Contract. No modification or change in this Contract shall be valid or binding upon the parties unless in writing and executed by the party or parties intended to be bound by it. BUYERS: JOHN & HELEN WALKER SELLER: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH By: By: John J. Walker Helen P. Walker By: David Schmidt, Mayor WITNESSES: (print or type name) ATTEST: By: City Clerk (print or type name) Approved as to form: By: City Attorney -5- EXHIBIT A PORTION OF TRACT "A", LAKEVEEW, PLAT BOOK 30, PAGES 10 AND 11, CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA DESCRIPTION: A PORTION OF TRACT WA', LAKEVIEW, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30 ~T !PAGES I0 AND 11 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLOKIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY : DESCR/BED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT TI~ SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 21, BLOCK 4, LAKEVIEW, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE S00°00'00"W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF TRACT "A" OF SAID PLAT OF LAKEVIEW FOR A DISTANCE OF 13.55 FEET, THENCE Ngf°08'34"W FOR 90.40 FEET; TI-IENCE N00°07"34"W FOR 6.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "A', SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON TH~ SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 21, BLOCK 4; THENCE S89°27'28"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "A" AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 21, BLOCK 4 FOR 90.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LANDS SITUATE WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 914 SQUARE Flirt, MORE OR LESS. NOTES: 1) TI'tiS SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION DOES NOT REPRESENT A FIELD SURVEY CTH/S IS NOT A SURVEY".) 2) BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE ASS~ AND WERE OBTAINED FROM TI-IE RECORD PLAT OF LAICEVIEW, ,ad RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ARE BASED ON TI-IE EAST LINE OF TRACT "A" HAVING A BEARING OF S00°00~0"W. 3) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS USED: * LAKE~W, PLAT BOOK 30, PAGES I0 AND I1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. * SKETCH OF SURVEY PREPARED BY GEE AND JENSON ENGINEEJLS-ARCI-ffTECTS-PLANNERS, INC. UNDER gOB NO. 88-546. HAVING A LATEST DATE OF 2/3/89. ~~W~AVER AND Swr. REM]gTA, INC. FLOP. D .~ ST.%r~ L.B. NO. 3449 BY:J~. ~~ [ PR~SSi~N~ S~OR ~ ~P~ ~~TA~ ~G. NO. 35~ DATED: KILY 17, 2001 WORK ORDER NO. 15133.001 SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS FILE NO. 01-15133.001-SS I Heller-Weaver and Sheremeta, Inc. Engineers ... Surveyors ... Planners 310 Southeast First Strut, Suite Four. Delmy Beach. Flonda 33483 Phone (561 ) 243-8700 · Fax (561 ) 243-8777 ,' . ,,,: I ' ~ ~i EAST UN£ OF' ~ LOT21, BLOCK 4 --"''"~; X ~ sag'~ 90.09' ~ t~ 0.25' ~ x~ 1~.55 ~.25' ~ [ o~X ~ c, N UNK ~NCE ~CT 'A' ~ 9 ~4+/- ~CT "a" SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF TRACT "A': LAKEVIEW (PLAT BOOK 30, PAGES 10 AND CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL OR/DA PREPARED BY': H.mLLE'R-W'------------------~AV~R AND SHE'R.mME'TA. INC. &NGIN~"~R$ ... SURVE'YORS $~o sounvEAsT ~RST STREE'~, surr~ 4 O£LRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33483 ('561) 24.1-8700 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS FTLE NO. 01-15t,.7,,.,T. O01-SS 2 TO: THRU: FROM: CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION ROBERT G. TEFFT, PLANNER SUBJECT: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 200'1 FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE APPROVED WATERFORD PLACE SAD (SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT) TO ELIMINATE THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE HOTEL TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE FINAL MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING. BACKGROUND In May of 1996, the SAD/DRI-DO for Waterford Place was modified to replace the approved 322,413 square feet of office space with 300 residential units and a seventy-eight (78) room hotel. These actions were taken via Ordinance No. 11-96 and Resolution No. 37-96. During deliberations associated with the change, City Commissioner's were concerned that the hotel room component be constructed to address a shortage of hotel rooms in the City. To assure the construction of this element of the SAD, a condition of approval was placed on the modification that required the hotel component to be constructed prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the multi-family component. The new developer is now seeking removal of the condition so build out of the apartments can occur. As the development is part of a SAD the change is processed as a rezoning. The applicant seeks the modification based upon a change in circumstances, which makes the current zoning (with attached conditions) inappropriate. The shortage of hotel rooms is being satisfied with the newly approved and proposed hotel rooms (Spanish River 120- 135 new rooms, Hotel Vista Del Mar 70 rooms) and therefore the impetus for requiring the condition of approval is being fulfilled. At its meeting of August 20, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with review of the request. No one from the public spoke on the item. The Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the condition of approval be removed, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION By motion, approve the Rezoning request to eliminate the condition of approval requiring a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the final apartment complex building for the Waterford Place SAD, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: [3 Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report ORDINANCE NO. 45-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1-98 WHICH COMPRISES THE SAD (SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT) ZONING ORDINANCE AND CONDITIONS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT FOR WATERFORD PLACE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINTON BOULEVARD, BETWEEN INTERSTATE-95 AND LINDELL BOULEVARD, BY AMENDING SECTION 1, BY REPEALING PARAGRAPH 20, TO ELIMINATE THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE HOTEL TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE FINAL APARTMENT COMPLEX BUILDING; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on January 20, 1998, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, passed and adopted Ordinance 1-98 which comprises the SAD (Special Activities District) Zoning Ordinance and conditions for further development for Waterford Place; and WHEREAS, the current owners of the property are seeking an amendment to Ordinance 1- 98 to delete the condition of approval requiring a certificate of occupancy for the hotel to be issued prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final apartment complex building; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Delray Beach, as Local Planning Agency, considered this matter at a public hearing and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that Ordinance 1-98 be amended, based on positive findings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1-98 is hereby amended by repealing Paragraph 20. Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of ,200 ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 2 ORD. NO. 45-01 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT-, MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: ITEM: GENERAL DATA: East: South: West: E×istin~ Land ~' - ~,-~ S~ ............ Proposed Land Use ......... Owner/Applicant ............... Delint, Inc. Agent ................................ Alan J. Ciklin, Esq. Location ........................... Southeast corner of Lindell Blvd. and SW 10th Avenue. Property Size ................... 43.69 acres Existing FLUM ................. TRN 0'ransitional), GC (General Commercial), OS (Open Space), MD (bledium Density 5-12 du/acre) Current Zoning ................. SAD (Special Activities District) Adjacent Zoning ..... North: SAD and PC (Planned Commercial) SAD and RM (Medium Density Residential) RM and R-I-.&A (Single Family Residential) A (Agricultural) "~ ~,~,,,,~ ,.,,,,,,,' ~'~ Home Depot, and Waterford Apartments Home Depot. Waterford Apartments 300 unit MF (Mub Family Development) and 7g Room Hotel. Water Se.vice .................. Ex~sting 12" main within the existing spine road of the approved Apa,~ment compiex (Waterford Park Drive). Sewer Service .................. =__x~sting 8" main within the existing spine road of the approved Apartment complex (Waterford Park Drive). August 20, 2001 IV.D. Rezoning Request for the Waterford Place SAD (Special Activities District) to Delete the Condition of Approval Requiring a Certificate of Occupancy for the Hotel to be Issued Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Final Apartment Complex Building. ~.,_ ~_ .~-, -:;rU =--¢/. ! ~ -- ~-_:,F--~//_ I ,~--~, / ', ,_- ,. ,"_/ ! [ _. _ x Z. · ~ ',,'%~, _ ;'. ,, HO'r~. ~/ _, ,; ,, sn~ 'N The action before the Board is that of making a recommendation on a rezoning and associated modification to the Special Activities District (SAD) ordinance for the Waterford Place SAD, pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D). The subject property is approximately 43.69 acres and is bounded by The Home Depot site to the noah, Waterford Apartments to the south, Lindell Boulevard to the east, and 1-95 to the west. Pursuant to Section 4.4.25(C)(1), all SADs are established via an ordinance processed as a rezoning. Further, pursuant to Section 2.2.2(E), the Local Planning Agency (Planning and Zoning Board) shall review and make recommendations to the City Commission with respect to the rezoning of any property within the City. The Waterford Place project has an extensive land use history. The most recent land use actions, which pertain to the current proposal, are as follows: In May of 1996, the SAD/DRI-DO was modified to replace the approved 322,413 square feet of office space with 300 residential units and a seventy-eight (78) room hotel. These actions were taken via Ordinance No. 11-96 and Resolution No. 37-96. During deliberations associated with the change, City Commissioner's were concerned that the hotel room component be constructed to address a shortage of hotel rooms in the City. To assure the construction of this element of the SAD, a condition of approval was placed on the modification that required the hotel component to be constructed prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the multi-family component. On September 3, 1997, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved, with conditions, the site plan for Carriage Homes of Waterford Park, a 300- unit apartment complex containing 587 parking spaces, and associated landscaping. subject to this and other conditions. On January 20, 1998, the City Commission approved Ordinance No. 1-98, and Resolution 6-98, which abandoned the Waterford Ptace/Delint Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Ordinance No. 1-98 incorporated all of the conditions of the DRI Development Order. On June 6, 2001, SPRAB approved a modification to the previously approved Carriage Homes of Waterford Place project for a new project to be named Alta Meadows. The modifications were minor in nature and consisted of architectural elevation changes aha the conversion of a lake along the west side of the main access road into a recreation area (open space). P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance for Waterford Place Page 2 The proposal is to modify the Waterford Place SAD and associated Master Plan to delete the condition of approval requiring a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel to be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the final apartment complex building. REQUIRED FINDINGS (Chapter 3): Pursuant to Section 3.1.'1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, and Compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Future Land Use Map, Concurrency and Comprehensive Plan Consistency for the Carriage Homes of Waterford Park development were previously addressed with the abandonment of the DRI in 1998, and positive findings were made at the time. Compliance with the Land Development Regulations with respect to Standards for Rezoning Actions and Rezoning Findings are discussed below. LDR Section 3.2.2 Standards for Rezoning Actions: As this request relates only to removing a condition of approval, these standards are not applicable. LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5) Rezoning Findings: Pursuant to Section 2.4.5(D)(5) Findings, in addition to the provisions of Chapter Three, the City Commission must make a finding that the rezoning fuifilis one of the reasons for which the rezoning change is being sought. These reasons include the following: That the zoning had previously been changed, or was originally established, in error; That there has been a change in circumstances which make the current zoning inappropriate; P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Actiwbes District) Ordinance for Waterford Place Page 3 That the requested zoning is of similar intensity as allowed under the Future Land Use Map and that it is more appropriate for the property based upon circumstances particular to the site and/or neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a justification statement that states the following: "The elimination of the Condition (No. 20) is based on a change in circumstances, which makes the condition inappropriate. /-he condition was added to the SAD approval based upon a need for additional hotel rooms in the City. It was the desire of the Commission to keep the property owners' attention on the need for hotel rooms; thus requiring a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel prior to receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building in the apartment complex. Since that time, the property owner has acquired what was known as the Spanish River Inn on East Atlantic Avenue and has alread,v begun its plans for a major renovation to convert this facility to a Marriott extended-stay hotel. A demolition permit will be pulled shortly, if not already, to allow commencement of the renovation which is planned to be completed for the upcoming season. The initial phase of the renovation will result in 80-85 hotel rooms in addition to a new entry, lobby, and swimming pool. This w/Il also include a new four-story addition. Phase II plans at present include a new four-story hotel wing to the east of the existing structure and a five-level parking garage to provide both hotel and public parking. The Phase II addition will result in another 40-50 rooms. The property owner is fulfilling the hotel room need contemplated by the Condition but at another location which is more visible and will result in more hotel rooms and a positive impact of the East Atlantic Avenue Area. The apartment complex will be developed by Wood Partners and they are moving ahead ~¥ith their development plans for the upscale apartment community. They would like to eliminate the condition so that the entire complex may be completed without being tied to the residence hotel. At the present time, the construction of the 78-room residence hotel will be dictated by the marketplace after the Spanish River Inn property is renovated and converted. However, the overall identified need for more hotel rooms w, hic~ resulted in the condition is being met". Comments: The basis for which the rezoning is being sought relates to item "b" (Change in Circumstance). The condition of site plan approval was to ensure that the much needed seventy-eight (78) hotel rooms were constructed. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activibes District) Ordinance for Waterford Place Page 4 The Spanish River Inn is presently a seventy-two (72) unit timeshare building that would be converted into an eighty to eighty-five (80-85) room hotel. These rooms in addition to the proposed future phase would result in between 120-135 new hotel rooms within the downtown area. In addition to these new hotel rooms a seventy (70) room hotel (Hotel Vista del Mar) was recently approved at 64 South Ocean Boulevard, just south of the Boston's on the Beach restaurant. With these newly approved and proposed hotel rooms a change in circumstances has occurred that has effectively addressed the concerns which promoted the placement of the condition of approval. Given this factor it appears appropriate to support the removal of this condition. COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the development proposal. No modification to the existing development proposal is proposed with this rezoning. The aforementioned hotel and apartment complex have already been approved through previous modifications, and their site plans will not be affected with this rezoning. Therefore, compliance with the Land Development Regulations has been achieved. The Waterford Place SAD is not in a geographic area requiring review by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), DDA (Downtown Development Authority) or the HPB (Historic Preservation Board). Public Notice: Formal public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject property. Letters of objection and/or support, if any, will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Positive findings can be made with respect to this application's consistency wit~ Sections 3.1.1 (Required Findings), 3.2.2 (Standards for Rezoning Actions) and 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning of the SAD to eliminate the subject condition of approval will allow the apartment complex to be completed without delay. The initial impetus for requiring the condition of approval is being fulfilled, albeit in another area of the City, via the cievelopment of the Spanish River Inn and Hotel Vista del Mar properties within the downtown area. P & Z Board Staff Report Modification to the SAD (Special Activities District) Ordinance for Waterford Place Page 5 ! A. Continue with direction. Bo Recommend approval of the modification to the SAD for Waterford Place based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommend denial of the modification to the SAD for Waterford Place of the based upon a failure to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) the modification fails to fulfill at least one of the reasons listed. Recommend to the City, Commission approval of the modification to the SAD for Waterford Place based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(D)(5) (Rezoning Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: QLocation Map Staff Report Prepared by: Robert G. Tefft, Planner HAROR~Vi_$ ?. DODC£ L I N ~ 0 N ? THE PROPOSED HOTEL SITE WA TER£O~D A PA R TMEN TS BOU L£ VAED ? LINTON INT[RN/ APARTM£N?$ C, ~ O' D£LRAv B-'-ACM F. D.ANNtNC &ZONtNG DEC~ARTI~EN- --- DI~ITA. BAS[ MAP S,v~T[M -- LAK£ DE'.RA¥ APAPTMEIV~$ cuR~w WATERFORD PLACE --- --- ,-- ,-- WATERFORD PLACE S.Z~D BOUNDARY RAOU'."T CLUB MAc R=-'-" L~54' MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER/~ AGENDA ITEM # /'~- REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 46-01 {AMENDING CHAPTER 52 "WATER") AUGUST 31, 2001 This ordinance is before the City Commission to amend Chapter 52 "Water", of the Code of Ordinances by modifying Section 52.34, ''Water Rates" to provide for a rate increase of szx percent in most charges. The Customer Charge is actually being reduced by 13%, reflecting the meter reading savings we achieved by converting to the touch-read meters. The net result will be an increase of somewhat less than 6% for Iow volume users. This is the first xncrease in water rates since October 1997, when the City issued a 2% increase. These new rates go into effect on October 1, 2001. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 46-01 on first reading. If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled for September 19, 2001. Ref. Agrnemo21 Ord 46-01 Water Increase 09-04-01 ORDINANCE NO. 46-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 52, "WATER", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 52.34, "WATER RATES", SUBSECTION 52.34(B), TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED RESIDENTIAL, NONRESIDENTIAL AND IRRIGATION RATES FOR FY 2002; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, to provide for accurate accounting of services, the City Commission desires to more accurately reflect the payment for services provided for the rendition of water services on a prorated basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA,.AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Title V, "Public Works", Chapter 52, "Water", Section 52.34, "Water Rates", subsection 52.34(B), of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: (B) Monthly rates. The monthly rates (except for fire h~drants as set forth in Sec. 52.03) for water furnished by the water facilities or plant of the City to customers within and outside the corporate limits of the City, which unless otherwise indicated shall include the appropriate customer charges, capacity charges, and commodity charges for all customers, are fixed as shown in the following schedule: Type of Customer Inside Outside City City Residential Customer charge (per meter) $~".~ 1.40 $ ~n.~n" 1.75 Capacity charge (charged to all customers, per residential dwelling unit) Commodity charge (all metered consumption-per 1,000 gallons) Zero to 3,000 gallons 4,000 to 20,000 gallons 21,000 to 35,000 gallons 36,000 to 50,000 gallons Above 50,000 gallons ~ ~ 8 41 ~ 10 50 Nonresidential and Irrigation Customer charge (per meter) $ 1.40 $ 2.01 1.75 Capacity charge (based upon meter size): 3/4-inch meter 1-inch meter 1-1/2-inch meter 2-inch meter 3-inch meter 4-inch meter 6-inch meter 8-inch meter 10-inch meter ~ ny 8 41 ~ 10 50 ~ ~A 14 03 ~ 17 54 ~ 27. 99 ~ . n~v~ 34 . 99 4=t~-2-7 44.81 ~ 56.01 ~ 98.09 ~ 122.62 ~ 176.53 ~v~°.~"° 220 67 370.10 392.31 ~ 490.39 6m~g=-~g 672.46 ~ 840.55 1,064.76 ~.62 1,332.96 Commodity charge (all metered consumption-per 1,000 gallons) 1.20 1.27 .1.50 1.59 2 Ord. No. 46-01 Section 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. October 1, 2001. That this ordinance shall become effective on PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2001. ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk First Reading S~cond Reading 3 Ord. No. 46-01 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER ~ AGENDA ITEM # /a~ C - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 47-01 (AMENDING CHAPTER ,53 "SANITARY SEWERS") AUGUST 31, 2001 This ordinance is before the City Commission to amend Chapter 53 "Sanitary Sewers", of the Code of Ordinances by modifying Section 53.130, "User Charges; Wholesale Sewer Rates; Calculation of Sewer Surcharge" to provide for a rate increase of six percent in the capacity and commodity charges. This xs the first increase m sewer rates since October 1997, when the Cxty issued an across the board 2% increase. In addition, we are deleting the "Customer Charge" for sewer since this is for meter reading, billing and collection and is covered in the water rates. The rates for the South Central Treatment and Disposal Board (SCTDB) increased 4.3% and are based upon the actual rates charged to the City. These new rates go into effect on October 1, 2001. The net result of these changes is that a residential customer billed for 12,000 gallons of sewer service will see an increase of 1/2%. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 47-01 on first reading. scheduled for September 19, 2001. If passed, a public hearing will be Ref Agmemo21 Ord 47-01 Sewer Increase 09-04-01 ORDINANCE NO. 47-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 53, "SANITARY SEWERS", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 53.130, "USER CHARGES; WHOLESALE SEWER RATES; CALCULATION OF SEWER SURCHARGE", SUBSECTION 53.130(D), TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL RATES FOR FY 2002; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, to provide for accurate accounting of services, the City Commission desires to more accurately reflect the payment for services provided for the rendition of sewer services on a prorated basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Title V, "Public Works", Chapter 53, "Sanitary Sewers", Section 53.130, "User Charges; Wholesale Sewer Rates; Calculation of Sewer Surcharge", subsection 53.130(D), of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) The following rates and charges shall be collected from the users of the City sewerage system: (1) Residential dwelling units. A monthly sanitary sewer service charge is imposed upon each residential dwelling unit, as more specifically set forth hereinafter, to which sanitary sewage service is available through the facilities afforded by the municipally-owned sewerage system, according to the following schedule: Residential Inside City Outside City (a) Custcmcr chargc (a) Capacity charge (per residential dwelling unit): ~ 10.23 ~.~ 0~ 12.78 (c) (b) Commodity charge (based on metered water with maximum of 12,000 gallons): City (per 1,000 gallons) 1.17 1.24 ~ 1.55 (c) South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board (per 1,000 gallons) .70 0.73 .88 0.91 NOTES: Where no water service is provided and the user is connected to the sanitary sewer system, there shall be a monthly customer charge of $5.00 per residential dwelling unit, and the commodity charge shall be based on the maximum of 12,000 gallons. This is in addition to the capacity charges as set forth above. Where no water service is provided and the user is not connected to the sanitary sewer system, and sewer service is available for connection, there shall be a monthly customer charge of $5.00 per residential unit and a capacity charge as set forth above. (2) Nonresidential/commercial units. A monthly slnitary sewer service charge is imposed upon each commercial and nonresidential unit to which sanitary sewage service is available through the facilities afforded by the municipally-owned sewerage system, according to the following schedule: Nonresidential/Commercial Inside City Outside City 1.61 $ 2.01 2 Ord. No. 47-01 '~,~, (a) Capacity charge (per meter): 3/4-inCh meter 1-inch meter 1-1/2 inch meter 2-inch meter 3-inch meter 4-inch meter 6-inch meter 8-inch meter 10-inch meter $ ~ 10.23 $ 12.0~ 12.78 ~ ~ 17 08' ~ 21 35 32.11 34.04 40.14 42.55 ~ 54.48 ~ 68.11 112.52 119.27 ~ 149.09 202.~7 214.62 ~ 268.28 4~ 476.98 ~ 596.23 ~,,~.vv~n 818.32 ~ 1,022.90 ~,~.~,~ ~ ~ 1,295.71 i,~7~ .~ 1,619.63 (c) (b) Commodity charge: City (per 1,000 gallons) 1.17 1.24 ~ 1.55 (c) South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Board (per 1,000 gallons) n Tm 0 73 ~ oo 0 91 NOT~ (l): For those nonresidential/commercial units where water service is not available, and the user is connected to the sanitary sewer system or sewer service is available for connection, there shall be a monthly customer charge of $5.00 and a capacity charge as set forth above. The commodity charge shall be based on the average usage for the type of business or nonresidential use. NOTE (2): The customer charges and capacity charges as set forth in this section shall be due and payable each and every month, regardless of whether or not the water service is available or the water meter is actually turned on or off and without regard to usage or occupancy. (3) Sewerage flow determination. The number of gallons of monthly sewerage flow for residential and nonresidential/commercial units shall be based upon the water usage for those units as indicated by a water meter, unless a customer Ord. No. 47-01 installs at no cost to the City a separate meter to measure the actual sewerage flow from the subject unit. A separate meter may be used to measure actual sewerage flow for the calculation of charges only when the location, installation, and type of meter have been approved by the City Manager or his designee. (4) When effective. The initial rates for charges shall be effective the first day of the month following the date when the system is constructed, certified for use by the consulting engineer, and accepted by the City. Section 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. October 1, 2001. That this ordinance shall become effective on PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2001. ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 4 Ord. No. 47-01 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM # / ~ ~). REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 48-01 (AMENDING CHAPTER 51 "GARBAGE AND TRASH") AUGUST 31, 2001 This ordinance is before the City Commission to amend Chapter 51 "Garbage and Trash" of the Code of Ordinances by modifying Secuon 51.70, "Regular Charges Levied" in accordance with the recently awarded bid to Browning Fertis Industries, Inc. (BFI); garbage, recycling, yard trash, bulk trash, and commercial container fees are being amended. Residential costs will actually be five to eight percent less than customers currently pay. Mulu-family rates are being amended to delete container rates and provide for rates per unit. These fees will be administered and billed by the City this year whereas they were billed by BFI in the past. We feel this method provides better revenue control and forecasting and helped to reduce the overall costs to customers. Commercial rates are also less than previous rates. We reduced the commercial franchise fee to 5% which is now equal to residential and multi-family units. There will be a sig*ificant reduction in fees for commercial businesses using the 95-gallon carts. These carts will be equal to residential carts and will have disposal charges added. These rates go into effect October 1, 2001. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 48-01 on first reading. scheduled for September 19, 2001. If passed, a public heanng will be Ref. Agmemo21 Ord 48-01 Garbage Increase 0%04-01 ORDINANCE NO. 48-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 51, "GARBAGE AND TRASH", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 51.70, "REGULAR CHARGES LEVIED", TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL COLLECTION SERVICE RATES FOR FY 2002; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission finds it necessary and appropriate to increase the collection rates for sanitation services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Title V, "Public Works", Chapter 51, "Garbage and Trash", Section 51.70, "Regular Charges Levied", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Floxada, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 51.70 REGULAR CHARGES LEVIED. The following service charges or fees are levied for collection service: Charges for the below-described collecuon sermce shall be as follows and shall commence when a cernficate of occupancy is issued for any residential or commercial umts, and shall continue monthly thereafter unless service is discontinued m accordance with Sec. 51.73: (A) Residential Service (Single Family Homes, Duplexes, Triplexes, Quadplexes and Mobile Homes) Curbside Rollout Carts Monthly Service Cost Per Unit Garbage Collection $ 2.°.,32,6.5 Recycling ~,.o_,r~145, Yard Trash I.~,3 1.85 Bulk Trash 0.71 0.00 Total Fees - Contractor $ 6.50 5.95 Cart Replacement Administrative Fee Franctuse Fees (5%) 0.90 0.35 n ~ 0.30 Total Fees · o no 7.50 Reardoor Owner Container Monthly Service Cost Per Unit Garbage Collection $ 8.69 8.40. ling ~ ~ Recyc .... ~.45 Yaxd Trash -1=43 1.85 Bulk Trash 9.71 0.00 Total Fees Contractor ~t~'~ ar_ 11.70 Administrative Fee 0.35 Francl~se Fee (5%) 9.62 0.59 Total Fees ~ 12.64 Curbside Disposable Bags With Vegetative Waste and Bulk Trash Pickup Monthly Service Cost Per Unit Garbage/Trash Collection $1.77 1.70 Recycling 1.33 !,45 Yard Trash l/,3 1.8S Bulk Trash n,,.,,-~ 0.00 Total Fees - Contractor Administrative Fee Franchise Fee (5%) $ &g4 5.00 0.35 n ,~r, 0.25 Total Fees $ ~ 5,60 2 (B) Multi-Family Service Multiple-family dwelling units containing five (5) units or more shall use containers emptied by mechanical means, except as otherwise approved by the City because of lack of suitable space for a mechanical container or other good reason. Muluple-family monthly fees shall include a container charge and per umt chaxge. If the mount of refuse generated requixes more than two (2) times per week collection, then the third (3rd) and all subsequent collecuons shall be charged the commercml collection rate only. ....,1 ~/'1¢"1 A~ ~1 ~A ~'~1 I/4 yd. 21.44 2.14 23.58 yd. 22.21 2.22 24.43 yd. 25.53 2.55 28.98 yd. 27.09 2.71 29.80 Collection & Hauling Rate Per Unit Monthly Service Monthly Cost Per Unit Refuse Collection $:1=48 2.00 ling n oo Recyc .... 0.85 Total Per Unit Fee-Contractor 2.85 Administrative Fee Franc~se Fee (50/0) 0.35 0.14 Total Monthly Fees Per Unit 3.34 (C) Commercial (1) Commercial customers shall use mechanical containers or to]lout carts. Commercial customers shall include all customers other than residential or multi-family customers. Commercial customers may use any of the following containers for accumulation of refuse: (a) Rollout cans. The City shall requite any commercial customer needing more than six (6) rollout carts to use mechanical containers, if feas;ble. (b) Mechanical containers. (2) The owners/operators of commercml establishments and other commercial customers shall accumulate such refuse in those locations mutually agreed upon by the owner/operator and the City or its contractor, and which are convenient for collection by the City or its contractor. (3) Containers emptied by mechanical means shall be provided by the City or its contractor. These containers shall be emptied on a schedule mutually agreed upon by the customer and the Caty or its contractor, but not less than one day a week nor more than sm days a week. (4) Commercial customers needing six (6) or less rollout carts, and those approved for this type of sermce by the City in advance because they lack a suitable location for a mechanical container shall be serviced at least once per week. All garbage and commercial trash shall be collected from such refuse containers at locations agreed to between the City or its contractor and the customer. The charge shall be based upon the following schedule: Commercial Rates (Monthly) Container S~ze Container Pickup Frequency (Per Week) Collecfon $ ~ Sann= $.o~o ~t~o~n 10.83 21.65 32.48 43.30 54.13 64.95 75.78 Disposal 16.28 32.56 48.84 65.12 81.40 97.68 113.97 Container Maintenance Fee 19.40 19.40 19.40 19.40 19.40 19.40 19.40 Total Contractor Fees 46.51 73.61 100.72 127.82 154.93 182.03 Franc}use Fees (5%) 2..3.3 Total Fees 209.15 3.68 5..04 6.39 7.75 9.10 10.46 48.84 77.29 105.76 134.21 162.68 191.13 219.61 3 yd Collection Disposal Container Maintenance Fee Total Contractor Fees Franchise Fees (5%) Total Fees 4 yd Collection Disposal Container ,Maintenance Fee Total Contractor Fees Franchise Fees (5%) Total Fees $ 44:-.2-9 $ 28.58 $ 4L~3 $ 57.16 $ 71.~,5 $ 85.73 16.24 32.48 48.71 64.95 81.19 97.43 .113.66 24.42 48.84 73.26 97.68 122.11 146.53 170.95 21.44 21.44 21.44 21.44 21.44 21.44 19.40 $ 69.15 $ 95.86 $137.57 $176.28 $215.99 $253.70 62.10 102.76 143.41 184.07 224.74 265.40 304.01 3.11 5.14 7.17 9.20 11.24 13.27 15.20 $ 66.17 $1gg-.-.-.~ ~ $-t92a~ ~ ~ 65.21 107.90 1fi0.58 193.27 235.98 278.67 319.21 21.65 43.30 64.95 86.60 108.25 129.90 151.55 32.56 65.12 97.68 130.25 162.81 195.37 227.93 22.21 22.21 22.21 22.21 22.21 22.21 22.21 76.42 !30.63 184.84 239.06 293.27 347.48 401.69 3.82 6.53 p.24 11.96 14.66 17.37 20.08 80.24 137.16 !94.08 251.01 307.93 364.85 421.77 6 yd Collection Disposal Container Maintenance Fee Total Contractor Fees Francluse Fees (5%) Total Fees 8 yd Collecuon Disposal Container .Maintenance Fee Total Contractor Fees Franchise Fees (5%) Total Fees 32.48 64.95 97.43 129.90 162.38 194.85 48.84 97.68 146.53 195.37 244.21 293.05 25.53 25.53 25.53 25.53 25.53 25.53 ...... ~ ...... ~ ...... ~ ...... $~ 106.85 188.16 269.49 350.80 432.12 513.43 5.34 9.41 13.47 17.54. 21.61 25.67 112.19 197.57 28Z96 368.34 453.73 539.10 43.30 86..6,0 129.90 173.20 216.50 259.80 65.12 130.25 195.37 260.49 325.62 390.74 27.09 27.09 27.09 27.09 27.09 27.09 135.51 243.94 352.36 460.78 569.21 677.63 6.78 12.20 17.62 23.04 28.46 33,.88 ~ Sgvo(O~ $~q}~3 $484~00 ~ $711.!~ 142.29 256.14 369.98 483.82 597.67 711.51 303.10 455.86 27.09 786.05 39.30 825.35 2yd 3yd Commercial Front-Load Compacting Containers 1 2 3 4 Collection Disposal Total Contractor Fee Franchise Fee (5%) Total Fees $16.89 61.08 77.97 3.90 $81.87 Collection Disposal Total Contractor Fee Franchise Fee (5%) Total Fees $50.67 183.19 233.86 11.69 $245.55 5yd 6yd Collection Disposal Total Contractor Fees Franchise Fees (5%) Collection Disposal Total Contractor Fees Franchise Fees (5%) Total Fees $42.21 152.62 194.83 9.7.4 $204.57 $126.66 457.91 584.57 29.23 $613.80 Commercial/Multi-Family Rolloff Containers: Open-top rolloff container $95.09 93.00 per packup plus disposal cost Compactors $95.00 93.00 per pickup plus disposal cost; PLUS monthly container rental 15Yard $250.00 20Yard 295.00 30Yaxd 345.00 40 Yard 395.00 Excludes commercial recycling and construction/demolition debris. $202.64 732.64 935.28 46.76 $982.O4 7 95-Gallon Cart Service Pickups Per Week Collection* Disposal Container Monthly Charge Fr. Fee Total Fee, ! $ I~.76 2.65 $ 8.14 $2.00 $ 24.90 12.79 $ 2A9 0.64 $ 27.39 13.43 2 25.~2 5.30 16.28 2.00 44:90 23.58 ~.~7 1.18 ~,9.17 24.76 3 38.06 7:95 24.42 2.00 ,54.~,,g°34.37 (M--5 1.72 70.93 36.09 4 49-.g0 10.60 32.56 2.00 oa ,~r. 45.16 o,~ 2.26 norm 91.09 5 .51.3,513.25 40.70 2.00 104.0,5 55.95 44h4-t-2.80 ~ 58.75 NOTE: The foregoing rates are based on $28.00 per ton ($1.88 per cubic yard), which is the anticipated Solid Waste Authority tipping fee to be effecuve October 1, ~ 2001. The charges set forth above for mechanical containers and rollout carts shall accrue and be payable on the total capacity of the container whether or not it as full. Containers of the type and size designated by the City or provided by the City's contractor shall be used. Secuon 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in confhct herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective on October 1, 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of ,2001. MAYOR ATI'EST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS · AGENDA ITEM /a~ ~ - REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 49-01 (EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION FEES) AUGUST 31, 2001 This is first reading for Ordinance No. 49-01 amending Chapter 96, "Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Secuon 96.66, "Emergency Medical Transportation Fees", of the City Code to adjust the fee schedule for emergency medical transportation in accordance with the National American Fee Schedule. The following service changes or fees are levied for the provision of emergency transportation: (1) Advanced Lafe Support (ALS-I) Transport fee (2) Advanced Lafe Support (ALS-2) $450.00 Transport fee (3) Skalled Care Transport fee $520.00 (4) Basic Life Support (BLS) Transportation fee $300 00 (5) Mileage fee St o~/--:~ $7.00/mile An of the city emergency transport vehicles are Advanced Life Support units, therefore the Basic Life Support Transportation fee was never used. This ordinance shall become effective as of October 1, 2001. Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 49-01. If passed, a public hearing will be scheduled for September 19, 2001. Ref Agmemol40rd49-01.EmergencyTransportFees ORDINANCE NO. 49-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELKAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 96, "FIRE SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 96.66, "EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION FEES", SUBSECTION 96.66(A), TO ADJUST THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL AMERICAN FEE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHE~S, on January 17, 1995, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 5- 95, which enacted a new Section 96.66 of the City Code to provide for emergency medical transportation fees; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the implementation of the National Ambulance Fee Schedule a new fee schedule is hereby established; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Title IX, "General Regulations", Chapter 96, "Fire Safety and Emergency Services", Section 96.66, "Emergency Medical Transportation Fees", Subsection 96.66(A), of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: The following service charges or fees are levied for the provision of emergency medical transportation: (1) Advanced Life Support (ALS-l) Transport fee $330.00 (2) Advanced Life Support (ALS-2) $450.00 Transport fee (3) Skilled Care Transport fee $520.00 (4) Basic Life Support (BLS) Transportation fee $3,00.00 (5) Mileage fee Section 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invahd, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective as of October 1, 2001. the PASSED AND ADOPTED m regular session on second and final reading on this __ day of ., 2001. ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading Ord. No. 49-01 MO.~--- P.2 ...... FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVING DEL,RAY BEAOH , GULFSTREAM · HIGHLAND BEACH ~MEMORANDUM 1 g$3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBY~CT; K~'y B. Koe~ Fire Chief EII~ P. Wick~, A _am~,~r~ive Officer August 27, 2001 E.M,$. ~n Fees Implementation of the National Ambu~c~ ~ Oc~b~ 2001 or ]~ 2002, We ne~ m ~b~ a new f~ s~o~e ~t sho~d be effeo~ve Oetob~ 200I. A~ ~ a ~eet sbo~ ~e n~ fees ~t~ or ~s~ by o~ ~b~ce s~ces ~ ~s ~a, I h~ve indic~te4 my recommendations tbr fees for th/s department. ~ve O~cer FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS, SO1 WE.,.~T' ATLANTIC AVENUE. DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ~,~r~, (58t) 243'7400 ' SUNCOM 1~28-7400 * FAX (~61) 243-7,461 ~nte~ on ~ Skilt~ Extrication ~Spinal 'BLS ALS -I Emerg. AL8 - 1.2 Cer~ Trane. Fee Auto Immobllzation Mileage · ~AO429 A0427 ... A0433 N)454 ins, Only Auto Ina, On~7 goynton Beach $260.00 $305.00 1~5.00 8525,00 $200.00 $20,00 $5.50 We~ Palm 8340,00 8540,00 $3~0,00 $~gl.00' N~ Nb 87.2S Graenaorel $197,00 $280.00, $280.00 ~ NA NA NA $5.70 642-2153 Boca Retch ,$300.00 8330,00 8480.00 NA NA NA $7.00 Lake W or~h $310,00 $310.00 $310.00 NA NA NA $8.00 Palm Beach Co. 8297.$0 ~40,00 $,140.00 i426.00! NA NA $7.00 Riviera ~leach $340.00 $340,00 $$40.00 NA NA NA 87.00 North Palm BCh $310,00 $310.00 $310.00 NA NA NA 663-3473 L~ke Perk $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 ~ NA $200,00 NA $7,00 AVERAGE 8306.00 $328,00 $360.00 $496,00 [200,00 $20.00 $6.49 RECOMMENDED FEE STRUCTURE FOR DELRAY BEACH 00 CURRENT DELRAY BEACH FEES (Different fee atru~ura) **BLS ASL A0328 Delray Beach 220,00 305.00 AL8 - A0330 Mileage 306.00 6,20 NA BLS fee was never used as all our vehicles are AL8 [lTV OF DELRflV BEI:IEH CiTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 TELEPHONE 561 '243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561;278-4755 Writer's Direct Line' 561/243-7091 DATE: August 30, 2001 TO: FROM: City Commission David Harden, City Manager Brian Shutt, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Simplified Communications Services Tax/Right-of-Way Ordinance The proposed ordinance is in response to the adoption of the "Simplified Communications Services Tax" by the State. The law basically provides that all payments to counties and municipalities by telecommunications and cable companies arising from the use of the rights-of-way shall be made to the State. The State shall then disburse the proceeds to the counties and' municipalities. The law also provides that counties and municipalities may not require a franchise from telecommunications companies, but, only require them to go through a registration process with the municipality or county. The law does allow counties and municipalities to still maintain or require a franchise agreement for cable providers. This new law is effective October 1, 2001. The proposed ordinance repeals Chapter 57 ("Right-of-Way Permits for Telecommunications Services") and Chapter 58 CRight-of-Way Permits for Wireless Communications Systems") of the Code of Ordinances. These chapters dealt with permitting procedures and payment requirements for telecommunication companies. The proposed ordinance provides for the new registration process and payment requirements in accordance with the new law. We have also amended Chapter 50 ("Utilities Generally; Public Service Tax") and Chapter 93 ("Cable Television") to remove any references of payments to the City by telecommunications or cable companies. Please place this item on the September 4, 2001 City Commission agenda. Please call if you have any questions. cc: Barbara Garito, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. ~0-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS- OF-WAY BY REPEALING CHAPTERS 57 AND 58 AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED "RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES"; AMENDING CHAPTER 50, "UTILITIES GENERALLY; PUBLIC SERVICE TAX" BY DELETING ALL REFERENCES TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; AMENDING CHAPTER 93, "CABLE TELEVISION" BY REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT TO PAY FRANCHISE FEES TO THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2001, Section 337.401, Florida Statutes (2000), is amended to state that because federal and state law require the nondiscriminatory treatment of providers of telecommunications services and because of the desire to promote competition among providers of ~-' telecommunications services, it is the intent of the Legislature that municipalities and counties treaL telecommunications companies in a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner when imposing rules or regulations governing the placement or maintenance of telecommunications facilities in the public roads or rights-of-way. Rules or regulations imposed by a municipality or county relating to telecommunications companies placing or maintaining telecommunications facilities in its roads or rights-of-way must be generally applicable to all telecommunications companies and, notwithstanding a.ny other law, may not require a telecommunications company to apply for or enter into an individual license, franchise, or other agreement with the municipality or county as a condition of placing or maintaining telecommunications facilities in its roads or rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, effective October 1, 2001, Section 337.401, Florida Statutes (2000), is further amended to state that because of the unique circumstances applicable to providers of communications services and the fact that federal and state law require the nondiscriminatory treatment of providers of telecommunications services, and because of the desire to promote competition among providers of communications services, it is the intent of the Legislature that municipalities and counties treat providers of communications services in a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner when imposing rules or regulations governing the placement or maintenance of communications facilities in the public roads or rights-of-way. Rules or regulations imposed by a municipality or county relating to providers of communications services placing or maintaining communications facilities in its roads or rights-of-way must be generally applicable to all providers of communications services and, notwithstanding any other law, may not require a provider of communications services, except as otherwise provided for providers of cable service, to apply for or enter into an individual license franchise, or other agreement with the municipality or county as a condition of placing or maintaining. communications facilities in its roads or rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Delray Beach to exercise the City's authority over communications services providers' placement and maintenance of facilities in the public rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, it is the City of Delray Beach's intent to treat each communications services provider in a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner in exercising such authority; and WHEREAS, the public rights-of-way subject to the jurisdiction and control of the City of Delray Beach: (1) are critical to the travel of persons and the transport of goods and other tangibles in the business and social life of the community by all citizens; (2) are a unique and physically limited resource and proper management by the City is necessary to maximize efficiency, minimize the costs to the taxpayers of the foregoing uses, and to minimize the inconvenience to and negative effects upon the public from such facilities' placement and maintenance in the public rights-of-way; and (3) are intended for public uses and must be managed and controlled consistently with that intent; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Delray Beach to exercise its authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations to the fullest extent allowed by Federal and State law; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Delray Beach that this Ordinance shall apply to cable service providers only with reference to the calculation and payment of the Communications Services Tax and is not intended to impact the City's regulatory powers pursuant to Chapter 93 of the Code of Ordinances (including the providing of additional services to the City as set forth therein). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 57 "Right-of-Way Permits for Telecommunication Services" and Chapter 58 "Right-of-Way Permits for Wireless Communications Systems" are hereby repealed in their entirety and replaced by the following: "CHAPTER 57: RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES" Section 57.01 - Intent and Purpose It is the intent of the City of Delray Beach to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by: providing for the placement or maintenance of Communications Facilities in the Public 2 Ord. No. 50-01 Rights-of-Way within the City; adopting and administering reasonable rules and regulations not. inconsistent with State and Federal law, including Section 337.401, Florida Statutes (2000), as it may be amended, the City's home-rule authority, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other Federal and State law; establishing reasonable rules and regulations necessary to manage the placement or maintenance of Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way by all Communications Services Providers; and minimizing disruption to the Public Rights-of-Way. In regulating its Public Rights-of-Way, the City shall be governed by and shall comply with all applicable Federal and State laws. Section 57.02 - Definitions For purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meanings given. Where not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive. Words not otherwise defined shall be construed to mean the common and ordinary meaning. Abandonment: shall mean the permanent cessation of all uses of a Communications Facility; provided that this term shall not include cessation of all use of a Facility within a physical structure where the physical structure continues to be used. By way of example, and not limitation, cessation of all use of a cable within a conduit, where the conduit continues to be used, shall not be "Abandonment" of a Facility in Public Rights-of-Way. City: shall mean the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Communications Services: shall mean the transmission, conveyance or routing of voice, data, audio, video, or any other information or signals to a point, or between or among points, by or through any electronic, radio, satellite, cable, optical, microwave, or other medium or method now in existence or hereafter devised, regardless of the protocol used for such transmission or conveyance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this Ordinance "cable service", as defined in Section 202.11(2), Florida Statutes (2000), as it may be amended, is not included in the definition of "Communications Services," and cable service providers may be subject to other ordinances of the City. Communications Services Provider: shall mean any Person including a municipality or county providing Communications Services through the placement or maintenance of a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way. "Communications Services Provider" shall also include any Person including a municipality or county that places or maintains a Communications Facility in Public Rights- of-Way but does not provide Communications Services. 3 Ord. No. 50-01 Communications Facility or Facility or System: shall mean any permanent or temporary plant,. equipment and property, including but not limited to cables, wires, conduits, ducts, fiber optics, poles, antennae, converters, splice boxes, cabinets, hand holes, manholes, vaults, drains, surface location markers, appurtenances, and other equipment or pathway placed or maintained or to be placed or maintained in the Public Rights-of-Way of the City and used or capable of being used to transmit, convey, route, receive, distribute, provide or offer Communications Services. FCC: shall mean the Federal Communications Commission. In Public Rights-of-Way or in the Public Rights-of-Way: shall mean in, on, over, under or across the Public Rights-of-Way. Ordinance: shall mean this Ordinance. Person: shall include any individual, children, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, estate, trust, business trust, syndicate, fiduciary, corporation, organization or legal entity of any kind, successor, assignee, transferee, personal representative, and all other groups or combinations, and shall include the City to the extent the City acts as a Communications Services Provider. "Place or maintain" or "placement or maintenance" or "placing or maintaining": shall mean to erect, construct, install, maintain, place, repair, extend, expand, remove, occupy, locate or relocate. A Communications Services Provider that owns or exercises physical control over Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way, such as the physical control to maintain and repair, is "placing or maintaining" the Facilities. A Person providing service only through resale or only through use of a third party's unbundled network elements is not "placing or maintaining" the Communications Facilities through which such service is provided. The transmission and receipt of radio frequency signals through the airspace of the Public Rights-of-Way does not constitute "placing or maintaining" Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. Public Rights-of-Way: shall mean a public right-of-way, public utility easement, highway, street, bridge, tunnel or alley for which the City is the authority that has jurisdiction and control and may lawfully grant access to pursuant to applicable law, and includes the surface, the air space over the surface and the area below the surface. "public Rights-of-Way" shall not include private property. "Public Rights-of-Way" shall not include any real or personal City property except as described above and shall not include City buildings, fixtures, poles, conduits, facilities or other structures or improvements, regardless of whether they are situated in the Public Rights-of-Way. Registrant: shall mean a Communications Services Provider that has Registered with the City in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. 4 Ord. No. 50-01 Registration or Register: shall mean the process described in this Ordinance whereby a Communications Services Provider provides certain information to the City. Section 57.03 - Registration for Placing or Maintaining Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way (A). A Communications Services Provider that desires to place or maintain a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way in the City shall first Register with the City in accordance with this Ordinance. Subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in this Ordinance, a Registrant may place or maintain a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way. (B). A Registration shall not convey any title, equitable or legal, to the Registrant in the Public Rights-of-Way. Registration under this Ordinance governs only the placement or maintenance of Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. Other ordinances, codes or regulations may apply to the placement or maintenance in the Public Rights-of-Way of facilities that are not Communications Facilities. Registration does not excuse a Communications Services Provider from obtaining appropriate access or pole attachment agreements before locating its Facilities on the City's or another Person's facilities. Registration does not excuse a Communications Services Provider from complyin~'~ with all applicable City ordinances, codes or regulations, including this Ordinance. (C). Each Communications Services Provider that desires to place or maintain a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way in the City shall file a single Registration with the City which shall include the following information: (1) name of the applicant; (2) name, address and telephone number of the applicant's primary contact person in connection with the Registration, and the person to contact in case of an emergency; (3) evidence of the insurance coverage required under this Ordinance and acknowledgment that Registrant has received and reviewed a copy of this Ordinance, which acknowledgment shall not be deemed an agreement; and (4) the number of the applicant's certificate of authorization or license to provide Communications Services issued by the Florida Public Service Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, or other Federal or State authority, if any; (5) any contractor or other agent acting on behalf of an Applicant must have a letter from said Applicant describing the scope of the proposed "use" of City Rights-of-way-~ 5 Ord. No. 50-01 and specifying that said agent is authorized to act on the Applicant's behalf, all "use". being subject to all terms of this Chapter; (6) for an applicant that does not provide a Florida Public Service Commission certificate of authorization number, if the applicant is a corporation, proof of authority to do business in the State of Florida, including the number of the certificate of incorporation. (D). The City shall review the information submitted by the applicant. Such review shall be by the City Engineer or his or her designee. If the applicant submits information in accordance with Section 57.03(C) above, the Registration shall be effective and the City shall notify the applicant of the effectiveness of Registration in writing. If the City determines that the information has not been submitted in accordance with Section 57.03(C) above, the City shall notify the applicant of the non- effectiveness of Registration, and reasons for the non-effectiveness, in writing. The City shall so reply to an applicant within thirty (30) days after receipt of registration information from the applicant. Non- effectiveness of Registration shall not preclude an applicant from filing subsequent applications for Registration under the provisions of this Section. An applicant has fifteen (15) business days after receipt of a notice of non-effectiveness of Registration to appeal the decision as provided in Section 57.07 (E). A Registrant may cancel a Registration upon written notice to the City stating that it will no longer place or maintain any Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way within the City and will no longer need to obtain permits to perform work in Public Rights-of-Way. A Registrant cannot cancel a Registration if the Registrant continues to place or maintain any Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. (F). Registration does not in and of itself establish a right to place or maintain or priority for the placement or maintenance of a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way within the City but shall establish for the Registrant a right to apply for a permit, if permitting is required by the City. Registrations are expressly subject to any future amendment to or replacement of this Ordinance and further subject to any additional City ordinances, as well as any State or Federal laws that may be enacted. (G). A Registrant shall renew its Registration with the City by April 1 of even numbered years in accordance with the Registration requirements in this Ordinance, except that a Registrant that initially registers during the even numbered year when renewal would be due or the odd numbered year immediately preceding such even numbered year shall not be required to renew until the next even numbered year. Within thirty (30) days of any change in the information required to be submitted pursuant to Section 57.03(C), except, as of October 1, 2001, Section 57.03(C), a Registrant shall provide updated information to the City. If no information in the then-existing Registration has changed, the renewal may state that no information has changed. Failure to renew a Registration may 6 Ord. No. 50-01 result in the City restricting the issuance of additional permits until the Communications Services Provider has complied with the Registration requirements of this Ordinance. (H). In accordance with applicable City ordinances, codes or regulations, a permit may be required of a Communications Services Provider that desires to place or maintain a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way. An effective Registration shall be a condition of obtaining a permit. Notwithstanding an effective Registration, permitting requirements shall apply. A permit may be obtained by or on behalf of a Registrant having an effective Registration if all permitting requirements are met. Section 57.04 - Notice of Transfer, Sale or Assigmnent of Assets in Public Rights-of-Way If a Registrant transfers, sells or assigns its assets located in Public Rights-of-Way incident to a transfer, sale or assignment of the Registrant's assets, the transferee, buyer or assignee shall be obligated to comply with the terms of this Ordinance. Written notice of any such transfer, sale or assignment shall be provided by such Registrant to the City within twenty (20) days after the effective date of the transfer, sale or assignment. If the transferee, buyer or assignee is a current Registrant, then the transferee, buyer or assignee is not required to re-Register. If the transferee, buyer or assignee is not a current Registrant, then the transferee, buyer or assignee shall Register as provided in Section 4 within sixty (60) days of the transfer, sale or assignment. Section 57.05 - Placement or Maintenance of a Communications Facility in Public Rights -of-Way (A). A Registrant shall at all times comply with and abide by all applicable provisions of the State and Federal law and City ordinances, codes and regulations in placing or maintaining a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way. (13). A Registrant shall not commence to place or maintain a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way until all applicable permits, if any, have been issued by the City or other appropriate authority, except in the case of an emergency. The term "emergency" shall mean a condition that affects the public's health, safety or welfare, which includes an unplanned out-of-service condition of a pre-existing service. Registrant shall provide prompt notice to the City of the placement or maintenance of a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way in the event of an emergency. Registrant acknowledges that as a condition of granting such permits, the City may impose reasonable rules or regulations governing the placement or maintenance of a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way. Permits shall apply only to the areas of Public Rights-of-Way specifically identified in the permit. The City may issue a blanket permit to cover certain activities, such as routine maintenance and repair activities, that may otherwise require individual permits. As part of any permit application to place a new or replace an existing Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way, the Registrant shall provide the following: 7 Ord. No. 50-01 (1) The location of the proposed Facilities, including a description of the Facilities to be installed, where the Facilities are to be located, and the approximate size of Facilities that will be located in Public Rights-of-Way; (2) A description of the manner in which the Facility will be installed (i.e. anticipated construction methods or techniques); (3) A maintenance of traffic plan for any disruption of the Public Rights-of-Way; (4) Information on the ability of the Public Rights-of-Way to accommodate the proposed Facility, if available (such information shall be provided without certification as to correctness, to the extent obtained from other Persons); (5) If appropriate given the Facility proposed, an estimate of the cost of restoration to the Public Rights-of-Way; (6) The timetable for construction ..of the project or each phase thereof, and the areas of the City which will be affected; and (7) Such additional information as the City finds reasonably necessary with respect to the placement or maintenance of the Communications Facility that is the subject of the permit application to review such permit application. (C). To the extent not otherwise prohibited by State or Federal law, the City shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional Communications Facilities within a particular area of Public Rights-of Way. (D). All Communications Facilities shall be placed or maintained so as not to unreasonably interfere with the use of the Public Rights-of-Way by the public and with the rights and convenience of property owners who adjoin any of the Public Rights-of-Way or with other users who have facilities located in the public right-of-way. The use of trenchless technology (i.e., directional bore method) for the installation of Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way as well as joint trenching or the co-location of facilities in existing conduit is strongly encouraged, and should be employed wherever feasible. The City Manager or his/her designee may promulgate reasonable rules and regulations concerning the placement or maintenance of a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way consistent with this Ordinance and other applicable law. All safety practices required by applicable law or accepted industry practices and standards shall be used during the placement or maintenance of Communications Facilities. After the completion of any placement or maintenance of a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way or each phase thereof, a Registrant shall, at its own expense, restore the Public Rights-of-Way to its 8 Ord. No. 50-01 original condition before such work. If the Registrant fails to make such restoration within thirty (30). days, or such longer period of time as may be reasonably required under the circumstances, following the completion of such placement or maintenance, the City may perform restoration and charge the costs of the restoration against the Registrant in accordance with Section 337.402, Florida Statutes (2000), as it may be amended. For twelve (12) months following the original completion of the work, the Registrant shall guarantee its restoration work and shall correct any restoration work that does not satisfy the requirements of this Ordinance at its own expense. (E). Removal or relocation at the direction of the City of a Registrant's Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way shall be governed by the provisions of Sections 337.403 and 337.404, Florida Statutes (2000), as they may be amended. (F). A permit from the City constitutes authorization to undertake only certain activities in Public Rights-of-Way in accordance with this Ordinance, and does not create a property right or grant authority to impinge upon the rights of others who may have an interest in the Public Rights-of-Way. (G). A Registrant shall maintain its Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way in a manner consistent with accepted industry practice and applicable law. (H). In connection with excavation in the Public Rights-of-Way, a Registrant shall, where applicable, comply with the Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act set forth in Chapter 556, Florida Statutes (2000), as it may be amended. (I). Registrant shall use and exercise due caution, care and skill in performing work in the Public Rights-of-Way and shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard work site areas. (J). Upon request of the City, and as notified by the City of the other work, construction, installation or repairs referenced below, a Registrant may be required to coordinate placement or maintenance activities under a permit with any other work, construction, installation or repairs that may be occurring or scheduled to occur within a reasonable timeframe in the subject Public Rights-of-Way, and Registrant may be required to reasonably alter its placement or maintenance schedule as necessary so as to minimize disruptions and disturbance in the Public Rights-of-Way. (K). A Registrant shall not place or maintain its Communications Facilities so as to interfere with, displace, damage or destroy any facilities, including but not limited to, sewers, gas or water mains, storm drains, pipes, cables or conduits of the City or any other Person's facilities lawfully occupying the Public Rights-of-Way of the City. (L). The City makes no warranties or representations regarding the fitness, suitability, or availability of the City's Public Rights-of-Way for the Registrant's Communications Facilities and an) 9 Ord. No. 50-01 performance of work, costs incurred or services provided by Registrant shall be at Registrant's sole. risk. Nothing in this Ordinance shall affect the City's authority to add, vacate or abandon Public Rights-of-Way, and the City makes no warranties or representations regarding the availability of any added, vacated or abandoned Public Rights-of-Way for Communications Facilities. (M). The City shall have the right to make such inspections of Communications Facilities placed or maintained in Public Rights-of-Way as it finds necessary to ensure compliance with this Ordinance. (N). A permit application to place a new or replace an existing Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way shall include plans showing the location of the proposed installation of Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. If the plans so provided require revision based upon actual installation, the Registrant shall promptly provide revised plans. The plans shall be in a hard copy format or an electronic format specified by the City, provided such electronic format is maintained by the Registrant. Such plans in a format maintained by the Registrant shall be provided at no cost to the City. (0). The City reserves the right to place and maintain, and permit to be placed or maintained, sewer, gas, water, electric, storm drainage, communications, and other types of facilities, cables or conduit, and to do, and to permit to be done, any underground and overhead installation or improvement that may be deemed necessary or proper by the City in Public Rights-of-Way occupied by the Registrant. The City further reserves without limitation the right to alter, change, or cause to be changed, the grading, installation, relocation, or width of the Public Rights-of-Way within the limits of the City and within said limits as same may from time to time be altered. (P). A Registrant shall, on the request of any Person holding a permit issued by the City, temporarily raise or lower its Communications Facilities to permit the work authorized by the permit. The expense of such temporary raising or lowering of Facilities shall be paid by the Person requesting the same, and the Registrant shall have the authority to require such payment in advance. The Registrant shall be given not less than thirty (30) days advance written notice to arrange for such temporary relocation. (Q). A wireless facility that is a portion of a Communication Facility, such as an antenna ("Wireless Facility(ies)"), which is attached to a legally maintained vertical structure in the Public Rights-of-Way, such as a light pole or utility pole ("Vertical Structure(s)"), shall be governed by Land Development Regulation Section 4.3.3(S). Section 57.06 - Suspension of Permits The City may suspend a permit for work in the Public Rights-of-Way, subject to Section 57.07 of this Ordinance, for one or more of the following reasons: 10 Ord. No. 50-01 (1). (2). (3). (4). violation of permit conditions, including conditions set forth in the permit, this Ordinance or other applicable City ordinances, codes or regulations governing placement or maintenance of Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way; misrepresentation or fraud by Registrant in a Registration or permit application to the City; or failure to properly renew or ineffectiveness of Registration. failure to relocate or remove Facilities as may be lawfully required by the City. The City Manager or his/her designee shall provide notice and an opportunity to cure any violation of (1) through (4) above, each of which shall be reasonable under the circumstances. Section 57.07 - Appeals If an application for use of the rights-of-way or a renewal of the application or a permit is denied by the City, and if the applicant wants to appeal the denial, the applicant must file an appeal with the City Manager within fifteen (15) business days of the date of the denial. Any appeal not timely filed as set forth above shall be waived. The City Commission shall hear the appeal within fifteen (15) business days of the filing of the appeal or at the first regular sche'duled Commission meeting thereafter. Section 57.08 - Involuntary Termination of Registration (A). The City may terminate a Registration if: (1) a Federal or State authority suspends, denies, or revokes a Registrant's certification or license to provide Communications Services; (2) the Registrant's placement or maintenance of a Communications Facility in the Public Rights-of-Way presents an extraordinary danger to the general public or other users of the Public Rights-of-Way and the Registrant fails to remedy the danger promptly after receipt of written notice; or (3) the Registrant ceases to use all of its Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of- Way and has not complied with Section 57.15 of this Ordinance. (B). Prior to termination, the Registrant shall be notified by the City Manager with a written notice setting forth all matters pertinent to the proposed termination action, including which of (1) through (3) above is applicable as the reason therefore, and describing the proposed action of the City with respect thereto. The Registrant shall have sixty (60) days after receipt of such notice within which to address or eliminate the reason or within which to present a plan, satisfactory to the City Manager, t{ 11 Ord. No. 50-01 accomplish the same. If the plan is rejected, the City Manager shall provide written notice of such rejection to the Registrant and shall make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a decision as to termination of Registration. A decision by the City to terminate a Registration may only be accomplished by an action of the City Commission. A Registrant shall be notified by written notice of any decision by the City Commission to terminate its Registration. Such written notice shall be sent within ten (10) days after the decision. (C). In the event of termination, the former Registrant shall: (i) notify the City of the assumption or anticipated assumption by another Registrant of ownership of the Registrant's Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way; or (ii) provide the City with an acceptable plan for disposition of its Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way. If a Registrant fails to comply with this Subsection 57.08(C), which determination of non-compliance is subject to appeal as provided in Section 57.07, the City may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including but not limited to taking possession of the Facilities where another Person has not assumed the ownership or physical control of the Facilities or requiring the Registrant within 90 days of the termination, or such longer period as may be agreed to by the Registrant, to remove some or all of the Facilities from the Public Rights-of-Way and restore the Public Rights-of-Way to its original condition before the removal. ,. (D). In any event, a terminated Registrant shall take such steps as are necessary to render safe every portion of the Communications Facilities remaining in the Public Rights-of-Way of the City. (E). In the event of termination of a Registration, this Section does not authorize the City to cause the removal of Communications Facilities used to provide another service for which the Registrant or another Person who owns or exercises physical control over the Facilities holds a valid certification or license with the governing Federal or State agency, if required for provision of such service, and is Registered with the City, if required. Section 57.09 - Existing Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way A Communications Services Provider with an existing Communications Facility in the Public Rights-of-Way of the City has sixty (60) days from the Effective Date of this Ordinance to comply with the terms of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, Registration, or be in violation thereof. Section 57.10 - Insurance A Registrant shall provide, pay for and maintain insurance, satisfactory to the City. All insurance shall be from responsible companies duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida and having a rating reasonably acceptable to the City. All liability policies shall provide that the City is an additional insured as to the activities under this Ordinance. The required coverages must be evidenced 12 Ord. No. 50-01 by properly executed Certificates of Insurance forms. The Certificates must be signed by the. authorized representative of the insurance company and shall be filed and maintained with the City annually. Thirty (30) days advance written notice by registered, certified or regular mail or facsimile as determined by the City must be given to the City of any cancellation, intent not to renew or reduction in the policy coverages. The insurance requirements may be satisfied by evidence of self-insurance or other types of insurance acceptable to the City. Section 57.11 - Indemnification (A). A Registrant shall, at its sole cost and expense, indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its officials, boards, members, agents, and employees, against any and all claims, suits, causes of action, proceedings, judgments for damages or equitable relief, and costs and expenses incurred by the City arising out of the placement or maintenance of its Communications System or Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way, regardless of whether the act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed or prohibited by this Ordinance, provided, however, that a Registrant's obligation hereunder shall not extend to any claims caused by the negligence, gross negligence or wanton or willful acts of the City. This provision includes, but is not limited to, the City's reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in defending against any such claim, suit or proceedings. The City agrees to notify the Registrant, in writing, withir a reasonable time of the City receiving notice, of any issue it determines may require indemnification. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any litigation by its own counsel and at its own cost if in the City's reasonable belief there exists or may exist a conflict, potential conflict or appearance of a conflict. Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed or interpreted: (a) as denying to either party any remedy or defense available to such party under the laws of the State of Florida; or (b) as a waiver of sovereign immunity beyond the waiver provided in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes (2000), as it may be amended. (B). The indemnification requirements shall survive and be in effect after the termination or cancellation of a Registration. Section 57.12 - Construction Bond (A). Prior to issuing a permit where the work under the permit will require restoration of Public Rights-of-Way, the City may require a construction bond to secure the restoration of the Public Rights-of-Way. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a construction bond hereunder may only be required to the extent that the cost of the restoration exceeds the amount recoverable against the Security Fund as provided in Section 57.13. Twelve (12) months after the completion of the restoration in Public Rights- of-Way, in accordance with the bond, the Registrant may eliminate the bond. However, the City may subsequently require a new bond for any subsequent work in the Public Rights-of-Way. The construction bond shall be issued by a surety having a rating reasonably acceptable to the City; shall be subject to the approval of the Risk Manager; and shall provide that: "For twelve (12) months afte~ 13 Ord. No. 50-01 issuance of this bond, this bond may not be canceled, or allowed to lapse, until sixty (60) days after. receipt by the City, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of a written notice from the issuer of the bond of intent to cancel or not to renew. (B). The rights reserved by the City with respect to any construction bond established pursuant to this Section are in addition to all other rights and remedies the City may have under this Ordinance, or at law or equity. (C). The rights reserved to the City under this Section are in addition to all other rights of the City, whether reserved in this Ordinance, or authorized by other law, and no action, proceeding or exercise of a right with respect to the construction bond will affect any other right the City may have. Section 57.13 - Security Fund At or prior to the time a Registrant receives its first permit to place or maintain a Communications Facility in Public Rights-of-Way after the effective date of this Ordinance, the Registrant may be required to file with the City, for City approval, an annual bond, cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit in the sum of $25,000 having as a surety a company qualified to do business in the State of Florida, and acceptable to the Risk Manager, which shall be referred to as the "Security Fund." The Security Fund shall be maintained from such time through the earlier of: 1. transfer, sale, assignment or removal of all Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way; or 2. twelve (12) months after the termination or cancellation of any Registration. The Security Fund shall be conditioned on the full and faithful performance by the Registrant of all requirements, duties and obligations imposed upon Registrant by the provisions of this Ordinance. The Security Fund shall be furnished annually or as frequently as necessary to provide a continuing guarantee of the Registrant's full and faithful performance at all times. In the event a Registrant fails to perform its duties and obligations imposed upon the Registrant by the provisions of this Ordinance, subject to Section 57.14 of this Ordinance, there shall be recoverable, jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the Security Fund, any damages or loss suffered by the City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal, relocation or abandonment of any Facilities of the Registrant in Public Rights-of-Way, plus a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees, up to the full amount of the Security Fund. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may in its discretion not require a Security Fund or may accept a corporate guarantee of the Registrant or its parent company. Section 57.14 - Enforcement Remedies A Registrant's failure to comply with provisions of this Ordinance shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance and shall subject the Registrant to the code enforcement provisions and procedures as provided in Chapter 37 of the Code of Ordinances or to any other legal or equitable remedy available to 14 Ord. No. 50-01 the City including, but not limited to, injunctive relief. In addition, violation of this Ordinance may be. punishable as provided in Section 162.22, Florida Statutes, as it may be amended. Failure of the City to enforce any requirements of this Ordinance shall not constitute a waiver of the City's right to enforce that violation or subsequent violations of the same type or to seek appropriate enforcement remedies. Section 57.15 - Abandonment of a Communications Facility (A). Upon Abandonment of a Communications Facility owned by a Registrant in Public Rights-of-Way, the Registrant shall notify the City within ninety (90) days. (B). The City may direct the Registrant by written notice to remove all or any portion of such Abandoned Facility at the Registrant's sole expense if the City determines that the Abandoned Facility's presence interferes with the public health, safety or welfare, which shall include, but shall not be limited to, a determination that such Facility: (i) compromises safety at any time for any Public Rights- of-Way user or during construction or maintenance in Public Rights-of-Way; (ii) prevents another Person from locating facilities in the area of Public Rights-of-Way where the Abandoned Facility is located when other alternative locations are not..reasonably available; or (iii) creates a maintenance condition that is disruptive to the Public Rights-of-Way's use. In the event of (ii), the City may require the third Person to coordinate with the Registrant that owns the existing Facility for joint removal and placement, where agreed to by the Registrant. (C). In the event that the City does not direct the removal of the Abandoned Facility, the Registrant, by its notice of Abandonment to the City shall be deemed to consent to the alteration or removal of all or any portion of the Facility by the City or another Person at such third party's cost. (D). If the Registrant fails to remove all or any portion of an Abandoned Facility as directed by the City within a reasonable time period as may be required by the City under the circumstances, the City may perform such removal and charge the cost of the removal against the Registrant. Section 57.16 - Force Majeure In the event a Registrant's performance of or compliance with any of the provisions of this Ordinance is prevented by a cause or event not within the Registrant's control, such inability to perform or comply shall be deemed excused and no penalties or sanctions shall be imposed as a result, provided, however, that such Registrant uses all practicable means to expeditiously cure or correct any such inability to perform or comply. For purposes of this Ordinance, causes or events not within a Registrant's control shall include, without limitation, acts of God, floods, earthquakes, landslides, hurricanes, fires and other natural disasters, acts of public enemies, riots or civil disturbances. sabotage, strikes and restraints imposed by order of a governmental agency or court. Causes or event: 15 Ord. No. 50-01 within Registrant's control, and thus not falling within this Section, shall include, without limitation,. Registrant's financial inability to perform or comply, economic hardship, and misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance by any of Registrant's directors, officers, employees, contractors or agents. Section 57.17 - Reservation of Rights and Remedies (A). The City reserves the right to amend this Ordinance as it shall find necessary in the lawful exercise of its police powers. (B). This Ordinance shall be applicable to all Communications Facilities placed in the Public Rights-of-Way on or after the effective date of this Ordinance and shall apply to all existing Communications Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, to the full extent permitted by State and Federal law. (C). The adoption of this Ordinance is not intended to affect any rights or defenses of the City or a Communications Service Provider under any existing franchise, license or other agreements with a Communications Services Provider. (D). Nothing in this Ordinance shall affect the remedies the City or the Registrant has available under applicable law. (E). Any Person who uses the Communications Facilities of a Registrant, other than the Registrant that owns the Facilities, shall not be entitled to any rights to place or maintain such Facilities in excess of the rights of the Registrant that places or maintains the Facilities. Section 57.18 - Severability The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable and if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance but shall remain in effect, it being the legislative intent that this Ordinance shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any part. Section 2. That Chapter 50, ""Utilities Generally; Public Service Tax", Section 50.15, "Levy of Tax", Subsection 50.15(B), "Telecommunications Services", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 3. That Chapter 50, "Utilities Generally; Public Service Tax", Section 50.16, "When Sale in City Deemed Made", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 16 Ord. No. 50-01 Section 50.16 WHEN SALE IN CITY DEEMED MADE. For the purpose of this subchapter, a sale shall be determined to be made in the City in every instance where electricity or bottled gas (natural or manufactured) is delivered to a purchaser residing within the City, regardless of whether the residence or business or headquarters of the seller is located within the City or elsewhere. ~/ith respect t,, ,,~ ........ ~"~'*~'-" se_'-.4ce, ~ oo~ .... ~,,,;,, ,h,, c,~,,, ;o ~r,,,~a Section 4. That Chapter 50, "Utilities Generally; Public Service Tax", Section 50.17, "Seller to Collect", Subsection 50.17(A), of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 50.17 SELLER TO COLLECT (A) It shall be the duty of every seller of electricity, or bottled gas (natural or manufactured), or te!eco.':'._m"_n?_2t!vn sep.".":e to collect from the purchaser, for the use of the City, the tax hereby levied, at the time of collecting the selling price charged for each transaction, and to report and pay over, on or before the fifteenth day of each calendar month, to the Finance Department of the City, all such taxes levied and collected during the preceding calendar month. It shall be unlawful for any seller tc collect the price of any sale of electricity~ or bottled gas (natural or manufactured), vr te!e:~2v:2n~_~_5.er: sep.,'.'_~e without at the same time collecting the tax hereby levied in respect to such sale or sales. Section5. That Chapter 50, "Utilities Generally; Public Service Tax", Section 50.19, "Monthly Returns Required; Computation", Subsection 50.19(B), of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 50.19 MONTHLY RETURNS REQUIRED; COMPUTATION. (B) In all cases where the seller of electricity~ or bottled gas (natural or manufactured), m: te!e,zoro..~m,xn!c~fienz .... ;"'~ collects the price thereof at monthly periods, the tax hereby levied may be computed on the aggregate amount of sales during such period, provided that the amount of tax to be collected shall be the nearest whole cent to the amount computed. Section 6. That Chapter 93, "Cable Television", Section 93.36, "Maps, Plats and Reports", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 93.36 MAPS, PLATS AND REPORTS. 17 Ord. No. 50-01 (A) Upon request, the grantee shall file with the City Engineer accurate maps of its system,. showing construction and distribution networks, and the grantee shall maintain these maps in a current condition. Section 7. That Chapter 93, "Cable Television", Section 93.37, "Payments to City", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 8. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 9. That this Ordinance shall become effective on October 1,2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the ~ ., 2001. , day of ATTEST MAYOR C. ity Clerk First Reading. Second Reading. 18 Ord. No. 50-01