Loading...
05-04-93 Special/Workshop · 'CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING - MAY 4. 1993 - 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS AGENDA Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the City Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, Mayor Thomas E. Lynch has instructed me to advise you of a Special Meeting of the Commission to be held in the Commission Chambers at 6 P.M. on Tuesday, May 4, 1993. This meeting has been called for the purpose of considering the following: 1. / Termination of contract with Dees Contracting, Inc. fltøn ff)a~ Ji¥ lIoq Alison MacGregor Harty City Clerk WORKSHOP AGENDA /1. Neighborhood Task Team Items: A. Prohibiting Parking on Front Lawns. B. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Designated Parking Areas for Single Family and Duplex residences. C. Minimum Landscape Requirements for Existing Single Family and Duplex residences constructed prior to October, 1990. /2. Lake Ida Road (Congress to Military) Landscaping. v"3. Environmental Land Management (ELMS) Bill. 4 . Discussion regarding selection of nominee (elected official) to serve as a member of the Florida League of Cities Board of Directors representing the Palm Beach County Municipal League. S . Commission Comments. , · I ~ ......;-....., CITY OF DEL RAY BEACH. FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL/WORSHOP MEETING - MAY 4. 1993 - 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS AGENDA ADDENDUM THE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE: ./2. Award of bid to Southern Bleacher Company in the amount of $81,700 for repair of storm damage to the Tennis Stadiumj with funding from Property Claims (Account No. 551-1575-591-45.50jBalance: $30,000) and CRA loan 'repayment. " , MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: CITY MANAGER ~1 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM i .st>/, - MEETING OF MAY 4. 1993 TERMINATION OF CONTRACT WITH DEES CONTRACTING. INC. DATE: April 30, 1993 At the April 27, 1993 regular meeting, staff requested this item be removed from the agenda to allow further negotiations with Dees Contracting. Attached as backup material for this item is a staff report which details the results of those negotiation. Staff recommends that the Commission: 1. Terminate the contract and notify the bonding company. 2 . Not pay Pay Request #12 until direction is received from the bonding company or pay only for accepted and approved work. 3. Work with the bonding company to acquire a contractor to complete the work on the tank. Recommend termination of the contract with Dees Contracting, Inc. ., - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM TO: SUSAN RUBY CITY ATTORNEY DAVID T. HARDEN CITY MANAGER THRU: WILLIAM H. GREENWOOD ~4~ DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FROM: RALPH E. HAYDEN, P.E.~ CITY ENGINEER DATE: APRIL 30, 1993 SUBJECT: ELEVATED STORAGE TANK, DEES CONSTRACTING PROJECT NO. 90-01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Greenwood and I have had several meetings with Mr. James Dees and Mr. Alan Nagy of Dees Contracting this week. I have tried to clear up several items to keep this project moving towards a satisfactory completion. In conclusion of these meetings Dees Contracting is requiring the following: 1. Pay request #12 (copy attached) paid in full by close of business on Friday 4/30/93. If paid, James Dees will continue work on the tank and plans to be complete in 24 working days except for weather delays and holidays. James Dees will personally act as project superintendent. 2. Contractor is requiring additional funds for work he says he was required to do. In summary they are as follows: a) Seam sealing sidewalls of the Tank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 23,500. b) Delays caused by the inspector ..... 6,300. c) Extra work to remove caulking below. high water line .................. 5,200. d) Extra work required by inspector because of paint delamination .... 3.750. $ 38.750. 1 or 4 -. - . The Contractor stated that he would cut this price in half provided he is paid in full on Fridays. They require a response to this by May 12, 1993. Our comments on these items are as follows: 1. Several items on pay request #12 are satisfactory and several items are not. The major discrepancies are the blast and recoating all rivet seams in the tank (Tank Interior Item #1) and the tightening and replacing of the sway rods (structural Item #3). The inspector has indicated that there are numerous deficiencies such as rust spots on the rivets and the Contractor has significant work remaining on this pay item. The inspector feels that no additional payment should be made. The Contractor is demanding 100% payment less retainage or approximately $ 6,136.00 for this line item. In regards to the tightening of the sway rods the Contractor is demanding payment in the amount of $500/rod for tightening and $1,000/rod for replacement. These prices were renegoiated by Jeff Kurtz down to $425/rod for tightening and $500/rod for replacement. The Contractor, invoiced us, and was paid at these negotiated prices. The Contractor is now requiring an additional $9,400. It is staff's recommendation that these demands be rejected. 2. a) The Contractor says he only quoted to seam seal the bottom of the tank and not the tank walls. It is staff's recommendations that these items be rejected because the Contractor was paid to seam seal the tank in the original contract, paid for additional seam sealing in the change order and we feel additional payments are totally unacceptable. b) Delays caused by the inspector are in staff's opinion unfounded. There has been no superintendent employed by Dees for the majority of the work and basically the subcontractors were left to themselves. The inspector was enforcing the contract documents and specifications and Dees made little effort to resolve inspection issues in a timely manner. 2 of 4 ., c) The charges of removing the caulking below the high water are in staff's opinion unfounded. Dees claims that he was told to caulk to a certain level in the tank by a Consultant during the study of the tank. specifications call for caulking to the high water line. It is staff's opinion that determining the location of the high water is fundamental in tank work and we only have the Contractor's word on this. d) Extra charges because of delamination may have merit however, the Contractor during the sway rod work caused significant damage to tank because of his lack of precautions to protect the tank. If the Contractor feels he is entitled to extra money he should submit specific details and justifications. The Contractor stated he did all this work because the inspector made him do it. We feel we have made a good faith effort to reach an agreement with Dees contracting. Dees demands ,are unacceptable and staff feels an agreement cannot be reached. Therefore, we recommend the following: 1. Bring this issue before Commission to terminate Dees contract and notify the bonding company. 2. Not pay Pay Request #12 until we have received direction from the bonding company or only pay accepted and approved work. 3. Advise Dees of our intentions so they won't incur additional project cost. 4. a. Take steps in conjunction with the bonding company to acquire a Contractor to complete the required work so the tank can be placed in service as soon as possible. b. Evaluate the amount of work remaining and the .ci ty will use the monies remaining in Dee's contract to subsidize the monies needed to finish the work utilizing a new Contractor. This Contractor would be working directly for the City. These quotes could be obtained by staff for this work. 3 of 3 '. 5. One last consideration: is the additional costs being requested by Dees, which we feel are not justified/worth bringing this issue to litigation? We request this issue be placed before Commission for action at their work shop meeting on May 4, 1993. Enclosed is a copy of the letter from Post, Buckly, Schuh and Jernigan dated April 23, 1993 as additional information. REH:kt File: Memos to city Attorney's Office 90-01 (D) RHSR9001.KT 4 of 4 '. :,;;S:!;;~i,:,:.. ' . tERTlFU:A1E Of lllE CU"lf\1\\:lUt\ UI\ illS UULY f\UIIIUIUtEU RUJflESElU^, IVE , . . r/~~~~'~ :: '.' I; td \ha ~.J~ .t 'Y. in~I'dl. I"~ ~.tl.ft I ~etttt, ,~.t .it tt.~J ~lt'1 ~uJ"t.tl'.. &Jt~ þttUJ .t ~ttc Attl wutl- jhtMt It.. th . Itdtahut-..ltttt .~...U Nd. 1 . he tbtud t that .U "-'t~ .... "Hit "Uh.u~d u, "htlail 1,~,Hd 1H 1ull htetdanu Ulth the t.~ ,"d tbhdltlbHt tt tk& t~~tltt dot~htl ~.~.~~ . . , " City of Delray ~each, Florida CPr.oject ~9. 91-2~) PO#503405 '"' Dees çontracting Co., Inc.' (OItnU) ~n.4 October 1 J 1991 - ,~ r ,. (Ctlnt uti....) ..., . tJtd aU tuthöl't... tttiJt.U thhetö' attd thu th. 'ctUCI\llh, It . hUI "', teh-ft't .UUtlttft " the tfflhttt IttoOrtt 0Ii h IJtd Itt~hLtt". thl Jut dtt hI th6 þ-hltld UtUd Itt tJtlt tullUU 1J\d Utu HIt Þht ttt th. ttboU1t iUlt \hU UÙ"~I' hu tth.. ttt:~ly". D . OklGtHAL tONtMtt AHt.t 252,650. 0 '~OJU~ttb tONtlt.Act Jltr.t 358.290.46 , tal nul bbuttt 'Utt'¡ 1M "Grit In Þhu (drhlhU tbftuat:t.)--.. . ~52.650.00 «\J tot,! ~t .itn.. tot kbrk In ~l.t' t~trt.. btd.tt1----...~. . 86 ..791. 05 . It' ~,tb. ,r ..tart". tt~t.d at ttt.-------..-.-.------.---~_-.__ t , . td) toul ~~ IUttW t (t) rtu! ttJ) "tm t«:) ).......------........... t 339,441.05 (.) AMo~~ ..t*lh'& (lb\)6...~..-~--..------..-..-----....------.--........ t, ~,679.10 . U1,totAl Ut1itd Itlt HUih11l1 "UUhh,_ ( (d) ..lttUj (tlJ )_d_U I 330.761.95 .... . t.} tDta. Þtey1~.I, APrtv1.d----..-..-....--..----~----...--~-..-_____.. t 314,437.34 tM 'AMottt dltl 'tiltS lltQuur tb. l'Uut\Aml\ ( U1 tIalhUt (a) )..~-_. i 16~ 3~4.. 61 . (t)bt1Unt due "tiUS ItaQ\ft!st tOM AntJlltttt-..-·..-....----....--·.....~--- t . - tH ttJtAt, AJ.1OUtt .~qtl!mÞ t th) "tllJ U} )..........._..__6...._..____.. 16.324.61 ... , t tuttf,er HtHt}: tftlt Att t,.tlil öutH'hdln, .'.AtIlH: t". \a1d...tI.n6d tt.nHIt'er hi- ht.tttt "Attt-hit. tHe! h,,~"d,"h .tt"I"Nltt t:¡;h,téd 1" H,. "uh,,.....Ju:. of ttU to"tt'e~ I,. b.tø ~.td th tutt t~ .ttDtd.K~t ~It t ~ t~~ult~~n'. bt .'1& t~t~et. t.ttftt tuth bUt.t."~t". tt-tMi ~t .t~ 11tt~d \.Io~ ot bn the .tt.ch~~ jht.t. ~"I~~ . UUtlln\nt httUtH' U I ~hh.. '.'("H tile hnttHtbt '-Mth h. tlot tit ratd. t';c:1b.tt". alt dltþuttd tt.l~ ~~ In, ttAl~ td ~httk \~. tbhttittbt~" or kt.l·'....t Iny 1I1::,."tt. , " I iútits... Ut:Htt tt,U -I I \f,. "'UthU Ittdtuu' tI'rt tM. bJ..t,Utd~t ".~lIa'~ AJ ~.tn. .~~.., ~ the ttt~, ~ut hot ttt Jhtb~·öta..d IhtØ the ~tt'lh" ~'1~ ~.~" tUtthUd, d~thuu, &tI~ It' holt Uet&d brt U,& tth tttt 'btlltl ItttDtpótUI~ bttG 'h~ Ulld'"f' IHd uHt1t 'ö lht~trb~.t6d ~. t1tl& tb time'tt, ~b~ r-,.tht of \~l. .t t._~t. , tI..tttd "tf.t bvtt~r. htt"ht'(U".t H.. tl1l ttt1tn&d temtr'f:ht' U~ 'till t1"p t.. \llllr t.. Ih.·..III..... ~'.I..I ... 0.', ,....11.... "P ....1.' tho ..~ . .'.11,"" ..1..1.1. UhIIJ Iho ..~I.II.. .r Ihll ~"~tOci. ~ bhhtc:tot Dees Contracting C~., Ine. ., t . 1fJ bAh _ April 28..1 1993 ,1Ut . ttkTltltAt£ bt tilE hUItt-Ht Ull utt IH~P~ttO" t ttttlf; thlt t hlY' ..tlt'*~ thtt ~"~"Ut.t~ ~~uttt Ah' t~l~ fo t~~ ~ttt or - hi \"D~t.d.. ~. httt&' 1t It I ttU6 thd tftttAtt Jt.t'M~t ~r ~otk þ~tto~d Aftd Mltt,..t. jbp,ll.d ~i th. t~~~'ctøt 'nd thAt tht t~ttActøtl. ttttl'l.d tt.~.~~~ of hit 'eeo~t 'Jt~ t~. '.tltmt dtl' hi.. It tðttHt Ahd 'juH IÞd that tI' \tot\t Ihd IUtUht ." thh ~.t~Ut"I~"t .'1u,,~ ~'ý' ~~.~ ~ttt~tM&& I" lotl 'tt~tdtnt' vlth th. t't6j tn' t~d1t'~t bt tht tb"tt.ti otd~t. ~d authötLttd ~'n.'. th~t.td. JIm .flldeht ~t'n"t .Htp~t~ftt. buu 1.... ... .. T--..... ttlultttAn bt 11\t !\JI£"~UItIO ARUlltttt , , t uttllf thAt I "hi YUHltd thh l(~h"ttrnll6t\~ k.,utt. ÌIi~ thU ~e U,. t.ut öt .., 1"~I.d1' Ih~ \'II,t It I, , ttut 'H' ~ött.~t .t.t.~t u ~b'~ r~tf~~ and '.t~r,.t. t.."plU It, thl ttttUle\et IJtd that the ttlftH.tttlt', He-UtlU tUhhtttt. &t hi. htowtt · , _"ð th6 iMo""t ddt hi. 't tbttftt IHd Jut~ 'hI that ." ~et. Aßd 'at~t"t l~ that I .&t~Ut.t.6"t ~t2u..t ~... ..'"'þfttd~td I~ tdtt attbt'lMtl .lth lht t,~ tn4 t~~ltt~~ '",. .wI. ¡"'.," ðf tht ton~t'tt &t~t. ~d Authatl.6d thIRI'. thltito. . . , tlü' . ~up.tiitLh' Atthl~'tt. bUtt - - I . M foltM öiU¡ 'Jut.t ',U, . " . ., 9123pro2 rev. 03123192 DELRAV BEACH ELEYATED WATEP. STORAGE rAN~ REHAB wgt. PdC!! ,..,Co.pIeh.., . X(qty S ilount __w___. _~__.._____ _~__ ___.____.P_ Itel I, Tank Exterior al SfU & Pressure wash A 4,49 11,340. (1(1 1001 11,340.00 a2 SSPC-6 Sandblast A 7.93 2Q,040.00 IOOX 20,040.00 a3 Pri." urethane A 3.06 7,740,00 IMY. 7,740.00 a4 Inter.ed.,epoxy polyalid A 1.96 4,')40.00 100X 4,940,()0 a5 Top coat,acr,poly.enalel A 2.35 5,940,00 1007. S,940.00 Lu~p SUI Rapairsl bl Regrout riser base A 0.04 95.00 1(10X 95.00 b2 Repl.an,hor nut J 0.02 55.00 1001. 55.00 bJ Repack valve at ri.er A 0.19 479.00 1007- 478.00 b4 Strut Hþl.UP to (11) J ],94 20,01)5.00 1001. 20,O¡;5,(lO bS Repl.fQds belQ~ bowl J 5.11) 13,030.00 lOOt 13,030.00 b6 Repair float guage J 0.44 1,120.00 100X I, t 20.00 b7 Repl,safe.device clamp J 0,12 300.00 100X 300.00 be Repl. 50sf ba1çony floor J 0.00 0.00 1007- 0.00 b~ R~pl.do.ecap nuts/bolts J 0.01 20,00 100X 20.00 bl0 Repl.entrance hatth .J 0.71 1,190,M 100'1. 1,790.M bll Repl.finial bolts J 0.02 52.00 1001. 52.00 bl2 Rep1.bolt&-d,(ap·to~roof J 0.12 295.00 10Q7. 295,00 p~----- _.~-------- --..---....---- Subtotal 34,55 87,300.00 87,300.00 Chinge Order II at S/U ~ PrøS5ure waih A -4,49 -11,340.00 IQ~~ -11,340.00 Water blast A 3.96 10,000,00 100~ 10,000.00 a2 SSPC·6 Sandblast A -1.93 -20,040,Ov 100Y. -20,040,00 SSPC-6 spot blait rust A 6,65 16,800.00 IOOX 16,800.00 a3 Prile, ur!thane A -3.01) -7,740.00 1007. -7,740,00 Surfa,e-to1!rant priaer A 2.95 7,200,00 10Q~ 7,200.00 ;14 Inter.ed.,epoxy polya.id A -1,% -4,940.00 10(\% -4,940.00 Universal letal prillr A I. 98 5,000.00 1007. 5,000.00 a5 T~p ,o;lt,acr.poly.enamel A -2.35 -5,940.00 1001 -5,940.00 H-a Polyurethane A 2.30 5,800.00 I {\OX 5,800.00 ~---- ----------- ..-------........ Hf Subtotal Bel I 32,50 62,100.00 92,100.00 Ite. 2, Tank Interior cl SIU, Scrape' Wash 5 3.95 9,995,00 1 MY. g,9B5,OO ~2 91ast ~ 5.26' 13,2~O.QQ 1007. 13,2~0.OO c3 Wash ~ inspect S 2.63 6,650.00 1001. 6,650.00 ,4 Blast & Pri.e S 7.89 19,925.00 1001- 19,925.00 cS Intermed, , Top Coats S 3.~4 9,950.00 1001. 9,950,00 ----- ----_.~---- ----------- Ut Subtotal ltel 2 23.67 59,900.00 59,800.00 , '. II::L ~~o: **118 P04 \/gt. Pr ice II II Co.p, Ith . II X(qty $ allount _______ .w...______ ___. _.~._______ Ite. 3, Repair Allowance 19.79 50,000.00 Ite.s In original bid: Day£ qty "ea _.- --- ---...-. 111 Strut replaevI8nt > 10 (ea. ) 22 1100,QO 24,200.00 2200X 24,200.00 d2 Repl.bale.floor > 50sf (lsf) 0 70.00 0.00 01 0.00 d3 Hise, fillet weld (/1 f) 0 14.50 0.00 01 0.00 d4 Weld pinholes (III. ) ~ 35.00 315,00 900X 315.00 d5 Rivet repltctleht (ea. ) 0 70,00 0,00 Of. 0.00 d6 Rtpl.lisc.(itrut)bolts (ea.) 0 60.00 0.00 OX 0.00 ~_~__ ___._~w.~_ -_.................- HI Subtotal It~. 3 .llow.usedl 24,515.00 24,515.00 Itl A.ount ~rt fro ~rig, bid1 25,485.00 It@1 4, Protection .1 Co.plett shrouding 12,500.00 IOQ~ 12,500.00 e2 Protllt cellular Iquip. 12,50~.OO 1001 12,5/)/),00 .-....------ ...--------- Subtotal Or19. It,. 4 25,000.00 25,000.00 Change Order 11 Reduction for shrouding -J2.500.00 10~X ·12,500.00 ...---- --------... ---------..- .u Subtotal Hel 4 4.95 12,500.00 12,500,00 Itel 5, Exter. Disposal f1 Hazardou~ .atfrial 24,000.00 100X 24,000.00 Change Order II Reduction for spotbl~st -12 OOO,O~ 100Y. -12,000,00 ------- _._._~.---- -..-----..--- tff SubtQtal Hell 5 4.75 12,000.00 12,000.00 Itel 6, In~ørior Di5p9¡al fH 91 Ha.ardous laterial 5.15 13,000,00 100~ 13,000.00 Chinge Order II, ildd'l,ItQ. fff Add for OSHA/EPA 9.20 23,250,00 loot 23,250.00 _._~___ _____w..___ --_.....,.....""- Project T~tals incl. Changeorder II: 100.00 252,650.00 227,165.00 ----.... ##S!I!ls..:s:== _==ate!!;c::: 89,9>: Addition.1 lie. 3 Repairs Add qty ~/ea . .. . COlpleh... . appro~ed 1Q/14/91 letterl Days $ aaount I(qty S a_ount ___ ww- _______ w_______~__ __aft ______4____ Itee 3 $ left frol orig,$50,OOO -25,495,00 11 Replace hatch curb (15.) 1 1 29~,f)O 290.M 100% 29Q.00 12 Rework up./int. ladder (1!i.) 1 1 725.00 725.00 100~ 725.00 13 Repl,cap vI vent (15,) ~ I B975.0Q 8,975.00 100Y, 7,975.00 14 Wing plate behind strut (ea. ) 0 435,00 0.00 0% 0,00 15 Repl.kurnbuckles (ea. ) ° 725.00 0.00 Or. 0.00 16 Repl,tie rod pin5 (ea.) 0 0 475.00 0,00 0% ~.OO 17 Tighten rods (eoJ,) 2 2 IQO.75 217.50 2007- 217,50 18 Install ladd,r cage Hs,) 10 1 7250.00 7,250.00 100X 7,250.00 19 Repair riser connect, (15.) I I 725.00 725,00 1001. 725.00 C~ul~ eye connections (ea,) 0 75.8(1 0.00 0.00 Paint base pedestals (Is.) 1 1325.00 1,325.00 100% 1,325.1)0 Sodding (City Portion) (Is.) 1 850, 00 850.00 IOOY, B50.oo Brass S~fity clilb (l s,) I 365.00 3G5.00 100Y. 365,00 Clean cars due to oversp C1 s.) 1 -435&.04 -4,356.04 100% -4,356.04 Additional Itel 3 Repairs approved Changporder '2: III Re.ov! int.spider rods (15,) 3 I &800.00 6,900,00 100~ 5,900.00 .2 6' piping ~ valve and 81,& p, 16'in pit Os,) 10 1 12600.00 12,600.00 1007- 12,600.00 Øl3 rurn , inst 'safety elilb' 2 I ~974. 00 5,974,00 lOOt 5,974.00 114 Polyur,caulk eye connect's 0 0 75.80 0.00 OX 0.00 --- .....-------- ....----....--- Subtotal 43 16,255.4£1 39,740.46 Credits to Original Contract b7 Repl.5afe.devic! clalp -300.00 100X -300,00 be Repl. 50sf balcony floor -500.00 tOox -500.00 b9 Repl.dollecap nuts/bolts -315.00 1001. -315.00 bl1 Repl.tinial bolts -52.00 1007- -52,00 gl Interior non-lead -13,000,00 1001 -13,000,00 ---------.... .........------ Tota) Creditsl -14,1f17.00 -14, 1~7.00 Net add' I, work/creditsl $2,088.46 125,573.46 SCHEDULE -B' TANK EXTERIOR 1 Caulk ,II svay end connections (u. ) 160 48.QO 7,G90.00 159 7,632.00 2 T~uch-up all 5por~dic area' of coating failure on tower. Os. ) o 8000,00 2,400.00 BOl 1,920.00 3 Blast and coat ru~tlng painter rods under tank bow) warrant vor~ 4 Blast all rusted areas and coat tank bovl, Caulk ¡round severe- ly corroded rivets after prile. (] s.) 1 3600.00 3,GOO.OO 5 Power tool clean ~ touch-up areaS of breakdown on balcony, hand- rails and tank shell, included in itell 2 above 6 pover tool clean ladder and cage included in itel 2 above TANK INTERIOR 1 Blast and recoat all rivet seals in tank (1 s.) 1 13636.00 13,63~.OO 100% 13,636.00 2 81iit entire lover bo~l sectlQn ~arranty \/ork , las' Sial seal, by by city -20&.97 3 'Bru_h-blast entire tank intorior surface' recoat wh,r, not blasted!ls,) 1 3J50.00 3,150.00 ~~X 2,041,S() 4 COlpletøly blast L recoat the ri~IT inter íor \oIilrranty wor~ 5 S,al seal all riv.ts . riv.t s'als to the high water .ark 115. } I 53'0.00 5,390,00 95'£ 5,120.50 Eo Caulk all lap seaas ¡bOVI the high w¡t.r line' structural st,.1 in th, rool arei! (15. ) I ~200.00 5,200,00 1007. 5,200.00 7 Bla~t ~ recoat all tank It riser I adder 51 a. Riser laddar var r anty wor k b. Replacl int.rior tank ladder and repilint per TEAK r,co..@nd. (15,) I 3500.00 3,500.00 50~ 1,750.00 STRUCTURAL 1 Repl. l@vlI indicator pulleys (l I.) 1 129£1.00 1,29&,00 0.00 0.00 2 Relocate lower ladder section under upper section on tank shIll. Con- nect çtring.rs . insurl equal dis- tance between rungs. R,lovt trucks Iró. upper ladder section. Add safety cli.b to this ladder sect, (15,) 1 3700.00 3,700.00 95:( 3,513.00 3 Tighten/Replace svay(connlctor)rods a, Tighten rods (ea,) 72 500.00 36,~O~.M 72 3&,000.00 b. Rep1au rods (!a.) e 1000.00 8,000.00 8 8,000.00 4 Contingency allo~anc~ for furthlf unforeseen structural repairs identified (is. ) 1 10000.00 10,OOQ.00 ...__wr..-..____ -----------. 1()J,552.()O 84,614.13 2,088.46 Hey project totali incl, Changeord!rsl S358,290.46 S339, 441. 05 ..sss::==== =~==:==Qc..;; t Coaphtion: 94.n 88.46 . . ... [ITV DF DELRA' BEA[H . . ~ .-< ~ ." --- . Writer's Direct Line (407) 243-7091 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 23, 1993- TO: City Commission FROM: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney SUBJECT: Elevated Storage Tank - Termination of Contract with Dees Contracting, Inc. The City received notice from Post Buckley Shuh Jernigan, Inc. on April 23, 1993, that Dees Contracting, Inc. has failed to correct past deficiencies in the work and that there are newly discovered deficiencies. See Attached. Pursuant to the General Conditions of the contract, we are seeking City Commission approval for termination of the contract with Dees Contracting, Inc. and permission to notify the bonding company. If you need further information, please contact me or Ralph Hayden. By copy of this memorandum to David Harden, City Manager, please ensure that this matter is placed on the City c~. April 27, 1993 agenda for approval. SA cc David Harden, City Manager Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk THE E¡::¡::ORT Al,'¡;"Y':) M~TTERS CJG " , ~ ¡IT' DF DELRA' BEA[H 100 N.W. 1st AVENUE . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . ., April 27, 1993 Mr. James Dees . Dees Contracting, Inc. P.O. Box 554 Savannah, GA 31402 Subject: Elevated Storage Tank Project 90-01 - Termination of Contract Dear Mr. Dees: We are in receipt of a letter from Post Buckley Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. dated April 23, 1993 regarding deficiencies in the work. Pursuant to Article 56 and 57 of the General Conditions of the Contract between the City of Delray Beach and Dees Contracting, Inc. dated October 4, 1991, this letter will serve as notice of termination. Pursuant to Chapter 56 and 57 of the General Conditions, the City is providing Dees the required ten days written notice of terminat~. This notice is provided in order to inform Dees that in ten days from receipt of this notice, the City will take possession of all tools, including all construction equipment, materials and machinery. The City also will contact the surety concerning the termination and look to the surety to perform pursuant to the performance and payment bonds. Sincerely, THOMAS LYNCH, Mayor cc David T. Harden, City Manager Ralph Hayden, City Engineer William Greenwood, Director of Environmental Services Alison MacGregor Harty, City Clerk THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS " [I" DF DELHA' BEA[H April 27, 1993 100 N,W. 1st AVENUE . DELRAY 3E_.....(~H :..~ '>-~ ~ì;' .,.,";.:..1 . " Ms. Jenifer Mihalkanin National American Insurance Company 5550 W. Touhy, Suite 400 Skokie, IL 60077 ~ Re: Elevated Water Storage Tank (90-01) Termination of Dees contracting, Inc. Dear Ms. Mihalkanin: Per Article 56 and 57 of the General Conàitions of the Contract. dated October 4, 1991 between the City of Delray Beach, Florida and Dees Contracting, I nc . , we have provided written notice to Dees Contracting, Inc. that the City of Delray Beach is terminating the Contract. Pursuant to Article 56 and 57 of the General Conditions of the Contract, we are hereby notifying National American Insurance Company that the City of Delray Beach is looking to National American Insurance Company to fulfill Dees Contracting, Inc's remaining Contract obligations for this Project. The City is now making a claim on the bonds executed between the City and the Surety on 6ctober 4, 1991 for the "Elevated Water Storage Tank" project. Specifically, the claim is being made on Florida Performance Bond No. NB82880, and Florida Payment Bond No. NB82880. We look forward to your cooperation in this matter and an expeditious closeout of this Project. Please contact Ralph Hayden, City Engineer in order to resolve this matter. Sincerely, THOMAS LYNCH, Mayor TL:me Enclosure cc: David T. Harden, City Manager Ralph Hayden, City Engineer William H. Greenwood, Director of Environmental Services Susan Ruby, City Attorney THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS " ~b\l bl;tb~&J LV~r,AUM \. -t-¿J-~J ;11;~1A.\l . '·ULL1\..:1 ¡ . . . . . - PBSJ ~~. [NGI"lllRlNG BUCKLEY. :"lAI'-'"\. !:..1(, SCHUH &. JERNIGAN. INC. April 23, 1993 Post·lt'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 ~ of 1)80" .3 To ~A~PH HA'10ëN 'rom ~\ c.. H CO'Clí'1 Or O~I.M, ,.-.1'4 Ca. ÿG S ,. "J" Mr. Ralph Hayden, P.E. Dep,. Co I r.., e-w(,, J~,.. Phon ~;)~4;.;z;:r Fax' 4c; 2+-:J-7Q60 F..., City Engineer . City of Delray Beach 434 S. Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Delray Beach Elevated Storage Tank Dear Mr. Hayden: I have talked to Garry Pettriess, PBS&J's inspection subcDnsultant, regarding the subject project. Mr. Pettriess has been on the site beginning Apri121, 1993, after a week's hiatus. Mr. Pettriess has discovered during the last two days that there are many improperly coated areas. Also previous deficiencies have not been corrected, The Contractor, Dees Contracting, Ine" has on several occasions been notified of non-compliance with the contract documents and it appears that this non-compliance is continuing, Some of the.~eficiencies that bave been discovered just in the last two days are as follows: 1. On the tank interior roof several areas are exhibiting mud-type cracking. This indicates excessive paint ßÙUage buildup. 2. At angles and plate edges throughout the tank excessive nùlJage is causing mud cracking. 3. There are areas where bare steel is exposed WI the second coat of paint has been applied. 4. In the bottom of the tank debris, sand and trash has been painted over with the second coat. S. A previous deficiency report filed 4/7/93, regarding rust areas on the tank roof was not acted upon. This is backed up by photos taken 4/21/93 and 4/22/93. Also in these areas, rust evidence is occurring through the second coat. Mr. Dees and Mr. Chambers have said that these areas in question were sand blasted and reprimed prior to applying the second coat of paint. Several areas were scraped with a knife by Mr. Pettriess. At these test areas rust was observed under the new second coat. 1560 ORANGE ^VENut. SUiTt 700, WINTER r...RJC., FlOIUD^ 31789-S'>44 . TUEPHON[, 407/647-7215 '. ,:,tA¡ tJ! ¡-'b)~'iJ LVí'(l. :m\11:". ; -i-¿J-tJJ ;11·¿:::._,. ~ . ~ .. - ., Mr. Ralph Hayden April 23, 1993 Page 2 6. Several other areas (6 to 7) that were rusting prior to 4/13/93 were checked on 4/21/93 after the second .coat was applied. Rust was occurring under the second coat. 7. The interior ladder which was previously primed is now rusting heavily through the primer. The contractor has been told repeatedly. to completely reblast and recoat the ladder prior to installation in the tank. No action has been taken on this item for over a month. 8. Tht:rp. is a large area on the tank. wall at the leg #4 rivet pattern which was not blasted properly, seam. sealed or primed. This area did receive the second coat ot paint over rust. 9. The Contractor continues to insufficiently staff the job properly to complete it within a reasonable time. 10. The Contractor has not taken advantage of several clear good painting days in the past. - '-, 11, The Contractor has significantly gone over the contract time. The Contractor is not taking a pro-acdve: rule: tv e:Avçdit~ (ompletioft of hi!; work. 12. The Contractor bas not complied with the contract documents in the past and he continues to flagrantly disregard the contract documents in his continued operations. In view of aU of the above, PBS&J and our subconsultant, S. G. Pinney and Associates, Inc., recommend that the City discharge the Contractur by written actiun ¡s,nd notify the Contractor's bonding company with written return receipt requested notice of the Contractor's discharge. The City has the right to discharge the Contractor based on Articles 56 and 57 of the General Conditions of the Contract. After ten (10) days' written notice to the bonding company, the City could contract with others to complete the work. If the bonding company elects to complete: the work, the City should insist thot any painters or others employed to complete the work be approved by the City prior to starting work. rm '.' ,...,11_ , .I..,J.. 1 U...JU\J \..VH.... .UJ.~j 1.". . -.I. _~ 1../1.-' . ~.£. _'-..... - .." " .....'"""'-"......~ 1_'.. _~""'_~ - . .... ~.... Mr. RaJph Hayden April 23, 1993 Page 3 PBS&J believes it is in the best interests of the City to relieve Dees Contracting, Inc., from any further duûes on this project. . If you have any questions, let me know. Very truly yours, ~ >:?~'C ¿ -J .,...1 J. Richard Voorhees, P.E. Project Manager c: W, H. Greenwood, City of Delray Beach L. D. Vincent, S. G. Pinney and Associates. Jne. W, R. Karasiewicz, P.E., PBs&J JRV¡dpjLEH'J.J9J.N1 --- '- lm ., , CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL/WORSHOP MEETING - MAY 4. 1993 - 6:00 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS AGENDA ADDENDUM THE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE: 2. Award of bid to Southern Bleacher Company in the amount of $81,700 for repair of storm damage to the - Tenni s Stadiumj with funding from Property Claims (Account No. 551-1575-591-45.50jBalance: $30,000) and CRA loan -repayment. '. - . , - BLEACHER COMPANY Eltablishcd 1946 P.Q, BOX ONE GRAHAM, TEXAS ,"SO . CALL TOLL FREE 800/433-0912 / IN TEXAS 811/549-0733 FAX: 817/S49·1g65 May 3, 1993 RECEIVED Digby, Bridges, Marsh & Associates NAY 4' 1993 124 N. E. Fifth Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Re: Delray Beach Tennis Repair DIOaV BRIDGES, MARSH & ASSOC Dear Digby: . The following i. a more detailed breakdown of the repair items per ,your request. \ ' 1. Remove estimated 11,000 feet of aluminum plank and guardrail material, 310 seat and step supports, 45 aisle rails, 200 chair support arms and 200 plastic inserts. 815.000.00 2. Install new material and existing material ' .' undamaged in item 1 above. _I. . . ...\. ,I... ::~ I ...... . ..,. .I.1LOOO.OO 3. New Materials -- 7,500 lineal feet of new seats, backrests, risers, walkwayø, rails and 310 new seat-backrest supports. One hundred CS200 green chairs. Jt8.700.00 Total -----~~-------~--------~------------ '81.700.00 Sohedule as follows I Material on site -------------- 6-8 weeks A.R.O. Installation ------- 3-4 atter material arrives. Sincerely, , SOOTllBD Br..~ CONP.UfY ~ Cfy/L 91:7;it- . Glenn McNatt - - Sale. Representative GM:ch A.LcAu~ Ño. 551..../575.....5'11-'+5. So Pnøp~~ W'h5 ~ ~~E- i- 3C!> C::Dc> ~ $ 'To S\JPP ~~ ÎD ~ J +81,.-,::0. Grandstands - Bleachers - Stadiums c;:ø C;J ~/S3 , , MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER FROM: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT~ RE: DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED NEW ORDINANCES FROM - - - NEIGHBORHOOD TASK TEAM -- DATE: APRIL 29, 1993 ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION: - - Presentation by Neighborhood Task Team (NTT) designated persons regarding proposed ordinances directed at creating quality living environments in residential neighborhoods. BACKGROUND: The Chairman of the NTT, Dave Henninger, gave a background and historic review of the NTT goals and objectives to the Commission a t the March 2, 1993 workshop. He a Iso gave a summary review 0 f new ordinances directed at overcrowded conditions, landscape requirements for existing single family units, prohibiting parking on front lawns and swales through residential neighborhoods in the Ci ty. A number of ci tizens present voiced concerns on the new code requirements and existing code enforcement efforts, stating both create economic hardships to many citizens. By consensus, NTT agreed to withdraw their proposed ordinance on the definition of family, limiting the number of unrelated persons allowed to live together. The City Commission gave their comments and direction for the remaining new ordinances. Chairman Henninger requested permission from the Commission to have the Task Team revisit these items, without the assistance of staff and bring their final recommendation back at a later workshop meeting. Task Team members will, therefore, present for discussion to the Commission their recomendations to consider directing staff to develop three (3) new ordinances as follows: (1) Prohibit Parking on Front Lawns; (2) Minimum Standards and Requirements for Designated Parking Area for all Single & Duplex Family Residences; (3) Minimum Landscape Requirements for Existing Single Family and Duplex Residences Constructed prior to October, 1990. A copy of each is attached for your reference. RECOMMENDATION: City Commission consideration and direction. Staff has not done a review of the proposed ordinances. LB:DQ Attachments 93MemLB WS/' ( Ord.Ntt " . To: Mr. David Harden, Delray Beach City ManaQer Delray Beach City Commissioners From: Neighborhood Task Team Date: April 30, 1993 , On April 8, 1993, our Neighborhood Task Team reviewed a report from our Swale Improvement Committee. They had met with the Department head of Environmental Services and had received alot of imformation . regarding this issue. It was concluded that a Swale Improvement Program would be both extensive and expensive and well beyond any effort that the NTT could make. Yet, the consensus of our members stonglY believe that the City of Delray move forward with a small demonstration project that would use the three Swale Improvement examples as shown on the enclosed attachment. In this way City staff, officials, and the taxpayers would have an opportunity to judge the effect and success of each type of improvement. - . Furthermore, your NTT voted to encourage the City to use the South Swinton Super Block concept as the location for this Swale Improve- ment project. This location for the Super Block was endorsed by the original NTT'several years ago and we believe it would coincide well with theupcominq Beautification Project which is in need of additional funding. The funding source for this Swale Improvement Project could be from Community Development Block Grant funds. This project seems to fall within the criteria of "removing blighted conditions" within the Target Area. If this does not fall w~thin the 9dtdelines for CDBG funds, we would like to urge the City to look f her into other funding sources for this Swale Improvement Project. CDBG funds should also be considered for other improvements to this Super Block and Swinton Avenue. Suggestions have been made regard- ing not only swales, but also driveway apron repair, roadway repairs, and curbing. The Neiqhborhood Task Team believes it is very important that the swale areas within our neighborhoods be improved. Such attention by the City would encourage pride in ownership and help prevent further·&liqht. . / South Swinton Avenue is an excellent location in which to Set The Example. Thank yOU for your consideration. . . ., - 6<:>0 -700 p.,-- ,J í¥-T"H . . . 6" STABILIZED SHOULDER 6" STABILIZED SHOULDER . . . W/ SEED AND MULCH COVER W/ SOD COVER (CUTEWHC CUDI . 0.") (CCKTEI1.IIIZ CWI . U') t' 8' S'w'ALE 8' SVALE 1 r . f . . . " ' . ,. . . , . , , . .;. .. ¡.... 00';' ," I: ,:. .0 .}.... 0° .;....... I: .#'. .. '. ' . . '. . .... , , " . . . ............ .. . .. ............ .. "t" . "roo . .' STAlLlln IIIV..IIOI .. .... ........ " ITAlIUX' IMU.XII .. .... ...... '" ._ FM .....~~~ cse .. FlY) .....~~ IAI£ Ir s,"JlUsn Jr ".'I«.IIU SU-....: .......... ESTIMATED COST ESTIMATED COST ITEM UNIT PRICI QUANTITY COST mw UNIT PRICE QUANTITY' CCSi SEED Ie MULCH S.Y. to.76 1,610 $1,207.50 SOD S.Y. 11.75 I.IUO $2,817.50 STABIUZED SHOULDER s.y, 2.25 1,610 3,622.50 STABIUZED SIIOULDER S.Y, 2.25 1,810 3,622.50 TOTAL *,,830.00 TOTAL '6,H~,OO 6" STABILIZED LIME SLUDGE 4" TERRA CELL !II GEOGRID " W/ SOD COVER W/ SOD COVER (CIH'I'IIIUHI OJWII . 0.") (tIJITDUJII ca&H . ....) 8' S'JALE 8' S'JALE .j ~1 "'YÐCJ f ..,. 1 ., f ., -.. _.. 1 ,.-..-.. - "Loo . " "AlLIIn LIIIt su.-.: .. .... ........ IS .. FlY) ... ..~~ II' ttAlIUZS:' ..... ESTIMATED COST ESTIMATED COST m:w tooT PRlCI qUAHTI1T COST mil UNIT PRICE quAHTJ'I'Y COST SOD S.Y. '1.'75 Ul0 '2,81'7.50 SOD S.Y, '1.15 Ul0 $2.817.50 STABIUZED UJŒ SWDGI S.Y. 3.150 Ul0 5,835.00 GEOGRm B.Y. 1.50 Ul0 15.285.00 TOTAL $8,452.50 PEA ROa C.Y. 15.00 270 4,OSO,OO TOTAL '22,182.50 CITY of DELRA Y BEACH NI AW DRAINAGE DfPROYBMBH1S PROIICT NO, 11-07 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~t:a SECTION A-A 434 80UTB SIINTON AVENUE, DEWY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 PACE ~ <, TO: Mayor, Commissioners, and City Manager FROM: The Npighborhood Task Team RE: ~Proposed Ordinance #1 - Restrict Front Yard Parking ..,-------- The following proposal regarding prohibiting the frequent and regular parking on front lawns is submitted for your consideration. The Neighborhood Task Team hopes that the Commission sees the frequent and regular parking on front lawns as having an undesirable effect on neighborhood standards, and that suggesting ordinances to prohibit such activity is an attempt to improve Jleighborhood standards. It is not the intent of this proposal to impose unrealistic standards on our neighborhoods or to unfairly impact our citizens. The Neighborhood Task Team feels that an ordinance restricting parking on lawns is an important ingredient in the improvement of our neighborhoods and urges the Commission to develop an ordinance consistent with the criteria presented herein. \ '. , PROPOSED ORDINANCE II . ~ . - , PARKING ON FRONT LAWNS The frequent and regular parking of vehicles on front lawns as visible from the street adjacent to the front lawn is prohibited under Chapter 100 of Delrays Nuisance Ordinance. DEFINITIONS: Frequent and regular means that parking in such a frequent and regular manner has an adverse effect on any landscaped area, or that it has an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Front lawn mAans any area that has not been approved and improved for the purpose of providing a designated parking area. Visible means as can be seen from the street or not otherwise screened from sight via an appropriate fence or hedge. RECOMMENDED MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT: First and second notification should be in the form of a warning with appropriate support material to accompany the warning giving justification toward compliance. Third and subsequent violations should be dealt with through the County Citation Program. . ~ , TO: Mayor, Commissioners, and City Manager FROM: The Neighborhood Task Team RE: Proposed Ordinance #2 - Designated Parking Area The following proposal requiring a designated parking area for the frequent and regular parking of vehicles is submitted for your consideration. The Neighborhood Task Team hopes that the Commission sees that standards requiring a designated parking area is an attempt to improve neighborhood standards. It is not the intent of this proposal to impose unrealistic standards on our neighborhoods or to unfairly impact our citizens. The proposal presented here addresses specific relief for those who might be unfairly impacted by either their financial or physical inability to comply. The Neighborhood Task Team feels that an ordinance providing for a designated parking area is an important ingredient in the improvement of our neighborhoods and urges the Commission to develop an ordinance consistent with the criteria presented herein. - PROPOSED ORDINANCE t 2 MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIREMEN'l' FOR DESIGNATED PARKING AREA FOR SINGLE & DUPLEX FAMILY RESIDENCES All single family and duplex residences where a motorized vehicle willbe frequently and regularly parked, must have a designated parking area to accommodate the frequent and regular parking of vehicles under Chapter 100 of the Delray Beach nuisance ordinance. Definition of Parking ~ All designated park1ng areas (other than cement or asphalt) must/should be outlined by an appropriate border designed to contain the surface material. Borders should be railroad ties, landscape ties, hedges, concrete traffic stops or other material approved by the City on an individual review basis. In all cases the border material must be substantial enough to tolerate vehicular abuse. Surface Surface materials may be cement, asphalt, shellrock, pearock, 3/4" rock, lime sludge, mulch, paver bricks or other material approved by the City on an individual basis. The material should be able to withstand the weight of a vehicle. Construction All installed surfaces must be excavated to a minimum of 4" below existing grade and an appropriate base be installed that will provide for percolation of water and inhibit weed growth. The surface material should be a minimum of 2" deep. *Note: In some cases such as shellrock and lime sludge, the base and surface can be the same. Size The size of the parking surface should be consistent with the use, but cannot exceed existing City criteria for the size of parking surfaces. Waivers to allow parking areas in existing setbacks should be granted where necessary, ie¡ 40' thru 75' lots. Waiver process should be granted without a fee at staff level, ie¡ waiver authority granted to Jerry Sanzone subject to review and approval by Lula Butler. Permits Permits to install a parking area must be secured and an appropriate sketch of the intended area be presented at time of permitting. A licensed contractor and sealed drawings should not be required to secure the permit. '. Proposed Ord. #2 Page 2 Permit Fees Fee should be waived (except for concrete and asphalt surfaces). Maintenance Designated parking area maintenance should include keeping surfaces free of vegetation growth and encroachment of surrounding vegetation and periodic replacement of deteriorated or settled surfaces. Economic Relief If a person desires to have a designated parking area but has proven under current City/State guidelines that they would be unfairly impacted and financially burdened by being required to comply with established (or proposed) standards, that the following relief be available: 1. Existing avenues of relief to include but not limited to: a. Boot Strap b. Community Block Grant c. Private Industry Council d. Neighborhood Task Team Volunteer Efforts e. Community Redevelopment Agency Loan Program 2. When funds are not available above and where an active Homeowners Association is in place, that the Community Improvement Department contact the Association preferably on a meeting date to establish a joint effort to accomplish the installation of an approved designated parking area. Under these conditions the City should provide services to excavate the site and install an appropriate base (ie¡ lime sludge) . The Homeowner and Association should be responsible to install an appropriate border and surface. (Note: Lime sludge could be use as a base and final surface) . Where an active Homeowners Association is not available, the City should work directly wi th the Homeowner to install an approved surface. 3. If Homeowner makes a valid effort to correct the deficiency, no code enforcement violation will be issued. The Code Enforcement division must verify effort made by the Homeowner. 4/29/93 DC Ordi2 '. , TO: Mayor, Commissioners, and city Manager FROM: The Neighborhood Task Team RE: Proposed Ordinance 13 - Minimum Landscape Requirements The Neighborhood Task Team suggest extending the existing nuisance ordinance regarding lawns or amending the Land Development Regulations Section 4.6.16H (Minimum Landscape Requirement) to include minimum requirement for residential property built prior to October 1990. Currently there are no requirements or guidelines for minimum landscape criteria for existing single family or duplex residences built prior to 1990. Section 4.6.16H of the Land Development Regulations set forth criteria for new construction. The criteria set forth for new construction is extensive and goes well beyond the objectives of the Neighborhood Task Team. Our objective in proposing this ordinance is to improve the appearance of existing single family and duplex residences as viewed from the adjacent right-of-way. Our proposal is directed at the appearance of front and side yards only. The requirements we propose are reasonable, cost effective and enforceable. The Neighborhood Task Team hopes the Commission sees our recommended minimum landscape requirements as an attempt to improve neighborhood standards. It is not the intent of this proposal to impose unrealistic standards on our neighborhoods or to unfairly impact our citizens. This proposal addresses specific relief for those who might be unfairly impacted by either their financial or physical inability to comply. . PROPOSED ORDINANCE 13 PROPOSED MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT FOR ALL EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX RESIDENCES FOR walCH BUILDING PERMITS WERE APPLIED FOR PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1990 A. Shrubs or other acceptable plantings (see attached list) shall be installed along the foundation of the front or side of the house visible from the adjacent right of way. B. All central air conditioning units and refuse containers visible from the adjacent right of way shall be screened with shrubs, trees or approved fencing material. C. The owner or agent is responsible to insure that all planted and grassed areas are adequately irrigated. The installation of an automatic irrigation system is encouraged, the source of water may either from City water or non-potable (well) water. D. The owner or agent is required to maintain the landscaping visible from the right-of-way in a neat and orderly manner, this includes mowing, edging, pruning, weeding and watering. Grace Period As soon as an ordinance is adopted and approved, the City should publish the proposed standards and their intentions to enforce by a date certain, the Neighborhood Task Team recommends that compliance should begin by October 1, 1994. Notification of the ordinance should be through newspaper or water bills. Notification should be in three languages (english, spanish and creole) and should be extended to all Homeowner Associations and City publications. The Neighborhood Task Team does not feel a review of all properties in Delray to determine effected properties is necessary. Identification of properties not in compliance should be done in pursuit of normal code enforcement activities and as identified by concerned citizens. Compliance Once a property has been identified as not meeting the minimum standards, the property owner must be notified of the requirements and an appropriate period of time (not to exceed 90 days) given to comply. It should also be established at that time whether the person has the ability to comply. Failure to comply or maintain (as in the above) should be dealt wi th through the City's Citation Program. ,. Proposed Ord. t3 Page 2 Economic Relief If a person desires to comply with minimum landscape requirements, but has proven under current City/State guidelines that they would be unfairly impacted and financially burdened by being required to comply with established (or proposed) standards, that the following relief be available: 1. Existing avenues of relief to include but not limited to: a. Boot Strap b. Community Block Grant c. Private Industry Council d. Neighborhood Task Team Volunteer Efforts e. Local Garden Clubs f. City Nursery g. Community Redevelopment Agency Loan Program 2. When funds are not available above and where an active Homeowners Association is in place, that the Community Improvement Department contact the Association preferably on a meeting date to establish a joint effort to accomplish the installation of minimum landscape criteria. Under these conditions the City should provide services to clear the site and work with the Homeowner and Homeowner Association to procure and install planting. Where an active Homeowner Association is not available, the City should work directly with the Homeowner to install landscape. 3. If homeowner makes a valid effort to correct the deficiency, no code enforcement violation will be issued. The Code Enforcement division must verify effort made by the homeowner. Recommended Plantings 1. Trees - Live Oak, Mahogany, Green Buttonwood, Gumbo Limbo, Pigeon Plum, Seagrape, Dahoon Holly, or Pink Tabebuia, and Palm Trees. Specifically prohibited are Earleaf Acacia, Bischofia and Ficus species. 2. Shrubs and Border Plants - Azalea, Chalcus, Cherry Hedge, Crown of Thorns, Croton, Eugenia, Firecracker, Ilex, Indian Hawthorn, Jasmines, Legustrum, Maui Ixora, Pittisporum, Podocarpus, Silver Buttonwood, Ferns, Giant Liriope, Springerii. 4/29/93 DC Ord'3 '. , \ 1019 Nassau St. De1ray Beach, FL 33483 April 14, 1993 Mrs. Jo Ann Peart 107 N.W. Ninth St. De1ray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Jo Ann: I have touched on the subject of growing landscape plants for the 'neighborhood' program to Garden Study Club. Already two people have stated they will start plants for the project. Our club was not at full strenght when we met. I would also like to present this project to the Garden Club Presidents of Delray Beach (Parlay) and see whether any of the other clubs would be interested in joining in the endeavor. Could we meet sometime this summer and further explore this'"idea and get things down in writing? We need to know the types of plants needed for specific purposes, size of plants, method of contact for needs and distribution, a list of available plants, etc., etc. I'm sure we can find some that are interested in helping and they might know others. The idea sounds good. I am willing , to find what support is available through the Garden Clubs. Sincerely t 7 ~~.~~ Pat Canning' d Garden Study Club . '. COMMUNITY ORIENTED CODE ENFORCEMENT AN AL TERNA TIVE STRATEGY CREATED TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT AND MORE INTERACTIVE PROCESS BETWEEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF AND CITIZENS; TO MUTUALLY IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS IN AN EFFORT TO MAINTAIN A QUALITY LIVING ENVIRONMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THE CONCEPT PROVIDES FOR: >Breaklng down the barriers of C( mmunicatlon between the Code Enforcement Officers and residents, . >Customlzed approaches to problem·solvlng within a neighborhood making the Individual officer responsible to citizen concerns aod complaInts. >Permanent assigned areas rather than the traditional rotation schedule. Allows the Code Officer to become Intimately familiar with common neighborhood problems and repeat violators, >Gets the Code Officer out of the car and interacting with residents. Requires Initial contact In persòn with affected property owners prior to the Issuance of a violation notice, >Citlzen support for Code Enforcement efforts affecting their neighborhood. >Shared responsibility under Communtty.orkmted Code Enforcement. Provides the opportunity for citizens to develop ownershIp when assisting In problem-solving, Requires active role by citizens. >Dlfferent approaches to different neIghborhoods, Each neighborhood problem can be unique, Incorporates neighborhood meetings for consensus-building and problem·solvlng. Educates citizens on code enforcement activities. ~ . " .., . , . Agenda I tem No.: AGENDA REQUEST Date: 4/29/93 Request to be placed on:1 Regular Agenda Special Agenda X Workshop Agenda When: 5/4/93 Description of agenda item (whol what, where, how much): Consideration of proposed ordinances from the Neighborhood Task Team ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: Draft Attached:~NO Recommendation: Direction Department Head Signature. )..~..~~_.._==.. / / I ...JiJ L/ Determination of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: . City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable): Budget Director Review (required on all iteas involving expenditure of funds): Funding available: YES/ NO Funding alternatives: (if applicable) Account No. & Description: Account Balance: City Manager Review: f!)/ NO Þ~0 Approved for agenda: Hold Until: Agenda Coordinator Review: Received: Action: Approved/Disapproved " . . . .. d\ tt^'1 MEMORANDUM ---------- TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER FROM: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT~ RE: CONSIDERATION OF SELECTED BEAUTIFICATION TO LAKE IDA ROAD DATE: APRIL 27, 1993 ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION: - - Presentation of the conditions of the landscaping along Lake Ida Road, generally from Congress Avenue to Military Trail, accompanied with a request from residents for selected improvements. BACKGROUND: Alice Finst and Patrice Durden, from Chatelaine, and Art and Adell Jackel from Rainberry Bay, requested a meeting to discuss the condition of the landscaping along Lake Ida Road, considering proposed 1987 beautification project committment. The Utility Tax Fund allocated $193,000 for beautification. Due to uncertainty about the road widening, it was apparent that the money could not be spent within the time period required. This money was ultimately used for other beautification projects with a commitment for funding Lake Ida beautification through the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan. The Citizens were interested in improving private and public properties as well as upgrading the landscaping within the right-of-way. Some of the conditions identified could be remedied via enforcement with adjacent property owners or through the involvement of specific City Departments. Other areas would rely on the funding set aside in the 1987 Utility Tax Fund for improvements. The concerns and requests from these four individuals, as well as Staff's analysis and cost estimate are provided below. AREAS OF CONCERN: -- 1. Citizen Comment ~ Proposal The abandoned Public Utilities Facility just east of Congress Avenue is unsightly. Sections of fencing have blown down and the landscaping along Lake Ida Road could be upgraded. They have requested that the City provide a buffer to screen the facility from Lake Ida Road and to have better maintenance of the swale area. 1 wsj:J- '. . . - Staff Comment The ultimate use of this facility needs to be determined. Lake Ida Road widening plans designate the swale area directly in front of the Utilities facility to be used as a water retention area. Any buffering would have to be done south of the property line and not within the right-of-way. If funding were available, the perimeter of this facility could be landscaped for approximately $3,500.00 providing there is a functional irrigation system. 2. Citizen Comment ~ Proposal There are three vacant parcels along Lake Ida Road. It has been suggested that the City obtain an easement along the perimeter of these properties to accommodate a landscape buffer. One of the parcels is located at the SE quadrant of Lake Ida and Congress and is void of any vegetation except weeds. Diagonally across the intersection is the second parcel, in the NW quadrant, which is nicely wooded, and the third parcel is much further to the west, along the north side of the road, at the entrance to Lake Forest South. We discussed the use of Oleander bushes, since they are very drought tolerant, fast growing, fairly cheap and when planted in a double staggered row, would provide an effective screen. Staff Comment Relative to the first parcel in the SE Quadrant of Lake Ida and Congress, roughly 480 linear feet are adjacent to Lake Ida, while the west property line abutting Congress runs 1,200 linear feet. Cost projections to remove a 5 foot strip of sod the length of the property, to install 1,120 Oleanders, to mulch and to provide for the services of a watering truck for 2 months would cost $13,636.00. The second parcel in the NW quadrant has a 360 foot frontage along Lake Ida Road and a 890 foot frontage on Congress Avenue. Costs to provide a perimeter buffer similar to the one described in above, would cost $10,375.00. The third parcel on the east side of the entrance to Lake Forest South was originally a recreational tract for Tall Pines. More recently a proposal was submitted for a day care center which was denied. A perimeter landscape buffer of Oleander shrubs would cost approximatley $3,300. In all three cases, Staff does not feel that the expense is justified. Not only the initial expense, but the on-going maintenance. Although there has been a precedence in that the City landscaped lots on West Atlantic Avenue in the 'Greenway Plan', the difference is that we were using the landscaping to not only improve the appearance of a blighted area, but to keep cars from parking on the vacant lots and to decrease 2 '. , . a loitering problem. 3. Citizen Comment ~ Proposal A gateway entry sign for all the developments was suggested. Essentially this sign would have a sketch of where along the road a particular subdivision was located. It would have to be determined whether or not the County would allow such a sign within the right-of- way. Staff Comment Relative to funding such a sign, this expense is typically borne by the effected developments. I am not aware of the City providing this type of identification signage anywhere else in the City. 4. Citizen Comment ~ Proposal Traveling west, along the north side of the road are the subdivisions of Rainberry Lake and Rainberry Bay. The Citizens felt that these developments were well landscaped and needed very little improvement. The two noted exceptions being the lack of trees in one section where there is a rather imposing hedge, and the condition of the swale, between the bike path and the edge of pavement of Lake Ida Road. They suggested that additional trees be planted along the hedge and that the condition of the swale be improved. Staff Comment Strict enforcement of the minimum landscape requirements coming into effect October 1, 1993, would provide the ability to extract improvements to the swale area from the adjacent developments. Staff has not pursued compliance to this extent, and is looking to Commission for direction in this matter. Approximately 20 additional flowering trees could be installed along the hedge for approximately $4,000. The fact that the right-of-way area is irrigated by virtue of the adjacent developments helps ensure their survival. 5. Citizen Comment ~ Proposal The Citizens felt that the entrances and surrounding walls or fences in connection with several subdivisions were in need of maintenance. Relative to Lake Forest South, they felt that the entry wall and landscaping needed some sprucing up. Other developments mentioned were Rainberry Woods and Chatelaine. They felt that the entry landscape features into Rainberry Woods were shabby and the many different types of fencing along the backlots of Chatelaine were unsightly. Mrs. Finst requested that the City provide landscaping within the right-of-way adjacent to Chatelaine to to screen these properties. 3 ., · - Staff Comment The masonry wall surrounding Lake Forest South has some mildew and needs to be pressure cleaned. Outside of contacting the Homeowner's Association at Lake Forest. and asking them to consider cleaning the wall. there is not much we can do. The situation does not warrant a citation. Since the meeting Rainberry Woods has relandscaped (coincidentially) their entry features. All of the fencing around the development has been replaced within the last six months. and is uniform in nature. Their Oleander plantings along the fence are in demise due to a disease called Witches Broom. These plantings were done voluntarily by Rainberry Woods about six years ago and it is not really a requirement that they be replaced. They are being maintained as well as possible given the fact that they are diseased. We can talk to the Homeowner's Association to see if they are going to give any thought to replanting. With respect to Chatelaine. some of the lots along Lake Ida already have vegetation that helps screen the neighborhood, but others are totally barren. Staff does not feel that it is appropriate to provide landscaping adjacent to a particular development, when others have accomplished this through assessments to their Homeowner's Association. Again, the ability to establish plant materials without irrigation is labor intensive. 6. Citizens Comments ~ Proposals Mrs. Finst mentioned the poor condition of the lift station that was north of the lift station at Sunflower. Staff Comments - I did not see this on my site visit and need clarification on this subject. It would have to be east or west of the lift station at Sunflower to be on Lake Ida Road. 7. Citizens Comments ~ Proposal The condition of the swale adjacent to Barwick Park was an area of concern. Mr. and Mrs. Jackel and Mrs. Finst agreed that Barwick should be a show place. It was also noted that the hedge around the parking lot at Fire Station # 4 needed to be installed. Staff Comments During the site inspection is was noted that the swale in this area was no different than the swale adjacent to the rest of the majority of Lake Ida Road. It was also noted that the hedge around the parking lot at the Fire Station needed to be replaced. 4 ., . . Input from the Parks Department is needed on these improvements. It would seem that if the City should require adjacent subdivisions to improve the condition of the swale, that Barwick Park should upgrade the right-of-way as well, and Parks should anticipate this expenditure in funding requests. If this is not enforced to this degree, it would probably be a matter of priorities and available funding. The hedge could be installed with City labor at a cost of approximatley $400.00. Improvements to the swale would be difficult. The primary reason the swale looks as it does is because there is no irrigation. Input from the Parks Department indicates that the irrigation system to the Park is utilized to its fullest, and additional zones cannot be added to provide coverage to the swale area. It would be pointless to replace the existing sod without irrigation, however, costs to remove the existing sod and to replace 1,375 linear feet in a 13 foot depth would be roughly $5,000. 8. Citizens Comments ~ Proposals Traveling toward the east are the single family homes that front Lake Ida. Most of these properties have lawn that is in very good condition. Two or three properties need attention. One property is in foreclosure and is overgrown with weeds. The citizens felt that this area would benefit from trees being planted along the right-of-way. Staff Comments Some properties have sufficient landscaping that has been carried into the swale area. Many have nothing in the swale between the street and the sidewalk, anticipating that this area could be eliminated if the street were widened. If we have assurance that the street will not be widened in the next ten years, and if the County would permit the trees to be planted within the right-of-way, the City might try to establish something similar to an adopt-a-tree program. In this instance the City would install the trees , but the maintenance would be something the property owner would be responsible for. This would include watering, fertilizing and pruning. The trees could be planted without an agreement with the adjacent property owner if the City was willing to assume the maintenance. There are 20 to 25 locations where trees could be planted. Initial planting costs would be between $4 and $6 thousand. S '. ,.., . . 9. Citizen Comment ~ Proposal There is a small portion of the right-of-way east of the single family ho~es that is totally devoid of sod. Staff Comment Bahia sod could be planted in this area at very little cost to the City, roughly $400. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES -- Area II 1 Public Utility Facility $ 3,500.00 Area II 2a Vacant Parcel SE Quadrant 13,636.00 II 2b Vacant Parcel NW Quadrant 10,375.00 tI 2c Vacant Parcel Tall Pines 3,300.00 Area II 3 Gateway Entry Sign ?????? Area II 4a Flowering Trees/Rainberry Bay 4,000.00 II 4b Upgrading all swales (Com. directive) ------- Area tI 5 Perimeter screening Chatelaine ?????? Area II 6 Lift Station - Need Location ?????? Area II 7a Upgrade Swales Barwick Park 5,000.00 II 7b Install hedge Fire Station II 4 400.00 Area tI 8 Shade trees in front Single Family Res. 6,000.00 Area II 9 Install Bahia Sod in bare r/o/w 400.00 --------- $46,611.00 RECOMMENDATION: Commission discretion is recommended. 6 '~ '. . .~..~ ~.~\ M E M 0 RAN DUM To: David Harden, City Manager Through: Lula Butler, Community Improvement Director ~ From: Nancy Davila, Horticulturist/Special Projects Coordinator ~ Re: LAKE IDA ROAD (CONGRES~ TO MILITARY) LANDSCAPING Date: December 16, 1992 I have been asked to give an assessment of the landscape potential on Lake Ida Road (between Congress Avenue and Military Trail), Although it is not currently on the County's Five Year Improvement Plan, the County is reviewing the construction plans (90% complete) which suggests to me that there is a good chance that the road will be widened in the future. This section of Lake Ida is roughly 2 miles in length. There are no medians, all existing landscaping is currently by virtue of the subdivisions and businesses along the road. Powerlines exist along the south side of the right-of-way, just south of the sidewalk. This will become the ultimate right-of-way/property line when the road is widened. The north side of the road has no power lines, but is does have a bike path, The ultimate right-of-way along the north side is generally in line with the existing fences and hedges. No curbs exist, which would require a greater offset for trees from the edge of the adjacent travel lane. County standards require an 18 foot offset for tree planting at a design speed of 45 miles per hour on arterial or collector roads with ADT's greater than 1500 per day. The existing conditions are described below: Military Trail to Barwick Road .... North side - County Manors, well maintained hedge along r/o/w. South side - Wood fence with Oleander clusters. Barwick Road to Canal --- North side - Barwick Park - beautifully landscaped. - Lake Forest South - masonry wall and natural pines. South side - Chatelaine - No cohesive buffer for subdivision. 1 " ,. Canal to David Road ---- North side - Rainberry Bay - fence, hedge and clusters of landscaping. South side - Delray Shore - 30 single family residences, This is the worst looking area due to vast differences in appearances and no consistency in landscaping. Large expanse of sod in r/o/w not always well maintained. Davis Road to Congress Avenue North side - Rainberry Lake - fence and landscaping, South side - Businesses, Grocery Store, Day care, Delray Shores Professional Plåza, Winn Dixie, all adequately landscaped. At this time it seems to be more a question of when the road will be widened and not if. With that in mind, it is hard to recommend that any significant landscaping be done. The most simplistic approach, which would be to establish shade trees at 50 feet on center, would cost $80,000 due to the length of the road. ( Being 2 miles and considering both sides of the road is over 20,000 linear feet; the number of trees at 50 feet o.c. is 400 trees at $200 @ is $80,000). To be very candid, I don't think the current appearance of the landscaping along the road is bad enough to warrant that type of expenditure. The $80,000 only covers the cost of installation. Since there is no irrigation, we would also need to consider the cost of getting the trees established via a watering truck. ... 2 .. 01( CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION DOCUMENTATION t'lt'1 SUBJECT: ELMS BILL MEETING 1993 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING During the last legislative session, the ELMS BILL was passed. The ELMS BILL is comprehensive and is 181 pages in length. It has 83 Sections. It provides significant changes to the 1985 Growth Management Act (Chapter 163) and other Chapters of the Florida Code. There are significant implications relative to Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, and municipalities in general. 'r Items of significance, as they pertain specifically to Delray Beach, include the following: 1. Philosophy: * Protection of private property rights * Compensation for invalid exercising of police powers * Streamlining review processes, shift of decision-making to local units of government * Greater flexibility with respect to concurrency * Protection from misuse of environmental regulations 2. Affordable Housing: * Formulation of an affordable housing program * RPCs to have a strategic policy re affordable housing 3. Interlocal Governmental Coordination: * Required process * Required local dispute resolution * Program extended to school boards, special districts * Administrative Rules within 6 months * Compliance by December, 1997 * When implemented, will take-over the DRI process * Involves more than Plan Amendments 4. Transportation Element: * New requirements, formatting * Basis for concurrency exemption for "urban infill areas" 5. Coastal Management: * Creation of marina siting plans * Greater emphasis on emergency preparedness plans * Greater emphasis on post-disaster plans WS/3 ., , y city Commission Documentation Elms Bill Page 2 5. Coastal Management: (Con't) * Redefinition of the coastal zone * Redefinition of hazard area * Acquisition program (not by locals) * Coastal Resources Interagency Management Committee 6. Concurrency: * More flexibility * De minimis * Urban infill area exemptions 7. Plan Amendment Process: * Changed to an "objection" basis * Process shortened when there is no objection * EARs - deferred for another year. Ours is due November, 1995 8. Enclave Annexation: * Allows annexation of enclaves which are of 10 acres, or less, upon interlocal agreement with the County. 9. fteqional Planning Councils: * Changes in definition * Changes in powers * Reduction of "areas" of interest * Strategic plan required for -- affordable housing -- economic development -- natural resources of regional significance -- regional transportation -- emergency preparedness * Conflict resolution role 10. Establishment of Local Health Councils: II. Local Option Gas Tax: * Countywide * 5 cents additional allowed 12. D.R.I. Rule Amendments: 13. Model Storm Water Manaqement Proqram: DIRECTION: This information is presented for information purposes only. However, the Commission may direct the Administration to pursue a course of action on any item which is now available to us, under this legislation. T:CCELMS " . , Ø4-1S-93 14:Ø9 P. 8. CO. r-luNIC.l.,~;r-;... '_Ci .,._., - - - . Palm Beach County MUNICIPAL LEAGUE P,Q. BOX HIS;, GOVERNMENTAL CENTER, WEST PALM BEACH, FlORIDA 33402 (407) 355,4464 RECEIVED MBMORARDUM APR J 5 '99J 'lOa All Hayon ~na9.ro CITY MANArf9'S nFFICE PR: Jack Horni xecutive Director Palm Beach County Municipal Le e Øl'. April 15, 1993 RBI Florida League of Cities Board of Directors II ****....******...*.*...*...............*........***. II The Florida Leaque of Cities at its Pebruary 1993 Board meeting adopted a revision to its Board of Directors membership. Under this plan, Palm Beach County's membership will increa.e from one member on the Board to four members. Ratification of this plan will be required at the Annual Florida League of Citi.. meeting in August of 1993. In anticipation of that ratification, the Palm Beach County Municipal League Board of Directors is .eeking names of ~.~o O"ICTaT~ who would be intere.ted in serving as a member of the Plorida Leaque of Cities Board of Directors representing the Palm B.ach County Municipal League. Please submit names with a brief description of background and interest to the Palm Beach County Municipal League office by May 28, 1993 .0 that the Municipal League Board of Directors can review those name. submitted and be prepared to make recoøonendatione and nominations for the additional s.at. at th~~Plorida League of Cities Annual me.ting. Your attentíon in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. wS/4 " 04-1S-9] 14: í:J:.."j,'u.,_":d'IL ~ __ . ';',..¡, "kJ Palm Beach County MUNICIPAL LEAGUE p,o, BOX 1989. GOVERNMENTAL CENTER, WEST PALM BEACH. F~ORIDA 33402 (407) 355-4484 IIBIIORARDUII '1'01 All Mayors and Managers .-. Jack Horniman, ~ Beach county Municipal League Bxecutive Direc~ D'll April 15, 1993 1/ lUll Palm Beach County Bconomic SwrIIIÚ. t " ....................*.****......*****.****..******** The County will be conducting an economic summit on June 8, 1993 to develop .hort term strategies to bolster the local economy. County Commis.ion Chair, Mary McCarty, is solie1 t1ng economic sWlUllit ideas to be discussed at the June 8th meeting. The Municipal League Board of Directors, at its April 14th meeting, sugge.ted that all cities be informed of this reque.t and encourage each city to provide its ideas to the County commission for the upcoming .wmnit. Attached is the fOrJD that was created by the County to be filled in and .ubmitted by May 3rd to Sam Shannon in the County Administration Department, 301 North Olive Avenue, We.t pa1m Beach, PL 33401. The municipalities are encouraged to .how support to the County in this effort. Also, the County comaission is soliciting name. of interested municipal melllbera to participate at the economic swmnit. If anyone in your city·i. interested in becoming a participant, please submit n.... to S.. Shannon a1eo a. Boon as po.sible. Also attached is commi..ioner McCarty'. letter reqardinq this reque.t. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. \ '. ... ':OXOIIIC 100000I'l' IDD. 1. Title [brief but descriptive): 2. De.cription of Economic stimulua Idea [brief description of the .trateqy): 3. Tarqet outcome (What reault. will be produced in term. of either capital formation and/or joba]: Capital Formation: Job Creation (estimated # and type]: ¡ , , 4. County Contribution [Staff time, financial, policy change)* 5, Ia the .u9ge.ted strategy dependent upon other strateqies? .... ye.,whlch?' 6. ".t Reali.tic Outcome (What i. the beat we can expect from thi. atrate9Y realistically?) ( 7. Worat Po..ible Outcome (What ia the wor.t that could happen it thia .trateqy were puraued?) *(If you are unaure leave blank, county ataft will analyze). . .. ,. 04-15-93 14: 11 P. 8. CO. MUNICIPAL LEAGUE SJ6 ;:¡05ClS - Board of County Commissioners County Administrator Mary McCarty, Chair Robert Wrisman Ken L. Poster, Vice Chairman Karen T. Marcus Carol A. Roberts '" I" Warren H. Newell ~ :' Burt Aaronson Maude Ford Lee March 23, 1993 Mr. Jack Horniaan, Executive Director PBC Municipal Laaque 301 Nor~h Olive Avenue W..t Palm Beach, Florida 33401 SUMMIT Dea ~ On 8th, the Board of County Commissioner. will be conduct~ng a .pee al workshop to identity and prioritize actions that should be taken to stimulate the county's economy. This day lonq workshop will be focu.ing on immediate and short term steps the Board can take to a..ist in bolstering the local economy. It i. anticipateð that the workShop participant li.t will include approximately 20 individuals in addition to the Board member.. In order to as.ure that this workshop involves a strong cros.-section ot the county, it is requested that you provide this office with recommendations ot po..ible participants. In making these recommendations, it is requested that you include a description as to experti.e or .pecial contribution that the individual will bring to the workshop. It is anticipated that we will receive many more r.comm.nda~ions than the number ot participant. to be .elected, theretore, this de.cription ot what the person will brinq to the table will be critical in .electing the tinal participant list. It i. reque.ted that you distribute thi. request to the various mun!cipalitié8 and ask that they provide nominations to Sam Shannon, Bxecutive Assistant to the County Administrator, at 301 N. Olive Avenue, We.t Palm aeach, FL 33401 by April 16th. If there are any questions concerning this request, please don't he.itate to contact me at 355-2204. .---- ,.,;''''''' ry McCarty, Chair ty Commissioners Dact cc: Board of County Commissioners ~^n Equal Opportunity. Affirmative ^ction Employer~ C_""__ Box 1989 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402.1989 'AX: (to'T) 3ß.S981 "