05-07-91 Special/Workshop
'.. .
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING - MAY 7, 1991 - 6:00 P.M.
FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
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 Sðction 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 First Floor
Conference Room at 6 P.M. on Tuesday, May 7, 1991.
This meeting has been called for the purpose of considering the
following:
)lo Request for an Appeal of a Planning and Zoning Board Determination
of similarity of use to allow a commercial boat dock as a conditional
use in the Central Business Zoning District (CBD) .
J2. Ratification of Appointments of nominees from the Ministerial
Association and Plumosa Elementary School to the Kids and Cops
Committee.
~'f!}J,tH.wp f/afi(
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
WORKSHOP AGENDA
(15 MINS. )1. Presentation by Mr. Jim Vance - Western Wellfield (Morikami Park).
(20 MINS. )-/2. Preliminary Designs for Fire Station No. lo
(15 MINS. ),/3. Update on AS400 Computer System.
(20 MINS. )-4. Mid-Year Budget Review.
(30 MINS.)/ 5. Discussion regarding exchange of jurisdiction (S.W. lOth
StreetjSwintön Avenue swap).
(15 MINS.) 6. Commercial and Multi-family Recycling Proposal.
Agenda
Special/Workshop Meeting
5/7/91
(15 MINS. )/7 . Discussion/direction regarding Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade
Program.
(l5 MINS.)! 8 . Fourth of July Celebration:
A. Fireworks Permit Conditions (Fire Department).
B. Possible Additional Activities (Parks and Recreation
Department) .
(lO MINS.) 9./Naming of mini-park located at the northwest corner of N.E. 7th
Street and 5th Avenue.
(lO MINS.) 10. Proposed Water Conservation Plumbing Fixtures Ordinance.
(l5 MINS.) 11. Drug Abuse Task Force.
(l5 MINS.) 12. Response to Palm Beach Post Editorial of May 1, 1991.
(l5 MINS.) 13~ Reconsideration of Rebate Policy - Municipal Golf Course.
14. Commission Comments.
-2-
. . . ,
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING - MAY 7, 1991 - 6:00 P.M.
FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
ADDENDUM NO. 1
THE WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE:
13A. Proposal from Delray Beach Railroad Depot Association.
·
DELRAY BEACH RAILROAD DEPOT ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL
MAY 7, 1991
The Delray Beach Railroad Association offers to the City of
Delray Beach, the property and building known as the Delray Beach
Train Station. The property consists of 1. 78 acres adjacent to
1-95 and Atlantic Avenue. The historic building on this site is
suitable for office use. Potential revenue generating leases
include funds totalling approximately $300,000.
The proposed terms are:
(A) Purchase land and building for $625,000;
(B) Lease land and building for $4,900/month, net lease;
(C) Lease/Purchase available.
Upon acceptance to any of the above, Depot Association will
assign lease contract negotiations for land and building to the
City. The facility has been functioning as a multi purpose
transportation hub, serving Delray's residents with Amtrack,
Tri-Rail, Co-Tran, Cab, and Limo Services. This visible property
serves senior citizens, courthouse commuters, church and school
field trips and others.
After having discussions with the City Manager's office and
prior to Tri-Rail service ceasing, a letter dated April 30, 1991
addressed to the City Manager's office (Attention Mr. Harden and
Mr. Barcinski) was received. The letter reads as follows:
This letter is to confirm our recent discussion with your
office regarding the City's position pertaining to the property
at the Delray Beach Historic Train Depot. The letter stated as
follows:
(A) The City does not wish to discuss a short term lease;
(B) The City does not wish to discuss a long term lease;
( C) The City does not wish to discuss lease purchase; and
(D) The City does not wish to discuss purchasing of
property.
Should these responses be different than what your in-
tentions are, or if you wish to clarify any of the above, please
contact the City immediately. As your are aware Tri-Rails
eviction will leave Delray with interruption of service.
Mayor Lynch stated the City would like to see Tri-Rail work
something out in order to stay in the City, but he feels that the
price, at this point, is unreasonable. The City will work with
Tri-Rail, but the matter should be worked out before it is
brought to the City Commission.
If the applicant would like to bring the plan before the
Site Plan Review and Appearance Board for review, they would be
happy to look at it.
,,'
Excerpt from City Corrmission Special/Workshop JYeeting of November 20, 1990.
TRI RAIL/DELRAY TRAIN STATION
Assistant City Manager - Robert Barcinski
The City has received a letter from American National Bank,
the mortgage holder of the Delray Beach Railroad Station proper-
ty, inquiring as to the City's interest in acquiring the proper-
ty. American National is about to foreclose on this property.
The outstanding balance of the mortgage is approximately
$500,000.
The structure on the site, submitted by the previous owner,
consists approximately of 10,200 square feet, of which 1300
square feet has been renovated to date.
Tri-Rail is still interested in maintaining the station in
Delray, their preference is at the Delray Beach Railroad Depot
site. Their second preference is the original site. Tri-Rail has
certain requirements in maintaining the station. At this time
they need approximately 50 to 60 parking spaces as well as a bus
turnaround at the site. Tri-Rail has $275,000 available for site
improvements and also has funding available to extend the exist-
ing platform.
In 1991, Tri-Rail will be assessed, and in order to keep
Tri-Rail going it will have to demonstrate a 40% fare box re-
covery rate on the extension lines; from 79th Street to Miami
Airport and from Boca Raton to West Palm Beach.
One alternative would be to develop the existing site with
the proper parking, landscaping and water and sewer requirements.
That would provide approximately 50-60 parking spaces that
Tri-Rail needs and also to lease property from Mack Industries
for the bus turnaround. Other than site acquisition, the cost
involved would be roughly $300,000 to do the paving, landscaping,
drainage and water and sewer.
The second alternative was to develop an access off from
Congress Avenue, develop parking west of the railroad tracks and
have a pedestrian crosswalk to the station site. This alterna-
tive is a little bit more expensive; not only would there be
acquisition costs for the railroad setting there would be acqui-
sition for parking on the west side of the tracks. Paving,
drainage, etc. would be a contingency cost.
The third alternative would be to keep the access off Lake
Ida Road and would expand the parking for the future needs of the
Tri-Rail as well as improve the access way for providing water
and sewer. This cost for property acquisition, which could
require some property acquisition from Mack Industries to provide
bus turnaround, a drop area and some additional parking is an
estimated $1,435,000.
The last alternative, the least desirable by Tri-Rail, would
provide 87 parking spaces at an estimated cost of $310,000.
Mayor Lynch
Tri-Rail has stated Delray is a good station for them and
they would like to stay there. The City would like to keep
Tri-Rail and also keep the train station.
Mayor Lynch stated it would be a good idea for the CRA to
look at this one more time.
Mr. Andrews
Mr. Andrews stated a vote on the Tri-Rail issue should be
put on the agenda and then decide on a specific period of time to
discuss the gentlemen who would like to open a restaurant at
this area.
This should go on the agenda for December 11, 1990.
General discussion:
The foreclosure motion was denied.
·
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER tþi1
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #~ l - SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 7 1991
APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING DETERMINATION
DATE: May 3, 1991
We have received an appeal of a Planning· and Zoning Board
determination of similarity of use which allows consideration of a
"commercial boat loading area" as a conditional use in the Central
Business District. There is also an additional appeal regarding. the
determination of parking requirements for a boat operation.
The appeal alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board improperly made
a determination that a "commercial boat loading area" is similar to
other allowable uses in the CBD. Further, the appeal alleges that the
method for computing required parking spaces was improper.
The Commission must determine if the Planning and Zoning Board acted
in error with respect to the determination of similarity of use. If
it is determined that they did, then a commercial boat landing will
not be permitted in the City as it would not be an allowable use in
the CBD and there is no other commercial zoning along the Intracoastal
Waterway. Alternately, the Commission may wish to formally establish
this use and enact an ordinance adding it as a conditional use within
the CBD.
As to the parking requirements, the reference used for arriving at
the required parking for this project was the Land Development
Regulations Section 4.4.13 (G)(l)(a), which provides:
"The parking required for the creation of new floor area shall be
at the rate of one space for each 300 square feet, or fraction
thereof, of floor area in addition to the replacement of any
previously required parking which may be eliminated."
A detailed staff report, along with the letter of appeal and attendant
attachments, are enclosed as backup material for this item.
$PI l
· (
'Þ3:t;;;
C~
,
C J. T v COM MIS S ION DOC U MEN TAT ION
TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
ù\""
~ wæ ~ ~crv--tt<.b
FROM: DAVID J. KOVACS, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
SUBJECT: MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1991
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF SIMILARITY OF USE
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COMMISSION:
The action requested of the City Commission is that of
reversal of a determination of similarity of use made by the
Planning and Zoning Board which allows consideration of a
"commercial boat loading area" as a conditional use in the
Central Business District zone district.
An additional appeal has been filed regarding the
determination of parking requirements for a boat operation.
BACKGROUND:
The appeals have been filed by Dominic A. DePonte.
Cruise Boat Operation: One appeal alleges that the Planning and
Zoning Board improperly made a determination that a "commercial
boat loading area" is similar to other allowable uses in the CBD
Zone District. His argument is based upon improper information
being provided to the Board by the Planning Director. The maj or
claim is that there would be no use involving food consumed on
the boat. Please refer to the January 14, 1991, letter from
Stillwater Cruises to Mr. Handlesman which contains the wording:
" ...with lunch available on board leaving at 10:00 a.m. and
returning ..... . The Stillwater may operate also a dinné!
cruise on Wednesdays, Thursdays, "
. . . .
It later states: "Food shall be supplied by the 'Canal StreE"t
Restaurant' (formerly the Bridge Restaurant) or by an outside
caterer."
Mr. DePonte provides information from a March 26, 1991, meeting
in which he (Mr. DePonte) alleges Stillwater Cruises stated that
they did not contemplate providing food on-board. At your April
16th work session, Stillwater Cruises clarified his March 26th
comment.
City Commission Documentation
Appeal of Determination of Similarity of Use
Page 2
If the Commission rules that the Planning and Zoning Board acted
in error, then a commercial boat landing will not be permitted ~n
the City of Delray Beach as it would not be allowed in the CBD
and there is no other commercial zoning along the Intracoastal
Waterway.
Other options available to the City Commission to allow for such
a use to be established is to enact an ordinance specifically
adding the use to the CBD Zone District.
Parking Requirements: Section 4.4.13(G)(1) of the LDRs overrides
the parking requirements found in Section 4.6.9 and cited by Mr.
Deponte. Section 4.4.13(G)(1)(a) provides:
"The parking required for the creation of new floor area
shall be at the rate one space for each 300 square feet, or
fraction thereof, of floor area in addition to the
replacement of any previously required parking which may be
eliminated."
The above section is what was reported to the Board and is the
only basis for determining parking requirement needs in the CBD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion, rejection of both appeals as entered by Mr. Deponte.
Attachments:
* Letter of January 14, 1991, from Stillwater Cruises
* Appeal submission from Mr. DePonte
DJK/#80/CCDETERM.TXT
S j[9 E F~ F~ 11 i~ lnRJœ~ k~
.111- .
. . k;:. .....)
~.~ .!! ,~
@1ll1IlfESJRS .~~ ~~~~~~~;;?~
~@!!!'~~~~~~fJ~ ~
. . .~
. =. _ r:- ___ _ _____ -- .,-
Boynton [)each, FlorIda
734·8642 14 '~~~~~~9~~
January
Hr. Handelsman
840 E. Atlantic Ave.
Delray Beach, Fl
p\..ANN\NG &. ¡ON\NG
Handelsman:
Dear Hr.
Please let this letter serve as a follow-up to our previously
discussed proposal for operating the Stillwater sightseeing,
luncheon and dinner cruise boat from your vacant parking lot
at 840 E. Atlantic Ave., Delray Beach.
PROPOSAL .-
(1)jStillwater sightseeing cruises will berth and operate one ( 1 )
United States Coast Guard approved, 150 passenger, 65:foot,
10uble deck replica character type steamboat 'arm the affore-
mentioned address. The vessel vill carrY;-'passengers everyday
north and south on the Intracoastal Waterway (or scheduled
sightseeing cruises vith lunch available on board leaving at
10:00 a.m. and returning back to its berth in Delray at 3:00p.m.
The Stillwater may operate also a dinner cruise on ~ednesdays,
Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The dinner· cruise vill leave at
7:09 p.m. and return at 10:00 p.m. A slightly cut~back
schedule may occur during off-season months.
(2) CLIENTELE ON BOARD
Families, tourists, group functions, wedding parties, business
meetings and. retirees.
(3) FOOD
Food shall be supplied by the "Canal Street Restaurant-
(formally the Bridge Restaurant) or by an outside caterer.
(4) TICKET OPPICII
A small area at the east end of the parking lot shall be set
aside for a small ticket office. This ticket offl~e does
not require toile\s or plumbing only ~lecttlc ·to it.
. . ,
.
. '.
. . .. ..
. ..
.
.
.
5 ) HOORING A~D OERTn
The vessel shall berth directly east of the parking lot and
just south of the "Canal Street Restaurant~. The boW' of
the vessel will face north', the stern south, with the port
side against fenders along the seawall. When leaving,
the vessel will bacK astern to the south away from the Atlantic
Ave. bridge. When returning the vessel will again approach
from the south. The vessel. will have it's own. gangplank for
boarding and un-boarding of passengers. The need for
construction of a dock Is not needed for this operation and
thus not requiring permitting. A small area of vegetation
(not Hangrove I) ....ill be trimmed back for gangplank use.
6) BOAT REFOSE
. .
The t....o dumpsters that supply the restaurant shall also
accommodate the boats refuse. .
. .
For further discussion on this proposal you may reach me at
telephone 407/ 496-3858 or 407/734-8642.
Since~. ~~
4!7 ~/.~ ~ --
Capt. Dane L. Hark
Stillwater Cruises
3400 Lakeview Blvd. .
Delray Beach, Fl 33445-
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
; 2J >- i
-L-A.<::..--
-., ,. ,.. - . - ~ :,û?-'-":-. ~ ~
. -. . . .
=-==:7 _=~~: --=--=~~~=:==~== =============~====~~=~~~===~====~==~~
~===~===~~==============~========================~===============
.' . ': -r 1 ~7~-??"'~
~ ('" C' , -,Qc:_.......¡:'''~
-' -
A·....,.".' ' q , ê\ Q 1
. , - . . -
M:s. Ali30n Mac :':; r e '? .;J r - ~ ·3 r t y ~~1D)
CP:y Clerk
'2ity <) f :)-::lr3:1 Be3.ch ~-~&~
100 ~r . r,.¡ . 1st Avenue
!Jel:;,y 3e3ch, F'lorida 33444
~ --. ......-
?e: .lI.;::,p'- :(':~+: i0n ç) r C'')ndit:'"'n31 '_'s e ApprJ'1 '\ 1 . .
t 'J t:l-:e ~(:)~: r:.-¡ :in') ~ 1 a :"'.:'. ~ :-: 'J 3')3. r ,j of
¡f !)e:r3Y Beach.
Lac a t i 'J n : P31m Square, Boat Ticket Sales Office.
ArJpll.::::\",:: C03st31 Properties
J -:a r "'1"0:: ~arty:
~ .... - .
r r.erøcy res p e c t f 'J 1 1 Y submit my Notice of Appeal and the Appeal
proceS3 action to the City Commission of Delray Beach from action
~aken ~y t!1e Planning and Zoninq Board of Delray Beach, Section
2.4.7 (e) by providing the following information:
1- The action which is being appealed is the action
take-n by the Planning 3.nd Zoning Board in consequence
af an interpretation of "similarity of use" as set O'Jt
in Section 4.3.2(c)(2) made by the Director of Planning,
wherein a finding was made and an interpretation submitted
and recommended for action by motion to the Planning and
Zoning Board that the use of "commercial boat dock" as
being similar to other allowed uses in CaD Zone District
as follows:
a. Restaurant use and the attendant parking
requirements thereof;
b. Place of assembly for commercial entertainment
purposes.
=::::::=:=====:=====:=============::::==:========================
===============================================================:=
24 MARINE WAY, DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33483
S' AGS ':'1";0
S~id findings and interpretat:on were based ~por. 3. ~~r:~:~
st3.tem~nt of E3.ç+,:s :t:".d th-=se f3.cts were ~elie~ '1 C 0 r. 1~
t~'jthflll lnd acc'Jr~te by the S'lanning and Z8:'1:' n(~ gC3~~,
Historic Preservation Specialist 3nd Communtty
Redevelopment Agency; and in consequence th.~recf, ~ ~;~
Planning and Zoning Board acted favorably on the
recommendation.
Whereupon, by said action of the Planninq· and Zoninq
board, the use of a "commercial boat dock" was permitted
CBD Zone District and an application for conditional use
approval w,",s permitted to be filed with the Planning 3nt1
Zoning Board, when in fact that particular use for a
"commercial boat dock" is neither identical to the uses
permitted in said CBD Zone District nor does it have any
similar characteristics to the allowable uses in said
CBD Zone District.
2. On October 31, 1991, David J. Kovacs, as Director of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, responded to a letter
from Digby Bridges dated October 16, 1990, seeking
permission to operate a Pleasure Boat on the intracoastal
waterway, see Exhibit "A" attached. Mr. Kovacs mad e a
finding in accordance
with the power vested in a Director in Section 4.3.2(c)(2)
that the requested use is not identical but has similar
characteristics to allowable uses. In his staff report
to the Planning and Zoning Board on November 19, 1990,
Mr. Kovacs stated as follows: "I feel that the
(contemplated] use is similar to other uses such as:
restaurants (B)(3) and places of assembly for commercial
entertainment purposes (D)(14).f' See attached Exhibit
"B", Kovacs letter dated October 31, 1990; and Exhibit
"C", Memorandum Staff Report for November 19, 1990
Planning and Zoning meeting.
The Planning Director made his findings, set out above,
based on the disclosures made to him in said Exhibits
"A" and "0", wherein a description of the use was
set out very clearly by the applicants and its agents
and representatives, and a copy of said Exhibits ft Aft and
"B", were sent to the above listed ~gencies.
DA~::: ""~?:;:~
Howe'l~r, there was ~o ~e~tion of food bei~g ~cck~~ :r 3)::
or provi'j~rj in 3r.y manner, on 33irj ~r'..Ji3~3 ' r ;:~:i3~::""~
boat ride3 in,=, i the r o·f these l-=tters. ~or ·....a3 -::r--.-?:--= " .~ - ~
menti<)n~d in the A p P 1 i cat i 'J n fer c <) n d i t i 1"\ n <3 : 1J:3 ~ t: : ~ .,:) ~
~ ~ - - -
-'ipplica:1t following the action of the Planning and : .: :; ~ :- .:
80~rrj; se~ 3 t t ·3 C h ~ rj Ex h i bit "!)" ';.,Th a t the:1 '....3 s th~ 21":~::
Eor the finding of similarity of use of a re:3taurant if,
in f.1ct, there was no food to be provided as was recently
discovered?
1. ~he findings and interpretations submitted to the Planning
~nd Zoning Board, Historic Preservation Board, Historic-
Preservation Specialist and Community Redevelopment Agency
were made based upon:
a. Misinformation or erroneous information, or mistaken
- information on the purported use of a " Co mme r c i .3 1
Boat Dock" with characteristics similar to a
"restaurant" which was misleading to persons re1l<n'J
on Director's findings and interpretation
and recommendation. A statement set out in the
Director's report merely identified a "restaurant
use" with no elaboration. The av-erage person wC1ulri
reasonably assume "food" would be served when the
term restaurant is used, mainly because of the basic
definition of the word.
b. Mistakenly quoting out of context, the language set
- out in Section 4.4.13 (D)(14) to a description
as
of the use permitted for places 1 ASIINlf)l.ý for
Commercial Entertainment purposes in said section
with characteristics similar to a "Commercial Boat
Dock" which was misleading to persons relying on
Director's wording of his findings and subsequent
interpretation and recommendation.
c. In the discussion and deliberation about the parking
- requirements for the the Director and
uses,
consequently the Planning and Zoning Board only
considered the restaurant use parking requirements
and mistakenly or by over-sight did not consider the
parking requirements for public assembly use in
CaD and CF Zone which was being incorporated into
said parking lot.
In~each case above where mistake is referred to , it is
to~~~ued that if, in fact, it was not a mistake, then
th~other logical reason or basis for making a
findings or interpretation,based on the lack of proper
and correct facts/would be fraud and/or deceit. I
respectfully suggest, in each instance, that I prefer
':),\ ~~ F:'.·~
- - . ~> :....
::J J:hat 3 :nistake or ovo:!r-si:;h': W3::3 ::;ade; b ''': ': ~
a3sume
~eel I ;:'\11S t quot~ -=3C!ì I)f t!ìe :egal ~ 3S ~ S ¡: - ..
Appeal.
:'he 1::'15:':3 fr;r ~n Appeal, t!ìen in each ,.,f these 'ibove :':1s:.3;;ce.::, · -
-
th.3t the law is very clear that any findi.ngs or dec is i or.s b 35 ej · ~
· .,
mistake, fraud or deceit, as in this instancl::!, ~/ i z .. 2~i:--:.:
d:3r:I)'lereda:1d supported by t:ne new 'Sworn te:stimony ,)f ~3ptain C'3:'1e
Mark 0:1 March 26, 1.991, and other evidence to be set out in ..j~t3~:
Infra, ; - '10 i dab 1 e .
.L~
In all cases of mistake, fraud and deceit, the "time" for a right
,) f Appeal or (..: 0 11 r s e of 3ction does not start to toll except fr)m
the Jate of the discovery of the mistake, fraud or deceit.
Appel13nt, theref')re, has ·3 curr~nt right of
appeal for a hear i ng.
As to the matters set out above, the following evidence and leqal
support for each argument is set nut for P3ch item as f 0 1 1 ,'ws :
(<.3-1 ) At a r'ecen t City Commission Meeting on March 26, ~9ql
- Captain Dane Mark, who is the owner of Stillwater
Cruises, testified that it was never contemplated by
him to provide food on the pleasure boat ride from its
inception. A copy of the tape of his statement is
available at City Hall and marked Exhibit "E". The
statement made by the Captain was consistent with
the description of the proposed operation set
out in Digby's letter, Exhibit " An
zoning and application, Exhibit "0", wherein no
reference was ever made as to providing
food. The fact is that the use was never contemplated
to provide food from the very beginning. And
furthermore, the Captain stated very clearly that
his operation is totally separate from the restaurant.
He stated " I want to clear up an erroneous story. "
A one year lease has been entered into with Stillwater
Cruises to operate the "Pleasure Boat ,. or ·"Cruise
~". Captain Mark, as owner and operator of the
boat, would be the main person to know if food is
going to be prepared or sold or provided on the boat.
He would, by necessity, have to plan for appropriate
staff, heating facilities or cooking facilities which
do not exist on his boat, plumbing for washing dishes,
disposal facilities, people to distribute food,
hot/cold, even if catering was planned, (which was
not), etc. Captain Mark clearly, unequivocally, stated
at said meeting that "no food was planned to be
provided on the boat."
!? AGE F I ':E
'Juery, where dd this r-. 'J f fOQd CJme f;:: Jm 3.3 J f
nO~lO:;
the date of finding, interpretation and deC~3tOn of
November 19, 1991???
At: the November 19, 1? 91 meet:ing,r.':> !11emr-ers :f t"~
Planning and Zoning Board asked any questions 3bout
food, presumably because they relied on the good f3ith
of the Directcr's findings. Clearly a Profess~cn31
Director who s t ,3 t e s .3 restaurant use, understan,js :} r
should have understood the reasonable perception this
connotes to the average person and Board Member.
If the Director was mistaken as to food being served,
then the resulting action was voidable because the vote
ti-1ken by the Board was based on: mistake and
misleading information. If the Director knew there was
no food to be served, hypothetically then, it would
appear that he would be guilty of a fraudulent and
deceptive use of power entrusted to him by the
Regulations, but I like to believe it was the former.
The tape recording of the November 19, 1990 meeting,
relates that Mrs. Aleida Riley, a resident of Palm
Square, who attended the meeting, asked the question,
"what type of food and drinks will be served?" The
Director immediately intervened, did not answer the
question, but changed the direction of the conversation
and never did r~turn to answer the question. ( I invite
everyone to hear the tape. )
In the light of Captain Markts remarks about an
"erroneous apprehension of his relationship with the
Canal Street Restaurant "and" lack of food on his
boat~ we can assume that the Director either made his
own inference about food being served for "dinner
cruises" from publicity or other~ise, and thus
was in error and made a mistake; or k nOWf there
was no food being served and thus his findings
were made for reasons of deceit and fraud. I
prefer to think the former is true.
Without "food" being associated with a "Commercial
Boat Landing" activity, there is no conceivable way
that a similar characteristic of restaurant use could
be found for a "Commercial Boat Landing", or "Cruise"
or "Pleasure Boat Ride" or Sales Ticket Office"
PAGE SIX
(A-2) A "Dinner Cruise" would have been a link to a similar
---- characteristic to a restaurant, but the boat had ~o
~alley nor did operator intend food to be served.
E'Jrt~ermore, Appendix "A" I)f
the LOR provides a list of definitions which includes
"~est3urants" and describes it 3S "An est:iblishment
where food is prepared and served Ear pay,
9rimarily for consumption on the premises in a
completely enclosed room under roof of a main
structure or in :in interior court."
So lacking food being prepared I)r served, there is
absolutely no way that this Pleasure Boat Cruis~ Rije
could have any characteristics similar to a restaurant.
In total frankness and fact, the "Dinner Cr1Jise" '.....:¡5
a myth!
The basis of an appeal, in this instance, is that the law is very
clear that any findings or decisions based on mistake, fraud or
deceit, as in this instance, being discovered and supportedlbÿ the
sworn testimon of Ca tain Mark .Y\ I\\.Iot 2~ 1991, and subsequent
lnvestiqation is voidable. In all cases 0 mistake, fraud and
deceit, the "time" for a right of appeal or course of action does
not start to toll except from the date of the discovery of the
mistake... ~d or deceit, to wit; April 2, 1991. Applicant
therefore has a current right of appeal for a hear ing for ten
working days from April 2, 1991-
As to the matter set out in (b)
supra, the following evidence and support thereof is as follows:
(b-l) Section 4.4.1.3 (D)(14) is relied upon by Planning
--- Director as another use with similar characteristics.
He recites in his report that the Commercial Boat
Landing is similar to "places of assembly for
commercial entertainment purposes", purporting thereby
to properly and completely quote the above section. But
I submit, to you that these words were taken out of
context and applied improperly. Section 4.4.13(D)(14)
provides specific uses to be permitted as follows:
"Ð(14) Playhouses, Dinner Theaters, and Places of
assembly for commercial entertainment, e.g.,
concerts, live performances."
The Director improperly quoted and· interpreted this
this section by mistake, fraud or, deceit. I
prefer to think it was mistake.
.
PAGE SEVEN
To take this paragraph ~n its f -111 text and
,..:s i ng proper legal interpret:¡tion 3nd : e -J -3 1
C"onstruction of the text of the 13nguage : !î
the Zonirlg Ordinance, the use "must b~ 5 i m i l3 r ....,
Playhouse, Dinner Theater, viz arts and cancer':3
concept, etc. ; And because of the us e ,~ ¡: "Q . J .
~ .
(Exempli gr a t i a ",) which literally mea::s "::'~r ::c'=
sake of an eX3mple" - this example then "Lves '.13
further narrow guidelines and definition for
interpretation of that category. It requires that
':iny interpretation of a commercial entert::li:"',m!'>:,;':
nature is to be like a "concert or live
performance. . " as opposed t(') music generat!'>d from
t3Des radio provided by iHIS . boat.
or as crULse
--:.- -
There is no way that the intent and purpose of
this Ordinance includes a "Commercial Boat Landing"
and "Ticket Sales Office", - no'C any similarity
to it!
Lacking any similarity of a Playhouse, Dinner
Theater (we now know there is no food to be
provided as set out in (a-I) above) and places
of assembly for "concerts" or "LivF!" performances"
in a "Pleasure Boat Ride" or Cruise, the assumptions
made by Mr. Kovacs are mistaken and incorrect.
Again, I submit that Mr. Kovacs either made a
mistake, or if he knowingly took words out of
context, it would be fraud and deceit. I prefer
to assume the former, again.
And the same c(')nclusions of law would apply in this
instance, as previously set forth which would permit
a right of appeal ten working days from April 2,
1991.
(C-l) The "restaurant use" enabled Mr. Kovacs to tell the
- Board that with respect to the parking requirements
issue, CBD has special parking requ~rement of 1 space
for each 300 square foot of space on the boat which
equals !.Q. parking spaces requirement for the
applican~to provide. When a few Board members
stated their shock and surprise and lack of
? .;t~E E:: '~~T
understanding 3S to this r~quirement. ~~e
~~::-'?':"t')r inf'Jr:ned them that "this 10'.... C"ED r -=(~1,j i r e:"ne:,; t
:: f ;:Jarking was done to enCJuraqe restaU:C3nts ':0 ~:::!e
to Delray - let's not scare th~m away. If
This ir.ter9!'etation Jppe·:Hed to be "'/fOry" ~ ~ 1 ~ f '_: : ... ~
the Applicant's cause because of the limit~d ~3r":~:l::
area space available to them. And yet, neither the
Director ncr Mr. Digby Bridg~s nor any member of the
Boarri m~de the observation that the other ";;J1Jrpor':-='~"
similar use was for "public Assembly" for
entertainment had its own parking requirements were
not "disr.ussed" or considered. I?ursuant to
Section 4.6.9(c)6(a), parking r equ i r emen ts, where '~ J \
P '] b 1 i c assembly, sets out 2 formulas to be applied:
( 1 ) . Regulations require .3 of a parking space for
each seatinq space viz. 150 divided by 3 = ~ spaces
required; or ( 2 ) one space for each 50 square
ft.viz." 3,000 divided by 50 = 60. The code further
-
provides "whichever is greaterlf!
So that a minimum of 60 parking spaces is required
:=
for public assembly use even with proposed CF zone.
But we all know that Applicant can't provide for
these amount of spc1ces '2t this location. They don't
have sufficient land area even with the CF land.
The 60""' reduction as suggested by Mr. Bridges, in
said tape and the Director's staff report, Exhibit
"c" as done in Boynton Beach, is not a reasonable
solution in this particular instance. Unlike Boynton
Beach, this plat adjoins residential property to the
"West" and "South", and bounded by the Intracoastal
Canal on the "East". This is not the case in Boynton
Beach. Their's is totally surrounded by downtown
commercial 'Zone district. If this plat was on the
corner of Atlantic Avenue and Route ,. 1, as similar
to Boynton Beach, you then justify this adjustment
approach because of other available downtown parking
spaces----but not in this instance! The Applicant
should have been told of these parking requirements
in addition to the supposed "restaurant us e" --
-another incident of mistake or fraud or deceit. I
prefer to think 1t was a mistake or over-sight.
1"14 I' If,...... N. r 0...,. """ II . ". '" otJ HAv. " 'PI//]", C AI J~""'h1
Vh..~\4 I.""y (.ol'lc.,..,r/tA7'.OM .f PAIL",,. Co \J S t FeR. IM.~ "'tAF~I\/l'
on.. "' t, P VlCt ~ I,)S~.I ~
.
?AGE NINE
'T' ~ ... ~ l' f be i n g sou q h t bas ed ') n (a) a b 0 v e , i s t 0 d i ~ qua ~ :. : '!
4 . .' e .. .- - ~ e 1 . ~ ; ",.., ¡:..., r " r- '! :1 d ~ +: i 'J :13 1 'J S e 0 f ~ ¡;:> ¡;:> 1 1 cat 1 2 :-: ,
....h'" 7"",:-,.'1 3.pp lC~,-.", -- ? - 'D ..
',.- : ";¡..,. fact ~hat the c'J:"1templ.3':ed ":-=,mmerc~al Boat cck
jje.o~"e '- . D7 ,",;~~...:~t ...¡...",
. ~hen would not be ¡;:>ermitted 1n a CB ~one ~'~'----' '.'
~ S P. , : . f- C ,..., a 5 r aLP roo e r tie 5 S h 0 '.11 d be:: e e me d :1 U 1 1 :ì r. d
aDD~1=3t10n 0_ ~ - - .
:;;i,:!· 3.3 3.n 11npermitted use and contr3r~ t,) the Zon1ng
regulations of the City of Delray Beac...
!=' 1} r the r mo r c, reI i ~ f c 3 n ·31 sob C sou q h t : 0 r (b 1 .3 b 0 ve .
in3smuch as it is 3n unpermitted use, but also~:),J~~~'î·q ':>;~
~arking requirement of a public assembly, 60 ~arki:1q 5~aces
w0uld be n~eded, However, the property cannot pr0vi1ø
the needed space to permit that many cars, therefore the ~:3':
cannot qualify for this use.
5. The name of the applicant is Dominic A. DePonte, a property
owner who resides at 24 Marine Way, Delray Beach, and whose
property is located within 200 feet of applicant's property
and is seriously aggrieve~ thereby.
Thp applicant, as a near-by property owner, feels the illeaal
use, if permitted, would be detrimental and adversely affect
the nearby public appearance in an Historic District, and
comfort and convenience of the neighborhood which wou11 be
congested with traffic and safety on the Intracoastal
waterway in the vicinity of his property. Every cruise bO.3t
landing located in Dade County, Sroward County and Palm Beach
County are all located contiguous to and part of a commerr.ial
complex and not part of or adjacent to a residential area.
I find it incomprehensible as to why this cruise boat would not be
more logically docked on the north side of the Atlantic bridge. If
the actual intent of the boat is to stimulate activity in the
downtown Delray area and to induce people to utilize other adjacent
fdcilities in the downtown Delray area, this would be a pr ime
location. In addition, this location would resolve most of the
inherent problems, le., parking, traffic congestion, seawall
condition, prnximity to bridge.... . . ',of M,4-Þ4'T' .IIP"¡ 141.\,I' FINhN<'I~1.. w..s
of "..c i\"I..AtlTl(. 'PA"I"'OM loti". c.",,,,, ~h.e"..~'1 ß,l~.~\"" F~WIf\ 1"60\,. Ab~e\ ~~~<.!!'
T"". 0" 2' 1c.1"~. ~ · I HO~ ~o "004" . . ",or US" ~ IJT .,... ,.,., "0'" c...... ¿, . ~ "''''.OAl ' .
I shall await to be advised of the time and date of a hearing for
this Appeal.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~ t1 Û~
Dominic A. DePonte
24 Marine Way
Delray Beach, Florida 33483
DAP/ram
Enclosures
EXI1)g¡ ¡ "A;'
Digby Bridges, ~Iarsh & AsSOcIates, P.A.
124 N.E. 5TH AVE~CE. DELRAY BEACH. FL 33483 ..
407-278-1388
*-- -_. --- -------- ------ _. -
. .- - -- - -- ".--- - ---- - - . - - --- _.. ----
..-.-- - --------_._~--_..._-_.- --..-----.---. -- ,.
J~''- _. ~_~_=~_===_=...:=_=_=-==._~__:._=__==.=_.-_=_:__:~_ ---. =..- _.
--- ------------ - -- _. _._-- --- --
- ---- . -------- ------------ ._-
-- --- ---.---- --- - ----- -,-- -
. .--- . ------ ------. .-- -- - r?Q'-;:::'-;-'1; ""'"=~ .
íf), II.I'¡ , -
16 Cctober 1990 U~~;}:d"":':"':' .... ':"<,..,'
I'r" . "" L~'ù
I...J..,¡ I .... .
C i t Y 0 f Del ray Be a c h . .' ..... _ _ ("', '.
Attn: :--1=. David Kovacs ?'..A,',,~;.~l.:;:":' --,' .~
Planning & Zoning Depart~e~~
100 N. W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 334·j,j -
- .,
R h 1 B a ~ T 1· .... ke'" c: a 1 <> c: C'::'::, C e ~ ,+-.. 1 - .; a 0"\'" ~..., r·· 1· - - '- e.:1
e: (:. easur~_ _ ~.~~J '-. ~ - ~""- ___ or ".__~.._ .,_ rU. .'\, ".' .~_ "'-
Dear David:
t~ are writing to request clari~~=3~ion a~d r~lings in w=::~~g en
the following proFerty o~ hew to ascertain for ou~ clie~~ ~~e us~
of this property ~~ a b~5i~e5S === the ~ellowing, or ~~ fù.c~ now
fer any business now O~ said ?rc?erty. T~i3 later request is dûe
to the fact of re~oval of ~t~endant pa=ki~g in R.~l. zon~ng.
HE:: wishes to pl.::.ee a small tic~,et office 0:1
at~enda~t parking so that he can o~erate a small- ..easure L:?
and down the intracoastal waterway, and before inv .. .:~ in a
lot of expenditure y¡ith drainage èra~..,ings etc., we ·...·ould l:.::e
~ clarifications and confir~ation o~ various items as we r~~d t~e
c9~ ccd~. Enclosed is a sketch plan of ho~ he would like the site ~aiè
out, and a survev with all relevant infor~ation indicated. ~e are
.. .
Þ.o- requesting all of this as we believe the intent of the new L.D.~.
'.-las to enable a c lien t to ascertain tl1e use 0 f thei r prcr-ert ¡.
without a large a~ount of expense.
~
.:'s y:~ have mentioned, this business would ope1:'ate a<:êIeas~re beat,..'
seat1ng 150 peopl.~, and' would take the p~oplc 1.1.¿ a:-.;.l ¿_,,;, -eTé
~:1tracoasta1.. . This nUr.1ber of people cor:1ing to th-= 'Jc·':'·.t-:.'.m :ore",
can only be good, as same will co~e early and will browse t~e ar~a
shc?s, a1.d some will after thE.! cruisE:! do the sar.te. 7~is c,:~ sn:y
~e¡p the area at the Atlantic Pl~za and the Dow~town ar~a as d
;.;hole.
He understand that this boundary line for the C.B.D. district runs
east west between lots 91, 58 and lots 57 and 92; lots 91 and 58
being zoned RM.
The position und~r the new L.D.R. is that lots 91'and 58 would have
\ to be rezoned C. B. D. if they"'were to be used for parking as
indicated on the sketch site plan. These two lots would also have
to hav/e a land use change. As'~we understand the position, this
process ould take until approxipately~September of 1991.
.
.....
# . (-'r \ '< ,.' , '.' .... .'. ·.r \' ,r...." _:' ..... {.I·r,,) ',', '
C· 1\ .1...1.. '... ,. -. ~...' ..... ..·.......1 ¡.
T" I .
~ L ("'\s::. . ,- \...I . I ·
~'I\ ~r- .
. A1
Pleasure Boat Ticket Sales Office
16 October 1990
Page 2
It does se~m to us under t~e new L.D.R., that two u~useable lots
(91-58) ha',¡e been created, (1) the mini:T!um lot width of 50' (2)
set-back requirements (3) the removal of R.M. being used as
d t tended parking. Please cou ld you advi S8 on this po in t a:-.¿ a
solution to this mat~er.
; 1 e ~: 0 u 1 d a 1 sol i k e a d vis eon the u s ~ in the C. 8 . D. d i s t r i c t , "t hat
,.' \ is th~ operation of a ?leaSU1;e Boat, v/ith its attendant t-ic:çe:·
~~ ;.0'" office and parking", as this use does not seem to be allowed :0:-
~\(\~J. in the L.D.R. as now in force. He would like to request that th~
) Planning & Zoning Board look into this matter and see if such a use
~is si~ilar to any allowed at present, or if such a use could be
(t~) incorporated into the code. As previously m~ntioned, we feel that
)~~~ such a business would be desirable to operate out of Delray as it
il"'~ could only br ing !Jus iness to the DOvln town area. We a Iso fee 1 that
J this use should be looked into and a determination made, as this
\ type 0 f bus ir.es s could be operated out 0 f othe:- sites in the
Downtown area should the board see it as a desirable one.
Should it be found desirable, we would suggest that the parki~~
\Cè;;(l'{.}) calculations be addressed at the same ti~e. They cculd be cO':ere-:
under the present Restaurant parking requirement in the code, i.e.,
12 parking spaces for every gross 1,000 square feet c:
building/boat. Maybe in the case of a boat, e:tclude th~ br1dge .J.:-.':':
engine room. In our clients case, his boat 1S 3,000 sq ft gross
and would require 36 spaces. However, we have a further suggestion
and that is the City of Boynton Beach has the following :0:-
pleasure/charter boats~ one· space for every three per30ns. In its
Downtown. area, 60% of that nu~ber is required. Once again t3king
our clients boat as an example, the boats capacity is l~censed t~,
~'t.\ :--.. th~ a.uthorities for 15,0 people. Parking required: - 150 - 3 = ~( _
\Cilt)\';Jspaces; for Downtown area 60% of 60 = ~ spaces. $t) .......~
\.1.\ :;.0 ~'-
,
As can be seen from the sketch site olan, we ha~e enc~oached cn t~e
property to the north. We have en~losed co~i.s of a :ette= :~o~
~ t:o.e owner granting an easmen t over the sa i6. 12· fee t. Howe':e r, '...e
would like clarification on how you would like t~is mat~er har.dl~d.
We also enclose copies of the Trustee's Deed for t~e said proFerty.
,
.
A!;,
Pleasure Boat Ticket Sales Office
16 October 1990
Page 3 ......
This is S:..lch a comp lex s i t'..la tion that we fee 1 we need. :=0;1 t:-:e
Planning &. Zoni,ng Depar':::1ent rulings and guidance on '",'ha t t:-:e
Fosition is, and what is t:-:e correct procedure and ti~e constraints
on this property and its use.
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
DIGBY BRIDGES, ~~RSH & ASSOCIA:ES, P.A.
~~.
Digby Bridges, A.I.A., R.I.B.A.
DS/jl
Enclosures
,
.
,
I
. .
.
E:XH)ß /í bf
J
.
r.1"Y DF DELRAY BEACH
-' . - ~ .":' ~'"
. . - - ---
October 31, 1990
Digby Bridges, A.LA., R.LB.A. .
Digby Bridges, Marsh & Associates, P. A.
124 N.E. 5th Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33483
-
Re: Pleasure Boat Ticket Sales Office and Operatio~
Dear Digby:
The following information is provided in reply to your inquiry of
October 16th. You· have correctly identified that Planning dnd
Zoning Board consideration of "use" and parking requirements is a
prerequisite to other items. Accordingly, I have set the
follo~ing items on the Board's ðgenda of November 19th:
* D~teralnation of similarity of use re com.11erc~al
passenger boat landing ih the C.8.D. (4.3.2(C) (2) ]
--
(Recommendation will be that it be accommodated as d
.--,
conditional use) ê
- -
* Datermination of parking requirements for comrr.erc.i.al
passenger boat landing. (4.6.9(C)(1)(d)1
(Your suggestion of 1 space per 3 seats ','¡ i tr. a SC,
reduction seems reasonable.)
,
'; i th regard to the zoning issue, a privately owned parking 10 to ~s
,'llowed as ê cor. i i ~ i 0 r. .1 ". L! 3 '''! ;"" the C.:>mmunity Fë:::ilities Zer.e
_. .
Jistrict [4.4.2'.::;' \<3)}. The C.t. zone district ~ay be ~:2~~~ a
::ompatible zoning within the Medium Residential Land Use
Designation. Thus, a rezoning to C.F. can accommodate ïC~= ~=eds
é~ithout needing to process a land ~se plan a~endment.
Code Section 4.6.9(E)(S) sets forth the requirement for off-site
parking agreements. Whether or not this section is applicab16 or
another method (cross access easement) is to bé used should be
determined later. Whatever the solution is ," it can be
accommodated administratively.
.
T
,f J
{¡<H )g,JT. B;'.
To: Digby Bridges
Re: Pleasure Boat Ticket Sales Office & Operation
October 31, 1990
Page 2
In a separate consideration, the Historic Preservation Board has
reviewed plans for expansion of seating capacity at The Bridge
Restaurant. Those plans are physically impacted by the initial
design of your parking area. Also, I believe that the expansion
r9quires eight additional parking spaces which may also be
targeted for the pleasure boat landing lot. These two projects
need to be coordinated. In passing, the calculations on page 2
,'lOuld show a need for only 30 instead of 36 spaces. Also, Kathy
Dearden and I have some ideas on the parking lot design as it
relates tc Meeting code requirements.
Next steps: In addition to the it3ms placed on the November. 19th
agenda, it appears that your client would need to file for the
following:
* rezoning from ~~ to CF
* conditio~al use for a private parking lot in the CfL~
* ccnditional use for a passenger boat landing in CBD.
All of the above can' be accommodated. simultaneously w:th public
hearing by the Planning and Zoning Ooard and final action by the
City Commission. A traffic study will be required for
consideration of the conditional use requeJts. The nex:.
sutmission date is December 7th and that will result in the
p'..lblic hearings being held on January 28th and final action in
Februa!:'y.
The site plan for the parking area and ticket area woulè be act2è
Up041 by the Histor iCt Preservation Board. Site plan act io:'. mus ':
follo,-1 adoption of he rezoning ordinance and app!:'ovè 1. () f the
conditional use requests.
£y copy. of this letter and your inquiry, I am notifying the
Community Redevelopment Agency and the Historic Preservation
Eoard of this situation and am seeking their comments with
respect to the determination of similarity of use and parking
items.
,
rdially,
, j~~)O~._
David J. Ko acs, Director
Department of Planning and Zoning
. c w ltr:
Pat Healy, Chairperson HPB
Pat Cayce, Historic Preservation Specialist
Frank Spence, Director, C.R.A.
Ron Hoggard, Planner III
Kathy Dearden, Planner II
· Jasmin Allen, Planner I
Project File
-' .z XI-! /5/1' C. ;
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT
I..-l~ - &,'00 - /
MEETING OF: -' ~NOVEMBER ""19 ;-19 9ß . _ ~{) ¿-
AGENDA ITEM: .V.B. ~at~.~r.~ti~~\s~~!~g.-.!n~the:CBD ~
.. ~. .~:- .:\~ 6";' ,~. -
ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD:
There are two items before the Board. The. first is that at
making a determination of similarity of use which :5
governed by Section 4.3.2(C)(2) - Page 4.3.3.
The second is determininq parkinq requirements for 'a use
which is not listed. Sectio~ 4.6.9(C)(1)(d) applies - Pa~e
4.6.31-
EACKGROUND:
These items are before the Board in response to a reçues to by
Digby Brièges for clarification and interpretation of the Cod~ a3
it applies to a commercial boat landing. Such a llse is not
currently addressed in the Code. Please see his lettc~ of
October 16th for a ful.l' description of the proposed use. The:-::!
are several aspects to his letter and I have provided ~ rep~ y
(copy attached). The two items on this agenda require action ty
the Board in order for a formal application to be made.
ANALYSIS:
f
Deter~ination of Similarity of Use: Because the requested ~se is
not ident:cal to other uses allowed in the CBD Zone Cist=ict a~d
because I believe it to b~ similar to other allov1ed uses, t:-.e
request is placed before the Bo~rd for a ruling pursuant to
Section 4.3.2(C)(2).
I feel that the use is similar to other uses such as: rest~ll=ant3
(8)(3) and places of assembly for co~~e=cial entertainme~t
p~rposes (D)(14). Further, ~ecause of its unique na~ure it seems
apprgpriate that it be allowed as a conditional, insteaj of; a
principal use. -
Establishinq Parkinq ReQuiremen~s: For uses not listed in the
list of parking requirements, such requirements shall be
established concurrent with site plan approval. Because of the
unique nature of the proposed use and the limited amount of
parking area which is available, it is appropriate to establish
the parking requirements at this time.
M=. Bridges puts. forth an argument based upon one spa.ce per three
allowed passengers and then p=ovide that only 60% of that number
be required d~e to the mixed use aspects of aceD - and with a~
· objective of being rr.ore flexible in order to ac~c!"'L"';'\~da~e Co·..,rnto',::'.
development and redevelopment.
-1-
P&Z STAFF REPORT
Boat Ope~ations Docking in the CBD
Page 2
,
-'
- .
I note that - technically - the special parking requirements of 1
space per 300 sq. ft. of new floor area would apply. This results
in only ten spaces being required. It is clear that such a
standard is inadequate for the proposed use, and that during
deliberation of the conditional use request a higher standards
will be imposed.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
By motion, find that the use of "ccmmercial boat dock" is šimilar
to other allowed uses in the CeD Zone District and that it is
allowed as a conditional use.
By motion, determine that the parking requirement for a
commercial b'Jat dock which involves passer-ger embarkation shall
be calculated at the standard of 1 space per 3 allowable
passengers with a reduction é:lllowed when a reasonable case is
presented with c~spëct to the specific location of the use.
Attachments:
* Bridges letter of October 16, 1990
* Kovacs reply of October 31, 1990
REF/DJ~#67/PZBOAT.T~T
.
.
r
I,
.
.
.
.
- --- - -- --- - . . .--. -
. Ex 11/ '=> rr ~
·~P-PL·ICA T ION~fQR-S ITE~PCA~¡fppnOvAL .
~PPL!CArlON fOR CONOITIONAL-USE-APPROVAL
fITYAOf~ELRAY~8EACH, FLORIO~
N OT I C E
In Sec. 30-2l and 30-22, paragraphs (C)(l) of the Delray Beach
Zoning Ordinance, the developer is encouraqed to meet \IIith all
Department Heads and others IUho participate in the approval
process before procee<;!ing lUith a formal application fo r either
Site Plan Approval or Conditional Use Approval. The initial and
f in a 1 concept of a proposal's feasibility and acceptíJbilitv
shvuld receive preliminary approval from all parties referred to
p r io r to the preparation of lUorking· plans and submission of a
formal application.
8ecause of this Community's concern fo r its Beachfront and its
desire to protect and enhance same, all proposals fo r this ;'
geographic area ~ go through the prelrmTñary revieIU process as
ref e rr e d to in the previous paragraph. There II/ill be no
exceptions. This review process II/ill be beneficial to all, tFië
developer as lUell as the City and its citizens.
.
J/8~
.
fXJ!; g /' ~
(K) Describe· in detail the proposed improvements and indicate
any phasing: It is proposed to place a boat sales ticket office with
attendant parking. . Th~ill be moved on the Intracoastal Waterway.
It ;s the intent of the~ to have between 28 to 32 parking spaces
which it is felt would be sufficient for the size of boat being proDo~ed
~ sail the--Intracoa~-WaterwaY~ The parkinQ is to be developed in
.---.
coniünètiQñïWtt~-t~~ge~estaurant lot to the north. At Dresent.
thi~ pðrking lot to the north h~~ 40 spaces. It is proposed to have a
r!prlr (' f qRn c:q ft ; f'irl¡:¡n t!'l th¡:¡ C:!'IIJth !'If thø Rrif'igø Qøc:t;!lIr;!nt Thi<::
wil' rC'llJi.,-ø ~ .:.rfl'fitinnÀl r:4Y"lti"9 c:r~røc: Thic: lø,v9~ 11 Of thø 7~
soaces for the boat Darkinq.
(L) State the reasons or basis fa r this conditional use and/or
site plan request and explain why this req~est is conSlstent
with good zoning practlce, not contrary to the t-1aster Plan,
and not detrimental to the promotion f)f public appearance,
comfort, convenience, general welfare, good order, health,
morals, prosperity, and safety of the City.
It has been found by the Planning and Zoning Board that a~ sal~~
~t offi with its attendant parki n for a boat thatcrui ses the
"C'Cð'štã1 Waterway is similar to the other usesalloweãli he
C.B.D. Bearing ·this in mind, it is felt by the applicant that this
conditional use should be granted as it is not contrary to the Master
Plan, and not detrimental to the Dromotion of Dublic aDoearance. comfort,
convenience. aeneral welfare. aood order. he~lth. morals. prosQ@ritv.
......
and safety of the City.
.
.
- 3 -
10/83
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Commission
FROM: John W. Elliott, Acting City Manage
SUBJECT: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO KIDS AND COPS COMMITTEE
MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION/PLUMOSA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DATE: April 26, 1991
We have received the nomination for appointment to the Kids and Cops
Committee from Plumosa Elementary School. They are recommending that
Mr. Clyde Harris be appointed. At the time the agenda was published
we were still awaiting a nomination for appointment from the
Ministerial Association. Should we receive the name of a nominee from
the Ministerial Association it will be provided to you prior to your
Tuesday evening meeting.
-1>pJ;r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Commission
FROM: John W. Elliott, Acting City Manager~
SUBJECT: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO KIDS AND COPS COMMITTEE/MINIS-
TERIAL ASSOCIATION
DATE: May 6, 1991
We have been unsuccessful in our attempts to get a nominee from the
Ministerial Association. Therefore, I have contacted several
individual ministers in the community and asked if they would be
available to serve on the Kids and Cops Committee. Reverend Lenard C.
Johnson, Pastor of the Greater Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church
has asked to be considered. I am recommending that his appointment be
ratified, as the Ministerial Association has failed to provide a
candidate to fill this board vacancy.
~( ,.,
· ù/7 ¥~ k.17
§ 'tEatE 't cfl!( t. D tiUE
cfl!(ij.j.iona't!l !Baþtij.t (!hu't~h RECEIVED
40 NW 4th Ave., Delray Beach, Florida, 33444 SUpPoRT
Church 276-5196 SERVICES
~7J91
May 6,1991
Mr. John Elliott
Assistant City Manager
100 N. W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Dear Mr. Elliott,
It is my understanding that the City has a Cops and Kids
program, and that a request was made to have representation on
its board from Community Churches United.
Please accept this letter as my statement of interest, with
the support of our group, to serve as a representative.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please
inform me of your decision.
Yours in Christ,
~fl<þ(l~
past·r Lenard C Johnson
d~(J. ..£wa'ld (! l'l-ohm.on, ~:)aj.to'l ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Commission
FROM: John W. Elliott, Acting City Manage~
SUBJECT: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO KIDS AND COPS COMMITTEE
MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION/PLUMOSA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DATE: April 26, 1991
At the time the agenda was published we were still awaiting
nominations for appointment to the Kids and Cops Committee from
Plumosa Elementary School and the Ministerial Association. At your
April 23rd meeting the Commission håd indicated that they would select
appointees to fill these positions, if the name of nominees were not
submitted. This item is before you for action. Should we receive
letters of nomination from Plumosa or the Ministerial Association they
will be provided to you prior to your Tuesday evening meeting.
tð tv ~~ ~ fft'-N- f;;t..-t-
f tp
~
· 10
¡
[IT' OF DELAA' BEA[H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: IIØ--.. Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager/
Administrative Services
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM
RECONSIDERATION-
DATE: May 3, 1991
Action
City Commission is requested to reconsider the rebate policy approved
April 2, 1991, to prepaid permit holders for the golf course closing
this summer.
Backqround
On April 2nd, City Commission approved the off-season adjusted
proration policy for refunds to permit holders for the three month
course closing. The other option presented for refunds was a straight
line proration. The reasoning presented by Mr. Dubin for the
off-season adjustment was that green fees were lower in the summer
months (May through October). The full proration refund amount is 25%
of annual fees, Mr. Dubin's calculation for the summer proration is
12-1/2%. I have recalculated the summer proration figure and have
come up with a refund amount of 16% of the annual permit fee. This
was calculated by adding the various green fees (one per month) at the
different rates and the three month total by this amount, i.e. ,
IT$l2.00 x 3) ($6.00 x 3) = $18 = l6%
+ ($14.00 x 3) ($6.00 x 6 il =$ll4
We have received numerous letters and phone calls from prepaid permit
holders who feel that the summer proration policy is not fair or
equitable to them. They think they should receive the full proration
rebate at 25%.
WS/r~
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
David T. Harden
Agenda Item - City Commission Workshop, May 7, 1991
Reconsideration-Rebate Policy Golf Course Prepaid Memberships
Page two
Commission is requested to reconsider the rebate policy. An analysis
of the monetary affects of each is as follows:
Refund Refund Refund
Type Permit 25% 12-1/2% 16%
Resident Family $286 $l43 $183
Non-Resident Family $388 $194 $248
Resident Single $181 $ 90 $116
Non-Resident Single $300 $150 $192
Total Amount Refund $93,500 $46,750 $59,840
I feel we can justify the 16% refund amount and still absorb this loss
in the budget. I have a concern with having a net surplus at the end
of the fiscal year if the refund is increased to 25%.
RAB:mld
May 1,1<791 'Wi n 3
v
Commissioners of Delray Beach.FI.
Dear Commissioners:
Last week at the meeting called by mr.
Dubin, to discuss the plans for the closure of the golf
course for three ITonths, Yr Dubin brouht u, the idiotic
plan he presented to you to refund prepaid dues for these
three months. All present there resented his plan very
much. We all paid for twelve months .not for summer /
winter periods. His plan to refund at a summer rate is
unthinkable to all of Us. We want to be reimbursed for
a full three month period. or twenty-five per~ent of our
total prepaid Greens Fees. His plan seems to indicate
that he is trying to make points with you people at our
expense.Wewi¡l not buy this plan.
IV'ost Cordially.
~ ~
.,
ARTHUR BUI,KIN
~ ffi.JLn,
6288 9)~1~
9)~ ffi~ru:V¡" -j v 131f8-'t
([ otlnt1tY 1IIIan01tS
ASS 0 C I A T ION, INC.
, ", '
April JO, 1991 1\ b (, ~.. -.
.{' ~ 'VcIL
- 1.;, ~
David Harden, City Manager MAY 2 1991"
City of Delray Beach CI7~ MA' "'_
NAutR'S OF
lOO N.liV. 1st Avenue . '- FlCE
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear Mr. Harden:
At the Golfers' Meeting at City Hall on April 25, 1991, it
was reported that the City Commission, upon the recommenda-
tion of Mr. Dubin, had voted to refund one-eighth of the
annual prepaid green-fees for the three months period the
Delray Golf Course will be closed this summer. ether than
the golf course management and workers, it appeared that
no one in the chambers, and the room was crowded, knew any-
thing of the Commission's action. Needless to say, there
was considerable objection to the amount of the refund be-
cause it represents only one-half of what was anticipated.
Mr. Dubin attempted to explain his recommendation by say-
ing that golf does not cost as much here in the summer.
1/'Je disagree.
When the golfers purchased the prepaid greens permit from
the City, it was similar to a contract to play golf on the
course for the full twelve months. Mr. Dubin was not involved
in these contracts. Nothing was indicated that there was a
different value placed on golf for each month. In fact, there
is a reduction of only two dollars in the price of a golf cart
during the summer months.
Accordingly, on behalf of the many golfers of Country Manors
who use the Delray Golf Course facilities, we request that the
City Commission reconsider the amount of the refund.
In the event the City does not desire to refund the money,
let the City Commission consider extending the life of the
permi ts.
Very truly yours,
~
Ben Stackhouse, President
Board of Directors
BS:ml
4900 COUNTRY MANORS BOULEVARD . DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33445
[ITY DF DELRAY BEA[H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH. r-LORIOA 33444 407/243 ìOO:
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: ¢Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager/
Administrative Services
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # COMMISSION WORKSHOP 4/2/91
GOLF COURSE CAPITAL PROJECTS - COURSE CLOSING
DATE: March 28, 1991
Action
City Commission is requested to consider and provide direction on the
proposed course closing July '91 through September ' 91, and the
realignment of capital improvement projects as presented by the Golf
Course Manager.
Proposal
The Golf Course Manager is proposing that we renovate all 18 fairways
this summer versus nine, as previously approved. The course would
then be closed from July '91 through September ' 9l. The Manager's
proposal includes keeping the range and pro shop open during this
time. As a result of the course closing, the restaurant would also be
closed during this time. Mr. Dubin has also presented a new capital
improvement schedule with revised figures (Decade of Excellence Bond
Funds) . A detailed analysis of net income loss for the three month
period prepared by Mr. Dubin is attached. The analysis includes an
off-season prorated refund to permit holders. A full straight line
three month prorated refund is also presented. Employees will be
retained.
Analysis
The advantages of closing the course and renovating all 18 fairways
are:
l. Reduced construction costs.
2. Reduced wear and tear on nine holes over a two year period.
Tuc ~Ct::I\CT ll. ,^,^v<::' 1\/1 ^TTt::CC: WS/4
Mr. David T. Harden
March 28, 1991
Page two
3. Time to work on other course improvements, i.e., cart paths,
greens.
4. Only closing parts of the course for one summer versus two, thus
eliminating two (2 ) years of complaints.
5. Residents can purchase charity cards at an approximate cost of
$25-$50, which would allow them to play PGA golf courses for cart fees
only.
Disadvantaqes
1- Course closed to residents for three months with no play.
2. Additional reduction of net income.
Based on actual figures to date, Mr. Dubin has revised his net surplus
projection to $250,000 for the year. The net income differential
projection for the closing of the course for three months is $126,450,
leaving a new yearly net income projection of $123,550. If these
projections become a reality then income will support the revenue
loss.
Mr. Dubin and Mr. Barcinski have reviewed this proposal with the
restaurant management firm owners. In addition to non-payment of
rent, they are also requesting a payment of approximately $2,500 per
month for business losses. Unless otherwise ruled by the City
Attorney, staff recommendation is not to pay the business loss
request.
Mr. Dubin has also reviewed the proposal with the golfers, and he has
been receiving support for the closing of 18 holes.
Commission Action
1. Commissi~n is requested to provide direction on the course closing
proposal.
2. Commission is requested to provide direction on the method of
refunds to prepaid permit holders.
3. Commission is requested to provide direction on the revised Bond
Capital Improvement Plan. (A copy of the previous proposal is
attached. )
RAB:mld
Attachment
3
EXHIBIT A
Category 1
1 . Golf Course Irrigation $ 30,000 - $ 50,000
As per the attached letter from Kenneth DiDonato, Inc. dated
March, 18, 1990, it is recommended that we replace our existing
pumps with two 60 HP Pumps.
We believe this to be a very critical area due to the pending
increased water restrictions, and the need to pump more water in
less hours.
We recommend that we in fact replace our existing two 50 HP main
pumps with two 75 HP Pumps.
2. Fairways $ 2 2 5 ,.000 - $250,000
We recommend that we re-sprig, sterilize, and re-slope 9 holes per
year, over a a 2 year period with 419 Bermuda Grass.
This would include tees, fairways, green slopes, and approximately
15 yards of rough per hole, where applicable. Therefore, it would be
necessary to close 9 Ho~es per year.
Our recommendation is based on the following reasons:
1 . Reduce annual irrigation costs and improve our chances for
a well manicured golf course under Water Restrictions.
2. Reduce annual chemical and fertilizer costs.
3. Better able to handle the excessive play.
4. Improved playing conditions.
We believ~ that on a Long Term Basis, there is no alternative but
to accept. the fact that our fairways must be replaced.
3. Hole "1 Mound $ 5,000
We recommend removing the mound approximately 150 yards from the
green.
It is presently situated at a place where many golfers of varying
levels hit their tee shot.
We plan to level the fairway which will additionally speed up play.
.
5
EXHIBIT B
Categroy 2
V
1 . Cart Paths $140,000
We recommend resurfacing our existing Cart Paths and adding Wall
to Wall Cart Paths over the entire span of our golf course.
This would reduce the wear and tear on our course caused by cart
traffic. ~t>OkcJ~
2. Parking Lot $ 25,000 A~
This includes resurfacing and replacing all fencing and adding two ~
gates at our entrance, 1n addition to the replacement or improvement~
of all curbs. ~6LtUJ~
3. Drivin9 Range $ 15,000
This includes the purchase of 25 golf mats, additional landsc~
and the pouring of concrete. CD~tm ~ q. ~
c/o LAke- ~ '
. ./ --- . ~ -c+ ~ 9f:
.
Managed, by DubIn & AssocIates Inc.
DONALD ROSS· 1923
MEMO
To: Dave Harden /-
From: Brahm Dubin
Date: March 28, 1991
RE: Golf Course Closing July 1991 - September 1991
Enclosed is the information in regards to the Workshop to be held
on April 2, 1991.
BD/csl
enclosure
2200 Highland Avenue · Delray Beach, Florida 33445 · (407) 278-0315
DELRAY BEACH GOLF CLUB
1 . OPERATING BUDGET
A. NET SURPLUS - ORIGINAL $ 105,000
B. NET SURPLUS - REVISED
OCTOBER 1, 1990 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 $ 250,000
LESS: 3 MONTH CLOSING (SEE ATTACHED) (126,450)
$ 123,550
2 . DECADE OF EXCELLENCE BOND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE
CATEGORY 1 ORIGINAL REVISED
A. GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION $ 50,000 $ 5,000
B. FAIRWAYS 250,000 150,000
C. HOLE #1 MOUND 5,000 5,000
D. CLUBHOUSE FURNITURE & FIXTURES 20,000 20,000
E. ROOF AT MAINTENANCE BUILDING 25,000 25,000
$ 350,000 $ 210,000
CATEGORY 2
1 . CART PATHS ASSUMED 1992 $ 140,000
$ 350,000
WE PROJECT DOING CART PATHS IN 1991
DELRAY BEACH GOLF CLUB
JULY 1, 1991 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
ORIGINAL 9 HOLE 18 HOLE ORIGINAL
BUDGET CLOSING CLOSING VS
; 18 HOLE
CLOSING
VARIANCE
INCOME
PREPAID GREEN FEES (NOTE 1) $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 43,250 $( 46,750)
RESTAURANT LEASE (NOTE 2) 4,500 4,500 0 ( 4,500)
CART FEES 138,000 100,000 0 (138,000)
GREEN FEES 15,000 7,500 0 ( 15,000)
RANGE INCOME (NOTE 3) 8,000 7,500 2,500 ( 5,500)
MERCHANDISE INCOME (NOTE 4) 20,000 15,000 2,500 ( 17,500)
INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 10,000 10,000 10,000 0
MISCELLANEOUS· INCOME (NOTE 5) 5,000 5,000 2,300 ( 2,700)
$ 290,500 $ 239,500 $ 60,550 $(229,950)
EXPENSES
ADMINISTRATION (NOTE 6) $ 49,925 $ 45,000 $ 34,425/ $( 15,500)
PRO SHOP (NOTE 7) 70,000 60,000 39,000·/ ( 31,000)
COURSE MAINTENANCE (NOTE 8) 104,225 104,225 47,225 ( 57,000)
CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0
TRANSFER RE: TAXES 5,475 5,475 5,475 0
DEBT SERVICE 88,700 88,700 88,700 0
$ 318,325 $ 303,400 $ 214,825 $(103,500)
PROJECTED LOSS $( 27,825) $( 63,900) $(154,275) $(126,450)
ASSUMPTIONS
NOTE 1 PREPAID GREEN FEES
357 MEMBERSHIPS TO DATE $ 314,000
PRORATION ADJUSTMENT FOR 11/90, 12/90 @ 19% 60,000
$ 374,000
PRORATED REFUND DUE PERMIT HOLDERS (JULY '91 - SEPT. ' 91 )
A/ FULL PRORATION (25% OR THREE MONTHS)
RESIDENT FAMILY $ 286
NON RESIDENT FAMILY $ 388
RESIDENT SINGLE $ 181 APPROXIMATE REFUND $ 93,500
NON RESIDENT SINGLE $ 300
B/ OFF SEASON ADJUSTED PRORATION (6 MONTH OFF SEASON VALUE
IS 25% OR 12!% FOR 3 MONTHS)
RESIDENT FAMILY $ 143
NON RESIDENT FAMILY $ 194
RESIDENT SINGLE $ 90 APPROXIMATE REFUND $ 46,750
NON RESIDENT SINGLE $ 150
WE RECOMMEND ADJUSTING REFUND BASED ON OFF SEASON VALUATION
NOTE 2 RESTAURANT LEASE
CITY WILL WAIVE MONTHLY LEASE PAYMENTS OF $1500 PER MONTH
NOTE 3 RANGE INCOME
WE WILL KEEP RANGE OPEN
NOTE 4 MERCHANDISE INCOME
WE WILL KEEP PRO SHOP OPEN
NOTE 5 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
WE WILL REFUND BAG STORAGE AND LOCKER FEES @ 25%
25% @ $ 10,870 $ 2,700
· .
NOTE 6 ADMINISTRATION
APPROXIMATE COST SAVINGS WILL INCLUDE:
ADVERTISING $ 3,500
REPAIR BUILDING 1 ,500
TELEPHONE 250
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 500
PRINTING 500
OFFICE SUPPLIES 250
MISCELLANEOUS 250
REPAIR EQUIPMENT 250
REPAIR OTHER 250
WATER SEWER GARBAGE 750
INSURANCE (15% REDUCTION BASED ON SALES) 7,500
$ 15,500
NOTE 7 PRO SHOP
APPROXIMATE COST SAVINGS WILL INCLUDE:
PRINTING $ 250
ELECTRIC 7,500
WATER & SEWER 1,000
TELEPHONE 500
REPAIR BUILDING 1,250
REPAIR EQUIPMENT 3,000
OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,500
OPERATING SUPPLIES 1 ,500
MISCELLANEOUS 500
MERCHANDISE 12,000
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000
$ 31,000
NOTE 8 GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE
APPROXIMATE COST SAVINGS WILL INCLUDE:
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 15,000
REPAIR EQUIPMENT 4,000
REPAIR AUTO 500
REPAIR IRRIGATION 2,500
UNIFORMS 500
MEMBERSHIP PUBLICATIONS 500
OFFICE SUPPLIES 250
GAS & OIL 3,500
GARDENING SUPPLIES 30,000
MISCELLANEOUS 250
$ 57,000
t
if
.
. .
Agenda Item No.:
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: 4/15/91
Request to be placed on:'
Regular Agenda Special Agenda x Workshop Agenda
When: 5/7 /91
Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much):
Presentation by Mr. James Vance, Esquire, Pertaining to the Western Well field (Morikami Park.)
ORDIHAHCEI RESOLUTION REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation:
Staff requests City Commissions direction to Mr. Vance on finalizing the
i.... necessary agreements with the County of Palm Beach, Morikami Board of Trustees,
Lakeworth Drainage District and South Florida Water Management District.
Department Head Signature: ;)J/;lß-rot?~~J~ <I//rÄ/
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:
Approved for agenda: tY)/ NO (711
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Action: Approved/Disapproved
'I -
. .
,.
Agenda It.. No.:
AGEIIDA ltBOOBST
Date: 4/9/91
Request to be placed on:·
Reqular Aqenda Special Aqenda x Workshop Aqenda
When: 4/16/91
Description of aqenda item (who, what, where, how much):
Presentation by Mr. James Vance, Esquire, Pertaining to the Western Wel1field (Morikami Park).
ORDIHAHCEI RBSOLUTIOM REQUIRED: YES/NO Draft Attached: YES/NO
Recommendation: St~ff reauests City Commissions direction to Mr. Vance on fina1izina the
ner.essarv aareements with the County of Palm Beach, Morikami Board of Trustees, Lakeworth Drainage
t. District and South Florida Water Management District.
Department Head Siqnature: t1/~~J~ f/q!~
Deteraination of Consistency with Coaprebensive Plan:
=fII
City Attorney Review/ Recommendation (if applicable):
Budget Director Review (required on all ite.. involving expeDcliture
of funds):
Funding available: YES/ NO
Funding alternatives: (if applicable)
Account No. & Description:
Account Balance:
City Manager Review: @
Approved for agen~~_~ NO ð?1
; . -
Hold Until: ~ I
Agenda Coordinator Review: v ,-
Received:
Action: Approved/Disapproved
. . l'lAR-25-' 91 MOlJ 10: 22 ID:,IlELPR'r' EN~). ,=;ERI)ICES TEL t1Ci: 4[17-243-7[160 0199 ~
,
.
~~.,r~..":j ," 'fi'
.A..,-1" ~~ ,., ~¡.\. 'r'".
:"~ ,',,~~.,,", ,r
," J. 'JIO" ....~...,I'·
-'J . . ;. ,. .":.,
, .
.--
CITY DF DELAAY BEAtH .,"" ¡
\
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMEwr 407-243-7300
William H. Greenwood, Director 434 South Swinton Ave
Delray Beach, Florida
33444
fAX CQY£R ~IJEET
FAX 'l'ELEPHONE NUMBER: 407-243-7060
TO: NAME: --··V}/·\ /", (~/ r'"¡ /' .-ét'L·'7'·(. ./
I . l '" ," 1,.. in-
COMPANY:
CITY: , .
FAX NUMBER: .,.:;2.. 1..../ \ 37 7 c/
'--. - '''~ J.
') l __j f)
FROM: NAME: C,·C, rt ~J-ì ,~ '; ~-... ~ - ,... _.,' r--r' ~-r J
.J. ; l.L' \ ... l't,' L· I ' ~... ..-..\(
.-- "-- ,.- -" - . ....- -- .,. _._~--.- --
-:-..J
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: \,.--') INCLUDING '¡'HIS
'., /¥¡ ~ / r'~ , COVER PAGE
DATE SENT: \..J ,?\ ,~5 ì / PHONE NUMBER: 7\.:3 1-/ ~/ ~
, p<:r .
Ç;OMMEN.TS:
..
- ,
, L .
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, FLEASE CALL AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE ~D ASK FOR INDIVIDUAL (SENDER) NOTED BELOW.
./
...
/
FD1OJ090
T.."", r:!_____..... ^at..~..."'.... a~---
-
. t"'lRP-25-' 91 r1m~ 10: 23 I D: DELPH E~¥). ;EQVICES TEL NO:407-243-7060 !:Ii '39 P[12
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: William H. Greenwood, Director of ,-¿.{,
Environmental Services
DATE: March 25, 1991
SUBJECT: PROJECT NO 90-42.0
MORIKAMI PARK
An update faxed to this office by Mr. Jim Vance on the
status of the Morikamì Park wellfield negotiatio:1s Ls dS
follows:
Pursuant to your request for an update on the Morikan:i Park
wel1fields, please be advised that ongoing meetings r_ il \.' e
bee.Il and are being conducted with the Palm Beach C<)un ty
Parks Department, the Director of Morikarni Park and t,hfC
various regulatory agencies involved in wellfield pennl t.-
tinge As of this da.te, the County Admini strat lor: ha.'ò
indioated conceptual approval of a proposed wellfield as ¿--i
joint use in Morikami Park.
A final draft agreement should be completed within the FC:·~ t
two to three weeks for thü County's review and COIT.rner;t. The
only remaining questions involve various protecti v.:::, rn<.::b.su:re;,;
in connection with the use of the Park proper Lies.
Following a meeting between my offiçe, the Cou.nty ?ól:k:::
Department and Morikami in the latter part of February, t~he
County requested an additional study relating to the effect
of the wellfield On the pine flatlands within t.he Park.
This study was authorized some weeks ago and should be
completed during the week of March 25.
The informal attitude of the South Florida Water Management
District has been generally favorable to this proposal. The
Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resource
Management is currently preparing draft wellfield protection
agency maps at our request which will be completed this
week. In normal course, the County Department of Environ-
mental Resource Management will mail letters to all parties
who may be affected by the wellfield protection ordinance
draft maps thirty (30) days prior to presentation to the
County for adoption. This may result in some public reðc
tion from property owners adjoining the park, but we rr~i gh t
as well know now what the reaction will be.
If I can furnish any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
~
- r1RR-25-' 91 Mm~ 10: 24 I D: DE~RRY ENl). SERl) I CE~3 TEL NCI: 407-243-7050 :I 1 99 F,[ß
. .
CH2M Hill has submitted a draft of the report, Titled; ..
Water Supply Master Plan", which recommends the need for
additional wéll water supply from this site.
We request the opportunity to discuss this report with City
Commission at a workshop during April.
A copy of this draft report is attached.
WG : j a f
Attachment
WGMP
File; Memo to City Manager
Project # 90-42.0
. . .
[ITY OF OELRAY BEA[H
100 NW. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager .-
FROM:~ Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager/
Administrative Services
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM - COMMISSION WORKSHOP May 7, 1991
RECONSIDERATION MAIN FRAME COMPUTER PURCHASE AS/400
DATE: May I, 1991
Action
Commission is requested to review NEW information concerning the
AS/400 and to provide staff direction for this purchase.
BackRround
. ,
At your April 2nd workshop,Commission was presented information
concerning the need to acquire a new mainframe computer system.
Information was presented on the IBM System 400 Model B70.
Consensus was to pursue this purchase but to try to look at ways
to reduce the cost. Since your workshop IBM has announced a new
model line and Commissioners had asked for additional information
concerning dual processors and the cost benefit of combining the
police system with the main system.
·Model Line
IBM has now released AS/400 Models D-60. D70 and Model 80. A
comparative analysis is attached for the model D60. D70 and the
previously proposed model B70.
A) Model D60
The model D60 wöuld provide approximately 157. more capacity than
the proposed B70 at approximately $100.000 less in cost. Disk
upgrades to this model would be needed in FY 93/94, FY 94/95 and
FY 95/96 at a total cost of approximately $ 102.420.00. A memory
upgrade would be needed in FY 94/95 at a cost of $ 170,800.00.
This model would give us approximately the same capacity and·
benefits as the model B70 proposed.
- LOS{3
T. tl""'" 1:'!""""r-l"""\r"'I"T'" ^, \At ^ "r- 1\11 11........___............
.
B) Model D70
The model D70 would provide approximately 557. more capacity than
the proposed model B70 at $40,000.00 more. Disk upgrades to this
model would be needed in FY 93/94 and FY 95/96 at a approximate
total cost of $ 69,360.00.
C) Model B70
The AS/400 Model B70 originally proposed (prior to the April 22,
1991 announcement by IBM of the new models) is offered at a 237.
discount vs the D70 discount of only 177.. Additionally the B70
(originally proposed) included the following at no additional
cost:
1. AS/400 Quickstart $ 2,500.00
2. 1 Yr. BRS Coverage $ 10,200.00
3. AS/400 Officevision
Education $ 12,050.00
-----------
Total Incentive $ 24,750.00
Because the proposal from IBM was confirmed prior to their
announcement, if the City was to purchase the AS/400 Model B70,
IBM would upgrade to a Model D70 at no additional cost to the
City. Disk Upgrades to the proposed Model B/D70 would be needed in
FY 93/94 and FY 95/96 at a approximate total cost of $ 69,360.00.
Pro'/Con's One Large System/Dual Processor
~ .
The trend today is what the industry calls "Downsizing" where more
and more of your larger corporations are replacing their large
mainframes with multiple AS/400's networked together. This is
rapidly becoming the preferred strategy for the followjng reasons:
Multiple computers create a distributed environment with
controlled redundancy that, in the event of a system failure,
allows processing of other operations and critical
applications to continue. For example if the City's computer
should fail the Public Safety (Police & Fir.e) would continue
to operate, unaffected by the failure of the City Hall
computer. If the failure caused the City's computer to be
inoperative for a significant amount of time critical
applications such as Payroll, Utility Billing, etc., could be
loaded and operated on the Police Computer. If the Police
computer failed, critical applications such as Police/Fire
CAD could continue, without loss of data, within minutes
utilizing the hot-site backup procedure, with little or no
impact on the City's operations.
A distributed environment also provides the ability to
prioritize critical applications and adjust ·the performance
of specific environments independently. For example, the
Police Department assigns the highest priority and adjusts
their system (designates highest resources) for CAD even
though this may ·have a negative impact on the performance of
-
other applications i. e., Police Records, Fire/EMS records,
etc. The configuring of this environment does not have an
effect on the City's environment (computer) where a totally
different prioritization or resource allocation may be
r:equired.
Although the new Model D80 has dual processors allowing redundant
processing it still does not compare with the advantages of two
complete duplicate systems for the following r:easons:
...
a: Priority and resource allocation - As stated above with
two separate machines you can set and adjust specific
priorities for Police and Fire CAD without impacting the
performance of the applications on the City Hall Computer.
b. With two separate systems, if for some reason the City --
hall computer was destroyed (fire, tornado, water leak, etc.)
the Police System with critical applications would continue
to function. Additionally in this scenario, critical
applications at City hall could be loaded and operated on the
Police System. With one large computer this option would not
be available and critical Police/Fire CAD and City hall
applications would be rendered inoperable.
c. Although the new AS/400 Model DBO has a dual processor it
still has only one power supply. If this power supply fails
the system is down, operations of all applications cease to
function. The same is true with a single workstation
controller which would allow remote (Police and Fire) access
to the system. Additionally with one computer we would not
have duplicate peripherals, i.e., tape drive, diskette drive,
etc. , that could cause some difficulty. should they fail.
Other Information
Please note that the interest rate for the lease purchase
agreement is 6.997.. Also after .further discussion with the Finance
Director and Acting Police Chief. it is recommended that the Law
Enforcement Trust Fund not be used to subsidize the lease purchase
payments.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the purchase of the AS/400 B70. This includes a
free upgrade to the Model D70 at no additional cost to the City.
The $ 24.750.00 charges for IBM Services is included in the B70
price as an incentive. In summary, by purchasing the AS/400 Model
B70 the City gets 557. more capacity than the originally proposed
AS/400. $ 24/750.00 worth of IBM services at no additional charge.
and saves $ 40.000.00 over the direct purchase price of the AS/400
Model D70.
-
II II
011 0 0 00000110 00000000000110
~II 0 0 00000110 00000000000110
t:lII. . ·..··11· ......·····11·
II ~ ø ~O~~NII~ ~~~OO~~NOOO ~
~II ~ ~ oø~~~II~ NNN~~M~~OØN ~
~II ~ M Mø~~~.II~ ~MM~~~~~~O~ ~
~ II tII. .. .... ....... ... .... .............. ..
011 ~ N M~ O~ ~ ~~~ ~~~NN~~ ~.
~II ~ ~ ~N 0 ~ N~ ~ ~
M N ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
011 0 000000 0 00000000000 0
~II 0 000000 0 00000000000 0
~II· ....... ............
II 0 ~~O~~N ~ ø~~O~~~OONN 0
~ ~II ø MOØ~~~ ~ ~~~~NMOØO~~I~
~II ~ ~MØ~~~ N ONN~M~Ø~~~O ~
H ~ If.. .. .... ...... .. tI\'" .... A .. .. .... ..
Oil ~ ~M~ O~ 0 ~~~ ~~M~NM~ ~
~ ~II ~ ~ ~N M ~ N~ M
M N ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ 0
< ~
Z -
< ~
<
~ 011 0 0 00000 0 00000000000 0
~II 0 0000000 0000000000010
> ¡::::¡II' . ...... ............
~ II ~ ø ~O~~N ~ ~~~O~NØOOO~ M
H ~II ~ ~ Oø~~~ ~ N~~~O~OøOøO ~
~ ~II N M MØ~~~ ~ N~~~~~O~~OM N
E-4 ~ II" .... ..... ...... .. ..... .............. ..
H 011 0 N M~ O~ ø ~~~ ~N~~N~~ 00
< ~II ~ ~ ~N ~ ~ N~ M
N N ~ ~ -I
p:: ~ I~ ~
II
< II
II
p... II
II
~ II
II
o II
II
U II
"d
'" ¡::
O"d ra
~ 1-1. U
~ ra ~ ",,,"", .-i
'-"U "'U ~ 0 CI)
"'00U ( )- 0 >:<1
U ~U ( )~~ ~ >:<1
I-I~( ) "'~'M~ """' ~
( )( )UU ~~,-" 00 8 ~
.-i8~( )~ '-"~ ( ) ~ >:<1
.-i~>u U U U ~ ( )U CI)
»OU( )'M~~I-I """'''""' U >:<1 U 8a> Z
1-1 1-1 ra ¡::::¡ > 0 0 ( ) ~ N ( ) » p. OM ¡:: >:<1
O~~ ( )°MoM~ '-"'-" UI-I~ ~ 01-10 "d U
8~~~¡::::¡~~p. ( )~O~ .-ira ~~ ~ H
( )O<~ rarara ~~»~~I-I M ( )~ U I-I < ~
~U ( )~UU"d ~~~( ) ~( ) ¡:: >0 ~O
08~~~< ~~1-I¡::::¡8 ~ ~ ~ ( )~ >p. ~U >:<1
~~~~( )~~ ~~¡::::¡ ( )( )~ < ~ ¡::::¡~ ( )P. O( ) ~
~ 0 ~ U 8 ;:J ;:J bl) ¡::::¡ "d p"M ~ ra U »U;:J 'M 'M <::
~Mra~88¡:: ~~( )CI)oral-l 0 1-1 ~~I-I~~ ~~ 3
~~ ~u88~ uu~<~~p... ~ a> OQ( )~ Qra~ ~
II ~ra "'~raoop:: rara~¡::::¡ p. 'M ;:J~up...l-I.-i ~
~II~ ~"""'<~UU P::P::( ) U U~ ~ >:<1110 ~( )OOp...<::M~ 0
~ II p:: U U ~ ~ ~ ~ p"M p... P:: P:: II 0 ra M OM ~ 0 CI)
Cl)1I<IIO~( )~<N~( ) OOU ~A~~ < <::lIoouraoooo~~O
01l3110l-lUM MM~ OO~ ( ) 3 3110~~;:J0000 ~ ~
U II ~ II ~ O'MM~N . 0 ~~Qooo ~o Q ~ II ~_.-i M~~~~ooØ_ <::
II 11_3>~M >~ __ ooOMO P:: ~1I_~p'~____MM~ ~
. II II ~ ( ) M~ I ~~=.~ ra..-r < 0 II Cl)p... p.raCl)CI)CI)CI)--O 0
HII 1I<..-r"d_~=~N «oo_~~- ~ ~II<=<~««CI)~CI) ~
-
II I II II
01100 000110 0 ~ MNNNN~1I0001l0
~1I00 000110 0 ~ ~~~~~~1I~001l~
QII" ···11· . . ······11 ···11·
1I~~ 0001l~ ~ N 00~~~~~1I~001l~
~1I~~ ~OOIlN N ~ M~~~~~II~OOIl~
~1I~~ ON~II~ ~ ~ ~~~~~N"~OOIl~
~ II ~.... ............ II ... .... .... ....................... II ...('.1...... II ...
Oll~~ NONIIO 0 ~ M~~~~~II~~~II~
~ II O~ ~~ 1I~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ I ~ I I II ~
~~ 1I~ ~ ~ ~NNNN~ 0 0
~ 1I~ ~ ....
II ~ ~
II ~ ~
II
II
II
II
I
01100 QQQ 0 0 ~ MNNNN~ 000 0
~1I00 ~~~ 0 I 0 ~ ~~_~~~ ~Oo ~
~ II . Q§Q. II . . ...... ... .
1I~0 ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ NOOOO~ 000 0
~ ~II~~ ~~~ ~ II ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~Oo ~
~IIN~ UUU ~ II ~ ~ M~~~~O 000 0
H Q II .... Z Z Z.. II .. .. ............ ..N ~ ..
01l0~ HHH ~ II ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ II MM ~ II ~ ~ ~OOOO~ N I I 0
~ ~ 00 I II 00 ~ ioI')-N N N N ~ 0 1 0
>< 0 ~ ~ II ~ ....
II ~ ~
~ 0 ~ ~
< ~
Z -
< ~
<
~ 01100 000 0 0 0 000000 000 0
~1I00 000 0 0 ~ ~OOOO~ 000 0
>- ~II···· . . ...... ... .
~ II~M 000 0 0 ~ M~~~~O 000 0
~ ~1I~~ ~OO ~ ~ 00 ~~~~~~ ~OO ~
~ ~1I~N ON~ ~ ~ M ~~~~~~ 00010
E-1 ~ II ...... ............ .... ... .... ................... .... N .-t '"
H 0110000 NONII~ ~ ~ ~~~~~OOIlM~~ 0
< ~1I~M ~~ 1100 I 00 ~ ~OOOOOOOOMIINI I 0
~~ 1I~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~II~ ~
P::: ~ 1I~ ~ 1I~ ioI')-
II II
< II II
II II
Po; II II
II II
::E:: II II
II II
o II II
II II
U II II
~ II
E-! II
~ liE-!
o II Z
U II ~
1I::E:: E-!
~ 11>< H
P::: 11< Q
< II Po; ~
~ II I P:::
t:: I ~ U
~ 0 0 Q ~
Z~ ~ Q ~ U
O~ U Z
HPo; Q 0 ~ Q) Z <
~O><E-! Z Z ~ ~ <<< Z
H~P:::P::: < < ~ Z E-!~
~~:>Po;~< I::Z:: P::: H E-! HE-!
~~ :>E-! ~ I U ~ Z QZ
«~OO~ P::: p:::. ~ ~NM~~~ ~H
E-!E-IU~U~ < ~ ~ ~ ~::E:: ~~~~~~ P:::<
OOH,-,,~U ~ Z Po; tI) ~ >< I I I I I u::E'
E-!E-I~ P:::H Q 0 Q) < O~NM~~
~Z ~ P::: ~ ~ 0 Po; ~~~~~~ 0000
~~oo~a < 0 ~~::z:: E-! MM
P:::P::: H~::Z:: H < ~E-! >< ><><><><><><
«OE-!~O P::: ~ ~Z E-! ~ ~~~~~~ ~::E::
~~O<ZO ~ < ~ '0 Z ::z:: ~~
QE-!~UH~ < Z ~~ ~ E-! 0 E-!E-!
P:::~-~~- E-! ~. 0 Z ~ ~~
<O~Q~~ 0 U H ~O ~ 0 ><><
::z::~<~~< E-! ~ H <~ < ~ M ~~
. -
o I
00 0 000 0 0 0 ~ ~OOOO~ 000 0
~O 0 oUO ~ 0 0 ~ M~~~~O 000 0
AO . 00' . 0" ...... ... .
o 0 000 ~ N N ~ ~~~~~OO ~OO ~
~O 0 ~O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~O 0000 00
~" M OO~ _ 0 0 ~ OO~~~~~· MOO ~
~ " ... '" J.. ... ......... .............. "N ~ ..
0" ~ M ~ M ~ ~ 00 ~~~~~O ~MM ~
~ II M M ~ N ~ ~ ~ NOOOOoo ~ I M
~ ~ M ~ ~ ~MMMM~ tI") tI")
~ I ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ U~
M II "
~ " 0
" 0
o "
" "
" "
" 0
" "
" "
" 0
" 0
0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tI") ~OOOO~ 00000
~" 0 0 0 ~" ~ ~ ~ NOOOO~ 000"0
IX:I" 0" 0" ... ...... ... 0
" 0 0 0 0" ~ ~ 00 ~tI")~~~OO ~OO ~
U) ~"O ~"~,....¡ 0" tI") tI") tI") ~OOOON"MOO N
~" ~ 0 ~ ~ "" 00 00 ~ ~~~~~O"~OO ~
H ~ II .. oIl , .... II II .... .... ... .. .. .. -II ..N...... ..
00 ~ ~ 0\ ~ 0 0 ~ ~I 00 tl")NNNN~"~M""'¡ 0
U) ~II M ~ ~ ~ "" ~~" -toIT NOOOO~II""'¡I I 0\
~ -toIT 0 0" ~~" -toITMM,....¡,....¡~O~ ~
:>-< 0 ~ II" -toIT ~ 0 ~~-toIT~ "-toIT ~
,....¡ "" " 0
~ 0 -toIT "" " II
o II " 0
< ~ " " "
" " II
Z - I "II 1/
0" II
< U) "II II
II II II
< "II II
I II II II
~ 00 000 0 0 II 0 00 tI") ~OOOO~ 00010
~O 000 0 0 " 0 00 N ~OOOON 000 0
:> AO ..... " - -II ...0..0 - o. .
Z II 000 0 0 II 0 00 N ~~~~~O ~OO ~
H ~O O~~ N ~ " ~~" ~ ~0000~1~00 ~
IX:I ~II ~OOO N N 0 00 0011 ~ OMMMMNII~OO an
~ c::::a II .. .... .... II .. -II .... .. .. .. .. -II ..N.....-t ..
H 00 ~M~ ~ ~ II 0 00 ~ MNNNNO\II,....¡,....¡,....¡ 00
< ~II ~O~ ~ ~ II 0\ 0\0 ~ N~~~~~II~I I M
~ N N M I ~ ~ 0 -toIT -EP.- -toIT ~ -toIT -toIT II ~ ~
~ -toIT ~ -toIT -toIT1I II-t./T -t./T
M II II
< -toIT II II
II II II
p.., II 0 0
" II"
Z "0 "
" 0"
° "II "
II II II
U U) I II II II II
~ II II
Z " ~ II
~ " Z II
;¿: ~II
~ Z II
. ~ :>-< II ~
H ~ < II H
;:::¡ 0\ p.., II A
0' I II rx¡
~ ,....¡ Z II ~
~ 0\ 30 u
o II
~ :>-< All A ~
A r:... II rx¡ U
< ~ II U Z
~II ~ 1011 rx¡ Z <
C!JII U) II~II U) < -x Z
p..,1I 0 II II < E-< Z E-<rx¡
;:::¡ II U II I 1I::q Z H ~ H E-<
o II I II U rx¡ r:... Z AZ
AII~~~ ~ II II ~ X ~ MN~4~~ ~H
~IIO\O\O\ < IIOII;:::¡ :>-< ~ X 0\0\0\0\0\0\ ~<
~ I I I IE-<" ~"p.., < IX:I :>-< I I I I I I U ¿:
U ~4~ H "PII p.., < 0-NM4~
~ 0\0\0\ ~ "" ~ 0 ~ O\O\~O\O\O\ 0000
p.., < "0" U) Z ~ ~~
X :>-<:>-<:>-< U "HU < 3 :>-< :>-<:>-<:>-<:>-<:>-<:>-<
r4 r:...r:...1%.t "~" ~" 0 ~ ....:¡ r:...r:...r:...r:...r:...r:... ZZ
~ "<U....:¡" q Z = ~~
. < "ZU U ;:::¡ ~ ~~
H ~ II~"'" ~ 0 Z U)U)
H 0 "un H" o;¿: 0 :>-<:>-<
H ~ "Cf)U HU ~ < X Cf)CI)
-
all 0 0 0 0 ~~ ~~~ 0
~II 0 0 0 0 -X øø~ M
QII .... co Z
II 0 0 0 ~ .~ CO~H
"':¡II 0 ~ ~ 0 Mil') N·"':¡
~II MOM 00 N .11')
Q II ~.. ~ .. I ......1'000
011 \C M ~ co ~ ~
XII M M ~ M ~
-EI'r -EI'r 0
I ..
-
-Eo/}-
all 0 0 0 0 M~ O~~ 0
~II 0 0 0 ~ ~X ø~ N
~II 0 0 0 0 ~N Z
II 0 0 0 0 .~ COH
U) ...:¡ II 0 ~ ~ ~ N..-t o"':¡
~II M OIlM ~ I ~
H QII ~ ..II.. ~ N II') CO
all ~ MII~ ~ M ~
U) :I: II M Mil'" ~
-Eo/}- II -Eo/}- ~
>< 0 II -Eo/}-
II
...:¡ 0 II
II
< ~ II
II
Z -..... II
II
.< ~ II C
- II
< II
II
~ 011 OCOIIO 0 N~ ~~~ 0
~II 000110 0 MZ øø~ N
:> Oil "'11" co Z
Z II 000110 ~ oN CO~H
H "':¡II O"'~IIN 00 NO\ N'''':¡
~ wlI MCOOIIN ~ ...... o~
E-- QII ...·11 ~ ~ J ..-- ~N
H 011 ~MMIIM N ~ M
< XII MOM ~ 0 ~
-Eo/}- N N..-t
P::; -Eo/}- ~
..-t
< -EI'r
p.,
Z
o
U ~
E--
Z
ex:¡
:I:
ex:¡
P::;
H '"
~ 0'1
a I
~ ..-i ~ ..
P::; 0'1 Z II ~----
o II P=::~
ex:¡ >< ~ II ex:¡
o ~ HIIW ~
< P=::IIU"':¡-
P=:: E-i <IZ 0
ø ~ p., ~ P=::H
p., 0 Z E-iH
~ U 0 ZU
u 0 ~O~
o ~~'" ~ ~ >< ZU<
W O'I~~ < >< P=::---- E-i 0-"'"
E-< I I I E-i E-i~..-i H HZ"'=¡
U M~~ H H~" U"'=¡"'=¡E-iO<
w 0'10'10'1 ~ U 0 ««HH
~ < <tWO p.,ZZUE--X
x ~~>< U ~II:>~ <P=::P=::H«
w ~~~ <IIHI~UWex:¡ZE--Z
~ UIIE-iOOP::; E-iE-i~U)H
. < II <MOQZXZ~:3
H E-- 'II~-""'Z~HWXP=::E-i
HII 0 :>1Iex:¡U)ex:¡< 00
HII E-i HIIP=::-ZQ u:3
.-- .. .
. . . . .
..... .
~I Q)C
~.- CJ).Q
Oõ I ö~
'G) N '-~
a.. == I Ð._
~~ '*
::51 => 01
"
~ . J'f)
, . 0)
. m
\ ·
· <:) .....
·
0 · 0
\ · to
·
rIJ \ · .-4
.~ · CD
\ ·
· 'C
·
· 0
e \ .
. X
~
~ , ·
· OJ
· tf)
·
· C1')
\ · en
· ,
·
· en
\ · '-..
~
·
\ · N
· -
·
C.) · en
·
\ · m
·
· ...-
~
Q) ~ ·
·
0 ·
C,) (.) to \ \
~ r3 c .
\ ~ 0
~ r-t · 0
·
~ Q) \ · "
·
·
~ 'C ·
\ · .-4
0 · å
~ · ø
~ ·
· N
\ · "0
~ 0 en ~
0 ·
.s 0 · ::£
O. · "
·
'oq' ·
p Q.) "- \ :co ,..,a.
en ~ ('r) - ... ~
~ \ :, en 0
~cn m
~ \ · ...- CO
~ · .~
c.. ·
· R..
\ ·
·
·
·
·
~ \ ·
~ ·
·
·
\ ·
0 ·
.~ ·
·
·
~ Q \ ·
·
·
a) ·
\ ·
· .....
Q) ·
: c::n
~ \ .
~ .........
0 ~ , · .
ä ·
· - 0
·
~ ~ ·
\ · en
·
· m
~ ·
0 \ · ...-
I 0 ·
· .
" " ·
·
c m \ ·
~ ·
·
·
r-t rl \ :
CI.) Ii) ·
·
'C ·
'C \ ·
·
0 0 ·
10-..; ~ ¿ ·
~ \ ·
·
·
<:) ·
~ \ · 0
ë;) <:) · en
-.:t
:a , \ "
S en \
< - OJ
f» (I)
~ m
t") 10 C'4 to ...- 10"'-
Ñ . Ó
..- .~~.
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID T. HARDEN
CITY MANAGER
FROM: MARK A. GABRIEL, P.E.
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/
CITY ENGINEER
DATE: APRIL 30, 1991
SUBJECT: 2 - INCH AND 3 - INCH WATER MAIN UPGRADE
AND WATER METER RELOCATION PROGRAM
GENERAL
The City has approximately 38 miles of small diameter (2 -
inch and 3 - inch) galvanized water main which are typically
over 30 years old. These lines are approaching the end of
their service life, which is approximately 35 years.
In addition, the City has experienced other problems with
the distribution system associated with the original layout
of the pipe network. These problems include:
- Water meters that are inaccessible to read
(in backyards). New meters are proposed to
be located at the street.
- Water mains that are inaccessible to repair
(in backyards). Proposed mains will be in the
street right-of-way.
- Substandard water main sizes.
- Lack of fire hydrants and fire flow in
certain areas of the City.
In addition, if the aging mains are not replaced, the City
can expect to experience higher operational costs due to:
- Increased water loss due to leakage.
- Increased repair costs.
INTERNAL SERVICE LINE CONNECTION PROGRAM
The water mains and services up to the property lines will
be constructed by the general engineering contractor.
Connections from the new meters to each existing service,
because of the legal and public relations implications of
working on private properties, requires careful
OJS/1
consideration. Several alternatives to accomplish this
construction have been developed:
Alternative 1 - General Contractor is responsible
for internal service line connec-
tions.
From a public relations standpoint,
the alternative would require
considerable coordination with each
homeowner in routing the line
within their property. This
alternative, however, would require
little additional effort on the
part of each resident. In addi-
tion, coordination and scheduling
would lie with the General Contrac-
tor, reducing the amount of City
coordination required.
Advantages: l. Single Contract
responsibility, coordination
and payment.
2. Work completed when required.
3. Minimum involvement required
of the Resident.
4. No additional City staff
required.
Disadvantages: l. Additional construction cost
for general contractor coordi-
nation.
2. Additional cost for
City/Resident coordination.
Alternative 2- Internal service lines are
installed by City forces.
This alternative may be quite
attractive from a cost standpoint,
and if properly implemented, an
administrative one, also. This
alternative, however, carries with
it the responsibility of dealing
directly with the homeowners. If
this alternative is undertaken,
extreme care must be exercised in
assigning personnel and coordinat-
ing the work with each resident.
Advantages: l. No Contractor markup-possibly
less costly.
2. Direct quality control.
Disadvantages: 1. Requires additional staff and
equipment.
2. City would assume additional
responsibility for coordina-
tion.
Alternative 3- Each individual homeowner retains
his own plumbing contractor from a
pre-approved list. Cost of work is
paid by the City.
Under this alternative a list of
approved plumbing contractors would
be provided each resident. The
individual resident would be
responsible for contracting and
coordinating the work of the
contractor on his property.
Alternative 3A- City provides each resident with a
predetermined sum of money and
homeowner pays all costs in excess
of that amount.
If a homeowner did not wish to use
an approved plumbing contractor,
the City would agree to pay the
homeowner a predetermined sum.
Advantages: 1. City staff or retained General
Engineering Contractor not
working on private property.
Disadvantages: 1. Increased coordination effort
by City/General Contractor.
2. Numerous pay requests and
check preparations.
3. Added reliance on residents.
Alternative 4- Each individual homeowner is
responsible for retaining his own
plumbing contractor at his own
expense.
This alternative would substantial-
ly reduce the cost and degree of
effort required by the City. It
would, however, inflict a heavy
coordination and financial respon-
sibility on the homeowner.
Advantages: 1. substantial reduction in City
paid construction costs.
.-" . "~' . ....
~
.'.
,. ',.þ
. .'
2. City staff or retained Con-
tractor not working on private
property.
Disadvantages: 1. Resident opposition to capital
expense.
2. Increased coordination with
numerous Contractors.
3. Loss of control in abandoning
existing lines.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Risk Relative Degree of Degree of
of Bad Construction Liability Coordination
Alternative Publicity Cost on City on City by City
1 Moderate High Moderate Low
2 High Moderate High High
3 Moderate Moderate Moderate/Low Moderate
4 High Low Low Moderate
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the sensitivity analysis, it is recommended that
the meter relocation portion of this project be done using
Alternative 1, i.e. , the General Contractor(s) shall be
responsible for connecting each house to the new water main.
riel, P. E.
As istant Director of
Environmental Services/
City Engineer
MG:jaf
MGWMU04
File: Memo to City Manager
-,JIII______-...IUUI . _~--'-.~___.l~~~~__.___~._.____
.
..
2 AND 3 INCH 'vi A TERMAIN
UPGRADE PROGRAM
MAY 1991
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ~
l~:·
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
·
CITY OF DELRA Y BEACH
2 AND 3 INCH WATERMAIN UPGRADE PROGRAM
'WHY ?
- WATER METERS ARE INACCESSIBLE TO READ
(IN BACKYARDS). NEW METERS ARE
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT THE STREET.
- WATER MAINS THAT ARE INACCESSIBLE TO
REPAIR (IN BACKYARDS). PROPOSED MAINS
WILL BE IN THE STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY.
- SUBSTANDARD WATER MAIN SIZES.
- LACK OF FIRE HYDRANTS AND FIRE FLOW
IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CllY.
- INCREASED WATER LOSS DUE TO LEAKAGE.
- INCREASE REPAIR COST.
- --
. ....
. EXISTING METER BOX AT
REAR OF PROPERTY
EXISTI NG 2" OR 3"WATER
MAIN IN ALLE~_. TYPICAL ALLEY
,
~EXISTING
CUSTOMER
I SERVICE
I
I
TYPICAL
RESI DENCE
R/W LINE
-l
. -
TYPICAL STREET
I --
.
.
I~ CITY of DELRAY BEACH ~t:I II EXISTING SERVICE PLAN I
.
EXISilNG MtTiR BOX Ai
REAR OF' PROPERTY.
EXISTINQ 2" OR 3" WATER RELOCATE TO STA&:ET
MAIN IN ALLEY (TO BE TYPI CA L ALLEY
ABANDONED) '\
--
ALTERNATE '~I
CONNECT AT
EXISTING METER rEXISTING
BOX CUSTOMER
I SERVICE
ALTERNATE lei I
CONN ECT TO
EXISTING SERVICE
LINE
TYPICAL
RESIDENCE
PROPOSED WATER PROPOSED
MAIN IN STREET METER AT~
(8" MIN.) STREET R/W R/W LINE
PROPOSED SERVI CE LI NE
. -
TYPICAL STREET
I --
;
i
I ~~ CITY of DELRAY BEACH ~tð II SERVICE RELOCATION PLAN I
CITY OF DELRA Y BEACH
2 AND 3 INCH WATERMAIN UPGRADE PROGRAM
AL TERNATIVES
1. GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERNAL
SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS.
2. INTERNAL SERVICE LINES ARE INSTALLED BY CITY
FORCES.
3A. EACH INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER RETAINS HIS OWN
PLUMBING CONTRACTOR FROM A PRE -APPROVED
. LIST. COST OF WORK IS PAID BY CITY.
38. CITY PROVIDES EACH RESIDENT WITH A PREDETERMINED
SUM OF MONEY AND HOMEOWNER PAYS ALL COSTS
IN EXCESS OF THAT AMOUNT.
4. EACH INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR RETAINING HIS OWN PLUMBING CONTRACTOR
AT HIS OWN EXPENSE.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
2 AND 3 INCH WATERMAIN UPGRADE PROGRAM
,ESTIMA TED COST
OF
-
RESIDENTIAL SERVICES
ESTIMA TED
DESCRIPTION COST
.
1. FURNISH AND INSTALL METER BOX 150.00
2. FURNISH AND INSTALL METER
ACCESSORIES AND INSTALL
5/8·' METER (NOT INCL METER) 150.00
3. FURNISH AND INSTALL 1-INCH
POLYETHYLENE SERVICE LINE
(120 L.F. @ $7.50/L.F.) 900.00
* TOTAL ESTIMATED COST/RESIDENCE $1,200.00
(1991 DOLLARS)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
* 4/000 RESIDENCES @ $1/200,00 EACH $4,800,000.00
,
. .
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
2 AND 3 INCH WATERMAIN UPGRADE PROGRAM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
BECAUSE THE WORK WILL BE BROKEN UP
INTO SMALL PROJECTS, IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT THE RESIDENTIAL SERVICE INSTALLATION
BE DONE BY THE CITY USING CITY FORCES.
",'.
. ,
Traffic Element
s. 10th Street
4.3
LEGEND:
4.3 0 Counts taken in 1988 (Average Daily Trips X 1,000)
(9.0) 0 Counts projected for year 2000 (A.D.T. X 1,000)
New Data 'OJ
s. 10th Street Lfu..
10.4 6.8 Z
13.2
LEGEND:
10.4 o Counts taken Feb. 1991 by City (A.D.T. X 1,000)
11. 1 . Metropolitan Planning Organization Counts dated
Oct. 1990 (A.D.T. X 1,000)
Current Assessment ·
S. 10th Street 10.4 'Oi
Lfu..
76% (f.)Z
2L
13.2 J::.
-
96% ex)
2L
Lowson
, 5.6 (Averaged)
----- 4 1 7-
., 2L
)(
LEGEND:
13.2 Average Daily Trips (X 1,000)
96% 0 Percentage of Capacity @ Level of Service "D"*
2L 2 lane roadway
)er TPO Standards Ord. 90-40 5/I/QI
01<
. ttr1
[ITY DF DELIAY BEA[H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: ~Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager!
Administrative Services
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #~~CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP, MAY 7, 1991
PROPOSED EXPANDED RECYCLING PROGRAM
DATE: May 1, 1991
Action
City Commission is requested to consider a proposal from Waste
Management of Palm Beach to expand our current recycling program. The
proposal contains two (2 ) elements. These are:
1. Expansion of the existing multifamily recycling program to all
multifamily units, recycling plastic bottles, aluminum cans and
glass, in addition to newspaper.
2. Initiate a voluntary Commercial Recycling Program to recycle
glass, cardboard, mixed office paper and bi-grade computer paper.
This proposal was first submitted by Waste Management in late
September 1990. Since that time staff has been negotiating and
discussing the proposal with Waste Management. The primary areas of
concern have been (1)price (2)method of operation and container sizes
and (3)incentives to participate in the program. Information has been
obtained concerning cost of service and profit margins, type of
equipment to be used, staffing and, method of collection. Concerns
had also been expressed by staff regarding incentives for commercial
recycling.
The following outlines the existing proposals as they now stand and
includes Staff concerns. Direction is being sought from the
Commission.
Multifamily Recyclinq
A. proqram
1. Recycle Program for all multifamily units on a once-per-week
basis to include newspaper and co-mingled recyclables (glass,
plastic, aluminum) fAY$( (p
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
David T. Harden
May 1, 1991
Page 2
2. Newspapers and co-mingled recyclables to be deposited in
96-gallon rollout containers. One 96-gal container per 10
units for co-mingled. All existing FEL (dumpster) containers
will be eliminated.
Each unit would receive a six-gallon "apartment recycler" to
carry their materials to the 96-gallon containers.
Recycling coordinator and a WMI representative will meet
with each development to determine numbers and placement of
containers for each multifamily complex.
3. Monthly Collection charge would be $1. 70 per unit, to be
collected by Waste Management. (Current multifamily newspaper
recyclying charge is per container and is collected by Waste
Management. The current per unit cost varies by the number of
containers but averages approximately $1.00 per unit.)
4. Disposal - All materials to be taken to the Solid Waste
Authority per the existing agreement with the City. No
monetary incentive to be received by Waste Management or the
City.
B. Staff Concerns
1. Cost per unit
2. Number, type, placement of containers and coordination
with condominiums.
COMMERCIAL RECYCLING
A. proqram
1. Voluntary Program for Commercial accounts on a once per week
basis to include glass, mixed office paper, corrugated card-
board, and bi-grade computer paper. Separate containers
would be utilized.
2. Container to be utilized will depend on the need of the
business and the volume of recyclable materials. Con-
tainer size to include 96-gallon rollout and 2, 3, 4, 6,
and 8 cubic yard dumpsters. Deskside containers for office
paper will also be provided. Containers to be maintained
and replaced by Waste Management.
David T. Harden
May 1, 1991
Page 3
3. Monthly Collection Charges - Once per Week
Container
Container Size Collection Chq. Rental Total
96 gallon $11. 00 $10.00 $21. 00
2 cubic yard 26.00 25.00 51. 00
3 cubic yard 33.00 35.00 68.00
4 cubic yard 52.00 40.00 92.00
6 cubic yard 78.00 45.00 123.00
8 cubic yard 104.00 50.00 154.00
Collection to be made by waste management. These rates are
higher than our existing commercial dumpster rates for
garbage. The reasons for this are as follows:
a. Longer transportation routes
b. Less density because program is voluntary
c. New equipment to be purchased
4. Disposal - Waste Management would own the materials and would
be able to sellon the open market. Proceeds from the sale
would be kept by Waste Management. Commercial monthly
charges were reduced from the original proposal to reflect
this arrangement. Originally Waste Management proposed to
return 50% of the sales proceeds to the City. Staff felt
this would be impossible to audit and that the cost break
should go to the customer. The cost reduction was based on
an average sale receipt of $.10 per yard.
5. Incentive to Businesses - The incentive to business would
come from the possible reduction of materials in garbage pick
up, resulting in fewer weekly pick-ups, avoided disposal
costs, and smaller containers, Le. reduction in garbage costs
to offset recycle costs.
B. Staff Concerns
1. Cost to customers
2. Incentive to recycle
RAB:efw
.. ;
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: David T. Harden
City Manager
Robert A. Barcinski
Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services
FROM: Joseph M. saff~--'
Director of Finan e
SUBJECT: Review of Waste Management Proposals
DATE: April 30, 1991
On April 24th, I met with Mr. Doug McCoy, Assistant General Manager for
Waste Management, and Mr. Chuck Hayes, Finance Director for Waste
Management, to discuss the financial aspects of the multi-family and
commercial recycling proposals submitted to the City of Delray Beach.
MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING SERVICES
The "Annual Cost Analysis for Proposed Multi-Family Residential Recycling
Services" from Waste Management was submitted as follows:
Income:
9200 units at $1.78 per month $196,512
Expenses:
Driver/Helper wages 51,272
Employee benefits 16,466
Truck operating costs 13,176
Truck maintenance 18,264
Insurance/claims costs 15,352
Truck washing/other 1,360
Depreciation--truck (5 year life) 15,625
Depreciation--containers (5 year life) 21,659
Interest on capital purchases 14,844
Administrative costs and profit 28,494
Total Expenses $196,512
This proposal assumes that the multi-family recycling effort will utilize a
two-man crew with a rear loader on a full-time basis and that all collected
materials will be forwarded to the Solid Waste Authority (Delray transfer
station). Waste Management will provide and maintain the six-gallon
"apartment recycler" and the 96-gallon mobile carts which are sufficient to
handle this effort.
· -
Analysis of Multi-Family
Waste Management was asked to provide data on the current residential
recycling efforts in order to compare the proposed multi-family statistics;
however, Waste Management does not segregate its financial statements by
municipality--only on a consolidated operations basis. This means that
that the expenses listed above are simply extrapolations of corporate
annual total expenses allocated to all clients of Waste Management and are,
therefore, extremely difficult to analyze except on an "is this a realistic
number" approach, in most cases.
In analyzing whether a full-time two-man crew with a rear loader is
realistically required for this program, I would need the number of
containers picked up each day, not the number of units served. Waste
Management is to provide this information by April 26th. This could have a
significant impact upon the proposal since a reduction in the labor
utilization reduces all costs proportionately. For example, if the crew is
only needed 75% of the time proposed, all costs allocated to this effort
would be reduced by 25%.
"Interest Expense" of $14,844 is obviously calculated incorrect"y because
the annual depreciation of the truck and equipment is only $37,284. This
may be the first-year interest on a decreasing balance method, but one
cannot set rates to customers based upon the first year of a decreasing
schedule since subsequent years will be less interest and more principal.
This expense, for rate purposes, should be an average of the five-year
schedule--if it should be charged at all. This comment is made since we
are being charged for a "rebuilt" truck and the funds for the acquisition
of the truck and equipment are supplied by another corporate subsidiary of
Waste Management which charges interest to this subsidiary. The City is
being charged "Depreciation" to cover the costs of replacing the truck and
containers and is also being charged interest on a loan from one subsidiary
to another.
I would be of the opinion that the City should be charged an interest rate
similar to that which the City could expect to receive in the current
market and that this interest should not be charged after the initial five-
year depreciation period since depreciation allows the Company to set aside
sufficient reserves to replace all equipment on a cash basis. I would
actually have expected this corporation to have set aside past reserves to
fund the acquisition of vehicles and equipment and thus not need to
"borrow" funds from its other subsidiary to fund such a small addition to
their fleet and equipment inventory. Waste Management is to review this
expense and provide their comments by April 26th.
"Employee benefits" include profit-sharing and bonuses while the City is
being charged for "administrative expense and operating income".
"Operating Income" is profit. While the profit sharing is not broken out,
it should not be considered in this proposal since we are paying for
profits. Profit sharing and bonuses are a distribution of profit
(operating income) and since we are paying for profit we should exclude
these expenses from "Employee Benefits".
2
. .-
"Depreciation Costs" are entirely dependent upon the original cost of the
asset and the projected life of the asset. In order to evaluate this
expense, I would need this data. Waste Management will provide the
"apartment recycler" initially and will bill the City for replacement
units. This is inconsistent with the City being charged depreciation on
containers which would provide funding to replace the containers through
rates.
"Administrative Expense and Operating Income" are simply determined by
deducting expenses from income. I would question administrative expenses
because these expenses were already covered by existing contracts and no
additional personnel, supplies, or overhead should be incurred by our
contract. In addition, the customers served under this contract are
already customers of Waste Management and thus one simply needs to add a
billing code for recycling to the existing bill.
It is interesting to note that Deerfield Beach charges $1.77 per month for
a single family home and this proposal is $1.78 per month for a
multi-family unit even though a crew can pick-up 15 to 20 units at one time
in a 96-gallon container.
.
COMMERCIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM
The "Annual Cost Analysis for Proposed Commercial Recycling Program"
submitted by Waste Management was submitted as follows:
Income:
880 weekly container yards $242,985
Sale of recyclable materials 4,576
Total Income $247,561
Expenses:
Driver wages $ 34,112
Employee benefits 10,916
Truck operating costs 16,658
Truck maintenance 49,098
Container maintenance 17,600
Insurance/claims costs 10,456
Truck washing/other 2,475
Depreciation--truck (5 year life) 16,250
Depreciation--container (5 year life) 21,890
Interest on capital purchases 11,931
Administrative costs and profit 56,175
Total Expenses $247,561
This proposal assumes that the commercial recycling effort will require a
one-man crew with a front-loader full-time (55 hours per week) and that all
materials collected will go to Durbin, a Waste Management subsidiary
located in Pompano Beach.
3
lit ..
Analysis of Commercial Proposal
Waste Management proposes to pick-up 880 weekly container yards or 220
containers (880 divided by four yard-size containers used in the
calculation per Waste Management) one time per week in this commercial
recycling effort. If the driver is to work 55 hours per week, it would
on]y produce four container pick-ups per hour.
Many of the comments made in the multi-family analysis would also be
applicable to the commercial proposal. For example, profit sharing and
bonuses should be excluded from "Employee Benefits" since these expenses
are distributions of profit and we are being charged profit separately.
"Interest Expense" appears to be the same problem as multi-family.
"Truck Maintenance" appears to be three times the cost of the vehicle on an
annual basis, while "Container Maintenance" is almost equal to the cost of
the containers. These costs should be reviewed since they are significant
in the final rate structures.
As in multi-family, more information is required in order to evaluate
depreciation. We would need to identify the truck and the orig'nal costs
on the truck and the containers.
CONCLUSIONS
The primary focus of this analysis should be on the assumption that the
multi-family would require a full-time two-man crew (52 hours per week)
since all costs are predicated upon this base assumption. Commercial rates
assume that this effort will require a full-time one-man crew for 55 hours
per week. Based upon these assumptions, we are being charged with the full
cost of the crew's benefits, the full time cost of a vehicle for each
effort, and the attendant maintenance and depreciation costs.
Although this should have been the case, the proposals did not give me
sufficient information to analyze these costs for multi-family. For
example, the proposal gives the number of units served and not the number
of containers and, therefore, it is not possible to determine the number of
containers picked up weekly to evaluate if the number is reasonable.
The commercial proposal gives me the number of container yards picked up,
not the number of containers; however, it was determined that this yardage
was determined based upon a four-yard container and thus the number of
containers is 220 per week. Thus, if the crew works 55 hours per week and
picks up once a week, the crew is servicing only four containers per hour
which appears to be an extremely low service level.
The remaining items that will require additional clarification from Waste
Management is "Interest Expense" and the "Administrative Expense" charges.
FOLLOW-UP WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT
Correspondence from Waste Management received April 29th revised their
"Interest Expense" and "Administrative Expense" proposal which would bring
the multi-family rate from $1.78 down to $1.70.
4
·
.. ;
FINAL RECOMMENDATION
It would be my recommendation that the multi-family rate be established at
$1.50 per unit unless and until Waste Management can substantiate a
container pick-up rate that would warrant a higher charge.
It would be my recommendation that the commercial rate be reduced by 20%
unless and until Waste Management can substantiate a container pick-up rate
that would warrant a higher charge.
As part of the final negotiations, it may be wise to allow Waste Management
an extended contract in exchange for these rate adjustments since, from all
indications, they do provide excellent service and response to our customer
and code enforcement concerns.
JMS/sam
cc: Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator
Robin Ennis, Recycling Coordinator
~
5
)/7 ?~
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: J. Dragon, Acting Director
Parks and Recreation Dept.
DATE: March 18, 1991
SUBJECT: July 4th Activities
Per your request please find outlined below a list of
possible activities that miogh t be scheduled on the Fourth of
July. July is designated as National Parks and Recreation
Month by NRPA and a variety of activities during the month
but particularly on July 4th would be appropriate.
1. A two-person volleyball tournament on the beach.
2 . A one-day adult softball tournament at Miller
. ,.(
Field. ~...........
ì
3. A band concert at Veteran's Park.
e '4 . A neighborhood Bar-B-que and family outing at
Pompey Park.<\ ~.
1
,-t 5. Tennis tournament at the Tennis Center.
I¡..~q 6. A youth fishing contest at Lake Ida Park.
) 7 . Sand-building contest and kite-flying at the beach.
/) A fire-department competition.
'. 8.
/' lifeguard
9 . A competition. at the beach.
10. Open house at the various recreation centers.
)11. One-mile ocean swim.
-l..2 . Field-trips to various nature parks in Broward and
Palm Reach Counties.
Please advise.
n, ActIng-nIrectõr--
nd Recreation
~g8
-1/
\, ';i~
r _ ...
ÆCH/o . CITYOC~é .
~' . zs(
TO: D~"I\ D }i~~. . ".- DATE:~i~"~l
FROM: \S:S-~OU4itðð ~~ :3-(-ql
~ð-C- II 3-i7--Q,
SUBJ:
CVJ1\'iA~"'\~ t r~ oJ -rßsr ~ l.,n.~ (t{\Ì)
~ f D.O.\.
~,,~ ~ '(rÐI<A. ~ ,~)
\<2:. 0... .
3 -(Y. -'1 ,~ , ~ _
- ~r
û> J- ~. ." ~ -c5;;::[~
~. c.fì JJ' . .
~eJH(J . CITY OF DElRAY BEAC~ <.3
TO: rIJ O.)i ol
DATE:
F ROM :~CtY:J,)...r-..
SUBJ: ~~ ¡at- '!~tuJ.~ _ 2
Ó'-'~f 7/" l~cÆ ,CJ-<J ¿<.Lei...
bA dLlJC~ ¡iì¿;r L Gf í1}
In '- -?,rj(77 ~ I h /I)C2.~ ~ bel . . J
~ .j,. ~o...;.>-"
.
1"'~t /ffi. 4 ~~ l~ bú .
cf} ')Ì{j~ /'-'- iL<. ðÍio....aJ ~
~.-A-_ ,--f!.c,-~, doc:, ~-~ )¡c0d'-
r DO /, t-"Mjrô 2(.,-,;:(: oa-.-L j5~d£
v.J ~ ¡ $1. $Is Rffd- g 1/(3 ,
9 k~ ~{) ¡~~ Co~3 )o~
/YlJ l Leo .
-\, ~~
~<Þ \J1ð~'1'-\
\)1'- )/nhr
- . . -
MERCHANTS' TITLE SERVICES, INC.
120 SOUTH OLIVE A VENUE
SUITE 555
1 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
~ PHONE: (407) 655-4448
FAX: (407) 832-8463
"OWNERSHIP ONLY" TITLE REPORT
SEARCH NO. 2436-1 SECTION NO.
STATE ROAD: PARCEL NO.
F.A.P. NO. W.P.I. NO.
THE UNDERSIGNED does hereby certify that a search has been made of the
Public Records of Palm Beach County, State of Florida for:
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SURVEY AND MAPPING
As to the following described property, to-wit:
Lot A, McGinley and Gosman's Subdivision, according to plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 87, Palm Beach County
Public Records.
Said records reflect the apparent ownership of the lands described above to-wit:
QWNER(S) NAME: STATE OF FLORIDA
ADDRESS:
ACQUIRED BY: Special Warranty Deed filed March 4, 1960
RECORDED IN: Official Records Book 477, Page 42
ST AMP TAX: $.20
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Title Report reflects a
comprehensive search of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, showing
the apparent ownership only of the above described property. This report is not to be
construed as an opinion of title.
Dated this 14th day of December, 1990, at 8:00 A.M.
MERCHANTS' TITLE SERVICES, INC.
/ ./ii~~foR
/
b~/,
. ,
,
. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IIOIIIIWrI1I'ŒZ un G. ."'ITS
GOWIIftOR Sl!ClŒl'AIIY
M E M 0 RAN DUM R E: l~ r ~ '-/1 r:: D
~,,... ,- ! ,,:to ~ ~~., ;t '"
---------- ~,'':'',..\) ,!':¿; ~
b 'I:.~~ ¡;..o -
DATE: ~ Jilt>! M 1991
TO: ~ ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT
FROM: Horst J. Korn
By: D. Negrette
SUBJECT: Parcel of land along State Road 5 (Lot A McGinley and
Gosman's Subdivision
State Project No. 93010-2206 - Palm Beach County
Parcel No. 459
According to our records and Right of Way Maps, the triangular
parcel located at the Northwest corner of N.E. 7th Street and
N.E. 5th Avenue (State Road 5), being in Section 9, Township
46 South, Range 43 East, is part of State Road 5 Right of Way,
recorded in Official Records Book 477, Page 42.
HJK:DN:eb
Attachments
~-~.~
'0: . -~,~:.." ':, \\" \ 1,
; ,j"" ,"
.. .-.,.,
\','-;"
r· /
~..j
"'-J
... ,. ,
:\'.u
.\.. '
~\.þ,\"1·' \ uifq
:n;
. ,...,......-....-
. . _. ..~"",- . i
...~.. ,-
{#'
~:tt g
~
;
..\ \Ð.t\ , ¿~
.... . ,
_, --."-t í.c-." , ,
, ¡ .
',(~,___t~ ,~_ . . _f, ¡ .
MERCHANTS' TITLE SERVICES, INC.
120 SOUTH OLIVE A VENUE
SUITE 555
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
PHONE: (407) 655-4448
FAX: (407) 832-8463
"OWNERSHIP ONLY" TITLE REPORT
SEARCH NO. 2436-1 SECTION NO.
STATE ROAD: PARCEL NO.
F.A.P. NO. W.P.I. NO.
THE UNDERSIGNED does hereby certify that a search has been made of the
Public Records of Palm Beach Countv. State of Florida for:
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SURVEY AND MAPPING
As to the following described property, to-wit:
Lot A, McGinley and Gosman's Subdivision, according to plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 87, Palm Beach County
Public Records.
Said records reflect the apparent ownership of the lands described above to-wit:
OWNER(S) NAME: STATE OF FLORIDA
ADDRESS:
ACQUIRED BY: Special Warranty Deed filed March 4, 1960
RECORDED IN: Official Records Book 477, Page 42
ST AMP TAX: $.20
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Titl~ Report reflects a
comprehensive search of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, showing
the apparent ownership only of the above described property. This report is not to be
constru~d as an opinion of title.
Dated this 14th day of December, 1990, at 8:00 A.M.
MERCHANTS' TITLE SERVICES, INC.
/ /)
/
..
.
.
.
Parcel No. )$1 45CJ
Sill) NO. 819
(I nd. SIl) C{¡ 477 ,m 42
¡ S~TtON 9)OlO-~~r(,
.. MAR ( II u AX '50 STA TE ;O,lJ) :;
!'~ 81".A1:1' ':OmlTv
SPECIAL WAltAANTT D~TJ
'nU3 YlmmrtJlfE roade this 11 tÞ.:!ay "r februlI ry A.n. ",60
bet~~ JAKF.5 K. Hc~INlF.Y anf! Suzanna McGinl.y. hi. vi fe,
,
And .I?-\'I IIØIE ;'"cGtKUY WALLIS and Willia. T. Wallie. h.r hueband
and lio\1L1Y A. JOHIISTON, as Tl'Ust"" und..r tho! m 11 or J...,I\<' K1 nc ,.,:"1' nl"y,
deceaøed,
~ Md HAI( tJŒl' E. GOS~:AJI, uMllrrled, wilow aflll reslduAr:' lr.r..,t"" (,~ John '.I.
')o"",an, d.c....ed
~ anI! nAit·ri' P. HcG TIlLF.Y. J it. and Marqaret McGinley. hie vlfe,
a~ partie. ot the f'1rat part." ~ t.he STATE O!" F'tO,UTJA, ro,. th" Uf." .rvj
beMri~ or the lI.tate Road Depa:. nt or norid,'. as I'lIrty or t.h.. '''""n<!
part.
"1""""J WI1'1ŒS.')ETK, That. the aaid parth. or tli.. (trst. pArt, ror .ne I r. "o!\-
I:)~ Q øiderat10ft or the ~ or One Dollar and other yaluablr ronaiderat.lons, oaid,
_ N I receipt or tlhich ia hereby acknovled~..d, do hereby IIrant. banrdn, ::.-11 and
:r 0. C)
:>~I '" conveYllftt.o t.h4! party.or th. ..cond part, it.a aucces.or" an<! ass1r.n". t.he
.J" '::--.. rollow1n~ d..cribed land, .ituate, lying and balnr. in the ~ount.y or ?AI~
. . I
J..~ Beach, Stat.. or nor1da, t.o-wit,
~ 0 "''''
~ . r
:'1' ï I; ~
« . ..
,- I . ~
I if) Ih I/I/I~~ Lot A, McGinley and ~f.r."'An'r. ~ubd1Ylr.lnn. Ac"omin"
to plat.: t.horeor aft r"cor.lod in Plat Rook 2, pap:o C7.
AlNno:> . Pat. 84Mh County Public ''''cord..
. I~ua "~'4 '",ortt..tn1n,. O.U'et an aore, 1&0" or 1....
... 1D HAVI AICD TO HaL/) TII! SAM!, tor.ether..wnh all and o1n (Ulnr the i
ap~.. Lherwt.o b.lon¡inc or 1n aR¥V1.e ino11!ent or appertain!nr., !
rO.....2'\ and the partie. or t.he rir.t. part ,,111 de tend the title tho....t.o
&l:ai,.t all penoti. claWn¡ by, through, 02' under the oaid Dart.iea or the
tint part.
e: 11 W'I'l'NI-'8 1IHJ:RI!X)', ..id parti.o o'r t.h. rirnt part. hue h.reunto set,
0 t.heir ~. f. and ..ala the dat:. firat abo... wr1 tten.
.
,
. _..._.__......_ ..L··~_ ~ ____._
, \
r,.I' -
\. -\j '>.":
'Yj'
.;
g 477_ 43
:;,TATt OF MEV yœr: )
COUNTY OF~k. )
)
Sefore .. per.onn~ly appeared MARGARET E. GOSMAN, a wldow. to me
well known and known to .. to be. the lndiYidual de.crlbed 1n a~
who executed the foreqolnQ in.tru..nt and acknovl.dQ.d before me
that .he .xecut.d the .a.. for the purpo... ther.in .xpr....d.
WITNESS my hand and officlal ..41 thh oZtðdaY of February.
A.D. 1960.
<~\~(;{:;:./~' , J/aw. M~a/jffff(t:
-. Co -...
My co_i..ion u~:;~~
. :';01 ~H£Jf~:tAL' tlEAL) c......... ..... .....,. to. ..-
. . ... .., .....
, .....flpa\...,\oJ:;...,;.
'.. ':~~:...:. . . ~ ..~'#:.
"II ;)... ;)..........
':",:"-:,' .
~
. ,
\
.
..
\
)
-._" _... --
. . ..
-- - -~ --~ '-1<-
. .
, ... "" '
I.. :J I:
r':p: 477 A4 '
F' ""IDA t.,·, 'A~f 'i .
STAT! or ........
COllrTJ or PAlJ( BEACH
htore .. per~ -weved JA1ŒS. to II:: GINLEY
end . 3UZANNA )(; GINLEY bu wite, to .. ...u Imovn
end Ir:ncne to .. \0 be the 1nd1~ ð..crllled in aDd ~c eXllcuWd the tonolO1ac In.t.n.ent
end.. ~~ ktor. .. that th.,. eØO'lJWd ,the ._ tor the purpo... th_1Ð upre..ed.
,"'. .' 0::.; .:"'. . 0
~'..:~. :~~.~"'" dn.w ..., ""'JIb ... ..~~' :"~'
(~~)..; ~ ,T
; ": - ... .-, ~ . 011' e COl1D T end :lt4h
. ... ','"]\..',r,.: .a!oreM14.
. ... PIT ~.1oa e¡¡p1re.. tIol.,,,, PU'" <, .
~.:. .~:ø; . ~n~o~m:; ::...~". ;' ,". ~f r ~,~,'" I'
STAn OF FLORIDA ."', ".
coœrn OF œCEOLA
BetON .. per.onallr ~ JEAN Me GINLEY WALLIS
end WILLIAJ( T. ilALJ..IS Me trU., to .. ...U Icnown
and Icnow to .. to ·1141 th. 1JIdi.Y1dual. ð~ 111 &ad ~o lXllouWd the tCNco1nc ~nt
and ~1'~' -.tore .. that tlIq eJœCNt,ed the ._ tor tII. purpo... tIIan1Ð np,....ad.
. ..~ ·:.n'nœŠtr;¡··~ aad otficial ...1 th1a u..!dq ot 19~.
',: . v . ,;-
(~~).:"
"-\ '- ;, f'
;.... ' ... ,/ - -
I.·.;::.,...,:." "' I"~ ,";;I..
sun 01 fLœIDA
couwrr or PAlJ( BEACH
Bet_ .. per.ooall7 appeare4 HARRY P. Ie GI HLEY. JR..
and MARGARET Ie GIlLEY bu wit., to .. ...U known
end k_ to 1M to be the 1Dd1'ñ.duJ.a cJe~bed 1Ð aid ~ ._t.e4 th. tONcølnc ~nt
end ~..4.ed bet_ .. that th.,. eøcNWd th. _ tOlt the PIU1'OIN tban1n upr...ed.
,~~~~~ e
~;':~ ~+.'~.. ... ........ 0001"'" tt...... r~ ~ lO£L.
'~. -r~·. ~ ~
. _ IT
-. -
; ',: _00- : .....: or . oua\7 end St.e.te
:. .:'.1'0 U U L \ to /:' ".' atore.aU.
, ,.. .. . .', '. . .., ~..1oa Qp1ree,
~. (. ~. ....._..~..... ,. cot."" P'u"'''c. ~...,~ ,..r"'ln '
. /' rl':-~1;\ ~ ~. aJ";:unuOl' h,._,,,\ þ,;;,".,,~-' .'~'~;
'-..h...li"..... U)' ".........,.... ')U'f!. . ~ "
8'tAn or PLœID^ .
coœn or PAµ( BEACH
ht_ tie P«'~ appMN4 HARRY A. JaillSTOJII It:3 'l'WS'1'EE UIiDEi '!'HE VI LL OF
W IREIEJ::IIIGI Ie QllLEY, DEC£A8ED 1oW'.III(':b. to _ ..u. knowo
aDd ~ \0 .. to !HI VIe UIa1'n.ØU.U GMOnMd 1A aid .eo a-ted t~ 1nI~nt
aDd ~':~-:- .. tbØ 'hq aMIIte4 v;J.- ,tor p1Ø1IOIN there1A Qpre.Md. I
~;.,¡.~' "aDd ott1oUl..al uu../"......- 4q of !
,~....... ....... ," ,. -r'-- ¿
.,. .' "" " f" . , ~
~."""h.\'.::"',.,.
. ~ . ~1 -.,,&..~- ...---
/1 "'.... .....<"1., ....'\.
; "t.\ 0 .,- .\ f, \,. ,. .A· at~
~ : /> ___ J. \ h:-' .., _...... -.u-,
l~\ C1.)L-la!~:"
',~''', · Uf.. ¡ --. ........ oS_ J Florida .. 10<90
-'I., <- d. ..... . - ~.~.t . My CIOr'\'Wt"'~ ..'" A<WIQ 2.. J 'hÖ
. . "lO";'_o, \.' ,/ / __In 0fIId0/ R««d .... - .. _1<- ~... Co .. ... ·
", . I\)!. .'"
·'.'11"...'....... , .,,... ø..ch County, ,kÞAd.t
, .. J. ALex ARNETTe
QI.ØK at CII'CUIT COUll]
. .
,
MEMORANDUM
----------
TO: DAVID HARDEN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT #
RE: ORDINANCE REQUIRING WATER CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES
DATE: MAY 2, 1991
ITEMS BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
Commission discussion and consideration of adopting proposed
ordinance regulating and mandating the use of water conserving
plumbing fixtures in unison with the ordinance passed by the Palm
Beach County Commission.
BACKGROUND:
The implementation of this ordinance will assist in the reduction
of water consumption by using low volume bathroom fixtures. This
ordinance is based on the ordinance passed by Palm Beach County
and provides for a uniformity of requirements with the
contractors and other cities in Florida, as well as other cities
in the United States. This ordinance is designed to allow for
any unforeseen problems with supply of fixture or shortage in the
industry by allowing the Chief Building Official to adjust the
use of an alternate fixture if an emergency situation of
availability occurs.
Industry feels that by 1992 production capacity and availability
will be on line. The overall savings in water use should be as
much as 50% on some fixtures. The additional cost of fixtures at
first would be approximately 20% and should be regained in one
year of water savings.
RECOMMENDATION:
We are recommending that the Commission approve and adopt this
ordinance effective July 1, 1991 in the interest of saving water.
At this time production of fixtures will now allow a smooth
institution and implementation of this water saving device.
Disk:L&D
B:StRpt.Ord
W~/IO
PROPOSED DRAFT FOR
. . DELRAY BEACH
ORDINANCE NO. 91-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE STANDARD
~\\èl ~.~~~~~ CONSTRUCTION CODES, 1988 EDITION, SPECIFICALLY THE
- STANDARD PLUMBING CODE, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF LAWS IN
~~~~~~~~\S CONFLICT¡ PROVIDING FOR INTERPRETATION OF CAPTIONS¡
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE¡ PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY¡ AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, F.S. Chapter 125 empowers the City of Delray to
provide for the health, safety and general welfare including
the enactment and enforcement of construction and related
technical codes and regulations; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 74-565, Laws of Florida, as amended,
authorizes the City of Delray Beach, Florida to adopt, by
ordinance, amendments to modify and improve its construction
codes, which specifically include the Standard Building,
Plumbing, Mechanical and Gas Codes, 1988 Edition,~to meet
local conditions, provided that said amendments do no lower
the standards of the minimum code adopted; and ~\DS
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach 1989 Comprehensive Plan~i~~~_
Potable Water Element, Objective A-4, directs the City Ofl'~I~
Delray Beach to revise its Plumbing Code to require water ~Q~tS
saving devices and appliances; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this amendment will be in the
~^~ public interest by strengthening the Standard Plumbing
\A'~ ~odes, 1988 Editionð for the health, safety and general
~\)\\~.f\\-. welfare of cit~zens in the City of Delray Beach, Florida;
c\'\\'Q.~\W~) and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF CITY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1 - AUTHORITY
This Ordinance is promulgated pursuant to Chapter 74-565,
Laws of Florida, as amended.
SECTION 2 - The amendment to the Standard Plumbing Code,
1988 Edition, hereto attached, is hereby adopted and
incorporated herein, as part of the minimum construction
code for the City of Delray Beach, Florida, pursuant to
intergovernmental agreement.
PlbgFix.Ord 1
SECTION 3 - REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT
All other local laws and ordinances of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, or parts thereof, which conflict with this
or any part of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4 - CAPTIONS
The captions, section headings, and section designations
used in this code are intended for convenience of users only
and shall have no effect on the interpretation of the
provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 5 - INCLUSION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a
part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may
be retitled, renumbered, or relettered to accomplish such
and the word "ordinance" may. be changed to "section" ,
"article" or any other appropriate words.
SECTION 6 - SEVERABILITY
I f any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance.
SECTION 7 - EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective July
1, 1991.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of City Commissioners of
Delray Beach, Florida, on this day of
---------
, 1991.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY ITS
BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS:
By:
Chair
PlbgFix.Ord 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
By:
City Attorney
Acknowledged by the Department of State of the State of
Florida, on this day of , 1991.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Acknowledgment received from the Department
of State of the State of Florida, this day of
, 1991 at m., and filed in
the Office of the Clerk of the Board of City Commissioners
of Delray Beach, Florida.
PlbgFix.Ord 3
STANDARD PLUMBING CODE, 1988 EDITION
CHAPTER 9
901 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - MATERIALS
901.1 Standards
Plumbing fixtures shall be constructed from approved materials,
have smooth impervious surfaces, be free from defects and
concealed fouling surfaces and, except as permitted elsewhere in
this Code, shall conform to the standards listed in Table 500.
901.2 Water Conservation
Plumbing fixtures and plumbing fixture fittings shall conform to
the following requirements:
1. All faucets, showerheads and their packaging shall be
marked by the manufacture in accordance with the provisions
of ANSI Standard Al12.18.1M (1989).
2. Water closets and urinals and their packaging shall be
marked in accordance with the provisions of ANSI Al12.19.2M
(1990) .
3. No new or replacement water closet, urinal, faucet or
showerhead shall be installed with a flow rate or flush
volume in excess of the maximum specified in Table 901.2.2.
and tested in accordance with the most recent appropriate
ANSI standards.
EXCEPTION: In retrofit applications, an exemption from
low consumption water closet requirements may be
permitted when approved by the building official, if
calculations show that the reduced waste flow may cause
the building drainage system to function improperly.
Calculations shall be prepared by a professional
engineer except for 1 & 2 family dwellings, in which
case calculations shall be prepared by a licensed
plumbing contractor.
4. Table 500 shall be modified when appropriate to reflect
flow rates specified in Table 901.2.2.
PlbgFix.Ord 4
TABLE 901.2.2. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATER USAGE
FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES
Water Closets 1.6 gal per flush
Urinals 1.0 gal per flush
Residential sink faucets 2.75 gal per minute
Residential lavatory faucets 2.75 gal per minute
Public lavatory faucets, metering type 0.25 gal per cycle
Public lavatory faucets, where metering
type is not permitted 0.5 gal per minute
Showerheads 2.5 gal per minute
l. Maximum allowable water usage for plumbing fixtures and
fixture fittings not listed in this table shall conform to
the applicable ANSI standard listed in Table 500.
2. Metering type is not required when prohibited by the
handicapped accessibility code.
3. Showerhead flow rate as tested at 80 psi in accordance with
ANSI standard Al12.18.1M.
4. Special purpose safety showers are exempted from maximum
flow rate limitations if the reduced rate would impair their
intended performance relative to safety.
5. Average water consumption for low consumption water closets
over a range of test pressures shall not exceed 1.6 gpf.
The consumption shall not exceed 2.0 gpf at anyone test
pressure.
6. When a fixture is not commercially available, alternative
means of restricting flow may be used when approved by the
building official.
PlbgFix.Ord 5
I PAUf BUrn COUNTY'S APPROVED ORDINANCE I
I
I
ORDIIIANCB 110. 91- 10
1
All ORDINAJlCB or ftB BOARD or COm1'1'Y
2 COMXISSIOIIBRS or PALM BEACH COm1'1'Y, rLORIDA,
AMBJlDIIIG ftB STAlmARD COIISTRUC'l'IOII COD B.,
3 1988 BDITIOII, SPBCIrICALLY ftB STAlmARD
PLUKBIBG CODB, PROVIDIBG rOR RBPBAL or LAWS
4 III COBl'LICT; PROVIDIIIG rOR IBTBRPRBTATIOB or
CAPTIOBS; PROVIDIIIG rOR IBCLUSIOII III ftB
5 COOBTY CODB; PROVIDIIIG rOK SBVBRABILITY; AIm
PROVIDIIIG rOR AN BrrBCTIVB DATB.
6
7 WHEREAS, F.S. Chapter 125 empowers counties to provide for
8 the health, safety and general welfare including the enactment
9 and enforcement of constLuction and related technical codes and
10 regulations; and
11 WHEREAS, Chapter 74-565, Laws of Florida, as amended,
12 authorizes Palm Beach County to adopt, by ordinance, amendments to
13 modify and improve its construction codes, which specifically
14 include the Standard Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Gas Codes,
15 1988 Edition, to meet local conditions, provided that said
16 amendments do not lower the standards of the minimum code adopted;
17 and
18 WHEREAS, Palm Beach County 1989 Comprehensive Plan, Potable
19 Water Element, Policy 5-j, directs Palm Beach County to revise its
20 Plumbing Code to require water saving devices and appliances;
21 WHBREAS, the adoption of this amendment will be in the public
22 interest by strengthening the Standard Plumbing Codes, 1988
!
23 Edition, for the health safety and general welfare of citizens in I
I
24 the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County; and
25
26 I IIOW, 'l'BERBrORB, BB IT ORDAIBBD BY ftB BOARD or COOBTY
27 I COMXISSIOIIBRS or PALM BEACH COOBTY, rLORIDA, that.
28
29 SECTIOB 1 - ÃU~HORITY
30 This Ordinance is promulgated pursuant to Chapter 74-565,
31 Laws of Florida, as amended
32
33
34
35 lwconsum.ord 1 12/11/90
SHCTIOR 2 - AXBHDMBØTS ADOPTHD
The amendment to the Standard Plumbing Code, 1988 Edition,
1 ereto attached, is hereby adopted and incorporated herein, a.
2 art of the minimum construction code for the unincorporated
::3 Ilareas of Palm Beach county. and for those municipalities within
4 Palm Beach County which the Palm Beach County planning, Zoning'
5 Building Department provides construction plan review and
6 inspection services, pursuant to intergovernmental agreement.
7
8 SHCTIOR 3 - aHPBAL or LAWS IR COBPLICT I
9 I All other local laws and ordinances of Palm Beach County,
¡
10 Florida, or parts thereof, which pertain to the unincorporated
11 area of Palm Beach County, Florida, which conflict with this or
I
12 ¡any part of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
1::3
I
14 SHCTIOR 4 - CAPTIONS
15 I The captions, section headings, and section designations used
16 in this Code are intended for convenience of users only and shall
17 ave no effect on the interpretation of the provisions of this
18 I rdinance. I
19 I
I
20 II SHCTIOR 5 - IRCLUSIOR IR CODH
21 The provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a
22 art of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Palm Beach County,
2::3 The sections of this ordinance be retitled,
may
24 enumbered, relettered to accomplish such and the word
or
25 "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article" or any other
26 ¡appropriate words.
27
28 SHCTIOR , - SBVBRABILITY
-29 If any section, paragraph,
¡ sentence, clause, phrase or word I
::30
this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, I
::31 inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the validity I
::32 f the remainder of this ordinance.
::33
34
::35 lwconsum.ord 2 12/11/90
I
I SBCTION 7 - BrrBCTIVB DATB I
I
¡ The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective April
I
1
1, 1991-
2
3 I APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
4 I Palm Beach county, Florida, on this day of FEB 1 9 19911991-
5
6
I
7 PALl( B~ COtJJITY".rLOÃÏDÅ; BY ITS
I BOAR~ Qr COtJJITY .çOMX~~aIO~SI
8 II :~ I
:0 I,
'Ch4 r
OHN'B. DUNKLE,:CtERK ....
, APPROVBD AS TO J'ORX Board of County ~missioners ....
1 1 AND LBGAL SUJ'J'ICIBNCY: V ¡'~, &.M .....
12 By, ¿t- fl, f By DEPUTY CLERK.' .~
131 I
County Attorney
:: I
Acknowledged by the Department of state of the state of
16 I Florida, on this day of , 1991- I
I
17
18 Acknowledgment received from the Department
19\ of state of the state of Florida, this day of
20 I ' 1991 at m., and filed in the Office of the
21 ¡Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County,
22 IFlorida.
23 I
I
24
25
26
27 I I
28
I
29 I
30
31
32 I
33
34 I
35 I wconsum.ord 3 12/11/90
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD PLUXBIHG COD., 1'.8 EDITIOR
CBAPTBR 9
'01 GEHERAL RBQUIRBMBHTS - KATBRIAL8
'01.1 Standard.
Plumbing fixtures shall be constructed from approved materials,
have smooth impervious surfaces, be free from detect. and
concealed fouling surfaces and, except as permitted elsewhere in
this Code, shall conform to the standards listed in Table 500.
'01.2 Water Conservation
Plumbina fixtures and clumbina fixture fittinas shall conform to
the followina reauirements:
I
1. All faucets. showerheads and their cackaaina shall be
marked bv the manufacturer in açcordance with the crovisions
of ANSI standard Al12.18.1M (1989).
2. Water closets and urinals and their cackaqina shall be
marked in accordance with the erovisions of ANSI Al12.19.2M
(1990) .
3. No new or reelacement water closet. urinal. faucet or
showerhead shall be installed with a flow rate or flush
volume in excess of the maximum seecJU!.st.. ~D'l'I3Þ,1"2Ql~ ~,~
~~I t:::::a/dns ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~;~9;hil·l.ir.III,~,~I!!
EXCBPTIOH: In retrofit aeelications. an exemetion from
low consumetion water closet reauirements mav be
. eermitted when aecroved bv the buildina ofticial. if
~~
lö^~WlilõJi"¡¡¡¡¡¡.'"iãrOíf¡¡t:lOñŠ-:-¡ljjin~~r'Diii<l -mr~ì
licensed elumbina contractor.
4. Table 500 shall be modified when aeeroeriate to reflect
flow rates seecified in Table 901.2.2.
TABLE 901.2.2 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATBR USAGE
FOR PLUXBIHG FIXTURBS1
1. 6 aal cer flush 5,6
1.0 aal cer flush
2.75 aal eer minutet
;;;;;;~;;; ~;;; ::~:::: 2.Z~ qal oar ainut.
I: _ _- :~:~ ~~~~~ -- -::i::~ng . :::~.::lD::r.:::::
,
I 3,4 2.5 aal eer minute
i
beep WORDS UNDERLINED ARE ADDITIONS
WORDS S'I'RIGKBN ARE DELETIONS
WORDS ~..t.JfL REPRESENT CHANGES BETWEEN
1ST AND<2NtfHR,!Äði G .
I
I
I
I
I
I
beep .91 CODIlfGa WORDS UNDERLINED ARE ADDITIONS
WORDS STRIGKEH ARE DELETIONS
WORDS !l~9;911t REPRESENT CHANGES BETWEEN
1ST AND·2 ....RD ·G
t: ... ",-
"'-0
6G-L RtP
Meetinq Date: Februarv 19. 1990 Aqenda Item #: ~
PALl( BBACB COOJl'l'Y o It I) . q 1--1 0
BOARD OW COUØTY COKNXSSIONBRS
AGBHDA IT" SUJOIARY
Consent ( ) Reqular ( ) Ordinance ( ) Public Hearinq (x)
I. BXBCUTIVB BRIBW
Reauest Submitted Bv: Plannina. Zonina and BuildinG DeDart.ent
For: BuildinG Division
Motion and Title:
Staff recommends a motion to adopt an ordinance amending the Standard
Plumbinq Code, 1988 edition. SOXMARY: This ordinance will strenqthen
the minimum construction standards by requirinq low water volume plumbinq
fixtures and devices.
A P P R' 0 V ED
BY BOARD OF COUNTY :0Mr~~/NERS
AT MEETING Of . ~
V,'~ ~.c.
MINUTES & RECORDS SECT I
BaokGround and Justirioation:
As required by the Palm Beach County 1989 Comprehensive Plan, Potable
Water Element, policy S-j, Palm Beach County has developod the proposed
ordinance with the assistance of South Florida Water Manaqement District,
Buildinq Code Advisory Board, and the construction industry. The
ordinance is to conserve the use of water by requlatinq the volume
utilized by plumbinq fixtures and devices.
Attachments:
a. Ordinance (revised from January 8, 1991)
(SBB PAGB
Z Siqnature I-~'f~'
LeGal Surrioienov: f.... .\~
~ Date
ADDroved bv: y.¡/r¡
Assistant county Adainistrator
P,,, ,
II.~I~CaL IMPACT ANALYSIS (To be completed by the submitting Dept.)
"- '\.
pive Year sUIII1IIary of pisca1 IIDDact:
Fiscal Years 19 - 19_ 19_ 19_ 19_
capital Expenditures
operating Costs
operating Revenues
Is ItelD Included in current Budget? Yes - No
Budget Account No.: Fund Agency Org. Object_
Reporting Category
Recommended sources of Funds/Summarv of piscal IIDDact:
III. RBVIBW COMMBNTS:
OPMB Comments:
Piscal: ~ () c: \ ~t..C&.' ~W\?o.J--.
~
Contract Administration
UIK..l Real Bstate Transaction only:
OTBD:
(THIS StJJIMUY IS ROT TO BE USED AS A BASIS POR PAYMBII'l'.)
REVI:SED 7/89
ADM FORM 01
-2-
·
, Agenda I tem No. :
AGENDA REQUEST
Date: 5/2/91
Request to be placed on:'
Regular Agenda Special Agenda X Workshop Agenda
When: 5/7/91
Description of agenda item (who, what, where, how much):
Proposed ordinance regulating the use of water-conserving plumbing fixtures
ORDINANCE/ RESOLUTION REQUIRED: ß'NO Draft Attached:~/NO
Recommendation: Commission considerdation
Department Head Signature: ~~. -
/
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:
Approved for agenda: 6Ji¡NOzr¡v1
Hold Until:
Agenda Coordinator Review:
Received:
Action: Approved/Disapproved
~I ~ "
.~ 7 ~~~'-
'/
PROPOSAL FOR THE FORMATION OF A DEL RAY BEACH DRUG TASK FORCE
The i nt,ent. is t.O creat.e a t.ask force t.o st.udy and make
recommendat.ions t.o combat. drug abuse and i t.S effect.s in a nd on
our communit.y. Simplicit.y should be t.he key for t.he init.ial
format.ion and direct.ion for a one year st.udy.
I request. t.he Cit.y Commission t.o appoint a var it.y of i nt.erest.ed
cit.izens in addit.ion t.o t.he following agency represent.at.ions:
Cit.y of Delray Beach st.aff
Communi t.y Improvement.
Parks and Recreat.ion
Po lice
C i t.y Commi ssion
Sout.h Count.y Ment.al Hea 1 t.h
Drug Abuse Foundat.ion
Fair Oa ks Hosp i t.a 1
Chamber of Commerce
At.lantic Communit.y High School
Carver Communit.y Middle School
Delray Beach Ministerial Foundat.ion
Communit.y Churches Unit.ed
NAACP
Hait.ian Community
A 1 t.hough t.he concept. has been accepted by t.his Commission it.
appears that. a workshop session should be held to ver i fy t.he
above recommended compliment and direct.ion for t.he t.as k force.
ws( tl
f
/'
.//
/ ..
?"
I ,.Make Delraywhole 12&
I D elray Beach needs to stop talk- ~
'. ing about West Atlantic Ave~ue West Atlantic and East
redevelopment and start domg A I . . h . ,
_ something. t antic oug t to be i
It's been three years since a plan tho ght f S 0 . b t
, ·.that called for moving many residents U, 0 a ne, u
i :was rejected. The vacant lots have the action is lagging far
·been cleaned up, but they're still va- .
:cant. The Georgia 'Town Tavern is behind the words.
:gone, but there's, nothing in its place.
:The Peach. Umbrel}a ~laza. market- wrote: "For too many years we have,
:p~ace rel!lams nothin~ b~t sIgns. The been treated as the city's unwanted j
:CIty tenms courts are m hmbo. , . stepchildren. We need the same degree,
The 'issue resurfaced last week of commitment and energy spent on us
. :when Debra Wright, president of the as is spent on East Atlantic." The West
I :West .At.lantic Ave~ue H0ID;eowners Atlanti? neighborhood has been S. how- I
:Assoclatlon, complamed to CIty com- ered wIth a'1ot of words - many of ..
.missioners that downtown traffic and them good words - but little action. .
:redevelopment st~dies don't in~~ude Mr. Spence, in what turned out to
:areas west of Swmton Avenue. We,· be a farewell statement said the CRA
:too, w~u~d like t?sh~re in the growth." will design a separate 'West Atlantic
:she saId m a letter gIven to Mayor Tom A venue redevelopment plan, possibly
: Lynch. . beginning late this year. The fact that
. In this case, the problem is one of this wasn't done sooner is one of the
! : misunderstanding. The studies are, reasons Mr. Spence lost his job later. in
: part of an attempt to secure an excep- the week. His successor should see that
: tion from comity traffic standards. this "possibly" becomes a "definitely,"
· West Atlantic doesn't need 'an excep- and the plan shouldn't be separate
: tion because it already is adequate to e~cept when necessary due to differ-
:; handle the increased traffic produced ences in street capacity between east
:: by redevelopment. IIThis will ,not im- and west. For its part, the city can
:: pede any development on West Atlan- abandon plans to move the tennis
:: tic at all," said former Coml!lunit~ courts and spruce them up instead.
: · Redevelopment Agency ExecutIve DI- Delray Beach needs to think of
I: rector Frank Spenée. East Atlantic and West Atlantic as one
: Still, Ms. Wright's larger point is' area, not two. Until it does, it cannot
: valid. She ..~a.~ . on_ targe~. when she hope to be~ome one city instead of two. ~I.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL/WORKSHOP MEETING - MAY 7, 1991 - 6:00 P.M.
FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
ADDENDUM NO. 1
THE WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE:
13A. Proposal from Delray Beach Railroad Depot Association.
oK
&:'1
.
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243·7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: ~Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager/
Administrative Services
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ,~~ CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP, MAY 7, 1991
DELRAY BEACH RAILROAD DEPOT ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL
DATE: May 6, 1991
Action
Commission is requested to review the proposal received from the
Delray Beach Railroad Depot Association to (l)purchase, (2)lease, or
(3 ) lease/purchase the depot property and to provide staff direction.
Backqround
Staff has recently again been contacted by the Delray Beach Railroad
Depot Association to ascertain if there is any interest in the depot
property. The owners were requested to put their proposal in writing,
which is attached.
The acquisition of this property was discussed late last fall with the
Commission along with other potential sites in the vicinity of the
depot property, both east and west. The approximate appraised value
of this property is $500,000.
As the Commission might recall, the depot property can only
accommodate approximately 55 parking spaces. Tri-Rail has a need for
approximately 50 spaces now and over 100 spaces in two to three years.
In order to make this site a long-term viable solution for Tri-Rail
other property would need to be aggregated to accommodate parking
needs. Staff has reviewed the need for this site for City purposes
and after months of review again find no need. As was discussed
previously, the only revenue to be generated for the site would be a
monthly lease from Tri-Rail in the amount of $550 to $750.
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS ~I ,~~
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA[H
100 N.W. 1 st A VENUE DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243-7000
Staff continues to discuss alternate sites in Delray Beach with
Tri-Rail and are providing whatever assistance we can in identifying
locations for the station both long range and short term. Tri-Rail
staff continue to be committed t,o finding a suitable site in the
Atlantic Avenue/Congress corridor.
The Commission is requested to rei,'iew the proposal and provide
direction to Staff.
RAB:efw
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
- - . -. -- ---.--- .. --.
~ -
.
Delray Beach Railroad Depot Assoc.
80 Depot Ave.
Delray Beach, FL 33444
The Delray Beach Railroad Assoc. offers to the City of Delray
Beach, the property and building known as the Delray Beach
Tr¡;in Station. The property consists of 1.78 acres adjacent
to I 95 and Atlantic Ave. The historic bui¡ding on this site
is suitable for office use. Potential revenue generating
leases include funds totalling approximately $300,000. (see
attached) fo~ additional improvements.
Proposed terms are:
A) Purchase land and building for $625,000.
B) Lease land and building for$4,900j month,net lease
C) Lease/ Purchase aVâilable
.
Upon acceptance to any o£ above, Depot Assoc will assign
lease contract negotiations for land and building to the City.
The facility has been functioning as a multi purpose trans-
portation hub, serving Delray's residents with Amtrack, 'I'ri-
Rail, CO-Tran, Cab, and Limo services. This visibl~ property
serves senior citizens, courthouse commuters, church ðnd school
field trips, and others.
,..
p. . .~, .~.
=-91 FRI 1~:?7 ALPHA ,-.,.... ~ ~ t.L.. SE? 2;:? iS8'3 2; JtJP11 ~4JS ?
5- _" I .'.~' ,>. I '~.' ".'~' .,.,.' I ~-'\. ~ \..- I~ ; II-; I ·¡":H1L
. \' C " /
. , , MEM:ORAND~
">IHl 2111·kQ
D^'f~ Scpt~fI1be ( 22, 1989 . $tate Q( norllia D¢P.,\~~~~ 1t of Tr.t\$r>OrUJ"
TO Ed COJ'\\1Etl1 y) "æA
fROH ..TOO \'e$be~
",
COt'If'.$.TO Pol He UOl.~tl
SUBJf.CT Pelray Beach Station
~
'1"hà ful'lds for tha construction of this statioo arc included in 8
JPA ex~cuted betwéen FOOT aM Palm 'Beach County on SCpt.e.I\I00r 15,
1988. BCH~!ca1ly J the JPA was fo\" the construction of tha Boynton
Desch at'd Delray Beach st~tions. The amount of f\Jrdln~ available ¡
is $300,000 per station. This agreement is stU 1 vali &00 the
furds remain available uooer this JPA.
..1'N'f: al
.
.
.
...
,
,
)
. ,..
.
.
\.
I' 'I:~f"(l/I$<' I~ 1'1':'1,11,.:.1. k,,~~ \J,': I(;I'':I!;,! ,IItJ!
--