01-23-90 Workshop
C]TY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
WORKSHOP MEETING - CITY COMMISSION
JANUARY 23, 1990
7:00 P.M. AGENDA Commission Chambers
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.
1. Parking and Traffic Flow- Downtown (Commissioner McCarty).
2. Police Reivew Team Report (Commissioner McCarty).
3 . Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) Grant- Veteran's Park
(Ci ty Manager).
4 . Settlement Offer- Procacci (Mayor Campbell).
5 . Human Relation Committee Scope of Responsibilities (Commissioner
McCarty) .
6. Payment of Appraisal Services for Laver's (City Attorney) .
7. City Hall Expansion- Space Allocation (Commissioner McCarty).
8. Vacant Single Use Buildings (Mayor Campbell).-
9. Proposed Contract Amendment- Waste Management Rolloff Service
(Mayor Campbell).
10. Site Plan and Street Lighting- Old School Square (City Manager).
11. Proposed Water and Sewer Bond (City Manager).
£IT' DF· DELAA' BEA[H I/\X"
I
) ( I I
u· ¡'
I"
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 e()7!24~OOO. '
¡I/, l" .r
..~ I'
, V ~ '
, ' .}!
December 4, 1989 / ",J' \ ~/"
\ " l, "r
/,I,i',/ /1/ I.
~ -./ I, \ \ I . \ i
Downtown Development Authority Members .' y '" \ I' ,¡, 1/ \ " ~
Community Redevelopment Authority Membersèl /.. ~ t 1'( ¡ d
Atlantic Avenue Association Members l/' l \' /] )-
Re, Prohibition of Left Turns on East Atlantic Avenue· ) . \(~
Dear Members :L11 c!
Your attention is requested to the enclosed letter to me
from Charles Kilgore. Prior to responding to the Chiebl
of Police, I would wish to hear from each of you with
regard to your thoughts on his proposal. f f
I believe all of us agree that the amount of congestion
on East Atlantic Avenue has increased noticeably as a
result of the beautification and the change in the width
of the pavement. Prior to implementing Chief Kilgore's
plan or any other, I would like to be sure that we have
reviewed all of the options.
I am in receipt of some signage requests from the
Downtown Development Authority which we are reviewing at
the moment with the State Department of Transportation.
Those would be done in any event and I do not believe
are mutually exclusive whatever decision is made with
regard to left turns.
If my office or any of my staff may be of assistance,
please don't hesitate to contact us. I would appreciate
your responses not later than two weeks from the date
above.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~:.R ,
" \
MALCOLM BIRD , "-
Interim City Manager
,. ..
MB:nr
Encl
THE E~rORT ALWAYS MATTERS
J
!
I : l1S / l
.
.
Defray Beach Police Department 11 ~
300 West Atlantic Avenue · Delray Beach, Florida 33444-3666 ~ ~ :):=.
(407) 243-7888 Fax (407) 243-7816 CHARLES KILGORE
Chief of Police
MEMORANDUM
TO: Malcolm T. Bird, Interim City Manager
FROM: Charles Kilgore, Chief of Police
DATE: December 1, 1989
SUBJECT: PROHIBITING LEFT TURNS ON EAST ATLANTIC AVENUE
As you may be aware, the Police Department made a recommendation;
quite some time ago that no ,left turns be allowed on East f
Atlantic Avenue except the intersections with designated turn
lanes. This recommendation has been ignored; and as anticipated
and earlier stated, the traffic congestion problems on East
Atlantic Avenue continue to escalate as we enter the season.
There is nothing that our motorcycle officers can accomplish to
alleviate this traffic problem given the present situation. The
City Engineer concurs with this recommendation, and I
respectfully request that this matter be given immediate
attention.
submitted,
~
CK/RML/ppt
PARTNERS WITH CITIZENS IN BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER
J
I
:
.
.
.
January 18, 1990
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MALCOLM BIRD, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
FROM: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, CO~WIDNITY IMPROVEMENT
RE: DELRAY BEA~H MASTER PARKING PLAN/PARKING STUDY
AS SUBMITTED BY WILBUR S~tITH ASSOC., 8/88 & 8/89
Attached please find copies of the above referenced parking
studies as completed by Wilbur Smith Associates. The first study
which was completed Augus t, 1988 appears to be specifically
related to the proposed construction of Jacobson, with the study
area being limited to the proposed area where the parking
garage would be located. The second study expanded the studYf'
area to include the entire CBD from Swinton Ave to AlA, and one
block north and south of Atlantic. This study, completed August,
1989 is titled a "Master Parking Plan" for the City as opposed to
a "Parking Study." I will identify specific policies and/or
items that the Commission should be aware of separately:
DELRAY BEACH PARKING STUDY/AUGUST, 1988
. . Th e study area is defined as being bounded by NE 1st
Street to the North, 6th Avenue to the West, the
Intracoastal Waterway to the east and SE 1st Street to the
South. A total of 7 blocks.
..Inventoried existing parking within the study area and
conducted a parking count in July, 1988. Inventories
included the location and capacity of all parking
facilities, restrictions and type of usage. Consideration
was given to possible changes that might occur in the study
area.
..The study results assume that Veterans Park will be
redeveloped and that concerts will mainly be held during the
late afternoon or early evenings.
. . The study concludes that there is presently adequate
parking supplied in the study area. Bu t, when Atlantic
Plaza becomes fully leased, the area would be short
approximately 80 spaces. If Atlantic Plaza is expanded to
include the proposed 63,400 sq. ft. Jacobson's Department
Store, the Atlantic Plaza block will be short approximately
420 parking spaces.
1
J
. \Us ' I A.
. " I I
.
Page 2, J?nuary 18, 1990
Malcolm Bird - .
Parking Studies
DELRAY BEACH MASTER PARKING PLAN, AUGUST, 1989 ,
..The study area consists of the CBD and is identified as
being bordered by NE 1st Street to the North, AIA to the
Ea s t , Southeast 1st Street to the South and Swinton Avenue
to the West. A total of 25 blocks.
..Field studies for this plan were conducted in March,
1989. The study included a detailed inventory of all
parking facilities within the study area and was specific to
location and type usage.
. .Several site s were identified within the report as
potential locations for major developments·. These include 3
primary and 6 secondary si tes. The parking demands for each
site were evaluated assuming approximately 100,000 square
feet of retail space in each site. Since the report shows
that an adequate supply of parking currently exists, thaI
Plan was developed to analyze the need for parking as
development in the downtown occurs.
The Master Plan puts forth several recommendations that are
policy issues that should be addressed by the Commission. They
are as follows:
(1) The Cash "In-Lieu-of" parking fee was stated to not be
useful and should be abolished.
( 2) Delray's parking requirements are not attractive enough
to persuade major new development. The report proposes that
a more attractive incentive that would encourage downtown
development would be the exemption of any zoning code
parking requirement for commercial development in the CBD.
The report further concludes that the cost of parking is
usually recouped through user revenues for municipally owned
parking facilities. The consultants recommend .the use of
tax increment revenue bond funding to partially finance the
construction of public parking faci li tie s.
( 3) The report recommends the creation of a "Parking Trust
Fund," to be the repository of all parking revenue including
metered spaces, garage spaces, parking violations and tax
increments. This fund would be used to reduce debt service
incurred in developing parking facilities and operating and
maintenance expense s.
(4) The report recommends the use of cashiers for facility
operation, which would provide opportunities for merchant
validation and to simplify rate changes.
2
J
~
.
.
.
Page 3, January 18, 1990
Malcolm Bird
Parking studies
.
Finally, the Master Parking Plan concludes that it only
represents a conceptual guideline for providing adequate parking
in Downtown Delray. The plan is not too specific because future
parking demand will depend on actual development and the timing
of such developments. The author proposes that the plan should
serve only as a guide which should be re-evaluated as future
developments come into fruition.
Attachments
cc: Robert Barcinski, As s t. City Manager
Gates Castle, Acting Public Works Director
David Huddleston, Finance Director
David Kovacs, Planning & Zoning Director
'1
L/3
B:Parking.MB
1
I
:
.
.
.
.
DELRAYBEACH -
MASTER PARKING PLAN'
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
I
Prepared for'
The City Of Delray Beach
The Community Redevelopment Agency
The Downtown Development Authority
\
Prepared by:
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
August, 1989
,
"
, .
I I
!
.
( t...
. f. .
I Ws) l ß
*T \.\.'b 5 \ DEi) ~a CLuY\.€-('J' ò¡
WILBUR , .
"
SMITH
. ASS08~ATES
ENGINEERS· ARCHITECTS· PLANNERS
! ~NB TOWER' P.O Box 92' COLUMBIA, S C 29292. USA· (803) 738-0580' CABLE WILSMITH . FAX (803)251-2064' TELEX 573439' WILSMITH Cc
,
August 7, 1989
Mr. Kevin Egan, Acting Chairman
Community Redevelopment Agency
Mr. Roy Simon, Chairman
Downtown Development Authority
64 S.E. Fifth Avenue
De/ray Beach,Florida 33483
Dear Gentlemen:
We take pleasure In submitting our report -Delray Beach Master Parking Plan-. The work reported on was
undertaken in accord with our agreement of March 15, 1989.
i
,
Our analysis Identified 4388 parking spaces in the study area. When operating characteristics and
restriction are considered, the total supply Is reduced to an effective supply of 2853 spaces. This
represents the actual supply of spaces available to meet an existing demand measured at 2742. Therefore
the study area presently has a surplus of 111 spaces. A computer model of the study area estimated that
the area west of the Intracoastal Waterway has a surplus of approximately 175 spaces, while east of the
waterway, a deficiency of approximately 55 spaces exists.
The recommended Parking Master Plan Identifies three primary and six secondary development sites.
Parking needs for each site should be provided in structured parking facilities which would range in
size from 330 spaces to 540 spaces. Preliminary cost estimates for constructing and operating those
facilities have been ide~tified. Other recommendations include exempting development in the central
business district from zoning code parking requirements, establishing a Parking Trust Fund to finance
additional public parking and Installing meters at curb spaces when the new parking structures are
constructed, unless financing permits free parking.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to participate in this most Important parking study and trust
the findings and conclusions will aid you in developing adequate parking in the central business
district.
Respectfully submitted,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Ct¡ ).1
Clif Tate, P.E.
ALBANY. NY . ALLIANCE, OH . CAIRO, EGYPT . CHARLESTON. SC· COLUMBIA, SC . COLUMBUS. OH . FALLS CHURCH. VA . HONG KONG
HOUSTON. TX · KNOXVILLE, TN . KUALA lUMPUR, MALAYSIA · lEXINGTON, KY . LONDON, ENGLAND . MIAMI, FL . MINNEAPOLIS, MN
NEW HAVEN, CT . ORLANDO, FL . PHOENIX, AI . PITTSBURGH. PA . PORTSMOUTH, NH . PROVIDENCE, RI . RALEIGH, NC
RICHMOND, VA · ROSELLE, IL . SAN FRANCISCO, CA · SINGAPORE . TORONTO. CANADA . WASHINGTON, DC . WOODBRIDGE, NJ
EMPlOYEE-owNED CQl.APIW'f
.
. .
. l
!
f ¡~. .
. r
f
,
'!
. . ,
.
.
Table of Contents
.
.
Chapter Title fI9I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Previous Studies 1
Study Area 2
Field Studies and Collection of Information 2
Order of Presentation 3
2 EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS 4 /
Curb Spaces 5
Off-Street Facilities 5
Parking Rates '6
Parking Accumulation 6
Duration and Turnover Characteristics 10
Parker Characteristics 11
3 PAR~NGSPACEDEMANDSANDNEEDS 20
Adjusted Supply 20
¡ Parking Space Demands 21
Parking Space Needs \ 23
Existing Surpluses and Deficiencies 24
4 MASTER PARKING PLAN 27
Parking Issues 27
Potential Development Site and Impacts 30
Master Parking Plan 33
Parking Development Costs 35
. 8ummary and Conclusions 40
.j.
,
,
. .
t
!
I ,~.
. r
t
..
t
~
. .
.
. - .
. .
List of Tabulations
.
Number :r.w. .. ~
,~
1 PARKING SPACE INVENTORY 4
2 ACCUMULATION OF PARKED VEHICLES BY FACILITY TYPE 8
3 ACCUMULATION OF PARKED VEHICLES BY BLOCK 9
4 PARKING DURATION AND TURNOVER CHARACTERISTICS 12
5 TRIP PURPOSE BY FACILITY TYPE 14
6 WALKING DISTANCE BY FACILITY TYPE 15
7 TIME PARKED BY FACILITY TYPE 17
8 PARKERS HOME ADDRESS BY TRIP PURPOSE 18
9 TRIP PURPOSE BY PARKERS HOME ADDRESS 19
10 EXISTING LAND USE 22
11 EXISTING PARKING SURPLUSES AND DEFICIENCIES 25 i
,
12 PARKING SURPLUSES AND DEFICIENCIES AFTER BALANCIN~ . 26
13 PARKING NEEDS FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 32
14 MASTER PARKING PLAN 34
15 COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS 36
16 TYPICAL OPERATING COSTS FOR STRUCTURED PARKING 38
·17 ESTIMATED MASTER PARKING PLAN COSTS 39
,
List of Illustrations
Figure Follows
Number Title Page
1 STUDY AREA AND BLOCK DESIGNATION 2
2 PARKING INVENTORY 4
3 ACCUMULATION OF PARKED VEHICLES 6
4 TYPICAL ACCUMULATION PATTERNS 6
5 PEAK ACCUMULATIONS 10
6 EXISTING PARKING SPACE SURPLUSES AND DEFICIENCIES 25
7 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES 30
·ii·
,.
. .
I
I "..
t
. f
I
..
,
~
~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.
Recognizing the potential for major development in downtown Delray Beach, this study has
been conducted to formulate a Master Parking Plan which will meet existing and future parking
needs in the downtown area. The study area comprises the central business district and is
bordered by Northeast 1 st Street to the north, State Highway AlA to the east, Southeast 1 st
Street to the south and Swinton Avenue to the west.
Existing Parking Inventory and Characteristics
An inventory of the study area found 4.388 parking spaces._ The majority of these. or
3.424 spaces. were located in small private lots. This fragmentation of the parking supply is
not desirable because parkers with more than one destination In the study area are required to
move their vehicles between private lots instead of just walking. Another 559 spaces are
provided in public off· street lots with 405 spaces located on curbs.
Parking accumulation studies, conducted during the third week of March, 1989, measured a
peak accumulation at 1 :00 PM when 2.496 vehicles were parked in the study area. This
represents an occupancy rate of 57 percent of the total available spaces. However. several
individual parking facilities had peak accumulations greater than 85 percent which is
considered to be the theoretical capacity of a parking facility. Most of the facilities
experiencing the greatest demand were along Atlantic Avenue or adjacent to the beach.
\
Parker characteristics were identified through the use of postcard surveys. Approxi·
mately 50 percent of the parkers were in the study area to work, while 15 percent were
shopping. Personal business, employment business and eating a meal accounted for 8 percent of
the responses each. One percent were parked at their residence and 11 percent gave some other
reason for parking in the area.
.
-iii-
:
. .
I
I
( (.. .
. f
.
¡
"
t
,
Parking Space Demands and Needs
To determine where the demand existed within the study area, a computerized parking demand
model was used to disaggregate the demand to each block, based on the type and amount of
development In the block. These block demands were then compared to the parking supply in
each block.
A comparison between the supply and demand In each block revealed 12 blocks with
deficiencies and 12 blocks with surpluses. Surplus blocks were used to satisfy shortages In
adjacent blocks to recognize that some parkers park In one block and walk to their
destinations In an adjacent block. After this was considered, nø deficiencies were· found in
the portion of the study area on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway. However, a need
for 67 spaces was identified on the east side of the study area. This Is largely due to a
measured demand for approximately 85 spaces by parkers destined for the beach.
I
t
Mastèr P'8rklhg Plan
The supply of adequate parking has been a significant factor in attracting developments to
the downtown. Therefore, this Master Parking Plan has been developed to analyze the need for
parking as development occurs.
An important issue which needs to be resolved first Is that of zoning requirements for new
development. ThEf present zoning code requires 4.5 parking spaces for 1,000 square feet of
commercial development. This perpetuates the fragmentation of private parking in the downtown
and discourages development A more appropriate zoning code would exempt development in the
central business district from any requirement for parking. This type of zoning is found in
most cities. With this zoning exemption in effect, it is recommended that the City take the
lead In providing adequate public parking to serve the downtown.
Assuming 1I1e City changes its zoning code to exempt development in the CBD from providing
parking, an analysis was conducted to determine the necessary amount of parking to provide for
potential developments. Three primary sites were identified including the northern parking
lot in Atlantic Plaza in conjunction with the northern half of the adjacent block to the
west. The blocks north and south of Atlantic Avenue, between 5th and 6th Avenues, are the
·¡v·
(
,
! .
~
. f
,
1
.
other ~o primary sites. Assuming approximately 130,000 square feet of retail development
occurs in the Atlantic Plaza block, a parkï"ng structure containing 540 spaces would be
appropriate. Both of the other two primary sites were assumed to be developed to include
100,000 square feet of new retail space and would need parking ,structures to provide 420
spaces in each block. ø
Six secondary sites were identified, five on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway
and one on the east side. Again, developments at 100,000 square feet of retail space on each
site would generate a need for between 315 and 410 spaces. Each site would need to be served
by a parking structure. Some sites could use some surface parking where appropriate, but
would still require a parking structure to provide the bulk of the necessary parking.
Costs for constructing, maintaining and operating both structured and surface parking
facilities were estimated, however, actual costs could vary significantly depending on the
actual design, efficiency, construction method and operating procedures. A generalized .
estimate for development would range from $7,400 to $8,500 per space for structured parking
and between $4,100 and $4,700 per space for surface parking. These estimates include
! construction costs, architectural and engineering fees, land costs and contingencies.
Operating and maintenance costs could range from $200 to $250 per space for structured parking
and around $100 per space for surface parking.
To finance the parking facilities, a Parking Trust Fund should be created to act as a
repository of all parking revenue including metered spaces, garage spaces and parking
violations. Tax increments could also be included in this fund. This fund would be used to
retire debt services incurred by constructing parking facilities, as well as any operating
- expenses. By establishing this fund now, the City could lay the foundation for financing
public parking and establish an attractive incentive for development in the downtown area.
·v·
. .
,
!
! ;...
. r
;
"
t
~
. Ch8f)ter 1
Introduction
,
In many urban areas, particularly those which have the size and characteristics of Delray
Beach, the automobile is an integral part of the area's growth. The use of the private
automobile dictates that adequate parking facilities be provided in the downtown area.
Practically all off-street parking spaces are presently provld~d In surface lots and therefore
constitute a large portion of the core area' land "Use. . S'ln~ parking facilities are essential
elements In maintaining central area strength, prime consideration should be given to
developing a p8l1<1ng program which adequate~ ~~eStthe downtoWl') ar~. r$uch development re-
. .
quires integrating commercial facilities, office complexes, recreation denters, public
buildings, and other land use with the parking facilities necessary to åccommodate the demands
which are generated. This study has b~Qn conducted to formulate. a Master Parking Plan for .
Delray Beach which will meet existing and Mure pårklng needs in'the downtown area.
I
t
"'urpose and Scope
The principal goal of this study is to develop a long-rånge master parking plan for the
Delray Beach central business district (CBD). Such a plan would document and consider
. existing relationships between parking space supply and demand, and would forecast future
parking needs that will accompany CBD growth and development. T~e Master Parking Plan will
.
identify both existing and future needs and recommend solutions to meet them. Special
consideration will be given to the potential for attracting major retail developments to the
downtown area.
Previous Studies
The City of Delray.Beach, with the direction of the Delray Beach Community Redevelopment
Agerc¡, developed a Community Redevelopment Plan which was approved by the CIty in September,
1986. A long·rarige (199Q.1995) recommendation of the plan was the construction of a parking
garage in conjunction with a major retail/commercial development. The proposed garage would
also include 75 to 150 additional spaces to serve adjacent properties.
;
t
!
,
( .~.
. t
\.
t
~
.
In August, 1988 Wilbur Smith Associate~ .condu~ed a parking study of a portion of the
downtown bordered by Northeast 1 st Street, Southeast 1 st Street, 5th Avenue and the
. Intracoastal Water Way. The study focused on identifying existing parking needs as well as
the impact of a major retail development in the area. No existing additional parking needs
were identified, however the construction of approximately 65,000 gross squaré feet of retail
development would produce a need for 420 additional parking spaces in the area.
The firm of Laventhol & Horwath conducted a study, "Estimates of Economic and Fiscal
Impacts For A Proposed Department Store In Downtown Delray Beach, Florida." This study will
be important in determining the financial feasibility of constructing parking facilities in
the downtown area.
Study Area
.
The study area of 25 blocks comprises the Delray Beach CBD. It represents a mixture/of
retail, office, residential, hotel, recreational and other land use activities which generate
.. the parking demand. The area, identified in Figure 1 is bordered by Northeast 1 st Street to
the n .,rth, State Highway A 1 A to the east, Southeast 1 st Street to the south and Swinton Avenue
to the west. Figure 1 also illustrates an alphabetic block designation which will be referred
to throughout the report.
Field Studies and Collection of Information
A series of field studies relevant to the project were conducted in March, 1989. The
basic data requ(red for the study area included a detailed inventory of all parking facilities
within the study area. The data collected in the curb inventory consisted, of number and
location of the spaces. The off·street inventory data consisted of facility location,
capacity and type usage.
Parking accumulation and turnover studies were also conducted. These data provide a
basis for determining usage of existing facilities. The accumulation studies were conducted
for a typical weekday from 10 AM to 6 PM. Ukewise, turnover studies, which were conducted at
selected public facilities, were conducted between 10 AM and 6 PM.
·2·
~
,
f '.
~
. f
;
;
~
!
. '
.,.
. ! '
. w
> LOW RY 5T.
~
----
~
N
~.
~
TO: [? en
.
~
a:: X
Q
o B V ~ z
~
I
~ D
i
/
6 0
~U
I Q. W
a: ,
C)
L&.I ~
.....
M IRAMAR DR.
.
r
STUDY. AREA AND BLOCK DESIGNATION
DELRA Y BEACH. FLORIDA
FIGURE 1
,
.
('
!
.
I .~.
. r
f
t
~
. l.-'. ~ LJ L-J L..'; l J ~ L..J L..J C-.:J 1.....1 ~. J L...J L-.J : . . . ~ '.' ~ . .
i ,
! ~[. J l JL !
---
~ ,-------- --SWINTON AVE.--
l:lH ~( ro~~][ f> I 11
g g § 1 1ST AVE, I
U~ =]thJ 0 ~D ~ DO r=o O]I[
z :z 2ND AVE. I
~ I ~ßD 1
I
1"- ,
~Ô" ,
:z:' G) 1
00 O[P Dec ß 0=0 =1
1 4TH AVE, I ,
,
~I ¿]~dß ~Bq ~I[ .'
':
5TH AVE I
~~~ TI~ é~ [ D, ~o o]C
6 TH AVE. I
~[l ~öo ]; ~ ~L I
\ I
I
I
0
0 ."
I ,., '"
,., 8
-;
.
8
"---=.
--=..
--=== .
--.. .. =---. ----= . --.0
==--- ..
I ~.----
I
I
~ en
..--.--.....-. .
~
,
,
,.
. ,
f
!
.
..
t
~
A mail·back survey of parkers was also conducted~ Questions asked included time parked,
trip purpose, business visited while parked and home ZIP code. This information will be used
to Identify parker.characteristics unique to Delray Beach.
Initial efforts also Involved collecting data on land use and intensity for each study
area block. The land use data will serve as a basis for distributing the aggregate study area
demand to appropriate blocks.
Order of Presentation
Subsequent chapters of this report present the study analysis, findings and conclusions.
Chapt~1 2.. describes existing parking characteristics Including the results from Inventories,
accumulation counts, tumover studies and parking surveys. Chapter 3 outlines current parking
demands and needs and projec;:ts the future demands and needs based on expected development In
the area. Finally; Chapter 4 Identifies and evaluates a recommended Master Parking Plan.
i
,
, .
-3-
-
. .
!
,
( t..,.
. r
f;
,
~
.
.
Chapter 2
Existing Parking Inventory
and Characteristics
.
Within the boundaries of the study area, the parking space inventory was compiled to
reflect current conditions. The purpose of the inventory was to locate all available parking
spaces and to determine any relevant information relating to type parking, parking rates, and
restrictions. The information obtained was also used to determine the available parking
supply in the area. Due to differences in operating characteristics, the curb spaces and
off·street public lots were inventoried separately from off· street private facilities and to
some extent the public spaces were analyzed apart from the private parking.
The results of the inventory revealed that there are 4,388 parking spaces in the study
area. Nine percent are located at the curb with the remaining 91 percent, or 3,983 spaces,
located in off-street parking facilities. It Is Important to note that 78 percent of I all
spaces in the study area are in private facilities. These spaces are only available to
parkers visiting the private establishment. Parkers are expected to exit the parking facility
after conducting their business and are not expected to walk ,to another destination without
moving their vehicles. The inventory data is summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure
2.
Table 1
Parking Space Inventory
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
.
TYPE PARKING NUMBER OF SPACES PERCENT OF TOTAL
Curb 405 9
Off·Street
Public
2·Hour Limit 191 4
No Limit 3§a ~
Sub·Total 559 13
Private 3,424 78
TOTAL 4,388 100
·4·
(
!
I -
,
. ¡
.
,
'!
. !
. .
. . . ~
. .
. !
w
> LOW RY ST.
4(
L4.I ,0
N \.ú
L4.I >
\.ú 4(
a: [p
m
B~ ~
\.ú
a:
Q
[[5 0 Œ20 ( ~
/0 I 24 '
44' 0 105
5,
[J=J ~ 213
,4 3~ 18
. '4 . '6
~ '8 2, ~8 '6
5 [5
.....
'II 20 J~ ~
57 57
.
18 26 I 2
25 1 ~6
~rn: 23 52
-I
'-!)
6, 4,
22
MIRAMAR DR.
r 1
PARKING INVENTORY
DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
FIGURE 2
,
~ .
:
!
¡
I ~.
. r
t
~
_·9 __ -
. . .
~ ~l JL ;---
'"
C
'"
~
=>
J: CD SWINTON AVE,
~ I ~ I [
~
'"
N
'"
/
-J> ~~ [
(")-1 u; 0
. T
N If> ŒJ
I ~~ ~ ~. .
:r
0
c::
::c
r
3: ,
-I .-
~I~ I
'"
z(")~ :¡~ 0
c::C::C:: :=] 7j" - ·
~::Cal ~
alai!::
T (")
::c . ~0 ~B8g.~6b .; J' .~
o z 0~Œ] C?
"Tt 0 CoM ::): ~
en -I ;'"
~ 3: 4 TH AV
(") T
T 1 -Bóìll0.? a06 ~ ~ L I
en !:: ,
~
=i ~ ~~p ß JU I
en G:JG 0'''' - =
~ N, P
5 TH AVE.
:=J= c::J "ill GJ EJ g~D' ~ L ¡
I
~ ëJC;;; EJ ~ ,
en - 0 N
,.. ... ...
6 TH AVE.
:=] "0E1EJ'= ,~ ~'~L
· G· ~
n
_ N G '" '" en
... 0 '" ... en -
/ ~ ,at .....
V ,
\
~ ~ N 0
o ~ 0
'"
<
!'"
~,~~I ..,
::: 8
....
g
-=.
~.
--..~ .~.----
.. ==----- "
==--..~.. ~
-._....... ~ ~ .j ¡;;
...
(
,
!
, '.
. r
I
,
~
.
Curb ~paces
. .
There are approximately 405 curb spaces located within the study area. An exact number
.
of spaces cannot be determined because most curb spaces are not designated by lines other than
the ones which parallel the curb. ,
This often leads to an Inefficient use of curb spaces,
because drivers are allowed to park anywhere they wish along the curb. Typically, curb spaces
are designated with 18 foot stalls and a 6 foot gap between every other space. Without lines,
drivers sometimes spread out more than necessary, decreasing the capacity of the curb face.
All other times, drivers park too close to other cars, making it difficult to maneuver in and
out of spaces.
All spaces are unmetered with time restrictions imposed. The majority of spaces have a
2-hour time limit, with approximately 10 spaces on Northeast 5th .Avenue restricted to a 1·hour
limit.
.
.. I
Off-Street Facilities
The majority of the total inventory is locate ~ in off-street facilities. There are 3,983
off-street spaces which are classified as either private or public.
Private- Seventy-eight percent of the total inventory (3,424 spaces) Is restricted
for private use. Private spaces are defined as spaces not generally available to the public
due to some type of destination, duration or temporal use restriction. For example, the
SO-space lot at the corner of Atlantic Avenue and 3rd Avenue is reserved for Sun Bank patrons
only. There are 140 private facilities in the study area and the average capacity is 24
spaces per facility. Small private lots create a high degree of parking fragmentation in the
study area. A large number of small lots Indicates that many businesses provide their own
private parking lots.
Public - Public spaces are available to the general public regardless of
destination. A total of 559 public spaces are provided in eight off·street lots, all of which .
are located on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway. Four of the public lots combine to
provide 191 spaces with 2-hour limits. The remaining four lots contain a total of 3S8 spaces
with no tim~ limit imposed.
·5·
( .
,
!
I
I '~,
. r
¡
t
~
.
The public lots have a larger average capacity than the private lots, which calculates to
be 70 spaces. It Is usually desirable to consolidate public facilities to the extent possible
based on land uses. Larger facilities usually minimize maintenance requirements, and parking
.
space search time. It is much easier to provide directional signing for several large
facilities than for many smaller ones. Large facilities also minimize the number of parking
attendants needed, should they become necessary. Presently, an average of 70 spaces per
facility Is' acceptable. especially since some of the 2-hour lots are adjacent to no' limit
lots. If this fact Is considered, the public parking system operates like six lots Instead of
eight, producing an average capacity of 93 spaces.
Parkin; Rates
. . . .
Parking rates are usually a critical issue to CaD businesses. Merchants feel that in
order to complete with suburban malls and office parks, parking costs must be relatively
inexpensfve~ Delray BeacH is no exception and there are n6 fees Imposed on any spaces In ~e
downtown areå.' However. two facilities near the beach charge for dally parking. The Honday
Inn offers daily parking for $3.00 while a private lot In Block Y offers daily parking for
$2.00. Generally. people paying to park In these facilitlt 3 are destined for the beach.
Parking Accumulation
Parking accumulation studies were conducted for all parking facilities within the study
area to determine the usage of existing spaces. These studies were conducted for a typical
weekday from 10 AM to 6 PM. The studies consisted of recording hourly counts of the number of
vehicles parked at the curb and In off-street facilities for\ the durations previously
indicated. Information obtained from these studies was used to determine a study area parking
demand control tôtal. which was used to calibrate a computerized parking demand model.
Figure 3 illustrates the measured parking accumulation throughout a typical weekday.
These occupancy characteristics reflect a working population influenced by retail activity. .
For comparison, Figure 4 illustrates typical parking accumulation patterns for office and
retail developments. The Delray Beach parking accumulation represents a combination of these
two uses. ~s well as a relatively small Influence from hotel, residential and other land uses.
·6·
t .
,
!
: ~
I
. r
;
t
~
,
ACCUMULATION OF PARKED VEHICLES
Delray Beach, Florida
3
2,8
2,S
2,4 :771.:
2,2 [7? ~/ /
[ß 2 V>~V/
~~ 1,8 ~' /.' I.V ~
wi 1,S V /J (/)
U ~:; t// 0~·:.
~ 1 0V/1
~. ,
~: V /1 0.·
0,4 V/]/ /1
0,2 V /1 V /1
o '
10 11 NOON 1 2 3 4 5 S
TIME OF DAY
FIGURE 3
¡ ,
TYPICAL ACCUMULATION PATTERNS
I
i
100 I
~
~ 90~
~ 80-0 n !~
:!E I' ':
:::> 70 , I...: .1
U ,
~ SOl ¡ .\
x: .. It.
~ 50 I F>I
~ 401 !I
~ .....'
~ 30 It:
~ ~.. I
~ 20 ¡ ~...: ¡
10 r'l i 8a.. I
~ I V/1 !
° . ,
10 11 NOON 1 2 3 4 5 S
TIME OF DAY
~ OFFICE DEVELOPMENT 1>':,1 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
FIGURE 4
~
I
I
:-
.
,;
.
.
Accumulation By Facility Type . Typical weekday accumulations by type parking are
tabulated in Table 2. A maximum of 2,496 vehicles were accumulated in the study area
facilities at 1 PM. These parked vehicles represent an occupancy of 57 percent of the total
available parking spaces. Between 10 AM and 3 PM the level of ~sage varied by only four
percent; however, a decline was evident from 2 PM to 6 PM when the usage level dropped to
1,255 spaces occupied or 29 percent of the total available spaces.
Usually curb spaces serve primarily short·term parkers with retail or commercial
destinations. The peak accumulation of vehicles parked at curb spaces occurred between 1 and
2 PM when 266 of the available 405 spaces were occupied. The timing of the peak accumulation
suggests that curb spaces are serving primarily retail and commercial oriented parkers as
these activities usually peak around 1 PM. The occupancy ranged from 66 percent at 1 PM to 33
percent at 6 PM.
The accumulation in private facilities peaked at 2 PM when 55 percent of the spaces were
occupied. As would be expected, the accumulation pattern closely follows that of the total
system because private spaces make up the major portion of all spaces in the system. Between
10 AM and 3 PM, the accumulation varies by only three percent, however, it declines after Its
2 PM peak to an occupancy of 29 percent at 6 PM.
Public spaces experienced similar accumulation characteristics to the private spaces.
Their peak also occurred at 2 PM, however, it was slightly higher, reaching 60 percent.
Between 10 AM and 3 PM it also fluctuated more, with accumulations varying by 7 percent. As
with the curb and private parking, the public parking accumulation dropped steadily after the
2 PM peak to an occupancy of 23 percent at 6 PM.
Accumulation By Block· The peak accumulation of parked vehicles in the study area
occurred at 1 PM when vehicles occupied 2,496 spaces. Table 3 summarizes the accumulation
measured at each block at 1 PM. Of the 6 blocks with the highest accumulation, 5 are located
on the east side of the Intracoastal Waterway. Furthermore, the portion of the study area
east of the Intracoastal Waterway accounts for approximately 40 percent of the physical study
area and almost 50 percent of the parking accumulation.
A more critical issue is the relationship of the peak accumulation to the capacity, or
supply. Table 3 also identifies the peak block accumulation measured between the hours of 10
·7-
,
J
I
:
.
.
. I
..J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :. ~ ~
~ It)
~
. I
N ~ ~ æ ~ = .,.. ~ ~ ,
C\I C') .,.. .,.. æ ;¿ç
C') C') ~ ~ ~ ~ N
W N N N N N .,...,...,..
a.
~ I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ æ
-
...
-
~
"i
-
°1
> c t-CÞ
CD.!! ,Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(/)Q. :;:, Ñ ~ Ñ ~ ~ ~.,.. ~
W Q z
....5
O~ I
- ca ...
:r:Q. t- c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NW .. W CÞ
.!>,! ~ . !
a:,!CÞ
.Q Q :: t-caa.
~W:2 U).~ ...
~.c ·...CÞ
u..Q.,Q N - ~ It) § æ ~ N It)
a: u u.. E
c( ca o :;:, g ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~
a. Ii z ..... ~ .,.. ..- ..... .,... ... .,...
u. >-
c.!!
z! i
c ...
- c ~ ~ ~ g g æ ~ ~ ~
s CÞ
uCJ
.- ;
:) :Sa.
=
:¡ a. ...
CÞ
:) ,Q ~ ~ ~ It) ~ ~ It) N =
0 E ~ ~ ~ C) N
:;:, N .,.. .,..
0 Z
c( \
I ~ ~ ~ æ a ~ ~ ~ ~
en en (I)
CD ~ en 8 8 8
a: CJ 8 co co co
:::> I co co 0. 0. 0.
o.o.(/)(/)(/)
~~~æ~~~~~ (/) (/) Q) Q) Q)
Q) Q) - - -
:ä:ä~~~
co co .- .- .-
== == co co co
~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z ¡ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~8~~~~~::È It) ~ C') ~
=- ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OQ) ..........----....-..............-..
XCD ~ ~ ~ .,.. N C') ~ It) ~ :::.~~~~
.a-
~
:-
.
,
.
.
.
Table 3
. .
ACCUMULATION OF PARKED VEHICLES BY BLOCK
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
.
.
PEAK SYSTEM PEAK BLOCK ,.
ACCUMULATION (1 A.M.) ACCUMULATION
PARKING Percent Percent
BLOCK SPACES Vehicles Occupied Vehicles Occupied
A 55 8 15 10 18
B 60 22 37 27 45
C 98 51 52 60 61
D 225 94 42 102 45
E 44 26 59 34 77
F 235 39 17 56 24
G 271 130 48 134 49
H 149 83 56 87 58
I
I 165 115 70 123 75
J 177 137 77 137 77
K 145 73 50 74 51
L 132 63 48 99 75
M 196 119 61 119 61
N 163 113 69 122 77
0 312 174 56 218 70
P 66 33 50 36 55
\
a 48 32 67 32 67
R 225 115 51 142 63
S 370 181 49 202 55
T 138 77 56 80 58
U 235 161 69 167 71
V 256 149 58 153 60
W 104 56 54 56 54
X 286 253 88 253 88
Y 233 192 82 210 90
TOTAL 4388 2496 57 2733 62
.
·9·
J
I
:
.
.
.
AM and 6 PM. The two blocks with the highest percent opcupancy were the blocks adjacent to
the beach. Blocks "X" and 'V" had occupancy rates of 88 and 82 percent, respectively. The
next highest occupancies were found in Block · J" with 77 percent and Block "I' with 70
. percent. Four blocks had occupancy rates between 60 and 69 percent, including Blocks "M",
"N', "0', and "U·. Blocks with the lowest occupancy rates Included all the blocks west of 4th
Avenue except Blocks "C" "e" and "W. The lowest rates ranged from 15 to 48 percent. It
should be noted that the low rate in Block 'A' is due to the school building, which occupies
the entire block, being closed for fumigation.
Figure 5 illustrates the peak accumulation In the Individual parking facilities. Several
lots and curb faces throughout the study area had peak accumulations greater than as percent,
which is considered to be the effective capacity of an off-street lot. In other words, when a
lot becomes as percent occupied, it is considered full due to the Increased time required for
parkers to find a space, the misuse of spaces by some parkers who 'straddle the line' and the
need to provide some reserve capacity. Curb spaces operate more efficiently than off-street
lots and have an effective capacity calculated to be 90 percent of the actual capacity. IAs
can be seen in the illustration, major concentrations of parking demand are centered along
Atlantic Avenue and adjacent to the beach.
Duration and Turnover Characteristics
Parking space turnover is another index of space usage. Turnover is space usage in terms
of parkers per space per day and, as with accumulation, gives an indication of occupancy
levels for different types of parking within the study area. A high turnover rate is an
indication of short durations combined with high temporal occupancy levels. Conversely, low
turnover rates sl:lggest long durations and/or lower occupancy levels.
Parking durations should reflect time limits Imposed unless frequent violations occur.
Time restricted spaces that do not have parking meters require good enforcement. Generally,
parkers using curb spaces have shorter durations than parkers using off·street facilities,
even if the time restrictions are the same. However, if the off-street facilities are easily
accessible and provide short walking distances, the durations may be similar. Unrestricted
spaces usually serve all-day parkers and the remaining spaces typically serve parkers with a
.
·10·
~
:-
.
~
.,
.
~
.
-
I
I¿j i
> LOWRY
< sr.
4J ,0
N 4J
... ~
4J
a:: p
CJ
o~ (f
~
...
a::
Q
I z
D ~ ct
Dcq I c?
~
.' ~ .', ~ ''','.1 { :
I
I
I
r o;~ I II
~
19 [ 0 " ¡ ,
I ~ c::J 0 )((1
II¿,¡
I ~
I \ 1)
,
. ...... M IRAMAR DR. f/f
r
. PEAK ACCUMULA TIONS
DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
FIGURE 5
.
.
.
! ~l J l JL ~
~ 'Il ~ 'j[ sT"" I ] [ I
~I~~O~ ~ ~;,
IT! ~ 1ST AVE. .
;¡;!~ ~u~rJl~CJ ~-][ I
::! "'!i: .. ~ Lb. 2ND AvE.
:.ë~no; t
o ~ :Þ "'.". 0 t
":t>~n
n!:?~:Þ f
i~=1~ r
n -< - I
- -i f
~ -< ~ J f
L:::j AVE. '.... ·
, .:. J
DO DrnD 12J- ~~.:1,·'.!.;'.".·D~D - :
~ -I í
~ ~!:D¡ -=11. ~[ ,. I
·~~~o~t ) {·231 0][ ¡
~~.'·...I ] B6TH..AVE·n·..·· [ I
......< .......... .
%t\*¡W~{t· .œ ;tJ"';ri ~ I
I D ~ ¡
. ~ ,
H V , .
- ~. \
D ~ 0 ¡
..,
O ..,
IV}"ti,ift/%\i;·N?iWX/},:·y\·)t':Y~\j : g
8
- --..,
--=.
"--'=
- ~ ~._~
~ --
~~~
~
I .
.
. .
1
.
wide rarge of durations. Calculated turnover rates ançf duration characteristics are given in
Table 4 for selecteç1 curb and off· street spaèes.
The number of spaces sampled and the percent of total, spaces suggest that a
representative sample was obtained. Overall. 156 spaces were surveyed which represent 16
percent of the total available spaces of the type represented.
Parkin; Space Turnover· The off·street. unrestricted spaces surveyed have a turnover
during an 8·hour space of 1.44 parkers per space per day. The rate is influenced
significantly by the 15 parkers with a duration of 7 to 7.5 hours. The 2·hour off·street
spaces have a turnover of almost 5 parkers per space per day. Utilization of these spaces is
excellent. Ukewlse. the 2·hour curb spaces have a high turnover rate of about 4 parkers per
space per day. A turnover rate of about one fewer vehicle. compared to the off·street 2·hour
spaces, is due to more parkers in the one·half to 4·hour range. The overall turnover rate is
3.33 parkers per space per day.
!
Duration Characteristics . Parkers using the unrestricted off· street spaces have an
average duration of 3 hours and 51 minutes. About 16.7 percent have a duration of 0.5 to 1.0
hour; another 19.2 percent have a duration between 7.0 and 7.5 hours. The remaining durations
are evenly distributed. The average duration at both the curb and off·street 2·hour
restricted spaces is less than the imposed time limits. This suggests good enforcement and a
. reasonable restriction relative to parker needs. Almost 94 percent of the parkers using the
2·hour off·street spaces, and almost 84 percent of the parkers using the 2-hour curb spaces
have a duration less than the time restriction imposed. It can be concluded that the time
restriction is reasonable and is used as designed. J
Parker Characteristics
To Identify parker characteristics. postcard surveys were distributed with instructions
for parkers to answer several short questions, including the purpose of their trip, the
destination of their trip. the time parked. and their home ZIP code. Parkers were then
requested to mail the postage· paid cards to the CRA. Beginning at 10 AM, cards were placed on
all vehicles parked in the study area. with the exception of the highrise condominiums private
parking spaces. Again at 2 PM. cards were placed on all vehicles which did not already have a
·11·
J
.
.
Tabl. 4
DURATION AND TURNOVER CHARACTERISTICS
Select Public Facilities
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
,
OFF·STREET PUBUC
No Restriction 2-Hour Limit 2-Hour Curb TOTAL
Duration Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
0.0 . 0.5 Hours 7 9.0 111 57.2 103 41.8 221 42.6
0.5 . 1.0 Hours 13 16.7 41 21.2 61 24.7 115 22.2
1.0 . 1.5 Hours 2 2.6 26 13.4 29 11.7 57 11.0
1.5 . 2.0 Hours 4 5.1 4 2.1 14 5.7 22 4.2
2.0 . 2.5 Hours 5 6.4 8 4.1 15 6.1 28 5.4
2.5 . 3.0 Hours 6 7.7 · · 7 2.8 13 2.5
3.0 . 3.5 Hours 3 3.8 2 1.0 8 3.2 13 2.5 .
3.5 . 4.0 Hours 3 3.8 2 1.0 5 2.0 10 1.9
4.0 . 4.5 Hours 5 604 · · · · 5 /1.0
4.5 . 5.0 Hours 1 1.3 · · 4 1.6 5 1.0
5.0 . 5.5 Hours 2 2.6 · · · · 2 0.4
5.5 . 6.0 Hours 1 1.3 · · · · 1 0.2
6.0 . 6.5 Hours 1 1.3 · · · · 1 0.2
6.5 . 7.0 Hours 4 5.1 · · · · 4 0.7
7.0·7.5 Hours 15 19.2 · · 1 0.4 16 3.1
7.5 or Greater ~ 7.7 · -:&- · --::.. ~ -1J.
- -
TOTAL 78 100.0 194 100.0 247 100.0 519 100.0
Average
Duration 3 Hours 51 Minutes 40 Minutes 1 Hour 2 Minutes 1 Hour 19 Minutes
Number of Spaces 54 39 63 156
Surveyed
Turnover (1) 1.44 4.97 3.92 3.33
Percent of Spaces 91 59 65 73
(1) Parkers per space per day (10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)
·12·
~
,
/
:-
.
~
~
.
card on them. In total, approxìmately 3,075 cards were distributed. The response rate was 17
percent, with 532. cards mailed in. However, 36 surveys were rejected due to incomplete
information, leaving 496 surveys to be analyzed. Therefore, the actual surveys represented 16
.
percent of all cards distributed.
Results of the survey were cross-tabulated to determine the interrelationship between
parking location, trip purpose, walking distance, time parked, and the location of their
home. When relevant, the information gathered from spaces located west of the Intracoastal
Waterway has been separated from spaces east of the waterway to Identify any difference in
characteristics.
Table 5 summarizes the percentage of parkers in the curb, 2-hour public, no-limit public,
and private facilities for various trip purposes. Considering the entire study area, almost
half (48 percent) of the parkers in curb spaces were on shopping trips. Sixteen percent were
parked during work and the remaining 36 percent were evenly distributed over several other
trip purposes. The predominate reason (29 percent of responses) given for parking in the
!
2-hour public lots was ·other·. Shopping was the next highest response with 22 percent, while
personal business and work closely followed with 18 and 15 percent, respectively. The no-limit
public lots had the highest percentage of workers with 69 percent giving work as their
purpose. Private lots also had a high number of workers, representing 55 percent of the
private lot users. Twelve percent were shopping and the remaining 33 percent were spread
fairly even over the other trip purposes. Overall, work is the main reason given for parkers
in the private and no-limit public lots. Similarly shopping is the main purpose for parkers
in the 2-hour public lots and curb spaces.
Table 6 identifies the average walking distance, in blocks, for parkers if a various
types of lots by trip purposes. Average distances which are based on less tl": 5 surveys
have been identified and may be inaccurate due to the low sample of the particl. category .
The average distance walked for all trip purposes was less than 1 block. This is consistent
with other cities of similar size to Delray Beach. It is interesting to note that shoppers
average 0.87 blocks walked while workers average only 0.59 blocks. Typically, workers walk
further than shoppers, however, in Delray Beach, most businesses have private parking for
their employees and many retail stores along Atlantic Avenue do not have private parking for
their customers. Another interesting statistic is that curb spaces averaged the longest
walking distances. Typically, curb parking spaces have shorter walking distances than
-13·
J
I
.
.
. .T.able 5
TRIP PURPOSE BY FACILITY TYPE
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
,
TYPE PARKING TRIP PURPOSE
Personal Employment Parked at Eat a
FACILITY Wm.Is ShoDDlna Business Busln... Residence MIlL Qb[ TOTAl
WEST SIDE OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CURB 17% 52% 7% 12% N/A 7% 5% 100%
2-HR PUBLIC 15% 22% 18% 8% N/A 8% 29% 100%
NO LIMIT PUBLIC 69% 5% 1% 5% N/A N/A 20% 100%
PRIVATE 65% 11% 8% 6% N/A 5% 5% 100%
AVERAGE 56% 15% 7% 7% N/A 4% 11% 100%
/
EAST OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CURB 14% 37% 14% N/A N/A 14% 21% 100%
PRIVATE 39% 13% 8% 11% 4% 16% 9% 100%
AVERAGE 36% 15% 9% 10% 4% 16% 10% 100%
ENTIRE STUDY AREA
CURB 16% 48% 9% 9% N/A 9% 9% 100%
2·HR PUBLIC 15% 22% 18% 8% N/A 8% 29% 100%
NO LIMIT PUBLIC 69% 5% 1% 5% r-.{/A N/A 20% 100%
PRIVATE 55% 12% 8% 8% 2% '9% 6% 100%
AVERAGE 49% 15% 8% 8% 1% 8% 11% 100%
·14-
t
,
f
t
. ,
1
~
--
.
Table 6
WALKING DISTANCE BY FACILITY TYPE
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
.
TRIP PURPOSE
TYPE PARKING Personal Employment Parked at Eat a
FACILITY ï'lw:k Shopping Business Business Residence MIll Q1hIr TOTAL
WEST SIDE OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CURB 0.64 0.86 1.50* 0.70 N/A 0.67* 0.75 0.83
2-HR PUBLIC 0.50 0.50 0.57 0.50* N/A 1.00* 0.54 0.56
NO LIMIT PUBLIC 0.69 2.00* 0.50* 0.63* N/A N/A 0.72 0.76
PRIVATE 0.54 0.98 0.60 0.54 0.50* 0.65 0.50 0.59
AVERAGE 0.58 0.93 0.69 0.58 0.50* 0.72 0.62 0,65
!
EAST OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CURB 0.50* 0.70 0.75* N/A N/A 1.00* 0.83* 0.75
,"
.:;
PRIVATE 0.62 0.72 0.85 0.50 0.50* 0.55' 0.82 0,64
AVERAGE 0.62 0.72 0.83 0.50 0.50* 0.59 0.82 0.67
ENTIRE STUDY AREA
CURB '0.61 0.83 1.20 0.70 NjA 080 0.80 0.81
2-HR PUBLIC 0.50 0.50 0.57 0.50* N/A 1,CO* 0.54 0,56
NO LIMIT PUBLIC 0.69 2.00* 0.50* 0.63* NjA N:A 0.72 0.76
PRIVATE 0.56 0.87 0.70 0.52 0.50 0.58 0.68 0.61
AVERAGE 0.59 0.87 0.74 0.55 0.50 0.65 0.67 0.65
* CAUTION - LESS THAN 5 SURVEYS
.
-15·
J
I
.
.
.
off-street pUblic lots. This is probably due to the a~ailability of free 2-hour parking along
the curb and the perception that curb spaces are closer to their destination than off· street
parking. Also, as identified in Table 5, almost half of the curb parkers were shopping.
Shopþsrs with more than one destination in the downtown would be expected to walk between
destinations without moving their vehicle, producing larger walking distances. Average
walking distances less than one block for public spaces suggest that public lots are located
near most parker destinations, a desirable situation.
A comparison of time parked by parking location and trip purpose is summarized in Table
7. Workers had the longest average time parked at 7.15 hours \1 hours, 9 minutes). "Parked
near residence" was the second longest purpose at 6.15 hours (6 hours, 9 minutes). This
average was based on only 4 surveys and therefore could could be inaccurate. Employment
business trips produced an average length of 5.59 hours (5 hours, 35 minutes) while the other
trip purposes ranged from 1.13 hours (1 hour, 8 minutes) for shopping, to 1.43 hours (1 hour,
26 minutes) for "other".
I
The no-limit public parking generated the longest durations at 5.88 hours (5 hours, 53
minutes) . The private lots had durations almost as long, or 5.28 hours (5 hours, 17
minutE ;). The average duration at curb spaces was 1.93 hours (1 hour, 56 minutes) w.hile the
duration at the 2-hour public lots was 1.52 (1 hour, 31 minutes):
As identified in Table 8, 67 percent of the people parking in downtown Delray Beach are
from Delray Beach. Another 14 percent are from Boynton Beach while 5 percent are from Boca
Raton, and 4 percent are from Lake Worth. The remaining 10 percent are spread over other
locations.
A cross tabulation of the same information presented In Tabl~ 8 is presented In Table 9.
It is interesting to note that the percentage of parkers from every location, working in the
study area, was higher on the west side of the waterway than on the east side. For example,
48 percent of the parkers from Delray Beach were parked for work on the west side of the
waterway, while only 19 percent parked for work on the east side. Another observation is that
the majority of parkers from Boynton Beach, Lake Worth and Boca Raton are in the study area
for work. Only a small portion, from 0 to 10 percent, are in the area to shop.
·16-
/
{
,
.
~
-
~
&
.
. Taþ~e 7
TIME PARKED BY FACILITVTVPE
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
..
,
TYPE PARKING TRIP PURPOSE
Personal Employment Parked at Eat a
FACILITY wmk ShocplnQ Business Business Residence MHL Q1hJ.t TOTAL
WEST SIDE OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CURB 5.43 1.00 1.58* 2.35 N/A 1.11* 0.75* 1.96
2-HR PUBLIC 3.63 0.60 1.46 2.28* N/A 1.33* 1.05 1.52
NO LIMIT PUBLIC 7.06 0.81* 3.50* 6.75* N/A N/A 2.89 5.88
PRIVATE 7.32 1.65 1.31 6.54 N/A 1.56 2.57 5.68
AVERAGE 7.07 1.17 1.47 5.17 N/A 1.43 2.12 04.82
EAST OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY !
CURB 6.50* 0.58 0.76* N/A N/A 1.33* 1.83* 1,83
PRIVATE 7.54 1.16 1.18 6.30 6.15* 1.44 3.68 4.65
AVERAGE 7.50 1.02 1.11 6.30 6.15* 1.43 3.28 4.36
ENTIRE STUDY AREA
CURB 6.67 0.92 1.25 2.35 N/A 1.20 1.40 1,93
2·HR PUBLIC 3.63 0.60 1.46 2.28* N/A 1.33* 1.05 1.52
NO LIMIT PUBLIC 7.06 0.81* 3.50* 6.75* N/A N/A 2.89 5,88
PRIVATE 7.38 1.44 1.26 6.41 6.15* 1.48 3.18 5,28
AVERAGE 7.15 1.13 1.35 5.59 6.15* 1.43 2.43 4,69
* CAUTION· LESS THAN 5 SURVEYS
·17·
J
I
-
.
.
Table 8
PARKERS HOME ADDRESS BY TRIP PURPOSE
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
~
TYPE PARKING TRIP PURPOSE
Personal Employment Parked at Eat a
FACILITY WW:k ShoDplng Buslne.. Buslne.. Residence Mul. Q!hI[ TOTAL
WEST SIDE OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
DELRAY BEACH 56% 75% 88% 59% 100%* 56% 79% 64%
BOYNTON BEACH 15% 10% 4% 18% 0%* 19% 18% 14%
LAKE WORTH 7% 0% 0% 9% 0%* % % 5%
BOCA RATON 11% 0% 4% 5% 0%* % % 6%
OTHER 11% 15% 4% 9% 0%* 25% 3% 11%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%* 100% 100% 100%
EAST OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY I
DELRA Y BEACH 60% 70% 96% 65% 60%* 54% 43% 74%
BOYNTON BEACH 22% 10% 0% 21% 0%* 32% 14% 12%
LAKE WORTH 1~% 0% 1% 7% 0%* 0% ·0% 4%
BOCA RATON 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%* 0% 7% 1%
OTHER 4% 20% 2% 7% 40%* 14% 36% 9%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%* 100% 100% 100%
ENTIRE STUDY AREA
DELRA Y BEACH 56% 73% 93% 62% 67%* 56% 70% 67%
BOYNTON BEACH 17% 10% 1% 19% 0%* 26% 17% 14%
LAKE WORTH 8% 0% 1% 8% 0%* 0% 0% 4%
BOCA RATON 9% 0% 2% 3% 0%* 0% 2% 5%
OTHER 10% 17% 3% 8% 33%* 18% 11% 10%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% * 100% 100% 100%
* CAUTION - LESS THAN 10 SURVEYS
.
-18-
.
. .
.
I
,
, -.
- r
i
t
~
. Table 9
TRIP PURPOSE BY PÃÄKERS HOME ADDRESS
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
TRIP PURPOSE ,
TYPE PARKING Personal Employment Parked at Eat a
FACILITY Work ShoDDlng Business Business Residence MoL Q!h!r TOTAL
WEST SIDE OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
DELRA Y BEACH . 48% 18% 10% 6% 0% 4% 14% 100%
BOYNTON BEACH 60% 10% 2% 8% 0% 6% 14% 100%
LAKE WORTH 87% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 100%
BOCA RATON 90% 0% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100%
OTHER 56% 22% 3% 5% 0% 11% 3% 100%
AVERAGE 58% 18% 9% 7% 0% 6% 14% N/A
EAST OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (
DELRAY BEACH 19% 9% 52% 6% 2% 8%' 4% 100%
BOYNTON BEACH 44% 8% 0% 12% 0% 28% 8% 100%
LAKE WORTH 74%* 0%* 13%* 13%* 0%* 0%* 0%* 100%
BOCA RATON 34%* 0%* 33%* 0%* 0%* 0%* 33%* 100%
OTHER 11% 21% 11% 5% 11% 16% 25% 100%
AVERAGE 31% 11% 49% 8% 6% 15% 15% N/A
\
ENTIRE STUDY AREA
DELRAY BEACH 36% 14% 27% 6% 1% 6% 10% 100%
BOYNTON BEACH 55% 9% 1% 9% 0% 14% 12% 100%
LAKE WORTH 83% 0% 4% 13% 0% 0% 0% 100%
BOCA RATON 84% 0% 8% 4% 0% 0% 4% 100%
OTHER 41% 21% 5% 5% 4% 13% 11% 100%
AVERAGE 48% 15% 26% 7% 2% 9% 10% N/A
* CAUTION· LESS THAN 10 SURVEYS
·19·
J
.
.
.
. Chapter 3
Parking Space C-emands and Needs
.
The weekday population of Individuals who visit the Delray Beach CØ'ntral Business
District and the mode of transportation they choose Influences parking space demands and
needs. Parking demand is a measure of the number of spaces necessary to accommodate those
parkers destined to a given land use at a given time. For Delray Beach, parking demands were
calculated for each block within the study area based on peak accumulation of parked
vehicles. Spatially, demand relates to the person-destination rather than the parking
location.
Existing parking needs were quantified by block and then a te~hnique was utilized whereby
reasonable walking distances to primary destinations are considered. Future parking demand
and supply were estimated based on expected developments. A comparison of expected Mure .
supply and demand yielded an overall study area need. Overall needs were then converted to
needs considering reasonable walking distances.
.tE
Adlusted Supply
The adjusted supply was calculated by factoring the actual inventory of spaces to
recognize operating efficiency factors. This technique recognizes the time lost from parking
and unparking maneuvers, parking in two spaces or "straddling the line", and accounts for
variations In activity levels on different weekdays and at other times of the year. It also
allows for some reserve capacity, in a planning sense, to avoid congestion from over-filled
facilities. For, public off-street facilities the adjusted supply (or effective capacity) is
assumed to be 85 percent of the actual inventory. For private off·s~reet facilities the
effective capacity is assumed to be 85 percent of the actual capacity, or the peak
accumulation, choosing the lesser of the two values. This technique recognizes that
under-utilized restricted-use spaces are not available to serve general public parking. For
curb spaces the effective capacity Is considered to be 90 percent of the inventory. These.
spaces require less parking and unparklng time, and are therefore more efficient. After
considering these factors, the total effective capacity of the study area was calculated to be
2,853 spaces, which is 62 percent of the actual Inventory.
-20-
. .
t
I
, .~
- r
"
..
,
~
Parkln.g Space Demand
- .
In this study, the peak accumulation of parked vehicles was determined through
obse'rvation of activity at all study area parking facilities. The peak block accumulations
were combined to represent the peak study accumulation of 2,733 vehicles. Gbservations of
parking opportunities outside.. the study area Identified 9 vehicles in an off-street lot on
Southwest 6th Avenue, just outside of the study area. People parked their vehicles In this
area and then walked to destinations within the study area, therefore the peak accumulation of
this facility was added to the study area peak accumulation. The combination of both was
accepted as the study area parking demand which totaled 2,742. It represents today's
.
development level, occupancy, rates, and travel characteristics.
To aid In understanding where parking needs are greatest, the overall study area demand
was dlsaggregated to study area blocks, identifying the person-destination as the location
(block) of demand. This disaggregation was accomplished through the use of a parking demand.
model. The model considers such factors as gross building area by major land use categorJes
.
and present occupancy levels.
Initial parking demand ra ~s were entered into the model and resulting values wer.e tested
against the observed peak study area accumulation. Rates 'were adjusted and a series of
interatlve runs of the model were accomplished until the results compared accurately with
observed values. The model was then considered to be calibrated. It then becomes a useful
tool in forecasting block·by-block parking demands that would result from additional
development. ,
Demand Model Input - Land use data was taken from an aerial photograph and a
reconnaissance of the area to determine specific building location, building size, use, and
occupancy status. The land use categories utilized in the model were retail, office, hotel
and residential. Unique parking generators were handled individually, including the library
and churches. Because of the physical barrier of the Intracoastal Waterway, the study area
was divided into two halves -- west of the waterway and east of the waterway. Table 10
summarizes the land use data for each half of the study area. It should be noted that single
family dwelling units were excluded from the land use and the parking accumulation surveys.
Retail is the largest single use on the west side of the waterway, accounting for approxi·
mately 410,000 gross square feet (GSF), or 46 percent of the total floor area. Office was the
·21·
J
1
.
.
TaÞle10 '
ESTIMATED EXISTING LAND USE
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
,
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE
BLOCK RETAIL OFFICE HOTEL HOUSING VACANT" . OTHER TOTAL
WEST OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
A 0 0 0 0 39,400 0 39,400
B 17,500 11,800 0 0 6,700 0 36,000
C 59,900 0 0 0 0 2,000 Church 61,900
D 11,400 24,700 0 0 10,500 0 46,600
E 21,500 0 0 0 0 .0 21,500
F 7,200 2,200 0 0 2,800 3,700 VPN 15,900
G 36,500 23,400 0 0 0 0 59,900
.
H 26,500 30,100 0 0 5,800 0 62,400
I 40,200 27,900 0 0 4,200 0 72,~
J 19,800 29,200 0 0 4,000 11 ,900 Ubrary 64,
K 21,200 7,600 44,100 0 0 0 72,900
L 28,300 15,400 0 0 0 0 43,700
M 26,500 52,000 .~ 0 7,600 0 0 86,100
N 26,500 5,800 ,. 0 26,300 0 0 58,600
0 28,900 16,500 0 0 29,500 0 74,900
P 9,200 0 0 20,000 21,000 0 50,200
a 29.000 0 --.Q ~ ---.Q ~ 29.000
SUB
TOTAL 410,100 246,600 44,100 53,900 123,900 17,600 896,200
EAST OF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
R 0 0 0 384,000 0 0 384,000
S 34,400 0 0 300,900 0 0 335,300
T 14,500 , 30,700 0 0 0 ~ 0 45,200
U 26,700 6,600 0 50,500 0 0 83,800
V 9,700 7,500 0 123,400 0 0 140,600
W 33,000 0 0 6,100 0 22,900 Church 62,000
X 0 0 112,000 51,500 0 0 163,500
Y 42,900 9,200 56,000 30,700 0 0 138,800
SUB
TOTAL 161,200 54,000 168,000 947,100 0 22,900 1,353,200
TOTAL 571,300 300,600 212,100 1,001,000 123,900 40,500 2,249,400
-22-
~ ,
,
I .~
~
-
i
f
~
.
next largest use with almosf247.ooo GSF. Fourteen percent of the gross floor area on the
west side of the S1udy area was found to be vacant. 'East of the waterway, residential space
makes up 70 percent of the total floor area with approximately 947.000 GSF. Most of this
. space is located In the highrise condominiums along the edge of the waterway. Hotel is the
second largest use. with 168.000 GSF. followed by retail with 16~ ,000 GSF. and office with
54,000 GSF. As a whole. the study area, includes approximately 2,250,000 gross square feet of
building area. Around 40 percent of this is located west of the Intracoastal Waterway while
60 percent Is to the east.
Calibration of ,the Model - To more accurately model existing conditions, land uses
which were isolated from the rest of the study area and were observed to have all their
parking needs met on site were treated separately by the model. For example, the parking
demands measured at the highrlse condominiums on the east side of the Intracoastal Waterway
were directly input In the model as the parking generation for the facilities. Therefore, the
generation for these facilities did not fluctuate with the various iterations of the model.
!
Initially, a parking demand rate for each land use classification was entered into the
model. Rates for the initial model were based on empirical data. The ensuing model
iterations were performed to recogn¡~e parking generation characteristics unique t~ Delray
Beach. The final parking rates used In the model resulted in a calculated demand of 2,734
parked vehicles, compared to a measured demand of 2,742 parked vehicles.
Parking Space Needs
Parking space needs are expressed for each block as either a surplus, a deficiency, or a
balanced condition. A surplus would result if the block's adjusted supply exceeds the
demand. Conversely, a deflclency would result if the parking demand exceeds the adjusted
supply. Once each block's parking needs Is determined, blocks with a surplus can be used to
balance deficient blocks within a reasonable walking distance.
.
·23-
,
j
1
-
.
Existing Surpluses and ·Deflclencles
. .
The existing supplies for each block were compared to the existing demand with the result
being the parking need by study area block. The study area block needs are presented in Table
11 and illustrated in Figure 6. The aggregate effective capacity' is 2,853 spacés which Is 62
percent of the actual inventory. The block's effective capacity represents application of
efficiency factors to each facility and considers the limits placed on restricted facilities.
An estimated demand of 2,734 spaces results in a net study area surplus of 119 spaces.
West of the Intracoastal Waterway, 8 of the 17 blocks have deficiencies. The shortages
of parking spaces range from 6 to 56 with the average being 24 spaces. The largest
deficiencies Include Block "H" with 56, Block "M" with 38, Block "B· w~h 36 and Block "C"
with 23. Nine blocks have surpluses of parking spaces which range. from 5 to 97 and average 40
spaces. The most significant surpluses are located in Block "G" with 97, Block "N" with 58.
Block "D" with 54, and Block "F" with SO. It should be noted that Blocks "G", "N" and "D" .
contain public lots. If the west side of the waterway is considered separately, a surl llus
exists of 176 spaces.
On the east side of the Intracoastal V lterway, 4 of the 8 blocks have a deficiency, 3 had
a surplus and 1 was balanced. Deficiencies ranged from·4 to 40 spaces. In addition, the
parking demand generated by the beach was calculated to be 85 spaces. The three surplus
.blocks had between 20 and 49 additional spaces after meeting their block demand. In total,
the east side of the waterway has a deficiency of 57 parking spaces.
Realistically, surplus blocks can be used to offset deficient blocks, provided reasonable
walking distances are considered. For Delray Beach, a surplus block was considered
serviceable to ,abutting deficient blocks. Table 12 summarizes-the results of balancing the
deficiencies using surplus blocks to meet the needs of adjacent blocks. Aft~r balancing, only
the beach area remained deficient. A demand for 57 spaces generated by the beach is unable to
be satisfied within the study area. It should be realized that these 57 spaces are
"effective" spaces, not actual spaces. Assuming an 85 percent efficiency, the actual need is
for 67 spaces.
-24-
~
,
I '.
~
- ,
1
~
.
Table 11
EXiSTiNG PARKING SURPLUSES AND DEFICIENCIES
. Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
EFFECTIVE MODEL SURPLUS/
BLOCK CAPACITY CAPACITY DEMAND DEFICIENCY (-)
A 55 23 0 23
e 60 29 65 -36
C 98 76 99 -23
0 ,225 112 58 54
E 44 39 46 -7
F 235 72 22 50
G 271 207 110 97
H 149 88 144 ·56
I 165 120 126 -6
J 177 146 116 30
K 145 74 82 -8
L 132 102 86 16
M 196 124 162 ·38 !
N 163 136 78 58
0 312 229 198 31
P 66 37 32 5
a 48 .34 48 ·14
TOTAL 2541 1648 1472 176
R 225 142 142 0
S 370 204 221 ·17
T 138 73 99 ·26
U \ 235 166 117 49
V 256 148 128 20
W 104 56 96 ·40
X 286 238 192 46
Y 233 178 182 -4
BEACH N/A N/A 85 ·85
TOTAL 1847 1205 1262 -57
GRAND TOTAL 4388 2853 2734 119
.
·25-
J
I
.
.
. t
I
, .
! ....
, .
I 1
I I I
i ' I
I ' I
1 iw
I: , I:> I
, . I
. I i____ j,~
'''- . .. _. -.. -- .,- --------"
~~ ì r .--- ---_.- ¡---,
........ I '
, , !1;: I
1 I
! I ". 1'---1
I iH ,,"',. , ::"""'1
'w
I<J.J '''>1
.~ T~/
I!!, : r1: --." ~.~ _..-- .; I i
!::::
I I:; .
! :1 I J~I
)1 ¡W
, ,... j I
I ~I ,
--'/,/ i
( ¡ , ; ,
I ( I
r-- I .
II í i i
, ,r I
I I f i I,
I
I ¡ - ~ r:¡ I[ I f
ì -..-.,
L-J¡ 1:;\ ;
I . I
i._---..i I i
):l -.J I I I \ ! (
..~._--.._..- "= ./ «VI
!
(r----¡ -,.~._---- _____.__.__._u.._ _
Ii' ' ~ '1 i . I (',
I! I !
I ) .'~ ! :! I
iL , .. '-
, ¡ , oJ
I - 'I~ ,
! I ,n'~ ¡ ¡ I
>--' I ! i, ;
. .- --~-'''-- ,
0...-.,-. ,,- I I t
~ ¡ " /
",:--" B · j I I ' :
, . '
., . ,
!~.:::.:'"
. ~
--~, I ' ,
"Z
i ,'.. ~ ! - .-
I~ ,.....~ ,
i"""""'. ~ ¡ ¡:v') ~ , ,
! !! -~; . ¡ ct, -
l !'.7j! r--:=J i l-.i! I i! U
.?: ' - --
I
.i ..... '____-J' , ____._ -...1
, . ¡ -- ..... ..-
'-.-.., ,-'
.:.:;J - ~
'-': -' ..---/
---, (' -~ I ,-,k1.:.,y:..a >~ --. '-'-
I j '----··-·-__.____m .._ .::=::','.,"'.7 ..~..,
; i ----..-"..---.-----.-- --'--'-'-"-
; I
, ;
I I
¡
EXISTING PARKING SPACE SURPLUSES
AND DEFICIENCIES
DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
FIGURE 6
. .
I
!
, .~
- ~
,
I
t
~
. .. .. . .. . L. .4 '-._ 4 ~ . ...... -' L.. t ....4 ~ .......... ~ . ~ ............ "'- --' ----.J _ ...._
!
. ! _~J L~ ___J l~J L__ - i
.i ~ ~~[=~~L :
fJ.:\rJ;\~ I ~ J,-'i 0 ~~ C~":~D L
\.ÐJ\.Q) ~ D ~ 0 C~,Î _ tv I
CVlZ 0 UC i
~ ! ~ ~ ~ "-iYl-: ---=- 2N¡ït;~
Z VI ~ ~- -~D
- '--+J [' I
~ ~ ~æ:~ r:~~... tG.0 .
~ ("') 0t::Jr ~.. J
" I -~ ¡
~ ~ ; c::.. ...r----:. <----.. '
VI ~ JR~~ 'D=-~" i:J~::::.---- i
+ j
.IJ (0 .
DO ~o D ~ ~O '?
. .~ ~_u. _~___
~ CJQ~~ QŒ)~~~ Ii:
5 T~ A\[
ID[~DL
_ _.. ..._.:J _
&TH A',£
:J "'[_._~c:' iQ t~f
+ ;:: I . ---,
_ J,JD ; . ~.. . .'
o ~ [ <~ I~ll
o c..=;:J_____ L_ ,i ----JLJ
[ ~~ °l/J·~æ~uo
~.r. CD n [ ... I ~I ¡
~u
.-~ ~
----~ 0
-- --.- _ u -..--1
r ri0
\ \ _lp;)
J
-
.
Table 12
PARKING SURPLUSES AND DEFICIENCIES
AFTER BALANCING
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
,
SURPLUS/
DEFICIENCY (-)
EFFECTIVE MODEL SURPLUS,_ .- AFTER
BLOCK CAPACITY CAPACITY DEMAND DEFICIENC (-) BALANCING BALANCING
A 55 23 0 23 -23 0
B 60 29 65 -36 36. 0
C 98 76 99 -23 23 0
D 225 112 58 54 -36 18
E 44 39 46 -7 7 0
F 235 72 22 50 -26 24
G 271 207 110 97 -13 84
H 149 88 144 -56 56 0
I 165 120 126 -6 6 0
J 177 146 116 30 -30 0 .
K 145 74 82 oS 8 0
L 132 102 86 16 oS 8 I
M 196 124 162 -38 38 0
N 163 136 78 58 -38 20
0 312 229 198 31 -9 22
P 66 5, 37 32 5 -5 0
a 48 34 48 -14 14 0
TOTAL 2541 1648 1472 176 0 176
R 225 142 142 0 0 0
S 370 204 221 -17 17 0
T 138 73 99 -26 26 0
U 235 166 117 49 49 0
V 256 148 128 20 -20 0
W 104 56 96 -40 40 0
X 286 238 192 46 -46 0
Y 233 178 182 -4 4 0
BEACH N/A N/A 85 -85 \ 28 -57
TOTAL 1847 1205 1262 -57 0 -57
GRAND
TOTAL 4388 2853 2734 119 0 119
-26-
(
,
!
I -.
~
- f
I
,
~
--
.
. Chapter 4
Master Parking Plan
.
The Comrru'1ity Redevelopment Ageno¡, the DowntO'M1 Development Authority and other city and
local agencies are actively pursuing the development, or redevelopment, of the downtown area
of Delray Beach. The recent trend toward suburban commercial development has left the
downtown without any major anchor stores. This makes It difficult for the downtown to compete
with suburban matts, and shopping centers. The supply of adequate parking has been a
significant factor In attracting development to the dowrttown. Therefore, this Master Parking
Plan has been developed to analyze the need for parking as development in the d~wntown occurs.
Parking Issues
I
Several Issues will affect the development of the Master Parking Plan. These include
zoning requirements, development levels, the physical type of parking, operational methods,
treatment of curb parking r ,d financing strategies.
Zoning Requirements· The existing Zoning Code for Delray Beach requires 4.5 parking
spaces per 1,000 square feet of total floor area for commercial developments. This zoning has
perpetuated a fragmentation of parking in the downtown area. As identified in Chapter 2, a
significant portion \ of the downtown parking supply is located in small private lots. In
addition, a cash "in-lieu-of" the parking space requirement has been implemented; however,
this option has not been useful and should be abolished.
Generally, parking requirements tend to dissuade developments in areas of higher land
costs, such as in downtown areas. Developing in a downtown area which has parking
requirements would need to be very financially attractive before an anchor would be willing to
locate there. Unfortunately, downtown Delray Beach, with its parking requirements, has not
appeared to be attractive enough to persuade major new development.
A more common zoning code which is in effect in most cities is the exemption of
development in the downtown area from any type of parking requirement. This in effect places
the responsibility of providing parking in the downtown on the City. This zoning recognizes
-27-
J
I
:
-
.
the need for incentives to bring development In the downtown area as well as the undesirable
effect of fragmented parking created by requiring each development to have its own parking.
The cost of parking is usually recouped through user revenues for municipally owned parking
facilities, however, this typically needs to be subsidized. Another benefit 9f this type of
zoning is the significant tax revenue increase due to new development. Delray Beach would
have the opportunity to use tax increment revenue bond funding to partially finance the
construction of public parking facilities.
In view of the Ineffectiveness of the existing zoning code and the potential availability
of tax increment funds to assist in the financing of parking structures, It Is recommended
that Delray Beach change its zoning code to exempt development In the downtown area from any
parking requirements-.
Potential Develoement - Several sites were Identified as potential locations for major .
retail, office, apartment or hotel developments. These included 3 primary and 6 secondary
sites. The primary sites are considered to be the more desirable locations for developm~nt
whereas the secondary ones are sites which present an opportunity for redeveloþment due to the
type of existing use. :&'or ant 'ytical purposes, the parking demands for each site were
evaluated assuming approximately 100,000 square feet of retail space in each site.
Type of Parking - Potential off-street parking could be provided in surface lots,
free-standing garages with retail development incorporated on the street side of the garage or
garages' which are fully incorporated into the retail development. For the purpose of this
study, it was assumed that future parking garages would be fully incorporated into the overall
design of a retail development site. These parking facilities could be located anywhere
within, or above the retail development. ~
Operational Methods - Several alternatives are available for revenue collection of
parking fees in proposed parking facilities. Parking meters could be installed, however, they
are generally not economical for most garages due to the number of meters required for larger
facilities. They also do not offer the flexibility of merchant validation, to the extent that
attended facilities do..
-28-
~
,
I
J
.
f
~
.
Slot box control requires a parker to deposit a fee in a slot box which has the same
numerical designátion as the space he or she parked in. This method can be difficult to
. . enforce. Also the fee Is not tied to the actual time parked, which can generate a perception
of unfair rates charged to short-term parkers. This often encourages short-term parkers to
,
not pay the fee.
Cashier control would be the most appropriate method to collect revenues. A major benefit
is that parkers are charged only for the time they are parked. Cashiers also allow greater
flexibility for merchant validation and implementing rate increases. Merchant validation is
usually accomplished by merchants stamping the parking ticket which is issued to the parker as
he enters the garage. When he exits the garage the cashier would charge the cost of the
parking to the merchant. Some merchant validation programs cover the entire parker's cost
while others give the parker a reduced rate. Programs which use tokens should be avoided
because patrons often take tokens even if they did not use the garage. Also, tokens tend to
be lost, requiring new tokens to be provided.
I
To improve the operation of the garage, separate exit lanes could be provided for
automated card readers. These card' could be issued to monthly parkers and would allow them
to exit the garage without waiting on vehicles exiting by the cashier.
Curb Parking - Presently, there are no meters on any curb parking within the study
area. While parking meter revenues can be significant, their primary purpose is usually to
encourage parkinQ space turnover by limiting the time vehicles are parked in a space. An
example is the use of meters along the beach, just east of the study area. Presently, almost
84 percent of the parkers using the 2-hour curb spaces have a duration less than the time
restriction imposed.
As more development locates in the downtown area, parking durations are expected to
increase, thus parking meters will likely be warranted in the future. With the proposed
provision of additional off-street long-term parking, it would be advantage04s to install
meters on curb spaces with 1-hour limits to serve short-term parkers. This would also
encourage parkers to use the long-term parking where they would not have to worry about·
"feeding the meter" and would feel free to stay in the downtown as long as they would like.
.
·29-
J
I
.
.
Parking meter rates should be competitive with: rates for the most convenient public
off-street facilities. An even higher rate could be justified because curb spaces are the
most. attractive spaces. Based on the turnover characteristics of existing spaces along
Atlantic Avenue, metered spaces in desirable locations would generate annual revenues of
approximately $575 per space per year at a rate of $0.50 per hour. The actual rate charged
will be a political decision; however, if a charge is macle for new offstreet parking, a charge
should be imposed on the curb parking spaces. If no charge .is imposed on curb parking,
parkers would be encouraged to circulate through the downtown area, trying to find a curb
space, instead of going to the off-street facilities. This 'would increase congestion in the
downtown area. . "
The installation of curb parking meters would necessitate the striping of curb spaces to
designate each stall. In actuality, the curb spaces should be striped whether or not meters
are installed. The designation of stalls would allow the curb spaces to operate more
efficiently because the maximum number of spaces which can be safely 'accessed would be
provided. This would eliminate parkers from spreading out along the curb face as well/as
crowding other parked cars, making it difficult for them to exit their space.
Financing Strategies - The cost fOf providing structured, parking is generally too high
to be covered solely by user revenues. Most garages are supplemented through one form or
another. One method which has been successful in other cities is the creation of a Parking
Trust Fund. This fund would be the repository of all parking revenue including metered
spaces, garage spaces and parking violations. Delray Beach would also have the opportunity of
including limited tax increments into the fund. The fund is used to reduce debt service
incurred in developing parking facilities and for operating and maintenance expenses.
\
Potential Development Sites and Impacts
The study area was reviewed for potential development sites and three primary sites were
identified. Furthermore, six additional sites were considered potential, or secondary
development sites. Figure 7 illustrates the location of these primary and secondary sites.
Primary sites are located in Block "M/O", on the north side of the Atlantic Plaza, Block "K"
and Block "L." Secondary sites are located in Blocks "CO, "O/F", "E: "G", "H/F" and "T:
·30-
~
,
"
.
-
~
~
~ Ó!
.
. .,.
, !
.
IoU I! I
> LOWRY ST
ct
IoU ,0
N IoU
IoU >
IoU ct
a= [2
co
ct (I')
I.U ~
(I') I.U
0:: X
Q
z
'D ~ ct
I
I I
[J==J DD
D 0
~G 0
.... 0
o ~; j
I Qg f w
z ~
01 CJ~ ' ~ 0 D
ct
I.U
...J
U) 0
M IRAMAR DR.
r I
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES
DELRA Y BEACH, FLORIDA
FIGURE 7
J
I
:
-
.
- ~ _. - --.-- -... - . -- _.- - - -- ~,ø_. -'__
~ ~l i
CD JL ,-
c
;0 i
~
::¡
:I: SWINTON AVE
~ I I ][
~ :>
VI
.'
1ST AVE.
:,o;~ 0-:[
Z
0(;)
1"1 ,
~~ ¡
Z:,o;
þ-
-IZ
Õ(;)
Z~
n
r=
~
II
VI"'tJ
1"1::0
n-
o!:
zþ
0::0
þ-<
::0 VI
-<-
VI-I
=:¡rn
1"1
VI
~; r- ODD 1
,... I
I
~[[ ~DD ]; I
I
c:::::J o 0 I
I
I
,
" D 0
. 0
<
!'"
..,
;:: 8
,...
.
8
,.-.~
.._-.....;:::::::.
-~
o--..~
. ,- -~ -
,
. .
,
I
t '.
- t
r
í
..
,
..
.
It was assumed that the development potential for each site was 100,000 gross square feet
(GSF). With 50,000 GSF occupied by a major anchor and 50,000 GSF of auxiliary retail space.
. One. exception is the site on Block "M/O" which was assumed to have a 63,000 GSF anchor and
69,000 GSF of auxiliary retail.
Parl<1ng generation rates 10r the proposed anchors were estimated based on measurements at
a similar type store In Oakbrook Square in Palm Beach Gardens. This anchor generated an
estimated peak demand 014.19 parking spaces per 1,000 GSF. Parking generation rates for the
auxiliary developrne~ts were assumed to be similar to those rates measured for retail spaces in
downtown Celray Beach, or 1.65 spaces per 1,000 GSF.
Using these parking generation rates and the amount 01 development previously described,
the parking demand for the development in Block "M/O" was estimated to be 415 spaces. This
represents the need in "effective" spaces. The actual need, assuming an 85 percent efficiency
factor, will be for 490 parking spaces. The development assumed tn the other blocks was less
than In Block "M/O" and will generate an effective need for 325 spaces. Assuming an 85 perdent
efficiency factor, this would be equivalent to a need for 380 actual spaces. These demands
are summariz"d in Table 13.
Table 13 also summarizes the effect the new development will have due to the displacement
of existing supplies and demand generators. For example, development in Block "M/O" will
displace approximately 137 effective parking spaces as well as an office building which
generates an estimated demand for 73 spaces. Therefore, the act,ual need would be for 479
\
effective, or 565 actual spaces. A surplus of 20 spaces in Block "N" could potentially be
used to meet some of this demand, assuming no further development in Block "N: It should be
noted that this analysis does not consider the impact of the displaced development relocating
within the study area. Therefore, the displaced demand for 73 spaces could be relocated in
another location in the study area, or be a part of the new auxiliary development or be re-
located outside the study area.
This same methodology can be followed for the other primary and secondary sites. Needs
before adjacent surplus parking Is considered range from 330 spaces In Block "T" to 440 spaces
in Block "G." If the needs are supplemented by surplus parking in adjacent blocks, the needs
range from 330 spaces in Block "T" to 410 spaces in Blocks "C /F" and "G."
.
-31-
~
,
(
:
-
.
.
Table 13
.
PARKING-NEEDS FOR
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
. Delray Beach Malter Parking Plan
,
POTENTIAL NEED AFTER
DISPLACEMENT NEED SUPPLEMENT SUPPLEMENT
BLOCK DEMAND Supolv* Demand Effective Actual (Location) Effective Actua!
PRIMARY LOCATIONS
M/O 415 137 73 479 565 20 (N) 459 540
K 325 54 21 358 420 28 (I., N) 330 390
L 325 73 41 357 420 20 (N) 337 395
.
SECONDARY LOCATIONS I
C 325 11 47 289 340 42 (D, F) 247 290
D/F 325 53 17 361 425 12 (F) 349 410
E 325 14 15 324 380 126 (D, F, G) 198 235
G 325 98 50 373 440 24 (F) 349 410
H/F 325 64 26 363 425 96 (F, G) 267 315
T 325 54 99 280 330 0 280 330
-
-
\
-
* . Effective supply minus the surplus after balancing.
-32-
( .
t .
- ~
,
,
'!
.
.
The actual need will depend on the timing and location of future development. For
example, Block "E" is estimated to have a need for 380 spaces, which could be reduced to 235
. spaces by supplementing the supply with surplus spaces in Blocks "D", "F", and "G." However
.
Blocks "D", "F", and "G" are potential sites for development themselves. If they are
developed, no existing surplus parking will be available to supplement Block "E." Therefore,
It will be necessary to reevaluate parking needs as development occurs.
Master Parking Plan
The Master Parking Plan represents a conceptual guideline for providing adequate parking
in downtawn Delray Beach. The plan cannot be more specific because the future parking demand
will depend on the actual amount of development which takes place in the area. The timing of
potential developments will also affect the amount of adjacent surplus parking which can be
used to supplement Mure needs. Therefore, this Master Parking Plan should serve as a guide
I
which should be reevaluated as Mure developments become committed and actual amounts 'of
development are known.
Primary SIte Development· Of the three primary sites, Block "M/O" is likely to be the
first block to be developed. Preliminary plans are for a 63,000 square·foot department store
and 24,000 square feet, or more, of retail space in the adjacent 48S-space garage. The
previous analysis revealed a need for 459 spaces with 540 spaces desirable. This analysis
included a demand generated by an additional 45,000 square feet of auxiliary retail
,
development beyond that presently proposed. Because the additional auxiliary retail has not
been committed, the size of the proposed garage appears to be adequate.
The remaining two primary sites are located in Blocks "K" and "L." Based on the
assumption previously identified in Chapter 3, the parking need in each of these blocks will
be for 420 parking spaces. These spaces should be provided in structured parking facilities
constructed in conjunction with the retail development on these blocks. It can be noted that
no supplemental parking from adjacent blocks with existing surpluses will be available due to
development proposed on Block "L" and the use of surplus spaces in Block "N" to serve. .
potential needs in Block "M/O: These needs are summarized in Table 14.
-33-
J
I
:
-
.
Table 14
MASTER PARKING PLAN
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
BLOCK PARKING
Space. Tvpe
Primary Location.:
M/O 540 Structured
K 420 Structured
L 420 Structured
Secondary Location.:
C 340 Structured
D/F 425, 325 Structured /
100 Surface
E 380 Structured
G 440 Structured
H/F 425 325 Structured
100 Surface
T 330 Structured
I
;
..
r \
-34-
, ,
.
,
.
~ ~
t
I
¡ ,
. I 1,...
. I
,
~
.
- '
Secondary Sit_ Development. Table 14 also identifies the need for the secondary
,
sites. Priority for developing parking on the secondary sites would also need to closely
follow any development of these sites. Again, assuming that 100,000 square feet of retail
space is constructed on each site, the needs will vary from 330 in Block T to «0 in Block G.
No supplementary parking in adjacent blocks has been used to reduce the needs because each
potential supplement block has also been Identified as a potential development block. If
development does not occur on some of these blocks, the actual parking need could be less than
what Is Identified. The parking supply for each block will need to be located in structured
parking. However, developments in Blocks "D/F" and "H/F" could use surface parking
constructed In Block "F", adjacent to the railroad. Approximately 100 surface spaoes could be
constructed on either side of the railroad, however, a barrier should b~· constructed to
prevent people from parking on one side of the tracks and walking to the other side. This is
a safety concern due to the high speed at which trains travel through Delray Beach.
The surface parking areas adjacent to the railroad, in Block F, do not appear to be wide
t
enough to accommodate a garage, which would require a minimum depth of approximately 120
feet. Assuming the railroad right-of-way is 100 feet, a depth of only 90 feet would be
available for a garage.
Parking Development Costs
Because of tÞe desire to incorporate future parking structures into the potential retail
developments, no function designs have been prepared. Without functional designs, it is
difficult to estimate the cost of constructing and operating the parking facilities.
Therefore, typical costs on a per space basis have been provided. It is important to note
that these costs can vary significantly due to the efficiency of the final design, the
complexity of the design, and the method of construction.
Construction Costs - Development cost estimates for the various items associated with
the implementation of the Master Parking Plan are identified in Table 15. Construction costs
are expected to be from $18 to $20 per square foot in a structured facility. Surface parking
lots would be about $4 per square foot. The total facility's size divided by the number of
parking spaces is expected to be 325 square feet per space in structured parking and 300
-35-
~
¡
~
-
,
.
.
. Table 15
COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS
. Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
,
ITEM ESTIMATED COST
CONSTRUCTION
Structured Parking $18 to $20 per square foot
Surface Parking $4 per square foot
i1~·· . "4·
SQUARE FEET PER PARKING SPACE
Structured Parking .325 sq. ft.jspace
Surface Parking 300 sq. ft.jspace
- .
I
ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING,
AND CONTINGENCIES 15% of construction costs
¡>
.,'
LAND CÖST
.
West of Intracoastal Waterway $8 to $10 per square foot
East of Intracoastal Waterway $10 to $12 per square foot
.. ,
't LAND COST APPORTIONMENT
Structured Parking 25% per space
Surface Parking 100% per sp,ace
PARKING METERS
Structured Parking NjA
Surface Parking $360 per space
.
-36-
,
,
~ .
,
I ~
I
i
, .
( l..
- f
. ~
"
J
~
·'
square feet per ,space for surface parkin~:' This represents typical layouts and does not
include special ramping to access the parking. If special ramps are required, the square
footage per space would increase. Architecture, engineering and contingencies are estimated
at 15 percent of the construction costs. .e..
Land costs were estimated to be between $8 and $10, west of the Intracoastal Waterway, and
between $10 to $12 east of the Intracoastal Waterway. Because the parking structures will
probably be mixed with retail development, the land cost responsibility of the parking
structure was estimated to be 25 percent per space. This assumes that a four level structure
is constructed , with the bottom two levels occupied by retail and the top two used for
parking. Finally, the cost to purchase and Install meters on the surface parking lots would
be $360 per space.
Total development costs were estimated to vary between $7,400 and $8,300 per space, on th~,
west side of the Intracoastal Waterway. Higher land costs on the east side of the waterray
would raise the costs to betwecm $7,600 and $8,500 per space. Surface parking lots would be
developed for between $4,100 and $4,700 per space.
Operation Costs - Operating costs for several garages were reviewed to develop cost
estimates. Typical annual operating costs would be expected to range from $200 to $250 per
space. Of this, personnel costs account for between 45 percent to 55 percent of the total
costs. Other expenses include utilities, maintenance, insurance and miscellaneous costs,
Typical ranges for these items, expressed as percentages of th'e total operating cost, are
identified in Table 16. Operating costs for surface lots, including maintenance, utilities,
: and insurance was estimated to be $100 per space per year.
a
Master ParklnQ Plan Costs - Estimated construction and maintenance costs were used to
project garage development costs. Table 17 summarizes the projected costs for each facility,
identified in the Master Parking Plan. Construction cost estimates range from $2,446,000 for
the low cost for the 325-space garage and 100 space surface lot in Blocks "D/F" and "H/F" to
$4,482,000 for the high cost for the 540-space garage in Block "M/O." Similarly, annual
operating costs could range from $66,000 at the garage In Block "T" to $135,000 at the garage
In Block "M/O." All cost estimates are expressed in 1989 dollars.
-37-
~
I
:.
-
"
.
.
Table 16 .
TYPICAL OPERATING COSTS
. FORSTRUCTUREDPAR~NG
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
PERCENT OF
OPERATING COSTS
ITEM fmm IQ
Employee Salaries, Wages and Benefits 45% 55%
Utilities 20% 35%
Maintenance 8% 10%
Insurance 10% 12%
Miscellaneous 4% 8%
I
TOTAL OPERATING COST-PER S: ACE $200 $250
,
.
':i
,
J
~
~
.
·38-
¡.
,
,
, ~
~
I
,
,
I t..
- f
, ,
~
Table 17
.
ESTIMATED MASTER PARKING PLAN COSTS
Delray Beach Master Parking Plan
ANNUAL
BLOCK SPACES CONSTRUCTION COST OPERATING COST
Primary Locations:
M/O ,540 $3,996,000 . $4,482,000 $108,000 - $135,000
K 420 3,108,000 ·3,486,000 $84,000· $105,000
L 420 3,108,000 - 3,486,000 $84,000 - $105,000
Secondary Locations:
C 340 $2,516,000 . $2,822,000 $68,000· $85,000
/
O/F 425 2,446,000·2,810,000 (1) $85,000 . $106,000
E 380 2,812,000·3,154,000 $76,000· $95,000
G 440 3,256,OuO . 3,652,000 $88,000· $110,000
H/F 425 2,446,000 . 2,810,000 (1) $85,000· $106,000
T 330 2,508,000 . 2,805,000 $66,000 . $83,000
\
(1) Includes 100 spaces provided in a surface lot.
·39-
~
I
:
.
«
~,- .~.
.
. .
Summary and Conclusions
Several potential sites for retail development are located in downtown Delray Beach. A
supply of adequate parking to serve additional retail space on these sites wilrbe critical in
attracting development. A recommended incentive to development is the exemption of any zoning
code parking requirement for commercial development In the central business district.
In relieving the developers from providing parking, the City would assume such responsi-
bility . The Identified Master Parking Plan provides guidance to determine the supply of
parking required for potential developments. Assuming retail developments on potential sites
range from 100,000 to 132,000 square feet, garages with capacities from 330 spaces to 540
spaces would be needed. Construction costs for these garages could be as low as $2,446,000
for the smallest garage, or up to $4,482,000 for the highest cost expected for the largest
garage.
I
,
These facilities should operate with cashiers to provide opportunities .for merchant
validation and to simplify rate changes. Card readers could be provided for monthly parkers
where needed. With user costs required for the propof~d facilities, meters should be provided
at curb spaces at competitive rates. This will encourage use of the proposed garages and
decrease congestion in the downtown created by parkers looking for a free space.
To finance the garages, a Parking Trust Fund should be created to act as a repository of
all parking revenue including metered spaces, garage spaces and parking violations. Tax
increments could also be included in this fund. This fund would be used to retire debt
services incurred by constructing garages, as well as any operating expenses.
\
The actual construction of parking facilities should be determined as developments become
committed. Final design capacities would be determined by analyzing the size and type of new
development to be constructed, its location, and any change In the existing parking system or
development levels in the surrounding blocks.
-40-
~
I
~
-
.
<
.
·
,
,
DELRAY BEACH
PARKING STUDY
PREPARED FOR:
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
- .
PREPARED BY:
Co WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
.
I
AUGUST, 1988
. .
I
I ' /' !
- r liU¿/ !L
t J
.
-
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS' AqCHITECTS . PLANNERS
NCNB TOWER· P.O. BOX 92. COLUMBIA. SC 29202. USA. (803) 738-0580. CABLE WILSMITH . FAX (803) 251 -2064. TELEX 573439 . WILSMr¡.; :.
August 5, 1988
Mr. William E. Finley
Interim Executive Director
Community Redevelopment Agency
64 S.E. Fifth Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Dear Mr. Finley:
We are pleased to submit our report, -Delray Beach Parking Study·.
This report describes our analysis of existing parking cnaracter-
istics in the downtown area as well as our analysis of future
conditions in the area considering potential developments.
The analysis revealed no parking deficiency in the area during the
peak season assuming existing occupancy levels remain constant.
However, with Atlantic Plaza fully leased out, a parking shortage
of approximately 80 spaces will occur. If Atlantic Plaza is
expanded to include a 63,400 square foot major retail anchor, the
parking shortage will increase to approximately 420 spaces,
assuming 80 existing spaces are removed to accommodate the new
bui lding _ In addition, the redevelopment of Veterans Park should
not create a parking shortage assuming the previously mentioned
parking spaces are provided and concerts are held during the late
afternoon or evening hours.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to participate in th~s
important study and trust that the study findings will assist you
in reach~ng your redevelopment goals.
Respectfully subm~tted,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
t1 )/ ~
if/t/f]d/ / ~-''-~r ' .
Donald P~ Ing~ld
Vice President
DPI: gbm
Enclosure
ALBA,NYNV 'A.,,~¡t..NCE 0'"' . CA''?Q EGv;~ . C>-;t..:<.ESTJ"iSC . CO.JrIB 4SC · FALLS CHURCH VA · HONG KONG' HOUS-:Y',;X . O<NCì. v __E T',
KUA~A "Urv'Pi.j;(NA~,c.vSt.. . LEX'/";':'/",, . /,~;"~/'c . NEW ...4vEi\.C¡ · OR'.ANDOH · PHOENIX.AZ · PITTSBJRG'1PA' P'''<CV'.:;E'<::""<
RALEIGH.NC · RICHMOND\¡ A . RCSE".: '~ . SA.N F;?Af\JCSCC CA.. SINGA.0Qi<: · TORONTO,CANADA · W ASHINGTONDC . WQO::3R)G:~_
.
"
,
- ¡
¡
,
'!
.
-
.
TABLE OF ~ONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION . 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Study Area 1
Field Studies 2
Order of Presentation 2
2 EXIST¡NG PARKING CONDITIONS 3
Parking Inventory 3
Accumulation of Parked Vehicles 4
Existing Parking Needs 7
3 FUTURE PARKING DEMANDS AND NEEDS II
Demands and Needs Without Jacobson's II
Demands and Needs With Jacobson's 14 .
Summary 14
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE FOLLOWS
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1 Study Area 1
2 Parking Inventory 3
3 Parking Lot Designation 5
LIST OF TABULATIONS
TABLE
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1 Parking Accumulation 5
2 Accumulation By Block 6
3 Accumulation By Facility Type 6
4 Existing Parking Supply and Demand 9
5 Future Parking Supply and Demand 12
. ,
.
:~
- ,
r
,
t
..
.
.
-
:
Cnapter 1
.
INTRODUCTION
,
,
The City of De.lray Beacn is presently undertaking maJor re-
development steps. Two of the obJectives of the revitalization
include the redevelopment of Veterans Park and attracting a retail
ancnor development ln tne downtown.
Purpose and Scope
Given tne redevelopment efforts in the Delray Beacn central
ousiness district, and tne accompanying demand for parking, this .
study was conducted to determine the amount of new parklng that
should be provlded. The study determined parking characterlstics
that are unique to tne Delray Beach area, and identified existing
parking space demanas and needs by block. In additlon, parklng
space demands anà needs were estimated for future condltions witn
and wlthout a retali ancnor in tne downtown area.
Study Area
The study area, as illustrated In Figure 1, includes seven
blocks and is generally bounded oy NE lst Street to the north, 6tn
Avenue to the west, the Intracoastal Waterway to th'e east and SE
lst Street to the soutn_ The southeastern quadrant of this area
was excluded from tne study area due to its largely residentlal
use and the provlsion of on-site private parking. Those parking
spaces adJacent to the study area wnich could have some influence
on the study area were alSO included.
.
~
, '.
- r
f
..
,
.
. cu
I I I ' l
I I
--"I \. ) , ) L --+.
- .... 1ST ... STREET ..~....... _ . NE ........ j
~ ., 0 ~.. D'le ..................-.. ···1
. I . I : ---
. i '[b ,I· :
. . I.
· . I
: ¡I:
. I
,'; I
'!'o@. I! :
I:'D iQ@ :'
:.': @ I
¡ . . i A3 I
, .! I
,. iD I
¡: I
.. I
. t I
;'ID: :
· ; ¡ .
~ ; :... .
'" I - > .
., i: í ·
.' I ! .
· . i ' .
-.-J f'- J ~ l, '- . .
· I." 1I...............tt...............................II:. ............... Ii. T LAN TIC L. 1 t>. A V E. ..__..........._..................................
! ! ( @ 'ì (@ ì If¡ f¡ @ ':
T BI ¡ B2 . 0 @ - :
: CJ ~'II ~ :
~I ,D" 'CJilOD D ,4;
· Ii f-o-- I ¡-
: cOD i .....-!"........... ~ ...........-.
· ! :"'" ~ i ~
~ ; ! ' 0 . ao
o t ' V) -
· I 2 ~
· [::=J: . ~ , ~
· ; I ~ ,
· ¡ . i I
· ~
~
'- , ! I ~
;[] , I~¡ -
./:
· i I ~
· : l Jl 0
I:' cr I, )' :,..
...
a:
----.--J : \, ) I /. ...
~
- .........'ST .....J.. STREET.. SE
( l r ì r '\ .
~ í ì ! i
: I
¡ I I : ! :
I 1 ,
i I
LEGEND:
STUDY AREA .... STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
--.... BLOCK BOUNDARY
DELRA Y BEACH PARKING STUDY @ BLOCK DESIGNATION
.\_=....::, 3~'.~".... ':"35 :"..:..';"~j FIGURE 1
~
.
I .
,
- t
i
1
"!
Flgure 1 also àesignates each block in the study area by a
block identification code_ The corresponding block codes wlll be
used throughout thlS report to identify the location of particular
blocks.
Field Studies
Parking inventories and accumulation counts were conducted
during JUly, 1988. While July is considered to be in the off
season, appropriate steps were taken to adjust the study findings
to reflect peak season conditlons. Inventories included the
location and capacity of all parking facilities, parking
restrictions, and type usage. Accumulatlon data were collected at
hourly intervals t>etween lO:OO AM and 6:00 PM to establish usage
level trends. In addition, several local resldents, including
public offlclals and major property owners were interviewed to
determine likely cnange in tne study area.
Order of Presentation
Subsequent parts of this report dlSCUSS the study analysis and
presents findings and concluSlons. Chapter 2 descrlbes eXlsting
parking characterlstics, includlng the results from tne
inventorles and accumulation counts and identlfies existing
parking needs. Finally, Chapter 3 projects the future demands and
needs based on potential development ln the area.
2
.
,
f , .
- r
I'
t
.
Cnapter 2
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS
Tne Delray Beacn area experiences a significant seasonal
variation in activity, witn the winter months being the peak
season, and summer montns exper~enc~ng a lower level of activity.
While tnis study nas Deen conducted during July of 1988, steps
have been taken to adjust the parking demand to reflect the peak
season. An aer~a~ photograph of the study area, taking during tne
peak season ~n 1984, was compareà to existing off séason condi-
tions. In addition, retail activ~ty during peak season and off
season was analyzed to deter~ne appropriate factors to apply to
off season demands to es~~mate peak season demands.
Park~nq Inventory
The ~nventori of parlnng fac~lit~es included tne number of
spaces, the type parking and any restrictions. Figure 2
illustrates tne .Locat~on ana ca~ac~ty of par!t~n':l facllities.
Tnere are l,059 ~arKing spaces in the study area, contained in 43
facil~tl.es. In aJJl~lon, 66 spaces were identifieà adjacent to
~ne study area waich coula influence the supp~y and demand within
the study area. Tßlrty-six of tnese spaces are curb spaces and 35
are at tae Pleasant Pe.L~can Cafe.
Of the 1,l25 spaces In the stuãy and influence area, 796 <7l
percent) are restrlcted for private use. Tne rema~nlng 329 spaces
are availaole to any ~arkecs, wltn 103 (9 percent) located in curb
spaces and 226 (20 percent) ~ocateä in off-stree~ ~ots.
3
. .
.
( .~
- r
î
t
..
I I . . 'I t
l I .
2 _.
~r 'S~i~Þ.9:".'~,"'!;~· j .
i I - >- )
¡ --
4
~ ~
(
10
I J I
: 9 ~
ATLANTIC AVE.
l (-----'.------l ~- I _ 2 5 10 ;1:
,.!il.~ ~
. :'::)16;\:-;- _ _.-,_ ' . . 40 -:.'~---
I :r : - /_~ '-~2 ,-,-' ; -.:::. ~
!" ~5~~" !i ~ ~ .,....20 ~ ;
; /43 , . '" 25 ~ ~ 7
I / ' I I !
I '~' B.! ~. ~ ' .
I· '- '-,' "' ..' c I '
'. -, iJ ~ / f
/I : ~,I g I I; ~
I L. --,-'.- ~15~ 0 3 : t I ...
I ,'--=-- -. , : :I 'f
I ~~!5 j :i ~
I - , I ~
L I ~
J"" ,.'f
I WI' '-
!'" ~ '"
, ~.: '_ I II Ii 'f
l~ ~J ~ ~j
- ,ST STREET SE fli -
i r ì r If llll
LEGEND:
PARKING INVENTORY 56 NUMBER OF SPACES
----- CURB PARKING
DELRA Y BEACH PARKING STUDY F-~~ PRIVATE PARKING
t'/ / /..J PUBLIC PARKING
WIL!3.;? S'~-~ 455(::':,:: FIGURE 2
. .
.
I
f .~
- r
i
;
~
.
Accumulat~on of ParKed Veh~cles - .
. TaOle 1 summarlzes accumulation data which were collected at
all fac~lities on a typ~cal off season weekday at hourly ~ntervals
"
to establish usage leVel.s. Figure 3 identifies the location of
each fac~ l~ ty. The peak accumulation was measured at 2:00 PM wnen
466 of the available spaces were occupied. This translates to a
41 percent occupancy level..
Accumulatlon data were also taken from an aerial photograph
taken ~n the early afternoon on February 17, 1984, a Fn,day. It
should Oe noted tnat at tn~s t 1 me , Atlantic Plaza was not
constructed. The aer~al photo ShOWS 605 of the then 938 parK~ng
spaces occupled for a 64 percent occupancy level. .
.
Accumulatlon By Block - Taul.e 2 summarlzes tne accUmUiaCl.On oy
block. Durlng the off season, BloCK A2 had the highest peak
accumulation (60 percent) wh~cn occurred at 2:00 PM_ Three otner
blocks, A3, B1, and B2 had peak accumulations of approxlmatelY 50
percent wnicn occurred around noon. Otner blocks had peaK
accumulatlons rang~ng from 23 percent to 3S percent. Durlng tne
peak season of 1984, Blocks B2, B3, and B4 had the hignest
accumulatlons wh~ch were 85 percent, 81 percent and 83 percent,
respectlvely. The other ol.ocks nad accumulatlons ranging from 36
percent to 64 percent.
Accumulation By Facility Type - TaoJ.e 3 summarlzes the
accumulation oy curb, private and public facilities~ DUrJ.ng the
off season, the highest accumulation occurred ln PUOllC spaces at
ll:OO AM with 46 percent of these spaces occupied. Almost as
actlve were private spaces which had a peak accumulation of 44
percent. Curb spaces had the lowest accumulation of 34 percent.-
.
4
(
I
I '~
- ,
t
I
,
.
. . Table 1
PARr:IKG ACCUMüLA..TIO~
Delray Beach Parking 'Study
1984
TI~1E OF DA'ì PE.:"'K SE.:"'SO~
_.. - - oW............ __ ..___ ___ ___..... ___........._......... __..__ ...-----...----
.BLOCK LOT TYPE SPACES 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 SPACES CARS
----- - - - .. .. .. .. -.......-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...--...-- ----
OUT* 1 CURB 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1
Al 2 CURB 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0
Al 3 PRIVATE 29 10 9 9 10 12 8 6 2 0 29 20
Al 4 PRIVATE 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1
Al 5 PRIVATE 33 12 13 12 13 8 12 11 2 0 33 22
Al 6 PRIVATE 56 8 7 8 8 12 7 7 6 4 56 35
Al 7 PRIVATE 12 4 4 4 2 3 5 5 2 2 12 6
OUT* 8 CURB 10 0 2 3 3 7 3 3 1 0 10 4
Al 9 CURB 9 1 2 6 4 6 5 6 4 4 9 5
OUT* 10 PRIVATE 35 4 6 12 12 5 2 0 0 0 35 12
OUT* 11 CURB 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2
A2 12 CURB 7 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 7 6
A2 13 PRIVATE 51 14 19 16 15 18 19 14 8 2 51 25
A2 14 PRIVATE 26 10 10 11 9 19 15 13 10 6 26 21
A2 15 PRIVATE 5 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4
A2 16 PRIVATE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 0 0 5 5
A2 17 PRIVATE 7 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 7 0
A2 18 PRIVATE 56 39 40 38 38 38 40 31 10 6 56 33
A2 19 PRIVATE 22 16 13 11 12 18 18 11 3 0 22 16
A2 20 PRIVATE 17 13 10 12 16 15 15 10 5 5 17 16
A2 21 CURB 7 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 4
A3 22 PRIVATE 205 58 76 96 128 III 80 71 51 25 32 28
A3 23 PUBLIC 107 35 25 17 28 22 20 14 11 13 107 54
Bl 24 CURB 8 1 2 2 1 4 6 4 1 1 8 7
B1 25 PRIVATE 16 6 11 11 10 9 9 7 3 3 16 12
Bl 26 PRIVATE 12 9 8 10 7 9 7 6 3 2 12 4
Bl 27 PUBLIC 43 18 30 27 26 23 26 16 13 3 43 17
Bl 28 PRIVATE 15 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 15 4
Bl 29 PRIVATE 5 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 4
B1 30 PRIVATE 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1
Bl 31 PRIVATE 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3
Bl 32 PRIVATE 11 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 11 4
B1 33 PRIVATE 14 4 9 1 3 3 5 12 11 4 0 0
OUT* 34 CURB 11 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 11 5
B2 35 PRIVATE 11 5 6 9 6 7 5 8 5 1 11 7
B2 36 PRIVATE 25 4 5 4 5 6 1 4 4 3 25 24
B2 37 PRIVATE 8 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 1 2 8 5
B2 38 PUBLIC 76 45 48 37 36 41 36 33 24 14 76 71
B2 39 CURB 8 8 7 2 2 4 6 4 1 0 8 8
B2 40 CURB 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3
82 41 CURB 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 5 5
B3 42 CURB 5 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 4
B3 43 PRIVATE 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 0 2 4
B3 44 PRIVATE 16 5 4 7 5 5 6 6 7 4 16 12-
B3 45 PRIVATE 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 15
B4 46 CURB 10 0 1 3 3 4 2 6 1 4 10 9
B4 47 PRIVATE 40 17 26 25 27 22 19 21 22 18 40 33
B4 48 PRIVATE 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 24
.'
TOTAL 1125 376 424 426 458 466 407 352 226 138 938 605
* Outside Study Area
5
.
,
, '~
,
- r
I
,
..
Table 2
ACC¡;:n;UTIO:~ BY BLOCK
De1ray Beach Parking Study
1984
:!XE OF DAY PEAK SEASO);
... --............... - -............ -...............-........ ...---...... -- ...---- ---...... -..---------
BLOCK SPACES 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 SPACES CARS
....- .. ... ... ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ......---- ----
A1 145 35 35 40 38 42 37 35 16 10 145 89
A2 203 105 105 102 102 122 121 91 43 25 203 130
A3 312 93 101 113 156 133 100 85 62 38 139 82
B1 132 46 67 57 53 56 60 50 33 15 118 56
B2 144 67 72 60 56 64 54 53 38 22 144 123
B3 43 9 6 9 6 8 8 7 10 6 43 35
B4 80 17 27 28 30 26 21 27 23 22 80 66
OUT* 66 4 11 17 17 15 6 4 1 0 66 24
TOTAL 1125 376 424 426 458 466 407 352 226 138 938 605
* Outside Study Ar¿a
Table 3
ACCUMULATION BY FACILITY TYPE
Delray Beach Parking Study
1984
TIME OF DAY PEAK S EASO:~
--... -- ...-- ..._-... ----.. -- ----... --..... -- ...-_...... ---... --... --------....-
TYPE SPACES 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 SPACES CARS
... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - -----... ----
CURB 103 17 24 27 20 35 29 27 11 13 103 63
PRIVATE 796 261 297 318 348 345 296 262 167 95 609 400
PUBLIC 226 98 103 81 90 86 82 63 48 30 226 142
TOTAL 1125 376 424 426 458 466 407 352 226 138 938 6Q5
6
~
,
I .
~
-
~
.
I
,
I
22
I I /6
I ~
101' 04 '-I Z
z ' z. 18 I
811D !Q'7 23
II i 6 I~
t I tl~ 20
QJ I
w 7 · I ..¡
~ ...1 21 ~
C I I ~ ¡ C
l 9 j' '-
------------
ATLANTIC AVE,
l ("----24-----ì (If 39 42 46 r¡.'
I I I 043 "
¡ , I 41 r ~ '
't2J I ! 47 I"
!' 25 0 I -I G ,.
:¡: I 26 I I 0(
1;' I I' I d 35ŒJ ~ 45 0 n ~
I ! 27 "': '--I 36 ~ ,I ! .'
'dJ 37; ~ '
I 29 1~' ~ i ,
34 : J . 0 I! g , , ;
I 28 030 t I :1 0(
I' r;-;--, - ~
I. Lll....J 38 I I ~ ¡
: : I I I'
, , -
::; ~ I II. :
! '~ . ~ ' 101, I /. '"
I ' C/). I . ~
I 40 " 0
~ U32 G?) ~ LJ l )1 ¡
- ,ST STREET Sf I r ì/..'
ir i( If 1
! I ,I .
I I ,ii I ':
PARKING LOT DESIGNATION
DELRA Y BEACH PARKING STUDY
W_3~-· S'y- ,:.:::):.:.:..~:: FIGURE 3
~ '
I
, .~
,
- f
I
t
~
This is large!y due to the low utilization of curb spaces located
away from the activity centers along Atlantic Plaza. Peak season
accumu,la ti ons in 1984 showed the private spaces to have the
highest occupancy rate at 66 ' percent_ Pub,lic space9 and curb
spaces had simi la r accumulations at 63 percent and 6l percent,
respectively.
Ezistinq Parkinq Needs
While a parking occupancy rate of 64 percent appears to
suggest a parking surplus in the study area, the efficiency of the
system and restrlctions on specific facilities need to be taken
into consideration_ Typically off-street public spaces are found .
to operate at 85 percent efflciency due to peaking fluctuations,
parking and unparking maneuvers, and improper usage of marked
parklng stalls. For off-street private spaces, the actual in-
ventory is adjusted by 85 percent of the capacity, or the peak
accumulation, choosing the lesser of th~ two values. ' This
recognizes that underutilized private facilities are not available
for general public use. On-street parking spaces are adjusted by
90 percent to reflect their efficiency_
Because there has been insignificant change in the study area
between 1984 and 1988, with the exception of the construction of
Atlantic Plaza, the accumulation data taken from the aerial
photograph was used to represent the existing peak season parking
demand. Added to this was the peak season parking demand of
Atlantic Plaza. The Atlantic Plaza peak demand was estimated
based on retail sales in the plaza which show that winter sales
are 2.5 times the summer sales. This factor was applied to the
number of parkers shopping at the plaza during the off-season.
7
~
I
- ,.
1
"
.
Parkers' . associated witn the o.f·.f·ice use and retail employees were
neld constant. Based on this analysis, the parking demand at
. Atlantic Plaza would increase from 128 during the off-season, to
219 during the peaK season. Because of the significa~t fluctua-
,
tion in parklng demand associated with retail development and
since the demand associated with Atlantic Plaza was factored up to
represent peak conditions, the private parking lot at Atlantic
Plaza was assumed to operate at 100 percent efficiency.
Table 4 summarlzes the eXlsting peak season parking supply and
demand by block. Blocks Al, A3, B3, B4 and the facilities
adjacent to the study area have parking supplies which meet or
exceed their demand. Blocks A2 and B2 have a shortage of
parklng_ However, the blocks adJacent to these blocks have enough.
surplus parking to meet these shortages, therefore, there are
presently enough parklng spaces to meet the demand.
.
8
.
.
I .
,
- í
!
¡
t
iii!
.
.
Table 4
EXISTI~G PARKI~G SUPPLY ~~D DE~~D
De1ray Beach Parking Study
. PEAK
.
EFFECTIVE SEASON
BLOCK LOT TYPE SPACES SPACES DEMAND
----- - - - - - .. .. --..--- -..---- ------
A1 2 CURB 2 2 0
A1 3 PRIVATE 29 20 20
A1 4 PRIVATE 4 1 1
A1 5 PRIVATE 33 22 22
A1 6 PRIVATE 56 35 35
A1 7 PRIVATE 12 6 6
Ai 9 CURB 9 8 5
TOTAL 145 94 89
SURPLUS 5
A2 12 CURB 7 6 6
A2 13 PRIVATE 51 25 25
A2 14 PRIVATE 26 21 21
A2 15 PRIVATE 5 4 4
A2 16 PRIVATE 5 4 5
A2 17 PRIVATE 7 0 0
A2 18 PRIVATE 56 48 53
A2 19 PRIVATE 22 19 20
A2 20 PRIVATE 17 14 16
A2 21 CURB 7 6 4
TOTAL 203 147 154
SURPLCS -7
A3 22 PRIVATE 205 205 219
A3 23 Pl'BLIC 107 91 54
TOTAL 312 296 273
SURPLUS 23
B1 24 CURB 8 7 7
Bl 25 PRIVATE 16 12 12
B1 26 PRIVATE 12 4 4
Bl 27 PUBLIC 43 37 17
B1 28 PRIVATE 15 4 4
Bl 29 PRIVATE 5 4 4
Bl 30 PRIVATE 3 1 1
Bl 31 PRIVATE 5 3 3
Bl 32 PRIVATE 11 4 4
Bl 33 PRIVATE 14 0 0
TOTAL 132 76 56
SURPLUS 20
.
C\
t
,
I
~
- ,
~
.
Table 4 (Continued)
EXISTI~G PARKe~G SüPPLY AND DEMAND
Delray Beach Parking Study
PEAK
EFFECTIVE SEASO~
BLOCK LOT TYPE SPACES SPACES DEMfu\'D
----- - - - .. .. .. .. ------ ------ ------
B2 35 PRIVATE 11 7 7
B2 36 PRIVATE 25 21 24
B2 37 PRIVATE 8 5 5
B2 38 PUBLIC 76 65 71
B2 39 CURB 8 7 8
B2 40 CURB 11 10 3
B2 41 CURB 5 4 5
TOTAL 144 119 123
SURPLUS -4
B3 42 CüRB 5 4 4
B3 43 PRIVATE 2 2 4
B3 44 PRIVATE 16 12 12
B3 45 PRIVATE 20 17 15
TOTAL 43 35 35
SURPU':S 0
B4 46 C1:RB 10 9 9
B4 47 PRIVATE 40 33 33
B4 48 PRIVATE 30 24 24
TOTAL 80 66 66
SURPLCS 0
STUDY AREA TOTAL 1059 833 796
SURPWS 37
OUT* 1 CüRB 2 2 1
.. Ol:T* 8 CURB 10 9 4
~
OUT* 10 PRIVATE 35 12 12
OUT* 11 CURB 8 7 2
Ol:T* 34 CURB 11 10 5
TOTAL 66 40 24
SURPLUS 16
GRAND TOTAL 1125 873 820
SURPLl.:S 53
* Outside Study Area
10
.
I -~
~
- t
~
.
.
Chapter 3
FUTURE PARKING DEMANDS AND NEEDS
Several developments in the future will potentially affect the
parking demand in the study area. Atlantic Plaza is not presently
fully leased. When it does become fully occupied, its parking
demand will increase. In addition, Veterans Park is proposed to
be redeveloped to accommodate increased crowds and outdoor con-
certs. Finally, Atlantic Plaza is proposed to expand to include a
Jacobson's department store.
Future conditions with and without the Jacobson's expansion
were analyzed. Table 5 summarizes the projected supply and demand
relationsnip. Both scenarios assume the redevelopment of Veterans
Pa rk . However, preliminary information indicates that concerts
will be held during the late afternoon or early evening hours.
These hours do not coincide with the peak demands for the office
and retail activity in the study area_ An analysis of the parking
. demand shows that tne parking demana in tne early afternoon hours
will exceed the demand during a concert. Therefore, the early
afternoon demand is more critical.
Demands and Needs Without Jacobson's
With the infill of empty space at Atlantic Plaza, the parking
demand in Block A3 will increase, creating a shortage of parking
spaces in this block. While some of the shortage can be met by
adjacent blocks, the parking shortage will be 78 spaces. The
parking shortages in Blocks A2 and B2 can be satisfied by
surpluses in Blocks Al and Bl.
11
( .
f '~
- r
t
t
~
Table 5 . '
FUTURE PARKI~G SUPPLY &~D DEM&~D
Delray Beach Parking Study
wITHOLT JACOBSON'S WITH JACOBSON'S
... ... ... .. - .. .. .. .. -." .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ----...--....--------- ,
PEAK PEAK
EFFECTIVE SEASON EFFECTIVE SEASON
BLOCK LOT TYPE SPACES SPACES DEMAND SPACES DEMAND
----- - - - ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ...----- '"'...---- ------ ------
Al 2 CURB 2 2 0 2 0
Al 3 PRIVATE 29 20 20 20 20
Al 4 PRIVATE 4 1 1 1 1
Al 5 PRIVA-1'E 33 22 22 22 22
Al 6 PRIVATE 56 35 35 35 35
Al 7 PRIVATE 12 6 6 6 6
Al 9 CURB 9 8 5 8 5
TOTAL 145 94 89 94 89
SURPLUS 5 5
A2 12 CURB 7 6 6 6 6 .
A2 13 PRIVATE 51 25 25 25 25
A2 14 PRIVATE 26 21 21 21 21
A2 15 PRIVATE 5 4 4 4 4
A2 16 PRIVATE 5 4 5 4 5
A2 17 PRIVATE 7 0 0 0 0
A2 18 PRIVATE 56 48 53 48 53
A2 19 PRIVATE 22 19 20 19 20
A2 20 PRIVATE 17 14 16 14 16
A2 21 CURB 7 6 4 6 4
TOTAL 203 147 154 147 154
SURPLl;S -7 -7
A3 22 PRIVATE 205 205 325 125 586
A3 23 PUBLIC 107 91 54 91 54
TOTAL 312 296 379 216 640
SURPLCS -83 -424
B1 24 CURB 8 7 7 7 7
B1 25 PRIVATE 16 12 12 12 12
B1 26 PRIVATE 12 4 4 4 4
B1 27 PUBLIC 43 37 17 37 17
81 28 PRIVATE 15 4 4 4 4
81 29 PRIVATE 5 4 4 4 4
81 30 PRIVATE 3 1 1 1 1
B1 31 PRIVATE 5 3 3 3 3
B1 32 PRIVATE 11 4 4 4 4
Bl 33 PRIVATE 14 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 132 76 56 76 56
SURPLUS 20 20
12
.
,
I '.
,
- r
L
,
.
.
Table 5 (Co?ti n ue d)
FUTURE P.\RKING SCPPLY-ÀND DEMfu~D
Delray Beach Parking Study
.
wITHOUT JACOBSON'S WITH JACOBSON'S
...-..--------------- ... ... - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... "',.-
PEAK PEM
EFFECTIVE SEASON EFFECTIVE SEASON
BLOCK LOT TYPE SPACES SPACES DEMAND SPACES DEMA.1\"D
----- - - - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... --..._-- ------ ------ ------
B2 35 PRIVATE 11 7 7 7 7
B2 36 PRIVATE 25 21 24 21 24
B2 37 PRIVATE 8 5 5 5 5
B2 38 PUBLIC 76 65 71 65 71
B2 39 CURB 8 7 8 7 8
B2 40 CURB 11 10 3 10 3
B2 41 CURB 5 4 5 4 5
TOTAL 144. 119 123 119 123
SURPLUS -4 -4
B3 42 CURB 5 4 4 4 4
B3 43 PRIVATE 2 2 4 2 4 . .
B3 44 PRIVATE 16 12 12 12 12
B3 45 PRIVATE 20 17 15 17 15
TOTAL 43 35 35 35 35
SURPLUS 0 0
B4 46 CURB 10 9 9 9 9
B4 47 PRIVATE 40 33 33 33 33
B4 48 PRIVATE 30 24 24 24 24
TOTAL 80 66 66 66 66
SURPLVS 0 0
STUDY AREA TOTAL 1059 833 902 753 1163
SURPLUS -69 -410
OUT* 1 CURB 2 2 1 2 1
OUT* 8 CURB 10 9 4 9 4
OUT* 10 PRIVATE 35 12 12 12 12
OUT* 11 CURB 8 7 2 7 2
OUT* 34 CURB 11 10 5 10 5
TOTAL 66 40 24 40 24
SURPLUS 16 16
GRAND TOTAL 1125 873 926 793 1187
SURPLUS -53 -394
* Outside Study Area
.
13
.
.
I "
r
- r
..
..
t
~
. .
Demands and Needs With Jacobson's
If Atlantic Plaza is expanded to include a Jacobson's
.
.
department store, the demand in this block will increase. At the
same time, the supply will decrease by 80 parking spaces due to
the construction of the additional building on the existing
parking lot. To most accurately project the parking demand of the
new department store, an accumulation study of the existing
Jacobson's store in West Palm Beach Gardens was conducted. As
with Atlantic Plaza, the accumulation was factored to represent
peak season demand. Based on the analysis, a 63,400 square foot
store would have a peak season demand of 304 parking spaces. When
this is added to the existing development in Atlantic Plaza, the
total parking shortage in Block A3 would be 424 spaces. It is
estimated that 5 spaces could be supplied by adjacent blocks,
leaving a shortage of 419 spaces. As in other cases, the
shortages in Blocks A2 and B2 can be supplied by Blocks Al and B2.
Summary
There is presently adequate parking supplied in the study
area. However, when Atlantic Plaza becomes fully leased, there
will be a snortage of approximately 80 parking spaces in the
Atlantic Plaza block. If Atlantic Plaza is expanded to include
the proposed 63,400 square foot Jacobson's department store, the
Atlantic Plaza block will have a shortage of approximately 420
parking spaces.
Whether or not a Jacobson's Department Store is constructed at
Atlantic Plaza, the daytime peak parking demand will exceed the
demand generated during a concert at Veterans Park if the concertß
are held during the late afternoon or evening hours.
.
14
.
,
I .
,
- r
,
1
~
January 19, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: ROBERT BARCINSKI, ASST CITY MGR/COMM. SERVo
FROM: LULA BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEME~
RE: REVENUE ANALYSIS/INFORMATION FOR PARKING GARAGES
PALM BEACH COUNTY AND CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH
Pursuant to your request, I contacted staff members of the City
of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach County for information
regarding the net income over the debt service for their parking
garages. The following information is what I discovered:
PALM BEACH COUNTY:
Contact Person: Carol McPherson, Garage Facilitator
Could not provide accurate figures on the Garage itself, stated
that the debt serv ice is not singled out. There are 6 or 7
revenue sources for the Governmental Center. They take the Gross
Revenue, minus the operating expenses to equal the debt service
for the entire Center. She stated she would estimate that the
Garage contributes approximately $400,000 to $500,000 annually to
the entire debt service. They are projecting to contribute 1.1
million for 89-90 because of a carryover from last year_ No
contribution was made for 88-89.
Carol stated that 50% of their business is generated from monthly
passes ($40 monthly charge). They charge others a standard .50
per hour with ~ maximum of 5.00 per day. Revenue þrojections for
fiscal year are as follows:
Daily parking $470,000
Monthly Passes 152,000
Commercial leases 104,000
Interest Income 26,000
The County's garage was built in 1983 and opened to the public in
1984. They operated through a management firm until 1987, when
the County assumed the direct Management responsibilities.
Repair and Maintenance are biggest operational cost items other
than personnel costs.
One statement she made was that they have found a resistance by
the public to pay for parking for retail shopping.
· ÍJJS/ I D
Page 2
Robert Barcinski
Parking Garage Analyis
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH:
----
Contact Person: Tom McMullen, Garage Manager
Cathy Hankins, Finance Department
The City of West Palm Beach has 2 garages currently opened to the
public and another in the planning stages. The personnel is
responsible for the management of both garages and two surface
parking lots. Garage #1 has 414 spaces with 313 of them
obligated to monthly passes, ($53 per month charge). Garage #2
which is newly constructed, has 780 spaces, 206 spaces are
obligated to monthly passes. Tom stated he expected this number
to increase significantly by the end of this fiscal year. Other
parkers are charged the standard .50 per hour, not to exceed $5
per day. The monthly obligation for surface parking lots is at
approximately 80% for each.
I spoke with Cathy's assistant Lou Ann Haberson, who stated that
there are no profits generated from the City's parking garages
since the new one came on line. The parking garage system is
being subsidized by the CRA. She was unable to provide figures
from 88-89 since they are in the middle of their financial audit
and reconciliations. A copy of their financial report will be
forwarded to us upon completion (within the next two weeks).
B:Garage.2/LY3
\ \
.
I
I
D~?orw~;At~~~~~e ~:~:Y~~aC?~~~~4~:=nt 11 ~
(407) 243-7888 Fax (407) 243-7816 CHARLES KILGORE
MEMORANDUM Chief of Police
TO: Malcolm Bird, Interim City Manager
FROM: Charles Kilgore, Chief of Police
DATE: January 17, 1990
SUBJECT: EVALUATION AND REVIEW TEAM REPORT
STATUS REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS
As you are aware, several recommendations were made by the Review
Team following their evaluation of the Department. In my
memorandum to you on December 21, 1989, the recommendations were
considered point by point and our responses to these
recommendations were stated.
This memorandum will bring you up to date on our degree of
implementation of the recommendations made. The primary focus of .
the recommendations dealt with issues that would be addressed t
through additional non-sworn personnel; planning/budgeting t
specialist, trainer, public information officer, and legal
advisor. At the present time we have nearly completed the job
descriptions and pay grades for these positions. Once this task
is completed, the information will be sent to your office by way
of Personnel for approval and the jobs will then be advertised.
The staffing of these positions will allow us to focus upon the
areas identified by the Review Team as being in need of
improvement.
The Review Team recommended that an Inspections Unit be created.
This has been accomplished and now that the accreditation process
has been completed, the inspection function and General Order
modifications will be the primary responsibility of this Unit.
It was also recommended that our community relations efforts be
broadened to involve additional personnel in crime prevention
activities. A plan is presently being developed that will direct
uniform patrol officers to make random, documented contacts with
our citizens to share crime prevention information while
promoting positive public relations as a part of their normal
patrol responsibilities.
The transition toward implementing these programs/functions
remains ongoing. Updates shall be provided as needed.
submitted,
.
HARLES KILGO
Chief of Police
CK/RML/ppt
PARTNERS WITH CITIZENS IN BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER
J
I
. ' a~sþ
.
· D~~:;At~~~~~e ~:~~~C?F~~~~~~e:nt i1 ~
(407) 243·7888 Fax (407) 243-7816
CHARLES KILGORE
ChIef of Police
, -, . '" MEMORANDUM
TO: Malcolm T. Bird. Interim City Manager
FROMs Charles Kilgore. Chief of Police
OATEs Dec..ber 21, 1989
SUeJECT: E~êLUêIIQ~_ê~C_aE~lEW_IEêö_BEfQBI
In response to the Evaluation and Revieuof the D.lray Beach
Police Department done by Chief Roger Halbert and Deputy Chief
Arthur R. Turner of the Jacksonville. North Carolina Po1ice
Depart.ent and ,"Chie' Allen R. Richard~ of the East Ridge.
Tennessee Police Oepartment. my staff and 1 have met and
formulated the follouing responses. We will attempt to enumerate
each reSPQnse in accordance with the order set forth, by the
Review Team as to scope of services or recommendation numbers..~
,-
. SCCeE_CE_SEB~lCES_ll, ",
REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS 1976 AND 1987 PAS CONSULTING STUDY.
DETERMINE WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. ANALYZE
PERFORMANCE TO RECOMMENOATIONS.
,. " ~ t
RECÖ~MÈNDATION #1: THAT THE DEPA~TMENT BE REORGANIZED INTO THREE
BUREAUS (OPERATIONS, SUPPORT, AND ADMINISTRATION).
The recommendations of the Cresap, McCormick. and Padgett Study
of 1976 were found to be untimel~ and therefore not considered by
this group. As to the 1987 PAS Consulting Study. the Review Team
concluded that we had to a large extent followed the
recommendations dealing with organizational changes.
As to their recommendation ~1. we feel that to reorganize into
three (3) separate bureaus (Operations, Support and
Administrative) 'would be too burdensome and bureaucratic for the
op.ration~ of a department this size. The present structure of
two (2) maJor bureaus established in May of 1987 largely
addresses ,the sub units under their control and they have not
been found to be cumbersome and still providing proper span of
control for the two majors. It would seem that the additional
bureau would create at least three (3) additional command level
positions (one major, two captains) and might make us "tap heavy"
without adequate responsibility or justification.
We feel that the proposed Planning and Budget Unit, the existing
Training ånd Personnel Unit, Internal Affairs Section. and
Building Maintenance Unit are placed under the proper authority
and responsibility at the present time. By moving these units
elsewhere would be counterproductive under the existing
organizational structure.
PARTNERS WITH CITIZENS IN BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER
,
. ~ .
·
,
I
~
I L
· ! ws/;;
·
·
.
. SUBJECT: E~ð~UðIIQ~_ð~D~BE~lE~_IEêö~BEfCBI
Oecember 21. 1989 .
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION 12: THAT PLANNING BE INSTITUTIONALIZED IN THE
DEPARTMENT,oBV FORMING A PLANNING AND BUDGET UNIT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION BUREAU.
We who\ehearted1y concur that a Planning and Budget Unit be
,cre,.tad, as ue had originally sought this in the 1989/90 budget
I>rDPO$,a 1- submi t t ed tot he former City Manager 1 n Apr i 1 . 1989.
Although the Accreditation requirement calls for a Planner in a
police organization in excess of 200 people. we had concurred
with- the. 1987 recommendation by PAS that a Planning Unit be
created to ,cons i der long term planning and budget
r_s,ponsibiliti"s. We feel that- a Planni,ng Unit shauld"be
establi shed ,report i ng di rect 1 y tIS the' SuPp",..t.: Bu~.au- commander
as 'this wi 11 bring us in 1 ine with the Accreditation standard as
well as the recommendations by PAS and this StudY.
- .
To be prepared to meet' future needs. it is incumbent that a
police agency this size plan ahead. A trained Planner is needed
to' assur,. that adequate. we 11 de"elap.ect 1 ong· anó/ short. i 'i'an,..
plan. are developed for our Department to meet futur'e
responsibilities. Examples of duties the Planner would be
res,ponsib-l e for are the development of short and long rang.
plans. the development of emergency plans. budget development
(mai,ntenance and submission). eval uat ion of: e><i$,.tinq programs ,and
development. implementation, and evaluation of, new programs.
The budget. which is basically a plan. is a year round process
. and not just something we address at budget time. Our budget is
grouin.g at the 'same rate the City grows and the Police Oepartment
t~rre~tly has an annual budget in e><cess of nine million dollars
($9.000.000). These long range changes need to be the
responsibility of a trained Planner.
The position of Legal Advisor has been requested for the past
four (4) years in the Police Department budget request. Such a
position would playa major role in the Planning function of the
Police Department and is recommended for implementation. A Study'
has been undertaken to e><amine the funding of such a position
through the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.
RECOMMENDATION '3: THAT THE POLICE BUDGET BE PROGRAM-BASED AND
INCLUDE OBJECTIVES TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND ACTIVITY DATA.
FURTHER. IT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE CITY BUDGET DOCUMENT DOWN
TO DIVISION LEVEL AS OPPOSED TO THE LUMP SUM LINE ITEM APPROACH
NOW USED.
We agree with their conclusion and note their criticism that the
budget does not contain objectives to be accomplished bv each
division or unit in the budget document. This will be
accomplished in the 1990/91 FY budget presentation. We must also
keep in mind that our budget must conform to the City's
requirements presented annually by the City's Budget Director.
, ·
J ·
. ~
,
,
\
I r .
L.
,
, - 0-
. I
1f
J
"
.
·
SUBJECT: E~ðLUêIIC~_ê~D_BE~lE~_IEê~_BEfCBI
December 21, 1989
Page 3 . _ .
RECOMMENDATION #4: THAT PATROL STAFFING ANALYSIS SHOULD BE
CARRI~D'OUTON A' SYSTEMATIC BASIS USING A TECHNIQUE SUCH AS
PATROL/PLAN.- ,
"'(1
N~t ~pplicable because the Institute of L~w and Justice is
concluding their consulting study, and it is anticipated this
will be furnished sometime around mid 'Jan~ary.
"
RECOMMENDATION #5: THAT WRITTEN DIRECTIVES, POLICIES. AND
PROCEDURES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED USING A TEAM APPROACH; WITH TIMED
MILESTONES'; BE CONTROLLED BY A PROJECT MANAGER (OR ACCREDITATION
MANAGER) FOR THE ACCREDITATION E~aRT; FOLLOW A FORMAT SUCH AS
THAT DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION OF THE REPORT; AND IN,I.JIAL~V
CQNtè!NTR~TE ON.1MPORTANT AREAS SUCH AS DEADLV FO~Ce:,; TRAINING ANn'
D~VELPPM£NT. VEH1.CULAR PURSUIT, GRIMINAL RECORD', SEARCHES. RULES
OF'CONDUCT. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES, AND INSPECTIONS. _
Not applicable because the Department has implemented all of the .
provisions of this recommendation made in. the 1987 PAS Study .
dealin'~"wtt'h uritten directives, 'p'olïçYe's. ånd pr·~éedÙr'.es. ,,' " ./-
., -, ...., . \..!., c.\!:.
RECOMMENDATION #6': THAT COMMUNtTV'" RELATioNS' EFFORTS BE
BROADENED SO THAT PATROL AND INVESTIGATIONS PERSONNEL ARE
INVOLV£D IN' CRIME PREVENTION ACTIVITIES AS'A PART OF'THEIR- DAY TQ
DAY JOBS.
Their recommendation that community relations efforts be
broaden~d, so that Patrol and Investigative personnel are involved'
. in crime' prevention activities as part of thèir everyday jOb is
well accepted and can be accomplished without cost in our
existing in-service training programs. Planning for this is
alreadY underway within the Professional Standards Division.
It is further noted that the DARE Program is currently underway \~
and is in fact a "crime prevention program" dealing witn ,:.,
pre v en tin g d rug a bus e and i s be i n 9 con d u c t e d by sup p 1 em en tin q 0 u r /..\~ ~
community relations staff with patrol officers. Obviously. cf"cJ':d
burglary prevention. both residential and commercial. alo,nq with~" ~
other yari,DUs.' ed,Uc.ational materials wi 11 be presented, in these ~ p.~~~~
in-serv~ce tJ:'a101ng sessions. ~~~....
SCCfE_CE_SEB~lCES_!2 ~
CONDUCT COMMAND STAFF ATTITUDE SURVEY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TRAINING AND IMPROVEMENT, TO INCLUDE CHIEF. ASSISTANT CHIEFS,
AND CAPTAINS.
This deals with the recommendations for the traininq and
improvement at command staff . As a response. let it be noted
that a great percentage of the command staff has in fact attended
at least one outside management training seminar each year over
. .
.
, t-
o
!
I L
. I
;
I
'f
II
.
or
· SUBJECT: E~ðLU&II0~_ð~D_BE~lE~_IEðö_BEfOBI
December 21, 1989
Page 4 . - '
,
!he past several years: however, we concur that a more structured
· environment_ should exist so that scheduling can be accomplished
through the Training Sect ion.' The Pr ofess"i ona 1 Qt andar ds
Division Captain wi\l ' '" ,
keep abreast of the current subject matters
recommended in their subparaqraph C (i.e. sexual harassment in
the work place. pol ice discipl ine. various liability, critical
incident management, etc). This can be followed UP further by
sharing with those personnel the ~ubJect matter of such a
s e", i l'J~r " ;,- .
,
SCCeE_CE_SEB~lCES_.3 .. .'.. .
REVIE~ COMMAND LEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL ST~UCTURF. AND "MAKE
RECOMMENDÁTIONS 'FOR ANY CHANGES.
-
,., 'address
ThJrteen, (,13) 'retommendations were made which we wiT1 -
separ'at e 1 y.
ACTUAL BURÊAUS A 'BÉ'~ FORMED .
RECOMMENDATION '11: THAT THREE -
OPERATIONS. SUPPORT. AND ADMINISTRATION.
We feel,it unnecessary that three (3) ~ctual bu~eaus be formed
dbfi'i:tci'-d9'r reasoning previouslŸ mentioned. ,,' -"."
- -
RECOMMENQêTION 12: THAT THE COMMAND OF'~EACHO~ 'THESE THREE
BUREAUS BE RAISED TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF LEVEL. ,
, .~. , '
Not aøpticable since we recommend against the formation of three
· (3) bureaus.
RECOMMENDATION #3: THAT THE THREE DEPUTY CHIEF POSITIONS BE
ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE FROM
INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH INPUT AND CONSENSUS
FROM THE CITY MANAGER.
Not applicable for the same reasons and would also be prohibited
by Civil Service regulations.
RECOMMENDATION 14: THAT EACH DIVISION COMMANDER FUNCTIONING
UNDER EACH OF THE THREE BUREAUS HOLD THE RANK OF POLICE CAPTAIN.
Division commanders presently hold the rank of Captain.
RECOMMENDATION #5: THAT THE ORGANIZED CRIME SECTION NOW
FUNCTIONING UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION BE -
ELEVATED TO DIVISION STATUS.
Staff believes the present structure is adequate. and due to the
size of the ~urrent Organized Crime Section, we do not reel it
necessary'that it be commanded bY a Captain.
I
. ·
.
:
. ~-
I
I
I
i
J ·
I L
-- -
. I
,.
·
;
,
.
. SUBJECT: E~ðLUðIIQ~_ð~D_BE~lE~_IEêö_BEeQBI
December 21. 1989
Page 5 .
. .
RECOMMENDATION 16: THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FUNCTION. NOW
. OPERATING UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PATROL DIVISION. BE
MOVED TO A POSITIOM IN THE SUPPORT BUREAU. ,~,
The administrative officer (lieutenant) currently is responsible
for the Fleet Management in which more than 90% of the
Department's vehicles are in Patrol or Investi~ative Divisions.
the forfeiture laws dealing with the seized vehicles. and the
scheduling of personnel within the Patrol Division and outside
de-tai Is. We tecQlnmend that this position remain in the Patrol
Divili an- as .., I r....l at ad duties and responsibilities fall within
this section. "r
RECOMMENDATION 17: THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION NOW FUNCTION
DIRECTLY UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF POLICE. WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT POSITION. BE MOVED UNDER -
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAU.
The Administrative Section now functioning directly the .
under
command of the Office of the Chief consists of the Executive
Assistant to the Police Chief and subordinate administrative
assistance and secretarial personnel. We recommend they r ema i n"
under her supervision.
RECOMMENDATION #8: THAT THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT REMAIN UNDER THE
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
Agree.
RECOMMENDATION #9: THAT THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DIVISION BE
MOVED FROM THE SUPPORT BUREAU TO THE ADMINISTRATION BUREAU.
We recommend that the Professional Standards Division remain with
the Support Bureau and that no Administrative Bureau be created.
RECOMMENDATION #10: THAT THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS SECTION BF- PLACED
UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND REPORT DIRECTLY TO
THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
The Internal Affairs Section is already under the Office of the
Chief of Police and reports directly to him. therefore. this has
already been accomplished.
RECOMMENDATION #11: THAT AN INSPECTIONS UNIT BE CREATED AND
PLACED UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
DIVISION.
An Inspection Unit has been created. however. the fine tuninq of
such a unit wi 11 not become existent until after the
Accreditation Team completes its task in early January. This
Unit will also be placed under the direction of the Chief of
I
\
, .
. ~
!
,
, ~.,
.....-
. f
~
t
~
. SUBJECT: E~é~UéIIQ~_8~D_BE~lEW_IEéö_BEfQBI
December 21. 1989
Page 6
..
Police so that. inspection reports can be submitted directly to
. the Chief yithout interference and, can be re-directed back doyn
the chain of: cQmmand yhere necessary action can be accomplished.
RECOMMENDATION #12: THAT A PLANNING AND BUDGET SECTION BE
. ~REATED AND ASSIGNED TO THE ADMINISTRATION BUREAU.
We 89-1".., on the creation of such a unit as we. have previouSly
, racomcae.nded that it b. attached directly to the Suppo.ft Bureau. '
, .
REtOMMENDATION #13: THAT THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS SECTION' BE
RE-DESIGNAtED,AS THE COMMUNITY SERVIC~S $ECTION ANt) LONG '.TERM
THOUGHT BE GIVEN TO CHANGING THIS UNIT tö D1VISION STATUS~ -
. , ,
--~ ".- . ..~-
.;)
We àgree that "the Community Relations S.ctioR be re~designated as
t....' Community Services Section. Hoyever. with ,only twci~ '(2)
people existing in the Unit at present doe. no-t deserve Div1.ion .
status. In our 1989/90 Fiscal Year ~budgèt requ,st. ye had
recommended a c i vi 1 i an cr ime pr event i on spec J ªJl$t to coord i nat e
cotIMMreial and residen,tial security· p,.ograms/ all crime
'prevention, programs. maintain emergency deeal- program. at tend
cr1'",. Þrevention related meetings. and, act".Slra-ltaison betye.n
.. .lhaPo1icLDepartment and Crime Watch¡)lÞck cap~~1ns. If this
adcHtional person were granted, the pre..en.l situation of
understaffing and overyork yill dimini~h ~ithJn this Unit and the
Commuöity Services Unit can then work to ~eve'up utder community
programs and _ improve community relations" e s p e cia '11 'I in the
minority areas. ,.
SCQeE_QE_SEB~lCES_!1
REVIEW PUBLIC RELATIONS FUNCTION AND PROVIDE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR IMPROVEMENT/CHANGES.
In revieying the public relations function. the Review Team
indtcated seven (7) recommendations in their conclusion.
RECOMMENDATION #1: THAT THE FULL TIME POSITION OF PUBLIC
INFORMATION'QFFICER BE CREATED. THAT THIS POSITION BE REMOVED
FROM THE, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SECTION AND PLACED IN THE
'ORGANIZATIONAL CHART DIRECTLY UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CHIEF OF POLICE.
We agree that a negative public perception exists. and ye are
certainly in need of professional assistance to chan~e this
perception. In their conclusions, they recommend a full time
position of Public Information Officer and it may be directly
under the responsibility of the Chief of Police. We
wholeheartedly agree and would recommend that such a position be
created as'soon as possible seeking out a person with Journalism
or mass media communication experience.
f '
.
, 0-
t
I _,
I
I I-
; l.
. I
,;
~
.
SUBJECT: E~eLUðIIQ~_ð~D_BE~lE~_IEêö_BEfQBI
December 21, 1989 .'
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION 12: THAT THIS POSITION BE FILLED EITHER BY A
SWORN ~bLICE OFFICER OR A CIVILIAN.
We recomme~d a civilian be selected fQ~ this position.
RECOMMENDATION I 13: THAT WHOEVER IS SELECTED· TO FILL THIS,
POSITION IDEALlV WOULD HAVE POSITIVE EXPERIENCE,IN DEAlING WITH
THE PRESS. "', ',' '\. .M: , . . ~- . ,
AlreadY address.~,in our first response~ - - ,
" .
RECOMMENDATION 14·t THIS INDIVIDUAL' MUST, RECEIVE ' SPECIAlIZED
TRAINING IN .. NEOLA RELATIONS ANOBE 'KNOtdLEDGEABLE" IN THE
PARTICULARNEED$,OF THE MEDIA.
. .:.t\~~. . . -- ..' ',' ... . "
¡. . ,.
Would be pa~t of~th. criteria expect ed of' a. 'p'erson ~é leet ed for -
this position. I ~. -. . ",
""', , ,
L, .
RECOMMENDATION IS: THAT THE SELECTEE MUST BE "REPORTER
FRIEND~ V". . ~..- " " . ..
. -, -.... ~ . ,~~ .:' -' . - .~. \0 '. ,". ":,;' .~ - - , ~ ',',~
.' '. ' ..
Same as 14,., - .-. . 1 :.'.~' ,r~4
, ;.....~ J
':.; .... . .. -,:.:
~. . . ~ ,-. .. " "~-' -, -.
RECOMMENDAtION" Î6':' THE PUBLIC INFÔRt1ATlON' OFFÚ:ER MUST BE
ACCESSIBLE TO THÊ'MEDIA AROUND THE CLOCK.
, ';';,," ., ~. ," . ~ ~.c i. - . ~ , . . . ~ ¡;~:~ _;"'1 .·~·t '.;'.',
Same as #4. ' .
. - - -
1
. ' .. RECOGNIZE THE
RECOMMENDATION #7: THE SELECTEE MUST'
RESPONSIBILIJY'OF THE MEDIA TO REPORT' THE'NEWS.
,
Same as #4.
SCQfE_QE_SEB~lCES_~5
RECOMMEND COMMAND LEVEL GOALS FOR UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR.
The recommendation of command level goals for the upcoming fiscal
year in their conclusion, they make eight (8) recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 11: UPGRADING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES UNIT TO
DIVISION STATUS.
This is unnecessary as staff feels the Community Services Unit
having been renamed does not need division status.
RECOMMENDATION #2: RESTRUCTURING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES EFFORT
TO IMPROVE OVERALL COMMUNITY RELATIONS. DEVELOP AND DIRECT NEW
PROGRAMS TOWARD MINORITY AREAS.
¡ ~
, .
,
.
l
, ' '
, ..
, t.,
---
. I
~
ä
iii
SUBJECT: E~ð~UðIIC~_ê~D_BE~lEW_IEðö_BEfQBI
December 2.1, 1989
Page 8· - .
- '
We agree that the Community Services' efforts will improve
provided they get some assistance with a Crime Prevention
Specialist and the reallocation associated' with t.he "Public
Infbrmation Officer being removed from this Unit.
RECOMMENDATION 13: MODIFY THE COMMAND LEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE TO It1PROVE OVERALL SPAN OF CONTROL AND TO IMPROVE
OVERALL SUPER~ISION.
We 'ctò'not feel' this is necessary as the current span of control
under the current structure is adequate.
. \ ~~ - : ' .' . ,. .r:"· ' , ".t..,r ,Of,:J:d_ ~ ~.;~,~ ~~
RECOMMENDATION 14: ESTABLISH THE POSITION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER TO SPECIALIZE IN DEALING WITH THE NEWS MEDIA. THIS
POS-X-TIONto REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE CHIEF OF POLI-tE.'-'-'·· c
. .
Pr_viously a9~eed upon.
'" .' '_ \:: _-~ _~ L -..': .
-
RECOMMENDAr~ONI5: FORM A COMMITTEET~ 'STUnV' PoliCIES' " 'P.tNO'.Ì,
PROCEDURES Rei-ATING TO RECRUITMENT 'AND PROMoTI{)N:.:~' TWlSLCOtt1ITTEe ~
TO BE MA[j'E 'uP'F'RON OFFICERS REPRESENTING ALL RANKS. ,. ,., .
. ; - ~ " .; .: .- '. t·,·
At U,. tim. t.he Revie.w Committee submitted the'irttmrlrreport and
subS:eq'uent, recommendat ions. the recrui tnient' and PT'omot·i on manual s
nece~sa~~to me.t accreditation had riot be~n compl~t~d. At the
presef\t ~~..e, these manuals are in place' 'and pursu~nt_ to the
acc~e(Ut.at1'an process shall be periodically revie~eða~'ð, updated
as ",.cessar.y. ..
.!
RÈCOMMENDATION 16~ ESTABLISH , LONG 'RANGE PLANNING 'AND BUDGET
UNIT.
We agree that a long range Planning and Budget Unit should be
created and that it be placed under the Support Bureau.
RECOMMENDATION #7: TRAINING: IN-SERVICE/SPECIALIZED. TRAIN ALL
OFFICERS IN PUBLIC/COMMUNITY RELATIONS: IMPROVE OVERALL
IN-SERVICE TRAINING ,PROGRAM; ESTABLISH TRAINING CATALOG AT LEAST
SIX MONTH$' ~IN. ~QVANCE: EMPHASIZE HIGH LIABILITY/RISK AREAS IN
TRAINING P.RQGRAMS."
. .'
Agree that the types of training recommended in the specialized
area of high \iabilitv/risk and public/community relations can be
acc~mplished yithout cost within the confines of our existinq
in-service training program.
RECOMMENDATION 18: IMPROVE DEPARTMENT-WIDE COMMUNICATIONS WITH
ALL EMPLOVEES.
.
.
.-
, .,-
¡ i -
I
; , '
, t
. L
I
--
. I
I
,-
~
.
. $UBJECT: E~ð~UðIlu~_ð~D_BE~lEW_IEðö_BEfQRI
December 21, 1989
Page 9
.
- .
To improve department-wide communication with all employees, the
<ommaod staff will encourage more two way communication through
. the dissemi,nation of staff meeting minutes the bulletin
.on
boards ,,'mor è one on one contact with subordinate emp1o'.,lees, , and
re-faml.1iarize employees with the present system that allows them
to parti~ipa!e in staff meetings through their supervisors.
'.' I
. SCCfE_CE_SEB~lCES_16
REVIEW/INVEST¡GATE PROCEDURES UTILIZEQ IN THE FOLLOWING CASES AND
DETERMINE IF 'PROPER POLICE PROCEDURËS 'WERE FOLLOWED: SEARCH
WARRANT -ROa£RTQ CHANG CASE: USE OF BUG ON EMPLOYEE OF LOCAL
PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR? CIVIL RIGHTS? ' WAS THERE REASONABLE NEED?;
RECORD KEEPING, - ACCESS AND DISTRIBUT1t1!fP,RÖtÊ(jURES FOR ACCESS TO
NCIC AND FCIG.CQMPUTER SYSTEMS; AND' TtJð REt£'NT PRÕBtEMS"(ENTERING
WRONG RES1DENCE WITH SEARCH WARRANTS AND DELAY IN REIMBURSEMENT
FOR DAMAGE),~, . -
. " "
. . . - _4' ~.
. .__'::..\ -. .... .' ,_'·i-,,·
Not app 1 i,cab.1e as. t he Dada Count)t Sta:t.At tornev ha~;iån on-going .
investigati,on into these matters., ..' ,"j
. ' __.;..-' ~ ,\:~ :!-T;.:.... t:',..· ~.! ~ .,;'.
~ .., " ~ "., ", . .'
CQtlt~uSlœ: We fa,e 1 that the S\udY, was f:~ir!and'provi d~~, an
objectiv. ovel"'view. of our operatlon. As prttV:Ì;~o:uslY,.~oted,,1. some'
oft". recommendations will be implement.d in the near future
over a period of time, however, the major modifications suggested
deal wi.th, p.ersonne 1 issues and wi 11 need approval beyond the
Police Department.
.
Itis our feeling that the Review Team has suggested the creation
of eight (8) additional positions to accomplish their
reconwnendat ions'. ,Of these eight (8) . it is our feel inq that
three (3) can be eliminated thereby reducing the cost impact.
Those three (3) would be one (1) police major and two (2) pol ice
captains that would have been necessary under the third bureau
concept that we feel is unnecessary.
Essentially needed at this time is a civilian Public Information
Officer, whose prime objective will be to bridge the present qap
between the Police Department and the media that was focused on
as a major operational problem.
The second position of importance is that of a Planning/Budget
Administrator. Additionally, we agree with the recommendations
for an additional Crime Prevention Specialist. Trainer. and a
Police Legal Advisor. Let it be noted that the positions of-
Planner, Crime Prevention Specialist, Trainer. and Legal Advisor
were requested in the 1989/90 budqet presentation and were
denied.
.
. ·
.
,
, '-
,
;
·
\
;
¡ ..
, L.
--
. I
tt
,
~
·
·
,
.
SUBJECT: . E~êLUêIIQ~_ê~D_BE~¡E~_I~éö_BEfQBI
December 21. 1989
Paqe 10
.
We look Torward to discussinq the details of this Srudv and
recommendations at your earl~est convenience and ~nxiously awa i t
implementation of these recommendations as soon as feasible.
submitted.
...---------- ~, , . . _. .' .,i¡ ~" t
..'
CK/LJHC/RML/ppt . . ..... - ~- .. -. -. .-.
- -
Attachm,nts
.
.' ~., .
"
r . ;.. ... .... ..
"
. . . t .' ~. ,',,-" '"
-, r , -
, , .'.'
" '"
," ,Þ-,.~
.' ..
~
,",. '.... -.... ~.
. ,
I
.
:
.
, .
;
I
I
i
r
, -,
--
. f
t
\
DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
COMPONENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHÞ~-
. I OFFICE OF THE I
CHIEF OF POLICE
,', "'
I I I
INTERNAL AFFAIRS I INSPECTIONS SECTION I ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION I
SE CTI ON
. I
I
I OPERATIONS BUREAU I I SUPPORT BUREAU I
I - I
I I I 1
r PATROL DIVISION INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION SUPPORT SUVI CEI PROFESSIONAL STANDAR
DIVlSlOII DIVISION
PATROL SEtTlON INVESTIGATIVE I TRAININ& SECTION r
SECTION EViDENCE SECTION
PLATOON A . JUVENILE COMMUNICATIONS ' t PERSONNEL SECTION f
INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
PLATOON B UNIT
, , SHIFT A I
PLATÕbllC, CRIME SCENE þ". COMMUNITY RELAT10NS
INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
PLATOON D UNIT SHIFT B
GENERAL SHIFT C I
SPECIAL OPUA- I NVESTI GAT IONS
TIONS SECTION UNIT
SHIFT D
CANINE UNIT ORGANIZED CRIME
SE CTI ON NCIC/FCIC
r TACTICAL UNIT I NTELL IGENeE INFORMATION
I TRAFFIC UNIT I NVESTI GATI ONS SERVICES SECTION
UNIT
I SPECIALISTS RECEPTI ON
VICE SERVICES UNIT
INVESTIGATIONS
MOTORCYCLE UNIT
COMPUTER DATA
SERVICES UNIT
I X-ING GUARDS NARCOTICS
INVESTIGATIONS I
RECORDS UNIT
IADMIN. LIEUTENANT I M.A.N. UNIT BUILDING MAINTEN-
ASSIGNMENT ANCE SECTION
CRIME ANALYSIS
SECTION
.
!
. ~
I l
,
t
¡
! ,
, l,
. !
~
f
,
,
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
PERSONNEL REOUESTS ,
,NEW.
;""
.1. 1 =- LEGAL ADVISOR. Review search warrants, pIc
Affidavits, General Orders, hiring procedures,
" disciplinary actions, personnel matters, risk management
L problems, handling confiscated property, attend
f ~: l) hearings, prepare and review contracts.
.2. 1 =- PLANNER. Required for Accreditation for agenciea
~ over 2,88, personnel, recommended by PAS conaultant study,
long range planning, developing the annual buõ,eta,
~ short range planning, developing emergency plana'.
" ,7
.. 13..· ¡ =- SECRETARY III'S. 1 for Investigative Division to do
reports, statements, etc. in support of 21 detectives.
1 for Professional Standards Division to do report. for
Internal Affairs, training, personnel, background" ahecka
in support of 6 personnel.
.. - .. ,
.
;-; ',..~. .4. 1 =- CIVILIAN TRAINER. Develop leason plans for tr.lnin~
topics relevant to sworn and non-sworn per.onnel" n.,;:
-, personnel orientation and traininCJ'_~øQrdi.P&tinc ;oút.id.
program., develop new training programa, maintain
training records.
.5. 1 =- CIVILIAN CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST. To coordinate
all crime prevention programa, conduct
. commercial/residential security programs, maintain
emergency decal programs, act as liaison between
Department and Crime Watch block captains, attend crime
prevention related meetings.
.
.
, ·
,
·
, · "
,
¡
i ,
\
,
- ,
I .....
. t
,
'!
DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
. . - .
- '
MEMORANDUM
y
-:.., , ,
TOI Major William H. Cochrane
. Support Bureau
FROM I Captain Joseph L. Schroeder '1
Professional Standards Division
'.
\
, , DATE I March 20, 1989
'-;" SUBJECT. PERSONNEL REQUESTS--LEGAL ADVISOR
.. ... . <··.-····-ó._.
....................................................~.............
.
"
This personnel request is for a Police Department Legal Advisor. ..
This newly created position would be within the Police ~epa~tm.nt
with responsibility for review and consultation on legG. ~~ter.
j for the Police Department. ';)' < :
"1 I ::'f
Th. D.lray Beach Police Department: not'·,o'ft'ly·utl·rr~...-·thër' current'
City Attorney's Office for such things as reviewing' of policies
and procedures, hiring practices, and internal~ disciplinary
actions, but the Police Department also' is continu9ualy involved
in a number of lawsuits, probably more than any other department
in the City due to the nature of our work,. As a result', in 1'988
there has been approximately one (1) additional clai_ per month
ag a.ins t the City in reference to the Police Department that
currently the City Attorney's Office is required to handle.
The Police Department also has several unique uses for a Leg a1
Advisor. This pe~son would assist officers in drafting search
warrants, reviewing their probable cause affidavits, and acting as
the prosecutor in county court for City ordinance violations. One
of the main needs for a Legal Advisor is the processing of
confiscated vehicles and the disposition of money az:¡d property
through' the' ,court" system. This Department has' experienced a
tremendou8 increase in the number of vehicles, monies, property,
etc. that is confiscated for illegal acts. This increase has
resulted in· the need for weekly meetings between the Patrol
Administrative Lieutenant and a member of the City Attorney's
Office. Also, there is constant need for taking of depositions,
and attending suppression hearings in reference to confiscated
items. The disposition of seized monies and property also
requires extensive research and court preparation time.
. .
.
.
· ..
·
·
, \
, .-
· ,"
\
-
" ..
. f Ia..
.'
-
. ~
f;
j
~
. . "
SUBJECT: PERSONNE& REQUESTS--LEGAL ADVISOR
March.2Ø,1989 - '
Page 2 '
.
.
In summary, the Police Department is currently probab~ý one of thei
biggest users of the City Attorney's Office and the hiring of a
Legal Advisor for the Police Department would allow that
individual to handle all of the followin~ matters involving the
Police Department.
Review of Search Warrants
Review of Probable Cause Affidavits
Review of Hiring Procedures
Review of General Orders
Review of Possible Disciplinary Actions
Handling Confiscated Properties, Vehicles and- Monies
Taking of Depositions
Attending Suppression Hearings -
Handling the Disposition of Money and Property
Prosecuting City Ordinance Violations in County Court .
Review of Personnel (EEOC) Matters
Review of Risk Management Considerations i
Handling Contract Disputes , , -
f.'·
There is a very definite need for a Police Department Legal
Advisor. I hope you will consider this matter for the upcoming
budget. l«
Respectfully submitted,
.
JOSEPH L. SCHROEDER, CAPTAIN
Professional Standards Division ~ 7JU
.
JLS/gb
J~rç1
.
.
.
.
,
, ,
,
( '.,
. r
~
"
t
~
,,<I
.
. DELRAY BEACH.POL~CE'DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
.'
2:.' I
TO: Major William H. Cochrane
,Support Bureau
-, FROM: Captain Joseph L. Schroeder
Professional Standards Division
~ i
-, DATE: March 21, 1989
SUBJECT: PERSONNEL REOUEST--COMMUNITY RELATIONS SECTIQN"
. .~_. ~ . -- -- . ...-~.._.
..................................................................
,- ' -
This request is for additional personnel for the" Communi.ty
" Relations Section. For the past several years, the ,~pmmUnity
Relations Section has taken on the responsibility otmany new
" community oriented and support programs to " assiat the Po-lice
.' Department in providing better services to the citizens of D_lray.
. Beach. I am requesting for the 19&9/98 budge~'Oñe (1)civ!lian
.~" employee for the Community Relations Section. My justification
for this additional person is listed below:
In order to improve the effectiveness of the Community Relations
Section and to.provide the necessary programs for the re.idents of
our community, I would like to propose that a civilian be added to
,the section.
It is my recommendation that a civilian be assigned the position
of Crime Prevention Specialist and be mad e responsible for
assisting in all residential and commercial security programs:
i.e., residential èrime watch, commercial crime watch, security
surveys on home and businesses, updating the emergency decal
program, research and planning of crime trends in residential and
commercial locations throughout the city for imp~ementation of
crime prevention programs and robbery prevention programs for
local businesses (convenience stores) and community groups.
This civilian will also work as a liaison between the Police
Department and crime watch group block captains, providing them
with monthly crime statistics for their neighborhoods and updating
their programs. The distribution of crime watch signs will also
be the responsibility of this civilian.
.
.
.
f . -
.
.:
ê .
r
~ '
r
¡
t ~,
., \
. f·
';
J
"
.
.
SUBJECT: PERSONNEL REQUEST--COMMUNITY RELATIONS SECTION
March 21, 1989
Page 2 '
.
There are no specific requirements for this position. The
~ recommended pay grade would be grade 28.
There is a very definite need for this additional person to help
allow us to meet the ever increasing demands in this section.
Your consideration will be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully submitted, 1f/<
,~,.
JO PH L. SCHROEDER, CAPTAIN . ,
P ofessional Standards Division
JLS/gb
. "
~
..
.. _. -.-- -
,...
,,',
,'.
~
.
.
t
, ~ -
...
~
t
.
'. ~... '.
(
. ,..
. f
i
~
-
~
-- ------- ~ -- -- ._--
~
21
~
11
III
....
::s
~
11
" ~
0 I
œ 0
(Q
M' , ~~ ~
"'" ~
0 .. JII i
::I , \þ, ø... i en.
~.
,: ... ~
\A ::I
Þ-dt-i r I N-
. M'
1\ . U W'· n
Þ-dt-i 1& ~ E
11 .... (Q :'- .. .
Ortn N ."
w. 0
e... . at ...
OCDIÞ .... ~~
rt 0) n
b"pœ ,- .
. t<::ø
:s~ en
oq ~O
CD ~S
~ ~t"t
. täen
o \:IS
.... Ot~
~
0 ã~
~
en 1-"' t;)\:IS
> < I:IJCI)
&: 1-"' t-i
en \:IS>
~ 1-"' ~"Ø
to< 0 '1:1
::s Þ-d~
00
CI)"Ø
t H:;ø
i ~0n~2In ~~ nOO~n~~0~lIIœ~ II sS
~~O ~O ~11 0~~11111""~~ ~~ ....
~~no~co <~ ::s< ~~I1~o~~nn~ ~
....~....'" 11 11'0 ~....'O ~~ "'.... ~ '" 11 c:: 0 a .... ZH
o n....~"''O~I1....::s~c::....~~~~ ::s~....::s '" œ eno
~IIIIO""I~""oo"""no~~~;~ ~""~""" ~ Z
.... ~::S::S~11::S~1::S0~'O ~ 11~'O ~::Sl» 11 0
::S::S~. ~....œ~11 QqO....II~ "'œc::::sI»"'"OQ.... I»
OQ~ "'::so"';~ ::s::s~c::~~.. ....~11....'< ::s ~ ~:ä
011 ~~::S.... ::S11::SOQ::S~::SC:: '< ~II ..... ....
l»C::o~ 11=::S0~~~ ~""~OQ~ ::SB~~O::S 0
1111 ~ ~~ .. n....'" ~ ~~110~ ~I1OQ ::s .. ~
nœ~....~~.... 0 1100~~~~=::s"'c::~
.... 0~0 0 ~11 ~~ ~ ~~ I","n ::s
<O~ Oc::"'c:: B~ .... Oc::c::::sc::~ ~~11~ ...,en
....~~CI1....I1'" '0 ::s....~n"'œ.... n....~....~ 01-1
.... 0~~~0....a ~~ ~........1100=....OQ~ ~
....C~c::0 ........ ~~ =0"''''....<~I1::s~0....œ
~O .... ~::s~ a.... ~0~~....~ ::s~I1::s~ ...,
::S11"'~"'0""~~::S O....~N ~ c:: ~. 0
~O 011= ::s'" 0::S0 ....'" ~nc"" ~ H
..... ~ ~aq~ "'~ ~ ....::s~'OB"'.... en
::s "'....~ 11 ~= 0'O~::sOQnO'00"''O~~ ~
œ ~....n~~.... "'III 0....11 "'........ ~1111~ >
"'~~O~....::slll ~::s ""11I11I"'11I""""0 a O~~
~ C...."'~::s on O::s....~ nn'<Ol»n.... n
III~~ ~~ .... ::S~ ::s0::s~n0~~::s::s~::t"V n
~11...."'<....::I 0 ~ ...... ~~ 0....0 0 to<
~~~~"'::sOQ 11I11I 11I110< 00~~0::t.... § S
o ....~ ~~ ::s::l "'::s n....~~.....~.OQ....
~....~ !~O'O ~~ O~~........"'~ ~c:: n
œ 0 nl1 o~....n.... n~. M'
III ~C 0"'0 ~~ o nC::::t 1». n;t....I»~.
111110....CI1OQ <11 ~o....n::s-~ ø"'oœ~ Z ....
0....11111~0....11 1»1» 0C::~11I .. 11~ I.... ~ ~ \D
Cœ....::s 11::S111 ....n 1111 ~ 11001l~~ ( C)
oo::t II::SIIIS C::~ ::t0~01l~~~~ø~~1» \D
11....~ "'0 1».... ~~~'O~O ~1».<11
::S~::SI1~~"" "'::s ~ .. ....~ III ....~.rt (Q ,
~OQIII~110C:: ....OQ ::So ~O ....11.... ..... 11 \D
'O~ ....~I»::s::t 0 ~c:: ~'<I1::t~n~rtO. 0
o 'O::s........ ~::s ~ I»~~œ ~I»~'O~
....SI1....n::s ~ ::s.... n~Srto no~~ Vt
....OO::s~.... 11 0 0.... ~ lIIaørt~œ~ N
\ n::sOQOQ~::S ~ ::S::S ...."'.... ....I1OQ. III ...
11111111 ::SOQ 0 I~ ::s~øn~1»11 ....11
~Ion C::::s (1,10 OQI»....rt ....O:,.,ø~ I
01» ~'<O 11 ~ C ~::s I»ØCl1rt I'
""'~ "'" ~ ~ 0 I» OQ- ....øI»O. IS
"'" ~....o~ (1,1 11 ~~ ....""'::s~.... ø
.... n~.... '0 '" ::s C::III"'..OQ IS I» 0
nœ....~ n 0 11 ....œl1~c ........ ; ...
~ I» n "'. ::s III '" II. '" œ ::I, '0
11<~"'~11 0.... (I,Ia"...... no QltOO
..... O~ 0 = . ~ø 0 ø IDe::. ,..
=~ '" 11 .... ~.... 'Oa"~Ø"'ID ~
OQø 0 œ ::s ::tø ....on~ cr:
0'" ~ OQ en OQ n",.. II iIC
~.... a œ~ID~::S
~.... "à œID ~ cr.
'<.... ~ III..
0 11 r-.:
--
.
.
.
.
. ., .
. .
~
21
,
f;
OCt
IÞ
....
it
<
oIö
at
0
'1 ~
0 . E
en , . ~.
~
rt "CS
.... . \0 Þ ~
g Ø\ i 11
! en . _
~
."tot ...... rt . -
II . II t
"'Þi~ ~ ~
11.. ,.' !:
! ::!. n' ! ...
oIö
"CD n
rtl en ..
....rœ t
8ø t<:ø
. at en
oIö ~O
OQ ~ ~=
CD' II
ø.
O~
. t:ien
t:UWS
~~
t:1 §~
C/) 1-" CHIS
> < tlSC/)
5: 1-" ..;
rn a~
:x:I 1-"
K: 0 "'Ø
::s ~~
>
ø. C/)"'Ø
EI H Ø
oIö S~
~o'~=ø.atnlÞc olö<S!~CIÞC>~>'1lc~nø.on~~~~ 12
oIö~þ oIöCOø.....IIII '1,.nIÞØo ~II O~O,.~C Oil ,.
'1 nat~ø~II....~ø oo~~ell~~~~lÞøat ~II~f t olö at 2IH
oIö~at..~~œ ~II oIö~IIn....,.~,. Ollll~ø"n~~ ~at 1'1'
ø~lgO'1n_ OCtn ~.IÞ&IÞf t~'1'1"". oIö olö II~I'1'O '1 eno
OCt II atllD ~~....~ atn øOOøll~ lÞø~""Øll~øø .. 021
oIö,.at I IIlÞlÞm,. 1'1''1....1112 12 C....,.n....llaa II 1'1'
ð er' e ~ at n . m f t 12 ,. 0 IÞ f t . ,.~ n 0 ~~ 0 ,. n '1 ',. C ,. ~=
~,.~II,.,. SIIIÞ.. ø.C2::1fA.. n ·IIØ cø olönlÞ~go.... 0
OCt oocscolln II OQat II at II OatIÞII"~O""~ 12
IÞ OCt.. ~ ::I CS II II n 1'1' iii >4 ~ .n '1 ~ 1'1''' 1'1' .... ~ fA 1'1' .... .... t<.o
II II II'1,.fA O~ '1 0 ~II ~OO _ ~~ . ~ tØ,.....n .. ~
t""enl'1'atO~ø. ø. C2110~ IIe....II"'" -~II IÞ IInl'1''1
IIn~II,""II OOQ oIö'1~ ¡ ....fA~""'n-II~,.IÞCS>IÞII~II Þl2C/)
OQ IIIÞ 1Þ""'~at II....IIn ~II IÞ"~ en ønø.l'1'n IÞ O.-i
IÞC '1fA~O ~enll'10ll'1C~'1nlllÞcø.el'1' 1'1'~~""'1'1'
....at~nll....~I'1'CO .. C2I'1'CS 0....111'1'11 ø.....IIO....~O 11011 ~
~ IIO~,.::I ~II" n~""'Oat::l~S ~ø.1'1'~....0~~~~'1ø.
>~.... NOQnll~en~II oIö~IIOQenll""O"" 1Þ<::IoøOIÞ ÞI2
Øoat....lÞllfAlÞ C '1ø.l'1'at n O::lat....I'1'O'111atnll....'1'1~ H
< nøø. ,..nll....o ~n~cl'1'øl'1' ....,.""';ø... II~"I'1'IIO en
oIöOllø. .... oIö....II::I~IÞ~IÞ~n~ ~no ø. -nseat
fA"'" iii Þø I'1'csn II OI'1'IIOllCIÞIIIIÞI'1'II,.COCenllll olö.... > ~
o ~no 0Ct~ ~'1I'1'CII '1 o1öO....A 1Þ~::IøC'1 ::1111'1'
'1nllO::l~ I'1'III'1'~OQø.1 ~~fA~~""1Þ1'1' nllO~~C olö 0
~~C oIöllO>~IÞ~II~ ,. ....0....11 1'1' IÞ fA ""'", 0 0
"'" II IÞ '1 II '"" "'" n II en.. S <.... =' ~ ø. ~ ~ n.. oIö n.. ""'~ IÞ Þ 0 Ë
o ~l'1'atll 1'1' II 111'1'1112 ~ ~IIIÞ"" ø::l~ oIö1Þ 12
'1nl'1' ~ø.o~ IICS~~ nOIÞIÞø.'1IÞ.... i"~n~ ø.C §
oIöS~lÞllllalÞ~nø.II oIöCSOCOfAat n.øn ,.111'1' oIö
I'1'I'1'II'1CSCS~ nlÞno nllClÞen I'1'S ~~~'1 EI nl'1' rt
~~ Þ II ø. nOli '1 at . c: n .... II 12 co ,. fA 0 II .... II II 0 ,. "'" II 0 ~
II 1'1'~ IIat~O aaollø.~....mll ::I~\O '1....120::1 12.... 21 ~
> IÞ~ ,.-....'1" c:enen~IIl'1'e~I'1'IIoon "OQ'1~ m::l
~~ oIö'1'1~~m II~ oIö'1 IIIÞ '1OO olöon c: í \Ø
O"atIÞOO olö imlÞcs"IÞ""'nno'1ø~ .. "~II~mÞ ....n C»
~O 1'1'~ 00 c~n ÞOOIÞ""'IÞø.~S ~ '1CO 1'1'~ \Ø
oIöan olöllnÞ~ .... '1mø.'1~C""'""""IÞOI'1' ....~lÞn" IÞII ~ I
n C0'10at""' oIö~ oIöll~ '1en.... II~ø~ø.IÞlln~ 1'1' 11 \Ø
IIII'1þ"þ oIöøllatlÞat"IÞ"IInc:. "IIC:iC'Ø" ° oIö~
~'1 ~""'lÞn olö~ fAn~ IIþ n~'1~œlÞ"~ø 00 0
~ ·11" ....Þllm nll;IIt""~IÞ'1 o1ö c: II C:'1n~.... Þ.... VI
II en 12 IiIÞ at ø.. ",.0 IIo~m.ð '11Þ """II"~ oIö N
~ ~ ~ n ,11 Þ Þ oIö. ~ OQ 11~' ~ 11 OCt ~ 0 " . . 12 0 n ....
\ IÞO....llatlÞlÞ IÞ ~ø ,.IÞ oIö"II IIIÞIÞ .II..OCtC: øø I
'1~~' O""~"~ oIö at....nø.ø þ oIöat".. ø at"
"~ "" oIö~.n~'Ø oIö1Þ c: "Ø ::r' nlÞ oIö ....~
S olö'Ø '1ø.øfA<øn~ o>"<ø.m ....ater'II'Ø ølÞ.... IIø N
IIn'1 II ::IOø lÞø....atø.~ oIö'1ø ~"ø '11Þø.at olö OQ'Ø ....
øøo .ð....ø... øn at....< ~IÞ. .ØO.... N IÞIÞ ....
" go C".... t""..ø ~"Oat~ ""ø_er'œ,.'1ø....'1 ....
IÞIÞ ,.;Ø",.øø.i~,.at'1" ~~ ~::r ":'01211. .;
C::I~ '1 OQ::r'ø~ 1I00ø.,.0 øølÞC "<
oø..... 11m øc: ~g'~Þ'1 o1öIÞÞ'1 ~'1~"""" II -
c: ~ en· 11",",,01l1Þ øÞOQ nn'Ø"~f ta"~ l'1'ø ~
....n lIø0'1'1'10,,1Þø. IÞ ,., oIöao~ IÞCø ""
ø.~0 ::1'1 "~.CS at nn ,. ø P2
11= ~ oIö1Þ 01 n lit"" ~~~~ ....12 '1C Ø
ø mø ~ nø IÞII oIö '1 OCt fA.... cn
"" ~ '1 OCt oIölOll n
II nOt 12 c: ~ !'oJ
-
.
-
'".' . .. . ,J.' '. ... . ~ ". ... '. '. .:.. ". . ',. .:. ~,. '", ~.
.... ....;. ~._.
. ";¡t-
.
- ,
=::a::a"cl=S>Þ.;J=s::a::a::a::a::a
.' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ < < 0 ~ ~ ~~ < < < < <
. CI.........fllCI.~....CI.....................
I-'~ ~ ~ I-'~ ~ I-'~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.... C C n ...."CI. OQ .... C C, C C C
~ = ø.... ::t ....
OQOO~OQØOOQOOOOO ::t
""''''''.... OQ"'" ""''''''''''''''''''''' CI.
n ø ~ n ....
o ~"cI0Q ::t"tnt:lO "cIc;')=S"cltn <
::t ~ . = . ø 0 . .... ~ ~ ....
~fII~n 'à'à""'fIIØ~OIll CI.
~ "'fII ....t:I'à O....fII. ....O"~ =
~ O~""~fllfII""~øllln III
n fØ'< fII.....n O"IIIOQ O"::r I-'
~ ::t 'àfll~1II1-'1-' I-'
Ø.OOfll....~. "cI.': ~
t:l1II1-'t'CfII....O. ~~ III 0
....OQ ø.....0 ø ø.t:I 0 n~ ::r
fII, .' _ .... ~ ø fII .... CI. n III ~
'àBtI2ø.... "cIfII..=1II III
=.tI2I110~ ~n~Cl.fllø ø
~ØRØØ. O....fII=.~ ø.
.'" n ~ 1'à ~ . ...
fII -.0 ..... !;; .
n ""'.... ~ b fII III
0fcs ø '" "'"
ø ....::c00....1II .... ...
fII"'OO..~ Q. ...
. ...."'...ø fII III
ø..IIIJt II < 0
· 11 '" '< CS Pi .... "'" - -
I1f11.... '"
III 8 ~ · '" fII '"
'" ::r.... ::r
.... fII ø. ....0 . .
0 n, ø
ø S' :1' ....fII "'"
fII · 0,
0 fII ...
n'à II ....
o . 1-
= 11 ¡
ø '"
"" "''< ø
'< f' OQ
n I
0
= .... '"
-11 · '"
'" fII .
11
fII
. i
0
I-'
<
....
ø
OQ
I"t
. :r
~
, J "cI
. 0
I-'
....
n
~
t:I
.
'à
III
11
g
.
ø
I"t
..
.
.
\
.
" .
.
.
.
- . .
~
.
~
n
1'1
.:.
/I) /I)
n
"I'd
~:: '
..c
IÐ /I)
"Ø
" ~
..
8
0 E
fa CJ
~ II
rt ."
... . ....1:) lIt ~,
8 QQI1 i 11
.. III i en
e»Co
(1\/1) ~
VI
1111 VI r:I .
I N ...... rt
0 I~
I·ch~ N ~
11.... ....a
i ~n ..
w ÞØ
VI 0
. lIt N ...
rt os ., ..
s-~. n
/I)
r:lø .
011 ~o
ct ~ø
i
~=
..... ~
~ §~
CJ
~ ~. (j)tIj
. <: tl2tn
.... ~~
en
~.
0 "U
::s ~~
tn"V
i H:-S
ge
IÐIII"~~~~OnI10"11~1Ð"~~"0~~ ..
.... I:S' ::r /I) 1'1 0 "" I /I) ø .. /I) 'Ø ~ /I) I:S ø 1'1 III 0 I:S
~~;'Ø"011 IÐ IIIIÐ..../I)/I)~ "1Ð1'1 .. z....
IIIIÐ= n /I)~~"lÐn IIIO'Ø/I) IÐ eno
IÐ= 11 'Ø~I1/1)lIIa ~ "1'1"I1I1Ø"" " ~;
'Ø~"nIÐO"1111 n/l)"III/I)"~O"~~ 11
-=~ s..· nSnn/l)l1øø....IÐO/l)c /I) /I) III
....III"/I)C III/I)..::r ."a.......I:SI1....~/I) "
...."~!:I.... .... III III ......IÐ~IÐ ~ ø'Ø ....
........".... ~~IIIØ/l)IIIC "/I) "....11I III 0 .-4.0
!:IS .... ~11 ø~ ~.... 1:I~01:l1:l01Ð 1:1 .. ;i
1II~01ll1ll =/I)~~ -= ~"""/I) ~~I:I"
.... øøø IÐC O ~1II1II=lÐlÐn. Þ-Ittn
1Ð""Co ..../I)n~="1:S1II "~IÐ"IÐ
O~~ -= l:Sølll~lÐn~~øO..~/I)=~/I) 0....
/I)....n.... /I)""III....~ /I)""OI1"~/I)C ,.,
~""'<11"" IÐ......ØØ.. nC/I) ::IO"~ /I)
/1)11 ..... IÐOOØ/l) 10~0 C /I) 0 1111 Þ-It
n /I) ::I ø .. IÐ n = /I) = III /I) 1'1 1'1 /I) III H
"~I'1/1)1II IÐ 1Ð::IlÐi ~~l'1ø "IÐ....
tJ'11. I-' ~ ~/I) /I) Co' ~"IÐ ~ tn
. /1)0 CIÐ _11" IÐ 11 n ::r/l)~O,< > ~
OQ/I)IIIO notJ'o- /l)nC7' 1"/I)~I'1::1/1)
111'1" OOQI1~ 11,,/1) 0 OIÐIII n
/I);lÐnC ::1110 =nlll /I)"~""11 0
IÐ "~O C 1II=n~........11 ='Ø~nl1~1Ð 0 Ë
~IÐIII 11 /l)S~I1~1II /I) ::I1'1~/I)e"""
O· "~ III" ::I1ÐtJ'.III....1Ð1Ð ....O/l)1Ð .... ã
ø....11 .... 0 " /I)~ "C n ...."
IÐ IÐOIII /l)1II=/I)....nno '<...."" "tJ' rt
"~"=IÐ ::IØ" ØI1=::S .. ~"O",</I)
~..~ n~ "~.111Ð /l)C 0 i .....
,,/I)n III /1)"11 ...... III /I)" on
~ IÐ~ "11tJ'/I)/I) "C7' "1:ItJ'1II~1 \0
..~ ~.... 1Ð0/l)Ø~ '<~ ntJ'/I)/I)1Ð CD
"..""0.... "~ ~/I)C /I) ,,/I)IÐ IÐI \0
'<IÐ on III o~nlÐ III'Ø C IÐn.. =
"11~" 11/1)" /I)"I1~ ..ø "IÐØØ II ,
011 IÐ /l)1'1"....snoo ..../1)0""'<.... 11 \0
~...."no 1Ð'<'<Ø/l)::r~11 ....n~.... " <:)
~::rIllØ - 11" 11 11Ift) ""::S'cl
"=/I)~ ~~I1~;1II ØIÐ"/I)::r/l)
~"...."~ 111110/l)/I)1Ð IÐ 1Ð::r::S/l)C~
\ ........1'111I/1) Ø/l)I1IÐØ/l)IÐIÐ ~III~IÐ /I) VI
, IÐ 0 .... ~ ~ C .... n n ....... ... ~ ." n .... N
ø::S::l ft)..Co'cl~ IÐ .. noollll .-
n ft)IÐ/I) n::l /I) ......." ""..." ,
"0'''. 1""'°.....·.. ·"'1 .. ..
c ~~ ø ........"/I)"/I)ø ... ~n 0
....::r~ o/l)....n'cl·~ ~o /l)øøø N
~nC7'l'1" ::SBIIIIII" ....Ø.....IÐ .-
.......oo::r Ø~I-'IÐ.... ø..........~" ....
II~...C Ø ..~ø ~l'1ø C 1" IIØ'cl~ ....
::s::r.... "11"1II~~Ø /I) 'cI'cI~ /I) ".
. /l)O~ÞØ 'cIOIIIØI1 IÐIII ø II n Þ'I
0....0 ~"~Oft)...."," ~11" t'
ca.::s.... 11.. ~'cI~.... ....~ ø; ~ t
IIIÐ~.... ;0 111Ð~ 80 II ø
~ ~ IÐI:I; I 11 g.;
tJ' .. . " ...
...
.
, .
-
,·'d
.
~
.
21
~
o
....
....
n
~
~
....
111
ø
ø
~ ..
'1 0
Ø
o n
· 0 E
... II)
"... . N n "Ø
Þ'1 CÞ~'
o .. IÞ 11 ttJ-
= I ~=- i en
~..; I~ = ~
Illd w..... n n
~..; Þ ë1
11 .... II) .. "I:t
ann \Ø 0 Ë
~ 0 ....
.-- N ..
O_CÞ n ~
" (I) ~ "U
....r(l) ~
o t<~
= . ~
: ~o
- ~S
..., ~t<+
Š ~en
_ t:1~
..... Ø
Þ-iO o:t<
O~ C::H
t:::1 t;n
en .... C1 tz2
_ > < ~en
! ~ ~ ~>
~ .... t::I Þoø
t< 0 "tI
::s "tI:::ø
> 00
ø. en "ó
1 H Ø
.. Þ-i t-t
"~ .~. øø. "..n'1'1 >O~~OOOOO""~I""O ~
.~rnc:ø~o~I::rCllilÞ~l:'n~<e:~~~HI~o....~o~;t ~ t;..;
~«nø.ø.~"<olÞ øn n<IÞø.«< ~ølÞ~ø~~ CII _....
~Octc:CIQ ~e:"rt ( Q~'<'1~""OQ~~~"IÞ( QØ"OQIÞ " ~o
" ~~ø~.....ø ::r..~....0~....e:~""""""::r'1 ø '10 '1 v.
"~C."OC:HlO"IÞ~"" <C:~01Þ"000"""1Þ~"'1""" IÞ Z
::rø.0" "ø.HI~ '1 1 .... ....~" "CI"d"d CII 1 ø '1::r1Þ I" " 0
~ '1~" OQOlo~ø.~Clløn"I..ø.SII ~ø. ~ø~,< .. ~=
"~CIIy.~'1~HI ~ø::rOQIÞIÞ~O~~~~~ø ....CIIOQØ 0
....0 ~ c:"ø.ø IÞ<"O Ø"Øø<ØØØ...."CIICII~~"O ~ ø ~,O
ø ....c:OQCII.. ""n~o '11Þ ...." ~"""IÞ::r HI ~
"d"0ø.'1" e: ....n.... rt~CIIO.. 0.... ØrtOØHl~1Þ - c::
e:::rIÞOQO CCllrtle:o ~~ø HlOOOOØ0'1~e:""'10 tz2
rt~ø.~CCII::r O~'1~~'1.o~ .... "dHlHlHl~ rt~rtlÞ~~;j -en
CII rt .. Q .... rt . IÞ 1 '< IÞ e:.. x S ~ S '1 S ~ e: ø .... 0 '.. ...s
HI~ øsn::r.... rt~ ølÞ ~~~~~....CII ~'1~'1øOQ'1 O~
'1e:rtø.OQ~::r~ø ~ø::rOQrtrtø""""ØSo::rc~IÞø.~....'11Þ 2: Ø
Qø.::r~ rt CIIø....¡.. rtlÞ~~::rIÞ~Cllrt~ØOOrtø ØO'<
IIOQ.<..::r....~..::r <.. ~OQSrt.. '1OQ'1e: OQrtøOQC - ÞwJ
~"~Ø"CII <~no.... 1Þ'1~~"" OQ rt....O~O~ ....~ ....
rtrt .... ø CII.... QHlØlÞrt~'1ØøS~'1 ø.e: ~....ø~
::r ø.O"dOQ~.ø."d1l OQørt rtOQlÞølÞ'1 '1~IÞø.CIIOQIÞ enn
~"d0"CI1Þ IÞse:'1"d"d ø.~1Þ IÞ ....nølÞ~ ....CIICII n
'1 IIncCII~IÞ~""""1Þ ø'1 rt~Ø,<( QØ~HlIÞCII" 01Þ::r > >
~oø~~~.. ....CII~IÞ ~rt~ ....'1rt ~OQ e:øe: ~rt n ~
....noø n~CII~rtørtS.... 00~"d ~lÞrtCII'1C< IÞ n
<~rt"CIÞIÞ~ Ø~CII'1~OS øOQø...."d CIIe: ~~..lÞø 0 Ê
....CII ..ø.....ø Crt.... IÞ '1 ø IÞ .. '11Þ 1Þ...."d '11Þ 0 ø. ,.
CIICIIIÞø.rtø.....~.. ....OQ. ø ØØIÞ....HI~'1rtSe:rt ~
... ......::r'1'<Hlrt~lÞrtØ~ '< IÞlnCllølÞo ~::re:CII'1rt ::s
o ....HI ~ ....::r'1ø::r~ø ØCII~ lI)ø....'1 IÞCII·~::r rt
ø OHlrtCIIlÞrt oø.~ø.n...¡~ ~ CII....~ø."rt I~=(I)
...¡C..::rCII CIIlÞn ,<::re: IÞ OCII~ ~ _
n::r n~ "do ....~nO"l:t.. ~rt ~ ø C"d<IÞ"dl-4øø...._ -!::
i~HlC: ..... '1C11Q~"" .. < ø. CIIo~n....ø~~lwv c:-
o....ø.rtlÞ ~Clla"d.rtø.~ IÞ ..ø....nlÞ 0lø..o EI co
"d'1"ct ø IÞ "dIÞØIÞ~CII .... CII CIIOC:ØOC: ~(I) ~ \Ø
111.... o"d:" ø.O....'1ø~< c: c: ""d'1 '1C11Ø_ II) t
Ølll. III~ '<Hlct"ct~ct" IÞ ~ ~ctllllÞø. ø. _ W \Ø
ø.øø. ~c:.. "1'1....::r" S ..ø."::rct'1C11""
ctØctO"ø.CII Hllllctct "OIÞ ...... .... ctct'1IÞ'" 0
'1 ~ .0 .. II OQ c: CII ø. ø C .... "d" 0 œ' .. .... . ," ~ I 0 \.11
CII'1c:<ctct. ..... "~SII ø œ "Ø ø."ct.... = N
III..Ø" ........ O~ctlll .. .. Co 00 111 ....
\ IIIC"." "1 OQønœ.. ø'1 0 0 ctOct n
ø~~.. ~~ cø IÞct "ct HI ø œ'1.... ~ ~ I
ø.. I~ 0 C ~';~ 0.. 111 ø ~ . Q..... > ~ ...¡ ø.
...."Ø~II~ '1ø 11>40"d ø ct l::r N
HI ~ ..ct I ~OQl1ctct"d",11 !! 11ø.""dctg....
O~EI"n:11 ct>4!A~ ct ... I-i ~'111... ....
ª ct ct i ::r 0 0 ...."d IÞ "d "d 11 "d CII ':ì" HI < 111 ct ø ....
c: O....CllctO........ct ~ ctO~.."dctrt
." ø IÞIIIOnø~IÞØ '1 I1....Ølllct::r
....~O loø. ø.ØØ"CIIØØrt 0 ø. O~'1ø.ct _
IÞ.... øl"'C: CII IÞ ....nCII.... ( Q C:O"dø.ct
rtct~ø.ctl1"d ~"d~~"'< '1 "c:ct ø.HI~ ::g
ct ct ct œ '1 ~ .... .... .... ... .. '1 ø. 0 0 .-.
"11 0 0 ctlÞ.... ....ø II ~ "'1.... Ø
o CII n ct ø....IÞOO CII CII 0.... en
ct CII CIIrtØØ" n
CII '< ø.OQ ~ N
-
.
- _...._~. - . ---- ---
a"n..I't.....
1D0CS~lItcr
11 ...
11 11 I't ID CS ....
ID ID Q" I't.. .
UlnlD.....IIICS
'tI I't 0.. lit ~
O...-a'::S.- .
::sO III· .. 'tI
rn ::s C ::s lit III
"(II. OQI1 n
a' .... ID I't
'-lIIn:r"OIlt
/Do11Q"1DC:: lit
ID III 11 11 0 ::s
.... ::s ID .... ø.
o ::s OQ III
11 ID ID lit n 11 .-
ID 11 n ID 0
1'tø...IDI1U1 ::s
Q" ID CS ID 'tI OQ
1Dø. 0ø.0
·'tI<..CS 11
II ID ID I't UI III
Ii ID 11 11 lit.. CS
.. I't UI I't a" OQ
CSnoco.... II
I't. CS Q 0 ....
ID ::SOCS.. QIIt
CS ID 'I't 0
lit................ lit
'CSO-I'tllt ....
,. n c::l........ ·
II"::S ....0 ·
. III" ....
III 0 III '
~csg.8;' ;t
. IDnal II ..
o rt aI
rt cs . :r"'tI
¡~~II"" ~
rtllln",= ....
n er 11 CS ....
Crt 011
. ' , I., , : " .....rt '"" 11i. II!
' .. er II ,...
.. .... ....
iii II alai.. 0
..rt ...... C
CSnø.o....
.....IDI:I '""
1II..."IItØ- 0
.. III.... II ...
1:1 . ...
..¡en.. ....
>. 8 t:: r:.. ~.
"'er~g,~ .
III III lit n 0
n 'IS .11... 11
nlD..ø.1I ID
11 ....alø.
. IDrt.... .. II
ø.o Ort ....
.. er..1It ....
rta'lIt<1't ID
IIIID<.... n
I't ID UI 0 rt
..11 ..1:1 ..
o ID iii 0 <
CS<IDI:I:J: ID
."I't.þa' ::s
. ID CS ID
..Cl't lit en
I't ID 0 .... OQ en
ø. cr ID
.. a'lDl1 'tI
(II1't1D . ID
o n 11 11
OQ 0 ID
ollllileno ø.
".ID"àCS 0
CS en 0 n ....
OQC::IltCSID ....
11 n . lit
I'tlDn..o 11
o 11a"C:: .
1't1D..11
1'tQ"ø.....
IIIQ.I....ø.
"'1't1't1't1D
ID ID '< 'tI
I'tø. lit
1'tQ"·011
.. AI H'I I't
II iii
ID en tit II ID
,1't<IIICS
III III 1D..1't
CS CS 11 ::s
ø. ø. '< I't ..
III III en
CI1CS..
Oø.IDCSIIt
l1enC...n
,.. CS n
.. III OOQ 11
I't 11 ID
1II"ø.Oø.
CS....IDc::...
ø.....11111't
. ID
I'tllt 1Itø.
Q"'tIln.
1D'tIln
.... I1I't
cs'< 1D:r
ID.... ø.1I
ID ..
ø.ø.nl'tl1
II :r lit II
""rtlltl't!ol
o ID r:s .."à
"''1Q11tOO
EI II r:s r:s
lit .. III
· ::sr:s..c~
IDCS.....
\ .. ......
::s..."........
y ø.,""o_"
.. .......I't
<n..II'<
..ern
ø.1II'<1It0
c:: cs .. ....
lit OQ ""
.... ID n c:: _
IIIcr....
I't lit....
o 0 ::s
1100
ID
.
DELRAY BEACH POLICE DEPARTME~T
COMPONENT OR6ANIZATIONAL CHÞ
, I OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF OF POLICE
. I . . . . I
INTERNAL AFFAIRS J I INSPECTIONS SECTION I ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION I
SECTION ,
I I
I OPERATIONS BUREAU I ' I SUPPÓRT'BuREAU I
I I
I I I I
I PATROL DIVISION INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION SUPPORT SUYI CIS PROFESSIONAL STANDARD~
DIVISION DIVISHJN
PATROL SECTION INVE STI GATI "IE I I TRAININ' SECTION T
5E ClI ON EVIDENCE SECTION
1 PLA1ÒON A JUVENILE COMMUNI CATI ONS r PERSONNEL SECTION I
I PLATOON B INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
UNIT
PLATOON .C SHIFT A , I COMMUNITY RELATIONS
CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
PLArOON D UNIT SHIFT B I . .
"
-, I \/...~
GENERAL SHIfT C I '
SPECIAL OPERA- I NVESTlGA TI ON S I
TIONS S~CTION UNIT ' ~
SHIFT D I
CANINE UNIT ORGANIZED CRIME
,- SECTION , NCIC/FCIC
I TACTICAL UNIT J : ,
INTELL1&ENCE INFORMATION
I TRAFFIC UNIT INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES SECTION
UNIT
" RECEPTION
I SPECIALISTS VICE SERVICES UNIT
INVESTIGATIONS
I MOTORCYCLE UNIT
COMPUTER DATA
SERVICES UNIT
I X-ING GUARDS NARCOTI CS
INVESTIGATIONS I
RECORDS UNIT
IADMIN. LIEUTENANT M.A.N. UNIT BUILDING MAINTEN-
ASSIGNMENT ANCE SECTION
CRIME ANALYSt!
SECTION
;
,
, .
I
\
, '.
. r
t
,
" .
.
.
-
. MEMORANDUM
TO: Malcolm T. Bird
Interim City Manager
"
FROM: Joe Weldon
Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: FIND Grant Request
DATE: January 18, 1990
Attached please find a resolution approving our requesting a 50%
matching grant from the Florida Inland Navigational District for
the replacement of the seawall and construction of marginal docks
at Veterans' Park. Previously I had forwarded to you the report
from Coastal Planning and Engineering concerning the existing
condition of the seawall and the cost to replace the seawall and
build marginal docks in the estimated amount of $3l5,000. .
I recommend that marginal docks be included in the master plan
for Veterans' Park to allow temporary boat parking so patrons may
visit the park and restaurants and shops in the downtown area.
No overnight docking will be permitted.
By definition, marginal docks are constructed to the seawall so
as not to obstruct the flow of boat traffic on the intracoastal
waterway. In effect, this amounts to "parallel parking" for
automobiles. Permitting from both the Corps of Engineers and the
D~partment of Environmental Regulation for marginal docks should
not be a problem in that they will only be utilized for day use
(no fuel dock or sewage removal).
Attached is a memo from Doug Randolph, Grants Administrator, with
additional back-up information.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
) f'
, !,):
\ ' ' ,
~ .. _,.ß:V¡,-,
JO¢Jweldon
Difìctor of Parks and Recreation
'-
JW: j mh
REF:JW010
cc: Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
Doug Randolph, Grants Administrator
J
I
- ~~ / /\
1 )
~,'
" "
--------
.
R9Ó04"T B"". .'#..J Ie ;
.
. MEMORANDUM
- '
TO: Malcolm T. Bird
. Interim City Manager
FROM: Douglas Randolph~ Q. . ,
Grants Administrator
THRU: ~ David M. Huddleston
Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Request approval to submit proposal to Florida Inland Navigational
District for improvements at Veterans' Park.
DATE: January 16.1990
Staff is recommending City Commission Approval to submit an application to the
Florida Inland Navigational District for funding of needed improvements at
Veterans' Park in the amount of $157.516
The grant requires a 100% match of funds. The total project cost will be $315,032.
The matching funds will come from the proposed Decade of Excellence Bond which
earmarks $500,000 for Veterans' Park improvements. The application along with the
required supporting resolution needs submitted by March 1,1990.
The funds are to be used to replace the 25 year old seawall at Veterans' Park
as well as add marginal dockage along the wall and a boardwalk along the top
of the structure. These improvements will allow increased utilization of the
park as well as add to the parks aesthetic value.
cc: Joe Weldon, Director Parks and Recreation
John Walker, Engineering
.
". .,<-..
J
t
~
-
.
SA~/~
- -
. RESOLUTION ON GRANT ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRIC'
GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVBRNMBNTS PROGRAM
. WHEREAS, THE City of Delray Beach is interested in carrying out the
(Name of Agency)
following described project for the enjoyment of the citizènry of Delray Beach
and the State of Florida,
Project Title Replace Seawall/add MarRinal DockaRe and Boardwalk - Veteran's Park
Total Estimated Cost $315.032 (Proposal to FIND for $157.516 - 50% of total cost
Brief Description of Project: The City wishes to undertake major improvements
to Veteran's Park including marginal dockage along the seawall and a boardwalk
along the top of the structure. In January 1990 the seawall was inspected and
found to be in various stages of deterioration. This "weakening" precludes
making any needed improvements. In order to minimize future repairs and make
the specified improvements this twenty-five year old seawall also needs to be
replaced.
AND. Florida Inland Navigation District financial assistance is required
for program mentioned above,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Commission of the City of Delray Baech
that the project described above be authorized,
AND, be it further resolved that said City Commission of the City of Delray Beach
make application to the Florida Inland Navigation District in the amount of
50 X of the actual cost of the project in behalf of said City of Delray Beach
AND, be it further resolved by the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach
that it certifies to the following:
1. That it will accept the terms and conditions set forth in the' FIND
Grants Guidelines and which will be a part of the Project Agreement for any
grant awarded under the attached proposal.
PIND - Ex.t UIIIBIT 4'
Rev. 6/87
J
I
.,
.
.
2. That it is in complete accord with the attached proposal and that it
will carry out the Program in the manner de.c~ibed in the proposal and any
plans and specifications attached thereto unle8s prior approval tor any change
has been received from the District.
3. That it has the ability and intention to finance it8 share of the
cost of the project and that the project will be operated and .aintained at
the expense of said City of Delray Beach for public use.
4. That it will not discriœinate against any pereon on tbe baais of
race, color or national origin in the use of any property or facility acquired
or developed pursuant to this proposal, and shall comply with the terms and
intent of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, P. L. 88-352 (1964)
and deaign and construct all facilities to comply fully with statutes relating
to accessibility by handicapped persons .s well as other federal, state and
local laws, rules and requirements.
5. That 1t will maintain adequate financial records on the proposed pro-
ject to substantiate claims for reimbursement.
6. That it will make available to FIND, a post-audit of expenses in-
curred on the project prior to, or in conjunction with, request for the final
10% of the'fundlng agreed to by FIND.
- This is to certify that the foregoing ia a true and correct copy of a
""
~
resolution duly and legally adopted by the City Commission at a
legal meeting held on this day of 19 .
-
Signature Signature
MAYOR CITY CLERK
Ti Ue Title
EXlIIBIT 4
~
,
.
.
-
1
.
-'..... , I. I I '_11.1 1L... t '. 1-, I I J. '._' t.- IeL I'W . 4',) ( ,¿(¢ 4 (:;. ,:;. Ja.n l'::J ,'::JU 11;,:;'( ¡-. U:'
# ,-
'J V V
.
",.,
l,AW 01"I"C1';8 01"
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS. P.A.
ttOHTH Fc.OQIII CONCCIII\) MUILOllolO SU'T~ tn. eQC^ bl"V\N^O&
51)(TY'&IX Wltllt f"v.ö\.t:I'I STAE£t 2115 NOftTH rEOEft...\. IllðHW"'Y
MIAMI, n.oftlDA 3:JI:JO BOCA RATON, "LOfttD" ~3-432
TCC.CÞHQNC 1~5 ~7.·øeæ~ TELE"HONE 1<1071 3&2.-1230
'fCI.CÇOPICR '~O~I 3~e·IC>.t3 MIAMI "lid: I:SODI ......,..."
r"c.t)( ."'I""Z·I't't , ELEeO,.,E" 1407' 394·tl102
ROElE:RT (&., 5W¡¡;¡¡;T""....C.¡¡; P"U.E "It"'..... 'fa
DOUalAS C, BftOEKEI't January 11, 1990 ä~ ~""O""
ALI!:X"NOI!:A 0, VAAK"S. ..lA,
GE:orf"lU;'I' C. BENNETT
William E. curphey, Esq.
Parker, Johnson, Owen, McGuire
Miohauti, Lanti , Kruppenbaoher, P.A.
P. O. BoX 2867
orlando, Florida 32802
, Re, procacci ve. Delray
Dear Bill:
Enolosed, as discussed, is proposed Agreed order in the above
reterenced case. As soon as you advise that the order is
acceptable, I will submit it to the court_
We may set your motions for hearlnî' or, in the alternative, file
an Amended Complaint. I will adv se you oonoerning this in the
immediate future. Also enclosed is a Demand tor Judgment.
Very truly yours,
{¿rt ~ . \ \
ÓBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
RAS:kcr
Enclosur~
-
. '\4
. '~;t
~.~._------_. --
- - - -- ,-- '\'-'. ....v, .... . V ""'t -.I..... ...I U. I J...-', -"V ............. I . I...........
,.. , .
~ V
-. v
.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT Of' THE 15TH
JUDICrA~ CIRCUIT IN AND fOR PALM
SEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. CI-89-1077-AH
fLORIDA'BAR .296988
PROCACCI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
VB.
CIT~ Of DE~Y BEACH, a
l'lorlåa municipal corporation,
Defendant.
. /
DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, proc,acci Development Corporation, a Florida
corporation, pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 768.79
and 45.061, hereby makes demand for jUdgment against Defendant,
city of Delray Beach, ~ Florida munioipal oorporation, in the
amount of ~150,OOO.OO. Defendant is cautioned that in the event
Plaintiff obtains Final JU~9ment in this cause an~ the amount ot
such judgment ,reveals that Defendant unreasona~ly rejected this
\
Demand For Judgment, plaintiff will seek an award of sanctions,
includln9 attorney's fees and oost~ inourred by Plaintiff.
Defen~ant is further cautioned that this deman~ shall expire as
provided by lat,¡.
I HEREBY CER~IFY that a true and correct copy of the toreqoinq
was served by mail upon William E. Curphey, Esq., Parker, Johnson,
1
LAW O"""C:Ei!5 0'" SWEETAP"I.t:. aROEKIltR & V....I'I~A., ".A.
SUITE m. BOc.... E9PLANAOE. 21~ N, FEOItRAI. HIOHWAY, BOCA R....TON. F'LO""OA 33~3a
, ' ._._____.·4~
"
'ì
, .:;,
:~!.
~,' , , . , ' :*,.
I;
& ' . , .
'*
,
.'
:.:'
, ,I
\
, '
i.
i'
',"
,\
,
':9. ~
.....
, ,...
, . :i:
ì
.'
,. '. --
--------~
-... , I t I I ,_, I. t 11.- . 1_' I I ..I. 1._' L.. I I:. L.. 1"1 ,_, . qUI ¿Ib 4(::'::' .Jan 1 'j ,'jU 11 ;::'0 r . U~)
'J
",,' J . .
.: V V
.
,
Owen, McGuire, Michaud, Lang and Kruppenbacher, P.A., 1300 Barnett
Plaza, 201 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, and
Herbert Thiele, Esq. , city of Delray Beach, 100 Northwest 1st
Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, this the 1/11 day of
January, 1990.
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.A.
2~5 North Federal Highway
suite Three
Boca Raton, FL 33432
(407 ) 392-1230
/~ ? ~..~
Robert A~weetapPle
\ \
2
LAW OFFICES O l' SWI:£~APPI.I:. 8~OEK£A & VARKA.$. Þ.A.
SUite: m. BOCA ES~I.AN^Or:, 21ð N. FEDERAl. HIGHWAV, BOCA RATON. FLORIDA 3.3432
,..w·~._~·_._·
i
..
A
....:¡... ,
4
" .;
"
,
~. -
. - -- '......... I t'-' . ...I,¡I ,,-II,¡ .......,....,. ,Jell l.;:;,;:;V l. l. . _'V r . I.,) 1,.,1
~r"": '" , . -
',-:.\ . U V
..,
,<
.
.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCOIT IN AND FOR PALM
BBACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. CI-89-1077·AH
PROCACCI DEVEtoPMEN~ CORPORATION,
a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
va.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a
Florida municipal corporation,
Defendant.
/
AGREED ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE
CLERK · S DEFAULT
THIS CAUSE came on before the court upon Defendant's Motion
to Set Asi<1e Clerk's ,Detaul t and upon stipulation of the parties
and the Court being fully advised in the premises it is thereupon
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Default entered against the Defendant, ,city of Delray
Beach, a Florida municipal corporation on Maroh 9, 1989, by the
Clerk of the Circuit Court 1s hereby set aside.
.
2. Detend~nt's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss for
Lack ot subject Matter Jurisdiction tiled theratter shall be
accept~å by the Clerk of the Court. Hearing may be set on said
.
" ..~ . ~
". .
" .'
..'
\.
"?
4;
Co
;a:
,~ :;,
",
, , .
<t. 0
',~
..
'/" - . J ;..
I_~ ,,"':
,
~, ,: 1, . . '/ ~..
'J~ ','·,f , .
',", I
.~ ,p'(,::: :
- .... I ! " 1 Uj,I'IL \ ,_" I 1'_ L I t. L I'IU, 4UI 1.10 4(jj Jan l'd,':: U 11 ::'·ô f-' .'_11'
."." 9 .
, ... U
t;¡, " I
',', '. , . -s' \.-.I
.
,
Procacci VG_ Delray
Case No. CL 89-1077 AM
motions by either party upon proper noticé.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach
County, Florida, this the day ot ~ , 1990.
CIRCUIT COURT ðUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Robert A. Sweetapple, P.A., 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 800,
Miami, Florida 33130
william E. curphey, Esq., Parker, Johnson, Owen, McGuire, Michaud,
Lang and Kruppenbacher, P.A., 1300 Barnett Plaza, 201 South Orange
Avenue, orlando, Florida J280~
~ ~
, ,
- .....--.--
,.,
~,
(.,
,,.
. ' "
. \
.-
,
"';; I
.. ..
,;',:¡/
. . ~~':' ':4
.',
, .
.,;.
'_ J. 1 1 n ,I I Ur,l'lL I ':' Ur r l'~,t. t.L ¡'ill. 4U( L(èS 4(~:::> Jan 1,:!,';.4U ll:~)'; r' 11;-:
V U
)¡;I I
/"'<..' ",(. r /(' ,f
I 9g} á11ðf ~ I -¿ X ¿.. ::~, /ð /r 7'
I
17f~ 7'~
- ~
. . ., /7' óð"j'
µ~~ I
li~ 7 ~... "2- w 'f I '2.. )< G,.. - 7' L~ 3.
",.
¡r::;ti' .. 7'¿~
-
;
8;~¢
a.¡ þ..¡:;¡~ -~. 2-,/ ".f'--Z
I
~ m ,4 ~ t;;.¡.~ ç-zllJ
~ " (" (,,¿ - ,r-
,
/1
)4h ~# a.~,
/7( 7 )ý ..r" >< /J-){ ,~ 21'<fr
/71f ~J~ _
. 6çró"
I
,/4n~
/'7 f'r 7' /';-J i' X ðtJ¡{ ,-=' 2cf977 I 2tf9Y/
I
....
~
;J ~~ ~ ~
f...:¡ ,
, " ~
, . ',"', -",-'t" '.
OA¡ ?p~"". ...;,.,..,.'V)
/717 1 !" Nt) "x' /dJ; - 7 ¥.n;J
-
, , I
J 7Y?' ì 'j' dvð )< /,J'" ". 1/ ,¿tu
....
"-~--~ -
/7.JW
I
() ,~"
~'
I rg ì ¿S-ØJò X /J,j :; .3 ? .JD
1"( l->" dvQ )<' /5- -= 3,.JÞ
~ë þ
. ..
I s;I ø-)' 1U't.1.. d "11 tJtt<J -- q/ý/r
I ~ , I'
#7<:Jj-/3¿J -
.._---,
:\ .,
,
,9; , ,
'ÿ
:'
>:
"
':~. ,
.
'¿ f!r
,....
..
, . , ;
,
"
".
\,
.
. MEMORANDUM
TO: Herbert W.A. Thiele, City Attorney
FROM: Robert Ferrell, Chairman, Delray Beach Human Relations
Committee
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT RESOLUTION
DATE: January 17, 1990
At a recent meeting of the Delray Beach Human Relations Committee, the
members unanimously agreed to the following: The Committee amend the
proposed resolution by substituting the City Attorney's proposed 9(e)
with the deletion of the language in the second sentence. The second
sentence is as follows: "In such instances, or where such matters are
under review by other governmental agencies, entities, boards or
commission, the Committee understands and acknowledges that the City
Administration and City Attorney's Office shall provide status
information only regarding such litigation or claims until such matters
have been finally resolved through the appropriate,forum."
The members request this be placed on a Commission agenda. Please see
the attached drafts.
~A.1 ~ ¿Q/'f'P-
ROBERT FERRELL, Chairman
Delray Beach Human Relations Committee
cc: City Commission
Interim City Manager
Assistant City Manager, Management Services Group
lamb
Attachment
Prop.txt
.
\)~j [-
::J
. .
. dÆð-(f'
. ' 11:)
. - '
.
. . =
.
RESOLUTION NO. 50-85 #
,
A RESOLU'l'ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL or TaE CITY OF
DELaAt UACH, FLORIDA, REPEALINQ RESOt.trrION NO.
92-'lAHD RlSOLtrrION NO. 28-82 IN ORDEa TO CLARIFY
THI EXISTINCI, POWERS AND OtrfII. or THI DltPAY BEACH
RUMAN RlLATION. COMMITTEE, PROVIDING FOR T!I CREA-
TION 0' A. C'IT! ZIN 'S COMMITTEI.. TO . 81 tN"n'ttED.: '1'HI ,
I
-DILMI IIACH BUMAN RELA'l'IONS- COMMIftEC- ;PROV%DINQ~ , I
FOR SOCI COMMITTII'S COMJOII'l'IOH, TIIMS~ THI FILLING
0' VACANCIES, RATIFICATION or SELIC~tON' ay THI CITY
COUNCIL, DIRICT REAPPOIN'rMI!ft., AND THI.. POWIRS,
D t1'1'1 I' , AtrrHORITY, AND FUNC'rtONS,,' PItOVI%)INQ AN
ErrIC'1'IVI DATI.
.1
,
-'.'" WHIUAS" the City Council ot ,the City of, Delray' ae.ch, rlo~
Lda, in reco'ft.1~1on of' th.. ne.d tor pro¥id1ft4. a.I\;."alt.rnativ. toruza tor
,. p.aceful redre.. ot citiz.n.' complaint. or 9rievanc.., cH.eS', by the
30pt10n ot R..olution No. 92-81 Oft, November, 10,. lill, create the
,.lray Seach Suman R.lations Committ..",' and, " ..'"'
WHEREAS, tÞ..City ot O.lray S.ach, Florida, wi.h.. to r~empha-
iz. the 1mpo~tanc. and need tor the "O.lray' 'Seach Human Relations I
~lM\itt..", a. part ot the City Council's emphasis ,on the concern1nq for i
h~ ~ealth, I.t.ty and w.ltare ot all of the residents and citizens of I
h. City of Delray B.ach, Florida, and,
WHEREAS, the City Council ot the City of bel ray eeach, F10-
ida, continue. to be convinc.d that proper safeguards and pro pe r
lannin9 will help to avoid lit,uation. which might give rise to discord
r injury to persona, property, or intringe upon the rights of others,
nd the avoid situations causeð by Itrife between grou?s, factions, or
ace. that could result in 9reat and irreparable damage ~o ~~dividuals
nd to the community at 1arge, and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Delray 'eeach, :lorida
e.ir.. to ,e-e.taÞli.h and recrtat. tht "Del ray Beach Human Relations
:ommittee", for the purposts of further clarifying it.s duti.es, po",ers,
Luthor1ty, and function., as w.ll al the composition and ~erms of its
,embtr.hip. throuqh thil resolution.
NOW, THERErORE, BE IT RESOt.vtO BY THE CITY COUNCI~ OF !HE C!~y
)F CELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS,
S.~~io"··l. That Re.olution No. 92-81 and Resolution ~~o .
~8-82, bt, and the same are hereby repealed.
S.~~io" 2. That the City council of the City of De1ray Beac~,
:'loridl, bein9 aware ot itl role in help1n9 to preserve the di~nit'f'
~.ace and harmony in the City ot Cel:ay Btlch, Florida, does hereQy~
r.create th. exi.tence ot an Idvi.ory citizens committee, to be kno'Wn
h.reatt.r a. the ·Celray S.ach Human Relation. Committ..·.
~.~~iOft ~& That .ai4 Celray Beach Human Relation. Committee- ,
ahall be compoa.d of r.apon.ible law-abi4ing citizen., con.1stin9 ot a
memberahip not to exceed fourteen (14) persona to b. cho.en aa follows:
Thr.. (3) .election. to be made by the President of the South
Palm Seach County Chapter of the NAACP,
.election. to be ma4eby th. Pt..ident ot the local 1
'three (3)
Nacirema. Club, Inc.,
r
I
.
.
.
. .
. - '
Five (5) selections to be made, one by each seat of the City
Council,
. Three (3) selections to be made by the President of the City
of Oelray Seach ChamÞlr of Commerce.
S.e~ion 4~ That the members of the slid ~Oelray Beach Human
Relation. Committee~ shall serve two (2) year-staqqered term.. The
initial .elections for, said committe. shall be those perlons holdinq
office upon the adoption of this re.olution with said ataqqered terms to
remain al are currently exist1nq and .1 were formed by the previous
adoption of Resolution numbers 92-81 and 28-82.
Section 5. That if a vacancy should occur on said "Delray Beach Human
Relation; Committee , said vacancy shall be filled by selection by the
~ person who selects members for each group (for example, selections of the
Mayor), and the said selection shall serve for the unexpired t~~'of the
m~mbers position which was vacant. If the Commission- doe.¡,notmak-e its
appointment within 30 days of receiPt of r"i~n~tiOn, the Committee will .
make its own recommendation if an appointment is not made.
,_ s.e~10~ 6 a ,That the City .counc11"of tbe CitY. of'Oelray Seach',
F lor idà: shall have .th. autho r 1ty to appco'le and rat'1fy all..elect ions to
member~hlp ,on" the "CI1'IY Seach Human R.la~ior'l'S 'Cc)'mmitt:é.~, and the' City
Council ~h&41 have the authority, with or without caUle, to remove any i
member of the ~oelray Seach Human Relations Committee" from said posi-
tion whenever a ma10rity of the City Council ~ote~ for ~~ch a removal. ,
, I
SAö~ion 7 a· That members of the "Oelray Sé~ch Ruman Relations'
Committ.ee" may be re-selected for one additional term so that no member:
of the ,"Deltay Seach Human Relatior,s Committee" shall serve more than
two 2-yea-r,' terms. '
,
Se~~ion a. That the "Oelray Beach Human Relations Co~~ittee",
in qeneral, is to be utilized as a forum for the hearing of the grie-
- "lances or complaints of all citizens of the City of Delray Beach,
Florida, and said "Oelray Seach Human Relations Committee" shall make
timely recommendations to the City Council of the City of Deltay Beach,
Florida concernin9 such 9r1.vanc.. or complaints.
Section 9., That. specifically. the "Delray Beach Human Relations
Committee: duties, powers authority, and functions include!h! followinR
(a) , That the "Oelray seach Ruman Relations Committee" shall
act only in an advisor:y capacity' to the City Council, and the
"Oeltay Seach Human Relations Conun1tte.'s~ actions and decisions
shall no't be bindinq on the City, the City Council, or the C~ty
Adm1nistrat;on.
'" Section 9 ("In That the "Delra;- Beach Human Relations Committee ~ shall act
as a mediator for grievances or complaints by citizens of, or persons who
own or operate businesses within the City of Delray Beach, Florida.
(C) That the "Del:ay Seach Human Relations Committee~ shall
consider only those matters that both (1) are of a broad City-wide
concern, and (2) sine. the "Oelray Seach Human Relations Committee"
is advisory only to the City Council, 0"1.' which the City Council
may have juri.diction or have authority to act.
""'-..; .. , '.
Section 9 (d) That the "Delray Beach Human Relations Committee" shall act
as a mediator of disputes or grievances and have the authority to conduct
independent research into any complaints received bv the Committee.
2 ~
. RES. NO. 60-86
.
Section.9(e) That the "Delray Beach Human Relations Committee" shall not
consider any matter which involves a gri~vance or dispute between employers and
employees, including those involving a city and its employees; 'nor shall the
"Delray Beach Human Relations Conunittee" specifically consider any matters which
. are in litigation or where there is a claim made. in anticipation of such litigati<
1ft sueh iR.'aR.a.. ai' 'IRawa &yaR !Ratt... a.. ù1Ràe. waniau IY e.ha~ S'. anaant.l
,
:lS9Q"~"". ...ft..~..~...._ "'~'1"irl.... ?T ÇÇ_illiIRe. \R. Ii:I_i"aa ~u.d_.....L...u4... And-
agkAgo,laQSg. tR..t tRg City .~.àiRistyat:ieR sftå City .\U.erftey'.5 Ofrh.a :thoU
p~e·.riQg .t~t\ll iRfn'MaUeR eRly I'8Sal'åiRl, al:i.&n lidSJ.U,u., _,;, ..1...1..."" wuLll :t.....h
mat~e~. RWJ8 B8eR fiRslly Yesel~8å tRyeusk tft~ S"Y8,~ista fðr~.
. ." to -
: I
.,
....'
. .
(f) That the ·Oel:ay Beach Human Relat10nl Committee- .hall
holeS meetlng. on a :eflull: ÞaI1., whichmeetif19'. In..11 Þe open to ,
the p~bllc, mlnute. shall b. kept. of. all lucþmeet1nq&. and Iny' .
. -
'.peclal meet lnq., wl th copie.: of sa14, 'lQic\&tè. ~. and',. aný., other !
teport., to be transmitted to the City Cou.rtcil IneS the City Manaqer
of the Clty of Oel:ay Seach, Plor1da within thirty (30) day. of
luch me.tlng.
(g) That the ·Oel:IY Seach Ruman Relation. Committee- i.
authorized and encou:aqed to review mltteravhich a:e the City-vide'l
concetn,' including but not limited to the relationlh1p. between'l
member. of the community It-large to identify any concern. and ¡
problem. of a City-vide balla, to sU9ge.t.. to the City Council \
certain specific pro9rams, 9uideline. and outlinel to add:es. the.e I
identifiable pr~blem., which pro9rams would serve to promote I
harmony and communication betveen all of the residents and citi-
. zen. of the City of Oe1ray Seach, Plorida, and to sponsor activi-
; tie. within the community which shall also serve to promote such
; harmony and communication.
(h) That memèerl o,f the "Oelray Seach Human Relations Commit-
tee~ shall serV. without compensation, but reasonable expenses
, shall t)e subject to reimbursement as provided by ~he City of Celray
, Seach's Charter and Code of Ordinance..
(1) That the "Oe1 ray Seach Human Re 1 at ions Commi t tee" shall
adopt by-law. which ahall .et forth the procesl for selection of
pre.iding officer. and' procedu~e. for the conduct of meetings
within the iuidlline. set forth 1n this resolution.
S8~~ið~ lOa Thlt this Resolution shall take effect upon its
adoption. .
PASSED ~ND ~COPT!t) in regular ses.ion on this the 28t~ day
of Octob.~ , 1985.
~L{2'~J ·
MAY 0 R
A'I"1'ESTs
,
.kJ ~1¿;~~~~A"
, ..
e
3
RES. NO. 60-1'
.
.
[IT' DF DELAA' IEA!:H
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 310 S,¡:, 1 st STREET. SUITE ~ DELR,.\ ì BE,·\CH, ¡,LORID.\;-'~';
'¡O' '2.. 3- ~1'lqn TrLECOPIER '¡¡)~':-~-+-,.'
t-1E~10RANDUM
:. (~ I~ f~ ; Jèi!lU.óry i 2, 1 9 9 r)
'T": ~ (> t;T CGmmi ssion
>'laLcnlm T, Bird, Interim City Manager
}'rùr:1 : ¡':crbert W, A, Thiele; city Attorney
S u tJ:i c~ c t~ : S-r-3.t.l),S '.JT P~yment For Appraisal Services For Laver's
~:"cn!1is Center Matter
Thi.s memOl'clflaUIr, is t.O once again request the status of the City
Aòninistration's scheduling, and the City Commission con-
sidering payment of the invoice we had received for appraisal
sE'lvices performed by Jesse Vance in regard to our activities
concerning potential acquisition of prop.erty at the Laver's
Tennis Resort Complex.
You may -re.call that this invoice had not been paid to date in
light of an objection raised by Commissioner William Andrews.
It would be appreciated if this matter could be scheduled for
an upcoming meeting for further discussion and direction to the
City Attorney's Office concerning payment of this long-pending
invoice.
$
HT:sh
,
cc: James W. Vance, Esq.
J¡,
1
I
:
-
.
(
~º
.
, ,_" '11.- I '-' '_II ¡ J. t._. c. It.L l"jO. 407 278 4755 Jan 19,90 11 :56 P (j)
J.e. ' '. J.. ,
V V
- Vance Real Estate Service
~
C [ T~' Of" DELRAY ßEAt:H, f't.O {JDA
,\ t ( q : I~ r' r b (' r ¡ W, .'\ . Tit i I,' " , 1': ~~ ( .
l l' t \' ,\ t I (I r n t' \' s ¡J I i ,'I'
JIO S .L I ~ l Street
$ u i t, c· 4
Ot'lray BC'fI('h, Florida jj483
¡ hi:' IS YCJlJI STATEMENT ---.,.-.-.-.---.-.-. .... ... - IJ!\1l:crtohc>r 1, IqiN ..'
P aYflH,;'r1( ~ (1ut' ¿1~ aqr~t'(1 "Opl,,,,,.! N. st!t! be 10.1
Preliminary res€arch, analysi.s !:I.nd vatu€! r.::tnge estimate
of approximately I J . 5 ;,¡cres of vacant land i,o LAVER"S NORTH
Subdivision, Delray Beach, r'IDrida as of current date.
Addie ionaLly, the value of the land and building improve-
ments $iCuated ther-eun was (l 1 ~H) E'stimated.
Total Ag X'e e'a::.:f:~ e . Due and Payable .. . .. .. . <of .. . .. . , . . .. .. .. . . . . . ... . .. . $5.000.00
Jesse B. Vance, Jr. , SKEAt SRPA, ASA
Real Estate Appraiser/Analyst/Reviewer
\
IB ~
REAL TO~;
itl '"'y""\r:"''''f ,............,....,...".1 0._..11"........4 r.._ I _...4....~...'... ~I.~..f. ·'·'·'r'\n ....'"',..":~ I.'~ _..
.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: MALCOLM T. BIRD
CITY MANAGER
FROM: lJ ~ATES D. CASTLE, P.E.
)1 ITY ENGINEER
DATE: JANUARY 19, 1990 ,
SUBJECT: SPACE ALLOCATION - NEW WING OF CITY HALL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In order to accomplish the goal of having all City
Departments in City Buildings, there are two basic options.
The following are given:
1. Community Improvement (including Building, Code
Enforcement and Community Development) move into the
new wing.
2. Utility Billing moves out of their trailer and into the
~ west 2/3 of the 1st floor of City Hall (vacated by
Community Improvement).
3. Planning moves out of their trailer and into the new
wing (see options below).
The basic options are as follows:
A.1. Engineering moves out of Public Works Complex and into
the new wing. \ ~
2. Planning moves into portion of new wing as originally
proposed.
3. City Attorney moves into Public Works Administration
Building.
4. Purchasing moves to the east 1/2 of the 1st floor,
south wing of City Hall (vacated by Community
Improvement).
5. Public Works Administration moves to area vacated by
Engineering design and inspection personnel at Complex.
. . ~sn
I
-
Space Allocation-New Wing of City Hall
January 19, 1990
Page Two
B. 1 . City Attorney moves into new wing.*
2. Engineering remains at Public Works Complex.
3. Planning moves to the area of the new wing originally
proposed for Engineering.
GDC:slg
* Development Service Director office taken over by City
Attorney.
~
\ \
. .
....~._....._.... ..-----..'...
.
£IT' DF DELAA' IEA£H
. 100 N,W, 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 4071243-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
FROM, ~MALCOLM T. BIRD, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP iTEM - USE VACANT SINGLE BUILDINGS
DATE: JANUARY 18, 1990
The Mayor has requested policy discussion concerning the use of vacant
buildings in zoning districts which no longer would allow the original
use. Policy discussion revolves around single use buildings that were
originally built and configured for a specific purpose but are no w
vacant and can no longer be utilized for that purpose due to zoning
restrictions. The principal areas of concern are in the downtown,
redevelopment areas and along the Federal Highway corridor. This item
is placed on the workshop agenda for discussion purposes and direction
for staff.
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
J
I
:-
.
'\vlb '6
.
:
£1" DF DELAA' IEA[H
. 100 N,W, 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243-7000
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM, ~MALCOLM T. BIRD, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT PROPOSED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
ROLL OFF SERVICE
DATE: JANUARY 19, 1990
We have received a proposed contract amendment from Waste Management to
provide Roll off container service for both compactor and open top
construction containers. This service is not now part of the contract
and customers have the option of shopping for this service. If the
contract amendment is approved, Waste Management would be the only
company allowed to provide the service. The prices listed appear to be
comparable to what is now being charged. Commission needs to address
the legal issue of this amendment with the City Attorney. Attached is
a copy of the proposed amendment with staff memo's from Lula Butler and
David Huddleston.
MTB:rab:kwg
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
.
,
f . \
. ¡' ~)q
,
. r "'v \,-, - "
, ¡
t
«
.
January 18, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: ROBERT A. BARCINSKI, ASST. CITY MANAGER/COMM SERVo 1
FROM: LULA C. BUTLER, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT~
RE : WASTE MANAGEMENT-PROPOSED CONTRACT AMENDMENT-ROLL OFF
CONTAINERS
Pursuant to your request we have reviewed the proposed Contract
amendment from Waste Management. Staff has very little knowledge
of this type of service. Since this type of service is offered
by other vendors, we would suggest that the City shop other
companies to get an idea of rate structures. From our telephone
poll of the customer list provided by Waste Management, there
seems to be a variety of rates from customers sampled. Several
of these customers mentioned that they "shop" whenever Waste
Management tries to increase their rates.
The proposed amendment appears to be adequate should the City
wishes to entertain the proposal. The results of our telephone
survey are as follows:
COMPACTOR CUSTOMERS:
Rates varied from $355 to $370 per month, plus pick up and
disposal costs. One customer reported their cost to be $195 for
pick up plus a per pound charge that runs about $115 per month.
Another reported a flat fee of $355 to empty twice per month.
OPEN TOP CUSTOMERS:
Customers reported rates ranging from $265 to $365 per month for
the pull containers. Two customers reported rental fees of $25
and $75 each.
All of the persons polled stated they were satisfied with the
service being provided by Waste Management. I assume that should
the City amend the contract to include this service, this would
prohibit other vendors from servicing customers wi thin the City
limits.
b:WMcont.RAB/LY3
{
,
f .
,.
. I
¡
f
.
. MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert A. Barcinski ..
Assistant City Manager/Community Services
FROM: C David M. Huddleston
) Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Waste Management--Proposed Contract Amendment--Roll-Off
DATE: January 19, 1990
The proposal by Waste Management raises the following issues:
l. The legal ramifications of exclusive franchise for this should be
addressed by the City Attorney's office.
.
2. Do we need to go out for Request for Proposal or sealed competitive
bids?
3. The absence of sealed competitive bids may not guarantee the local
residents the lowest pricing and/or best service.
4. The franchise fee paid to the City as proposed by Waste Management
would not be subject to competitive bids and, therefore, it would be
difficult to ascertain if the Waste Management proposal would generate
the highest revenues to the City.
5. The City could establish, by ordinance, various standards and
qualifications and allow one or more vendors to provide the service.
DMH/sam
. .
¡
,
I '.
.. r
t
,
-
Wastû Management of Palm Beach ~ A \'10", M"ag.m'o, Comp.""
I WMI .sorvl';L' Confer
'õ :' " flo-,d
".\'1_':-' ¡)<,~": E3(-:(.:("~ r¡8·r~C(: 33411
, ~ ~; ~ ,',J . :~. :-;
-:: J.-::3.-) :~~.2
January 8, 1990
Mayor Doak S. Campbell III
City o£Delray Beach
100 North West 1st Avenue
Delray Beach~' ~lorida 33433
Dear Mayor èampbell:
You and I have shared some mutual interest in pursuing the
regulation' of Rolloff solid waste collection in Delray Beach.
As you are aware, Rolloff equipment includes a specialized tilt-
frame collection vehicle used to pick up and transport large (20
to 40 cubic yard) refuse containers to a solid waste disposal
facility (landfill). "Open-top" Rolloff containers are normally
utilized on construction sites,' ånd "Closed" Rolloff boxes are
normally used in conjunction with a compaction mechanism by large
retailers, warehouses, etc.
Waste Management desires to seethe City, commission expand the
scope of our Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Agreement to
include all Rolloff collection services. Such a contract amendment
would benefit the City by insuring that all refuse collection
activities in the City are properly controlled, including levels
of service, safety and insurance requirements, and price. The city
would also benefit through the receipt of royalties (franchise
fees) generated by Rolloff activities.
I've taken the liberty of preparing a representative sample of ten
customer locations in Delray Beach currently ~eceiving Rolloff
service (two compaction accounts and eight construction accounts) .
If your office would be able to contact these customers and
determine the rates they are currently being charged for service,
we would then be able to negotiate equitable rates for all of the
Rolloff services in Delray Beach.
Additionally, I've attached for your review sample language which
could be used to amend our current contract. (Please note that
hauling rates included in the body of this language are
"tentative")
:\ D,VISion of Waste Management, Inc of Florlc1a
. .
,
f ~)q
.
¡ !
t I
'!
. - ' @ A Wast. "anagomont Compo"
,
Mayor Doak S. Campbell III
Proposal for Rqlloff Services
January 8, 1990
Page 2,rof ,~,
I would appr.ciate whatever help you might be able to offer towards
the adoption of this cont~act a.endment, including recommendations
for exploratory conversations with other members of the city
commission and/or Municipal Staff.
Best regards,
du¿~~ .
Michael P. ,O'Brien
General Manager
",' '"
MPO:pb
Enclosure
\
.
. .
I
!
f 1,..
. r
t
;
~
Waste Management of Palm Beach (i) A W'>le Moo,gemen' Company
a"WMI S8r'/ice Center
':~') P'''H I~cë:s
',\'"r;~ f) 1n Bedên, Florida 33411
.:: ~, -~: ::-:~:' 2;)
..: - ~~\'3-S322
"
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO
SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING
COLLECTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
, ( 'J ·.i . ) ',j-," \,:;~ . c AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PALM BEACH
Whereas th&City desires to more completely regulate all aspects
of solid waste and recycling activities which are conducted in the
corporate limits of the City; and
", "
Whereas theèity- currently has'1\o method to insure the residents
of the City that independent contractors performing Rolloff
collection services in the City are performing to acceptable
standards of service, maintaining adequate levels of insurance
coverage, committing adequate resources to the hiring and training
of collection employees who exhibit responsible attitudes towards
highway safety; and, that pricing structures for such services are
both reasonable and fairly administered; and
,
Whereas the City and Waste Management of Palm Beach have previously
contracted for the provision of numerous other sol id waste and
recycling collection services in the City; and
Therefore, the City and Waste Management agree to expand the scope
of solid waste and recycling collection services included in their
current contract to include all Rolloff collection activities; and
Therefore, effective April 1, 1990, all such activities within the
City shall be governed as follows:
1- This amendment shall be inclusive of all solid waste and
recycling collection activities with the City which
utilize tilt-frame "Rolloff" hoist equipment.
2 " Customer installations using compaction Rolloff storage
containers shall be regulated as follows:
.
-1-
A DIvISion ot Waste Management. Inc of Florida
. .
I
f ...
. r
¡
t
..
~
~ A Waste Management Company
. - ' ~'
'"",J
2.1 Equipment may be owned by the customer or leased
from the franchised hauler or any other source
provided that the equipment is compatible for use
L, with the franchised hauler's solid waste collection
vehicles. charges for equipment purchases or
rentals shall not be regulated by the city.
However, the city Manager shall reserve the
right to establish or arbitrate rental rates in
the event that any customer so requests
2.2 Compactors shall be serviced (emptied) on an
"on call" basis and the franchised hauler
shall be required to provide service within
twenty-four hours of the service request .
(excluding Sundays). However, in all instances
in which rollof~ compactors are used for the
accumulation of putriscible wastes, service shall
be scheduled no less,than two (2) times'per week.
2.3 The franchised hauler shall invoice rolloff
compactor services at the rate of $95 per load
plus disposal fees. The franchised hauler shall
be required to include copies of actual disposal
tickets (landfill charges) along with monthly
customer invoices.
3. Customer installations using open-top Rolloff storage
containers shall be regulated as follows:
3.1 containers shall be leased from the franchised
hauler at the rate of $50.00 each per month.
The franchised hauler shall be responsible for
'insuring that ,containers are maintained in good
condition. No additional container service charges
(delivery changes or removal charges) shall be
permitted under the agreement.
3.2 Containers shall be serviced (emptied) on an
"on call" basis and the franchised hauler shall be
required to provide service wi thin twenty-four hours
of the service request (excluding Sundays).
-2-
.
,
I '~
. r
¡
f
..
. . ~. A Wa~. Managem"" Company
~
.
3.3 The franchised hauler shall invoice open-top rolloff
services at the rate of $125 per load plus disposal
fees. The franchised hauler shall be required to
include copies of actual disposal tickets (landfill
charges) along with monthly customer invoices.
4. Non-disposal (hauling) charges shall be increased annually
by the percentage of ct:hange in the Consumer ,Price Index
over the past twelve months; ,
5. The City shall receive a franchise fee of $2.00 (two
dollars) for each Rolloff load hauled within the city.
Franchise fees will be remitted to the City on a quarterly
basis.
\
-3-
.
,
I .
,
. f
I
,
..
'. '! a s t e r .1 êt n ,ì I:} t~ ITl e r II 0 f P a I tí1 ß e .) c n ~, A Waste Managemf'~\ C0mpany
,." V¡ r,,1 I S·.;' . 1,-,-, ·'~>::r;~¡:··
;"';~ ",C ;c:-,-; ~-,
_....~, ~,- -' ..
'''':¡=:S~ ~-; ,; ,,, ~ :':',., ~:.,:>,-.: _ ',:2..: 1 Î
. -, -- -,., .-
"
-. -..
... '_h"
SAMPLING OF CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
ROLLOFF CUSTOMERS
COMPACTOR CUSTOMERS
Harbour I sEdge , ' , . ,,'"
401 East Linton Boulev~rd
Delray Beach, Florida 33483
Contact: Mike Delgrosso
'Phone: 407-272-7979 -,
Container type: 30 yard Compactor
Delray Beach Mall #2', ' "
-. .~ "
,1668 South Federal Highway
Delray Beach, Florida 3348Y
Contact: Kathleen Muliken
Phone: 407-272-1781
Coritainer type: 30 yard c~mpaètor.
OPEN-TOP CUSTOMERS
Felner Construction
4723 West Atlantic Avenue #9
Delray Beach, Florida 33445
Contact: Barry Felner
Phone: 407-495-8467 ~
container type: 20 yard
stinson Head
1450 South Dixie Highway
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Contact: Mike Savage
Phone: 407-427-5800
container type: 20 yard
II Ljl/ISion Of Waste Management, Inc, of Florida
(
,
f '~
P
. r
í
;
"
-
~ A W.... """"- C""'pany
- . ~
PAGE 2 of 3 ,
Sampling of City of Delray Beach
Rolloff Customers
OPEN-TOP CUSTOMERS-(continued)
Floral Acres ,.., 1'. i
6250 West Atlantic Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33445
Contact: Beverly
Phone: 305-499-2655 ~
container type: 40 yard (": ,.
" .
, ' ..' .
~
Palers Development
5070 North AlA suite 201 , ,
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
Contact: Donna Prickett
Phone: 407-234-4846
Container type: 20 yard
Clairmont Enterprises
615 Egret Circle
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Contact: Manny Skinner
Phone: 407-272-4126
container type: 20 yard ~
Master Gardner
4028 Germantown Road
Delray Beach, Florida 33445
Contact: Lawson Turner
Phone: 305-395-1985
Container type: 20 yard
. .
"
f ...
. r
t
~
, , . ~: A W.... Management Compan,
~.
. PAGE, 3 of 3
Sampling of City of Delray Beach
Rolloff Customers
.1
OPEN-TOP CUSTOMERS-(continued)
,_. ~ _.'" '0 a' I ".. -,
-,
. ; ~
Hykel Enterprises
1401 Forum Way suite 402
West Palm Beach, Florida 3~Q1
Contact: Linda Kaslowitz
Phone: 407-478-9600
container type: 20 yard
Florida Classic Homes
4 Ohio Road
Lake Worth, Florida 33467
Contact: Laurie
Phone: 407-965-2000
container type: 20 yard
\
( .
I
f '.
Þ
. r
"
¡
t
~
M E M 0 RAN DUM RECEIVËD
JAN 1 8
90
TO: ROBERT BARCINSKI, ASST. CITY MANAGER COMM.SVC
S. GROUp
FROM: MARYLOU STROLLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OlD RE: WORKSHOP AGENDA ITEMS FOR 1/24/90
SCHOOl DATE: JANUARY 19, 1990
·SOUAR(· ---
THERE ARE TWO ITEMS WE NEED TO ADDRESS ON THE WORKSHOP
FOR TUESDAY I JANUARY 20.
1 ) OLD SCHOOL SQUARE STREET LIGHTS: THE ARCHITECTS AND
OLD SCHOOL SQUARE FEEL THE SAME STREET LIGHTS SHOULD BE
CARRIED FROM ATLANTIC AVENUE THROUGH THE OLD SCHOOL
SQUARE SITE, WITH ONE MODIFICATION; REMOVING THE METAL
STRIP AROUND THE GLOBE. ALTHOUGa THESE LIGHTS WILL HAVE
TO BE MAINTAINED BY ass, WE FEEL THE ADDITIONAL COSTS
ARE JUSTIFIED AGAINST THE OBVIOUS "COLONIAL" DESIGN OF
THE FPL-FURNISHED LIGHTS, WHICH DO NOT FIT WITHIN THE
ATLANTIC AVENUE/OSS THEME.
2) SITE PLAN APPROVAL: THE ARCHITECTS ARE PROCEEDING
WITH THE FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS FOR THE FINAL PHASE OF
THE PROJECT (1926 BUILDING & THEATRE, GYMNASIUM AND SITE
WORK. ) THE MODEL IS CURRENTLY RESIDING IN CITY HALL
LOBBY AND WE NEED A CONSENSUS & DIRECTION FROM THE OWNER
(CITY COMMISSION) TO PROCEED WITH FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS
(CURRENTLY PLANS IN P&Z. HPB APPROVED ON JANUARY
19, 1990)
\ \
Old School Squara,lnc.
Post Office Box 1897
51 North SwInton Älll!nue
Delray Btðch, florIda 33447
(407) 243-7922
Z-Ø·d ~:2 : t t .1.I;;:IS 06-6t-Nl;;:lr
. . tdS I to
. -.--
.
.
MEMORANDUM
. TO: Robert A. Barcinski
Asst. City Manager/Community Services
FROM: William H. Greenwood
Director of Public Utilities
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITIES BOND ISSUE
PUBLIC UTILITIES PROJECT NUMBER 90-21
DATE: January 19, 1990
Suggested projects to be included in proposed FY90 and FY93
Revenue Water and Sewer Bond Issue are as follows:
Project 1990 Proposed 1993 Proposed Total
Number Revenue Bond Revenue Bond Revenue Bonds
90-43 Water Treatment Plant High Lime Softening Recarbonation
and O,zonation (Water Treatment Plant Master Plan)
$8,500,000 $ - 0 - $8,500,000
90-17 SCRWTDB Odor Control, Upgrade Electrical and Effluent
Pump Station (SCRWTDB Master Plan)
$5,635,000 $ - 0 - $5,635,000
90- 5 Master Sewage Lift Station Conversion (Parks & Public
Utilities Comprehensive Plan)
$1,360,000 $ - 0 - \ $1,360,000
90-24 Master Plan Water Distribution Piping (Water
Distribution Master Plan)
$1,000,000 $3,962,000 $4,962,000
90-44 Beach Tank (Water Distribution Master Plan)
$ - 0 - $ 800,000 $ 800,000
90-45 Public Utilities Complex (Public Utilities
Comprehensive Plannin)
. $ - 0 - $1,200,000 $1,200,000
. .
I
, . J
(
. rW~ I I
¡ j
t
,
90-52 North Elevated Tank
$ - 0 - $1,400,000 $1,400,000
90-53 Enclave Water and Sanitary Sewer Line Extensions
(City's Comprehensive Plan)
$2,085,000 $ 605,000 $2,690,000
90-54 R&R to Wastewater Treatment Plant (City's Comprehensive
Plan)
$ 614,000 $ 409,000 $1,023,000
90-55 Well Rehabilitation (City's Comprehensive Plan)
$ 183,000 $ - 0 - $183,000
90-56 Monitoring Wells (City's Comprehensive Plan)
$ 250,000 $ - 0 - $ 250,000
Sub-Total $19,627,000 $8,376,000 $28,003,000
Estimated 1984 427,619 $ - 0 - $ - 0 -
Bond Deficit
Estimated 1983 (110,000) $ - 0 - $ - 0 -
Bond Surplus
TOTAL: $19,989,619 $8,376,000 $28,365,619
The two major projects to be undertaken by the City are the
following:
\
o 90-43 - Water Treatment Plant, High Lime Softening,
Recarbonation and Ozonation with an estimated
project cost of $8,500,000.
The existing process consists of sodium aluminate coagulation
followed by dual-media filtration and the use of chloramines for
disinfection. This results in a hard water marginally meeting
the color secondary maximum contaminate level (MCL) for 15 color
units (CU). The existing operation is handicapped because it
needs to balance sufficient color removal through the addition of
the weak oxidant chloramines while maintaining trihalomethanes
(THM) levels below the current MCL of 100 mg/L.
~
.
~
.
,
.
The switch to lime . softening will provide the Delray Beach
citizens with improved water from both a hardness and color
standpoint. Indeed, lime softening will result in water hardness
meeting the AWWA goal of 80 mg/L as CaC03 and operational flexi-
bility to lower the color by increasing the lime doses. This
practice is being successfully performed by most plants through-
out south Florida. By providing a lime dose of around 200 mg/L,
the existing coagulation process will be improved to result in
consistent color values in the coagulated water while maintaining
the same chloramination (disinfection) practices and thus keeping
the THM values below the current MCL of 100 mg/L.
Furthermore, the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
( SDWA) will result in more stringent requirements for disinfec-
tion while lowering the MCL for THMs and other disinfection
by-products. Lime softening is a positive first step toward
meeting those future regulations. An alternate disinfectant,
ozone, may be needed in conjunction with lime softening to meet
the future SDWA requirements.
0 90-17 - SCRWTDB, Odor Control, Electrical Upgrade and
Effluent Pump Station with an estimated total
project cost of $12,288,000, Delray's fifty
percent share being $6,144,000. However, Delray
has been financing the associated engineering
costs from the 1984 Revenue Bond thus decreasing
estimated future expenditures to $5,635,000.
The SCRWTDB approved advertising'this project for
bids on January 19, 1990.
Estimated bond issue and resultant annual debt service costs
based upon a 20 year issue at 6.969 interest rate is as follows:
1990 1993 TOTAL
Bond Bond Revenue
Issue Issue Bonds
\
Net Bond Proceeds $19,989,619 $ 8,376,000 $28,365,619
Total Bond Issue 22,788,166 9,552,000 32,336,806
(1.14 )
Average Annual $ 2,142,000 $ 898,000 3,040,000
Debt Service
(0.094)
Deduct for FY89/90 ( 600,000) ( 600,000)
Sewer Rate
Net Average Annual $ 1,542,000 898,000 $ 2,440,000
Debt Service
.
.
I '.
t
. ,
,
,
«
Increased Cost/ - .
Dwelling/Yr
(32,092) $ 48.00 $ 28.00 $ 76.00
Increased Cost/ $ 4.00 $ 2.33 $ 6.33
Dwelling/Mo ,
i(..Æ- - 1/ fJ~ ......J
illiam H. Greenwood
WHG: smw
cc: Malcolm Bird, Interim City Manager
David Huddleston, Finance Director
Yvonne Kincaide, Budget Director
Becky O'Connor, Treasurer
Mary Ann Young, Project Cost Accountant
.
~
.
I
, .
~
. f
,
f
.