Loading...
12-08-92 DECEMBER 8. 1992 A Regular meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Thomas E. Lynch in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 P.M., Tuesday, December 8, 1992. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Jay Alperin Commissioner Ken Ellingsworth Commissioner Armand Mouw Commissioner David Randolph Mayor Thomas E. Lynch Absent - None Also present were - City Manager David T. Harden and City Attorney Jeffrey S. Kurtz 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Ralph Nygard, Barwick Road Baptist Church. 3, The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 4, The City Attorney requested that Item No. 9.A.A., Settlement of Prescott v. City of Delray Beach, be added to the Regular Agenda. In addition the City Attorney noted that Item No. 8.F. on the Consent Agenda, "Vehicle Trade with the City of Boynton Beach", should include appropriate hold-harmless agree- ments and that it be noted that no warranties are being provided with respect to those vehicles. The City Manager stated that he had received a request to delay Item No. 9.B., "Request to Eliminate Public Parking", until January 1993. Mr. Randolph moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. .~, Approval of Minutes. Dr. Alperin moved for approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1992, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingswoth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 6. Procl~m~iQn$. 6,A. Mayor Lynch read and presented a proclamation to Mr. Perry DonFrancisco, Chairman of the Holiday Toy Drive Committee, supporting the Annual Toy Drive - November 27, 1992 to December 18, 1992. 7, Presentations. None. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were considered by the Commission as the Consent Agenda: 8.A Extension of Banking Services Agreement. The Commis- sion is to consider approval of extending the Banking Services Agreement with Barnett Bank until September 30, 1993. Approval is recommended. 8.B $gcond Amendmgn~ to the Subsidi~gd Load Agreement. The Commission is to consider approval of the Second Amendment to the Subsidized Loan Agreement between the City, Community Redevelop- ment Agency, and First Union National Bank. Approval is recom- mended. 8.C. Waiver of Landscape Requirements. The Commission is to consider approval of the request for waiver of the boundary landscape requirements for Lot 1, Ninth Street Associates. Approval is recommended. 8.D. Final Pla$ Approval. The Commission is to consider approval of the final plat for the replat of Lot 1, Ninth Street Associates. Approval is recommended. 8.E. Final Plat. Approval. The Commission is to consider approval of the final plat for the replat of the S.D. Spady Elementary School property. Approval is recommended. 8,F. Vehicle Trade With the City of Boynton Beach. The Commission is to consider approval to authorize the trade of a 1987 Fire Rescue Rig, currently slated for auction, to the City of Boynton Beach for a 1988 Ford Econoline Van. Approval is recommended. 8.G. Resolution No. 133-92: Resolution 133-92, assessing the costs for abatement action necessary to remove nine (9) junked or abandoned vehicles from properties located within the City, is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. The caption of Resolution No. 133-92 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR -2- 12/08/92 ABATING NUISANCES BY REMOVING JUNKED AND/OR ABANDONED VEHICLES WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING SAID COSTS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC- TIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ON ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLUTION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF NOTICE OF LIEN. (Copy of Resolution No. 133-92 is on file in the offi- cial Resolution Book) 8.H, Ratification of Lieutenants' Contract/Fraternal Order D~ The Commission is to consider ratification of the Lieutenants' Contract with the Fraternal Order of Police. Ap- proval is recommended. 8.I. Awar~ Qf Bids and Contracts, 1. Windscreens for Tennis Center - Premier Tennis Courts of Florida in the amount of $11,660 with funding from General Construction Fund - Tennis Center (Account No. 334-4145-572-63.41). 2. Housing Rehabilitation - 813 S.W. 5th Avenue - Intercontinental Construction Corporation in the amount of $20,000 with funding from CDBG - Housing Rehab (Account No. 118-1963-554-49.19). Dr. Alperin moved approval for approval of the Consent Agenda, as modified, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. (Before roll call Mr. Mouw went on record as abstaining from the vote for Item No. 8.A.) Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. REGULAR AGENDA At this point, Mayor Lynch requested that Item No. 9.C. on the Regular Agenda be moved forward. Resolution No. 174-92, Resolution No. 134-92, naming the Boy Scout Hut on Lake Ida Road in honor of Michael J. Machek, Jr., is before the Commission for consideration. The caption of Resolution No. 134-92 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, NAMING THE BOY SCOUT HUT ON LAKE IDA ROAD THE "MICHAEL J. -3- 12/08/92 MACHEK, JR. SCOUT HUT" IN RECOGNITION OF HIS DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERI- CA AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. (Copy of Resolution No. 134-92 is on file in the official Resolution Book) The City Attorney read the resolution. Mr. Ellingsworth moved for adoption of Resolution No. 134-92, seconded by Mr. Mouw. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.A,A, Settlement of Prescott v. City of Delray Beach. The City Attorney explained that the Prescott case is the challenge to the City's ordinance regulating flags. Mr. Prescott owns the Shell Station at the southeast corner of Con- gress and Atlantic Avenues. The City Attorney recommends settle- ment of this matter upon payment of Mr. Prescott's attorneys fees in the amount of $3,000. In exchange, Mr. Prescott, through his attorney, will dismiss this case. The City Attorney also advised the Commission that the City has not reached complete agreement with Mr. Prescott as to a proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance will withstand Con- stitutional muster; it ties the limitation on the number of flags to the area of the parcel. It is anticipated that this ordinance will be before the Commission at the first meeting in January, 1993, for first reading. The City Attorney further stated that one of the chang- es he will be recommending is that the exception for holidays be much more narrowly defined. Mr. Randolph questioned if the proposed ordinance would apply to flags only, or banners and the like. The City Attorney responded that this settlement will take care of this lawsuit and does not mean that Mr. Prescott or anybody else may not attack the proposed revised ordinance. The revised ordinance will cover banners and flags and the wrapping paper (bunting). Mayor Lynch questioned if the proposal was approximate- ly one flag per 15,000 square feet. The City Attorney stated that it would be three (3) flags regardless of size and if in excess of an acre, one additional flag for every 15,000 square feet. Dr. Alperin questioned what specific items Mr. Prescott was rejecting. The City Attorney replied that Mr. Prescott's view is that the City cannot limit the flags in any way. -4- 12/08/92 Mr. Randolph expressed his concern that the City has not obtained Mr. Prescott's approval of the settlement. The City Attorney advised that Mr. Prescott's attorney had indicated he would recommend the settlement to his client. Further, Mr. Kurtz had expected Mr. Prescott's attorney to be in attendance at this meeting. Mr. Mouw moved for acceptance of the settlement offer. The motion died for lack of a second. In response to a question from the Mayor, the City Attorney stated that if the reason for the rejection is that the Commission would prefer to wait to see if Mr. Prescott or his attorney are in attendance later in the meeting before consider- ing the matter further, it would be appropriate to have a motion to table at this time. If the reason is that the offer is unac- ceptable, then direction should be given to the City Attorney to go back and renegotiate or continue on with the litigation. Mr. Randolph moved to table this item until later in the meeting, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed by a 5 to 0 vote. 9.A. Review of Appealable Land Development Actions of Vari- ous Boards. The Commission is to consider accepting the actions and decisions made by the Planning and Zoning Board, Site Plan Review and Appearance Board and the Historic Preservation Board during the period November 23, 1992 through December 4, 1992. Dr. Alperin moved that the report be received and filed, seconded by Mr. Mouw. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes. 9,B. Request to Eliminate Public Parking, This item was postponed at the request of the affected parties. 9.D. Rgsolution NO, 137-92. Resolution No. 137-92, request- ing financial and technical assistance from the Metropolitan Planning Organization to prepare the City's Transportation Mobil- ity Element, is before the Commission for consideration. The caption of Resolution No. 137-92 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, SEEKING PAR- TICIPATION AND FUNDING FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPC) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING A TRANS- PORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT (TME). (Copy of Resolution No. 137-92 is on file in the offi- cial Resolution Book) 5 12/08/92 Dr. Alperin moved for adoption of Resolution No. 137-92, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.E. Authorization to Proceed with Market Analysis/Silver Terrace. The Commission is to consider granting authorization to staff to proceed with the market analysis pertaining to the Silver Terrace project. The City Manager stated that the City was looking for some expert advice on which types of uses would be marketable in this particular area of the City. Mayor Lynch questioned if the Planning and Zoning Board or Community Redevelopment Agency could look at this area and make recommendations on what they would like to see there. In response, Mr. Kovacs stated that it has been reviewed. This request is for expanded market data and a market analysis. Mr. Ellingsworth questioned if the property identified as "Conservation" was publicly owned or if an impact fee will be used to acquire the property. Mr. Kovacs stated that the proper- ty is not publicly owned and there is no impact fee to acquire the property. Depending on which scope is taken, it would be a part of the total land acquisition or integrated into the devel- opment project. Mr. Randolph questioned what the next step would be? Mr. Kovacs stated that the market analysis would be a "step in the door", with the next step being the mapping out of an acqui- sition and repayment program and creating a Pocket CRA. Dr. Alperin moved approval of the market analysis for Silver Terrace, expending up to $10,000, with the caveat that the work be completed within a reasonable time frame, that being identified as by April 1, 1993; seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Mr. Kovacs advised that with the approval of the allo- cation, staff would go through the RFQ process for commencement of the market analysis. 9.F. Ordinance No. 63-92. Ordinance No. 63-92, adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment 92-2 pursuant to the provisions of the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act", Florida Statutes Sections 163.3161 through 163.3243, inclusive, is before the Commission for consideration on Second and FINAL Reading. Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval. The public hearing for this ordinance was held and closed at the December 1, 1992 regular meeting. -6- 12/08/92 The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 63-92: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 92-2 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE "LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT", FLORIDA STATUTES SECTIONS 163.3161 THROUGH 163.3243, INCLUSIVE; INCLUD- ING AMENDMENTS TO THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE PLAN, TRAFFIC ELEMENT, HOUS- ING ELEMENT, COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVE- MENTS ELEMENT, BASED UPON AN ASSESSMENT OF TASKS ACCOMPLISHED, AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES AND NEW INFORMATION; INCLUDING CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; INCLUDING CITY BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS PURSUANT TO ANNEXATIONS; INCLUD- ING AMENDMENTS TO PART IV, "REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION"; AND INCLUDING TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT, TRAFFIC ELEMENT, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENTS; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ENTITLED "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 92-2" AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A REPEALER CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Kovacs stated that there were no substantial chang- es made to the Objectives and Policies. These changes were in response to comments made by Florida Department of Transporta- tion. Dr. Alperin moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 63-92 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9,G, Lake Ida Median. The Commission is to consider author- izing the City Manager to meet with County representatives re- garding the County's latest proposal for cost sharing and the design revisions. In response to a question from Mayor Lynch, the City Manager stated that he had spoken with Commissioner Mary McCarty and Commissioner Aaronson on this matter. He has a meeting with Commissioner Lee next week; she should take the lead on this as it is in her territory. -7- 12/08/92 Dr. Alperin moved for approval, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Change Order No. 10/Elkins Constructors. Inc. The Commission is to consider approving a change order in the amount of $10,381.25 to the contract with Elkins Constructors, Inc. for miscellaneous changes in the Water Treatment Plant Lime Softening Conversion project; with funding from 1991 Water and Sewer Reve- nue Bond - Capital Outlay Buildings (Account No. 447-5164-536-60.31). The City Manager stated that the recommendation is to approve $6,976.00. The contractor is requesting $3,405.25 to cover increased cost for roofing material. The City Manager and staff are not recommending approval of that portion of the re- quest. Mr. Mouw moved for approval of Change Order #10 to the contract with Elkins Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $6,976.00, and that the request for additional funds in the amount of $3,405.25 to cover increased cost for roofing material be rejected; seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Com- mission voted as follows: Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Mayor Lynch inquired if a consultant or engineering firm provided the specifications for this project. Mr. Greenwood, Director of Environmental Services, stated that this project was designed by CH2M Hill. Mayor Lynch stated that if the consultant or engineer gave the City the specifications and they were wrong and the City paid for those specifications, it should be charged back to the consultant. In response, the City Manager stated there are several items of this nature which have come up in the course of this project. At the end of the project, when it is known what they all are, staff will sit down with the engineers and decide what they should pay. Mayor Lynch stated that he felt CH2M Hill should be approached right now; if they gave the City the wrong information and do not want to be held responsible, they should be taken off the bid list for the city. The City Manager stated that CH2M Hill has Errors and Omissions insurance to cover these kinds of things. -8- 12/08/92 Mr. Greenwood then went through each item contained in the scope of service for the change order. Mayor Lynch requested that the motion be amended to include that the City go back to CH2M Hill and ask that they pay $5,870 for the installation of conduit and wiring and $2,700 for the door. The City Attorney reminded the Commission that this particular agenda item deals with the contract with Elkins Con- structors, the contractor for the project, not the consultant or engineer. The motion was so amended to approve payment of the change order in the amount of $6,976.00 to Elkins Constructors, but to pursue appropriate reimbursement from the engineer. At this point the roll was called to the amended mo- tion. At this point, the time being 7:00 P.M., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10.A, Ordinance No. 64-92: Ordinance No. 64~92, amending the Waterford/Delint SAD in conjunction with the Builder's Square proposal, is before the Commission for consideration on Second and FINAL Reading. Prior to consideration of passage of this ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time. Planning and Zoning Board recommends denial. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 64-92: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RESTATING AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 79-84, AND ORDINANCES 96-87, AND 68-89, WHICH PREVIOUSLY AMENDED ORDINANCE 79-84, PERTAINING TO AN 86.423 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, PRESENTLY ZONED SAD (SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT) AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINTON BOULEVARD BETWEEN LINDELL BOULEVARD AND INTERSTATE-95, SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST; MODIFYING THE ALLOW- ABLE USES OF LAND, APPROVING A REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, DELETION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH HAVE BEEN MET OR ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY, DETERMINING THE VESTED STATUS OF THE WATERFORD SAD, PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER, A SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compli- -9- 12/08/92 ance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The City Attorney reported that at the last Commission meeting, the Commission requested that staff explore with the developer the possibility of connecting S.W. 10th Avenue from Linton Boulevard north to S.W. 10th Street. A meeting was held on December 8, 1992. A memorandum was provided to the Commission which was prepared by David Kovacs, Planning Director, outlining the developer's proposal. Both parties concur that the $278,000 (developer's approximate calculation) of what the County impact fees for the Builder's Square project would be, should be used for that roadway extension project. The Planning Director gave an overview of the develop- er's proposal with regard to mitigation of traffic congestion. The objective is to decrease north/south traffic signal time, so that there is more east/west flow and also to take as much traf- fic as possible away from the intersection of Wallace Drive and Linton Boulevard and move it to the intersection of 10th Avenue and Linton Boulevard. To get to that objective, staff proposes a two lane extension of S.W. 10th Avenue from Linton Boulevard north to S.W. 10th Street be constructed with an expanded inter- section at 10th and Linton. Mr. Kovacs stated that none of this project is eligible for funding from the Decade of Excellence Bond Issue and funding will have to come from somewhere else. Acquisition of rights- of-way include 13,000 feet of Wallace Drive, 13,000 from Boos and Haggerty (Groves), 195 feet from property owner at HRS property, and an additional 175 feet on the west, 310 feet from four sepa- rate property owners, a 75'x 100' parcel and two 90'x 100' parcels. An additional component of this project is llth Street which requires acquisition of rights-of-way from Haggerty and acquisition of a lot which contains a rental housing development. Phase II of the improvements include closing off Wallace Drive at its approach to 10th Street. Mr. Kovacs explained that the developer's proposal is to give the City $212,000 for roadway improvements; any costs beyond that will be the City's expense. Any cost savings will go to Phase II construction, which could reduce Decade of Excellence expenditures. He also stated that the County may require the closure of Wallace Drive to Linton Boulevard in order to get the $278,000 Road Impact Fee. As the City is seeking road impact credits from the County, the developer suggests that the City seek repayment of previously paid funds by the theater, Wendy's, Arby's, Checkers, Taco Bell and Tire Kingdom. This may provide another $90,000 to $100,000 that can be put into the project. Further, Mr. Kovacs stated there is a resolution coming before the City Commission which asks the County for the $278,000 in impact fees. That resolution would need to be modified to ask for any funds which have been deposited in the Impact Fee program -10- 12/08/92 for the last year from businesses that are directly along Linton Boulevard. The City Attorney addressed the timing sequence of the project. The developer has indicated that they need to move forward as quickly as possible since the footers for Builder's Square must be in by February 1st in order for the developer to meet their commitments. The building would be turned over by June 1st, with Builder's Square doing most of the interior work themselves. Secondly, the proposal that staff made to the developer was that they be responsible for design and construc- tion of S.W. 10th Avenue from Linton Boulevard to that point of transition on S.W. 10th Street where the Decade of Excellence project begins; in addition going up and making the llth Street linkage between 10th and Wallace Drive. The developer's position is that he is willing to do that, but he is not willing to assume the risk of higher design and construction costs. Staff feels that the $490,000 is going to be able to cover that expense, but recommends that if it turns out to be $510,000 for that defined roadway that it be the developer's expense and not the City's. The City Attorney stated that in addition there are major contingencies with Mr. Boos, the Haggerty Group and Mr. Wallace. There is nothing in hand, but the City would be looking for a monetary contribution or, in the alternative, construction of roadway improvements from Mr. Wallace in addition to the right-of-way. It is staff's recommendation that the City solidi- fy some of these contingencies prior to granting the absolute approvals. The City Attorney further recommended that the 8278,000 from the County be approved and dedicated to this project prior to allowing the developer to pull building permits. That presents the applicant with a time frame within which to work. Speaking from the public were the following: (1) A representative of Tropic Palms Homeowners Asso- ciation who expressed his concerns about the traffic impact this project would have on Lindell Boulevard and his feeling that that aspect had not been addressed. (2) Ms. Helen Coopersmith who asked that the City Commission listen to the people and the overwhelming public opinion with respect to this project. (3) Mr. Gerald DeFoe, who expressed his opposition to the project, stating that there are too many "if's" involved. (4) Mr. Ray Masters, resident of Sherwood Park, who stated that he felt the public was being ignored and that the Commission was pandering to the whims of the developer. -11- 12/08/92 (5) Mr. Jerry Marshall, who spoke in opposition to the project, stating that this is not the proper location for a Builder's Square. (6) Mr. George Conley, Pines East, who stated that he was not opposed to Builder's Square, but was opposed to it being built at this location. (7) Mr. David Ledbetter, a property owner in the Wallace Drive area, who stated that he felt his property would be adversely affected if Wallace Drive were to be closed off. (8) Ms.~ Dorothy Allport, Crosswinds, who stated that she was opposed to Builder's Square being built at the proposed location. (9) Mr. Matt Gracey, Jr., who stated that he felt the whole process was moving too quickly with too many contingencies, and suggested that some additional time be taken to study the overall picture and plan accordingly. (10) Mr. Jonathan Green, resident on Audubon Boule- vard, who commented on the traffic in the area. The public hearing was closed. Dr. Alperin suggested that the project needs to be looked at much more thoroughly. If the project is going to be done, it must be done right since it will ultimately affect a great many people. Dr. Alperin felt that the Commission needs at least six months to get the right studies done in order to find out what the traffic impacts are going to be and the impacts on other property owners in the area. Dr. Alperin suggested that the decision on this item be postponed until a thorough traffic study and more public hearings through Planning and Zoning as to the impact on 10th Street, 10th Avenue, Linton Boulevard, and the intersection of 1-95. Mr. Mouw stated that there has not been sufficient time to develop a plan to slow down traffic and relieve traffic from Lindell Boulevard. As far as waiting for the County to decide whether or not they will forfeit the impact fees to be used on 10th Avenue, he feels this is a vital issue and would support a contingent approval of the project subject to a two week investi- gation of that to see where that $278,000 is going to go. Mr. Ellingsworth had no further comments. Mr. Randolph stated he did not think that there would be an abundance of traffic generated by a facility such as Builder's Square. He did not feel that the entire project should be hinged on traffic. -12- 12/08/92 Mayor Lynch questioned the applicant with regard to his attempts to reconcile the traffic situation. In response, Mr. Ciklin stated that he believed all of the traffic issues and the technical details had been resolved through the efforts of Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Luttrell and Mr. Kovacs. Testimony has been given that the Builder's Square project meets the traffic performance standards, they will not be putting any new trips on the road, but would be willing to participate in S.W. 10th Avenue, north of Linton, as a neighbor in the area. Further, they are willing to participate over and above the $278,000 in impact fees to come up with $212,000 in cash to go to the S.W. 10th Avenue project. Mayor Lynch expressed his feeling that the applicant had not been fair about providing full traffic information and reports until just recently, and his additional concern that there are too many variables with the project at this particular time. One is obtaining of a commitment from Palm Beach County as to the $278,000 in impact fees; another is to obtain commitments from Messrs. Haggerty, Boos and Wallace relative to their will- ingness to participate in the overall project; and a more defini- tive conclusion as to what is going to be done with Germantown Road/Wallace Drive and other improvements, including those to be done on the south side of Linton Boulevard at S.W. 10th Avenue. Dr. Alperin stated that he did not feel City staff should be involved in lobbying the County Commission for the release of the road impact fees. On further discussion, it was the consensus of the City Commission to defer action to a special meeting on December 16, 1992, to allow more time to obtain additional information on the various areas of concern. Mr. Mouw moved to postpone consideration of the matter until Wednesday, December 16, 1992, at which time a special meeting will be held. Mayor Lynch passed the gavel to Vice-Mayor Alperin and seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the Commission voted as follows: Vice-Mayor Alperin - No; Mr. Ellingsworth - No; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mr. Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. 10.A,1, Resolution No. 132-92, Resolution 132-92, amending the Waterford DRI Development Order is before the Commission for consideration. 10,A,~, ResolutiQn N~, 1~6-92, Resolution No. 136-92, vacating and abandoning certain rights-of-way and public easements located within the boundaries of the Builder's Square project, is before the Commission for consideration. 10,A.4. Final Plat Approval, The Commission is to consider approval of the final plat for the Builder's Square project located south of Linton Boulevard, between 1-95 and S.W. lOth Avenue. -13- 12/08/92 Mr. Mouw moved to defer action on Resolution No. 132-92, Resolution No. 136-92 and Final Plat Approval until such time as final action on Ordinance No. 64-92 occurs; seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call, the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - No; Mr. Ellingsworth - No. Said motion passed on a 3 to 2 vote. 10.A.2. Resolution No. 135-92. Resolution No. 135-92, request- ing that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the use of certain Road/Traffic Impact Fees in conjunction with the develop- ment of the Waterford DRI, is before the Commission for consider- ation. The caption of Resolution No. 135-92 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THAT THE PALM BEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHOR- IZE THE USE OF CERTAIN ROAD/TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI). (Copy of Resolution No. 135-92 is on file in the offi- cial Resolution Book.) The City Attorney stated that to the extent there are any statements in the "Whereas" clauses which indicate this Commission has already approved the amendment, staff will retract those and include a provision that, in addition to the $278,000 in anticipated Builder's Square impact fees, the City would like the County Commission to grant use of all of the fees which have already been collected or will be collected from properties along Linton Boulevard, totaling approximately $100,000. Mr. Mouw stated that the paragraph stating, "the ap- proach to Linton Boulevard from Wallace Drive will be terminated as a public street and used only as an accessway to private property", should be reworded to reflect, "not until such time as a full scale traffic study showing the need thereof, after the 10th Street/Avenue project is operating". In another paragraph where reference is made to the termination of Wallace Drive, the verbiage should be amended to read "the restricted use of Wallace Drive." In response to Mr. Mouw's suggestions, Mr. Kovacs recom- mended that those paragraphs be deleted from the resolution. Mr. Mouw moved to approve Resolution No. 135-92, as amended by deleting the Wallace Drive issues and requesting the additional Linton Boulevard impact fees; seconded by Mr. Ran- dolph. Upon roll call, the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - No; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - No. Said motion passed by a 3 to 2 vote. -14- 12/08/92 10,B, Ordinanc~ NO. 65-92. Ordinance No. 65-92, amending Section 35.098 of the Code of Ordinances to provide that employ- ees or beneficiaries or employees who retired prior to January 1, 1991, shall have their monthly retirement benefit increased by 5% over the gross amount they were receiving in December 1990; provided, however, that all retirees shall receive a minimum monthly amount of $400, is before the Commission for considera- tion on Second and FINAL Reading. Prior to consideration of passage of this ordinance on Second and FINAL Reading, a public hearing has been scheduled to be held at this time. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 65-92: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 35, EMPLOYEE POLICIES AND BENEFITS SUBHEADING RETIREMENT PLAN, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 35.098, "SUPPLE- MENTAL RETIREMENT INCOME FOR EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 1986" BY RENAMING SECTION 35.098, PROVIDING AN IN- CREASE IN THE MINIMUM MONTHLY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN COST OF LIVING INCREASES IN THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE, SAVING CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 65-92 is on file in the official Ordinance Book.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compli- ance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The public hearing was closed. The City Manager stated that in response to questions at First Reading the Commission was supplied with a list of retirees and their current benefits and a table from the actu- arial study. This particular change is a part of a package of changes relating to this plan. When the total package is priced out, the current plan calls for a City contribution of some 8729,000; with the changes; the contribution will be reduced to $598,000 or less. Dr. Alperin stated that he is concerned with the impli- cation that this is a cost-of-living increase. He feels this is a misnomer and would like to see it referred to differently in the future. This is not a cost-of-living increase; it is a one-time adjustment. Dr. Alperin moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 65-92, on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Lynch - Yes; -15- 12/08/92 Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 11.. ~omm~nts and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items ll.A.1. The City Manager reported that on the additional $.50 per round for walkers at the Golf Course, the estimated revenue from that particular charge is about $5,000 a year. If a walker plays three days a week, morning and afternoon, 52 weeks a year, it would cost the walker approximately 8156 per person, per year, which would translate to an increase of 20% per year. The City Manager and staff feel that the charge is reasonable. There is a similar charge at Boynton Beach. The City is not unique in having it. The impression given by some people who spoke a couple of weeks ago was that the cost of complying with the Americans with Disability Act Standards for the clubhouse would be minimal. A thorough review of the building was done by City staff and Digby Bridges and Marsh. They estimate that at a minimum it would cost $50,000 to bring the building up to ADA standards, which is something the City has to do within the next few years. The roof also needs to be replaced in the near fu- ture. The total cost of replacing the roof and bringing the building up to ADA standards would probably be well in excess of $100,000. The architects state that the building is at the end of its useful life and they do not recommend spending $100,000 on it. ll,A.2. With respect to Mr. Thayer's comments on the parking of his boat in his front yard, Mr. Harden reported that the Planning and Zoning Board will give comments at their meeting of January 11, 1993. However, it appears doubtful that the Board will be supportive of accommodating Mr. Thayer's situation since the City recently enacted ordinances which prohibit truck parking and the Neighborhood Task Team is advocating the elimination of car parking in the swales. The City Manager will send Mr. Thayer a note to let him know that it will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. ll.A.3. In response to Mr. Marshall's comments with regard to the left turns on Atlantic Avenue, the City Manager responded that the City had left turn restrictions in place at one time. They were removed because of the problems they caused. This matter will be taken up by the Parking Management Team, but, at present, staff would not recommend any change back to prohibiting left turns on Atlantic. ll,Ao4. As to the question raised about temporary fences within historic districts, the City Manager reported that temporary fences are permitted by the Building Official for construction projects only. There is no Board review required by Code. They are treated the same way as a construction trailer; applicable setback and height restrictions apply. Temporary fences are normally erected to protect the construction site from vandalism. Staff is unaware of any other complaints regarding this matter. -16- 12/08/92 Such temporary structures are removed at the end of the construc- tion phase, and it is staff's opinion that to require a Board review would be an unnecessary burden to the developer or con- tractor. ll,A.5, The City Manager stated there was an inquiry about playground equipment for the pre-school program at Carver Middle School. At the present time the City does not have the funding, nor any surplus equipment that can be made available for that particular program. ll.A.6. The City Manager reported that he had received the final report on the situation with Mr. Emmett Blake. The depart- ment advertised for the position and received 89 applications from the general public as well as five applications from City employees. The Superintendent of the Water Treatment Plant and the Operations Supervisor initially reviewed all applications and eliminated those applicants who did not meet the minimum qualifi- cations or were noted to reside out of state. The Superintendent of the Water Treatment Plant advised that preference was given to applicants who had some experience in water treatment or an indication of some field work experience. Mr. Blake's applica- tion was eliminated in the first review because there was no mention of employment experience in the water treatment field on his application. When he appeared before the Commission, Mr. Blake stated that he had experience, and it has since been veri- fied, but his application form did not include that information. He only went back four jobs and his experience in water treatment was prior to that. The application form has specific instruc- tions suggesting that an applicant may attach a more complete employment history and he did not do that. The City Manager will write Mr. Blake a letter with additional information regard- ing why he was not considered for the position. il,B, Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda Items from the Public. ll.B.1. Helen Coopersmitho 1222 South Drive Way, stated that Mayor Lynch always makes it quite clear, when someone gets up to speak publicly, they are not to mention any Commissioner. She has never spoken against or attacked a Commissioner personally, but the Commissioners seem to be able to sit up there without respecting the people. The people do not like to be put down, called by name, if it is going to be a remark where the people cannot rebut. She is not a nay-sayer, she is getting this on the record. She has worked hard and long for this City. She would like for the Commission to treat the public with the same respect which they expect. ll.B.2 Ms. Marion Ehlerso inquired about a sign for her Baskin and Robbins Ice Cream store located at the southeast corner of Atlantic Avenue and Military Trail. When she purchased the store, Baskin and Robbins showed her a picture with a wrap- around sign. When she went to sign the final papers, there was -17- 12/0S/92 only a front sign and she was told it was part of the City's sign ordinance. Mayor Lynch responded that she should contact the Community Improvement Department. FIRST READINGS 12.A, Qr~in~no9 NO, ~6-92. Ordinance No. 66-92, adopting by reference certain provisions of the Uniform Fire Safety Codes, State Fire Marshal Rules and certain minimum National Fire Safety Codes, is before the Commission for consideration on First Read- ing. If passed, Public Hearing will be held January 12, 1993. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 66-92: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH FLORIDA, REPEALING THE TITLE OF CHAPTER 96, "FIRE PREVENTION; FIRE WORKS" AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE TO CHAPTER 96, "FIRE SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES" AND REPEALING SECTION 96.16, "CERTAIN CODES ADOPTED BY REFERENCE", OF THE CODE OF ORDI- NANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 96.16 "CERTAIN CODES ADOPTED BY REFERENCE", TO PROVIDE THAT UNIFORM FIRE SAFETY CODES, ESTABLISHED BY FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 63.01, STATE FIRE MARSHAL RULES AS CONTAINED WITHIN FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RULE 4A, ALL AS SHALL BE REVISED OR AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, AND CERTAIN MINIMUM NATIONAL FIRE SAFETY CODES PRESCRIBED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA) AS AMENDED HEREIN, SHALL BE INCORPORATED WITHIN THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING THAT A VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE-NAMED CODES SHALL BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCES IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE ENFORCEABILITY OF SAID CODES; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Dr. Alperin moved for adoption of Ordinance No. 66-92 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Randolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Prior to the roll call the following discussion was had: -18- 12/08/92 Mr. Mouw requested a list of the significant changes. In response, Chief Koen stated that these revisions are already adopted by the State of Florida. The responsibility of the City is to adopt the uniform fire safety standards, so they can be enforced locally, rather than having the State have that respon- sibility. The City is adopting only those that the State has already adopted by specific addition. So nothing is increased beyond that which is already now State minimum standard. Mr. Ellingsworth questioned if the State could come in and enforce the things that staff is suggesting the Commission change. Chief Koen responded that the State has a requirement that municipal governments either adopt the standards or that the State standards apply. Mayor Lynch suggested that Mr. Mouw sit down with Chief Koen and go through the ordinance. The City Manager asked that the Fire Marshal's office prepare a summary of the significant changes in each of these publications. At this point the roll was called to the motion. At this time the Commission returned to the Regular Agenda. Mr. Barry Silver, attorney representing Mr. Prescott, had arrived at the meeting, so the Commission returned to that item. 9,A,A, $~ttlement of Prescott v. City of Delray Beach. The City Attorney advised Mr. Silver of the concerns which had been raised by the Commission with regard to this issue. In response, Mr. Silver stated that his client's position is that he opposes any new ordinance that might be passed regard- less of the protections and provisions which the City might include. His requirement for settlement of the case at this point is that no new ordinance be passed. Dr. Alperin stated that during previous discussions, the Commission was given the impression that he and Mr. Prescott would sit down with staff and come up with a compromise of some kind of an ordinance that would be acceptable. Now Mr. Silver is saying that Mr. Prescott has changed his mind. Mr. Mouw stated that there is no way the Commission can vote that they will never pass another ordinance that deals with flags. The City Attorney requested clarification from Mr. Silver with regard to the dismissal of the law suit at this point, under any circumstances. Mr. Silver stated that if the City agreed not to re-write the ordinance that his client would be willing to dismiss the complaint with the other provisions -19- 12/08/92 that were met. Mr. Silver did not think that Mr. Prescott, at this point, would be willing to drop the lawsuit, unless the City would agree not to pass the new ordinance. Mayor Lynch stated that in good faith, the Commission was willing to discuss this matter. It appears that Mr. Prescott is not acting in good faith. Mr. Silver responded that if the Commission had a proposal he will take it to his client. The City Attorney stated that the proposal he had discussed with Mr. Silver earlier did not include his client's waiving any rights he might have under a future ordinance. It was a voluntary dismissal of this law suit in exchange for pay- ment of attorney's fees. He asked Mr. Silver if his client has rejected that proposal. Mr. Silver stated that when he spoke with his client, he was very reluctant to accept that offer. The City Attorney stated it is this Commission's general position not to make offers to bargain against itself. He has recommended settlement of this case on those grounds to the Commission. He would still recommend that to them, but he is advising the Commission not to entertain a motion at this point in time. He will recommend that offer to the Commission again in January, 1993, if Mr. Prescott wants to accept it. The consensus of the Commission was to pursue the drafting of a revised flag ordinance. The City Attorney stated that a revised ordinance would be before the Commission some time in January, 1993. 9.I. Pineapple Grove Project/Final Payments. The Commission is to consider approval of final payments to Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, and ARZ Builders, Inc. for completion of the Pineapple Grove beautification project. The City Attorney reviewed the problems associated with this project. He has negotiated a final change order with ARZ Builders Inc.; they were due monies greater than the Commission had previously indicated because of adjustments of field measure- ments. The City Attorney recommends that the change order, in the amount of 83,433.40, be approved for ARZ Builders, Inc. With respect to Williams, Hatfield and Stoner, they have thus far had changes in scope which necessitated change orders to their con- tract which brought it from a $5,400 contract to a $17,195 con- tract. They are seeking a further modification to their contract to cover inspection costs - $7,600 above the $17,195. The Envi- ronmental Services staff and the City Attorney's office are recommending that an additional $3,800 be authorized for payment to Williams, Hatfield and Stoner. Considerable discussion followed. The City Attorney recommended that the change order with ARZ Builders Inc. be executed in the amount indicated and -20- 12/08/92 that an additional $3,800 in additional services be approved for Williams, Hatfield and Stoner. Mr. Mouw moved for approval of the change orders and final payments as recommended by the City Attorney; seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call, the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - No; Mr. Mouw - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. 9.J. Authorization to Appeal, The Commission is to consider authorizing the City Attorney to appeal a decision reinstating the Circuit Court Case re. Graham/White v. City of Delray Beach. Mr. Mouw moved to authorize the City Attorney to appeal Judge Brown's decision reinstating the Circuit Court Case; seconded by Dr. Alperin. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9,K, Award of Annual Pipe Fittings and Accessories Bid. The Commission is to consider approval of the award of a portion of the annual pipe fittings and accessories bid in the estimated amount of $71,517.60 to various vendors; with funding from Water Treatment Plant Equipment Maintenance (Account No. 441-5122-536-46.20), and Lift Station Equipment Maintenance (Account No. 441-5144-536-46.20). The City Manager stated this item was put on the regu- lar agenda because there are a few cases wherein staff is not recommending the low-bidder or what appears to be the low-bidder. Dr. Alperin moved for approval, seconded by Mr. Ran- dolph. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9,L. Consideration of Payment of Attorney's Fees/Aero-Dri ~i~iqation. The Commission is to consider paying attorney's fees for representation during the Aero-Dri litigation and approve the funding source. The City Attorney stated that what has happened in the Aero-Dri litigation is that the City originally filed the case under the Florida Environmental Protection Act. One of the reasons for doing so was that it allowed the prevailing party to recover attorney's fees. What then occurred was the State of Florida, through the Department of Environmental Regulation, filed a similar suit against the same defendants. The Florida Environmental Protection Act allows for private parties, includ- ing cities, to have a private cause of action. Judge Rodgers then decided that because the State filed their action after the -21- 12/08/92 City, the only cause of action under that statute now lies with the State and the City could not proceed with its litigation, so he granted a summary judgment. Unfortunately, that summary judgment did not take place until a year into the matter. At that point in time the defendants had expended considerable attorney's fees. Judge Rodgers agreed with their argument that they were entitled to recover attorneys fees for defense of the entire matter for the entire time. Those total fees were $144,000 and $65,000. The City appealed those decisions. The Fourth Court of District Appeal did not find merit in the City's arguments, so the City is now faced with the situation of having to pay those attorney's fee. The City Attorney does not believe there are good grounds to go forward and that the City would be wasting money appealing to the Supreme Court. The City Attorney stated that he has asked the lead council for the State, if they are successful in recovery, to refund the City 100% of the cost for attorney's fees. In addi- tion, he had discussed going to the State Legislature and showing them this case and showing them the injustices in the legisla- tion. The total expenditures for this case as far as clean up and the pursuit of recovery of costs is approximately in the 84.5 to $5 million range. Dr. Alperin questioned where the money was coming from. In response the City Manager stated that the funding would come from the surplus of the Water and Sewer Fund. Mr. Mouw questioned when the State's case would come up. The City Attorney stated that he anticipates the case would be tried within the next six months or so. He is also hopeful there will be a settlement. Dr. Alperin moved to not appeal the Fourth District Court of Appeal's rulings on the attorney's fees and cost issues, seconded by Mr. Mouw. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9,M, Settlement Offer/A~lanti~ Plaza, The Commission is to consider a settlement offer from Atlantic Plaza. The City Attorney advised that Atlantic Plaza made a claim with respect to an odor emanating from the City's Lift Sta- tion at Veterans Park and wafting over their plaza during 1991. They have hired experts and claim total damages in excess of $200,000. The majority of those damages are highly speculative. If, however, they do prove liability, there is probably $35,000 to $40,000 in damages which would be difficult to contest. In addition, the City faces the possibility of Atlantic Plaza seek- ing their costs and attorney's fees with respect to litigating the matter. -22- 12/08/92 The City Attorney stated the $50,000 settlement is the maximum he would recommend, subject to securing releases from all potentially affected tenants, Atlantic Plaza and Sandy Simon personally, as the General Partner for Atlantic Plaza, Limited. Dr. Alperin moved to approve settlement in the amount of $50,000, subject to receipt of appropriate releases, seconded by Mr. Mouw. Upon roll call, the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Mouw - Yes; Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - No. Said motion passed with a 4 to ! vote. 9.N. P~rchas9 of Portable Radios. The Commission is to consider the purchase of 115 new portable radios for the Police Department. The City Manager stated that the bulk of our existing radios were purchased in 1983 or earlier. Normal life expectancy is around seven years. Staff has been experiencing alot of problems with the radio system and it is because of the age of the radios to a large degree. Motorola has offered a five year lease purchase arrangement and because the City is getting new radios, enough would be saved on the maintenance cost, that the ~total annual increase cost the first three years would be $6,155.96. Dr. Alperin moved for approval of the radio purchase with the cost increase of $6,155.96, pending further review, seconded by Mr. Ellingsworth. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Dr. Alperin - Yes; Mr. Ellingsworth - Yes; Mr. Randolph - Yes; Mayor Lynch - Yes; Mr. Mouw - Yes. The motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. The City Manager noted that staff was also looking at other financing options. If someone else will offer a better deal on the financing a little bit may be saved there as well. 13. Comments and Inquiries on Non-Agenda I~em~: 13.A.1. Dr. Alperin had no comments or inquiries. 13.A.2. Mr. Mouw had no comments or inquiries. 13.A.3. Mr. Randolph had no comments or inquiries. 13.A.4. Mr. Ellingsworth thanked the Commission for recognizing Mr. Machek. He also provided the Commission with the schedule for the opening of Morikami. There are 31 delegates coming from our Sister City of Miyazu, Japan. The Commission may want to consider attending some of the events scheduled. He also sug- gested the need for the City to take a more proactive approach to some of the development issues the City will be faced with as more projects come on line (such as Builder's Square) or get -23- 12/08/92 ready to come on line (Holland property, Blood's) along Linton Boulevard. I~.A,~. Mayor Lynch had no comments or inquiries. 13.B.1. There were no comments or inquiries from the City Attorney. 15.C,1, The City Manager had no comments or inquiries. Mayor Lynch declared the meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. ~ ~it~-~lerk ! ATTEST: The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach and that the information provided herein is the minutes of the meeting of said City Commission of December 8, 1992 which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on Im. lqg . - cit~ ~erk ! NOTE TO READER: If the minutes that you have received are not completed as indi- cated above, then this means that these are not the official minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official minutes only after they have been reviewed and approved which may involve some amendments, additions or deletions to the minutes as set forth above. -24- 12/08/92