Loading...
02-28-89 FEBRUARY 28, 1989 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Doak S. Campbell in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 7:07 P.M., Tuesday, February 28, 1989. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Patricia Brainerd (Arrived 7:09 P.M.) Commissioner Marie Horenburger Commissioner Mary McCarty Commissioner Jimmy Weatherspoon Mayor Doak S. Campbell Absent - None Also present were - City Manager Walter O. Barry and City Attorney Herbert W.A. Thiele. 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Richard Barnes, Unity of Delray Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Ordinance No. 8-89 - Rezoning Request - Auburn Trace: Ordi- nance No. 8-89, executing City initiated rezoning on property located on the west side of S.W. 8th Avenue, between S.W. 4th and S.W. 7th Streets, extended westward from R-lA to RM to accommodate construction of low to moderate income housing units, 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. 8-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED R-lA (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT IN RM (MEDIUM TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY DWELLING) DISTRICT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LAND IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF S.W. 8TH AVENUE, BETWEEN S.W. 4TH STREET AND S.W. 7TH STREET, IF THESE STREETS ARE EXTENDED WESTWARD, AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1983"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 8-89 is on file in the official Ordi- nance Book) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 8-89 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Ms. Brainerd. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 5. Ordinance No. 10-89 - Rezoning - Enclave 24: Ordinance No. 10-89, executing City initiated rezoning of several areas in Enclave 24, 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. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 10-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED R-lA (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT IN RM-6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT; REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED R-lA (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT IN CF (COMMUNITY FACILITIES) DISTRICT; REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED R-lA (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT IN R-1A-C (SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX DWELLING) DISTRICT; REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT IN RM-6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT; REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT IN GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED R-lA (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT IN RM-10 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT; REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED ART (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL TRANSITIONAL) DISTRICT IN RM-6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT; REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT, IN PART, AND R-lA (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT, IN PART, IN RM-6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT; SAID LANDS LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF N.E. 8TH STREET, BETWEEN U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1983"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEAL- ER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 10-89 is on file in the official Ordi- nance Book) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. A public hearing was held having been legally advertised in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida and the Charter of the City of Delray Beach, Florida. Mike Connors, representing one of the owners, expressed thanks for the review and analysis of the zoning in this area and requested that the RM-6 zoning be adopted as specified in the ordinance. Vince Ferrari, 600 Allen Avenue, stated he would like to thank the Mayor and the City Commission for the prompt service of supplying water to the Allen Avenue area, along with posting the signs as re- quested. He questioned why the Commercial zoning, that was originally placed on his lot by Palm Beach County, had been changed to residential. Mayor Campbell noted Mr. Ferrari's address and asked that he remain for a short time as there would be further discussion. Rob Dittman, representing some of the residents, stated his clients had requested him to voice an opinion on their behalf, especial- ly the waterfront portions of the area. They feel that the character of the area from Atlantic Avenue north to Woolbright Road is primarily single family residential and by allowing a development of multi-family property, there will be multi-story buildings allowed, which is not in keeping with the remainder of the area. Russell Jester stated his interest is in La Hacienda, Block E. He has been informed that the entire block will be zoned single family, with the exception of Lots 17 and 18. Mayor Campbell referred him to Mr. Kovacs, the Planning Director, for his answer. Les Siclari, of La Hacienda, Block E, Lots 8 and 9, stated this double lot was purchased in the County with a multi-family zoning and, for financial reasons, he would like to keep that zoning category. The public hearing was closed. -2- 2/28/89 Ms. Horenburger requested visual help with the lots that were mentioned. Mr. Kovacs pointed out the properties, indicating the 17-acre parcel referred to by Mr. Connors as the parcel in discussion with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that, although the Compre- hensive Plan has other uses proposed besides the total development of the site, the request was for RM-6 zoning at the time of annexation and, that request along with others, was put into this ordinance. The Land Use Plan being reviewed now, calls for about one-third of the site to be developed in a manner to provide access and facilities to the intra- coastal, one-third to be used for a conservation/preservation park mode and the remaining one-third for a multi-family dwelling development. The plan also addresses the desire to get additional property to take the development to Federal Highway. The proposed Land Use designation is a mix of open space, conservation and development and any development would be done through an SAD designation. The RM-6 zoning designation that can be affixed today is different from the R-lA designation that currently exists. Ms. Horenburger questioned what position the Commission would be in if a plan for RM-6 came in and it was denied. Mr. Kovacs stated that usually there would be a site plan review along with assurance that proper setbacks, open areas, etc., were in place. With this property, there is land under water, natural areas to be preserved, no available water and sewer facilities and no roads. Mr. Kovacs advised the Ferrari property is currently zoned R-lA so, by going to an RM-10 zoning, it increases the zoning intensity. The Enclave Act provides that any use that is existing cannot be zoned out of existence. If they should want to use the property in conjunction with a commercial use on Federal Highway, that can be done. As a Conditional Use activity, if the property were sold and combined with a commercial frontage, the policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan would support the extension of Commercial zoning. Mr. Kovacs stated that Mr. Jester's property on Lake Avenue is currently zoned R-lA and is not an item for rezoning at this time. Ms. Brainerd moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 10-89 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. PROCEDURAL ITEMS 6.1. Tom Fleming, 2600 Hampton Bridge Road, stated he spoke before the Commission nearly one year ago relative to Public Education in Delray. He read from the Goals Setting Workshop of April 1988, relative to the 40 goals, 12 of which were high priority. He feels without a first quality, top rate public education program, system and facility, the quality-controlled, economic growth and development of Delray Beach is not going to happen. He feels the City has shown great cooperation toward the Palm Beach County School Board, but after speaking with the School Board, he learned that there are no plans for the new Carver School, the new elementary school on Carter Road is on hold and the construction of the middle school is not included in the five year development plan. He feels Delray Beach needs to take legal action to stop the School Board from developing schools that do not directly benefit the City. With this current action by the School Board to the surrounding areas, he feels they give the impression that the City Commission is ineffectual and incapable with respect to these goals. 7. The City Manager requested that Item No. 31 be deleted and an Emergency Item No. 12.A., Termination of the Abel/Garcia Contract, be added. Mr. Weatherspoon requested that Items No. 27, 28 and 37.A. be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed at the end of the Regular Agenda. Ms. McCarty moved to approve the agenda, as modified, seconded by Ms. Brainerd. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. -3- 2/28/89 Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 8. Ms. Brainerd moved to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of February 7, 1989, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. FIRST READINGS 9. Ordinance No. 11-89 - Parking Time: Ordinance No. 11-89, amending Title 7 "Traffic Code", and Chapter 73 "Parking Schedules", "Schedule I, Two Hour Parking Zones" to provide for two hour parking zones in on-street parking areas and four hour parking limits in City- owned parking lots, is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held March 28th. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 11-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE 7, "TRAFFIC CODE", CHAPTER 73, "PARKING SCHEDULES", "SCHEDULE I, TWO HOUR PARKING ZONES", TO PROVIDE FOR FOUR-HOUR PARKING LIMITS IN CITY-OWNED PARKING LOTS, PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Mayor Campbell left the Commission Chambers at this time and Vice-Mayor Weatherspoon took the chair. Ms. Brainerd moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 11-89 on First Reading, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Vice-Mayor Weatherspoon - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 10. Ordinance No. 12-89 "Change-Out Permit Fees: Ordinance No. 12-89, establishing a $35.00 permit fee to repair or replace minor components is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held March 28th. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 12-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE XV, "BUILDING REGULA- TIONS'', CHAPTER 150, "BUILDING REGULATIONS", "BUILDING CODE", SECTION 150.016, "AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO CODE" , SUBSECTION 107 . 4, "SCHEDULE OF PERMIT FEES" , PARAGRAPH (C), BY ENACTING A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH 107.4(c)XI, "CHANGE-OUT PERMITS"; AMENDING TITLE XV, "BUILDING REGULATIONS" , CHAPTER 155, '~ELECTRICITY" , "PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS", SECTION 155.18, "PERMIT FEES". BY ENACTING A NEW PARAGRAPH 155.18(D); AMENDING TITLE XV, "BUILDING REGULATIONS", CHAPTER 157, "GAS CODE", SECTION 157.02, "AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO CODE", SUBSECTION 113.4, "SCHEDULE OF PERMIT FEES" , BY ENACTING A NEW PARAGRAPH 113.4 (d); AMENDING TITLE XV, "BUILDING REGULATIONS", CHAPTER 160, "MECHANICAL CODE", SECTION 160.02, "AMEND- MENTS AND ADDITIONS TO CODE", SUBSECTION 106.3, "SCHEDULE OF PERMIT FEES", BY ENACTING A NEW PARAGRAPH 106.3(C); AMENDING TITLE XV, "BUILDING REGULATIONS", CHAPTER 161, "PLUMBING CODE", SECTION 161.02, "AMENDMENTS AND ADDI- TIONS TO CODE", SUBSECTION 113.4, "SCHEDULE OF PERMIT FEES", BY ENACTING A NEW PARAGRAPH 113.4(d) TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE-OUT PERMIT FEES IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CHAP- TERS; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. -4- 2/28/89 Gerald Phillipi, representing the Community Action Committee, High Point of Delray, Sections I-VII, stated they are opposing these fees and request that they be eliminated. Retired people on fixed incomes find this a hardship as homes age and items need replaced and repaired. They feel it is impossible for the City to police this and enforce it with 100% compliance. Ms. McCarty agreed there is no way to enforce this and she feels permits will not be obtained and there is no real purpose behind it. Ms. Horenburger questioned where will the line be drawn on construction, etc., and how can the Standard Building Code requirements be changed to reflect this if the City does not comply. The City Attorney advised the Standard Building Code requires that a permit be obtained for these things and he feels the City can enforce the collec- tion of a fee. However, he feels this can be done administratively, by direction from the City Manager requesting the Development Department not to collect a fee for work costing under $1,000, for example. Upon question, the City Attorney advised, lawfully, a $1.00 fee could be imposed allowing the City the ability to inspect and make sure the work is being done properly; however, it will cost more money to process the $1.00 fee than it is worth. Mayor Campbell returned to the Commission Chambers at this time and took the Chair. The City Manager stated he has concerns relative to the actual ability to enforce these minor repair permits and feels the one dollar fee would obligate the City to make the inspection but could not recover the cost. Ms. Horenburger stated she feels the City has a responsi- bility to make sure contractors are doing good work. This way, the City has an option of taking a contractor before the Code Enforcement Board if their work does not meet the code. The City Manager recommended this be postponed to a workshop for discussion, as he feels there is a point at which the City can no longer protect its residents. Mayor Campbell suggested they postpone this item to a workshop and a Public Hearing. The Commission concurred. Bill Winn, High Point Section I, questioned where the money for the permit goes and what it is used for. He also requested that someone call him when this will be discussed at a workshop. The City Manager advised Mr. Winn that the money goes to the Building Department to defray the cost of the inspection. Jack Keating, High Point Section I, stated he understands why the permits are required, but he objects to the method of enforcement and the length of time it requires to get an inspection. Ms. Brainerd moved to postpone this item to a workshop, second- ed by Ms. Horenburger. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 11. Ordinance No. 13-89 - Amendment to Noise Ordinance: Ordinance No. 13-89, amending Chapter 99 "Noise Control" of the Code of Ordinances by adding Subsection 99.04 (A) (1) making it unlawful to play or operate any radio, musical instrument, phonograph, or sound producing device which can be heard more than 50 feet away from its source in a public place or 100 feet away from its source within a building structure or property boundary, whichever is greater, is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held March 28th. The City Manager presented Ordinance No. 13-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE IX, "GENERAL REGULATIONS", CHAPTER 99, "NOISE CONTROL". "GENERAL PROVISIONS", SECTION 99.04, "LOUD AND UNNECESSARY NOISES ENUMERATED; -5- 2/28/89 EXEMPTIONS", BY REPEALING SUBSECTION 99.04(A) (1), AND ENACTING A NEW SUBSECTION 99.04(A) (1),; TO PROVIDE THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO PLAY, OPERATE OR PERMIT TO BE PLAYED OR OPERATED ANY RADIO, MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, PHONO- GRAPH, OR OTHER MACHINE OR DEVICE FOR THE PRODUCING OR REPRODUCING OF SOUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERTAINMENT IF THE SOUND CAN BE HEARD MORE THAN 50 FEET AWAY FROM A NOISE SOURCE EMANATING FROM PUBLIC OR OUTDOOR AREAS AND 100 FEET AWAY FROM A NOISE SOURCE EMANATING FROM WITHIN A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR PROPERTY BOUNDARY WHICHEVER IS GREATER OR VIOLATES PROVISIONS FOR NOISE SENSITIVE ZONING OR EXCEEDS VIBRATION AND/OR DECIBEL RESTRICTIONS CON- TAINED WITHIN THIS CHAPTER; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Ms. Brainerd moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 13-89 on First Reading, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. REGULAR AGENDA 12.A. Emergency Item - Termination of the Abel/Garcia Contract: The Commission is to consider the termination of the Abel/Garcia Contract. Frances Bour~ue, representing Old School Square, stated to be able to continue, it is necessary to terminate this contract in order to spend the Grant Funds on hand. Ms. Brainerd moved for approval of the contract termination, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Ms. Horenburger questioned what the time relation is to this. Mrs. Bourque advised they are one and one-half years behind. The final contract documents were due on February 15th so, in order to have them out for bid, on January 30th they verbally extended to February 15th. Upon termination, they propose to go with the second low bidder who would look at the situation and go forward. Upon question by Mr. Weath~rspoon relative to transfer of funds, Mrs. Bourque advised the funding received from the State pro- hibited them from using certain amounts of funds for administration. Some of the funding the City had allocated for consultants' fees were paid by their Grant and they would like to be reimbursed. Ms. Brainerd modified her motion to approve termination of the Abel/Garcia Contract, the Fund transfers recommended by Old School Square and authorize negotiations, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Ms. Horenburger questioned what position the City is in with regard to termination of the Contract. The City Attorney stated he assumes this is a negotiated termination, which is permitted, but his major concern is going with the second bidder. He is not certain the second low bid of two years ago remains a legitimate bid if there are others who may bid differently today. In addition, they are being asked to pick up documents in some form of conclusion and bring it to con- clusion. He feels competitive bidding should be waived on the basis of the time-frame involved and then negotiate the subject for the best rate. He suggested making a non-sealed request for proposals and anyone who is willing to assume this is also welcome to bid, but staff, in the meantime, could commence negotiations with the second group. -6- 2/28/89 Mrs. Bourque questioned if those funds could be transferred to Old School Square allowing them to commence negotiations and hire the architect rather than having the City do this. The City Attorney advised he did not feel that could be done, since it is the City's money and their control would be relinquished. This would make them a pri- vate, autonomous, independent corporate entity and they could do what- ever they wanted. Upon question, the City Attorney stated he feels anyone can be contacted with regard to submitting a bid, not just those who bid previously. Mayor Campbell stated the emergency tonight was with the termination and he feels the City Attorney should be allowed time to research this. The City Attorney advised he has no problem, in the interim, with commencement of discussions with the architectural firms who had previously bid. At this point the roll was called to the motion. 12. Request for Waiver of Fees and Site and Development Plan Processing Requirements - Crystal Ice: The Commission is to consider waiving resubmittal fees and reconsideration of site plans for Crystal Ice. The City Manager stated there are extenuating circumstances where the site plan was originally approved for 12 months rather than 18. The delays preventing action on this project were beyond the owner's control. He is recommending the resubmittal fees be waived and the site plan reconsidered in order to extend the approval without again going through the site plan approval process. Upon question, the City Attorney advised the Commission is approving the site plan without having it go through the same process again. He also advised the Commission cannot approve it at this time, because it did not appear on the agenda that way. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned why the site plan was approved for 12 months opposed to the 18 months called for in the Code. Mr. Kovacs stated the applicant was ready to obtain permits at the time, so there was no concern, especially since there was no time limitation in the Code at that date. Mr. Kovacs stated he recommends the Commission declare an emergency and waive the site plan review process and the fees. The basis for waiving the site plan review process is because the applicant was originally given 12 months and that the project was held up due to the inability of the City to work out the water and sewer solution problem. Upon question, the City Manager advised the waiver does require a Public Hearing, unless it is made an emergency. Ms. Brainerd moved to declare an emergency and waive the process and the fees for 18 months as enumerated by Mr. Kovacs, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 13. Consideration of Bid Award - City Hall Expansion: The Commis- sion is to consider a review of the proposal and optional deletes of low bidder, Sessoms/Grice Company. Digby Bridges, Architect, explained the bid and how certain things happened. When the first estimate was made, there were certain unknown items, such as the sprinkling of the existing building at Phase I, the new generator at Phase I, as the emergency generator cannot handle the project, and an increase of footage of 9000 square feet. The bid was submitted with all of these items included, so they would have the flexibility to come down in price. They have absorbed a lot of those extra three items, since they had alternates for some things. Upon question, Mr. Bridges stated, basically the Commissioners are to approve $2,580,117; $25,000 for the sound system, $29,000 for the voice and data system along with the architects, engineers' and consultants' fees for a grand total of $2,638,437. -7- 2/28/89 Ms. Brainerd questioned if there is an enumeration available of the costs just mentioned that must be absorbed into this project for inadequate construction of the first building. Mr. Bridges advised that enumeration includes repair of leaky windows and roof repairs, the generator and the sprinkling system at a cost of $150,000 plus $91,000 for extra square footage that had to be added to the building, due to the fact that another part of the generator had to be built bringing the grand total to approximately $240,000. Ms. Horenburger questioned how many square feet in the existing structure are not being used currently as administrative space on a daily basis that will be put to use and what would the cost per square foot be to construct new. Mark Marsh, Architect, advised there are between 8,000 and 9,000 square feet and the cost would be $90 per square foot. He also stated he feels the bid is correct, as there is very little difference between the high and low bidders. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he feels, in the future, the Commis- sioners should make certain all the components are present at the time the bids are let. He also feels a closer look should be taken to make sure there are items not necessarily needed at this particular time, but could be done later when the City is in a better position. Mr. Bridges advised that, under the City Charter, they are not allowed to go back and negotiate with a contractor. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned whether the tower was still a part of the plan and could it be cut out. Mr. Bridges explained the City Charter will not allow that at this time without letting bids again. The City Manager corrected Mr. Bridges by explaining it is the City's Purchasing Code, not the City Charter. Ms. Brainerd questioned who was responsible for the estimate of what was needed with the existing City Hall construction. Mr. Bridges commented that happened with the previous administration. Upon ques- tion, the City Manager stated there is an intense pressure to reduce estimates of projects and he feels that is what happened, although those persons realize it is not realistic at the time. Ms. McCarty questioned how the alternates were arrived at; for example, who decided what items would be optional. Mr. Bridges stated that was done by the Architects. Ms. McCarty questioned the philosophy regarding the Commission Chamber since she does not feel it would have been detrimental to the scheme. Mr. Bridges stated the architects felt it would be detrimental to the scheme and to the image of the City not to include it. Upon question, Mr. Bridges advised that he did not think it wise to deduct the contingency. Ms. McCarty stated because of the priorities about adding on the Commission Chamber, which was not the original intent when it was discussed with the 1.5 million dollars, she cannot vote for this. Ms. Brainerd moved to award the contract to Sessoms/Grice Company, in the amount of $2,347,331, with all deducts with the excep- tion of the Contingency, with the balance of the funds indicated for the Architect, Engineer and Consultant fees, sound system and cable voice data for a total funding of $2,688,437, seconded by Ms. Horenburger. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - No; Mr. Weatherspoon - No; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Lorraine Casper, 3000 Spanish Trail, representing Jean Beer who was unable to be present, stated that this project has increased con- siderably since the beginning. At this time the City is working on the Comprehensive Plan, and citizens have identified millions of dollars of work that has not been done, either by oversight or because the City is beginning to age. The bond items that went to $2,000,000 have increased in value, so they are not covering what they are supposed to. The City proposed a short term loan of $3,000,000 and that is now up to $5,000,000. She feels this is not the time to instigate a short term loan. She also feels the addition of a Commission Chamber is unneces- sary, when the Old School Square will soon be available. 8 2/28/89 Ms. Horenburger stated the Commission did not intend to stop the business of the City while the Comprehensive Plan was in the process and space is needed now at City Hall. The Old School Square is going to operate as a cultural arts facility and she hopes it will be able to pay for itself, but feels it is not a place where Commission meetings should be conducted. Mayor Campbell stated none of the projects the City is doing will have any fiscal impact on the City with regard to raising taxes. This was not done lightly, but with much consideration, to make sure it would not jeopardize any future capital needs of the City. He would like to speak more with regard to this when the short term financing is up for discussion. At this point the roll was called to the motion. Ms. McCarty left the Commission Chambers at this time. 14. Contract between the City and Waste Management of Palm Beach: The Commission is to consider approval of a five year contract for collection of refuse, trash, bulky waste and recyclable materials. The City Manager stated staff and Waste Management have nego- tiated an agreement that he feels is both advantageous to the City and Waste Management that will allow the City to begin a pilot recycling program this spring and waste removal services to City-owned properties, at their cost, beginning October 1 of this year. Assistant City Manager Barcinski stated this contract is an extension to the current contract with a five year automatic renewal after 1994 unless the City notifies them to the contrary. It includes the recycling program and gives the City a benefit as there will be no charges to the City for waste disposal from dumpsters on City property. Upon question, Assistant City Manager Barcinski stated this service is currently costing the City $19,800 for the City dumpsters. One change that should be noted is that the City will be refunded for the amount of waste recycled. Ms. Horenburger questioned if some color other than what they are painted now could be used in the future. Michael O'Brien, repre- senting Waste Management, advised they are working through Code Enforce- ment and will be swapping out all containers that are unsightly. Mr. Weatherspoon stated it is his understanding that with containers that are damaged or stolen, it is the responsibility of the citizen to pay for those. Mr. O'Brien explained that the 90-gallon container has very little use except as a garbage receptacle; however, the recycling containers can become a convenient nuisance to be used to store records, books, etc. and the burden will be with the citizen. The cost now is at $6.00, but he feels by buying large quantities, they will be less expensive. Ms. Brainerd moved for approval of the contract, subject to the amendment, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 15. Approval of Special Warranty Deed Language: The Commission is to consider an agreement between the City and the School Board regarding Old School Square. Mayor Campbell left the Commission Chambers at this time and Vice-Mayor Weatherspoon took the Chair. Assistant City Attorney Ruby stated there have been negotia- tions with the School Board Staff and they were willing to add another use to the list of permitted uses for the Old School to include cultural uses. The reverter language would require a reversion to the School Board if it was not used for Civic, Public, Governmental or Cultural uses. In addition, they had proposed some other language that would require the City to abide by all Palm Beach County Ordinances, which was -9- 2/28/89 stricken by the City Attorney's office so now must abide by the City's ordinances. Ms. Horenburger moved for approval, seconded by Ms. Brainerd. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Vice-Mayor Weatherspoon - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. 16. Appeal of Denial of Landlord Permit: An appeal by Mr. Sadaqat Jaweed of the Permit Review Committee's denial of a landlord permit is before the Commission for consideration. Mayor Campbell returned to the Commission Chambers at this time and took the Chair. Louis J. Alphonso, representing Mr. Jaweed, stated his client purchased a three-family unit at 114 S.W. 2nd Street in May of 1982. It was advertised as a three-family dwelling and has been used as such since the 1940's. There are three electrical meters, three water bills based on a three-family unit and the county assesses it as a three- family unit. In the process of making some renovations to the property, he was visited by some City Officials, who told him there may be some violations and he should have obtained a permit. He made application to the Building Department for a landlord permit, which was granted but was later revoked, after being advised that the house was not a three-family residence. An appeal to the Permit Review Committee scheduled for January of 1989 was denied. Ms. Horenburger questioned if this was actually constructed as a three-family dwelling. Lula Butler, Director of Community Improve- ment, advised this was a single family dwelling at one time and then converted without a permit, and there is no record as to when the con- version took place. She stated after appearing before the Code Enforce- ment Board, who ruled that Mr. Jaweed must convert the dwelling to a single family residence, he obtained a building permit to convert the dwelling back into a single family residence, but to date has not complied. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned if the City requires owners to comply with current electrical and fire codes. Mrs. Butler advised if the house had been converted with a building permit, the fire separation code would have been applicable. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he feels those violations should be corrected. Ms. McCarty returned to the Commission Chambers at this time. Ms. Brainerd stated she feels the applicant should be in contact with the owner of the property for resolving the problem. She feels the seller and the realtor advertised this wrongly and the con- tract should have some provision of guarantee that the seller repre- sented the property in accordance with the law. Upon question, Mrs. Butler stated the dwelling originally appeared to be a four-bedroom, one bath, and the remainder was added on. Ms. Brainerd moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Upon question by Mr. Weatherspoon, the City Attorney advised the first issue is whether the Commission finds the testimony to be believable and competent. The issue on the unit was litigated before the Code Enforcement Board and the City took the position that it was an inappropriate configuration for the unit. An adverse decision was rendered as sufficient evidence was not found to support the grand- fathering of the use and the applicant was ordered to reconfigure it back to a single unit. Mr. Jaweed had an opportunity to appeal that decision; however, he did not do that. With regard to the conversion, this is a non-conforming use. It could not be converted today, but it -10- 2/28/89 has existed before and is a legitimate non-conforming use which can continue. In order to be non-conforming, it would have had to be conforming at some point in time. That burden rests upon the applicant to prove that at one point he was legal and the City changed the Code, making his use of the property illegal. In his opinion, the applicant has not done this. At this point the roll was called to the motion. 17. Appointment of two Regular Members and one Alternate to the Board of Adjustment: The Commission is to consider the appointment of two regular members and one alternate to the Board of Adjustment to terms ending March 15, 1992. Mayor Campbell stated it is his understanding the three people who are presently serving in that capacity, Mark David, David Klarer and Steven Do Rubin are eligible and have expressed a desire to be reap- pointed. Mr. Weatherspoon moved to appoint Mark David, David Klarer and Steven D. Rubin to a term ending March 15, 1992, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - No; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Ms. McCarty stated she has a concern with the fact that Mr. Rubin has sat on the Board as a regular member for the past four years, so she would not vote for him based on her past feelings. Mayor Camp- bell stated he has no problem with the recommendation of the City Attorney. Mr. Weatherspoon, Ms. Brainerd and Ms. Horenburger concurred. At this point the roll was called to the motion. 18. Appointment of two Alternate Members to the Community Appear- ance Board: The Commission is to consider the appointment of two alternate members in the layperson category to terms ending March 8, 1990. Ms. Horenburger moved for approval of Richard Eckerle and Ann Pearson as alternate members to the Community Appearance Board, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 19. Appointment of a Member to the Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC): The Commission is to consider the reappointment of John Saracino to PERC to a term ending March 13, 1993. Ms. Horenburger moved for approval, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 20. Mayor's Appointment of one Member to the Human Relations Committee: The Commission is to consider appointing one member to the Human Relations Committee to a term ending March 15, 1992. Mayor Campbell stated he is going to postpone this item for one week as there was some question about the applicant who had filed. Ms. Horenburger advised that Bob FarrelI, who is the Public Information person for the Sheriff's office, applied for this and she would like this put on an upcoming agenda as her appointment. 21. Grant Application - After School Care Program: The Commission is to consider approval of a grant application to the Children's Service Council for funding in the amount of $154,652 to support the After School programs. -11- 2/28/89 Ms. McCarty moved for approval, seconded by Ms. Brainerd. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 22. Distance Restrictions - 211 S.E. 10th Street: The Commission is to consider options to allow a neighborhood spouse abuse and expect- ant mother facility to be located at 211 S.E. 10th Street. The City Attorney stated this is a request to waive the ord- inance applicability with regard to the site and distance requirements in the Code for ACLF's and similar facilities. Ms. Horenburger moved for approval, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 23. Initiation of Annexations - North Federal Highway Area: A recommendation to initiate voluntary annexation provisions of water service agreements and owner-initiated annexation requests is before the Commission for consideration. The City Manager noted the recommendation is to direct staff to initiate the annexations per the provisions of the water service agree- ments. Ms. McCarty moved for approval, seconded by Ms. Horenburger. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Mr. Kovacs stated, on other occasions, other attorneys have informed staff they cannot do actions such as this, but it must be initiated by formal action of the City Commission. The City will be asking people to come into the City, absorb the cost, advertise and initiating the zoning. The people will be signing affidavits giving the City power to proceed with this. The City Attorney advised the City cannot initiate this without approval. Upon question by Mr. Weatherspoon with regard to the cost, Mr. Kovacs stated the cost the City will have is the cost of obtaining the records of property owner notice, the time involved in doing that and advertising costs. Normally there is a $900 cost for rezoning that comes in to offset the cost but, in these 20 potential parcels, the City will not have that. Mr. Weatherspoon expressed a concern with regard to the fairness of those who voluntarily requested to be annexed. Mayor Campbell stated he feels this is not voluntary, but contractual. The City Attorney advised it is deemed to be a voluntary petition to annex into the City. At this point the roll was called to the motion. 24. Wilson Property Conveyance: The Commission is to consider a request for the return of City-owned property at 610 North Ocean Boule- vard, previously deeded. Ms. Brainerd moved for approval, seconded by Ms. Horenburger. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 25. Interim Financing for Short Term Capital Projects: The Com- mission is to consider the appointment of Mudge Rose as Bond Counsel, Dean Witter Reynolds as Finance Administrator and review of funding option for financing short term projects for the City. Mayor Campbell stated earlier he made the statement that the City would probably never draw up to $5 million, but more like $3.7 or $3.8 million and would use that figure of $5 million for obtaining -12- 2/28/89 information with regard to finance and cost. He is not in favor of any short term financing up to $5 million but does not know how that affects the overall equation. With regard to paybacks and the cost to the City, it could vary a great deal. It was intended that this would be a short term financing with any leftover monies being rolled over into a long term bond issue. His hope is that it will not be $3.7 million after several years. The Tennis Center will be repaid from the Impact Fee Funds and, hopefully, that will come in within the next few years and there will be no carryover. The City Hall Expansion, hopefully, will be paid for completely from the sale of the tennis court land, which will take care of the $850,000 or $950,000. There is a commitment from the CRA to reimburse the City $100,000 a year for the East Atlantic Avenue Improvements, for the original $1 million loaned to them on the first phase. The only item not covered from a direct source is the Old School Square and the acquisition of the Love property and he anticipates that additional fund raising efforts and grant applications may provide additional monies to reduce that amount further. In a couple of years, it is his hope that the City may have an outstanding balance of $700,000. He feels this amount, out of a $32 million budget, does not have a fiscal impact, will not create a need for new revenues or, as a last resort, to necessitate a long term financing of $700,000. To reiterate his initial question, if this does not exceed $3.7 or $3.8 million, does this have an impact. Dave Huddleston, Finance Director, stated as the amount of the borrowing is reduced, the line of credit would start to be even and then get better, but that depends on the fixed cost associated with the Bank Loan. The quotations received, for example, from Prudential-Bache's fixed rate, came in at a true interest cost of 7.36%. The Sun Bank fixed rate was 7.48%. Prudential-Bache quoted on a non-bank qualified rate in the anticipation that the City might go over the $10 million for the year. If this were reduced, and the City did not go over $10 million, their quotation would change from the standpoint that they would probably be looking at a bank-qualified rate. A representative of Gulfstream Prudential-Bache stated that staff had submitted a very open-ended proposal, so there were a number of different options to choose from. As the City borrows less and the line gets lower, it would be more cost-effective to use the bank line of credit due to the lower issuance cost. In addition, since it was a revolving bond anticipation note, the City would only draw what was needed at a particular time, could repay that and then reborrow sometime in the future for projects approved by the Commission and Bond Counsel, which would help reduce interest costs. They could also borrow the entire amount and arbitrage, providing that the requirements of Bond Counsel were met. The bank bid a note that would mature in 1992, but the City is looking for approval from the public to issue bonds within the next year. Because of the issuance cost of the notes, if it were for one year, the issuance cost would make it less cost-effective than the bank financing. He feels that considering the time frame that the notes may be outstanding, the bank offer is more cost-effective. He feels another item to be addressed is the fact that the bank is only asking for a pledge on a parity basis of the Utility Tax Revenues against what was proposed as a $5 million note. He believes the Prudential-Bache arrangement was a pledge of all non-ad valorem taxes. By using all Utility Tax revenues, the City would not be dependent on a Bond Referendum, so the City could have a general obligation bond and thus clearly identify a potential repayment source for any long-term funding under a short term note. Considering the time frame that the notes may be outstanding for the total amount of borrowings that may be issued for the City projects, the bank offer is more cost-effective. The pledge is a less restrictive pledge and the flexibility the notes offer make it more prudent for the City. Mayor Campbell stated he can see a comparison of the two offerings coming up and, since he has done some work in the past with Sun Bank and does not want any conflict of interest, he is withdrawing. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he will withdraw also, as he currently has an outstanding loan application with Sun Bank. At this time Deputy Vice-Mayor McCarty took the Chair. -13- 2/28/89 A representative from the Sun Bank stated the proposal received from Prudential-Bache was a joint proposal as they both did the under- writing for the City's refunding issue. He clarified the required pledge is only a pledge on the Utility Tax Revenues. There was no mention of Ad Valorem Taxes. The term of the note issue was not speci- fied in the proposal sent out by the City based on a conversation with Mr. Huddlestono He suggested that two years would be appropriate for completing the proposals. He stated the arbitrage potential under a fixed rate Bond Issue exceeds any arbitrage potential over a variable rate financing and, in addition, the flexibility on the use of funds is equal to that which would be available under a line of credit. He suggested if the City is going to entertain a financing, it will be prudent to entertain a fixed rate rather than a variable rate. Their proposal was for a fixed rate, a rate the City would be aware of and it would be that rate on all the borrowings undertaken. The TIC's given for their bond size were somewhat smaller than the original proposal based on a conversation with Mr. Huddleston, who suggested certain fees be raised, which have resulted in higher true interest costs. If they had remained with the original fee proposal, the TIC on a $3.7 million loan would not be two basis points away from the proposal, but possibly even smaller. Ms. Brainerd questioned why there were responses from four banks and one bond underwriter. Mr. Huddleston responded by advising that was the list that resulted from staff discussion. The City Manager stated short term financing of a letter of credit had been discussed and it was felt that it would be advantageous to the Commission to look at the bond market, so the two firms who had done the most recent work for the City were contacted. Upon question, Mr. Huddleston advised an RFP was sent to the entire list of six. Ms. Horenburger questioned how the choice of banks was arrived at. The City Manager stated local banks were chosen that would be interested in this type of work. Deputy Vice-Mayor McCarty stated she does not feel the Commis- sion is ready to move on this item tonight. The Commission concurred. Deputy Vice-Mayor McCarty suggested this item be put on a workshop. Ms. Brainerd recommended that, prior to the next discussion, this item be advertised. The City Manager advised one of the most recent projects was advertised in the Spring and bids were received, but it is certainly not uncommon for the City to negotiate bonds. Ms. Horenburger expressed a concern with regard to the property across the street from City Hall and Old School Square relative to the increased cost to the City if it is put off much longer. Ms. Brainerd questioned if the Commission was to move forward, what sort of time frame is involved before a workshop can be scheduled. Mr. Huddleston stated he feels there should be a dialog before going out for bids and they should define the pledge and expectations as to whether there will be an excess of $10 million, as that will have a dramatic effect on the rates that will be quoted. He also advised the resolution should be addressed relative to putting this on a referendum because if all this cannot be paid back, there would be part of a referendum in order to make a decision on whether or not a two year note will be sufficient. If the projects are going to be approved, they will do a twenty year bond issue. Ms. Brainerd requested, at the time of the workshop, she would like to see the Recreational Impact Fees that have been committed and, with build-out, what is anticipated for future collection and the length of time anticipated to collect those fees. She would also like to see minutes from the meeting when the policy decision of using the sale of the tennis court land for payment of the City Hall Expansion was dis- cussed. Mr. Huddleston stated all those issues need to be addressed and reconciled, but they are not items that will be acceptable pledges. The City Manager stated there is a minimal balance in the Recreational Impact Fee Account with an expectation of future growth. Mr. Huddleston advised it has always been the consideration that the Recreational Impact Fees would pay back the General Fund for whatever debt service the General Fund would be paying. The City Attorney stated it should be made clear what is going to be pledged and what rates may be received. Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the appointment of Mudge Rose as Bond Counsel, seconded by Ms. Brainerd. Upon roll call the -14- 2/28/89 Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Deputy Vice-Mayor McCarty - No. Said motion FAILED with a 2 to 1 vote. Mr. Weatherspoon returned to the Commission Chambers at this time. Mayor Campbell returned to the Commission Chambers at this time and took the Chair. Ms. Brainerd moved to rescind the previous denial, seconded by Ms. Horenburger. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - No; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. Ms. Brainerd moved to approve the appointment of Mudge Rose as Bond Counsel and Dean Witter Reynolds as Finance Administrator, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - No; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 1 vote. The City Attorney stated if the workshop and questions are to be done first, the answers will be taken and some sort of bid document will be assimilated. Mayor Campbell suggested some recommended times be presented to the Commission and it will then be placed on an agenda. 27. Change Order No. 1 - Homewood Boulevard: The Commission is to consider an increase of contract in the amount of $1,638.65 with funding to come from Account 333-4141-572-61.15. Ms. Horenburger left the Commission Chambers at this time. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned who authorized an increase of the curbing height from 6" to 8" and for what reason. Gates Castle, Interim City Engineer, stated the concrete curbing was one bid item and, in addition to the beautification project, there is another project for road widening and overlay. Rather than design a 6" curb and then put a 1" to 2" overlay, they installed an 8" curb so when the overlay is put in place there will still be a 6" reveal. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned why the bid was not for 8" originally. Mr. Castle explained that it was bid, but the beautification project did not include fill up to an 8" curb. This is a change order to the beautification project, not the curbing project. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the Change Order request for Homewood Boulevard, seconded by Ms. Brainerd. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 28. Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 - Barwick Park Improvements: The Commission is to consider an increase in contract in the amount of $927.00 with funding to come from Account 117-4165-572-60.69. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned why a septic tank is being instal- led at Barwick. Assistant City Manager Barcinski stated the nearest gravity sewer line is 410 feet away, which would preclude a lift station and a line if the City were to use it. Mr. Weatherspoon also questioned why the support posts were being installed in the restrooms, even though the approved site plan did not indicate 8" x 12" columns were required. Assistant City Manager Barcinski advised when the building inspector made a field check, it was felt the original columns were inadequate, so it was changed to meet the Code. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval, seconded by Mr. Brainerd. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 37.A. Award of Contract: The Commission is to consider an award of contract to Infrastructure Management Services of Illinois to perform a -15- 2/28/89 Comprehensive Pavement Management Study in the amount of $26,045 with funding to come from 1988-89 Resurfacing Funds Account 334-3162-541-60.53. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned why the City feels it necessary to bring a consultant in for the completion of some road work. Mr. Castle stated the report given is for approximately one-half of the Streets lying east of 1-95. This has been used for the past two years to develop the program to use the resurfacing funds. It is now time to do the remaining streets east of 1-95 and they are requesting the same report be completed for these streets. The City Manager stated this could be done in-house, possibly with slightly more cost, but it is felt that the effectiveness of the resurfacing programs may not be as easily identified. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he was under the impression that all the streets were resurfaced on a regular basis. Mr. Castle advised that some of the streets in the City were put in between 1950 and 1960 and have never been touched. It is useless to put any type of overlay on those streets due to the deterioration of the base. A report such as this enables the City to effectively use the resurfacing funds budgeted, by contracting a firm that has the sophisticated laser equipment and dynaflex machinery the City does not have. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the resurfacing request, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as fol- lows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were considered by the Commission as the Consent Agenda: 26. Sponsorship for Carver Middle School Grant Application: The Commission is to consider sponsoring a grant application to the Chil- dren's Services Council in the amount of $140,740, for a proposed evening child care program which will allow parents to attend college and other classes. Approval is recommended. 29. Appointment of a City Representative to the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Technical Advisory Committee: A recommendation to appoint Gates Castle, Interim City Engineer replacing Jerry Church, former City Engineer, as the City's representative to the MPO's Techni- cal Advisory Committee is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. 30. Tent Permit - Delray Harbor Club: The Commission is to con- sider approval of a temporary tent permit for eight tents to the Delray Harbor Club to be used for an auction on March 18, 1989. The tents will be erected March 16, 1989 and removed on March 20, 1989. Approval is recommended. 32. City Auction and Approval of Inventory List: Approval of an inventory list of surplus property and an auction date of Saturday, April 8th, is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. 33. Resolution No. 8-89: Resolution No. 8-89, assessing costs for abatement action required to remove an unsafe building on property located at 319-321 N.W. 8th Avenue in the amount of $1,746.80, is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. The caption of Resolution No. 8-89 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 165 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATEMENT ACTION REGARDING AN UNSAFE BUILDING ON LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ACTION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS -16- 2/28/89 RESOLUTION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF NOTICE. (Copy of Resolution No. 8-89 is on file in the official Resolu- tion Book) 34. Resolution No. 9-89: Resolution No. 9-89, assessing costs for abatement action required to remove an unsafe building on property located at 1108 Germantown Road in the amount of $2,571.80, is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. The caption of Resolution No. 9-89 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 165 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATEMENT ACTION REGARDING AN UNSAFE BUILDING ON LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ACTION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLU- TION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF NOTICE. (Copy of Resolution No. 9-89 is on file in the official Resolu- tion Book) 35. Resolution No. 10-89: Resolution No. 10-89, assessing costs for abatement action required to remove an unsafe building on property located at 707 S.W. 8th Court, is before the Commission for consider- ation. Approval is recommended. The caption of Resolution No. 10-89 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 165 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATEMENT ACTION REGARDING AN UNSAFE BUILDING ON LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ACTION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLU- TION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF NOTICE. (Copy of Resolution No. 10-89 is on file in the official Resolution Book) 36. Resolution No. 11-89: Resolution No. 11-89, assessing costs for abating nuisances on five properties throughout the City, is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. The caption of Resolution No. 11-89 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 165 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATEMENT ACTION REGARDING AN UNSAFE BUILDING ON LAND(S) LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; SETTING OUT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH ABATEMENT AND LEVYING THE COST OF SUCH ACTION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR A DUE DATE AND INTEREST ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF THIS RESOLU- TION, AND DECLARING SAID LEVY TO BE A LIEN UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR UNPAID ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF NOTICE. -17- 2/28/89 (Copy of Resolution No. 11-89 is on file in the official Resolution Book) 37. Award of Bids and Contracts: B. Bid Award - County Co-op Bids - Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. Award Bid, for one year, to low bidders through Palm Beach County Cooperative purchases. Estimated annual cost is $155,000 with funding to come from various user department's operating budget accounts XXX-XXXX-XXX-35.51 (Gas, oil and lubricants). C. Bid Award - Mobile Stage Platform to low bidder Hunter-Knepshield Company in the amount of $27,996 with funding to come from Account 001-4121-572-60.89 (Parks & Recreation Playgrounds and Playfields - Capital Improvement - Other). D. Authorize Florida Power and Light to install padmount transformers for golf course wells #9, 10, 11, 12 and 14, and payment in the amount of $21,576, from Account No. 441-5163-536-60.71. Ms. Brainerd moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Camp- bell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 38.A.1. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned the status of the concrete spills on roads and highways. The City Attorney stated there is an existing ordinance and the Police Department has been issuing citations, but Occupational License Fees cannot be increased to offset the cost due to the fact the City is locked in by Statute. Chief Kilgore stated they have made this a special program and have met with all the concrete companies in the City and will continue to monitor this. 38.A.2. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned the status of the drug problem on N.W. 6th and N.W. 7th Avenues. Chief Kilgore stated a request was made to the City Manager last week to grant the department the authority to continue the original efforts on West Atlantic Avenue and the northwest section. There will be a larger drive this coming weekend by using off-duty personnel on an overtime basis. 38.A.3. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned if there is a way to work with the School Board in resolving the problem of students not attending school. The City Manager stated the City does not have a Truant Officer program and neither does the School Board. Chief Kilgore stated, to his knowl- edge, the School Board does nothing until a student is absent ten days and at that time the parents are notified. The Police Department works with the Human Relations Commission, but they do not patrol the streets searching for these persons. 38.A.4. Ms. McCarty questioned the status of the security mentioned in the letter from the Housing Authority. The City Manager advised that item will be scheduled for a workshop on March 7th. Ms. McCarty re- quested that representatives of the Housing Authority be notified of the meeting. 38.A.5. Mayor Campbell stated, since the Commission touched on the appraisal of the Love property, he feels that should be discussed as soon as possible. 38.B.1. The City Attorney stated the City received a decision in the First District Court of Appeal consisting of a 48 page opinion, dealing with the City's involvement in the Police and Firefighter Pension Fund procedures. The First DCA handed down a decision today that basically struck down all the Department of Insurance attempts to regulate the City. He feels it will have a broader effect than dealing with the pension issues as it deals with the municipal autonomy and the right to do things with the money that the City decides on. He clarified that it would be available to the Commission on Friday so they can review it in terms of the upcoming budget. Upon question, the City Attorney also -18- 2/28/89 stated he does not feel it will be appealed by the Insurance Commis- sioner. 38.B.2. The City Attorney advised the UNISYS Contract has seen some progress to the extent that settlement offer negotiations have been received and he feels the settlement is close with the question of amount still to be decided. 38.B.3. The City Attorney stated the Commission earlier made a decision to approve a format to be utilized in the evaluation procedures with the City Manager of a one-on-one discussion to be the method of clarifying his job performance, what is good and what is not good, plans for the future, what has happened in the past or none of the above. Each Commissioner had scheduled meetings with the City Manager to conduct those discussions with him privately. Upon learning of this evaluation, an attorney from The Sun-Sentinel newspaper contacted him yesterday one hour prior to the first of these scheduled discussions, and threatened to file a lawsuit against the City, stating that this procedure consti- tuted a violation of the Florida Statutes 286.011, which is the Sunshine Laws. In his opinion, what the Commission has outlined as individual meetings to discuss job performance with Commission appointees, himself or the City Manager, and subsequently return and make a joint decision on job performance, is not a violation of the Sunshine Law. There are some political ramifications and he has been assured by Will Strickland, the Attorney for The Sun-Sentinel, that if this procedure goes forward, he will indeed file suit, alleging that individually and conspiritually, the Sunshine Law has been violated. The City Attorney feels the Commis- sion should give careful consideration and direction to the proposition. He advised there is no case of a judicial decision on that subject. There are Attorney General opinions dealing with individual Commission meetings with managers, but he feels they are not applicable, as they deal with the subject of a single Commissioner conducting an analysis, making the decision binding on the remaining Commissioners, which is not permitted under the Sunshine Law. Mayor Campbell commented that he felt it was for the City Manager's benefit and he has no problem with a written resume of his personal evaluation, not necessarily using the form. Ms. McCarty stated she felt the Commission had agreed on using the West Palm Beach format. Mayor Campbell stated it was his understanding that it was to be used as a guideline, but not actually be filled in. The City Manager stated he feels there should be some consistent document from which everyone works. Mayor Campbell stated this is not an objective evaluation, in fact, he feels it is very subjective. The City Manager stated the agreement under which he came to work for the City called for a mutually acceptable evaluation form to be done periodically and he felt that was everyone's goal and that is what he felt they had. He suggested the Commission take the document, use the criteria and add to or delete from it when making individual remarks. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he feels it is important that all of the Commissioners should evaluate him on the same criteria and, as one body, produce a general consensus, or it will be an unfair evaluation. Mayor Campbell stated he does not feel it needs to be fair, but right. He stated that there obviously is not a consensus, so this item will be placed on the next workshop meeting. The City Attorney questioned what his response is to be to the lawyer from The Sun-Sentinel. There was a consensus of the Commission that, for the time being, this will be placed on hold. 38.C.1. The City Manager stated a year ago at the Organizational Meeting, the Commission indicated they did not want a meeting on elec- tion night. Since that is fast approaching, he asked for direction from them if he should schedule an agenda for March 14th. Mayor Campbell suggested that perhaps the workshop meeting for March 7th might be combined with a Special Meeting and put some business items on that. The Commission concurred. Mayor Campbell declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. City' Clerk -19- 2/28/89 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 February 28, 1989, which minutes were for- merly approved and adopted by the City Commission on ?~,~ ~7.F/'F;~. ~-r- --; NOTE TO READER: If the minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the official minutes of 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. -20- 2/28/89 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL,' AND 'OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--~IDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS ' THE BOARD.~COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMiFIE~ ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY / COUNTY NAME OF ~LITICAL SUBDIVISION; WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR coMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. · A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. I ¢)Rx.I nfl 1(1.I46 PAGE IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE MEETING: · You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, ~O ,¢ K. ~'**. C,~,,'nP,~_. /_ L , hereby disclose that on ~*~-- ~; . ~ oO , 19 ~. : (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) ~ inured to my special private gain; or ~ inured to the special gain of , by whom ] am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in thc measure is as follows: Date Filed Sig ,atu e L/ TO ~A/KE NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B- 10-86 PAGE FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND 'OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIrST NAME--MII)DLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS ~ THE BOARD. COUNCIL,. COMMISSIOn, AUTHORITY. Or COMMI~E~ On WHIC~ I SERVE IS A UNIT CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON 'HK'H "O'FE oCCUrreD My POS~FION IS: WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section !12.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible fox recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. ../ · A copy of the form should be provided immediately t'o ihe other members of the agency. · The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of intere ts~.~ I ()R\I ~B 1()-~6 PAGE IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE MEETING: · You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You should complete the form and file it within 1:5 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ,._)'-/ ,qT /")q y bO'~',,4T'/-/ff,~ 359o~ ,O , hereby disclose that on ./.C ~ ~. .7~ oC:' , 19 .ff.'~ : (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) ~ inured to my special private gain; or ~ inured to the special gain of , by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 88 - 10-86 PAGE