The URL can be used to link to this page

07-25-89 JULY 25, 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 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, July 25, 1989. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner William Andrews Commissioner Mary McCarty Commissioner Jimmy Weatherspoon Mayor Doak S. Campbell Absent - Commissioner Patricia Brainerd Also present were - Interim City Manager Robert Barcinski and City Attorney Herbert W.A. Thiele. 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Reverend Mike Castronis, First Presbyterian Church. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 4. Mayor Campbell asked a special consideration in approving the agenda due to the large number of persons who would like to comment on the issue of the City Manager. He requested that the Item for Non- Agenda comments, first by the Commission and then by the public, be moved forward. Interim City Manager Barcinski requested that Item No. 6.A. be deleted because the award has not arrived as yet, that Item No. 6.B. be delayed until the August 8th meeting, that Item No. 10 be moved to the presentation section, making it Item 6.A., that Item No. 16 be deleted, that Item No. 42 be removed and placed on the next agenda and that Item No. 43 be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed at the end of the Regular Agenda. The City Attorney requested that Item No. 34 be post- poned until the August 8th meeting. Mr. Weatherspoon requested that Items No. 46, 48, 49 and 50 be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed at the end of the Regular Agenda. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated an addendum also added Items No. 54oA. and 54.B. to the Consent Agenda. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the amended agenda with Comments from the Commission and the public to be heard immediately following, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 56.A. Comments by the Commission. There were no comments from Ms. McCarty. Mr. Andrews stated he left the City a week ago Monday, proud of the efforts and momentum being built for schools, the bond issue and the community redevelopment. At 4:00 A.M. last Wednesday morning, he discovered he had been basically cut out of the City's governing pro- cess. If an emergency in this City arises, he fully expects to be made aware of it by the Mayor or the Vice-Mayor. This past week the Commis- sion has not only taken him out of the process but, virtually, stopped all the citizens' efforts. While the Commission has lost some spirit of cooperation, he takes pride in the fact that the community spirit is well in place. Therefore, he urges everyone to not sacrifice or dilute the strength needed to prevail on the School Board. The City Manager conveyed to him many times that this school issue could make or break this community and he concurs. In addition, it must be decided whether to vote down the bond issue and give slum-lords their satisfaction, or raise the City standards to a level of excellence. Mr. Andrews stated that he spent four hours yesterday selling the potential of the City to a residential developer willing to explore the redevelopment of some of the blighted newly-annexed County pockets. He looked to the future that he and the people believe in for this City. He has read hundreds of thousands of dollars of bad press and is sorry that it is the responsibility of this Commission, but asks that everyone please bear in mind that four Commissioners and a Mayor do not make a City. He stated it must be made sure that the priorities of the City are in order and that it does not lose sight of its ultimate goals. Mr. Weatherspoon commented that, in his opinion, any time a person leaves the City, they are cut out of the meetings. In order to explain the reasoning of his actions a week ago, he asked that everyone reflect back to the summer of 1988. The main problems/concerns the majority of the Commission voiced was the lack of communication from the City Manager's Office, whether it be the Commission, staff or the public in general. This also included the fact that the City Manager was making and implementing decisions in areas which required authorization of the City Commission. Mr. Weatherspoon also stated that in a City Manager form of government, it is imperative that the City Manager and the Commission work within the bounds of their respective positions. He feels one of the major problems with this form of government is when a City Manager, whether knowingly or not, becomes too political, those natural boundary lines become imaginary and not so distinct. Other factors in his decision concerned the City Manager's hiring and promotional practices, trying to utilize certain staff members to victimize employees who did not see things his way, the handling of the purchase of the Adult Book Store, the deletion of an item from the City Attorney's budget without authorization or any communication with the City Attorney or the Commis- sion and the firing of the Commission's secretary. This was an indica- tion to him that the City Manager had not changed and would continue to go above the Commission. Therefore, the obligation so bestowed upon him compelled him to take the action he did. Mayor Campbell read the attached statement with regard to the issue of the City Manager. 10. Comments from the Public. The following persons spoke in support of Mayor Campbell and the City Commission: Deborah Wright, Virginia Cady Schmidt, Sam Schwimer, Margaret Ehrmann, Lee Morgan, Helen Coopersmith, Dr. Michael Ehrmann, Leo Weiner and Stanley Milosky. The following persons spoke in support of Walter Barry, the former City Manager: Don Doornbos, Paul F. Smith, Harvey Brown, Bill Hazzard, Clayton Wiedeman, Charles Smith and Brent Karper. Robert French expressed no definite support for either faction, but felt the City Charter needs to be revised and the entire issue was handled badly. Rosetta Rolle expressed a desire that the City Commission continue to work together for the good of the City of Delray Beach. Mayor Campbell declared a recess the time being 8:38 P.M., the meeting reconvened at 8:43 P.M. 5. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the minutes of the SPecial Meeting of June 19, 1989 and the Regular Meeting of June 27, 1989, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 6.A. (20.)Resolution No. 43-89. Resolution No. 43-89, recognizing and commending Norman C. Rolle for 34 years of service to the City of Delray Beach and naming the gymnasium located at the Delray Beach Community Center the Norman C. Rolle Gymnasium in appreciation of his dedicated employment, is before the Commission for consideration. -2- 7/25/89 The caption of Resolution No. 43-89 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING NORMAN C. ROLLE FOR 34 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. (Copy of Resolution No. 43-89 is on file in the official Resolution Book) Mr. Weatherspoon moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 43-89, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Ordinance No. 38-89. Ordinance No. 38-89, annexing Enclave 50 located in the vicinity of LaMat Avenue and Federal Highway, including the former Chamberlain property with various commercial and residential City Zoning, 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. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 38-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH A PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 28, IN PART, AND SECTION 29, IN PART, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, WHICH LAND IS CONTIGU- OUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY; SAID LAND IS LOCATED BETWEEN DIXIE HIGHWAY (AS THE WEST BOUNDARY) AND FLORIDA BOULEVARD (AS THE EAST BOUNDARY), AND BETWEEN AVENUE "F" (AS THE NORTH BOUNDARY) AND AVENUE "J" (AS THE SOUTH BOUNDARY); REDEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF TO SC (SPECIALIZED COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT, IN PART, GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT, IN PART AND RM (MEDIUM TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY DWELLING) DISTRICT, IN PART; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 38-89 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. Marian MacLeod, Tropic Bay Condominium, stated at this time the residents are concerned about a 12-acre area immediately opposite the condominium relative to the zoning. It is their hope that the majority of this parcel will be annexed with a zoning of residential. Jean Beer, 945 Tropic Boulevard, stated that the Auto Ranch property is not currently in use as an auto dealer used-car lot. There is a choice of SC, which does not agree with the Land Use Plan of Transitional and in that Transitional Land Use there is no provision for SC use. It does not agree with the automobile dealer ordinance because the parcel that could be possibly zoned SC is one and one-half acres and does not meet the minimum requirement. Also, the Enterprise Leasing property has already been zoned GC because it was under the proper size and is still used for automobile use, setting the precedent. She does not feel the automobile use on that property should be continued and she objects to the parcel directly behind, as it is residential. The public hearing was closed. -3- 7/25/89 Mr. Weatherspoon moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 38-89 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: David Kovacs, Planning Director, stated the P&Z Board, with respect to GC and SC did not accommodate SC zoning on the east side of Federal Highway. They recommended General Commercial zoning and the ordinance before the Commission designates GC for those properties. Upon question by Mr. Weatherspoon, Mr. Kovacs stated the P&Z Board recommended that the property behind the Auto Ranch be zoned RM and the ordinance is drafted in that way. At this point the roll was called to the motion. 8. Ordinance No. 40-89. Ordinance No. 40-89, a staff initiated ordinance, amending Sections 150.115 and 154.02 of the City Code for the purpose of requiring additional and more detailed information for staff review prior to issuance of permits for seawalls, bulkheads, docks, dolphins, finger piers and boat lifts, 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. Ms. McCarty left the Commission Chambers at this time. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 40-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE XV, "BUILDING REGULA- TIONS'', CHAPTER 150, "BUILDING REGULATIONS", SECTION 150.115 "PERMIT REQUIRED: APPROVAL", AND TITLE XV, "BUILDING REGULATIONS", CHAPTER 154, "DOCKS, DOLPHINS, FINGER PIERS, AND BOAT LIFTS", SECTION 154.02, "PERMIT REQUIRED", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING MORE DETAILED INFORMATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR SEAWALLS OR BULKHEADS AND FOR DOCKS, DOLPHINS, FINGER PIERS AND BOAT LIFTS; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 40-89 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. 40-89 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. 9. Ordinance No. 41-89. Ordinance No. 41-89 is a staff initiated ordinance, streamlining the nuisance abatement process by providing for two notices instead of four currently required. An additional proposal would clarify that nuisance abatement liens are on a parity with general taxes, by requiring liens to be satisfied before mortgages and/or other encumbrances. This ordinance 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 sched- uled to be held at this time. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 41-89: -4- 7/25/89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE IX, "GENERAL REGULATIONS", CHAPTER 100, "NUISANCES", SUBHEADING, "ABATEMENT PROCE- DURES'', OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA; BY REPEALING SECTION 100.22, "CONTENT AND FORM OF NOTICE", AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 100.22, "CONTENT AND FORM OF NOTICE", TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW NOTICE FORMAT FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, NOTICE OF ASSESS- MENT AND NOTICE OF LIEN; BY REPEALING SECTION 100.24 "ABATEMENT BY CITY; NOTICE OF ESTIMATED COST", AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 100.24, "ABATEMENT BY THE CITY", TO PROVIDE FOR A REASONABLE TIME AFTER A HEARING TO CORRECT A NUISANCE, ELIMINATING THE SEPARATE SEVEN DAY NOTICE OF ESTIMATED COST BY INCLUDING THE ESTIMATED COST IN THE FIRST NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND PROVIDING FOR THE COMBINATION OF NOTICES OF ASSESSMENT AND LIEN; BY REPEALING SECTION 100.25 "ABATEMENT BID PROCEDURE", AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 100.25, "ABATEMENT BID PROCEDURE", TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY SHALL SEEK COMPETITIVE BIDS NO LESS THAN YEARLY ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S NORMAL BIDDING, PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PRACTICES, BY REPEALING SECTION 100.26, "BIDDING AND CONTRACTING PROVISION PREEMPTIVE"; BY REPEALING SECTION 100.27 "ASSESSMENT OF COSTS, INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES; LIEN" AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 100.26, "ASSESSMENT OF COSTS, INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES; LIEN", TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMBINING OF THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE OF LIEN AND PROVIDING THAT SAID LIEN SHALL BE RECORDED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE IF PAYMENT IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT; BY REPEALING SECTION 100.28, "ENFORCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT" AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 100.27, "ENFORCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT; PRIORITIES OF LIEN", TO PROVIDE REMEDIES OF ENFORCEMENT AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUPERIORITY OF SAID LIENS, AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 25786, LAWS OF FLORIDA, SPECIAL ACT OF 1949 AS AMENDED, PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Copy of Ordinance No. 41-89 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. 41-89 on Second and FINAL Reading, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Ms. McCarty returned to the Commission Chambers at this time (before the vote). Mr. Weatherspoon asked for confirmation that the liens are now on a parity with mortgages and the City Attorney stated that is correct. Upon question if this can be so stipulated in the ordinance, or has something in the law changed, the City Attorney stated the law has not changed but the City is going to comport the ordinances with provisions that are in the City Charter. It has been argued to the Court about the lien priority, that they are on a co-equal basis. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned who decides where the priority lies with the bank and the City. The City Attorney stated it is a chronological decision and the first recording has the first priority, except for certain things. Another item that has priority by statute is a lien filed for utility service. The Nuisance Abatement is consistent with the Charter, so it is a new concept in an effort to get the Court to accept the fact that they are on a co-equal status. -5- 7/25/89 At this time the roll was called to the motion. PUBLIC COMMENTS 10.1. Les McDermott, President of the South County branch represent- ing the NAACP, stated on July 31st at 7:00 P.M. the School Board of Palm Beach County will hold a hearing at Banyan Creek with direct relevance to all citizens of Delray. At this time the City Commission and the citizens of Delray will have an opportunity to act in an aggressive manner to ensure that the children of this community shall receive the quality of education and the educational standards provided to those students of neighboring communities. He also encouraged the City to take aggressive action to make sure those students do not continue to be bussed into other communities, while funds are being poured into other communities, but to have those funds moved into the City of Delray and to ensure that, when stigmas are applied to any community, those stigmas are not applied to Delray Beach. FIRST READINGS 11. Ordinance No. 42-89. Ordinance No. 42-89, a City initiated rezoning of the Holt property, a 20-unit apartment complex known as Harbor View Subdivision, located on N.E. 1st Street from CF (Community Facility) to RM-10 (Residential Medium Density), is before the Commis- sion for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held August 8th. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 42-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED CF (COMMUNITY FACILITIES) DISTRICT IN RM-10 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) DISTRICT; SAID LAND BEING LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK COURT SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 74, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LAND IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF N.E. 1ST STREET, APPROXIMATELY 175 FEET EAST OF N.E. 7TH AVENUE; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1983"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEAL- ER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Ms. McCarty moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 42-89 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 12. Ordinance No. 43-89. Ordinance No. 43-89, a voluntary annexa- tion of parcels along North Federal Highway bordered on the east by the Town of Gulfstream, the south and west by Delray Beach and on the north by Boynton Beach, with an initial City zoning of GC (General Commer- cial), is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held August 22nd. Mayor Campbell left the Commission Chambers at this time and Vice-Mayor McCarty took the Chair. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 43-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH LOTS 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34 AND 36, THE EAST 200 FEET OF LOT 9, LOT 14 (LESS THE NORTH 20.25 FEET OF THE WEST 186 FEET THEREOF), AND THE EAST 80 FEET OF LOT 35, DELRAY BEACH ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 13, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, WHICH LAND IS CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY; SAID LAND IS LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, BETWEEN DIXIE HIGHWAY AND THE CITY -6- 7/25/89 LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF GULFSTREAM, AND LYING NORTH OF ALLEN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF GULFSTREAM BOULEVARD; REDEFIN- ING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF TO GC (GENERAL COMMER- CIAL) DISTRICT; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. The applicant questioned if this annexation is subject to the P&Z hearing of last week with the special exceptions. Vice-Mayor McCarty assured him that was correct. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 43-89 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Vice-Mayor McCarty - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Vice-Mayor McCarty questioned, with regard to some of the conditions being allowed, why an existing billboard was allowed to remain and will it be allowed to remain until July of 1990. The City Attorney stated the position of the City has been that it is being enforced until that time as a deadline for annexed properties. Vice- Mayor McCarty questioned background information on the parking lots involved. Mr. Kovacs stated Item No. 4 in the agenda backup is one of six requests to permit a shellrock driveway and parking lot to remain for three years for a Real Estate office. The response is that since it lawfully exists, when it is annexed it is not required to upgrade so it will remain shellrock unless a code is enacted requiring remedial upgradings or if the applicant does something to require a permit. The City Attorney advised the approval of the ordinance would not incorpo- rate those six conditions unless they are specified by the Commission to do so. Mr. Kovacs stated there are no conditions, only six responses to six inquiries. The City does not have a regulation that requires an applicant to upgrade an inadequately paved parking lot as long as it existed before ordinances go into effect stating that it must be up- graded. Upon question, Mr. Kovacs stated the applicant would probably withdraw his request if the Commission was to place a time limit on the shellrock drive and parking lot. Vice-Mayor McCarty requested an explanation for each of the six items as follows: 1. Allow an existing billboard to remain. The City Attorney advised it can remain until July of 1990. 2. Consideration of future development of undersized lot. Mr. Kovacs stated the property is zoned GC and there is no minimum zoning area and no setbacks; therefore, there is no requirement. 3. Continue use for existing drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility and halfway house. Mr. Kovacs stated it is allowed as a Conditional Use within the GC District; therefore, it is a grandfather Conditional Use. 4. Permit existing shellrock driveway and parking lot to remain for three years. Vice-Mayor McCarty stated this has been explained. 5. Grandfather existing warehouse/light industrial/contract- or use. Mr. Kovacs stated the contractor's office is allowed as a permitted use in the GC District, the others are legal existing uses that are now becoming non-con- forming so, if the outside storage is vacant for a period of thirty days, it cannot be re-established; if the warehouse is vacant for a period of 180 days, it cannot be re-established; they can continue in their existing state. 6. Grant special use to allow an existing unimproved parking lot for one year. Mr. Kovacs stated in this particular case there is litigation in the County whether or not this property is a lawfully established use. If it is determined that it is not a lawfully established use, he cannot have that use in the City. If the County decides -7- 7/25/89 to give the problem to the City on annexation, Richard Bauer, Code Enforcement Administrator, would meet with the City Attorney and make a decision to pursue any action. Upon question by Mr. Andrews, Mr. Kovacs stated the new annexa- tions do not automatically become a part of the CRA area, because the CRA did a Finding of Necessity to extend its boundaries east of Federal Highway; however, there were follow ups and steps that did not get done, so it is his belief that the CRA boundaries have not been extended east of Federal Highway. The applicant stated if the parking lot is not to be approved for a one year period, he will withdraw his request. Mr. Kovacs recom- mended the applicant meet with Mr. Bauer as it is a Code Enforcement Board action as opposed to a Land Use Zoning related item. The City Attorney stated if this was an established use in the County, an argument could be made that it could continue without being improved. There is a question as to whether or not that is the case and he does not know whether the County will answer that question in time for the annexation. At this point the roll was called to the motion. 13. Ordinance No. 44-89. Ordinance No. 44-89, rezoning the Costco property located at the southwest corner of Linton Boulevard and S.W. 4th Avenue from SAD (Special Activities District) to CC (Community Commercial) to accommodate a proposed retail sales warehouse building for Costco, is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held August 8th. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 44-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED SAD (SPECIAL ACTIVITIES) DISTRICT IN CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, BEING A PORTION OF (VACATED) WEST EL BE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15 AT PAGE 22, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LAND IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LINTON BOULEVARD AND S.W. 4TH AVENUE; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1983"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Andrews moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 44-89 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Vice-Mayor McCarty - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Mr. Weatherspoon questioned the zoning of the land directly west of this parcel. Mr. Kovacs stated it is zoned Special Activities District and the Costco property is being changed to Community Commer- cial as the current SAD allows only a hotel, conference center and limited commercial. At this time the roll was called to the motion. 14. Ordinance No. 45-89. Ordinance No. 45-89 rezoning Palms of Delray Inc. (Linton Center, Parcel 1/formerly CRJ property) from CC (Community Commercial) to GC (General Commercial) to accommodate a proposed retail shopping center and a McDonald's restaurant, is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held August 8th. -8- 7/25/89 Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 45-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REZONING AND PLACING LAND PRESENTLY ZONED CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT IN GC (GENERAL COMMER- CIAL) DISTRICT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43 EAST, CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF THE PLAT OF LINTON CENTER, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 39, PAGES 8 AND 9, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LAND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINTON BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 10TH AVENUE AND GERMANTOWN ROAD, IF EXTENDED SOUTH; AND AMENDING "ZONING MAP OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, 1983"; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Andrews moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 45-89 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Vice-Mayor McCarty - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Vice-Mayor McCarty requested clarification that the out parcel has been approved and, if there should be a restaurant located there, could it be a drive-thru. Mr. Kovacs stated, under the CC Zoning District, there may be a building containing not less than 4,000 square feet; also, if the property is conveyed under CC there must be a four acre parcel. It is possible to have a 4001 square foot restaurant and then the drive-thru would need to be dealt with. At this time the roll was called to the motion. 15. Ordinance No. 46-89. Ordinance No. 46-89, a voluntary annexa- ti'on of Walmart property with initial City zoning of GC (General Commer- cial) or CC (Community Commercial), is before the Commission for consid- eration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held August 22nd. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 46-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH A PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 42 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, WHICH LAND IS CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY; SAID LAND IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MILITARY TRAIL, APPROXIMATELY 670 FEET SOUTH OF LINTON BOULEVARD; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF TO GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Andrews moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 46-89 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned which zoning is to be applied. Mr. Kovacs advised that the P&Z Board recommended a zoning of GC. Mr. Andrews amended his motion to include a designation of GC zoning, Mr. Weatherspoon amended his second. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Vice-Mayor McCarty - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. -9- 7/25/89 17. Ordinance No. 48-89. Ordinance No. 48-89, amending the General Employees Pension Plan by decreasing the pre-tax retirement contribution made by employees from 6% to 4.5% of basic compensation effective October 1, 1989, is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held August 8th. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 48-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 35, "EMPLOYEE POLICIES AND BENEFITS", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING "RETIREMENT PLAN", SECTION 35.095, "CONTRIBUTIONS OF PARTICIPANT AND CITY", SUBSECTION (A), "PARTICIPANT'S CONTRIBUTION ACCOUNT", TO CHANGE THE PERCENTAGE AMOUNT OF PARTICIPANT CONTRIBUTIONS AND TO ALLOW TAX DEFERRAL OF THESE PARTICIPANT CONTRIBU- TIONS PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 414(h); AND BY AMENDING SECTION 35.097, "RETIREMENT INCOME; BASIS, AMOUNT, AND PAYMENT", SUBSECTION (A), "BASIS OF RETIRE- MENT INCOME". SUB-SUBSECTION (1) (a), "BASIC COMPENSA- TION'', TO RECOGNIZE A NEW DEFINITION OF BASIC COMPENSA- TION TO INCLUDE PARTICIPANT CONTRIBUTIONS PICKED UP BY THE CITY; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFEC- TIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Vice-Mayor McCarty questioned if this is the result of contract negotiations of last year. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated that it is and advised there will soon be new ordinances revoking the police and fire projects. The City Attorney stated the Fire Pension Board has this item scheduled on their agenda for Friday and it will be presented to the Commission following that. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated one item that needs clarification is that, in those ordinances, effec- tive dates are being requested when the IRS ruling comes in. The actuary for the general employees pension fund has recommended an October 1st date. In order to be consistent, he is requesting a deci- sion for the effective date to be the same for all. Mayor Campbell returned to the Commission Chambers at this time and took the Chair. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned if it is anticipated that the IRS ruling will be received by that date and what the ramifications might be if the City decides not to wait. The City Attorney advised he does not anticipate the IRS reply to be available by October and stated they could choose not to approve the plan change. The General Employees Plan Actuary says, technically, it is not effective until the IRS comes through, but is a summary sort of procedure and he feels there is no doubt that it will be approved. The City Attorney took a more cautious approach and advised they should all be subject to IRS approval. David Huddleston, Finance Director, stated what would happen is that, at the end of the year, that would create a need for a rollback as taxable wages, if the IRS did not rule favorably. Upon question by Mr. Weatherspoon, Mr. Huddleston stated the impact would be that the employ- ee would have to pay an additional $25 to $50 more a month. The City Attorney advised the reason for the October 1st date is because that is the date for a number of changeovers in the wage package for the collec- tive bargaining agreements. Upon question by Mr. Weatherspoon as to a recommendation, Mr. Huddleston stated he feels the October 1st date should be used. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 48-89 on First Reading, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 18. Ordinance No. 49-89. Ordinance No. 49-89, annexing the Adult Book Store property located on North Federal Highway, on a separate ordinance due to the deferred effective date, is before the Commission -10- 7/25/89 for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held August 8th. Ms. McCarty left the Commission Chambers at this time. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 49-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH LOT 35 (LESS THE EAST 80 FEET THEREOF), DELRAY BEACH ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 13, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORI- DA, WHICH LAND IS CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SAID CITY; SAID LAND IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND WEST OF THE TOWN OF GULFSTREAM, LYING NORTH OF ALLEN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF GULFSTREAM BOULEVARD; REDEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY TO INCLUDE SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGA- TIONS OF SAID LAND; PROVIDING FOR THE ZONING THEREOF TO GC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Andrews moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 49-89 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Co~is- sion voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. The City Attorney stated, for the record, on Ordinance 49-89, although the Commission will adopt this in the normal fashion, the effective date is not until March 1, 1990. 19. Ordinance No. 50-89. Ordinance No. 50-89, delegating authority to the Retirement Committee to waive, upon a finding of extenuating circumstances, the requirement of a 90-day deadline for repayment into the fund to buy back previous service, is before the Commission for consideration on First Reading. If passed, Public Hearing will be held August 8, 1989. (Due to the failure of the Delray Beach News to publish the ad, this will come back for Public Hearing and Second Reading on August 22nd. Interim City Manager Barcinski presented Ordinance No. 50-89: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE III, "ADMINISTRATION", CHAPTER 35, "EMPLOYEE POLICIES AND BENEFITS", "RETIREMENT PLAN", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 35.093(G), "CREDITED SERVICE", TO ADD PROVISIONS DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT COMMITTEE TO WAIVE, UNDER EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NINETY DAY REPAYMENT DEADLINE SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 50-89 on First Reading, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. Before roll call the following discussion was had: Upon question by Mr. Weatherspoon, the City Attorney stated the General Employees Pension Fund Committee is recommending that this ordinance be adopted in order to provide them with the authority to administer the 90-day buy back option. -11- 7/25/89 Mr. Huddleston stated the financial impact to the plan is minimal. When employees terminate they have the option to withdraw their funds. In order to buy back the employee must pay back the withdrawn contributions plus annual interest at seven percent, which is the actuarial assumption for the Police and Firefighters Plan. This interest would be payable from the date the employee withdrew the funds. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned if that employee would need to come before the Commission for approval of the waiver and the City Attorney assured him that is the case. At this time the roll was called to the motion. REGULAR AGENDA 21. Proposed Millage Rate/Certification of Taxable Value (DR-420). The Commission is to consider approval of 1989 Certification of Taxable Value (DR-420) with proposed millage rate. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated the proposed budget proposes a rate of 6.0 mils, which is the same as in the current budget. The City is required to file the 1989 Certification of Taxable Value by July 28th with the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's Office. This is before the Commission for direction in case the Commission would like to make an adjustment in the filing rate to be advertised. The rate is very difficult to increase once it has been filed, but it can be low- ered. Last year the Commission elected to go to 6.5 mils with the filing and the advertising of the additional funds were placed in an appropriated fund balance. Those issues were addressed during the budget review and the rate was then reduced to 6.0 mils. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he is in favor of holding the line, but in order to give the Commission some flexibility, he would be amenable to going with the same as last year, i.e. 6.5 mils. He also questioned, since this does not take effect until October 1st, why the money is to be placed in a surplus fund. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated this is the proposed tax rate, so that is what is submitted and advertised. That means the tax rate in the budget goes up against the value of the property, generating additional revenue. The proposed budget will be changed with revenue and will be unappropriated until the Commission makes a decision during the budget review process whether that rate is to be maintained or what adjustments will be made. Mr. Huddleston explained if the Commission wanted to allocate or appropriate the additional revenue they could do so, but if it was decided not to use any of the additional revenue, the millage would be reduced. Mr. Andrews stated, as he understands it, there is approximate- ly $6 million in the comprehensive plan in the bond issue and one percent~ generates approximately $200,000. He questioned, if the City should get into a bind with the bond, and obligations of the comp plan had to be performed, would the City then raise the millage rate or use a portion of the millage rate to support a $6 million bond. Mr. Huddleston stated, in a $6 million bond issue, the City would have to come up with about $650 to $660 thousand in the annual debt services. However, the City could not proceed with a GO issue but it would be necessary to have a special revenue issue. Mr. Andrews stated he is in favor of the 6.5 mils. Ms. McCarty returned to the Commission Chambers at this time. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of a proposed millage rate of taxable value of 6.5 mils, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - No; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 1 vote. Before roll call, the following discussion was had: Ms. McCarty stated she is not voting for the millage increase because she did not hear the discussion. However, she feels that since the City has nearly $2 million extra in the budget this year, that is sufficient and feels there can be further cuts in the budget. -12- 7/25/89 At this point the roll was called to the motion. 22. LaMat Avenue Improvements. The Commission is to consider the designation of a funding source for proposed improvements on LaMat Avenue and the authorization to proceed with the project. Mayor Campbell stated his concern is that, while funding sources are being put in the budget for the coming year in order to proceed, it will be necessary to have a fallback which is a designation from the two funding sources of the General Fund and the Water and Sewer Fund. Mr. Andrews stated he feels the land area involved in this project is something that, if dollars were spent, could entice a high quality developer into the area to make it a viable residential section, removing all the commercial. Therefore, he cannot support this until such time as it has been explored in an attempt to redevelop the entire area rather than a City improvement that is not guaranteeing the en- hancement of the properties adjacent to those improvements. Ms. McCarty stated the Commission has spent time discussing this and the people believe that this is going to happen. After receiv- ing a letter from the Tropic Bay Homeowners Association with regard to crime and possibly closing off an entrance, she feels it is imperative that something be done now. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he supports the concept, but feels it is not the only project that should be considered, so he cannot support it at this time. Marian MacLeod stated that street was paved sixty years ago and, while she is aware there are other areas in the City that need attention, she made a request back in 1964 and feels they have been very patient. Mr. Andrews questioned what amount of time elapses between the approval of the funds and the actual commencement of a project or of letting bids. Frank Spence, Director of Development Services, stated that, even without identification of funding and Commission authoriza- tion, the engineering department will be doing this inhouse and will get underway in approximately four months. Mr. Andrews stated on the Comprehensive Plan there are several areas that are not included in the CRA area needing redevelopment. He proposed a workshop be scheduled to learn about and get these areas redeveloped. He feels they are as important as any other part of the City and there is no plan to do that. Lorraine Casper, 3000 Spanish Trail, questioned if any consid- eration has been given to the residents located in the County that are to be annexed and do not have the means to bring their homes up to City code. Ms. McCarty moved for approval of LaMat Avenue improvements and authorization to proceed, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - No; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 1 vote. 23. Conditional Use Request. The Commission is to consider approv- al of a conditional use request to establish a day care center, Kiddie Child Care, at S.W. 10th Street and S.W. 12th Avenue. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for ratification of denial for the Conditional Use request for Kiddie Child Care, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 24. Conditional Use Request and Site Plan Approval. An approval of a conditional use and site plan approval for a "Saturn" automobile dealership on the south side of LaMat Avenue between Federal Highway and -13- 7/25/89 Dixie Highway, is before the Commission for consideration, subject to the following conditions: 1. Waivers be granted to the boundary treatment required of 173.510(A2b) and to the sidewalk installation along LaMat. The imposed conditions are identified as #2, #4 a & b, and #5, a, b, c, d, as identified in the staff's recommended action. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Roger Saberson, representing the applicant, stated he would like to clarify that the waiver of sidewalks applies to a waiver of all sidewalks on all streets adjacent to the project, not just on LaMat Avenue. Also, a change of language on the traffic signals, instead of "when upon demand by the County traffic division" to, "when warranted by the County traffic division". Mr. Weatherspoon amended his motion to reflect the change, Mr. Andrews amended his second. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 25. Site and Development Plan Approval. The Commission is to consider approval of site and development plan for Linton Lakes II (Spring Landings), a proposed 299-unit apartment complex located on the west side of Congress Avenue, between Linton Boulevard and Germantown Road, subject to conditions identified in the staff's recommended action and conversion of three parking spaces by an entry drive to stabilized sod. Mr. Andrews moved for approval, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 26. Site and Development Plan Approval. The Commission is to consider approval of site and development plan for the Groves of Delray, a proposed 144-unit townhouse development located north of Linton Boulevard, on the east side of S.W. 10th Avenue extended, south of S.W. llth Street and west of S.W. 8th Avenue. Mayor Campbell stated he requested and received confirmation that the Declaration of Covenants has not been approved as yet. He questioned if it is possible to approve the site plan, subject to getting the approval of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. Upon question, Mayor Campbell stated since this development will be a "for sale" project opposed to a rental, the only limitations to upgrade the quality will be in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. The Attorney for the applicant stated that the property is subject to an existing Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for the development and new restrictions have not been developed as there is currently discussion taking place relative to what is going to happen to the existing facility. The Attorney stated that within thirty days he will have a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions to submit before the Commission for approval. Mr. Kovacs advised they also have a platting process to go through. Les Stevens, representing the owners of four of the existing six units, stated there are discussions taking place now with the applicant and they have been assured that everyone's interests are properly protected. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the site and development plan for the Groves of Delray, as recommended by the P&Z Board, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 27. Appointment to the Community Appearance Board. The Commission is to consider appointing three members to the Community Appearance Board to terms ending August 25, 1991. -14- 7/25/89 Mayor Campbell stated there are three members to appoint, two of which are reappointments and, with regard to that, it will not inter- fere with the City's rotation system so one person can make a motion to appoint one of the two alternates to a permanent position. Ms. McCarty stated Richard Eckerle has the seniority of the two alternates. Ms. McCarty moved for the reappointment of Jim Smith and William Wilsher and to move Richard Eckerle up as a regular member of the CAB, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Ms. McCarty stated if the local rules have not been adopted, it would be her turn to make an appointment for alternate; however, if the Commission is going to use the local rules to be adopted later, it would be the Mayor's appointment. Mayor Campbell stated he would defer to Ms. McCarty. Ms. McCarty moved to appoint Norman Radin as an alternate member of the CAB, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 28. Appointment of Alternate Member to the Civil Service Board. The Commission is to consider appointment of an alternate member to a term ending July 1, 1991. Mayor Campbell stated the same rotation would be used for this appointment. Ms. McCarty moved to appoint David Henninger as an alternate to the Civil Service Board, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 29. Appointment of Members to the Human Relations Kids and Cops Committee. The Commission is to consider the appointment of seven members to serve as representatives to the Ad Hoc Committee for Kids and Cops as follows: Mary McCarty - Commission Representative Sgt. Ross Licata - Police Department Representative Carol Olsen - Parks and Recreation Representative Sgt. Fred Zieglar - F.O.P. Representative Joe Valentino - Human Relations Committee Representative Mr. Kelly Brown - Carver Middle School Representative Tamara Wallace - Youth Council Representative. Mr. Weatherspoon moved to ratify the appointment of seven members, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 30. Approval of Nomination for the Florida Trust Annual Preserva- tion Award. The Commission is to approve the nomination of Cason Cottage as Delray Beach's nomination for the Florida Trust Annual Preservation Award. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 31. Request for Waiver of Final Plat Fees. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated Mr. Fleming called after the Commission approved the agenda tonight and requested that this item be removed. -15- 7/25/89 32. Recommended List of Golf Course Management Firms. The Commis- sion is to consider the approval of a recommended list of golf course management firms for an August 8th interview. Mayor Campbell stated staff has gone through an analysis and made a recommendation of shortlist. He also stated he would like to go on record as saying that he has had some loose relationships with several of the original applicants, he has not been involved in any way in the process and none of the people who have been shortlisted are any of those people. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated in the packet given to the Commission there is a report from the committee and Mr. Foley is here to answer questions concerning any of the three firms as follows: Can-Am Golf Enterprises, Inc. American Golf Corporation Gerecter & Dubin Associates, Inc. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated there has been a request that the Commission set the evening of August 8th to interview these firms. Bernie Plotkin, 2893 S.W. 6th Street, stated he is very inter- ested in the outcome of the Golf Course. He congratulated the Committee on their choice of applicants. He would caution the successful bidder to learn from past history and start off on the right foot by remember- ing that a successful operation of this golf course depends on the acceptance by the people who use it that they are being treated fairly. It is his opinion, the biggest problem in the past has been a lack of communication. Mayor Campbell stated, it is his understanding, that the City will still present a proposal in consideration of operation. This was confirmed by Interim City Manager Barcinski, but they did not shortlist themselves. David Schmidt, representing Code House, the current licensee, stated he feels if a decision is to be made as to who will operate the golf course for the next five years, the Commission should decide whether Mr. House and/or Mr. Miller will be retained, and not allow staff to do that. He also feels the Commission should add Mr. House to the shortlist for an interview since he has not had an opportunity to speak with all the Commissioners. Ms. McCarty stated she agrees with Mr. Schmidt and feels both licensees should be put on the shortlist as a courtesy. Mayor Campbell and Mr. Weatherspoon concurred with Ms. McCarty. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he would like to see Country Club and Golf Club Associates, Inc., added to the shortlist. Ms. McCarty stated she would also like to add Delray Golf, Inc. Mayor Campbell suggested Interim City Manager Barcinski poll the Commission and schedule an appropriate time for the interviews. Ms. McCarty moved for approval of the recommended shortlist of staff plus the additions made by the Commission, seconded by Mr. Andrews. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 33. Acceptance of Settlement Offer. The Commission is to consider the acceptance of a settlement offer in the Oliver Cox et al vs. the City of Delray Beach in the amount of $5,000. Mr. Weatherspoon moved to approve acceptance of the settlement offer, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. -16- 7/25/89 35. Workshop Agenda. The Commission is to consider approval of the workshop agenda for August 1, 1989. Upon question by Ms. McCarty, the City Attorney advised there are three items on the agenda. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated the Commission had requested agenda items be voted on, but did not adopt the local rules tonight, so he is placing that before the Commission. He also stated that Mr. Spence would like to add another item, which is a discussion of policy handling changeovers on construction projects. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval adding the additional item, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as fol- lows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 43. Request for Funding - Historic Markers. The Commission is to consider approval of funding in the amount of $2,000 from the Historic Preservation Board accounts for the purpose of erecting an historic sites marker on the S.W. corner of the Mt. Olive Baptist Church parking lot located at the corner of N.W. 5th Avenue and N.W. 1st Street. Alice Finst, representing the Historic Preservation officer, stated the original request for funding was from the General Fund. Apparently, the $1,000 allocation was made from the reserve fund, which is earmarked for markers. The remaining $1,000 came from a donation fund, which was supposedly to be used to fund conferences, compile historical research, make TV documentaries for school children and to attract other contributors to make donations to the Preservation effort. Comments were made stating it would be inappropriate to use this money and apply it to a marker when it really is a City marker and should not be allocated from a fund earmarked specifically for donations. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he feels since it was donated money, unless it came from one individual, it is community money being used for a community project. Mrs. Finst stated the feeling seemed to be that it is not a community project, but rather for the City as a whole. This marker does not have a consensus group around it in the sense of private individuals wishing to produce it, but rather an historic nature that will benefit the entire City. Upon question by Ms. McCarty as to the purpose of the money donated for historic purposes, Mrs. Finst stated that apparently it is not to be used for a Community project. Mayor Campbell stated he feels if the money should ever be exhausted and additional money is needed, the Commission would be more than happy to support that. He does not mind if the money comes from the General Fund. Ms. McCarty stated she would prefer that it come from the Historic Preservation Board Account and if more is needed, then the Commission could reimburse that fund. Mrs. Finst stated this is just for the marker and there may be other requests to improve the grounds around the marker. Ms. McCarty advised that the grounds would not necessarily be a preservation item, so other sources of funding could be looked at. Mrs. Finst requested that she be able to speak on Item No. 54. on the Consent Agenda. She stated the two buildings referred to have been of concern to the Preservation Board and they are requesting that the abatement be delayed until further action by the Preservation Board. Ms. McCarty moved for approval of the request for funding for Historic markers, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. -17- 7/25/89 46. Policy and Procedure Approval. The Commission is to consider approval of policy and procedure concerning the Claims Review Committee and settlement authority. Mr. Weatherspoon stated after reading the backup material, he has no further questions. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the request, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 48. Request for Variance. The Commission is to consider a request t0' extend a dock 15 feet into a canal and to construct a dock within 15 feet of the west property line at 9 N.W. 25th Court (Lake Eden). Mr. Andrews left the Commission Chambers at this time. Mr. Weatherspoon questioned why the request to construct a dock within 15 feet of the west property line was recommended for denial. Mr. Spence stated there is an existing dock but, due to the long frontage at the front of the house, it is felt there is no hardship involved. The current code requires that the dock be 25 feet from the property line and there is sufficient frontage to accommodate that. The applicant accepted that decision. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the request for a Variance with regard to extension of the dock 15 feet into the Intra- coastal, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. 49. Final Plat Approval. The Commission is to consider a City initiated request for final plat approval for expansion of Pineridge (Municipal) Cemetery (S.W. 8th Avenue). Upon question by Mr. Weatherspoon, Interim City Manager Barcinski stated this is a section in the far northwest corner of the cemetery that contains no graves and the platting of that area is needed in order to begin using it. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the final plat for Pineridge Cemetery, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. 50. Resolution No. 45-89. Resolution No. 45-89, assessing costs of abating nuisances on 64 parcels located at various locations throughout the City, is before the Commission for consideration. The caption of Resolution No. 45-89 is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ASSESSING COSTS FOR ABATING NUISANCES UPON CERTAIN 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 ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES; PROVID- ING FOR AN EFFECTIVE 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. 45-89 is on file in the official Resolution Book) Mr. Weatherspoon stated there is one particular property with an assessment of only $8.00 and he questioned what sort of violation could incur this small amount. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated he would check into this and get with Mr. Weatherspoon later. -18- 7/25/89 Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of Resolution No. 45-89, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as fol- lows: Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were considered by the Commission as the Consent Agenda: Mr. Andrews returned to the Commission Chambers at this time. 36. Approval of Transfer of Funds. The Commission is to consider the approval of transfer of $44,000 from the City Manager's Contingency Fund (Account No. 001-6511-591-90.11) to defray the costs of severance pay for former City Manager Walter Barry. Approval is recommended. 37. Approval of Severance Pay. The Commission is to consider the approval of a severance agreement and the disbursement of severance pay to former City Manager Walter Barry in the amount of $55,800.89. Approval is recommended. 38. Change Order No. 1 - N.E. 1st Street Drainage Project. A Change Order in the amount of $22,592.45 to correct conflicts with existing sewage force mains at N.E. 7th Avenue and the relocation of an existing gravity sanitary sewer between N.E. 4th Avenue, along with an addition of 100 days needed to complete the complex project, is before the Commission for consideration. The new completion date is October 7, 1989. Approval is recommended. 39. West Atlantic Avenue/Hamlet Medians Beautification. A designa- tion of the funding source for proposed improvements for median beauti- fication and authorization to proceed with the project is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. 40. Installation of Bike Path on West Atlantic Avenue. The Commis- sion is to consider authorizing the installation of an asphalt bicycle path on West Atlantic Avenue from Barwick Road to Military Trail at a cost of approximately $15,000 with funding from the Engineering Depart- ment's Paving budget and Street Departments Salary budget. Approval is recommended. 41. Public Safety Building Improvements. The Commission is to consider the approval of expenditures totalling $39,920 from the Public Safety Facility Bond to fence around an antenna, install lightning protection and upgrade telephone system and radio console. Approval is recommended. 42. Renewal of Legislative Consultant Services Contract. The Commission is to consider approval of renewing a contract with McCartney Plante Daley in the amount of $48,000 for lobbying service for the 1989-1990 legislative calendar year. Approval is recommended. 44. Request for Addition to List of Nostalgic Signs - Tropical Barber Shop. The Commission is to consider approval of a request to advertise for a public hearing to add the sign at Tropical Barber Shop located at 825 N. Federal Highway to the City's list of Nostalgic Signs. If approved, Public Hearing will be held August 8th. Approval is recommended. 45. Tent Permit. The Commission is to consider the approval of a temporary tent permit for Allamanda Gardens to erect a 30 by 30 foot yellow and white tent at the corner of S.W. 2nd Street and S.W. 10th Avenue for a ground breaking ceremony on July 31, 1989. Approval is recommended. 47. Acceptance of Easement - YU Brothers. The Commission is to con'sider approval of the acceptance of a 12 foot utility easement for ingress/egress and maintenance of a public collector sewer line from the YU Brothers Food Distribution Facility on Congress Avenue. Approval is recommended. -19- 7/25/89 51. Resolution No. 46-89. Resolution No. 46-89, assessing costs in the amount of $1,672 for abatement action regarding demolition of an unsafe building located at 126 N.W. 6th Avenue, is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. The caption of Resolution No. 46-89 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. 46-89 is on file in the official Resolution Book) 52. Resolution No. 47-89. Resolution No. 47-89, assessing costs in the amount of $1,786.40 for abatement action regarding demolition of an unsafe building located at 29 N.W. 8th Avenue, is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. The caption of Resolution No. 47-89 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. 47-89 is on file in the official Resolution Book) 53. Resolution No. 48-89. Resolution No. 48-89, assessing costs in the amount of $1,122 for abatement action regarding demolition of an unsafe building located at 229 S.W. 14th Avenue, is before the Commis- sion for consideration. Approval is reCommended. The caption of Resolution No. 48-89 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. 48-89 is on file in the official Resolution Book) 54. Resolution No. 49-89. Resolution No. 49-89, assessing costs in the amount of $4,043.60 for abatement action regarding an unsafe build- ing located at 72 and 72 1/2 S.E. 6th Avenue, is before the Commission for consideration. Approval is recommended. -20- 7/25/89 54.A. Old School Square Request to Waive Project Permits. The Commission is to consider approval of a request to waive project permits for Old School Square. Approval is recommended. 54.B. Request to Use City Parking Facility - Jardin Del Mar. The Commission is to consider a request to use a maximum of seven spaces of the City's Parking Facility located at Ingraham and Gleason for approxi- mately 10 days while Jardin Del Mar Condominium Association paints their underground parking facilities. Approval is recommended. 55. Award of Bids and Contracts. A. Tennis Professional Contract - Approve renewal to Tennis Professional's contract for a one year period ending September 30, 1990. B. Comprehensive Beautification Plan in the amount of $81,751 with funding from the 1987 Utility Tax Construction Fund (Account No. 333-4141-572-61.15). The projects are as follows: 1. S. Federal Hwy. Irrigation - Sunnyland Irrigation ($10,891) . 2. West Atlantic Ave. Irrigation - Water Wizard Irriga- tion Inc. ($19,600). 3. N.E. 8th Street Landscaping - Top Branch Nursery ($51,260). C. Pretreatment Program Implementation - Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. in the amount of $5,900 with funding from Water and Sewer Engineering Services (Account No. 441-5111-536-33.11). Ms. McCarty moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 56.A.1. Mr. Weatherspoon stated, it is his understanding, that the City does not have a formal policy to address long-term employees. With the consent of the Commission, he would like to see some type of special recognition implemented for those employees who have served the City for a long time. 56.A.2. Mr. Weatherspoon stated, with regard to collections of liens and assessments for which the City has abated nuisances, he would like to have someone look into the possibility of turning those liens over to a collection agency. He feels if the credit rating of those persons should be affected, perhaps there would be a more expeditious response. The City Attorney advised a pilot program has begun relative to foreclo- sure actions, but, if a collection agency is the wish of the Commission, that could be done and that agency would take a percentage of the total amount. The City does not do anything as far as collecting the money, other than filing a lien on the property. Those persons do receive a bill and there is an intervening gap where someone could possibly be successful in collecting that payment, prior to the lien-filing proce- dure. 56.A.3. Mr. Andrews stated that he was disappointed in Mr. Weatherspoon's initial comment that it is too bad if a Commission member is out of town when it becomes necessary for the Commission to meet. Earlier, there were other issues where dates were rescheduled due to the absence of a Commission member, and he feels it is important that the Commission work together as a team. Mr. Weatherspoon stated he also feels meetings should be scheduled when the majority of the Commission is present. However, when one member is absent and issues need to be resolved, he feels that person takes himself out of the action. -21- 7/25/89 Mr. Andrews commented that, if he had known the particular item in question was coming up, he probably would not have left the City. 56.A.4. Ms. McCarty stated that Mr. Barcinski would like his stint as Acting City Manager to be as short as possible and, with that in mind, she is suggesting that the Commission meet to discuss who will be Acting or Interim City Manager. Commissioner Brainerd will be in town this coming Thursday or Friday and then will be leaving again. Due to the urgency and the importance of this decision, she would not like to exclude Ms. Brainerd. Mayor Campbell suggested that Interim City Manager Barcinski contact all the Commission members, learn their schedules, make the arrangements and then a meeting will be called. He also stated the public will have more than ample notice to attend the meeting. 56.A.5. Mr. Andrews requested indulgence from the Commission as he stated he had just learned about this. It appears that he will be the swing vote on the decision with regard to the cover for the aeration tanks and he has not been able to gain enough information to understand what sort of impact a five percent decrease in odor amounts to. Interim City Manager Barcinski stated there are some covered plants in the area and he would be happy to contact Mr. Greenwood, Public Utilities Direc- tor, and make arrangements for them to visit one or more of them. 56.B.1. The City Attorney stated there is a forfeiture case involving a 1989 Ford Mustang and a decision must be made before the end of the week. His recommendation is that the Commission enter into the settle- ment on the Hink forfeiture with Barnett Bank to pay off their lien on the vehicle which the City seized in the amount of $7,749.54, with funding to come from the Law Enforcement Fund. Mr. Weatherspoon moved to determine an emergency exists and approve the forfeiture settlement, with the funding source to be the Law Enforcement Fund, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commis- sion voted as follows: Mr. Andrews - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 56.B.2. The City Attorney stated an order was received this afternoon from the Federal District Court informing the City that it has prevailed on the Enclave Act lawsuit. The Court has granted the request to dismiss the Murtha case, which was the class action lawsuit against the City in Federal Court and has dismissed it, with prejudice, in a good ruling that upholds the constitutionality of the act and compliance with the statutes. He feels, short of an appeal, that will dispose of the challenges in Federal Court. Mayor Campbell declared the meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. - J City' Clerk ATTE S T: MAYOR 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 July 25, 1989, which minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on~.~_` ~ /~;~ . -22- 7/25/89 City Cl~rk 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. -23- 7/25/89 Statement read by Mayor Campbell at 7/25/89 Commission Meeting. Last year the majority of the City Commission found itself in a position where they had lost confidence in its appointed Manager. The series of events led to a conclusion on the part of the majority of that Commission that Mr. Walter Barry had not met the expectations for which he was hired, and that according to the terms of our contractual agree- ment that we had a right and responsibility to terminate that contract. At the urging of many members of the community, and of the press, I, for one, was willing to give Mr. Barry a second chance. Although all this was done with serious reservations as to the future and stability of our community. Almost a year later, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Barry has not performed his job in the manner which would create suffi- cient confidence that the Commission can work together with him as partners for effective and smooth running City Government. It was not without warning, and prior admonitions to the Manager. About these concerns, I have discussed it on several occasions with him. I believe very strongly that if a City Manager does not carry the full confidence and support of the majority of the Commission, for whatever reason, then the probability of that City government, or any local government ade- quately functioning is nil. On principal alone there must be a good working relationship between employer and employee. Several months ago we were asked to give an evaluation of Mr. Barry, and although the majority of the Commission gave him a basically satisfactory perfor- mance, there were contained in those evaluations a series of concerns that to this day were not properly responded to or evidently considered seriously by Mr. Barry. I would like to read a few of my comments since the question has arisen as how they came to this point and the fact that we did give him a satisfactory evaluation. Regarding goals and objectives, my comment was: "Policies are sometimes not clearly recognized or implemen- tation appears slow until additional requests are made. The Manager has made policy questions without referral to the Commission". On his work program: "Too often repeated clarification or requests are needed to set tasks and action. He seems at times to slow down the process of admin- istration when there is disagreement with the Commission majority objectives". Regarding relations~with the Commission: "He could be more open and communicative where there is an appearance of disagreement between the majority of the Commission and the Manager's own agenda. He does not communicate any disagreement and publicly needs to give more information to the Commission". Finally, regarding relations with co-workers: "Aggressive style often creates poor working conditions as often as productive results" I would like to go over then, if you will bear will me, because I have taken the full brunt, you might say, of concerns about my feel- ings about Mr. Barry. Some of the items surrounding these comments, so that you will understand where we were coming from. Certainly one of the more important problems facing the City has to do with our dealings with the School Board in trying to get a fair shake for Delray Beach and attacking the problems of unfavorable impression of our Delray schools. Having made the decision that this was an important issue, it was up to the administration to make sure that the Commissioners were all apprised of the current developments that were taking place at the School Board, which were directly affecting Delray Beach and that the Manager should aggressively push the City agenda with the School Board staff. On several occasions there were extended delays in responding to requests to more aggressive pursuit and once having made the decision of its importance, that is the Commission, we expected that the City Manager's Office would keep us advised of the School Board's agenda. It was with dismay that on at least two occasions some of the most important issues being discussed before that Board were being done without adequate notice to the Commission. And in one case, it was only at the last minute being notified that we were able to muster sufficient support to go to the Commission to obtain a, to go to the Board, that we were able to obtain a favorable result for the City seeing the opposition to our position out in full mass. The handling and execution on the closing to the contract of the Adult Book Store was not done in a professional manner. Once the Commission had made the determination that it was our policy to buy the property, it was an administrative matter to make sure that that ran smoothly, was done properly and would cause no adverse consequences to - 1 - the City and Commission. Mr. Barry did not properly supervise the execution and closing of that contract and it was done, as I said, rather unprofessionally. How? It caused a great deal of embarrassment both to the City and to the Commissioners as to whether or not we knew what we were doing. Only by chance did we avert actually going to a closing without funds; jeopardizing possibly our position we could have gone and become a party in default and lost $10,000. Also regarding the Adult Book Store, how was the deposit check cut even though there was a strong inference from the Commission, we had approved it, it was not appropriate for the Manager to make a determination as to where those funds would come from without specifically coming back to the Commis- sion. That was $10,000 - why is that important? We had already warned Mr. Barry and adopted a policy that the cutting of any checks in excess of $5,000, without an emergency, should be done at the specific bequest and advise on a source of funding and allocation to the City Commission. The third matter regarding the Adult Book Store. At the time we ap- proved the agreement, it was stated that the contract would be imple- mented immediately and it was the feeling of the Commission, and not me alone, although it was my sole reason at that time that I swung over and vote in favor of it, that the property should be turned around and sold as quickly as possible. Mr. Barry did not listen to the Commission's request, or he was lackadaisically not concerned that he needed to carry out this injunction. When asked about it several weeks later he did not satisfactorily respond, and in fact, indicated that he had made his own agenda as how he was going to dispose of the book store, possibly by involving a broker. The issue of the lost summons. It is most imperative that a summons, a legal document, must be respected because it can have impor- tant consequences with regard to the future liability and responsibili- ties of the City. Obviously, a summons was delivered to the City Manager's Office and it was lost. Comment was made to one party it fell through the cracks. There has never been an adequate explanation, if any explanation, to the City Commission as how it was lost. And we were only apprised of the Manager's position formally through the newspaper. It was of my concern that future policies regarding summonses should be properly carried out. And although I do commend Mr. Barry in addressing this issue, he still never directly responded to the issue of what his formal policy was going to be until I had to specifically make that request. Why is that important in this case, although I don't believe it will happen, there could be a $200,000 jeopardy to the City govern- ment. Very often there was incomplete or insufficient information given on agenda items; after the Commission even had indicated that they wanted certain information. The latest incident in this regard - Mr. Barry requested that an item be put on the agenda for a vote, we dis- cussed the item. When I queried him as to the nature of the vote expected of the Commission, he was totally unprepared as to exactly what the circumstances were, he had not done proper investigation, did not even understand the issue of what, in that incidence, a moratorium appeared to be and what its affects would be both on property owners and on the City. He was open and responsive with regard to completing, or even communication, with all of the Commissioners on items we needed to be up to date with, and abreast with. Not only in dealing with the public, but with the press. Too often, we had to read in the newspapers stories of important concern about very important items concerning the City without any proper advice, input or preparation from the City Manager as to what was going on, how the Commission might and should respond to any inquiries from the press or the public. He was on several occasions advised that this was not acceptable, nor good policy, and yet it frequently happened. Mr. Barry did not properly again, investigate and certainly the City Manager should exhibit a basic understanding of proper business procedures, as to how to approach the acquisition and development of properties. He had rushed into recommendations regarding the Lavers property and its acquisition without even doing basic investigation as to the needs of the City, capital costs or making any improvements, differentiating the proposed acquisitions as to funds available, never - 2 - explaining where additional funds might come from and, for several weeks not thoroughlY analyzing either the need or effects on the City. After some investigation, it was apparent that there could have been possible increase in a budget deficit to the City as high as $200,000 in operat- ing costs. Doing his job effectively, he could have averted a lot of time, energy and concern on the part of a lot of people. Also with regard to that project, in my opinion, he made a recommendation with regard to a partnership with a private concern without thoroughly investigating what ramifications this meant to the City, legally and businesswise. He aggressively pursued it. The potential liability to the City could have been very serious. The potential liability to the City as the deep pocket partner of a real estate developer could have been very serious. The City Commission enjoys a favorable relationship with the City Attorney and on several occasions communication between the City Attorney and the Commission has been, if not intentionally interfered with, negligently interfered with. So that we could not be properly apprised of legal points for consideration, public discussion and vote. The City Manager and City Attorney need to work closely together. There were certain actions that were taken by the Manager without proper consultation that could have seriously affected ongoing or potential litigation and he did so rather negligently. For some time I have been soliciting an honest discussion with the City Manager regarding the proposed pay plan. A City Hall pay plan. Going back to even April, I have been trying to get information from him as to what it was about, who was the consultant, what were they being paid, how much time and effort was being p~t into it and whether or not it was a worthwhile proposition. Mr. Barry never gave me a direct answer or response. And since April on this occasion, I have had to several times repeatedly ask for updates and information. I still have not gotten that response, except for a copy of the draft document. Having done some investigation on my own, I made a preliminary determi- nation that the plan is not only a waste of time and effort, it is a waste of tax payers dollars - almost $40,000 to date spent to date on it. And it should have been immediately dropped and there should have been no further action taken. And I thought by any Manager who under- stood basic government structure and administration. And again responding to what we thought were important issues to the Commission. The Manager evidently did not aggressively and honestly advise all of the Commissioners in advance when certain prob- lems were coming up with regard to what we thought as matters of impor- tance. I had been pursuing, for example, the improvement of LaMat Avenue ever since last February. It was finally voted upon on several occasions by the City Commission both in approving the project and in the amount of money that we had allocated. It was then up to the City Manager, as chief administrator of the City, to put that policy into action and carry it out. It was only recently I learned through a Manager's report, and not directly, that the project was going to be put on hold until next years budget. As soon as the project appeared not feasible he should have come to us and brought the matter to our atten- tion for a discussion and not made a single voluntary policy decision on his own about putting it off until next years budget. At times I had felt that the City Manager did not give equal attention to matters by all of the Commissioners, but gave more aggressive attention to matters that he was concerned about, or that certain Commissioners were con- cerned about. I for one have been seeking improvement of the current Amtrak station access since January of this year and have had limited and grudging responses by the staff in pursuing this as an important and integral part of rehabilitation not only of downtown Delray Beach, improving transportation and access and image to our City. It only became more aggressively pursued when a private citizen recently, consulting with members of the Legislature, came and made a presentation to this City Commission. In February, and throughout the spring and summer, I had been particularly, and I think the Commission as a whole, concerned about the beautification of West Atlantic Avenue, west of 1-95. On several - 3 - occasions When we implemented the beautification program that was listed as one of the primary goals and objectives both in timing and what we hoped to accomplish. There were problems that came up with the DOT, but rather than again aggressively carrying out the mandate of the Commis- sion in trying to overcome those problems, they were sidelined and often ignored until Commissioners continually had to badger the staff and the Manager to come up with some kind of solution that was in the interim acceptable and responsive to the people living in that area on West Atlantic Avenue. It also was a priority item of the City Commission, and me, to continue the beautification of East Atlantic Avenue this year and not wait until next year. Once again, this project priority became known to the Manager and I expected and would have hoped that he would have carried out an aggressive and immediate attempt to carry forward this beautification program. Knowing the timing to be the essence of some- thing like this, dealing with the concerns of the downtown merchants. At one point, he recommended not to do it this year. And I had still had to urge him to seek a solution and go forward. Again, repeatedly, repeatedly, since January of 1989, knowing that timing was of the essence. Each occasion had required my reminding and urging the City Manager to act, rather than having him voluntarily keeping me up to date, and I believe it was rather slowly approached again when he at one time indicated that on his agenda it should have been postponed. That was not the intent of the Commission. Budget preparation. Probably the single most important item that we are going to be facing this summer has to do with the budget. Other than getting a general statement possibly from us, I don't know about the other Commissioners, I made a statement not particularly wanting to see millage increase, the Manager did not request any input nor try to seek any information from the Commissioners. I don't believe that he asked a majority any input. And it also came to my attention that certain department heads were not consulted and this was going to create a very difficult and time consuming process to weed through a budget when all of the people who should have had an important part in the process were not properly consulted. And therefore, the Manager would not have been fully on top of all of those issues so that he could give the City Commissioners good and sufficient advice. By not properly and sufficiently and honestly communicating at times We have allowed incidents to go by on the basis of side comments, side comments instead of direct and open communication. And as an example, 4th of July fireworks came up under an item on the agenda of Visions 2000. It had nothing to do with the 4th of July fireworks. Mr. Barry made a side comment regarding no one having a celebration plan. It was not the intent of the Commission at that time to discuss it nor to take that point seriously, and certainly I do not believe it was the majority interest in not commenting that we were disapproving fireworks. Later we got very embarrassed. Mr. Barry assumed ... we did. Mr. Barry though, he did not get embarrassed ... assumed that the Commission was deleting fireworks and he should have not communicated that to the public without first coming to us in an open and direct discussion with all the Commissioners as to how that matter should be approached. Policy violations. Earlier this year the City Manager under- took himself, without consultation with any City Commissioners, to send out a request for proposal, we call that an RFP, for a City financial advisor. To my knowledge the City Commission was not dissatisfied with the current then City financial advisor and had not given any indication of such to the Manager. That's purely a policy decision. And it was only after extensive argument with the City Manager, I said argument with the City Manager, and subsequent discussion at a public meeting, that the Commission cancelled the RFP. Again in responding to matters of particular importance, I had always been concerned about Code Enforcement as a single most pressing issue facing the City in order to cut off and deter further deteriora- tion of our neighborhoods. I had repeatedly sent memoranda to the City Manager trying to analyze the problems and have him make recommendations on how we could solve a growing problem with regard to illegal trash piles. I never received any response on how to go about this. And it - 4 - was only after continued pressing for requests, that I was able finally to meet with Lula Butler and Richard Bauer and start approaching a solution to the problem, again my request going back to last spring. On a recent occasion, there was a dispute with an employee in City Hall. It was obvious that maybe the Commissioners could be brought into it. Many times we do not want to be. I requested the Manager please sit down and meet with the subject person, since there were calls being made to me and I wanted to know better how to deal with these approaches. After first indicating that he would do that, he evidently changed his mind and never got back to me. And it was only after some reluctance and argument on my part that he agreed finally to have such a meeting. At no time have I ever directly asked the City Manager to hire anyone, to fire anyone, to demote anyone or to reprimand anyone. There are many occasions however, when the City Commissioners are approached by staff members, by the public on behalf of staff members, and the press. And it is important that we be kept up to date on the Manager's position and his personal recommendation with regard to dealing with important staff issues, personnel and policy. And again, it has often been after the fact and on, at least my part, uncertain as to how to deal with inquiries by the public or the press, that the Manager would then advise the majority of the Commission what they needed to know. And sometimes with great reluctance. And sometimes again, after it has been in the newspapers. In dealing honestly and forthrightly with the Commissioners the Manager has not either given us in those cases proper or adequate, sometimes maybe negligently, truthful information, or has not given any information so that we might substantiate his position. I became concerned about the City reorganization from an overall policy and budgetary matter and whether or not it was appropri- ate to consider this in future and upcoming budget considerations. I was concerned that a City the size of Delray Beach, did it really need three assistant managers, and an assistant to the City Manager, when no other City of comparable size or near comparable size had such an elaborate administrative structure. I was also concerned that this hindered and prohibited a better relationship with the Manager himself, since it relieved him of the need to be fully abreast on all matters that came to the agenda to be voted on. And very often we witnessed Mr. Barry not being fully informed and instead having to go to the assis- tants. But the primary concern in this regard was one of budget. Preliminarily I had concluded that the additional cost to the City was between $160,000 and $200,000 a year and I needed to make policy deter- mination as to whether in the upcoming tight budget years such a reor- ganization was both satisfactory, from an administrative, operational and budgetary perspective. Rather than receive a straightforward and concerned response from the City Manager, there was a go around and possible withholding, again negligently I hope, of the actual budgetary figures. I am not going to go on and I think that I have listed .. and I really appreciate the fact that I hope we all do, that we do live in America and this is something we are all able to do here. Once it became apparent to me that a majority of the Commission had agreed upon my analysis that this government was suffering as a result of poor cooperation with Mr. Barry, I undertook a responsibility to the electorate to terminate that relationship as soon as possible. At this time I am going to allow members of the public who would like to come forward also to make a statement. - 5 -