08-30-88SpMtg 227
AUGUST 30, 1988
A Special 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 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 30, 1988.
1. Roll call showed:
Present - Commissioner Patricia Brainerd
Commissioner Marie Horenburger
Commissioner Mary McCarty
Commissioner Jimmy Weatherspoon
Mayor Doak S. Campbell
Absent - None
Also present were - City Manager Walter O. Barry and
City Attorney Herbert W.A. Thiele.
Mayor Campbell called the meeting to order and announced that
this meeting has been called for the purpose of considering the follow-
ing:
1. Auburn Trace Proposal - Procacci D~velopment Corporation.
.George Steele reported that at the request of the Mayor and a
couple of other members of the Commission they have been working dili-
gently with the developer in an effort to come up with the best possible
scenario of density and amenities. Mr. Steele advised they would like
to present a proposal which comes in at 6.96 acres, 260 units. The
material difference of financial structure is a scaled down amenities
package consisting of a swimming pool, basketball court, tennis court
and reinstatement of the child care center. In order to do this and
make it financially feasible they would have to ask that the City assume
the cost and construction of the off site roads surrounding the facili-
ty. The facility would consist of 52 one bedroom units, 162 two bedroom
units and 48 three bedroom units. He presented a rendering of the
development.
Upon question by Ms. McCarty, Mr. Steele stated the security
system is still included. Upon question with regard to the payment for
the off site roads and the $200,000 already committed, Ken Simback
advised that they are asking that the City continue with the previous
commitment of providing up to $200,000 for off site improvements, but
also that the City take the responsibility for building those two
sections of roadway, i.e., the public roadways connecting S.W. 12th
Avenue with S.W. 14th Avenue and then the connector along the north side
of the cemetery connecting 8th Avenue with 10th Avenue. He would
estimate this at somewhere between $100,000 to $150,000. Mr. Simback
gave a brief history of the road system in the area.
Upon question by Ms. McCarty, Mr. Simback stated they have
represented how they intend to manage the project, but it has never been
reduced to contractual form; they have indicated to HUD what the manage-
ments policies would generally be with regard to income, maintenance,
etc. Ms. Horenburger reviewed the figures on the maximum number of
children possible in this project. Mr. Simback quoted the maximum under
this scheme would be 510, averaging somewhere between 300 and 400.
Ms. Brainerd commented that she would really like to see this
project naturally integrated and she believed the most important thing
to achieve that balance in the project is the amenities. She asked if
this is their best and final shot, or any way the amenities package
could be enhanced. Mr. Steele advised the only way to do this would be
to increase density; they have looked at the possibilities from every
conceivable point of view. However, they could go back and point out
some ratios between enhanced amenities and increased density involving
going back to what was initially envisioned. Ms. ~rainerd stated that
228
if they have this prepared in a concise format she would like to look at
it.
Mr. Simback then retraced the project for the Commission,
stating that Mr. Procacci wanted to build a project that was of appro-
priate size, had units of an appropriate size, an appropriate amenity
package and was basically a market rate high quality rental project that
would be available to those who could not ordinarily afford it. ~e
presented the site plan at the original 368 unit density with the
attendant amenities package, citing the traffic concerns and density
issues; thereafter, a second site plan was developed. Mr. 'Simback
advised that several weeks ago, in response to the Commission's concerns
regarding the density, they presented a 256 unit project, basically a
stripped down version, specifically trying to get a project that met the
7-unit per acre criteria. The other side of it from a development
standpoint was they had to present a project that they thought was
financially doable; something they could present to HUD. Unfortunately
there is not enough capital in the project at that level of density to
be able to include the entire amenity package that was originally
represented or even scaling it down proportionately with the reduced
number of units. What they have been doing is trying to play with
variations on that theme that would get back somewhere close to the type
of project originally presented. In all of these variations that have
been shown to the Commission they have kept their equity commitment
somewhere at or near 3.5 million dollars. If the City will accept the
responsibility of constructing the roadways, then the developer will
take that $300,000 in additional capital and put it into the project so
that they have some additional amenities.
Mr. Simback advised the other proposal they have played with is
that they feel they can deliver a 336 unit project with a full amenity
package, very comparable to what was originally proposed. What they
would need to do in that case is ask the City to reevaluate its require-
ment with regard~to the repayment of the local match.
In summary, Mr. Simback stated they have a 260 unit project
that is better in terms of amenities than what was presented last week,
but not quite what he believes the developer or the City is comfortable
with and requires some adjustment to the City's financial commitment;
or, they have a 360 unit project that again requires some commitment on
the City's part to financing the project, but gets them closer to the
amenities package and quality they have all strived for. Mr. Simback
commented they also have some reservations about the site in terms of
costs of improving the site for any type of development; they have a
very minimal amount in their project budget for tamping down that soil.
They have tried to anticipate what the City might require in terms of on
and off site drainage, roadways, etc. With regard to their ability to
respond to changes in site requirement on a small project, there is no
room for a mistake; in a larger project there is a little bit of room.
Upon question by Ms. Horenburger, Mr. Simback stated what they
had agreed to in the original proposal (368 units) was that they would
make up to $270,000 payments to the City on the purchase money mortgage
over the'first six years of the project; that represents what the City
is required to pay out of pocket to the Housing Authority, the balance
coming due in the 15th year. With regard to the million nine thousand
dollars in the local UDAG match, the City had requested that it be paid
back at a rate of $144,143 a year for six years. What they are asking
for on all of the alternatives is that they are committing to stay with
the repayment schedule on the Federal portion of the UDAG; the local
match is what they negotiate directly with the City. What they have
proposed in the 260 project is that in lieu of having them adhere to a
fixed repayment schedule, that they will agree to pay the City 75% of
the cash flow available from the project after they meet the first
mortgage commitment, the Federal portion of the UDAG commitment and
after they provide a reserve for replacement and operating expenses.
Discussion followed, with regard to the financing, between Assistant
City Attorney Kurtz and Mr. Simback.
Mr. Simback then reviewed the amenities package proposed for
the 336 unit project, much like the original project; there would be no
-2- 8/30/88
229
resident manager, only an office open perhaps 8 to 12 hours a day.
However, there would be 24 hour security under both proposals.
Ms. Horenburger stated from her point of view she would like to
save the five million dollar Grant and believed that with any project
they end up doing, that they guarantee the maximum amount of children to
the School Board. Also, it is important that they have an amenities
package that suits everything they have talked about, particularly child
care, management maintenance control program, and she would like to see
a project that allows the City to collect tax increment without Home-
stead Exemption. She advised she has no problem with making payback
adjustments as long as the total payback in the long run is the same.
In summary, Mayor Campbell asked that the developer put in
writing the basics that they went over this evening and synopsize both
of the proposals for the Commission's review. He asked if they could do
that with a miniature site plan proposal on each one. Mayor Campbell
stated he would be inclined to give as much favorable consideration with
the reduced density as possible. Some of the things in the proposal
that he would be looking for are: He would like to see a copy of the
rules and regulations for the site and their proposal as to how there
would be quality control and enforcement of those rules and regulations;
what recourse does the City or Housing Authority have to make sure those
rules and regulations, which are essential in a quality development, are
adhered to, i.e., who can occupy, under what conditions, etc. Also, he
would want to see how they propose and must commit to a priority to
Delray citizens only and that essentially we are addressing a problem of
need with the citizens who are already living in our community; second-
ly, that this project could be used in conjunction with any housing
element of the CRA. With regard to amenities, he would like to see a
larger swimming pool and some assurance that there is some qualitative
control of those amenities as far as use. With regard to the roadway,
Mayor Campbell stated he did not like access from the north and asked if
they could explore access off of 10th Street coming from the south where
there is less of an impact. He would like the detail of the plan in
plain English as to the impact of what they are proposing and how this
is any different than prior plans.
Mayor Campbell stated he wanted to know how much CDBG funds are
available and what years they are going to be utilizing those and
whether or not any additional City involvement can come from those
funds. He would like the City to go to the School Board and see if
there is a possibility of opening and using the Carver Middle School gym
for the residents or general public in the area, and also utilizing the
athletic fields which the City has put money in to support.
The last two things he would like to know is, can they build it
and when. Upon question regarding the UDAG Grant, Mr. Simback advised
that without this the project is not doable by them or anyone else.
Mayor Campbell asked that this be put in the proposals also, He would
suggest they get back to the City Manager and he can let the Commission
know as soon as possible when they can start looking at it.
Mr. Simback advised he can deliver an overview and the
financials on the two alternatives by Thursday or Friday of this week.
He would like the Commission to look at these and give them some idea
that they are acceptable one way or another. Mayor Campbell stated he
would like to see some kind of definiteness as to whether they antici-
pate being able to finance this and get a commitment within 30 days, or
whatever they feel is fair and appropriate in this circumstance.
Mayor Campbell suggested that they furnish copies of this
report to the members of the Housing Authority also.
2. City Hall Expansion Plans to Commission Chambers as part of
Phase I.
The City Manager reported that Digby Bridges and Mark Marsh
have been working with City staff for quite some time to develop a
detailed scheme for the expansion; subsequently they have come back with
Phase I of the expansion and incorporated also, at the Commission's
suggestion, the Public Chambers as well.
-3- 8/30/88
230
Mark Marsh advised in May they presented Phase I which ad-
dressed an expansion, basically, on the north side of the building with
some support parking on the north, south and west side, along with the
facade treatment and upgrading of the existing building; that cost was
proposed at 1.8 million dollars. The have now expanded this to include
a Commission Chamber area on the south side of the building which would
be between the present building and the Community Center. This total
package now represents about 2.15 million dollars. Mr. Marsh then went
through the actual areas of expansion, stating that under this Phase the
primary area is the Development Department which will rehouse Code,
Building, Engineering and the P&Z Departments. With regard to the
Public Chamber area, the intention is to have a chamber that can operate
for the larger gatherings; they propose an area that can seat about 200
to 220 people and the general layout will be more beneficial, not only
for the staff and Commission, but also for the public. They have
introduced a Mediterranean style to the building, creating a mansard
roof and creating some interest in terms of the window treatments. They
are projecting that they can start detailing the areas and get the
drawings done by December or early January and be in the ground by
February.
Mayor Campbell asked that they make every effort to come back
with a proposal trying to make the 2.15 million dollars the top limit of
an approved figure, with the expectation after the Commission sees more
detail they can knitpick the plan to try and reduce that figure.
Mr. Weatherspoon commented that the City certainly wants a City
Hall that is functional; however, it is incumbent upon the Commission to
give the taxpayers the best value for their dollar. Mr. Marsh advised
what they are doing is very minimal; they are not changing the existing
windoWs, for example, but with a simple stucco treatment trying to
introduce an element to make the building a little more interesting.
With regard to the parking area, Mr. Marsh commented their
proposal, and he knows the Commission is working toward this direction,
is to purchase and develop a parking area between Swinton and 1st Avenue
which could be shared by Old School Square and City Hall.
Ms. McCarty stated that 1.5 million dollars has already been
allocated in the Utility Tax a few years back; the remaining money,
which she believes they discussed during the budget workshop, is to come
out of the 3.1 million dollar line of credit. Her question is how do we
plan to repay that money; what revenue source do we intend to earmark to
repay it? Mayor Campbell advised that, as discussed at the budget
workshop, that was initially going to be either rolled over through some
bond anticipation notes into the blue ribbon committee l~ng range bond
issue of major capital programs or it could be paid off through other
incremental income sources to the City as a short term loan, or we could
pledge some additional alternate existing utility tax revenue or any
option we wanted. They were going to leave it up to staff to recommend
to the Commission the most expeditious and financially agreeable way to
do it. Ms. McCarty advised she would have a problem with the bond
anticipation type situation and wished staff to know her feelings; the
Commission would, in fact, be deeming something and then asking the
public to ratify it and she would be uncomfortable with that. Before
she could look at the Public Chambers she would need more specific
direction as to the type of funding the City is going to be using to
repay that line of credit. Mayor Campbell stated a bond anticipation
note is only a mechanism and it is just something the City utilizes; it
is not a commitment, nor are you dictating to the public that you are
going to be rolling that over into a specific revenue source. Discus-
sion followed.
The City Manager reported the proposed budget will be adver-
tised on September 15th and by that time they will have a staff recom-
mendation for the Commission, some options at least, for them to consid-
er, such as local borrowing from a local facility, a small bond issue,
the Florida League of Cities loan pool, etc. He stated he did not
believe it would be appropriate at this time to make any budget deci-
sions about what should or should not be included for the public's
benefit.
-4- 8/30/88
231
Ms. Horenburger clarified that the difference then is what the
Public Chambers will cost; 1.3 million for the development services,
$150,000 for the parking, $125,000 for the colonnade, which comes to
$1,575,000 and the balance is for the chambers.
Mr. Weatherspoon stated what the CDmmission needs to do is get
an understanding of the list that was discussed at the workshop meeting
with regard to capital improvements; he does not necessarily agree with
the dollar amounts associated with the items on that list.
Mayor Campbell advised the gentlemen are here tonight because
they relied upon what the Commission did at the workshop; the workshop
supposes some additional funding that he thought the Commission had
agreed upon. They are here presenting a Phase I that presupposes 2.1
million dollars because they relied upon the fact that the Commission
said they would borrow 3 million dollars to do some capital funding.
Ms. McCarty commented at that time it was stated if they could not find
the funding they would roll it over into a bond; that is the part she
wanted to explore, she did, and she is not satisfied with the answers
she received.
Ms. Brainerd moved to accept this expansion plan to Commission
Chambers as part of Phase I Development, seconded by Ms. Horenburger.
Upon roll call the ~Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms.
Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - No; Mr. Weatherspoon - No; Mayor
Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote.
3. Appointment of Two Regular Members to the Community Appearance
Board to Terms Ending August 25, 1990.
Ms. Brainerd moved for the appointment of Mark Marsh to the
Community Appearance Board, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon.
Ms. McCarty asked if the Commission wished to look at moving
one of the alternates up before appointing Mr. Marsh; Mr. Eckerle has
seniority as far as the two alternates are concerned. Ms. Brainerd
advised she felt that since Mr. Bridges is coming off, it is important
to have another architect on the board as a regular member. The City
Attorney commented that it is specifically stated that there be two,
assuming they are available.
Mayor Campbell stated perhaps they should give preference to
Kim Dellastatious, as she does want to be reappointed and is an archi-
tect.
Ms. Brainerd made a substitute motion to appoint Kim
Dellastatious as a regular member to the Community Appearance Board,
seconded by Ms. Horenburger. Upon roll call the Commission voted as
follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes;
Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a
5 to 0 vote.
With regard to the opening for a regular member, Ms.
Horenburger advised they always try and move the alternates up to the
regular spot and if the other applicant had not been an architect, they
would have been justified in moving Mr. Eckerle up.
Ms. Brainerd moved for the appointment of Mark Marsh as a
regular member to the Community Appearance Board, seconded by Ms.
McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd -
~ Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes;
Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mr. Weatherspoon commented that with the appointment of Mr.
Marsh there is now a vacancy on the Board of Construction Appeals.
Looking at the applications, he noted the name of Debora Oster who is a
landscape architect and they may want to consider, at a later date,
putting her on this board. Staff may want to suggest to her that she
apply.
4. Awards of Bids and Contracts:
-5- 8/30/88
232
(A) Master Lift Station Pump Replacement - Award of bid to
Sanders Aspinwall & Associates for a 10" diameter vari-
able speed drive Fairbanks Morse pump for the Master Lift
Station in the amount of $17,882 - funding to come from
Master Lift Station Capital Account 441.5161-536-60.91.
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the award of bid to Sanders,
Aspinwall & Associates, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the
Commission voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes;
Ms. McCarty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said
motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote.
(B) Golf Course Irrigation Improvements - Award of bid to
Hoover Irrigation in the amount of $45,020 for golf
course irrigation system improvements - funding to come
from the Golf Course Fund Retained Earnings.
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the award of bid to Hoover
Irrigation, seconded by Ms. McCarty. Upon roll call the Commission
voted as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty
- Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed
with a 5 to 0 vote.
Before roll call the following discussion was had:
Ms. McCarty stated there are sections of the golf course that
are not getting water. She asked if this will handle the problem. Joe
Weldon, Parks & Recreation Director, advised specifically the problem is
pressure and the time it takes to irrigate the whole golf course. He
has been told by the consultants that this will help increase the
pressure to the point where if they want to add irrigation in the rough
at a later point, they can do that.
At this point the roll was called to the motion.
5. Request for Waiver of Insurance R~quirements for PC Computer
Equipment Maintenance Contract (City Attorney).
Assistant City Attorney Kurtz reported that on August 9th the
Commission approved an award of a contract to GE Computer Service for
the maintenance of the PC computers. In attempting to execute the
agreement GE balked at some insurance provisions, namely naming the City
as an additional insured. The Commission has the authority to waive
that administratively if it is the insurance company that simply refuses
to do it. This instance was a little different in that it was the GE
Company policy rather than the insurance company. Also, they wanted to
change the City's standard indemnity language so ~that they would only
indemnify and hold the City harmless in the event they were negligent.
Upon question by Ms. Horenburger, Assistant City Attorney Kurtz
advised that GE did apprise the City of this in the bid documents and it
slipped by the Purchasing Department. Also, as far as their liability
as to claims other than personal injury and death claims, and that will
mostly involve damage to equipment or possibly loss of data, they are
limiting their liability to the replacement cost of that equipment or
whatever; they will not go so far as to compensate the City for ~he lost
data or regathering of the information. Upon question by Mr.
Weatherspoon, Assistant City Attorney Kurtz stated those are generally
standard types of limitations in the industry. They are guaranteeing
their work if the defect becomes noticed within a month and will do
ongoing maintenance work for a year.
The City Manager advised they have done a staff analysis of the
relative merits of buying an additional PC for example, and having an in
house staff person do the board switching; it was determined that this
maintenance contract would be more cost effective for the City.
Mr. Weatherspoon moved to have a waiver of insurance require-
ment for PC computer equipment maintenance contract and to accept the
revised indemnification limit on liability warranty and excusable delay
language, seconded by Ms. Brainerd. Upon roll call the Commission voted
as follows: Ms. Brainerd - Yes; Ms. Horenburger - Yes; Ms. McCarty -
-6- 8/30/88
233
Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed
with a 5 to 0 vote.
Mayor Campbell declared the meeting adjourned at 9:18 P.M.
Clerk
ATTEST
The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach
and that the information provided herein is the minutes of the meeting
of said City Commission of August 30, 1988, whic~ minutes were formally
'
approved and adopted by the City Commission on '~ /~f~ ' I
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.
-7- 8/30/88