Loading...
05-06-86SpMtg MAY 6, 1986 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Doak S. Campbell in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:10 P.M., Tuesday, May 6, 1986. Roll call showed: Present - Council Member Richard J. Dougherty Council Member Jimmy Weatherspoon Mayor Doak S. Campbell Absent - Council Member Malcolm T. Bird Council Member Marie Horenburger Also present were - City Manager James L. Pennington 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 (1) Considering settle- ment regarding Schwerin vs City of Delray Beach; (2) Considering settle- ment stipulation regarding Pines of Delray vs City of Delray Beach, et al; and (3) Considering selection of site for additional parking - N.W. 5th Avenue. 1. The City Attorney reported that this item concerns the annexa- tion lawsuit that was challenging the successful referendum that the City had last November and which would have approved the ordinance annexing Section III (parcel along Atlantic Avenue and Barwick Road). Since that time the City has had a number of discussions with the members of the local Legislative Delegation with regard to our Enclave Act; they have told us in no uncertain terms that they did not wish the City to annex property, through the Enclave Bill or otherwise, that was located along the north and southwest corners as well as the Military Trail corners, including this property. Based on this and other analy- sis of the case, the City endeavored to negotiate a settlement resolu- tion with the property owners through their attorney in light of the direction from the local Legislative Delegation. In order to abide by their wishes and to further enhance our chances of getting the Enclave Bill through, it was the City's position to back off from the annexation of Section III; in fairness to the attorneys and persons on the other side they thought that some portion of their expenditures ought to be reimbursed to them by the City. The City Attorney advised that the City would adopt an ordi- nance which repeals the ordinance that did the annexation approved at referendum; in return they would file a voluntary dismissal with preju- dice of their lawsuit and the City would reimburse them the amount of attorney's fees and costs, which represents a little less than one-half of their expenditures. The City Attorney recommended adopting the settlement. Mayor Campbell clarified that this does not preclude the City from utilizing current annexation ordinances or implementing, when appropriate, our annexation agreements. The City Attorney stated the City's position is that it would not preclude them from going to another referendum in some point in the future nor would it be a problem for the City to annex voluntarily by the agreements or by the other provisions of Chapter 171. Upon question by Mr. Dougherty, the City Attorney advised the basic philosophy has been that the City wished to accede to the wishes of the taxpayers in general as represented by the local delegation members. He stated it is also based upon the information as received from other people in the area and an analysis of the strength of our case. Upon question by Mr. Dougherty as to whether the case was faulty, the City Attorney advised, for the record, that if the City goes to trial on this issue they will lose. The City Attorney reported that the ordinance was adopted based upon the information known to the staff and Council at the time of its adoption and it was not until after the lawsuit was filed that the City Attorney's Office became involved in the analysis of the case. If the City goes forward with this litigation our position will be found to be without merit and we will have to pay all of the costs and attorney's fees. Mr. Dougherty stated what bothers him is that we have had many people from the same area work hard to get the Enclave Bill passed in the Legislature; they now feel they have been had because the area which they had specific interest in is now being denied. He stated he wanted to know why the City pursued this in the first place if they didn't have all the facts; Council could well have been misled in adopting the ordinance. The City Attorney advised that all he can say about the staff preparation of the materials was that it was based on assumptions that proved, in the final analysis, not to carry forward correctly. Mr. Weatherspoon moved to approve the settlement regarding Schwerin vs City of Delray Beach. Motion FAILED for lack of a second. 2. The City Attorney reported this item is a matter in litigation which has been pending for two or three years, the result of some extensive discovery having been taken and also this Council's actions in approving, through the Council as well as the Sewer Board, the contract with S.G. Phillips who is doing the improvements at the plant and your land acquisitions. All those matters considered, which were not before the parties at the time this lawsuit was instituted, have brought the three local government attorneys and the plaintiff's attorney to the point that we thought that in the interest of all parties an amicable resolution of the case was at hand. The stipulation was drafted in that regard which would settle the case; we are on the judge's agenda for May 22nd to either go forward with the case or to have it resolved. The City Attorney advised it is his understanding that as members of the Sewer Board, Council has already approved this settlement stipulation and this would be as individual defendants and as the City defendant to also approve same. Mr. Weatherspoon moved for approval of the settlement stipula- tion and to authorize execution by the City, seconded by Mr. Dougherty. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Dougherty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. 3. The City Manager advised it was requested this item be brought before Council with a recommendation to be site specific. Mayor Campbell stated since the completion of the N.W. 5th Avenue project they have received numerous complaints about the narrowing of the roadway which eliminated on-street parking. The Assistant City Manager reported he has made a recommenda- tion on a specific strategy that Council may wish to pursue, i.e., the acquisition of a parcel to build one parking lot and an interim solution for on-street parking while the lot is being built. Council has been furnished a memo and a map showing the location of the proposed lot. The acquisition and construction price is $45,000. Discussion followed on possible other locations for the park- ing. The Assistant City Manager also advised that the public safety people as well as the engineers recommend that there be no parking on the street, but considering the situation that prevails, he did recom- mend a partial interim parking on the west side in specific locations that would not interfere with driveways until the lot is built. Mr. Dougherty moved to authorize staff to begin negotiation for acquisition of the lot and to recommend the alternate parking while the construction is going on, seconded by Mr. Weatherspoon. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Dougherty - Yes; Mr. Weatherspoon - Yes; Mayor Campbell - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 0 vote. Before roll call, the following discussion was had: -2- 5/6/86 Thaddeus Cohen stated that what concerns him is that the City is moving forward and not letting the actual plan that was developed by the citizens, who spent over a year designing the project under the auspices of Barker Osha & Anderson, to move forward. The citizens have determined that at this particular point in time there is no justifica- tion for additional parking, particularly acquired by the City with taxpayers' funds. Mr. Cohen advised he also believed the business owner who has petitioned the City to acquire his particular parcel hasn't taken the steps required and necessary to improve his own business. He believed the $45,000 could be better spent in providing these merchants with an opportunity to be involved in a new process, which is the CRA. Mr. Cohen stated he believed the problem is security, not parking. Upon question by Mr. Dougherty, Mr. Cohen advised that what the plan called for was that the property Council is talking about was actually slated for commercial development, not a parking lot. There was a heated debate within the citizens group; therefore, they showed it as a fair, mercantile area, or park so that in the actual development of the street they could make it green and if there was a parking problem it could be converted. A lot of people really thought that the develop- ment should take place along the alleyways. The plan does call for on-street parking; in selected areas there is provision for pull-off parking in front of certain businesses. Mayor Campbell stated he would prefer to see the parking lot in the southern block for better access; however, he felt that in order to encourage this particular area to develop we absolutely must have City involvement in off-street parking. Mr. Weatherspoon commented that the way 5th Avenue is now on-street parking has been totally eliminated; now they cannot park anywhere on the street. At first he was in favor of the southern location, but after talking with some of the merchants they felt their customers would feel much safer parking in the northern block. At this point the roll was called to the motion. Kenneth Gary, 27 N.W. 14th Avenue, advised that if they go ahead with the proposed parking in the northern block he will have to close in his property in that area and then there will be another problem; people have been using his property for public parking. Mayor Campbell declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. ~ ~ City C+lerk ATTEST: 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 Council of May 6, 1986, which minutes were formally ap- proved and adopted by the City Council on~~ City Clerk 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 Council. 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. -3- 5/6/86