Loading...
05-20-80SpMtg MAY 20, 1980 A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was held in the Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 20, 1980, with Mayor Leon M. Weekes, presiding and City Manager J. Eldon Mariott, City Attorney Roger Saberson, and Council members Malcolm T. Bird, Charlotte G. Durante, James H. Scheifley (arrived at 7:15 P.M.), and Willard V. Young, present. Mayor Weekes called the meeting to order and urged all the citizens of this community to exercise common sense and restraint in connection with the tensions that exist among various segments of the population. He refered to the property presently known as the "Haitian House" where someone fired a shotgun blast through the front window. He wants the public, press and everyone concerned to know that he, as Mayor, does not condone that, City Council does not condone it nor does the City Administration condone it; it is a tragic incident. He urges those that are guilty of such action and those who may contemplate such action to think of the consequences which might ensue therefrom. He also urges those persons in our community who are very aggrieved over the decision in the McDuffie case to exercise a similar restraint. This is the time for cool heads and reason to prevail because violence only begets violence and has never been a solution to anything. He asks for the prayerful consideration of all segments of the community to see that the unity which has been established be maintained and he prays that it will be. Mayor Weekes announced that this meeting has been called for the purpose of considering four items; (1) considering Plaintiff's offer of settlement regarding Herbert A. Gittens vs. City of Delray Beach; (2) considering sale of 1980 $1,390,000 General Obligation Bonds; (3) considering actions under Section 5, Ordinance No. 5-77 relative to certified list of eligibles for beach engineering services; and (4) con- sidering actions under Section 5, Ordinance No. 5-77 relative to certi- fied list of eligibles for fire station design. (1) The City Attorney reported that this pertains to a case that originated from an incident in May 1977 when the Plaintiff in this case was arrested by the City of Delray Beach Police Department. At the time of his arrest, he had in his possession the sum of $3,629.00 which was taken into custody by the Police Department and placed in the City's evidence locker. After the disposition of the criminal charges against this individual, he requested the return of the funds. It was dis- covered, at that time, that the funds had been lost. He filed suit in July 1979 against the City, and the case, at the present time, is still in its very early stages; no trial date has been set. They have re- ceived a formal request for an offer of settlement in the amount of $3,629.00 plus the cost of $51.50. The reason this.is on the agenda is because it was conveyed to them as a formal offer to the City. The City Attorney's office is not in a position at this time to recommend an acceptance of the settlement because there are some insurance coverage questions that they would like to resolve before they enter into a settlement on this matter. Mr. Bird asked the City Attorney how long the City should deprive this individual of his money. The City Attorney replied that they would like to resolve the insurance question and then come back to Council, possibly with a counter-offer. He doesn't know how long that will take. Mr. Bird asked if the individual is entitled to his money. The City Attorney replied that it depends on whether or not the City is construed to be an insurer or a bailee with regard to this property. In the latter instance, if the City, at the hearing, goes through the various procedures which are followed with regard to custody and control of evidence and establishes that those procedures were followed in this instance, in that event there would be no liability. If on the other hand, the City were construed to be an insurer, the mere loss of the property would result in liability. Mr. Bird asked if a citizen having been arrested by the City and having suffered a monetary loss can be left without remedy depending upon the construction. The City Attorney replied yes. Mr. Bird moved to reimburse this individual for his loss plus his cost in collecting same, the total $3,680.50, and that the City Attorney's office continue to pursue recovery of those funds from the City's insurance carriers, seconded by Mr. Young. Upon question by Council, the City Attorney stated that the motion he had requested was to, at this time, reject the offer until they can resolve a little more clearly the liability in terms of in- surance coverage. The motion made by Council, as he understands it, directs him to go ahead and settle the case with the Plaintiff and then to the extent possible pursue recovery against any applicable insurance company. Mr. Bird asked if the City would be precluded fr~m col- lecting any reimbursement from any of their insurance carriers because they had prepaid the Plaintiff. The City Attorney replied that there is a possiblity of that. He added that the particular carrier involved has denied coverage for a defense but not necessarily coverage for the claim. He felt it was more appropriate to involve them in the actual settlement negotiations and have them participate in the amount of the settlement; that would put the City in a more favorable position to try and obtain some of the funds from them; and as a predicate to doing that, he thinks they are going to need some guidance from their insur- ance consultants. Upon question by Mr. Bird, the City Attorney replied that in 30 days they could have it resolved to the extent that they would know whether or not there would be participation by the insurance company and to what extent the City would be entitled to such partici- pation. Mr~ Bird withdrew his motion and Mr. Young his second. Mr. Bird moved to allow the City Attorney's office, until the regular Council meeting of June 24th, to resolve this matter and bring it back before Council, seconded by Mr. Young. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. Mr. Scheifley abstained as he was not present for the discussion. (2) The City Manager announced that the City's fiscal agent, Stan Ross, is here tonight to make a report regarding the sale of the 1980 $1,390,000 General Obligation Bonds. Mr. Ross reported that the $1,390,000 General Obligation Bonds were validated on March 3rd. The appeal period expired on April 3rd and at that time the average rate of interest for this type of bond was 9.4% in the market. Last Thursday, when they scheduled this meeting, he had a commitment from Barnett Bank to take the bonds at a rate of 7.15%; his people thought that it should be closer to 7 and they were negotiating with them on that basis. Today, in view of the change in the market rates, they have gone up with their rate to 7.37%. He read the comments that came out of his office on Monday regarding ~he market. His recommendation to Council at this point is to, perhaps, save the City some money by a private placement if it was definitely in line with the market at somewhere around the 7% level; the savings that the City might make would be somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 and, in his opinion, would not justify'going up to the 7 & 3/8 rate which they have now. He would like to have the authorization to proceed with the public sale of the bonds as they have always done in the past. They can be ready to do the advertising in about a week to ten days with about a two week advertising period for sale sometime around the 15th of June. He would also like to have the leeway to set the sale date at a time that they feel would be consistent with favorable market conditions. Upon question by Mayor Weekes, Tom Weber, Finance Director, stated that he agrees with Mr. Ross' recommendation. - 2 - 5/20/80 ? Mr. Bird moved to authorize their bond consultant to adver- tise for the sale of the bonds and to give him the latitude of the period between June 15th and July 15th to effect the sale of those bonds if, in his opinion, such a sale is deemed to be appropriate; otherwise he should return to Council for additional guidance, seconded by Mr. Young. Said motion passed unanimously. (3) The City Manager reported that his office has proceeded with the processing under the Competitive Negotiations Act of the State and under the Ordinance provisions of the City with respect to obtaining the services of a consulting engineering firm for beach erosion control purposes. They have carried the procedure, 'as far as the City ordinance is concerned, up to the point where Council must now give consideration to this matter. The City Administration has taken the procedure up through Section 4 of City Ordinance No. 5-77 pertaining to this subject. Section 5 of this ordinance sets forth the responsibilities of City Council in this instance which has to do with discussing with the pro- spective firms the possibility of their providing the service, pre- sentations by those firms if so desired by Council and City Council's ranking of those firms which can be done at tonight's meeting or at a later time. The last official action taken by the City Manager's office was the providing to Council on May 6, 1980 a certified list of eli- gibles; in this case there were only two firms, and representatives of both of those firms are here tonight. The first is Arthur V. Strock & Associates and the second firm is Gee and Jensen, Inc. Mayor Weekes asked if the Council may make the selection without a formal presentation by the firms. The City Attorney replied that what the Ordinance and Statutes say is that Council shall conduct discussion with these particular firms and it may require public pre- sentation. What it amounts to is that the discussions will occur at this meeting and each individual firm can make a brief presentation to City Council and make themselves available for any questions that City Council may have concerning the project. Richard Miller, Senior Vice-President of Gee and Jensen, introduced several other representatives from the firm and gave a pre- sentation outlining the firm's capablities and experience. Mayor Weekes thanked Mr. Miller for the presentation and noted that one of the pri- mary projects that Gee and Jensen undertook was Walt Disney World. Mr. Arthur Strock, representing Arthur V. Strock & Associ- ates, gave a presentation outlining his firm's capabilities and experience and introduced Tom Campbell, Vice-President of the firm, who heads up their'ocean engineering section and who would be in charge of the detail work as far as Delray Beach is concerned. Mr. Campbell also gave a brief presentation relative to work their firm has done for Palm Beach County in the past. The Mayor thanked the two gentlemen for the presentation. The City Manager announced that if Council is ready to do so, they may now rank these two firms, 1 and 2, and turn the #1 firm pack to the City Manager's office for an attempt to negotiate a con- tract. The City Attorney recommended that this be done by motion. Mr. Scheifley moved that Arthur V. Strock & Associates be ~1 in negotiation and Gee and Jensen, Inc., be #2, seconded by Mrs. Durante. Upon roll call Council voted as follows: Mr. Bird - No; Mrs. Durante - Yes; Mr. Scheifley - Yes; Mr. Young - No; Mayor Weekes - Yes. Said motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. (4) The City Manager reported that everything that was said with respect to engineering firms would be applicable with regard to the selection of an architectural firm for the design of a fire station. There were five local firms that were invited to have representatives at tonight's meeting. With regard to one of the firms, the Roy Simon firm, Mr. Simon has withdrawn his firm's name for consideration due to his present involvement on an extensive City project, the Public Works complex. That leaves four firms; Richard Hanna, Robert Currie, Toth- Rubsamen and Baker, Amman & Whitney, Inc. - 3 - 5/20/80 Mr. Bridges, representing Baker, Amman & Whitney Inc., noted that their firm is relatively new to this area and gave a presentation outlining the firm's origin, experience and capabilities. Mayor Weekes thanked Mr. Bridges for his presentation and stated that they will con- tinue along in alphabetical order. Mr. Robert Currie, Robert G. Currie & Associates, gave a brief presentation outlining his firm's capabilities and experience. Mayor ~ekes thanked Mr. Currie and announced that they will next hear from Mr. Hanna. Mr. Richard Hanna, Architect, gave a presentation outlining his firm's experience and capabilities. Mayor Weekes thanked Mr. Hanna and introduced Mr. Rubsamen. Mr. Ken Rubsamen, representing the firm of Toth-Rubsamen, gave a presentation outlining his firm's experience and capabilities; he noted that they are presently doing the addition to City Hall. Mayor Weekes asked if they could vote by ballot if the ballots are signed by Council members. The City Attorney replied that they can as long as the record reflects how each Council member votes. Mayor Weekes announced that each Council member must rank the firms 1, 2, 3 & 4, in that order and the firm with the lowest vote will be #1, the firm with the second lowest vote will be #2, and so forth; also, each Council member must sign their ballot. Council proceeded with the voting. The Assistant City Clerk tabulated the votes as the Mayor read them; Mayor Weekes read the Council members' votes as follows: Mr. Scheifley Mrs. Durante Mr. Bird Mr. Young Mayor Weekes 1. Hanna 1. Currie 1. Hanna 1. Hanna 1. Hanna 2. Toth 2. Hanna 2. Baker 2. Baker 2. Currie 3. Currie 3. Toth 3. Toth 3. Toth 3. Baker 4. Baker 4. Baker 4. Currie 4. Currie 4. Toth The City Attorney announced that Mr. Hanna ranks first with 6, Currie second with 14, and Baker and Toth tied third with 15 and advised that a motion is now in order. Mr. Bird moved to rank ~anna first, Currie second, Baker third and Toth fourth, seconded by Mr. Young. Said motion passed unani- mous ly. Mayor Weekes declared the meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. City Clerk 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 20, 1980, which minutes were for- mally approved 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. - 4 - 5/20/80