The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 03-16-10 Searchable The City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard ● (561) 742-6000 TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010 6:30 PM FINAL AGENDA City Commission AGENDA Jerry Taylor Mayor – At Large Woodrow Hay Vice Mayor – District II Ron Weiland Commissioner – District I Jose Rodriguez Commissioner – District III Marlene Ross Commissioner – District IV Kurt Bressner City Manager James Cherof City Attorney Janet M. Prainito City Clerk Visit our Web site www.boynton–beach.org We’re Reinventing City Living for The Millennium WELCOME Thank you for attending the City Commission Meeting GENERAL RULES & PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH COMMISSION MEETINGS THE AGENDA: There is an official agenda for every meeting of the City Commissioners, which determines the order of business conducted at the meeting. The City Commission will not take action upon any matter, proposal, or item of business, which is not listed upon the official agenda, unless a majority of the Commission has first consented to the presentation for consideration and action.  Consent Agenda Items: These are items which the Commission does not need to discuss individually and which are voted on as a group.  Regular Agenda Items: These are items which the Commission will discuss individually in the order listed on the agenda.  Voice Vote: A voice vote by the Commission indicates approval of the agenda item. This can be by either a regular voice vote with "Ayes & Nays" or by a roll call vote. SPEAKING AT COMMISSION MEETINGS: The public is encouraged to offer comment to the Commission at their meetings during Public Hearings, Public Audience, and on any regular agenda item, as hereinafter described. City Commission meetings are business meetings and, as such, the Commission retains the right to impose time limits on the discussion on an issue.  Public Hearings: Any citizen may speak on an official agenda item under the section entitled “Public Hearings.”  Public Audience: Any citizen may be heard concerning any matter within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Commission – Time Limit – Three (3) Minutes  Regular Agenda Items: Any citizen may speak on any official agenda item(s) listed on the agenda after a motion has been made and properly seconded, with the exception of Consent Agenda Items that have not been pulled for separate vote, reports, presentations and first reading of Ordinances – Time Limit – Three (3) minutes ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: When addressing the Commission, please step up to either podium and state, for the record, your name and address. DECORUM: Any person who disputes the meeting while addressing the Commission may be ordered by the presiding officer to cease further comments and/or to step down from the podium. Failure to discontinue comments or step down when so ordered shall be treated as a continuing disruption of the public meeting. An order by the presiding officer issued to control the decorum of the meeting is binding, unless over-ruled by the majority vote of the Commission members present. Please turn off all pagers and cellular phones in the City Commission Chambers while the City Commission Meeting is in session. City Commission meetings are held in the Boynton Beach City Commission Chambers, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach. All regular meetings are held typically on the first and third Tuesdays of every month, starting at 6:30 p.m. (Please check the Agenda Schedule – some meetings have been moved due to Holidays/Election Day). 2 of 228 1. OPENINGS A. Call to order - Mayor Jerry Taylor B. Invocation by Charles Carrin, Retired Minister C. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Commissioner Weiland Presentation of Service Plaques to Mayor and City Commissioners/Remarks  Administration of Oath of Office to Commissioner – District I/Remarks  Administration of Oath of Office to Commissioner – District III/Remarks  Administration of Oath of Office to Mayor/Remarks  dministration of Oath of Office to Mayor/Remarks D. Agenda Approval: 1. Additions, Deletions, Corrections 2. Adoption 2. OTHER A. Informational Items by Members of the City Commission 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMUNITY & SPECIAL EVENTS & PRESENTATIONS A. Announcing the upcoming Movies on the Ave. event. 4. PUBLIC AUDIENCE INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS (at the d iscretion of the Chair, this 3 minute allowance may need to be adjusted depending on the level of business coming before the City Commission) 5. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Appoint eligible members of the community to serve in vacant positions on City advisory boards. 6. CONSENT AGENDA Matters in this section of the Agenda are proposed and recommended by the City Manager for "Consent Agenda" approval of the action indicated in each item, with all of the accompanying material to become a part of the Public Record and subject to staff comments. A. Approve the Minutes from the City Commission meeting held on February 16, 2010. 3 of 228 PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R10-030 B. -- Approve a Contract Service Arrangement Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (d/b/a AT&T Florida) for a period of twenty-four (24) months for existing telephone-line equipment and ongoing telecommunications equipment and services. Agreement will save City approximately $3,000/month. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R10-031 C. -- Assessing the cost of nuisance abatement on properties within the City of Boynton Beach. D. Accept the monthly report on the major projects being completed by the Recreation and Parks Department. E. Approve purchase of In Car Cameras for Police Department from Digital Ally in the amount of $20,625. F. Accept the written report to the Commission for purchases over $10,000 for the month of February 2010. G. Award the "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR CLEANING CHEMICALS AND JANITORIAL SUPPLIES", Bid # 017-1412-10/MFD, on an overall basis, to the lowest, most responsive, responsible bidders who met all specifications with an estimated annual amount of $50,000. H. Approve the sole source purchase of compatible new or replacement water meters, meter reading systems, testing equipment, accessories, and repair parts for our existing single brand water meter system at an estimated annual cost of $166,000 based on FY 2008-2009 actual purchases. 7. BIDS AND PURCHASES OVER $100,000 PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R10-032 A. - Award contract for Bid # 018-2821-10/JA, Disinfection System Upgrade Project at the East Water Treatment Plant to Wharton- Smith, Inc. as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; in the amount of $1,547,000. Also approve an additional owner's contingency of 10%, equal to $154,700, resulting in a total funding authorization of $1,701,700. Also reject the six (6) highest bids the City received in response to its Invitation to Bidders; and reject the lowest bid received from WDF/Nagelbush due to the bid's incompleteness and a lack of documented completion of similar work by that firm. 8. CODE COMPLIANCE & LEGAL SETTLEMENTS None 9. PUBLIC HEARING 7 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE AGENDA PERMITS The City Commission will conduct these public hearings in its dual capacity as Loc al Planning Agency and City Commission. 4 of 228 Boynton Vista II, SPTE 10-004 A. , located at 419 South Circle Drive. Request approval for a one (1) year site plan time extension for major site plan modification (MSPM 07- 004) approved on May 20, 2008, from November 20, 2009 to November 20, 2010. Lake Worth Christian School, SPTE 10-005 B. , located at 7592 High Ridge Road, requests approval for a second one (1) -year site plan time extension for conditional use/major site plan modification (COUS/MSPM 07-003) and height exception (HTEX 07-004) approved on July 17, 2007, from January 17, 2010 to January 17, 2011. Applicant: Robert Hook Superintendent, LWCS. Safe & Secure Self Storage, Phase III, SPTE 10-005 C. , located at 3010 South Congress Avenue, request approval for a one (1)-year site plan time extension for major site plan modification (MSPM 08-001) and community design plan appeal (CDPA 08-001) approved on May 20, 2008, from November 20, 2009 to November 20, 2010. Applicant: Alejandro Zurita, Vice President and Development, Pugliese Company. Quantum Park Church (USAP 10-001), D. Quantum Park DRI, Lots 18 and 19. Request approval to allow the conversion of an existing 14,692 square foot flex office building to a church in the Quantum Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) district. Applicant: Douglas B. MacDonald, Managing member of 1325 Gateway, LLC. Healing Grounds (NWSP 10-002) E. Request for a new site plan located at 220 and 226 West Boynton Beach Boulevard for a proposed combination veterinary clinic and accessory human spa with massage therapy and acupuncture consisting of 3,716 square feet of building area on 0.60 acre in a C-2 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Applicant: Nancy Keller, DVM. F. Confirm continuation of "Notice of Intent" (NOI) and support for the planning study of impacts and regulations related to adult entertainment uses. G. Confirm continuation of "Notice of Intent" (NOI) and support for the planning study of regulations related to pain management clinics and other uses which dispense prescription pain medications. 10. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT A. Informational item regarding an automatic mutual aid agreement between Palm Beach County and Boynton Beach Fire Rescue Departments. TIME CERTAIN TO BE HEARD AT 7:30 PM - TABLED from 2/16/10 B. - Staff seeks authorization to move forward with issuance of an RFP for Towing Rotation Franchise (RECOMMEND ITEM BE TABLED TO APRIL 20, 2010 OR LATER Agreement. DATE) C. Affirm that portion of Resolution No. R10-028 Authorizing the submission of an amendment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Application and Substantial Amendment to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) regarding the $400,000 previously allocated to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the purpose of providing homebuyer subsidies for the Ocean Breeze Development Project. 5 of 228 11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS A. Review of application packet and process for CRA appointments. City Commission is asked to review the application materials and selection process for appointment of a seven-member Community Redevelopment Board. The timeline for the appointment of the CRA Board per Ordinance 09-030 is subject to the discretion of the City Commission. (Tabled to April 2010). B. Review of Renovation Plan for Old Boynton Beach High School submitted to the City Commission on December 15, 2009. (Tabled to April 2010) 12. NEW BUSINESS None 13. LEGAL None 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 15. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE/SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND, FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F.S. 286.0105) THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT PAM WELSH (561) 742-6013 AT LEAST TWENTY- FOUR HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE ADDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE. INFORMATION REGARDING ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA AFTER IT IS PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. 6 of 228 3. A ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMUNITY & SPECIAL EVENTS & PRESENTATIONS March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Announcing the upcoming Movies on the Ave. event. EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION ER: Friday, April 2, 2010 On , the Boynton Beach CRA, the City of Boynton XPLANATION OF EQUEST Hairspray Beach and The Palm Beach Post will present a Movies on the Ave film screening, featuring . PG This FREE event will take place from 7:00 to 9:00 at the Amphitheatre next to the PM PM Schoolhouse Children’s Museum on Ocean Avenue just east of Seacrest. Food and Drink vendors are available. Please bring your folding chairs or blankets. Parking onsite, no pets please H? OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES FI: CRA Budget – line item 02-58500-480 ISCAL MPACT A: LTERNATIVES 7 of 228 5. A ADMINISTRATIVE March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Appoint eligible members of the community to serve in EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION vacant positions on City advisory boards. ER: The attached list contains the names of those who have applied for XPLANATION OF EQUEST vacancies on the various Advisory Boards. A list of vacancies is provided with the designated Commission member having responsibility for the appointment to fill each vacancy. H? Appointments are necessary to keep our OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES Advisory Boards full and operating as effectively as possible. FI: None ISCAL MPACT A: Allow vacancies to remain unfilled. LTERNATIVES 8 of 228 9 of 228 10 of 228 6. A CONSENT AGENDA March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Approve the Minutes from the City Commission meeting EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION held on February 16, 2010. ER: The City Commission met on February 16, 2010 and on February XPLANATION OF EQUEST 9, 2010 and minutes were prepared from the notes taken at the meeting by the Deputy City Clerk. The Florida Statutes provide that minutes of all Commission meetings be prepared, approved and maintained in the records of the City of Boynton Beach. H? A permanent record of the actions taken OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES by the City Commission will be maintained as a permanent record. FI: N/A ISCAL MPACT A: N/A LTERNATIVES 11 of 228 6. B CONSENT AGENDA March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R10 - _____ -- Approve EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION a Contract Service Arrangement Agreement with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (d/b/a AT&T Florida) for a period of twenty-four (24) months for existing telephone-line equipment and ongoing telecommunications equipment and services. Agreement will save City approximately $3,000/month. ER: During the last nine months, City staff has been working with an XPLANATION OF EQUEST external consultant to decrease the City’s ongoing telephone charges. We have already received large retroactive credits and ongoing future reductions by:  Eliminating some telephone lines,  Replacing expensive solutions with lower cost options, and  Reducing rates by implementing longer-term agreements in lieu of month-to-month bills (e.g., a 36-month long distance agreement with Paetec), The City uses AT&T for local telephone service as well as digital connectivity. In the past, the City has had several different discount arrangements with AT&T. These discount agreements have now expired. Information Technology Services staff has worked with AT&T and our outside telephone consultant to consolidate our AT&T services into one agreement to provide The City’s outside telephone consultant estimates that considerable ongoing discounts. this Agreement will immediately save us approximately $3,000 per month over AT&T’s normal month-to-month rates, as well as protecting us from increases during the 24- month term of the Agreement. 12 of 228 H? OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES AT&T equipment and dedicated telephone-lines are already installed and connected to City telephone switches. This requires no new work; it simply decreases ongoing Agreement operating costs. FI: ISCAL MPACT AT&T equipment and dedicated phone-lines are already installed and connected to City phone switches. The City already has a blanket Purchase Order for FY 2009-2010 to pay AT&T for telephone and data services. Funding is provided in 001-1510-513-41-10. A: LTERNATIVES  Continue with AT&T on a month-to-month basis at the current higher rates.  Switch to some other carrier. However, even if successful, this option would entail considerable installation and configuration work for both internal staff and the carrier. It might involve unforeseen capital costs. 13 of 228 RESOLUTION R10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTH CONTRACT SERVICE ARRANGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AND BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., (D/B/A AT&T FLORIDA) FOR EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE EQUIPMENT AND ONGOING TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, City staff has been working with an external consultant for the past nine (9) months to decrease the City’s ongoing phone charges; and WHEREAS , staff has worked with AT&T and our outside telephone consultant to consolidate the City’s AT&T services into one agreement to provide considerable ongoing discounts; and WHEREAS , upon recommendation of staff, the City Commission has determined that it is in the best interests of the residents of the City to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a twenty-four (24) month Contract Service Arrangement Agreement between the City of Boynton Beach and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., (d/b/a AT&T Florida) for existing telephone line equipment and ongoing telecommunications equipment and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. The foregoing "Whereas" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution upon adoption hereof. Section 2. The City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida does hereby approve and authorize and direct the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a twenty-four (24) month Contract Service Arrangement Agreement between the City of Boynton Beach and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., (d/b/a AT&T Florida) for existing telephone line equipment and ongoing telecommunications equipment and services, a copy of the Service Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Section 3. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of March, 2010. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 14 of 228 ______________________________ Mayor – ______________________________ Vice Mayor – ______________________________ Commissioner – ______________________________ Commissioner – ______________________________ Commissioner – ATTEST: _____________________ Janet M. Prainito, MMC City Clerk (Corporate Seal) 15 of 228 16 of 228 17 of 228 18 of 228 19 of 228 20 of 228 21 of 228 22 of 228 23 of 228 24 of 228 25 of 228 26 of 228 6. C CONSENT AGENDA March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R010- Assessing the EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION cost of nuisance abatement on properties within the City of Boynton Beach. ER: In accordance with the Municipal Lien Procedure on file in the City of Boynton Beach, the XPLANATION OF EQUEST attached list contains the addresses of properties cited by Code Compliance for nuisances abated by a City-contracted vendor. Finance sent an invoice to each property owner. There was no response within the required 30-day period. Copies of the invoices were then forwarded to the City Clerk’s Office for continuation of the procedure. The property owners were again issued a copy of the invoice and a letter which offered an opportunity to pay the invoice within an additional 30-day period. The attached list contains the names of the property owners who have still not responded to our correspondence. At this point in the procedures, authorization is requested to record liens against these properties in the public records of Palm Beach County within 30 days of adoption of the Resolution. Prior to sending a certified copy of the Resolution to the County for recording, the City Clerk will send another letter to each property owner notifying them they have another 30 days to pay the invoice before the Resolution is sent for recording. An additional administrative fee of $30 will be added to the assessment when the certified copy of the Resolution is sent to the County for recording. Thirty days after a certified copy of the Resolution is recorded, the property owners will receive, by certified mail, a certified copy of the Resolution and another letter stating the unpaid balance will accrue interest at a rate of 8% per annum. H? This process allows us to place liens on the properties in OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES order to reimburse the City for the services that were provided when the nuisances were abated. FI: ISCAL MPACT A: The alternative would be to not place liens on the properties and not collect for the service provided. LTERNATIVES 27 of 228 RESOLUTION NO. R10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ASSESSING THE COSTS OF ABATEMENT OF CERTAIN NUISANCES AGAINST THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS , between August and October, 2009, a contract vendor was requested by Code Compliance to mow the lots of the properties described in Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS , the owners of the parcel(s) of property hereinafter described were invoiced by the Finance Department on two occasions in an effort to recoup these costs with no response; and WHEREAS, said nuisance was not abated as required; and, WHEREAS , on October 22, 2009, all of the property owners listed in the attached Exhibit “A” were sent letters offering them an opportunity to remit within 30 days in order to avoid incurring a lien on their property; and WHEREAS , the City Manager or his authorized representative has made a report of costs actually incurred by the City and abatement of said nuisance as to the property(s) involved, which is described in Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, upon passage of this Resolution, the property owners will be furnished with a copy of this Resolution, and given one more opportunity to remit all costs associated with the abatement in full within 30 days of the passage of the Resolution, before transmittal to the County for recordation of Liens; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Each Whereas clause set forth above is true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2: The amount of costs incurred by the City and the abatement of the above- described nuisance as to the parcels of land, owned and indicated to wit: SEE ATTACHED COMPOSITE EXHIBIT “A” (Charges cover Invoices dated October 22, 2009) Subject amount is hereby assessed as liens against said parcels of land as indicated, plus an additional administrative charge of $30.00 for each Lien. Liens shall be of equal dignity with the taxes there from for the year 2009, and shall be enforced and collected in like manner pursuant to applicable provisions of law. In the event collection proceedings are necessary, the property owner shall pay all costs of the proceedings, including reasonable attorneys fees. 28 of 228 Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of March, 2010. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ______________________________ Mayor – _______________________________ Vice Mayor – _______________________________ Commissioner – _______________________________ Commissioner – ATTEST: _______________________________ Commissioner – _____________________________ Janet M. Prainito, MMC City Clerk {Corporate Seal} 29 of 228 30 of 228 31 of 228 6. D CONSENT AGENDA March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Accept the monthly report on the major projects being EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION completed by the Recreation and Parks Department. ER: XPLANATION OF EQUEST PARK BUDGET STATUS AMOUNT Barton Greenway $116,070 Received Notice to Proceed with bidding process. 100% funded by FDOT. No City funds required. Boat Club $417,500 Project underway. Estimated completion is June 2010. Renovation Hester Park and $388,000 Pending approval from the Department of Energy Center Energy anticipated by the end of March, the bid process will Retrofit begin in April. No City funds will be expended. Oceanfront $1,640,000 Project began on February 22, 2010. Estimated Boardwalk completion is March 2011. Palmetto $400,000 Received Notice to Proceed with bidding process. Greenway 100% funded by FDOT. No City funds required. Extension Jaycee Park 154,090 50% Matching grant from Florida Inland Navigation Environmental Art District (FIND). Project is being designed. Estimated Markers completion date is October 2010. H? For purposes of this report, N/A OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES FI: For purposes of this report, N/A ISCAL MPACT 32 of 228 A: For purposes of this report, N/A LTERNATIVES 33 of 228 6. E CONSENT AGENDA March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Approve purchase of In Car Cameras for Police EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION Department from Digital Ally in the amount of $20,625. ER: This is a request to purchase (5) DVM500 Digital Video Mirror Kits XPLANATION OF EQUEST from Digital-Ally in the amount of $20,625. The Digital-Ally Model DVM500, In-vehicle Digital Video Rear View Mirror System is manufactured by Digital Ally, Inc. The cameras are considered a Sole Source item in order to maintain consistency of operational and maintenance efficiencies as we currently have existing systems in place As such time, it is determined to change out all cameras due to maintenance or improved technology, remaining with the same vendor provides for increased efficiencies. The quote from Digital-Ally along with the Sole Source Letter is attached. H? The overall benefits to having all police OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES vehicles equipped with an in car video system is that they create accurate records of police activity, protecting both the officers and the citizens of Boynton Beach. Having in car video systems in our police vehicles also demonstrates our agency’s confidence in our officers and the service that we provide our citizens. FI: The majority ($18,043 - account number 105.3400.521.64.02) of this purchase ISCAL MPACT will be funded through the JAG grant (local solicitation), which we have already been awarded. The remainder ($2,582 - account number 001.2110.521.64.02) will be paid from the Police Department’s General Fund equipment budget. A: No other alternatives. If this request is not approved, vehicles will continue to LTERNATIVES go without in car cameras. 34 of 228 35 of 228 36 of 228 6. F CONSENT AGENDA March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: MARCH 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Accept the written report to the Commission for purchases EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION over $10,000 for the month of February 2010. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: PER ORDINANCE O01-66, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-56.1 EXCEPTIONS TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING, PARAGRAPH B, WHICH STATES: “FURTHER, THE CITY MANAGER, OR IN THE CITY MANAGER’S ABSENCE, THE ACTING CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURCHASES UNDER THE $25,000 BID THRESHOLD FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY, COMMODITIES, AND SERVICES, OR $75,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE CITY MANAGER SHALL FILE A WRITTEN REPORT WITH THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE SECOND COMMISSION MEETING OF EACH MONTH LISTING THE PURCHASE ORDERS APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, OR ACTING CITY MANAGER. H? Ordinance O01-66, Chapter 2, Section 2- OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES 56.1 assists departments in timely procurement of commodities, services, and personal property. Administrative controls are in place with the development of a special processing form titled “Request for Purchases Over $10,000” and each purchase request is reviewed and approved by the Department Director, Purchasing Agent, and City Manager. FI: This Ordinance provides the impact of reducing paperwork by streamlining ISCAL MPACT processes within the City. This allows administration to maintain internal controls for these purchases, reduce the administrative overhead of processing for approval, and allow for making more timely purchases. A: None LTERNATIVES 37 of 228 38 of 228 39 of 228 40 of 228 41 of 228 42 of 228 43 of 228 6. G CONSENT AGENDA March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Award the "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR CLEANING EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION CHEMICALS AND JANITORIAL SUPPLIES", Bid # 017-1412-10/MFD, on an overall basis, to the lowest, most responsive, responsible bidders who met all specifications with an estimated annual amount of $50,000. : M17,201016,2011 CONTRACT PERIOD ARCH TO MARCH ER: On December 23, 2009, Procurement Services opened and XPLANATION OF EQUEST tabulated twelve (12) bids. All bids were reviewed by the Warehouse Department. It was ”. determined to recommend this bid to multi vendors as overall “LOW BIDDERS The evaluating factors used in determining the award were based on the lowest price, delivery time, and green products. Michael Dauta, Warehouse Manager, concurs with this recommendation. The provision of this bid will allow for a one (1) year extension at the same terms, conditions and prices subject to vendor acceptance, satisfactory performance and determination that the renewal is in the best interest of the City. PROGRAM IMPACT: The purpose of this Bid was to secure a source of supply, for a one (1) year period, for environmentally safe and /or “green” cleaning chemicals and janitorial supply items certified by Ecologo or Greenseal or provide demonstrable proof of meeting Ecologo or Greenseal standards where specified at the best possible price: satisfactory, manufacturer: early, prompt and convenient shipment by the supplier to the City of Boynton Beach. Cleaning Chemicals and Janitorial Supplies will be ordered on an “AS NEEDED BASIS” and stocked within the warehouse. FI:ACCOUNT NUMBER ESTIMATED ISCAL MPACT 44 of 228 WAREHOUSE STOCKANNUAL EXPENDITURE 502-0000-141-0100 $50,000 A: Obtain quotes when placing an order LTERNATIVES 45 of 228 The City of Boynton Beach Finance Department WAREHOUSE DIVISION TO: Carol Doppler, Purchasing Agent FROM: Michael Dauta, Warehouse Manager DATE: February 23, 2010 SUBJECT: Janitorial Bid # 017-1412-10/MFD I reviewed the tabulation sheet sent from your office. The evaluating factor used was lowest price, delivery time and green products. My recommendation is a multi award to low vendors. Estimated annual expenditures will be $50,000. Amsan Item(s) 10,12,20,23,24,27,28,37,60 Clean All Products Item(s) 47,48 Dade Paper Item(s) 2,7,8,11,13,16,17,19,21,26,29,42,43,46,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,65 Gold Coast Item(s) 18,(63 Tied with Sam Tell, See below for details) 46 of 228 HD Supply Item(s) 9,14,30,31,32,33,34,35,49 Interboro Packaging Item(s) 64 Neeld Paper Item(s) 1,3,6,22,25,36,40,41 Preferred Chemical Item(s) 39 Pyramid Item(s) 61,62 Sam Tell Item(s) 15 The following items are being withdrawn from the bid due to an agreement we have with Amsan for dispensers. 4,5,38,44,45 The following items were requested to be Greenseal or Ecologo certified. 18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,36,40,41,42,43,46,59,60,64,65 I awarded the items that were certified, at the lowest cost, within a reasonable increase in price compared to the non-certified, with the exceptions of items 29, 42, and 43. The price differences on these were too great. Gold Coast and Sam Tell were tied for the lowest price on item 63. I awarded the item to Gold Coast because of delivery time. Gold Coast was 4 to 14 calendar days while Sam Tell was 30 calendar days. Pyramid was not awarded the following items due to the minimum order requirement. 2,6,9,10,13,50,51,52 In addition to the awarded items, the following vendors offer discounts for any item not 47 of 228 listed on this bid. Amsan 40% Clean All Products 10% Interboro Packaging 50% Neeld Paper 15% Preferred Chemical 32% Pyramid 15% Sam Tell 40% If you have any questions please call me at 6324. Thank you. 48 of 228 6. H CONSENT AGENDA March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Approve the sole source purchase of compatable new or EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION replacement water meters, meter reading systems, testing equipment, accessories, and repair parts for our existing single brand water meter system at an estimated annual cost of $166,000 based on FY 2008-2009 actual purchases. NOTE: City Manager Comment on alternatives listed below. ER: From 1998 to 2005, the City changed out its water meters and XPLANATION OF EQUEST related radio-read system to Sensus USA meters at an approximate cost of $4,000,000 over that time period. The purpose was to modernize and standardize our system in order provide the latest technology and the time. Standardizing under a single manufacturer provides operating and repair efficiencies and the need to only stock one brand in our inventory, thus minimizing our costs compared to stocking meters and parts of more than one brand. There are three major manufacturers of these systems and users as follows:  Boynton Beach All Sensus meters (approximately 34,000) since the change over o All are radio-read meters (considered to be the most efficient) o Uses PC connectivity with software that enables radio reads of meters that o directly interfaces with our H.T.E. billing system  Delray Sensus meters since 1996 o Mix of touch-read and radio-read meters o  Boca Raton Badger meters since1989 o Mix of manual-read, touch-read and radio-read meters o  Palm Beach County 49 of 228 Sensus meters up to 2½ years ago o Touch-read meters  Neptune meters in the process of switching out o Radio-read meters  None of these systems are “open systems”, thus requiring use of a single brand. Boynton’s meter-reading information interfaces with another piece of software (the H.T.E. billing system) that is also proprietary. It is critical that all of the information is collected and transmitted consistently and accurately, through all of these devices and interfaces, so as to guarantee that our customers are billed correctly. It is also imperative that the integrity and accuracy of the meter, register, and radio transmitter are maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, in order to maintain the manufacturer’s accountability with the functional characteristics of the metering system . The requested purchases are to match existing equipment and to enable us to purchase additional equipment for new developments. The City currently owns and maintains over 34,000 water meters utilizing the radio system, many of which are still under warranty. In addition, the City has already spent $93,500 on the computer and radio transmitting/receiving station and equipment, which is proprietary to the Sensus system. This cost does not include the transmitters located within the meter boxes. H? If we are unable to purchase from Sensus OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES Metering Systems, the Utilities Department will not be able to repair and/or install new meters compatible with the current system. Sensus is the sole manufacturer and supplier of Sensus meters. FI: The estimated annual purchase of $166,000.00 is for inventory accountability. ISCAL MPACT There is no expense impact by Utilities until the items are withdrawn from inventory for use. The inventory asset account # is: 502-0000-141-01-00. A: LTERNATIVES  Many of the current meters, registers, and transmitters are still under warranty, Therefore, it is not cost-effective to consider changing-out this system to that of another manufacturer at this time.  Continue with the current meters until such time the meters are of an age that warrant replacement,  Evaluate other products over the next year to determine if a true compatibility can be achieved by utilizing other products with the current system; but in the meantime, City Manager Comment – approve this request for replacement meters and parts. Prefer this alternative so the data telemetry issues can be re-addressed next year to determine if the data system can be modified for a more open source of meters. 50 of 228 51 of 228 52 of 228 53 of 228 54 of 228 55 of 228 56 of 228 57 of 228 58 of 228 7. A BIDS AND PURCHASES OVER $100,000 March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R10-_____ - Award EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION contract for Bid # 018-2821-10/JA, Disinfection System Upgrade Project at the East Water Treatment Plant to Wharton-Smith, Inc. as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; in the amount of $1,547,000. Also approve an additional owner's contingency of 10%, equal to $154,700, resulting in a total funding authorization of $1,701,700. Also reject the six (6) highest bids the City received in response to its Invitation to Bidders; and reject the lowest bid received from WDF/Nagelbush due to the bid's incompleteness and a lack of documented completion of similar work by that firm. ER: On December 23, 2009, the City opened bids for the installation of XPLANATION OF EQUEST On-Site Chlorine Generation equipment and associated equipment at the East Water Treatment Plant. Bid pricing ranged from a low of $1,443,486 to a high of $1,892,000. The scope of this project includes the installation of a pre-purchased on-site chlorine generation system at the East Water Treatment Plant, including associated pumps, controls, storage tanks, electrical modifications, and removal of the existing gas chlorine storage and feed equipment. After having performed an initial administrative evaluation of the eight (8) bids received, the Utilities Department is recommending, in accordance with the Instruction to Bidders, Section 25 RIGHTS OF THE CITY, subsection 25.3 that the City Commission reject five (5) of the bids based on price. The five (5) bids were received from the following bidders (listed in ascending base bid value order): Bidder Bid Value 59 of 228 GlobeTec $1,597,010.00 Cardinal Contractors, Inc. $1,600,078.00 Florida Design Contractors, Inc. $1,609,765.00 Poole & Kent Company of Florida $1,891,000.00 R.J. Sullivan Corporation $1,892,000.00 A documented Bid Evaluation – Due Diligence review, based on the Selection Criteria identified in the Instruction to Bidders, Section 26 SELECTION CRITERIA, subsections 26.1.1through 26.1.10 was initially performed by CDM on the three (3) remaining bidders as follows: Bidder Bid Value WDF/Nagelbush $1,443,486.00 Wharton-Smith, Inc. $1,547,000.00 TLC Diversified $1,595,000.00 WDF/Nagelbush was noted to have failed to use the proper Schedule of Bid Items in their submittal. Also, in contacting references for the firm and for the project’s key personnel, discrepancies were discovered in the type of work claimed to have been performed elsewhere by the firm, and also in the roles of its key personnel (superintendent and project manager). These discrepancies and the lack of demonstrated experience by the local Florida branch of the firm and its personnel to perform similar work elsewhere form the basis for CDM in conjunction with the City’s staff to recommend award of this contract to the second lowest bidder, Wharton-Smith, Inc. In performing their review of the submittal by Wharton-Smith, Inc., the project engineer was able to confirm the completeness of their submittal, and verify that the firm has completed installations that demonstrate their capability to successfully complete the proposed disinfection system upgrade. Please see the attached recommendation from CDM for a detailed explanation of their findings in performing the due diligence reviews of WDF/Nagelbush and Wharton-Smith, Inc. H? This project will allow the removal of the OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES potentially hazardous gas chlorination system at the East Water Treatment Plant, and allow its replacement by a system producing a 0.8% solution of liquid chlorine. FI: The engineer’s estimate for this project was $1,820,338. The selected base ISCAL MPACT bid value of $1,547,000.00 is therefore $273,338, or 15% below the engineer’s estimate. The total recommended value of $1,701,700, which includes the 10% contingency is available as follows: Account Number Project Number Allocation 403-5006-590-65-02 WTR112 100% 60 of 228 A: LTERNATIVES  Reject all bids received and re-bid this project  Award contract to the apparent low bidder who has not demonstrated competency in this type of construction 61 of 228 RESOLUTION NO. R10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, REJECTING THE SIX HIGHEST BIDS AND THE LOWEST BID; APPROVING THE AWARD AND EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK OF A CONTRACT TO WHARTON-SMITH, INC., FOR BID #018-2821-10/JA, FOR “INSTALLATION OF ON-SITE CHLORINE GENERATION EQUIPMENT AT THE EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT”, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,547,000.00 WITH AN OWNER’S CONTINGENCY OF 10% IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,700.00 FOR A TOTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION OF $1,701,700.00; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE . WHEREAS, on December 23, 2009, Procurement Services received and opened eight (8) bid proposals in response to #018-2821-10/JA for “Installation of On-site Chlorine Generation Equipment at the East Water Treatment Plant ”; and WHEREAS, the City’s staff reviewed the bid proposals and recommend awarding the contract to Wharton-Smith, Inc., of Sanford, Florida who was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder who met all qualifications; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach upon recommendation of staff, deems it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Boynton Beach to award and authorize execution of a contract with Wharton-Smith, Inc., for Bid #018-2821-10/JA “Installation of On-site Chlorine Generation Equipment at the East Water Treatment Plant”, in the amount of $1,547,000.00 with an owner’s contingency of 10% in the amount of $154,700.00 for a total budget appropriation of $1,701,700.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT : Section 1. The foregoing "Whereas" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution upon adoption hereof. Section 2. The City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida does hereby authorize and direct the approval and execution by the City Manager and City Clerk of a contract with Wharton-Smith, Inc., for Bid #018-2821-10/JA “Installation of On-site Chlorine Generation Equipment at the East Water Treatment Plant”, in the amount of $1,547,000.00 with an owner’s contingency of 62 of 228 10% in the amount of $154,700.00 for a total budget appropriation of $1,701,700.00, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of March, 2010. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ______________________________ Mayor – ______________________________ Vice Mayor – ______________________________ Commissioner – _______________________________ Commissioner – _______________________________ Commissioner – ATTEST: _____________________________ Janet M. Prainito, MMC City Clerk (Corporate Seal) 63 of 228 64 of 228 65 of 228 66 of 228 67 of 228 68 of 228   Telephone Call Report   1601 Belvedere Road, Suite 211 South West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Telephone: (561) 689-3336 Fax: (561) 689-9713 Client: EWTP Disinfection Improvements City of Boynton Beach Project: 6276-70172 02/10/2010 Date: Job No. Phone inPhone outCurrent ProjectProspective Project/MarketingAdministrativeOther Made by/Received Isabel C. Botero by: Tim Ware – City of Tampa – Plant Superintendent Talked with: (813) 247-3451 WDF/Nagelbush Contractor Reference Subject: Distribution: DISCUSSION: PROJECT – HOWARD F. CURREN (FORMERLY HOOKERS POINT) ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE ASKED TO THE REFERENCE TO VERIFY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR ON THE RESUME SUBMITTED FOR THE PROPOSED SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE EWTP DISINFECTION UPGRADE PROJECT. 1) 1). Verify if the City of Tampa has done any construction project involving WDF/Nagelbush as the prime Contractor. Mr. Ware indicated that the name of the company did not sound familiar to him. 2). Verify if the City has done any construction project involving Mr. Michael Hyatt as a project manager (or other role in the project) Mr. Ware indicated that the name of the individual did not sound familiar to him. 3). WDF/Nagelbush did not specify in their reference what type of contract they were involved with at the wastewater plant. WDF/Nagelbush did not indicate the time period when this work was performed. WDF/Nagelbush did not specify whether the company was the prime contractor or a subcontractor for the work performed at the wastewater plant. Mr. Ware did not recognize either the name of the company or the individual. Also, without the name of the specific project or the timeline when the work was 69 of 228 performed, it was more challenging for Mr. Ware to establish whether WDF/Nagelbush had been involved in any work at the wastewater treatment plant. 70 of 228   Telephone Call Report   1601 Belvedere Road, Suite 211 South West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Telephone: (561) 689-3336 Fax: (561) 689-9713 Client: EWTP Disinfection Improvements City of Boynton Beach Project: 6276-70172 02/3/2010 Date: Job No. Phone inPhone outCurrent ProjectProspective Project/MarketingAdministrativeOther Made by/Received Isabel C. Botero by: Francois Domond – City of Hollywood, Senior Engineer Talked with: (954) 921-3930 WDF/Nagelbush Contractor Reference Subject: Distribution: DISCUSSION: PROJECT – HOLLYWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE ASKED TO THE REFERENCE TO VERIFY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR ON THE RESUME SUBMITTED FOR THE PROPOSED SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE EWTP DISINFECTION UPGRADE PROJECT. 2) 1). Verify if the City of Hollywood has done any construction project involving WDF/Nagelbush as the prime Contractor. Mr. Domond indicated that the name of the company did not sound familiar to him. Mr. Domon has been involved with the construction project at the wastewater treatment plant during the last 8 years. The following major projects were cited by Mr. Domond:  Current - Oxygen System Upgrade, Prime: Poole & Kent, Contract value $10 Million.  2002 – Plant Upgrade (clarifiers/oxygen system expansion), Prime: Poole & Kent, Contract Value 26 Million  2000 – Plant Upgrade, Mr. Domond did not specify prime contractor and contract value, however he stated that he did not remember WDF/Nagelbush being involved. Mr. Domond indicated that is was possible that WDF/Nagelbush had been a subcontractor, however he stated that he usually he remembers the names of most of the subcontractors involved as they typically are present at construction meetings. 71 of 228 2). Verify if the City has done any construction project involving Mr. Richard Bong as a superintendent. Mr. Domond indicated that the name of the individual did not sound familiar to him. 3). Mr. Domond has been with the City of Hollywood for 15 years, and he has been directly involved with the projects at the wastewater treatment plant for the last 8 years. Both of the major projects done at the plant during that period have been by Poole & Kent (see item 1). 4). WDF/Nagelbush did not specify in their reference what type of contract they were involved with at the wastewater plant. WDF/Nagelbush did not indicate the time period when this work was performed. WDF/Nagelbush did not specify whether the company was the prime contractor or a subcontractor for the work performed at the wastewater plant. Mr. Domond did not recognize either the name of the company or the individual. Also, without the name of the specific project or the timeline when the work was performed, it was more challenging for Mr. Domond to establish whether WDF/Nagelbush had been involved in any work at the wastewater treatment plant. 72 of 228 East Water Treatment Plant Disinfection System Upgrade Project Project Name : Chris Roschek CDM Project Manager : Consultant : WDF/Nagelbush Contractor : SECTION 1 – SELECTION CRITERIA As required in the Instruction To Bidders, Section 26 SELECTION CRITERIA, bids are to be evaluated based on the following criteria (use continuation sheet if necessary): No. Selection Criteria / Notes & Comments 1 Experience of the firm with similar projects. Based on a review of contracts on hand and completed projects, no experience with the exact same type of project. However, they appear to have worked on numerous projects of various types at WTPs & WWTPs in New York State. Not all of the project experience submitted in the state of Florida is relevant. Some of the current projects listed in Florida are not water/wastewater projects. 2 Background and experience of the principal members of the personnel, including officers. The bid package lists 1000 total employees. The five resumes provided are for corporate officers and site superintendents. All resumes provided show that each individual has more than 10 years experience in the construction industry. 3 Bonding capacity. Compare current project values against stated bonding capacity. Total stated bonding capacity = Unlimited (actual bonding capacity is unknown). Total of stated bid amounts for attached contracts on hand = $232,388,680 4 Evidence of possession of required licenses or business permits. Included in the bid package are copies of the business licenses as well as a professional license for the Chief Operating Officer. 5 Experience in performance. Bid package included four projects completed since 1999. These projects included expansion, upgrading, installation, and/or construction at existing WWTPs located in New York state. 6 Contracts on hand. Included four projects as “Contracts on Hand” for a total value of $232,388,680. Two projects are located in Miami and two in New York state. The work includes plumbing and HVAC work at a ballpark and car rental facility in Miami and renovations and upgrades at two WWTPs in New York. 7 Largest completed projects. $55,100,000 Newtown Creek Digesters, Centrifuges and Sludge Storage Tanks in 2008 $53,600,000 Installation of centrifuges in 1999 8 Review of references (use page 2 of this form). 9 Consideration of past lawsuits or arbitrations to which the firm has been a party. The bid package indicates that the contractor has not been involved in any litigation or arbitration arising from construction projects in the last four years. 10 Price. $1,443,476 73 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION New York City Department of Environmental Protection Company Name: Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant NC 31G/WDF was prime plumber on project on an $8,000,000 contract. WDF’s role as subcontractor Project Name and brief Description: consisted of heavy construction on egg-shaped digesters, instrumentation, controls, and pumps. Paul Romano/Resident Engineer 718-609-8704 Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value $49,000,000 $55,100,000 2008 Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Ongoing 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s Not aware 9 response been? Good 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) WDF was not the prime contractor on this project. Any delays by the prime contractor caused 2 delays for the work performed by WDF. 6 Some change orders were client driven, some driven by the prime contractor. All claims with WDF were related to delays and have been resolved. There are still outstanding 7 claims with the prime contractor. WDF was responsive to the DEP’s orders. While their staff may not be the brightest guys in the 10 world, they were competent and got the job done and he would work with them again. Tammy Martin/01-08-2010 Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : CDM Company / Organization : This reference is for WDF. The contact person has no experience with Nagelbush. 74 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION New York City Department of Environmental Protection Company Name: Jamaica WPCP Queens NY Contract # JA-1G/Expansion and upgrade of Project Name and brief plant. WDF was responsible for the work with the process piping and pumps Description: and some instrumentation. Leo Dudin/Resident Engineer 718-323-8500 Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value $10,565,000 $15,184,549 1999 Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. N/A 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s None 9 response been? Good 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) WDF was not the prime contractor on this project. Any delays by the prime contractor caused 2 delays for the work performed by WDF. WDF was not the prime contractor on this project. Any client contact was through prime 4 contractor first so he is unable to comment on WDF’s responsiveness specifically. Change orders were processed through prime contractor so he is unable to comment on WDF 6 specifically. 8 Closeout process was through prime contractor so he is unable to comment on WDF specifically. An indication of their satisfaction with this contractor would be that NYDEP has awarded WDF 10 the prime contract on a $200M WWTP expansion/upgrade. Tammy Martin/01-08-2010 Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : CDM Company / Organization : This reference is for WDF. The contact person has no experience with Nagelbush. 75 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION New York City Department of Environmental Protection Company Name: Owls Head WPCP Brooklyn NY Contract OH-70/ Complete reconstruction Project Name and brief Description: of eight primary bar screens. Ian Anderson/Proj. Mgr 718-595-4842 Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value $3,258,000 $3,274,045 2009 Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Fine 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s No 9 response been? Good 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Justifiable change orders caused some delays, so overall he was satisfied with their performance. 1 Some delays were due to the site being cleared for safety concerns due to local flooding. Some change orders were as a result of WDF’s electrical subcontractor. When one surge 6 suppressor went bad on one bar screen, DEP decided to replace all of the surge suppressors which resulted in a change order. Tammy Martin/01-08-2010 Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : CDM Company / Organization : This reference is for WDF. The contact person has no experience with Nagelbush. 76 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 77 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 78 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 79 of 228 80 of 228 East Water Treatment Plant Disinfection System Upgrade Project Project Name : Chris RoschekCDM Project Manager : Consultant : Wharton-Smith Contractor : SECTION 1 – SELECTION CRITERIA As required in the Instruction To Bidders, Section 26 SELECTION CRITERIA, bids are to be evaluated based on the following criteria (use continuation sheet if necessary): No. Selection Criteria / Notes & Comments 1 Experience of the firm with similar projects. Based on a review of project titles, no experience with the exact same type of project. However, they appear to have worked on numerous projects of various types at WTPs & WWTPs. 2 Background and experience of the principal members of the personnel, including officers. The bid package lists 587 total employees. The 11 resumes provided are for the corporate officers. All resumes provided show that each individual has more than 10 years experience in the construction industry and nearly all have worked on WTPs or WWTPs. 3 Bonding capacity. Compare current project values against stated bonding capacity. Total stated bonding capacity = $450,000,000; Total of stated contract amounts for attached construction projects in progress = $577,305,525 4 Evidence of possession of required licenses or business permits. Included in the bid package are copies of the business licenses as well as professional licenses for the corporate officers. 5 Experience in performance. Attached 52 pages of 500+ projects completed since 2003. Projects cover a wide variety of construction types including WTP expansions, conversions to RO, lift stations, pump stations, WWTPs, ASR facilities, etc. No projects appear to be the same as this project. 6 Contracts on hand. Attached list indicates 71 Construction Projects in Progress for a total of $577,305,525. 7 Largest completed projects. $31,187,000 Falkenburg AWTP Expansion in 2009 $27,364,880 Seaworld Manta Coaster in 2009 $25,327,000 J Robert Dean WTP RO Expansion in 2009 $26,732,129 St. Cloud Southside WWTF Expansion in 2008 $25,000,000 Westin St. John Resort in 2008 $38,366,466 UCF Football Stadium in 2007 $23,003,368 Atlantis Dolphin Encounter in 2007 8 Review of references (use page 2 of this form). 9 Consideration of past lawsuits or arbitrations to which the firm has been a party. The bid package includes information on six separate litigation cases. In two of the cases, the contractor was the plaintiff. Three of the suits were settled. Two of the suits involve municipalities and WTFs. 10 Price. $1,547,000 81 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION WCG Engineers Company Name: 03-015 Orange County WSF Fluoride Feed System: Install fluorosilic acid Project Name and brief Description: storage tanks, associated buildings, and appurtenances at 11 locations Stan Keely/ Engineer & PM 407-647-6623 Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value $1,522,000 09/04 Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Fine, not aware 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? of any disputes Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 Not aware of any response been? Good 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Some client driven change orders for “construction on the fly” that were handled well 6 by Wharton-smith Tammy Martin/01-05-2010 Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : CDM Company / Organization : 82 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Orange County Utilities Company Name: Called about 02-027 Water Supply Facility Hypochlorite project but he did not work on that project. He has worked on several other WTP & WWTP expansion projects Project Name and brief with Wharton-Smith and is currently working on a project with them. The projects Description: involve, but is not limited to, concrete work, tank construction, electrical work, pump installation, piping, and building construction. Marc Paquette/Project Manager 407-947-9801 Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value $20,000,000+ various Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Good Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 Not aware of any response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Good Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) They met deadlines and milestones for the most part and usually the missed deadlines 2 were due to change requests by the Owner 6 Most were driven by Owner or change of condition Tammy Martin/01-06-2010 Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : CDM Company / Organization : 83 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 84 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 85 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 86 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 87 of 228 East Water Treatment Plant Disinfection System Upgrade Project Project Name : Chris RoschekCDM Project Manager : Consultant : TLC Diversified, Inc. Contractor : SECTION 1 – SELECTION CRITERIA As required in the Instruction To Bidders, Section 26 SELECTION CRITERIA, bids are to be evaluated based on the following criteria (use continuation sheet if necessary): No. Selection Criteria / Notes & Comments 1 Experience of the firm with similar projects. Based on a review of project titles, contractor has experience on several similar projects. They also appear to have worked on numerous other varied projects at WTPs & WWTPs. 2 Background and experience of the principal members of the personnel, including officers. The bid package lists 62 total employees. The three resumes provided show that each individual has more than 10 years experience in the construction industry. 3 Bonding capacity. Compare current project values against stated bonding capacity. Total stated bonding capacity = $30,000,000; Total stated value of contracts on hand = $9,100,000; Total of bid values listed for contracts on hand = $12,248,454 4 Evidence of possession of required licenses or business permits. Included in the bid package is a copy of a professional license for the company president. 5 Experience in performance. Bid package included ten completed projects. All projects included work at existing WTPs & WWTPs in Florida and seven involved work on disinfection systems. 6 Contracts on hand. Included 24 projects as “Contracts on Hand” for a total value of $12,248,454. The projects are primarily work on pump stations and lift stations but also include WWTP upgrades, clarifier rehab, and one WTP conversion to sodium hypochlorite in Hillsborough County. 7 Largest completed projects. $1,928,100 Turnpike Reclamation Facility Rehab $818,074 WWTP Hypochlorite Conversion $729,600 WTP Improvements $598,669 WTP Disinfection System Improvement 8 Review of references (use page 2 of this form). 9 Consideration of past lawsuits or arbitrations to which the firm has been a party. The bid package indicates that the contractor has not been involved in any litigation or arbitration arising from construction projects in the last four years. 10 Price. $1,595,000 88 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION City of Port Richey Company Name: Chloramine Conversion Project: Construction at plant when 2 MGD plant Project Name and brief Description: converted from free chlorine to use of chloramines for disinfection Moe Kader/PM, Design Engineer 727-848-8292 Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value $59,827 $68,700 2003 Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Good 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s Not aware 9 response been? Good 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Tammy Martin/01-06-2010 Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : CDM Company / Organization : 89 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 90 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 91 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 92 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 93 of 228 SECTION 2 – REFERENCE VERIFICATION Company Name: Project Name and brief Description: Contact Person / Title: Telephone No.: Project Value Completion Date : (Start / Finish): 1 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting budget? Yes No Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to meeting deadlines 2 Yes No and milestones? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to availability of staff 3 Yes No and principals? Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to responsiveness to 4 Yes No Client demands and suggestions? 5 Have they performed the work satisfactory as it pertains to quality of work? Yes No Were there any Field Change Directives / Change Orders on this project? If 6 Yes No yes, explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. Were there any “disputed” claims from this contractor for this project? If yes, 7 Yes No explain the circumstances in the Comments / Remarks section. 8 How has the closeout process been with this contractor? Have there been any “warranty” claims? If so how has the contractor’s 9 response been? 10 What is your overall satisfaction with this contractor? Item No. Comments / Remarks from above (use continuation sheet if necessary) Bid Evaluation Performed By / Date : Company / Organization : 94 of 228 95 of 228 96 of 228 97 of 228 98 of 228 99 of 228 100 of 228 101 of 228 102 of 228 BID TITLE: EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT BID NUMBER: 018-2821-10/JA PROJECT NUMBER: WTR112 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES THIS CONTRACT,16THMARCH2010 MADE AND ENTERED INTO THIS DAY OF , , BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, HEREINAFTER CALLED Wharton-Smith, Inc THE “CITY” OR “OWNER” AND . A FLORIDA CORPORATION (_ X _) CHECK ONE a Florida General Partnership (____) a Florida Limited Partnership (____) a Sole Proprietor (____) hereinafter called “CONTRACTOR”. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, THE CITY HAS HERETOFORE INVITED BIDS FOR A CITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (“PROJECT”) IDENTIFIED BY THE BID TITLE, BID NUMBER AND PROJECT NUMBER LISTED ABOVE AND COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS: EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS ANNOUNCED 23RDDECEMBER2009 BY THE CITY, SUBMITTED A BID ON THE DAY OF , , FOR THE TOTAL BID AMOUNT 1,547,000.00 OF $; AND, WHEREAS, 16THMARCH2010 ON THE DAY OF , , THE CITY COMMISSION DESIGNATED CONTRACTOR AS HAVING SUBMITTED THE BID THAT WAS MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY AND AUTHORIZED THE EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT; AND, WHEREAS, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE PROJECT IS SCHEDULED TO ACHIEVE 270 SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION WITHOUT INTERRUPTION WITHIN CALENDAR DAYS AS SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE TO PROCEED, SUBJECT TO CITY APPROVED TIME EXTENSIONS. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THESE PREMISES AND THE MUTUAL CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 103 of 228 1.AGREEMENT 1.1.The Parties agree that: 1.1.1.The foregoing "Whereas" clauses are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.1.2.The CITY does hire and employ the CONTRACTOR to provide construction services for completion of the Project. 1.1.3.The CONTRACTOR does accept this Contract and does agree to furnish the necessary labor, tools, equipment, materials and supplies, etc., and to complete the Project by performing all the work as set forth in the this Contract and the Contract Documents for the price and amounts set forth in Contractor’s bid. 1.1.4.Contractor is an independent contractor as that term is set forth in the General Conditions for Construction GC-2, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. 1.1.5.Unless otherwise provided, all time frames referenced in all Contract Documents shall be calendar days. 2.SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1.The Project consists of those improvements described and set forth in the Contract Documents. 2.2.The “Contract Documents” are the compilation of the following individual documents which are hereby not listed in any order of precedence. 2.2.1.Advertisement for Bids 2.2.2.Instructions for Bidders 2.2.3.Bid Proposal 2.2.4.Bid Bond 2.2.5.General Conditions for Construction (GC) – all references to “GC” shall be to section numbers 2.2.6Special Conditions for City Furnished Materials 2.2.7Terms and Conditions for City Furnished Materials 2.2.8Construction Contract 2.2.9Certificate of Insurance 2.2.10Public Construction Bond 2.2.11Technical Specifications 2.2.12Contract Drawings and Plans 2.2.13Addenda 2.2.14Written directives or interpretations 2.2.15Manufacturers warranties 3.OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR 104 of 228 3.1.Contractor shall: 3.1.1.Furnish all materials, supplies, machines, equipment, tools, superintendents, labor, insurance, and other accessories and services necessary to complete said project in accordance with the conditions and prices as stated in the Contract Documents. 3.1.2. Perform all the work and labor pursuant to this contract and all of the materials furnished shall be in strict conformity with the Contract Documents. CONTRACTOR further accepts and consents to the conditions contained in said Contract Documents and expressly agrees to comply with every requirement and stipulation therein contained. 3.1.2.1.Comply with provisions in Special Conditions and Terms and Conditions for City Furnished Materials. 3.1.3.Furnish all tools, equipment, materials and supplies and to do all the work above mentioned in a first-class, substantial and workmanlike manner, and in conformity with the detail for said work on file in the office of the Project Manager and strictly in accordance with the Contract Documents. 3.1.4.CONTRACTOR shall furnish each subcontractor or material supplier with a copy of his Public Construction Bond within five (5) days of subcontractors’ work or material supplying and shall maintain records to establish that notice. A copy of said notice shall be provided to the City’s Project Manager at time of issuance. 3.1.5.Guarantee all work and materials for a period of one (1) year, as set forth in the General Conditions for Construction GC-24, WARRANTY. Warranty period shall commence with date of final acceptance as set forth in the Technical Specifications for Construction 01700, EXECUTION REQUIREMENTS. 3.1.6.Comply with the provisions of Section 255.05, Florida Statutes, if applicable. 3.1.7.Pay promptly, before final settlement, any and all claims or liens by subcontractors or material suppliers, incurred in and about this work. 3.1.8.Remove and clean up all rubbish, debris, excess material, temporary structures, tools and equipment from streets, alleys, parkways and adjacent property that may have been used or worked on by the CONTRACTOR in connection with the project promptly as such section or portion is completed and ready for use, leaving the same in a neat and presentable condition. 3.1.9.Observe and comply with the provisions of the charter, ordinances, codes and regulations of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. 3.1.10.Obtain written approval from the CITY of all subcontractors not disclosed in the Contractor’s bid document. 3.1.11.Perform such other tasks as set forth in the Contract Documents. 3.1.12.Shall provide all required bonds, insurance certificates and any other required security for performance of the Project within ten (10) of the Award of the 105 of 228 Project. 3.2.The CONTRACTOR will be held responsible for the care, protection and condition of all work until final completion and acceptance thereof, and will be required to make good at his own cost any damage or injury occurring from any cause resulting from their acts or omissions, or the acts or omissions of their subcontractors or suppliers. 4.CITY’S OBLIGATIONS 4.1.City shall provide a written Notice to Proceed at the time of the scheduled Pre- Construction Meeting. 4.2.Make timely payments for the work in accordance with the procedures and time frames set forth in the Contract Documents. 4.3.On satisfactory completion of the Project, provide a written final acceptance and payment for the entire project. 5.COMMENCEMENT OF WORK 5.1.CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to commence work under this contract within (10) calendar days of the Commencement Date specified in the written “Notice to Proceed,” 270 and to achieve Substantial Completion without interruption within calendar days thereafter. 5.2.Time is the essence of the contract. In the event the CONTRACTOR shall fail to timely commence the work following Notice to Proceed or fail in the performance of the work specified and required to be performed within the time limit set forth in the contract, after due allowance for any extension or extensions of time made in accordance with the Contract Documents, the CONTRACTOR shall be liable to the CITY, as liquidated damages, the amount stipulated in Section 6.0 herein-below for each and every calendar day that the CONTRACTOR shall be in default of achieving certification of Substantial Completion. 5.3.CONTRACTOR shall notify the Project Engineer in writing of any change in the names and addresses of each subcontractor proposed for principal parts of work, and any changes in subcontractors from those proposed in CONTRACTOR’s bid proposal, and for such others as the Project Engineer may direct, and shall not employ any that CITY may, within a reasonable time, object to as incompetent or as unfit. 6.LIQUIDATED DAMAGES $1,000.00 6.1.The CONTRACTOR further agrees to pay per day as liquidated damages, for failure to begin within ten (10) days of CITY’s issuance of the “Notice to Proceed” or 270 failure to achieve Substantial Completion within calendar days from the Commencement Date as indicated in the written “Notice to Proceed”. The CITY shall have the right to deduct said liquidated damages from any amount due, or that may become due the CONTRACTOR, or to collect such liquidated damages from the CONTRACTOR or his Surety. 6.2.Punch list items recorded as a result of inspections for Substantial Completion are to be corrected by the CONTRACTOR within thirty (30) calendar days and prior to any 106 of 228 request for Final Inspection, Testing and Acceptance as stated in the General Conditions for Construction (GC-50). If the Substantial Completion punch list items have not been corrected by the CONTRACTOR within the thirty (30) calendar day period, at the discretion of the Project Manager, Liquidated Damages may be applied as described in Section 6 above. 7.PROTECTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND WORK IN PROGRESS 7.1.The CONTRACTOR warrants that quoted prices include the protection and continuous use of all existing work in process, property or operations of the CITY as more particularly set forth in the Technical Specifications for Construction, 01540, SECURITY AND SAFETY PROCEDURES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, and/or 01541 SECURITY AND SAFETY PROCEDURES FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS. 8.INDEMNIFICATION 8.1.The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and save harmless and defend the CITY, its agents, servants, and employees from and against any claim, demand, or cause of action of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of error, omission or negligent act of CONTRACTOR, its agents, servants, or employees in the performance of services under this Agreement. 8.2.CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and save harmless and defend CITY, its agents, servants and employees from against any kind and all causes, claims, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, settlements, judgments, damages, costs, expenses, and fees (including without limitation reasonable attorney’s and paralegal expenses at both the trial and appellate levels) of whatsoever kind or nature for damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any act, omission, or default of the CITY, its agents, servants or employees arising from this contract or its performance. The CONTRACTOR and the CITY hereby agree and covenant that the CONTRACTOR has incorporated in this original bid, which constitutes the Contract sum payable by the CITY to the CONTRACTOR, specific additional consideration in the amount of ten dollars ($10.00) sufficient to support this obligation of indemnification provided for in this paragraph. The indemnification required pursuant to the Contract shall in no event be less than $1 million per occurrence or no more than the limits of insurance required of the CONTRACTOR by the Contract, whichever is greater. It is the CITY’S and CONTRACTOR’S full intention that this provision shall be enforceable and said provision shall be in compliance with Section 725.06, Florida Statute. 8.3.The execution of this Agreement by the CONTRACTOR shall obligate CONTRACTOR to comply with the foregoing indemnification provision, as well as the insurance provisions which are set forth in the General Conditions for Construction. However, the indemnification provision, and the insurance provision contained in the General Conditions for Construction are not interdependent of each other, but rather each one is separate and distinct from the other. 8.4.The obligation of the CONTRACTOR to indemnify the CITY is not subject to any offset, limitation or defense as a result of any insurance proceeds available to either the CITY or the CONTRACTOR. 9.PAYMENT BY CITY 107 of 228 9.1.The CITY agrees to pay the CONTRACTOR in current funds for the performance of the contract, subject to additions and deductions as provided in the Contract Documents. 10.CHANGES IN THE WORK 10.1 The CITY, without invalidating the Contract, may order extra work or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from the work, the Contract sum being adjusted At the City’s discretion, the City may make direct purchases of any accordingly. materials and equipment purchased for, or to be incorporated into the Project, as determined by the City. CONTRACTOR HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE ABOVE PROVISION. _________ INITIALS All such work shall be executed under the conditions of the original Contract. Any claim for extension of time caused thereby shall be made in writing at the time such change is ordered. Changes in the work must be processed as set forth in the General Conditions for Construction GC-46, FIELD CHANGE DIRECTIVES/CHANGE ORDERS. No Field Change Directive or Change Order shall be authorized by the Project Manager if the Contractor has added language to the Field Change Directive or Change Order or to any cover letter, e-mail, facsimile, or other written document which accompanies the Field Change Directive or Change Order in which the contractor attempts to reserve any future right or claim arising out of the work which is the subject of the Field Change Directive or Change Order. If the Contractor adds such language, the Project Manager shall secure specific written authorization from the City Manager’s office before executing the Field Change Directive or Change Order. 10.2hange orders and adjustments shall be in writing and approved by the Project Manager, C otherwise, no claim for extras will be allowed. 10.3Claim of payment for extra work shall be submitted by the CONTRACTOR upon certified statement supported by receipted bills. Such statements shall be submitted for the current contract payment for the month in which the work was done. No claim for extra work shall be allowed unless same was ordered, in writing, as aforesaid and the claim presented at the time of the first estimate after the work is completed. 11.PROJECT ENGINEER 11.1.The Project Engineer (“Engineer”) is Isabel C. Botero, P.E., Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. 11.2.The Project Engineer shall observe the work to determine whether the work is in general conformance with the Contract Documents. The Project Engineer does not have any authority to supervise, direct, or control CONTRACTOR, and does not have authority over nor is responsible for CONTRACTOR’s means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction, or the safety precautions and programs of CONTRACTOR. 11.3.As the Project Engineer is, in the first instance, the interpreter of the conditions of the contract and the judge of its performance, he shall side neither with CITY nor with CONTRACTOR, but shall use his authority pursuant to the Contract to enforce its 108 of 228 faithful performance by both parties. 11.4.In the event of a dispute, the role of the Project Engineer is to make recommendations to the Project Manager who shall make the final decision. 12.INSURANCE 12.1.The Contractor shall obtain and maintain insurance as set forth in the General Conditions for Construction GC-27, INSURANCE. 13.CONTRACT CONTROLS 13.1.This Contract must be construed with all other Contract Documents, a master set of which shall be maintained by the City Clerk of the CITY. In the event of a dispute, only the master set of documents, or copies thereof certified by the City Clerk, shall be used as evidence. 13.2.In the event of a conflict between the requirements or specifications set forth in the Contract Documents, the conflict shall be resolved by written interpretation by the Project Manager. In reconciling conflicting provisions of the Contract Documents, the Contract shall have the greatest weight, followed by the General Conditions for Construction, technical specifications, and finally by the balance of the Contract Document. 14.TIME OF ESSENCE 14.1.Inasmuch as the provisions of the Contract Documents relating to the times of performance and completion of the work are for the purpose of enabling the CITY to complete the construction of a public improvement in accordance with a predetermined program, all such time limits are of the essence of the Contract. 15.REMEDY FOR DELAY 15.1.In the event of any delay in the project caused by any act or omission of the CITY, its agents or employees, by the act or omission of any other party other than the CONTRACTOR, his agents, employees or subcontractors, or delay caused by weather conditions or unavailability of materials, the sole remedy available to CONTRACTOR shall be by extension of the time allocated to complete the project. 15.2.NO MONETARY DAMAGES SHALL BE CLAIMED OR AWARDED TO CONTRACTOR IN ASSOCIATION WITH ANY DELAY IN THE PROJECT CAUSED BY AN ACT OR OMISSION OF THE CITY, ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES. CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THIS LIMITATION ON RECOVERY AND ASSUMES ALL MONETARY RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LIMITATION. CONTRACTOR HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE ABOVE PROVISION. _________INITIALS 15.3.Failure on the part of CONTRACTOR to timely process a request for an extension of 109 of 228 time to complete the work shall constitute a waiver by CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR shall be held responsible for completing the work within the time allocated by this contract. 15.4.All requests for extension of time to complete the work shall be made in accordance with the General Conditions for Construction GC-23, EXTENSION OF TIME/NO DAMAGES FOR DELAY. 15.5.For the purpose of this section, the phrase “the CITY, its agents and employees” shall include but shall not be limited to the Project Engineer and Project Manager. 16.DISPUTES 16.1.Disputes shall be resolved as set forth in the General Conditions for Construction GC-18, DISPUTES. 16.2 Upon resolution of a dispute by the Owner, either party may request the appointment of a mediator. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY has caused these presents to be signed by its City Manager, attested to by the City Clerk with the Corporate Seal of the said CITY and the CONTRACTOR has executed these presence the day and year herein before written. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Signed, sealed and witnessed in the presence of: _____________________________ ______________________________________ City Manager Attest: Approved as to Form: _____________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney WHARTON-SMITH, INC. Signed, sealed and witnessed in the presence of: _____________________________ ______________________________________ President or Vice President _____________________________ ______________________________________ Attest as to CONTRACTOR State of Florida ) ) ss: County of Palm Beach ) ON THIS ______ DAY OF _______________, 20___, PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, DULY AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS, ______________________________________________ KNOWN TO 110 of 228 BE THE PERSONS DESCRIBED HEREIN OR WHO HAS PRODUCED ______________________________ AS IDENTIFICATION AND WHO EXECUTED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THAT THEY HAVE EXECUTED SAME. _________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: 111 of 228 EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE POJECT "Offers from the vendors listed herein are the only offers BID OPENING DATE: DEC. 23, 2009 received timely as of the above receiving date and time. BID OPENING TIME: 2:30 P.M. All other offers submitted in response to this solicitation, BID # 018-2821-10/JA if any, are hereby rejected as late" VENDORS CARDINAL CONTRACTORS, INC. GLOBETEC CONSTRUCTION, LLC FLORIDA DESIGN CONTRACTORS, INC. 2201 CANTU COURT, STE 202 1326 S. KILLIAN DRIVE 4774 NORTH POWERLINE ROAD SARASOTA, FL 34232 LAKE PARK, FL 33403 DEERFIELD BEACH FL 33073 PH: (941) 377-8555 PH: (561) 845-1233 PH: (954) 590-3305 FAX:(941) 377-8542 FAX: (561) 848-5992 FAX:(954) 590-3307 CONTACT: WILLIAM W. MOORE CONTACT: THOMAS H. CLARKE CONTACT: ANTONIO ASSENZA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #4 YES YES YES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #3 YES YES YES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #2 YES YES YES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #1 YES YES YES BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SUBMITTED YES YES YES CHECK OFF LIST SUBMITTED YES YES YES PAGES BP2 & BP3 SUBMITTED YES YES YES BID PROPOSAL - TOTAL BID (TOTAL FROM PAGE BP-2 and BP-3) $1,600,078.00 $1,609,765.00 $1,597,010.00 BID BOND SUBMITTED LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GREAT AMERICAN INS. CO.TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND COMPANY SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA STATEMENT OF BIDDER'S QUALIFICATIONS SUBMITTED YES YES YES ORIGINAL AND FIVE (5) COPIES SUBMITTED YES YES YES EVIDENCE OF REQUIRED LICENSES/ PERMITS SUBMITTED YES YES YES EWTP DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT 112 of 228 EAST WA TER TREA TM ENT PLANT DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRA DE EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE POJECT POJECT "Offers from the vendors listed herein are the only offers "Offers from the vendors listed herein are the only offers BID OPENING DATE: DEC. 23, 2009 received timely as of the above receiving date and time. BID OPENING DATE: DEC. 23, 2009 received timely as of the above receiving date and time. BID OPENING TIME: 2:30 P.M. All other offers submitted in response to this solicitation, BID OPENING TIME: 2:30 P.M. BID # 018-2821-10/JA All other offers submitted in response to this solicitation, if any, are hereby rejected as late" BID # 018-2821-10/JA if any, are hereby rejected as late" VENDORS R.J. SULLIVAN CORPORATIONTLC DIVERSIFIED, I POOLE & KENT COMPANY OF FLORIDA 2001 N.W. 22ND STREET2719 17TH ST. E 901 NORTHPOINT PARKWAY, STE #104 VENDORS CARDINAL CONTRACTORS, INC. GLOBETEC CONSTRUCTION, LLC FLORIDA DESIGN CONTRACTORS, INC. WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33407 POMPANO BEACH, FL 33069 PALMETTO, FL 34221 2201 CANTU COURT, STE 202 1326 S. KILLIAN DRIVE 4774 NORTH POWERLINE ROAD PH: (561) 471-3330 PH: (954) 975-0 PH: (941) 722-062 FAX: (561) 471 SARASOTA, FL 34232-341FAX: (954) 975 -3 LAKE PARK, FL 33403 FAX: (941) 722 -138 DEERFIELD BEACH FL 33073 CONTACT: CHARLES K. NEESE CONTACT: CASEY R. SULLIVAN CONTACT: THURSTON LAMBERSON PH: (941) 377-8555 PH: (561) 845-1233 PH: (954) 590-3305 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #4 FAX:(941) 377-8542 FAX: (561) 848-5992 FAX:(954) 590-3307 YES YES YES CONTACT: WILLIAM W. MOORE CONTACT: THOMAS H. CLARKE CONTACT: ANTONIO ASSENZA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #3 RESUMES SUBMITTED YES YES YES YES YES - ONE ONLY YES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #2 YES YES YES BIDDER'S SITE INSPECTION SUBMITTTED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #1 YES YES YES YES YES YES NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT YES YES YES SUBMITTED YES YES YES ANTI-KICKBACK AFFIDAVIT CHECK OFF LIST SUBMITTED YES YES YES YES YES YES CONFIRMATION OF MINORITY OWNED PAGES BP2 & BP3 SUBMITTED BUSINESS SUBMITTED YES/NOT A YES/NOT A YES/NOT A YES YES/INCOMPLETE NOT SIGNED YES MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS BID PROPOSAL - TOTAL BID CONFIRMATION OF DRUG FREE (TOTAL FROM PAGE BP-2 and BP-3) $1,891,000.00 $1,892,000.00 $1,595,000.00 WORKPLACE SUBMITTED YES YES YES BID BOND SUBMITTED TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND FEDERAL INSURANCE WESTFIELD INSURANCE TRENCH SAFETY ACT AFFIDAVIT SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA COMPANY COMPANY SUBMTTED YES YES YES STATEMENT OF BIDDER'S QUALIFICATIONS SUBMITTED YES YES YES SAFETY PROGRAM COMPLIANCE ORIGINAL AND FIVE (5) COPI SUBMITTED YES YES YES SUBMITTED YES YES YES SCHEDULE OF SUBCONTRACTORS EVIDENCE OF REQUIRED LICENSES/ SUBMITTED YES YES YES PERMITS SUBMITTEDYES YES YES COMPUTERIZED HORIZONTAL BAR CHART SUBMITTED YES .YES YES COMMENTS: EWTP DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT EWTP DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT 113 of 228 EAST WA TER TREA TM ENT PLANT DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRA DE EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE POJECT POJECT "Offers from the vendors listed herein are the only offers "Offers from the vendors listed herein are the only offers BID OPENING DATE: DEC. 23, 2009 received timely as of the above receiving date and time. BID OPENING DATE: DEC. 23, 2009 received timely as of the above receiving date and time. BID OPENING TIME: 2:30 P.M. All other offers submitted in response to this solicitation, BID OPENING TIME: 2:30 P.M. BID # 018-2821-10/JA All other offers submitted in response to this solicitation, if any, are hereby rejected as late" BID # 018-2821-10/JA if any, are hereby rejected as late" VENDORS R.J. SULLIVAN CORPORATIONTLC DIVERSIFIED, I POOLE & KENT COMPANY OF FLORIDA 2001 N.W. 22ND STREET2719 17TH ST. E 901 NORTHPOINT PARKWAY, STE #104 VENDORS WDF/NAGELBUSH WHARTON-SMITH, INC. WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33407 POMPANO BEACH, FL 33069 PALMETTO, FL 34221 1800 N.W. 49TH STREET, STE 110 750 MONROE ROAD PH: (561) 471-3330 PH: (954) 975-0 PH: (941) 722-062 FAX: (561) 471 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33309-341FAX: (954) 975 -3 SANFORD, FL 32773 FAX: (941) 722 -138 CONTACT: CHARLES K. NEESE CONTACT: CASEY R. SULLIVAN CONTACT: THURSTON LAMBERSON PH: (954) 736-3000 PH: (407) 321-8410 RESUMES SUBMITTED FAX: (954) 748-7881 FAX: (407) 327-6984 YES YES YES CONTACT: GLENN S. ELKES CONTACT: RONALD F. DAVOLI BIDDER'S SITE INSPECTION SUBMITTTED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #4 YES YES YES YES YES NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED YES YES YES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #3 ANTI-KICKBACK AFFIDAVIT YES YES YES YES YES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #2 CONFIRMATION OF MINORITY OWNED YES YES BUSINESS SUBMITTEDYES/NOT YES/NOT A YES/NOT A ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDUM #1 A MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS MINORITY OW NED BUSINESS CONFIRMATION OF DRUG FREE YES YES WORKPLACE SUBMITTED YES YES YES BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SUBMITTED YES YES TRENCH SAFETY ACT AFFIDAVIT SUBMTTED YES YES YES CHECK OFF LIST SUBMITTED SAFETY PROGRAM COMPLIANCE YES/NOT SIGNED YES SUBMITTED YES YES YES NO/ PAGES BP2 & BP3 SUBMITTED ORIGINAL SENT, WAS NOT YES THE REVISED EDITION DATED 12-17-09 SCHEDULE OF SUBCONTRACTORS BID PROPOSAL - TOTAL BID $1,443,476.00 SUBMITTED YES/NA YES YES (TOTAL FROM PAGE BP-2 and BP-3) $10.00 INDEMNIFICATION NOT $1,547,000.00 COMPUTERIZED HORIZONTAL BAR CHART INCLUDED IN TOTAL PRICE SUBMITTED YES YES YES BID BOND SUBMITTED FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT WESTERN SURETY COMMENTS: COMPANY OF MARYLAND COMPANY STATEMENT OF BIDDER'S QUALIFICATIONS SUBMITTED YES YES ORIGINAL AND FIVE (5) COPIES SUBMITTED YES YES EVIDENCE OF REQUIRED LICENSES/ PERMITS SUBMITTED YES YES EWTP DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT EWTP DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT 114 of 228 EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE POJECT "Offers from the vendors listed herein are the only offers BID OPENING DATE: DEC. 23, 2009 received timely as of the above receiving date and time. BID OPENING TIME: 2:30 P.M. All other offers submitted in response to this solicitation, BID # 018-2821-10/JA if any, are hereby rejected as late" VENDORS WDF/NAGELBUSH WHARTON-SMITH, INC. 1800 N.W. 49TH STREET, STE 110 750 MONROE ROAD FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33309 SANFORD, FL 32773 PH: (954) 736-3000 PH: (407) 321-8410 FAX: (954) 748-7881 FAX: (407) 327-6984 CONTACT: GLENN S. ELKES CONTACT: RONALD F. DAVOLI RESUMES SUBMITTED YES YES BIDDER'S SITE INSPECTION SUBMITTTED YES YES NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED YES YES ANTI-KICKBACK AFFIDAVIT YES YES CONFIRMATION OF MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS SUBMITTED YES/NOT A YES/NOT A MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS CONFIRMATION OF DRUG FREE WORKPLACE SUBMITTED YES YES TRENCH SAFETY ACT AFFIDAVIT SUBMTTED YES YES SAFETY PROGRAM COMPLIANCE SUBMITTED YES YES SCHEDULE OF SUBCONTRACTORS SUBMITTED YES YES/LEFT BLANK COMPUTERIZED HORIZONTAL BAR CHART SUBMITTED YES YES COMMENTS: EWTP DISINFECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT 115 of 228 9. A PUBLIC HEARING March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Boynton Vista II, SPTE 10-004, located at 419 South EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION Circle Drive. Request approval for a one (1) year site plan time extension for major site plan modification (MSPM 07-004) approved on May 20, 2008, from November 20, 2009 to November 20, 2010. ER This request is for a one (1)-year site plan time extension of the XPLANATION OF EQUEST major site plan modification (MSPM 07-004) for the construction of 7 additional apartment units and a rental office (Phase II). Phase I is developed with 12 rental apartment units. Phase II is the final phase. All outstanding conditions from the previous approvals must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. The Planning and Development Board TABLED this item on February 23rd, to their March 23rd, meeting, at the request of the applicant who was unable to attend the public hearing. This item would th now be scheduled for Commission review on April 20. H? N/A OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES FI: N/A ISCAL MPACT A: Not approve subject request. LTERNATIVES 116 of 228 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 10-004 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board : THRUMichael Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning : FROMKathleen Zeitler Planner II DATE:February 16, 2010 PROJECT NAME/NO: Boynton Vistas II (SPTE 10-004) REQUEST: Site Plan Time Extension PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: Jeff Wolff, Boynton Vistas, Inc. Applicant/Agent: Jeff Wolff, Boynton Vistas, Inc. Location: 419 South Circle Drive (see Exhibit “A” – Location Map) Existing Land Use: High Density Residential (HDR) Existing Zoning: Multi-family Residential (R-3) Proposed Land Use: No change proposed Proposed Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Uses: Rental Apartments (7 units), Rental Office Acreage: 1.757 acre Adjacent Uses: th North: Right-of-way for NE 17 Avenue, and farther north, Boynton Bay multi-family development designated High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3); South: South Circle Drive, and farther south, multi-family residential development designated High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3) and Hawk’s Landing PUD; 117 of 228 East: Boynton Bay multi-family residential development designated High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3); and West: To the northwest: Boynton Bay multi-family residential development designated High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3); To the southwest: Single-family residence designated High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3). BACKGROUND Mr. Jeff Wolff is requesting a one (1)-year site plan time extension for the Boynton Vistas II Major Site Plan Modification Development Order (MSPM 07-004) which was approved by the City Commission on May 20, 2008. The approval for major site plan modification was valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. If this request for a time extension were approved, the expiration date of the site plan approval would be extended to November 20, 2010. The subject property is currently developed with 12 apartment units (Phase I). According to the MSPM staff report, the applicant requested approval for Phase II construction of seven (7) additional apartment units and a rental office (see Exhibit “B” – Site Plan). All units would be rental apartments, consistent with the existing Boynton Vistas development. Based on total acreage (1.757 acre) and the maximum density of 11 dwelling units per acre as allowed in the High Density Residential (HDR) land use classification, the maximum allowable dwelling units is 19. The existing development consists of a total of 12 units, and an additional seven (7) units are proposed, for a total of 19 dwelling units. It should be noted that, with the project being proposed at the maximum density, the proposed rental office space could not be converted to an additional dwelling unit in the future. The seven (7) additional dwelling units are proposed within two (2) separate one-story buildings on the easternmost portion of the combined 1.78-acre site. Building “A” would contain four (4) dwelling units, and Building “B” would contain three (3) dwelling units and the rental office. The minimum living area for multi-family units in the R-3 zoning district is 750 square feet. Each dwelling unit and the office would be approximately 1,000 square feet in size. The proposed one-story buildings resemble a contemporary design with painted smooth stucco on concrete block with a pitched shingle roof. Decorative features include paneled doors, colonial-style windows, stucco banding and quoins at each corner. The exterior building color would consist of neutral brown walls with light beige trim and coordinating brown roof shingles. ANALYSIS The Land Development Regulations state that the applicant shall have eighteen (18) months to secure a building permit from the Development Department. Examples of building permits include but are not limited to the following: Plumbing, electrical, mechanical, foundation, and structural. The regulations authorize the City Commission to approve site plan time extensions up to one (1) year, provided that the applicant files the request prior to the expiration date of the development order. In this case, the applicant has met that requirement. The Planning and Zoning Division received the application for a site plan time extension on November 19, 2009, one (1) day prior to the expiration date of the approval. According to the justification submitted for the requested time extension, since receiving City approval the applicant has tried to secure a loan for construction of the project, and found that due to the downturn in the economy, the bank’s financial requirements had become much more restrictive (see 118 of 228 Exhibit “C” – Applicant’s Justification). The justification explains that the extension will allow the applicant more time to see if the economy improves enough to secure the needed construction loan. In addition to accomplishments to date, time extension reviews also consider compliance with concurrency requirements. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the original traffic study for the project with the requirement that no permits be issued after the build-out date of 2009. An updated traffic concurrency approval letter from Palm Beach County will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. As for utilities, records indicate the utility reservation fee is due. Without payment of the reservation fee, the Utilities Department cannot guarantee capacity will be available when the developer is ready to move forward. The site plan time extension is still subject to the conditions of the MSPM approval. Lastly, no new land development regulations are now in place against which the project should be reviewed and modified. As for application of the Art in Public Places ordinance (05-060), this project is not exempt, as the site plan request was filed after adoption of Ordinance 05-060 on October 5, 2005. Therefore, the project must comply with Ordinance 05-060 as stated in the original conditions of site plan approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request for a one (1)-year time extension of the major site plan modification (MSPM 07-004) approval. If this request for extension were approved, the expiration would be extended to November 20, 2010, and all outstanding conditions from the previous approvals must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval (see Exhibit “D” – Conditions of Approval). S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Vistas II\\SPTE\Staff Report.doc 119 of 228 120 of 228 121 of 228 122 of 228 123 of 228 124 of 228 EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boynton Vistas II File number: SPTE 10-004 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- Forestry Comments: None X FIRE Comments: None X POLICE Comments: None X ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None X UTILITIES 1. The applicant shall pay the utility reservation fee in order to ensure capacity X will be available when project commencement is anticipated. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None X PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None X FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None X PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 2. If this request for site plan time extension is approved, all outstanding X conditions of approval from the original development order (MSPM 07-004) must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. 125 of 228 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 3. An updated traffic concurrency approval letter from Palm Beach County will X be required prior to permitting. ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: None X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Vistas II\SPTE\COA.doc 126 of 228 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Boynton Vistas II APPLICANT/AGENT: Jeff Wolff, Boynton Vistas, Inc. APPLICANT’S ADDRESS: 5139 First Road, Lake Worth, FL 33467-5603 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: March 16, 2010 a one (1)-year site plan time extension to the previously TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for approved Major Site Plan Modification Development Order (MSPM 07-004). LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 425 S. Circle Drive & 431 S. Circle Drive DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO. ____X____ THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant ___ HAS ___ HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit “D” with notation “Included”. 4. The Applicant’s application for relief is hereby ___ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. ___ DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other ____________________________________________________________ DATED:__________________________ __________________________________________ City Clerk S:\PLANNING\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Vistas II\SPTE\DO.doc 127 of 228 9. B PUBLIC HEARING March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Lake Worth Christian School, SPTE 10-005, located at EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION 7592 High Ridge Road, requests approval for a second one (1) -year site plan time extension for conditional use/major site plan modification (COUS/MSPM 07-003) and height exception (HTEX 07-004) approved on July 17, 2007, from January 17, 2010 to January 17, 2011. Applicant: Robert Hook Superintendent, LWCS. ER: Staff recommends approval of the request for a one (1)-year site XPLANATION OF EQUEST plan time extension of the conditional use / major site plan modification (COUS/MSPM 07-003) and height exception (HTEX 07-004) for a 19,555 square foot Early Childhood Development Center/Elementary School addition, 15,000 square foot General Use Building and 5,000 square foot Athletic/Locker Room Building. Site plan time extension is still subject to the conditions of the COUS/MSPM, HTEX and MMSP approvals. Any additional conditions required by the City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. The Planning and Development Board heard this item on February 23, 2010 and forwards it with a recommendation of approval. H? N/A OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES FI: N/A ISCAL MPACT A: Not approve subject request. LTERNATIVES 128 of 228 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 10-002 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board : THRUMichael Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning : FROMKathleen Zeitler Planner II DATE:February 16, 2010 PROJECT NAME/NO: Lake Worth Christian School (SPTE 10-003) REQUEST: Site Plan Time Extension PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: Lake Worth Christian School, Inc. Applicant: Robert Hook, Superintendent of Lake Worth Christian School Agent: Michael J. LaCoursiere, PE, VP of Michael B. Schorah & Assoc. Location: 7592 High Ridge Road, East side of High Ridge Road, approximately one-half mile north of Miner Road (see Exhibit “A” – Location Map) Existing Land Use: Public/Private, Government Institutional (PPGI) Existing Zoning: Singe-family Residential (R-1-AA) Proposed Land Use: No change proposed Proposed Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: Expansion of school facilities Acreage: 16.24 acres Adjacent Uses: North: Single-family homes, zoned AR (County); South: Single-family homes (Cedar Ridge Estates PUD), zoned PUD; East: Rights-of-way for CSX Railroad and I-95; and 129 of 228 West: High Ridge Road, and farther west, single-family homes zoned AR (County). BACKGROUND Mr. Michael J. LaCoursiere, PE, agent for Lake Worth Christian School, Inc. is requesting a second one (1)-year site plan time extension for the Lake Worth Christian School Conditional Use/Major Site Plan Modification Development Order (COUS/MSPM 07-003) and Height Exception (HTEX 07-004), which were approved by the City Commission on July 17, 2007. The approvals for conditional use, major site plan modification, and the associated height exception were valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. A previous time extension (SPTE 09-001) was approved on January 20, 2009, extending the expiration date of the approvals to January 17, 2010. If this request for a time extension were approved, the expiration date of these approvals would be extended to January 17, 2011. According to the COUS/MSPM staff report, the school requested approval for a building addition of 19,555 square feet for an Early Childhood Development Center/Elementary School; a General Use building of 15,000 square feet; and an Athletic/Locker Room building of 6,000 square feet (see Exhibit “B” – Site Plan). The subject property is currently developed with a 13,952 square foot elementary school building, a 15,160 square foot gymnasium, and outdoor recreation facilities. As noted above, the applicant also received approval for a Height Exception in conjunction with the COUS/MSPM approval, for the Early Childhood Development Center/Elementary School. This two- story building is proposed immediately east of the existing elementary school building (the easternmost building on the campus). The maximum allowable height for the R-1-AA zoning district is 30 feet. The top of the principal parapet wall is proposed at 26 feet – 6 inches in height. The elevator tower of the building has a hip roof to coordinate with the other standing seam metal roofs on the structure, and this roof measures a height of 31 feet – 10 inches, or one (1) foot – 10 inches above the maximum allowable height in the R-1-AA zoning district. Additionally, the applicant received Minor Site Plan Modification approval on October 3, 2008, allowing for the minor adjustments in building, parking lot, and landscape configuration and/or locations related to subsequent changes in internal layout and function. ANALYSIS The Land Development Regulations state that the applicant shall have eighteen (18) months to secure a building permit from the Development Department. Examples of building permits include but are not limited to the following: Plumbing, electrical, mechanical, foundation, and structural. The regulations authorize the City Commission to approve site plan time extensions up to one (1) year, provided that the applicant files the request prior to the expiration date of the development order. In this case, the applicant has met that requirement. The Planning and Zoning Division received the application for a site plan time extension on November 17, 2009, two (2) months prior to the expiration date of the approvals. According to the justification submitted for the requested time extension, since receiving City approval the applicant has completed construction drawings, and is holding off on submitting for a building permit until construction funding is secured (see Exhibit “C” – Applicant’s Justification). The justification explains that the extension will allow the applicant time to review construction flexibility, including a possible reduced interior build-out, depending on the success of fundraising efforts. In addition to accomplishments to date, time extension reviews also consider compliance with concurrency requirements. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the original traffic study for the school expansion project with the requirement that no permits be issued after the build-out date of 2010. Should the applicant not be able to secure the building permit by the end of this year, an updated traffic concurrency approval letter from Palm Beach County will be required. As for utilities, 130 of 228 records indicate the utility reservation fee is due. Without payment of the reservation fee, the Utilities Department cannot guarantee capacity will be available when the developer is ready to move forward. The site plan time extension is still subject to the conditions of the COUS/MSPM, HTEX and MMSP approvals. Lastly, no new land development regulations are now in place against which the project should be reviewed and modified. As for application of the Art in Public Places ordinance (05-060), this project is not exempt, as the site plan request was filed after adoption of Ordinance 05-060 on October 5, 2005. Therefore, the project must comply with Ordinance 05-060 as stated in the original conditions of site plan approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request for a second one (1)-year time extension of the conditional use/major site plan modification (COUS/MSPM 07-003), as modified by the minor site plan modification (MMSP 08-069), and height exception (HTEX 07-004) approvals. If these requests for extension were approved, the expiration would be extended to January 17, 2011, and all outstanding conditions from the previous approvals must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval (see Exhibit “D” – Conditions of Approval). S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Lake Worth Christian School\SPTE 10-003\Staff Report.doc 131 of 228 132 of 228 133 of 228 134 of 228 135 of 228 136 of 228 EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Lake Worth Christian School File number: SPTE 10-003 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- Forestry Comments: None X FIRE Comments: None X POLICE Comments: None X ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None X UTILITIES 4. The applicant shall pay the utility reservation fee in order to ensure capacity X will be available when project commencement is anticipated. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None X PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None X FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: 5. The applicant shall replace severely pruned and damaged Oak trees along X High Ridge Road frontage according to FPL Right Tree/Right Place guidelines, to areas where the replacement trees will not be disturbed during the construction phase and will remain as part of the permanent site landscaping required along the right-of-way. The applicant shall continue with the execution of the current plan of action code compliance citation for landscaping. 137 of 228 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 6. If this request for site plan time extension is approved, all outstanding X conditions of approval from the original development order (COUS/MSPM 07-003) must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. 7. Should the applicant not secure a building permit for the project during the X build-out year of 2010, an updated traffic concurrency approval letter from Palm Beach County will be required prior to permitting. ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: None X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Lake Worth Christian School\SPTE 10-003\COA.doc 138 of 228 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Lake Worth Christian School APPLICANT’S AGENT: Michael J. LaCoursiere, P.E. AGENT’S ADDRESS: Michael B. Schorah & Associates, Inc. 1850 Forest Hill Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33406 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: March 16, 2010 a second one (1)-year site plan time extension to the TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for previously approved Conditional Use/Major Site Plan Modification Development Order (COUS/MSPM 07- 003) and Height Exception (HTEX 07-004). LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 7592 High Ridge Road Boynton Beach, FL DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO. ____X____ THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant ___ HAS ___ HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit “D” with notation “Included”. 4. The Applicant’s application for relief is hereby ___ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. ___ DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other ____________________________________________________________ DATED:__________________________ __________________________________________ City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Lake Worth Christian School\SPTE 10-003\DO Revised for P&D New 11-09.doc 139 of 228 9. C PUBLIC HEARING March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Safe & Secure Self Storage, Phase III, SPTE 10-005, EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION located at 3010 South Congress Avenue, request approval for a one (1)-year site plan time extension for major site plan modification (MSPM 08-001) and community design plan appeal (CDPA 08-001) approved on May 20, 2008, from November 20, 2009 to November 20, 2010. Applicant: Alejandro Zurita, Vice President and Development, Pugliese Company. ER: Staff recommends approval of the request for a one (1)-year site XPLANATION OF EQUEST plan time extension of the major site plan modification (MSPM 08-001) and community design plan appeal (CDPA 08-001) for the construction of a 7,953 square foot separate building addition (Phase III) to the 95,588 square foot self-storage facility. Phase III is designed to accommodate an additional 15 storage units, with the largest individual bays being 450 square feet in size. The Phase III addition is the final phase. Applicant was approved for a community design plan appeal in conjunction with the MSPM approval, to allow overhead rollup doors to face Congress Avenue. Any additional conditions required by the City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the conditions of approval. The Planning and Development Board heard this item on February 23, 2010 and forwards it with a recommendation of approval. H? N/A OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES FI: N/A ISCAL MPACT A: Not approve subject request. LTERNATIVES 140 of 228 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 10-003 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board : THRUMichael Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning : FROMKathleen Zeitler Planner II DATE:February 16, 2010 PROJECT NAME/NO: Safe & Secure Self Storage, Phase III (SPTE 10-005) REQUEST: Site Plan Time Extension PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: Boynton Properties, LLC Applicant/Agent: Alejandro Zurita, VP of Planning & Development, Pugliese Co. Location: 3010 South Congress Avenue (see Exhibit “A” – Location Map) Existing Land Use: Industrial (I) Existing Zoning: Industrial (M-1) Proposed Land Use: No change proposed Proposed Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: Self Storage Acreage: 0.45 acre (19,795 square feet) Adjacent Uses: North: Undeveloped industrial property zoned Industrial (M-1), then farther north is right- of-way for the LWDD L-28 canal, and farther north is a residential subdivision (Golfview Harbour); South: Developed Phase I of the Safe & Secure Storage project zoned Industrial (M-1), th then farther south is right-of-way for Southwest 30 Avenue, and farther south is developed industrial property (Tire Kingdom), zoned Industrial (M-1); East: Developed industrial property (office / warehouses), zoned Industrial (M-1); and 141 of 228 West: Developed industrial property (carwash), and right-of-way for Congress Avenue, then farther west is commercial property (Manor Care ACLF), zoned Community Commercial (C-3). BACKGROUND Mr. Alejandro Zurita, agent for Boynton Properties, LLC is requesting a one (1)-year site plan time extension for the Safe and Secure Storage Phase III Major Site Plan Modification Development Order (MSPM 08-001) and Community Design Plan Appeal (CDPA 08-001), which were approved by the City Commission on May 20, 2008. The major site plan modification and associated community design plan appeal approval are valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. If this request for a one (1)-year time extension were approved, the expiration date of the approvals, including concurrency certification, would be extended to November 20, 2010. According to the MSPM staff report, the applicant requested approval for the construction of a 7,953 square foot separate building addition (Phase III) to the 95,588 square foot self storage facility (see Exhibit “B” – Site Plan). The Phase III storage facility is designed to accommodate an additional 16 storage units, with the largest individual bays being 450 square feet in size.The Phase III addition is the final phase and will be located to the north of the three (3)-story limited access self storage building, constructed as Phase I in 2003. Phase II approved in 2006, is the existing carwash facility (Sparkle Clean) located on the west side of the subject property. As noted above, the applicant also received approval for a Community Design Plan Appeal in conjunction with the MSPM approval, to allow overhead rollup doors to face Congress Avenue. ANALYSIS The Land Development Regulations state that the applicant shall have eighteen (18) months to secure a building permit from the Development Department. Examples of building permits include but are not limited to the following: Plumbing, electrical, mechanical, foundation, and structural. The regulations authorize the City Commission to approve site plan time extensions up to one (1) year, provided that the applicant files the request prior to the expiration date of the development order. In this case, the applicant has met that requirement. The Planning and Zoning Division received the application on November 19, 2009, one (1) day prior to the expiration date of the approvals. According to the justification submitted for the requested time extension, since receiving City approval the applicant paid a capacity reservation fee in 2008, submitted paving and drainage plans to Lake Worth Drainage District, and submitted an application for building permit (#08-00003693) and paid a plan review fee (see Exhibit “C” – Applicant’s Justification). The applicant explains in the justification the unfavorable economic climate has delayed the project, however they expect a recovery and improvement in the finance market in the next year. In addition to accomplishments to date, time extension reviews also consider compliance with concurrency requirements. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the original traffic study for the Phase III project with the requirement that no permits be issued after the build-out date of 2011. Should the applicant not be able to acquire the necessary permits by the end of year 2011, an updated traffic concurrency approval letter from Palm Beach County will be required. As for utilities, records indicate a utility reservation fee is once again due. Without payment of the reservation fee, the Utilities Department cannot guarantee capacity will be available when the developer is ready to move forward. The site plan time extension is still subject to the conditions of the MSPM and CDPA approvals. Lastly, no new land development regulations are now in place against which the project should be reviewed 142 of 228 and modified. As for application of the Art in Public Places ordinance (05-060), this project is not exempt, as the site plan was filed after adoption of Ordinance 05-060 on October 5, 2005. Therefore, the project must comply with Ordinance 05-060 as stated in the original conditions of site plan approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request for a one (1)-year time extension of the major site plan modification (MSPM 08-001) and community design plan appeal (CDPA 08-001) approvals. If this request for extensions was approved, the expiration, including concurrency certification, would be extended to November 20, 2010, and all outstanding conditions from the previous approvals must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval (see Exhibit “D” – Conditions of Approval). S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Safe & Secure Self Storage\MSPM 08-001\SPTE 10-005\Staff Report.doc 143 of 228 144 of 228 145 of 228 146 of 228 147 of 228 148 of 228 149 of 228 150 of 228 151 of 228 EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Safe & Secure Self Storage, Phase III File number: SPTE 10-005 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- Forestry Comments: None X FIRE Comments: None X POLICE Comments: None X ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None X UTILITIES 8. The applicant shall pay the utility reservation fee of $194.04 in order to X ensure capacity will be available when project commencement is anticipated. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None X PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None X FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None X PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 9. If this request for site plan time extension is approved, all outstanding X conditions of approval from the original development order (MSPM 08-001) and CDPA 08-001 must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. 152 of 228 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: None X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Safe & Secure Self Storage\MSPM 08-001\SPTE 10-005\COA.doc 153 of 228 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Safe & Secure Self Storage, Phase III APPLICANT’S AGENT: Alejandro Zurita, VP of Planning & Development, Pugliese Company APPLICANT’S ADDRESS: Pugliese Corporate Center, 101 Pugliese’s Way, Suite 200 Delray Beach, FL 33444 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: March 16, 2010 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for Site Plan Time Extension LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 1310 South Congress Avenue DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO. ________ THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant ___ HAS ___ HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit “D” with notation “Included”. 4. The Applicant’s application for relief is hereby ___ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. ___ DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other ____________________________________________________________ DATED:__________________________ __________________________________________ City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Safe & Secure Self Storage\MSPM 08-001\SPTE 10-005\DO Revised for P&D New 11-09.doc 154 of 228 9. D PUBLIC HEARING March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Quantum Park Church (USAP 10-001), Quantum Park EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION DRI, Lots 18 and 19. Request approval to allow the conversion of an existing 14,692 square foot flex office building to a church in the Quantum Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) district. Applicant: Douglas B. MacDonald, Managing member of 1325 Gateway, LLC. ER: Managing member of 1325 Gateway, LLC, has submitted a XPLANATION OF EQUEST request for use approval in the Quantum Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) district. The request for the new use (church) only applies to Lots 18 and 19. Staff concludes from the subject review that the requested "Church" use on lots 18 and 19 would not be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Office - Industrial (OI) land use options in the Quantum Park PID, and would be counter to wise land use planning, particularly during a time when economic development and the promotion of job creation should be a priority. Further, there are many alternative zoning districts and existing properties where the subject use, including both churches and counseling services, are currently allowed. Staff recommends that the subject request be denied. The Planning and Development Board heard this item on February 23, 2010 and forwards it with a three-to-three tie vote; the equivalent of no recommendation. H? N/A OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES FI: N/A ISCAL MPACT A: 1. Approve subject request. 2. Refer item back to Planning and Development LTERNATIVES Board for re-review of request. 155 of 228 156 of 228 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 10-013 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board and City Commission THRU: Michael Rumpf Director of Planning & Zoning FROM: Ed Breese Principal Planner DATE: February 9, 2010 PROJECT NAME/NO: Quantum Park DRI, Lots 18 & 19 / (USAP 10-001) REQUEST: Use Approval to allow a church to operate on lots 18 & 19 with the use options of Office & Industrial (OI) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: 1325 Gateway, LLC Agent: Douglas B. MacDonald Location: Quantum Park DRI Lots 18 & 19, north side of Gateway Boulevard at Park Ridge Road (see Exhibit “A”) Existing Land Use/Zoning: Development of Regional Impact (DRI) / Planned Industrial Development (PID) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed PID Use Options: Office & Industrial (OI) Proposed Use: Conversion of an existing 14,692 square foot flex office building to a Church Acreage: 5.60 acres Adjacent Uses: North: Quantum Water Management Tract, and farther north the United Way office building; South: Gateway Boulevard r-o-w, and farther south the Boynton Beach High School and vacant Lot 52 of Quantum Park, designated Mixed Use (MU); 157 of 228 East: Quantum Water Management Tract, and farther east the vacant Lot 17 of Quantum Park, designated Mixed Use (MU); and West: Existing charter school, and farther west an existing office building. BACKGROUND Mr. Doug MacDonald, Managing Member of 1325 Gateway, LLC, has submitted a request for use approval in the Quantum Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) (see Exhibit “B”). The proposed use would apply only to Lots 18 & 19 and include the following:  Church (Lots 18 &19) The approval of a list of permitted uses is required for all Planned Industrial Developments. The original Quantum Park PID Master Plan did not include the above-referenced use and that is the reason the applicant is now requesting use approval. Similar to past requests, the Quantum Park Master Plan’s permitted uses list would be incrementally modified in connection with the approval of each new development within the PID. In approving a particular use, the Planning and Development Board must make findings that the proposed use will not be in conflict with the performance standards listed in Section 4.N. of the zoning regulations, and that uses proposed are consistent with the intent and purposes of the Planned Industrial Development District. ANALYSIS The applicant is required to address the Performance Standards listed in Chapter 2, Section 4.N of the Land Development Regulations as they relate to the proposed list of permitted uses. The purpose of the Performance Standards are to ensure that uses will not be a nuisance or hazard to persons, animals, vegetation or property located on adjacent or nearby properties or right-of-way; or to interfere with the reasonable use or enjoyment of adjacent or nearby property by reason of noise, vibration, smoke, dust, or other particulate matter; toxic or noxious matter; odor, glare, heat or humidity; radiation, electromagnetic interference, fire or explosive hazard, liquid waste discharge, or solid waste accumulation. The applicant has been asked to provide a description of their request relative to the performance standards within Chapter 2, Section 4.N of the Land Development Regulations to evaluate the impact and appropriateness of this use within the PID district. These responses are listed as follows: 1.Noise: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to create sound which is in violation of Section 15-8 of the City Ordinances. The applicant states no sound will be created that violates standards found in Section 15-8 of the City code. 2.Vibrations: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to create inherently and recurrently generated ground vibrations, which are perceptible without instruments at any point at or beyond the property line. The applicant statesthe proposed use shall will generate no discernable ground vibrations. 3.Smoke, dust, dirt, or other particulate matter: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to allow the emission of smoke, dust, dirt, or other particulate matter, which may cause damage to property or vegetation, discomfort or harm to persons or animals, or prevent the reasonable use and enjoyment of property and rights-of-way beyond the property line. Furthermore, no use will be carried out on the property so as to allow the emission of any 158 of 228 substances in violation of any federal, state, county, or city law or permit governing the emission of such substances. The applicant statesthe proposed use will generate no smoke, dust, dirt, or other particulates that exceed the standards for such emissions found in federal, state, county or city laws. 4.Odors and fumes: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to allow the emission of objectionable or offensive odors or fumes in such concentration as to be readily perceptible at any point at or beyond the boundary of the property. The applicant statesthe proposed use will generate no objectionable or offensive odors or fumes of any nature. 5.Toxic or noxious matter: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to allow the emission of toxic or noxious matter in such concentration as to cause damage to property, vegetation, discomfort, or harm to persons or animals, or otherwise prevent the reasonable use and enjoyment of property or rights-of-way at or beyond the proposed property boundary; or to contaminate any public waters or any groundwater. or harm to persons or animals, or otherwise prevent the reasonable use and enjoyment of property or rights-of-way at or beyond the proposed property boundary; or to contaminate any public waters or any groundwater. The applicant statesthe proposed use will discharge no toxic or noxious matters, and will cause no damage to property or vegetation or discomfort or harm to persons or animals, or otherwise prevent the reasonable use and enjoyment of property or rights-of-way at or beyond the proposed church’s property lines, nor will any contamination of the public waters or groundwater result from the proposed use. 6.Fire and Explosion: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to create a fire or explosion hazard to adjacent or nearby property or rights-of-way or any persons or property thereon. Furthermore, the storage, use, or production of flammable or explosive materials shall be in conformance with the provision in Chapter 9 of the City of Boynton Beach Code or Ordinances. The applicant statesthe proposed church uses will create no fire or explosion hazard. No flammable materials shall be stored, used or proposed except in conformance with Chapter 9 of the City code. 7.Heat, Humidity or Glare: No use shall be carried out on the property so as produce heat, humidity or glare readily perceptible at any point at or beyond the property line of the property on which the use is located. Artificial lighting, which is used to illuminate any property or use, shall be directed away from any residential use, which is a conforming use according to these regulations, so as not to create a nuisance to such residential uses. The applicant states the proposed use will produce no heat, humidity or glare readily perceptible beyond the church’s property lines. All lighting will conform to City standards and will create no nuisance to adjoining residential uses. 8.Liquid Waste: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to dispose of liquid waste of any type, quantity, or manner, which is not in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 26 or the City of Boynton Beach Code or Ordinances, or any applicable federal, state, or county laws or permits. Any applicable provisions of Chapter 26 of the City Of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, or any applicable federal, state, or county laws or permits shall be complied with. The applicant states no liquid waste of any type, quantity or manner not in conformance with Chapter 26 of the City code will be used or disposed of by the proposed church use. 9.Solid Waste: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to allow the accumulation or disposal of solid waste which is not in conformance with Chapter 10 of the City Ordinances, or which would cause solid waste to be transferred in any manner to adjacent or nearby property or rights-of-way. The applicant states all solid waste materials generated by the proposed use will be collected and disposed of in conformance with Chapter 10 of the City code. 159 of 228 10.Electromagnetic Interference: No use shall be carried out on the property so as to create electromagnetic radiation, which causes abnormal degradation of performance of any electromagnetic receptor of quality and proper design as defined, by the principles and standards adopted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or the Electronic Industries Association. Furthermore, no use shall be carried out on the property so as to cause electromagnetic radiation, which does not comply with the Federal Communications Commission Regulations, or which causes objectionable electromagnetic interference with normal radio or television reception in any zoning district. The applicant states the proposed use will create no electromagnetic radiation that causes abnormal derogation of performance of any electromagnetic receptor or interferes with normal radio or television reception in the City. 11.Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste: The operator of any use on the property that uses, handles, stores, or displays hazardous materials or that handles hazardous waste, as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261 shall be required to obtain a permit in accordance with Section 11.3, Environmental Review Permits of the City Ordinances. The applicant states the proposed use will not create, use, store, or handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes. The above-referenced testimony by the applicant certifies that the proposed use would not violate any of the performance standards listed in Chapter 2, Section 4.N of the Land Development Regulations. The approved site plan shows that the site was previously approved for a 33,376 square foot charter school, which still exists on the northwest portion of the site and will not be modified as part of this request, and a 14,692 square foot flex office building, which the applicant is requesting to convert to a church, and was last occupied by Town & Country Homes for their offices and showroom. Currently, there are 254 parking spaces available on the site, with 101 spaces devoted to the charter school, leaving 153 parking spaces available for use by the church. The applicant indicates that 9,492 square feet of the 14,692 square foot building will be used for office space for staff, for marriage and family counseling, and for a youth ministry. The applicant has indicated that at sometime in the future, a portion of the office space may be converted to a daycare operation, and understands that such a change would require a site plan modification and City approval. The remaining 5,200 square feet will be devoted to the 200 seat auditorium. The applicant also understands any increase in the number of seats will require City approval. Based upon this information, the office space as proposed would require 32 parking spaces and the auditorium would require 52 parking spaces, totaling 84 parking spaces; representing a surplus of 69 spaces. In addition, Sunday services would occur when the school is not in session, making those parking spaces available as well. The subject site was before the Planning & Development Board in September of 2009 for Conditional Use approval for High Ridge Academy preschool/daycare. At that time, the Board tabled further discussion of the item based upon concerns over traffic patterns and vehicle stacking at drop-off and pick-up times, in concert with the other schools and daycares in the immediate vicinity. The applicant for that project has since dropped plans for the school and the proposal now is for a church, which is the subject of this application. As noted above, the subject property is currently designated with the Office – Industrial (OI) use options. This request for use approval is to allow a church on lots 18 & 19 in the Quantum Park PID. Churches are currently not allowed in the PID districts, but are allowed in the Office Professional 160 of 228 (C-1), and other commercial and residential districts with some exceptions, and are not allowed in the industrial district (M-1). While this request is solely for these two lots, there are approximately 64 acres containing the “OI” use designation, another 13 acres with an “O” (Office) designation and 13 acres with an “OIC” (Office, Industrial and Commercial) designation. All three of these use categories are spread throughout Quantum Park. Even though the request is specific to these two lots, if approved, additional requests could be made for other similarly designated lots, claiming the situation is no different than the previous approval. Staff opinion has not wavered from the original position that property with industrial potential should not be utilized for non-industrial uses, especially when there are considerably more properties in the City that could accommodate a church use, rather than using properties that attract industry. While the church use can easily meet the performance standards, as witnessed by the above responses, and would not appear to create any traffic or parking issues on this particular site, the further loss of industrial potential to non-industrial uses cannot be supported by staff. RECOMMENDATION It is the determination by staff that the requested “Church” use on lots 18 & 19 would not be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Office – Industrial (OI) land use options in the Quantum Park PID, and would be counter to wise land use planning, particularly during a time when economic development and the promotion of job creation should be a priority. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the request. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Quantum Lots 18 & 19\USAP 10-001 Quantum Park Church\Staff Report.doc 161 of 228 162 of 228 163 of 228 164 of 228 165 of 228 EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of Approval Project name: Quantum Park Church Lots 18 + 19 File number: USAP 10-001 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- Forestry Comments: None X FIRE Comments: None X POLICE Comments: None X ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None X BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None X PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None X FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None X PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None X ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: None X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 166 of 228 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Quantum Lot 18,19 Survivors School\Church USAP 10-001\COA.doc S:\Planning\Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form.doc 167 of 228 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Quantum Park Church APPLICANT’S AGENT: Mr. Douglas B. MacDonald APPLICANT’S ADDRESS: 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 101, Boynton Beach, FL 33426 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: March 16, 2010 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request use approval for a Church on Lots 18 + 19 in the Quantum Park PID. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Lots 18 + 19, Quantum Park PID DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO. ___X_____ THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant ___ HAS ___ HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit “C” with notation “Included”. 4. The Applicant’s application for relief is hereby ___ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. ___ DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other ____________________________________________________________ DATED:__________________________ ______________________________________ 168 of 228 City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Quantum Lot 18,19 Survivors School\Church USAP 10-001\DO.doc 169 of 228 9. E PUBLIC HEARING March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Request approval for Healing Grounds (NWSP 10-002), EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION for a new site plan located at 220 and 226 West Boynton Beach Boulevard for a proposed combination veterinary clinic and accessory human spa with massage therapy and acupuncture consisting of 3,716 square feet of building area on 0.60 acre in a C-2 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Applicant: Nancy Keller, DVM. ER: Applicant is proposing a one-story veterinary clinic to be known as XPLANATION OF EQUEST Healing Grounds, a proposed natural and holistic animal care center. Applicant plans to rd relocate the business from 208 NE 3 Street. No animal boarding is allowed with the exception of overnight stays for animals being treated. Two (2) rooms within the proposed building will be dedicated to human healing and spa service, including massage therapy and acupuncture. Staff reviewed this request and recommends approval of the plans presented, subject to satisfying all comments in Exhibit “C” – Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions required by the City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. The Planning and Development Board heard this item on February 23, 2010 and forwards it with a recommendation of approval. H? N/A OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES FI: N/A ISCAL MPACT A: Not approve subject request. LTERNATIVES 170 of 228 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 10-012 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board THRU:Michael Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director FROM:Kathleen Zeitler Planner II February DATE: 16, 2010 PROJECT NAME/NO: Healing Grounds / NWSP 10-002 REQUEST: New Site Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: White Elk Enterprises, LLC Applicant: Nancy Keller, DVM, White Elk Enterprises, LLC Agent: Bridget Keller Location: 222 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard (see Exhibit “A” – Location Map) Future Land Use/Zoning: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) / Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) Proposed Uses: Combination Veterinary Clinic and Human Massage Therapy and Acupuncture Acreage: 0.60 acre (26,047 square feet) Adjacent Uses: North: Right-of-way for Boynton Beach Boulevard, and farther north at the rd corner of NW 3 Court and Boynton Beach Boulevard, a retail store (Hair & Nails Perfection) on 0.29 acre classified as LRC land use and zoned C- 2; and to the northeast, a single-family residence fronting on Boynton Beach Boulevard on 0.18 acre classified as LRC land use and zoned C-2; South: Three (3) parcels, each with a single-family residence and classified as Low Density Residential (LDR) and zoned R-1A (Single-Family Residential); East: A day care center (Lighthouse Academy and Child Development Center) on 0.62 acre classified as LRC and zoned C-2; 171 of 228 nd West: Right-of-way for NW 2 Street, and farther west, a service station with repair bays (Majestic Gas) on 0.70 acre classified as LRC and zoned C-2. PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION Owners of properties within 400 feet of the subject site plan were mailed a notice of this request and its respective hearing dates. The applicant has certified that signage is posted and notices mailed in accordance with Ordinance No. 04-007. BACKGROUND Site Features: The subject property consists of two (2) lots having a total frontage of 180 feet on nd Boynton Beach Boulevard and 100 feet of frontage on NW 2 Street. The subject property is comprised of Lots 1 – 8 of Block 3, Boynton Heights subdivision (Plat Book 10, Page 64) which total 26,047 square feet (0.60 acre). The subject lots were recently combined onto one (1) lot through the execution of a Unity of Title that is currently in the process of being recorded into public record. All existing structures on site from the previous uses will be demolished. Proposal: Bridget Keller, as agent for the applicant, is proposing a one-story veterinary clinic to be known as Healing Grounds, a proposed natural and holistic animal care center. The applicant is holistic veterinarian, Nancy Keller, DVM. Her rd practice, Healing Heart, is currently located at 208 NE 3 Street and will relocate to the subject property upon completion. The proposed Healing Grounds will provide holistic care for small animals, inlcuding conventional medicine, acupuncture, chinese herbs, homeopathy, magnetic therapy, and an outdoor salt-water pool for physical therapy. No animal boarding is allowed, with the exception of overnight stays for animals being treated. Two (2) front rooms within the proposed building will be dedicated to human healing and spa service, including massage therapy and acupuncture. The total enclosed building square footage is 3,716 square feet consisting of 3,416 square feet allocated to the veterinary clinic, 200 square feet for the spa component, and a 100 square foot detached storage building. The project would be built in one (1) phase. The proposed principal building will be considered as sustainable development, constructed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, with the goal as silver level. Many LEED features will be included into the design of the building and site (see details under Building and Site in Analysis section below). ANALYSIS Concurrency: Traffic: A traffic statement for the project was sent to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for concurrency review in order to ensure an adequate level of service. The required traffic concurrency is pending approval at this time. No building permits may be issued by the City for this project until the Traffic Division 172 of 228 approves the analysis for traffic concurrency requirements (see Exhibit “C” – Conditions of Approval). School: School concurrency is not required for this type of project. Utilities: The City’s water capacity, as increased through the purchase of up to five (5) million gallons of potable water per day from Palm Beach County Utilities, would meet the projected potable water for this project. Sufficient sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment capacity is also currently available to serve the project. Storage and disposal of solid waste will be through screened roll-out carts, rather than a dumpster. Police/Fire: Staff has reviewed the site plan and determined that current staffing levels would be sufficient to meet the expected demand for services. Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City’s review. The Engineering Division has found the conceptual information to be adequate and is recommending that the review of specific drainage solutions be deferred until time of permit reivew. Access: Two (2) points of vehicular ingress/egress are proposed for the project. The main access drive is from Boynton Beach Boulevard and consists of a two (2)- way driveway 24 feet wide, located approximately 160 feet east of the nd intersection. Another driveway is proposed from NW 2 Street consisting of a two (2)-way driveway 24 feet wide, located approximately 75 feet south of the intersection. Parking: The project proposes a total of 3,716 square feet of enclosed building area. Parking for a veterinary clinic requires one (1) space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. Parking for the spa requires one (1) space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the above, a minimum of 13 parking spaces are required. The site plan indicates a total of 20 parking spaces are to be provided, including one (1) handicap space near the building’s east entrance. To meet LEED certification, a few parking spaces near the building will be reserved for carpool parking, fuel-efficient vehicle parking, and 10 minute parking. A bike rack is provided on the north side of the building. The 90-degree parking stalls, excluding the handicap space, would be dimensioned nine (9) feet in width and 18 feet in length and include continuous curbing. All proposed parking stalls, including the size and location of the handicap space, were reviewed and approved by both the Engineering Division and Building Division. In addition, all necessary traffic control signage and permanent markings will be provided to clearly delineate areas on site and direction of circulation. Landscaping: The site plan indicates that 40% of the site would be pervious consisting of landscaped and open space areas. The site and landscape plans show the planted landscape strip along the north property line adjacent to Boynton Beach nd Boulevard is 12 feet in width. Along the west property line adjacent to NW 2 Street the landscape strip is seven (7) feet wide. Along the east property line adjacent to another commercial use, the landscape strip is two and one-half (2 ½) feet wide. Along the south property line adjacent to single-family residential uses large existing trees will remain and be included within a landscape buffer that includes a six (6) foot masonry buffer wall. 173 of 228 The landscaping provides a complimentary mix of large existing trees to remain such as Oak, Black Olive, Strangler Fig, Seagrape, and Washington Palms, along with proposed canopy trees such as Green Buttonwood, Cassia, Pitch Apple and Crape Myrtle. The amount of landscaping provided exceeds the minimum requirements by 47 percent. The landscape code requires that 50% or more of the plant material be native species. The plant list (sheet L-1) indicates the landscape plan complies with this requirement. To conserve water and minimize maintenance and use of fertilizers, staff recommends that the landscape plan be revised to eliminate all small sod areas (with the exception of fenced open space areas for play) and replace with groundcovers (see Exhibit “C” – Conditions of Approval). Irrigation will use non-potable water only. Building and Site: The proposed building will have a 12 foot setback from Boynton Beach Boulevard, in compliance with the Urban Commercial District Overlay regulations. The building orientation has the main building entrance facing east and the main parking lot located on the east side of the subject property. Pedestrian circulation is proposed by sidewalks along Boynton Beach Boulevard nd and NW 2 Street, and pedestrian walkways on the east and west sides of the proposed building.Building accessibility will be from the main entrance at the front of the building located near the east parking lot. The west parking lot and building entrance is for service deliveries and employee use. The proposed project is designed as a one (1)-story structure, with covered terraces, and a courtyard with tea garden. The floor plan indicates a courtyard with fountain at the building entrance, and a large reception/waiting area. The building will be devoted primarily to offices and exam rooms for the veterinary clinic. Two (2) rooms at the front of the building will be devoted to massage and acupuncture healing for humans. The remainder of the site would consist of surface parking, fenced and landscaped areas, a 100 square foot accessory storage building, a private rehabilitation pool for patient (animal) use only including a paver deck, fountain and benches, and two (2) organic gardens. Some of the sustainable features being considered to obtain LEED certification for the project include: construction waste recycling during demolition and construction; energy-efficient materials for windows, wall insulation, and roofing; light pollution reduction; water-conserving fixtures; use of local and/or recycled materials; energy efficient air-conditioning system; solar hot water for building and therapy pool; and low to non-toxic paints, sealants, and adhesives. Building Height: The building elevations (sheets A3 – A4) indicate the top of the roof and also the highest elevation of the structure would be 20 feet – four (4)-inches. The proposed building height is below the maximum height of 25 feet allowed in the C-2 zoning district. Building Design: The proposed building exterior has a combination of Tuscan and Balinese design elements that include stucco walls; teak wood columns, trim, and shutters; and light terra cotta “S” roof tiles. According to the elevations and materials board, the main base color of the veterinary clinic building would be “Mantis Green” (Benjamin Moore #2033-60). Teak wood columns, window shutters, and trim would be stained Special Walnut (Minwax 250 VOC). Windows and doors would be white aluminum. A decorative wrought-iron entry gate would enclose the east courtyard. The 100 square foot accessory storage building would match the colors and materials of the principal building. Site Lighting: The photometric plan (sheet SL-1) proposes a total of ten (10) freestanding single light fixtures throughout the site. The freestanding pole fixtures would be a concrete material at a planned height of ten (10) feet. Additionally, site lighting 174 of 228 will be recessed and shielded on all sides to direct light down and away from adjacent properties and rights-of-way to prevent glare and light spillage onto adjacent properties. Site Signage: The site plan indicates a monument sign for the use would be located near the northwest corner of the building and is set back 10 feet as required. The design of the monument sign on the plans is preliminary, and subject to change. The sign regulations would allow a maximum sign height of eight (8) feet, and sign face area of 64 square feet for this location. The Land Development Regulations state that circumstances, such as surrounding properties, speed limits, and project scale may justify further reductions in the maximum heights of signs. A previous condition of approval for the monument sign at the neighboring Lighthouse Academy daycare restricted the monument sign type, color, and style to be consistent with the Sign Guidelines of the Vision 20/20 Master Plan. Staff recommends reducing the size of the monument sign and adding more architectural elements and details to the sign to be consistent with the area (see Exhibit “C” – Conditions of Approval). Sign materials include smooth stucco finish painted to match the colors of the proposed building. Colorful landscape trees and shrubs will be planted around the proposed sign. No wall signage on the building is proposed. However, if proposed in the future, the lettering and color of the wall sign shall match the monument sign. The site address shall also be identified on the monument sign. Public Art: An open space for public art exhibition is reserved on site to be visible from Boynton Beach Boulevard. The artwork proposed is a mineral monument near the east building entrance. This artwork would complement the architecture of the proposed building and enhance the ambiance of the proposed development. Ultimate review and approval of the artist and sculpture is still pending by the Arts Commission. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for New Site Plan and recommends approval of the plans presented, subject to satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit “C” – Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Healing Grounds\Staff Report.doc 175 of 228 176 of 228 177 of 228 178 of 228 179 of 228 180 of 228 181 of 228 EXHIBIT “C” - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL New Site Plan Project name: Healing Grounds File number: NWSP 10-002 Reference: 2ndreview plans identified as a New Site Plan with a February 2, 2010 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING Comments: None (All previous comments have been addressed).X FIRE Comments: 1. The Fire Rescue Department expects to be able to provide an adequate level X of service for this project with current or expected infrastructure and/or staffing levels. POLICE Comments: 2. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall prepare a X construction site security and management plan for approval by the City’s Police Department CPTED Official. Security measures at a construction site are determined after a security survey is conducted using the following procedures: a. One (1) staging area, to store equipment and park machinery, must be fenced. b. The staging area must be visible from an accessible roadway to allow effective police patrol. c. Lighting must be provided to allow complete visibility to the area. d. Approved padlock for all storage trailers and equipment trailers and park within staging area. 3. Landscaping shall not conflict with lighting or obstruct view from doors, X windows or walkways. 4. All perimeter doors should be equipped with reinforced, case hardened strike X plate, with locks and alarm system. (Must be noted on plans) 5. Rear door shall have 180- degree peephole or security window. (Must be X noted on plans) 182 of 228 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 6. For potential criminal activity detection, install a high resolution color digital X video system consisting of a minimum of 12 low lux cameras, with monitoring and photo processing picture or video printout capabilities. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: 7. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional X comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TART (Technical Advisory Review Team) process does not ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the commission and at permit review. 8. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the X proposed construction. 9. CBBCPP 3.C.3.4 requires the conservation of potable water. City water may X not, therefore, be used for landscape irrigation where other sources are readily available. 10. A water-use permit from SFWMD is required for an irrigation system that X utilizes water from a well or body of water as its source. A copy of the permit shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216. X 11. IF CAPITAL FACILITY FEES (WATER AND SEWER) ARE PAID IN ADVANCE TO THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION: A) THE FULL NAME OF THE PROJECT AS IT APPEARS ON THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND THE COMMISSION-APPROVED SITE PLAN. B) THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID AND ITEMIZED INTO HOW MUCH IS FOR WATER AND HOW MUCH IS FOR SEWER. (CBBCO, CHAPTER 26, ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 26-34) X 12. PURSUANT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OUTSIDE AGENCIES, THE PLANS FOR THIS PROJECT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR REVIEW AT THE TIME OF PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL. THE PLANS MUST INCORPORATE ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS LISTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. X 13. THE FULL ADDRESS OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AT THE TIME OF PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL. THE ADDRESSING PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY’S GIS DIVISION, AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY EMERGENCY 911. A) PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING & BUILDING DIVISION, 2300 N JOG RD, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 183 of 228 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT (SEAN MCDONALD – 561-233-5013). B) UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, BOYNTON BEACH (MICHELLE BULLARD – 561-734-0872). PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None (All previous comments have been addressed). X FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: 14. All of the newly planted [23] required shade and palm trees must be listed in X the plant list as a minimum of 12’-14’ height, 3” DBH (4.5’ off the ground). The height of the trees may be larger than 12’-14’ to meet the 3” diameter specifications.[Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Article II Sec. 5.C. 2.] PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 15. Provide a notice of concurrency approval (Traffic Performance Standards X Review) from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering for the proposed project. The traffic impact analysis must be approved by the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for concurrency purposes prior to the issuance of any building permits. 16. Eliminate small sod areas on site (except for fenced open space areas to be X used for play), and add additional groundcover species as accent to maximize sustainability through water conservation and reduced maintenance. 17. The plans submitted include a monument sign that is preliminary in design X and subject to change. Staff recommends that the project signage be consistent with the size of the existing monument sign for the neighboring Lighthouse Academy daycare. Staff recommends a maximum sign height of six (6) feet and a maximum sign width of five (5) feet for the monument sign. The design of the monument sign should also include more architectural elements and details, and must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. The lettering and color of any future building wall signage shall match the monument sign. ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: None X 184 of 228 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. MWR/kz S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Healing Grounds\COA.doc 185 of 228 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Healing Grounds APPLICANT: Nancy Keller, DVM AGENT: Bridget Keller th AGENT’S ADDRESS: 3181 NE 165 St, N Miami Beach, FL 33160 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: March 16, 2010 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request new site plan approval for a 3,716 square foot veterinary clinic and storage building on 0.60 acre in a C-2 zoning district. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 222 West Boynton Beach Boulevard (SE corner of Boynton Beach Blvd and NW nd 2 Street) DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO. ____X_____ THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant ___ HAS ___ HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit “C” with notation “Included”. 4. The Applicant’s application for relief is hereby ___ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. ___ DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other ____________________________________________________________ DATED:__________________________ __________________________________________ City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Healing Grounds\DO.doc 186 of 228 9. F PUBLIC HEARING March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Confirm continuation of "Notice of Intent" (NOI) and EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION support for the planning study of impacts and regulations related to adult entertainment uses. nd ER: On February 2, the Commission approved Resolution No. R10- XPLANATION OF EQUEST 21, thereby issuing a NOI to commence a temporary (180-day) moratorium allowing staff to conduct a warranted planning study on the operation and impacts of adult entertainment uses, and consider revising applicable city codes and ordinances as necessary. The Land Development Regulations Chapter 1, Article XI, Section “C” requires the city to first approve the NOI and then to hold a subsequent public hearing for public comment and final consideration or confirmation of direction. nd As staff reported on February 2, the intent of amendments to the Land Development Regulations is to protect land uses and properties from the adverse secondary impacts caused by the development and/or operation of Adult Entertainment Uses. If findings reveal potential land use incompatibilities between future Adult Entertainment Uses and adjacent properties, uses, road corridors, or redevelopment areas, the intent of new regulations generated from the study will be to minimize or eliminate these impacts upon adjacent properties, thoroughfares and redevelopment areas. H? Effective on adoption of the Notice, no OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES application or uses within the Affected Area deemed incomplete shall be processed and no new application shall be accepted or processed during the period that this Notice is in effect. This Notice of Intent shall only apply to any application processed by the City that relates to an Adult Entertainment Use. Adult Entertainment Uses are defined by the Land Development Regulations, Part 3. Chapter 1. Article II. Definitions. 187 of 228 FI: N/A ISCAL MPACT A: Direct staff to discontinue the effort and Notice of Intent. LTERNATIVES 188 of 228 189 of 228 190 of 228 191 of 228 192 of 228 193 of 228 9. G PUBLIC HEARING March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Confirm continuation of "Notice of Intent" (NOI) and EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION support for the planning study of regulations related to pain management clinics and other uses which dispense prescription pain medications. nd ER: On February 2, the Commission approved Resolution No. R10- XPLANATION OF EQUEST 20, thereby issuing a NOI to commence a temporary (180-day) moratorium allowing staff to conduct a warranted planning study on the operation and impacts of pain clinics, pain management clinics and other uses that dispense prescription pain medications, and consider revising zoning regulations as necessary. The Land Development Regulations Chapter 1, Article XI, Section “C” requires the city to first approve the NOI and then to hold a subsequent public hearing for public comment and final consideration or confirmation of direction. nd As staff reported on February 2, this recommended action is in response to findings, announcements, and other information generated at national, state and county levels regarding the negative aspects of such uses which ultimately lead to, or support additions to, or deaths from, prescription pain medications. Such businesses are understood to have very limited treatment services and medical oversight, but primarily distribute addictive pain medications without appropriate, professional and ethical medical care. Specific documented findings include the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services releasing of data showing that prescription drug deaths are now the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. Further, the Florida Board of Medicine (the Board), at their meeting in December, 2008, cited the “rapid proliferation of pain clinics that may be contributing to increased abuse of controlled substances,” and concluded “there may be a need to develop rules and regulations for these clinics to provide oversight related to evaluation and follow up of these difficult patients and help physicians identify persons not seeking care but just pill shopping for narcotics.” The Board further notes that “an average of 7 patients a day are reported as dying 194 of 228 of prescription drug overdose in Florida, a number that far exceeds the number dying from illegal drug use.” Such events and information may have lead Florida’s Governor to sign a bill in July creating a statewide database that monitors prescription drug purchases by patients, with the intent to curtail “drug shopping” by patients which involves the patient visiting multiple pain clinics to obtain numerous prescriptions. Palm Beach County has reported an influx of “pain clinics and “pain management clinics”, and current legal action has been taken against one or more physicians suspected of the unethical and illegal dispensing of prescription pain medications. The County therefore plans to issue a notice of intent to temporarily halt affected development and businesses activity in February or March, and is strongly recommending that local governments take similar actions. Responsively, West Palm Beach announced its plan to take similar steps including the moratorium and evaluation of its regulations. Time is needed in which to thoroughly examine the problem locally and to research possible measures of mitigation and regulation of “pain clinics and pain management clinics;” and other businesses involved in the dispensing of prescription pain medications. Depending on the timing of organized actions, possibly lead by the Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC), the City’s initiative may benefit from involvement in the pending county- wide effort. However, as a starting point for the Commission’s consideration of the direction of this effort, and to support the Notice of Intent in determining the affected development activity and businesses, the attachments also include a proposed ordinance. H? This project is intended to further the OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES health, safety, and welfare of the community through proper and appropriate zoning and regulatory controls over uses that are understood to contribute to unethical medical practices, drug addiction and the attraction of crime. FI: N/A ISCAL MPACT A: Not approve the resolution and maintain regulations as status quo. LTERNATIVES 195 of 228 196 of 228 197 of 228 198 of 228 199 of 228 200 of 228 201 of 228 202 of 228 203 of 228 204 of 228 205 of 228 206 of 228 207 of 228 10. A CITY MANAGER’S REPORT March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM th CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Informational item regarding an automatic mutual aid EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION agreement between Palm Beach County and Boynton Beach Fire Rescue Departments. ER: Many local government fire rescue organizations enter into mutual aid XPLANATION OF EQUEST agreements to provide emergency assistance to each other in the event of emergencies. From time to time, to meet peak demand or extraordinary resource utilization, it may be necessary to request assistance from another Department. This is the concept and intent of a mutual aid agreement. The Boynton Beach Fire Rescue Department has long standing mutual aid agreements in place with Palm Beach County, Delray Beach, and Boca Raton Fire Rescue Departments. Pursuant to the mutual aid agreement between the City of Boynton Beach and Palm Beach County, the parties are entering into a Letter of Understanding to develop an automatic aid agreement to improve response times or other forms of efficiency within specified unincorporated service areas on the Barrier Island near Briny Breezes. The Fire Chiefs have determined that it is in the best interest of both jurisdictions that the unincorporated parcels identified in the attached exhibits are best served by the City of Boynton Beach Fire Rescue, and that Boynton Beach will transport patients based on their CON (Certificate of Necessity) as well as bill and collect transport revenue. As soon as a 911 call is identified to be in one of the specified areas, the PBC Alarm Office shall immediately ring-down / transfer the call to the Boynton Fire Rescue Dispatch Center. H? This automatic aid agreement will increase the OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES level of service in this area by greatly reducing response times. The Boynton Beach Fire Rescue Department will increase their emergency response volume by approximately 60 calls per year, based on the call volume data from 2009 shown in the attached exhibits. FI: Potential for increased revenue in ALS transport billing fees. In the long run, however, ISCAL MPACT discussions with Palm Beach County should include sharing of property tax revenues from this area based on a yet to be determined formula. However, given the urgency of this matter to resolve response time issues staff supports moving forward with the letter agreement at this time. 208 of 228 A: Do not support this Letter of Understanding and maintain service level as is. This LTERNATIVES would result in higher response times, generally, because Palm Beach County Fire Rescue would have to respond to this area from a fire station at Military Trail and Woolbright. 209 of 228 210 of 228 211 of 228 212 of 228 10. B CITY MANAGER’S REPORT March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: TIME CERTAIN TO BE HEARD AT 7:30 PM - TABLED EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION from 2/16/10 - Staff seeks authorization to move forward with issuance of an RFP for Towing Rotation Franchise Agreement. RECOMMEND ITEM BE TABLED TO APRIL 20, 2010 OR LATER DATE. ER: This item was tabled at the 2/16/10 Commission meeting to allow XPLANATION OF EQUEST time for the City Attorney to review documentation submitted by one of the tow vendors. The City Attorney has completed his review and will report his findings to the Commission at the 3/16/10 meeting. Background: At the January 19, 2010 Commission meeting the City Commission directed staff to develop an RFP that would provide for the selection of 6-8 tow providers on a rotational basis. The Commission further expressed the desire to charge a franchise fee for the towing program participation. Attached is a draft RFP document for your review and discussion. The right hand column indicates policy issues for which staff seeks direction from the Commission to finalize the RFP. The Scope of Services is as follows: The City of Boynton Beach is actively seeking qualified tow companies to provide vehicle towing services in accordance with the terms and conditions and specifications contained in the Three (3) Year Towing Franchise Agreement to provide Class “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” towing services on a rotational basis. Awarded tow companies will be issued a Franchise agreement to provide towing services as stated in the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement. (see outline attached). 213 of 228 Once the RFP document is finalized, staff anticipates advertising for Request for Proposals by mid-March of with an RFP submittal deadline of April 13, 2010. H? We currently manage a rotation contract OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES with six providers. Continuation of this program (or expanding to 7) will have minimal impact on our current program. FI: Depends on the Franchise Fee amount and the number of qualified ISCAL MPACT respondents. A: Consider other contract models. i.e. exclusive franchise, non-exclusive LTERNATIVES franchise (1-2 providers) or a rotation program without franchise fees. 214 of 228 TOWING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSED RFP COMMISSION DECISION REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FROM TOWING CONTRACTORS FOR Confirm the number of years THREE YEAR TOWING FRANCHISE ROTATION FOR THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Confirm that program will be a franchise relationship RFP #000-2110-10/CJD SECTION 1 - SUBMITTAL INFORMATION A.The City of Boynton Beach will receive RFP responses until April 13, 2010, at 2:30 P.M. (LOCAL TIME) in Procurement Confirm or adjust deadline Services located on the second floor of City Hall, 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard, to provide the City with professional Class A, B, C and D towing services. B.Any responses received after the above stated time and date will not be considered. It shall be the sole responsibility of the qualifier to have their RFP response delivered to Procurement Services for receipt on or before the above stated time and date. It is recommended that responses be sent by an overnight air courier service or some other method that creates proof of submittal. RFP responses which arrive after the above stated deadline as a result of delay by the mail service shall not be considered shall not be opened at the public opening, and arrangements shall be made for their return at the qualifier’s request and expense. The City reserves the right to consider submittals that have been determined by the City to be received late due solely to mishandling by the City after receipt of the RFP and prior to the award being made. C.These RFP’s will be publicly opened and read aloud in Procurement Services after the designated due date, on April Adjust date based on direction above 13, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. (local time). All qualifiers or their representatives are invited to be present. Procurement Services is located on the second floor of City Hall, 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard. D.If any addendum(s) are issued to this REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, the City will attempt to notify all prospective qualifiers who have secured same, however, it shall be the responsibility of each qualifier, prior to submitting the RFP response, to contact the City Procurement Services at (561) 742-6323 to determine if any addendum(s) were issued and to make any addendum acknowledgements as part of their RFP response. E.One (1) original, “so marked”, and five (5) copies, of the RFP response shall be submitted in one sealed package clearly marked on the outside “RFP FOR, “THREE YEAR CONTRACT FOR VEHICLE TOWING ROTATION PROGRAM” and addressed to: City of Boynton Beach, Procurement Services, P.O. Box 215 of 228 310, Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310. F.Responses shall clearly indicate the legal name, address and telephone number of the qualifier (firm, corporation, partnership or individual). Responses shall be signed above the typed or printed name and title of the signer. The signer shall have the authority to bind the qualifier to the submitted RFP. Qualifiers must note their Federal I.D. number on their RFP submittal. G.Listing of owners or principal stockholders H.List of persons with direct responsibility for operations of firm (history, resume). I.All expenses for making RFP responses to the City are to be borne by the qualifier. J.The successful Proposer(s) shall be required to enter into a Towing Franchise Agreement with the City within fourteen (14) calendar days of Notice that the Proposer has been selected. K.Proof of current valid County license to engage in tow services and certificate of good standing from Department of Consumer Affairs. SECTION 2- SCOPE OF WORK THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH IS ACTIVELY SEEKING QUALIFIED TOW COMPANIES TO PROVIDE VEHICLE TOWING SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL(RFP) TO PROVIDE Consider and/or limit Class of tows. CLASS “A”, “B” “C” AND “D” TOWING SERVICES. TOW COMPANIES WILL BE ISSUED A FRANCHISE TO PROVIDE TOWING SERVICES AS STATED IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. Confirm that City will not be charged a fee for THERE SHALL BE NO CHARGE FOR TOWING CITY VEHICLES WITH City vehicles. THE EXCEPTION THAT THE CITY WILL PAY A FLAT FEE OF $250 FOR THE TOWING OF A CLASS D VEHICLE. Confirm maximum charge for Class D. TOW RATES SHALL BE AS ESTABLISHED BY PALM BEACH COUNTY, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. BY SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL, PROPOSER AFFIRMS AND REPRESENTS THAT PROPOSER HAS REVIEWED THE COMPLETE SCOPE OF SERVICES THAT IS PART OF THE RFP. PAYMENT FOR TOWING WILL NOT BE MADE WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT CASE NUMBER, CITY VEHICLE NUMBER AND VIN NUMBER, AS APPLICABLE. IF MORE THAN ONE (1) TOW COMPANY IS SELECTED, THE CITY Consider maximum number SHALL UTILIZE A PER INCIDENT ROTATION SYSTEM OF OPERATIONS FOR THIS AGREEMENT. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT MORE THAN SEVEN (7) COMPANIES MAY BE QUALIFIED; NO MORE THAN SEVEN (7) PROPOSERS WILL BE AWARDED A TOWING FRANCHISE. Inside Storage and Outside Storage will be inspected by the Committee to be sure the compound is in compliance with Chapter (10), Article I, Sections 10-2 and 10-3 of the Code of Ordinances that it is free of loose debris, auto parts laying around, fence and Consider need for information of other business gate have locks, area is not susceptible to flooding, hedges are interests trimmed and landscaping is neat as addressed in Chapter 15, 216 of 228 Article IX. Also Chapter 2 Zoning, Section 8 that all storage of vehicles to be screened. Proposer should be primarily engaged in towing services and business interests in automotive/truck repairs, paint and body, salvage, junkyard, or recycling business must be limited and disclosed. SECTION 3- FRANCHISE FEE: Consider and set process for determining franchise fee. THE SUCCESSFUL TOW CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH THE ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE OF $TBD. THE FRANCHISE FEE IS PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH IN FOUR (4) QUARTERLY PAYMENTS, WITH THE FIRST PAYMENT DUE WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH. PAYMENTS 2, 3, AND 4 SHALL BE DUE 90, 180, AND 270 DAYS RESPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT. Consider annual increase to the Franchise Fee based on CPI or increase based on percentage THE FRANCHISE FEE FOR SECOND AND THIRD YEARS OF THIS increase of County tow rates. AGREEMENT SHALL BE IDENTICAL TO YEAR ONE. SECTION 4 - REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION, AN ORIGINAL “SO MARKED” AND FIVE (5) COPIES OF THE RFP AND THE ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN A SEALED ENVELOPE WHICH IS CLEARLY AND VISIBLY MARKED ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE : “THREE YEAR CONTRACT FOR VEHICLE TOWING ROTATION PROGRAM”. ALL RFP’S MUST BE SUBMITTED AND RECEIVED IN THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD., OR P.O. BOX 310, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33425-0310. PROCUREMENT SERVICES IS LOCATED IN THE MAIN CITY HALL COMPLEX, SECOND FLOOR. DEADLINE IS: APRIL 13, 2010, NO LATER THAN 2:30 P.M. (LOCAL TIME). All applications must be submitted as specified on the application pages. Any attachments must be clearly identified. To be considered, the application must respond to all parts of the RFP. Any other information thought to be relevant, but not applicable to the enumerated categories, should be provided as an appendix to the proposal. If publications are supplied by an applicant to respond to a requirement, the response should include reference to the document number and page number. This will provide a quick reference for the evaluators. Applications not providing this reference will be considered to have no reference material included in the additional documents. SECTION 5 - SELECTION CRITERIA: The RFP response should be designed to portray to the City how the qualifier’s range of services can best assist with the TOWING SERVICES. In order to evaluate the capabilities of all firms, each Consider other criteria RFP shall include, at a minimum, the following information: 1.Personnel information of each company director, officer, supervisor, driver and employee as follows: a)The names and positions of each driver to be assigned to this RFP. b)Resumes of personnel re: experience in towing. 217 of 228 c)Evidence of possession of required licenses or business permits. d)Evidence of previous experience in towing of a similar nature. Provide contact names and phone numbers along with project names and appropriate agency contacts. 2.Reference listing, including contact names and phone numbers. 3.A narrative statement describing the willingness and ability to meet the anticipated City towing needs considering the firm’s current and projected workload. 4.A list of all lawsuits in which the firm has been named as a party in the past two (2) years. 5.A list of other contracts, franchises or agreements with governmental agencies to provide towing service within the last five (5) years and: a)The status of the contract, franchise or agreement. b)The name and contact information for the agency. c)A statement describing why the contract, franchise or agreement was cancelled if it was cancelled for cause. Consider composition of Evaluation Committee SECTION 6- EVALUATION COMMITTEE: 1.The City Manager will appoint an Evaluation Committee that will review all RFP responses and determine of a proposer meets the minimum qualifications. 2.After evaluation is completed, the list of qualified proposers will be submitted to the City Commission for authorization to offer Franchise Agreements to one or more proposers. 3.EACH PROPOSER, BY SUBMISSION OF AN RFP RESPONSE, MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THE EVENT OF ANY LEGAL ACTION CHALLENGING THE AWARD OF A FRANCHISE, DAMAGES, IF ANY, SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE ACTUAL COST OF THE PREPARATION OF THE RFP. 4. EACH RESPONDENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS OF ALL AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER ALL ASPECTS OF TOWING. SECTION 7- QUALIFICATION OF THE FIRMS BY THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE The Evaluation Committee will determine which Proposers are qualified by considering the information provided in response the RFP and the following criteria: 1.Evidence of ability to provide Class A and B, C, and D tows. 2.List of company equipment to include model, year, towing capacity and equipment condition and schedule of which Class of tow each can handle. 3.List of storage compounds must be within 10 mile radius of City limits. 218 of 228 4.List of towing operators to include: Training of each operator (last 2 years), CDL Numbers and Annual Motor Vehicle Incident Report on all CDL holders. 5.List and provide copies of business tax receipts. 6.Comply with insurance requirements as stated in RFP. 7.Proof of Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit capability to cover Franchise Fee (letter from bonding or surety company). 8.Number of years providing towing services. 9.Listing of pending lawsuits. SECTION 8- DESIGNATION OF COMPANIES TO BE OFFERED A TOW FRANCHISE The City Commission shall consider the companies designated as qualified by the Evaluation Committee at a public hearing and select those companies that will be offered a Franchise Agreement. The final Franchise Agreement(s) will be formalized by the City Attorney. H:\1990\900182.BB\TOWING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT - Comm Direction v4.doc 219 of 228 220 of 228 10. C CITY MANAGER’S REPORT March 16, 2010 COBB ITY F OYNTON EACH AIRF GENDA TEM EQUEST ORM CMD: March 16, 2010 OMMISSION EETING ATE O PH PENINGSUBLIC EARING O CM’R THERITY ANAGERS EPORT A/P FAI NNOUNCEMENTSRESENTATIONSUTURE GENDA TEMS NO ATURE F A NB DMINISTRATIVEEW USINESS AI GENDA TEM CA L ONSENT GENDAEGAL BP$100,000 UB IDS AND URCHASES OVER NFINISHED USINESS CCL ODE OMPLIANCE AND EGAL S ETTLEMENTS RACC: Affirm that portion of Resolution No. R10-028 Authorizing EQUESTED CTION BY ITY OMMISSION the submission of an amendment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Application and Substantial Amendment to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) regarding the $400,000 previously allocated to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the purpose of providing homebuyer subsidies for the Ocean Breeze Development Project. ER: At its meeting of March 2, 2010 the City Commission tabled XPLANATION OF EQUEST the request to approve the above referenced portion of the resolution for further discussion, pending action by the CRA. The CRA Board is discussing this matter on March 15, 2010. CRA Staff is desirous of keeping the funding with the Ocean Breeze property. City staff believes the funds should be released for other NSP eligible activities within the Heart of Boynton area as defined in the approved 2001 Heart of Boynton Plan. As was noted at the time the grant was received, HUD required the City to use the NSP grant for the purpose of acquiring, rehabilitating, and marketing foreclosed properties to income eligible families. Although staff initially specified that the entire city would be targeted for the use of the NSP funds, in accord with the expressed wishes of the City Commission, the Miami office of HUD advised staff in December of 2009, of the necessity of identifying the “high priority areas of greatest need” in order to comply with the program criteria. (see Attachments). H? Staff recently attended a HUD workshop OW WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES in Miami where they were reminded that, as a result of pressure from Washington, there was an expectation that 90 percent of NSP funds (excluding Admin.) would be encumbered within 221 of 228 18 months from the start of the program. For the City this means that $2,673,311 must be encumbered not later than September 30, 2010. Staff is awaiting a response from HUD regarding the timing of the amended application. FI: Increase of $400,000 in the budget for the acquisition and rehabilitation of ISCAL MPACT foreclosed properties. A: Do not affirm the relevant portion of the referenced resolution. LTERNATIVES 222 of 228 223 of 228 224 of 228 225 of 228 226 of 228 227 of 228 Establish financing mechanisms for purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed upon homes and residential properties, including such mechanisms as soft-seconds, loan loss reserves, and shared-equity loans for low and moderate income homebuyers. Purchase and rehabilitate homes and residential properties that have been abandoned or foreclosed upon, in order to sell, rent, or redevelop such homes and properties. Establish land banks for homes that have been foreclosed upon. Demolish blighted structures. Redevelop demolished or vacant properties. 228 of 228