Loading...
Agenda 05-11-11 Community Relations Board Regular Monthly Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2011 7:p.m - 8:p.m. Commission Chambers Provides a vehicle for citizen input on problems directly affecting the delivery of services connected with health, welfare, safety and housing, and provides information programs. Also reviews and recommends expenditure of funds allocated by the Commission for social services. Aaenda I. Openings A. Call to Order B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes A. February Meeting B. March Meeting April: No meetinglno minutes to approve IV. Announcement: V. Approval of Agenda C. Additions, deletions, corrections D. Adoption VI. Public Audience INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS VII. Old Business: A. Transportation options follow up B. Finance Advisory Board follow up C. CRA follow up D. Survey follow up: Old School Project and Branding Boynton E. Marketing the Community Relations Board VIII. New Business A. Brian Miller resignation B. Advisory Board candidate recruitment IX. Adjournment: NOTICE IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DEOSION MADE BY THE OTY'S COMMUNm RELATIONS BOARD 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 em SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXIUARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABIUTY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE cm. PLEASE CONTACT cm CLERK'S OFFICE, (561) 742-6060 AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE cm TO REASONALBL Y ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL April 5, 2011 Terry Lonergan, 45 Rutland Lane, President of the Meadows of Boynton Beach 300 Property Owners Association, was speaking on their behalf. A fire had occurred on the City owned vacant lot within the community. Kids had built a make-shift fort in the buffer of non-native trees separating the Meadows and Nautica Sound development. The fire was quickly extinguished and no one was hurt or put in harms way. Ms. Lonergan had called Vice Mayor Ross and been told someone from the City would investigate the fire. Ms. Lonergan did not believe anyone from the City had been to the site of the fire. She had not been contacted by any City official acknowledging the need for an investigation. Requests had been made to the City to develop the property as a passive park because it was promised by the developer in the beginning to be a park. Ms. Lonergan asked the City to take care of their property and proposed the City deed the vacant lot to the 300 Property Owners' Association so the homeowners could do their own developing and eliminate maintenance costs for the City. Mr. Bressner liked the offer and would investigate the possibility. The Mayor noted the area had been an ongoing challenge and hoped the proposal could be accommodated. Dorey Kilgren, 370 Horizons East, advised the Boynton Intracoastal Group (BIG) appreciated the City's efforts. Most of the communities along Boynton intercoastal and some adjacent communities belong to BIG. It consists of primarily over 55 seasonal communities gathering to share information and help each other. As taxes rose during the early 2000s countless emails had been received related to the taxes. Some counties lowered the millage rate as property values escalated to compensate. Palm Beach County did not. Escalating taxes had a huge impact on seasonal communities with the majority of the properties being non-homesteaded. A typical over 55 owner lives in a one-bedroom condo on a fixed pension and is approximately 80 years young. As tax bills inflated, 80 and 90 year olds had to part with their Florida homes. Surrounding businesses suffer and favorite stores and restaurants vanish. Ms. Kilgren invited the City to become a voice for their communities restoring economic prosperity to all who live in Boynton Beach. Janice Christian, 154 Orange Drive, witnessed an incredible amount of disrespect toward Clifford Montross from the City Attorney at the last Commission meeting. She alleged the City Attorney's manner and comments were unconscious able and extremely rude. Mr. Montross had spoken against several of the Commissioners. The oath of office includes upholding the principles of the Constitution of the United States including freedom of speech. Vice Mayor Ross was in charge of the meeting and was quite capable of handling the situation without the City Attorney's interference. According to Roberts Rules of Order, it was not the City Attorney's place to speak since he had not been asked to speak by the Chair. Mr. Montross was never given an answer to the question he had posed and was treated very poorly. The residents that elected the Commission had the right to ask questions and get answers. She understood the City Manager's participation in the County committee was noteworthy and the City Ii @ Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL April 5, 2011 should be proud of his efforts. Ms. Christian felt the City Attorney's conduct had crossed the line many times and embarrassed many in the audience. The City Attorney owed everyone an apology for his disrespectful behavior. Jo..lynn SIebodnik, 625 Casa Loma Boulevard at Marina Village, was upset when the trolley was cancelled. She had discovered the Community Relations Board where the citizens have recourse and the residents can attend their meetings each month. Mike Wood, 803 NW 11th Street, presented a packet with information on a ordinance he was violating at the present time. He owned a truck that was over one-ton which he did not know was against an ordinance when he bought it in 2006. He had asked his homeowners association about the truck and a truck up to a one and a half ton was allowed in the neighborhood. It is a large pickup truck and he requested a variance to allow a pickup truck over one ton to be allowed in a residential area. He suggested a truck with a pickup bed on the back be allowed that would not obstruct view in either direction or obstruct the sideway. Mr. Wood had inquired of his neighbors if the truck was an issue and none complained. He hoped they would review his packet and pictures and issue a variance for his truck. Attorney Cherof was not aware of a variance that would apply. Mr. Bressner advised he would review the materials and respond. Vice Mayor Ross disclosed she had spoken with Mr. Woods. Mr. Woods explained it is a one and a quarter ton truck but registered as a one ton with the State of Florida. Mr. Bressner remarked the change suggested would involve changing the Code that would allow larger vehicles City-wide. Mayor Rodriguez requested more specifics be supplied for the Commission and Mr. Woods. The truck did fit in Mr. Woods neighborhood and did fit in his driveway, but it was larger than the average pickup truck. No one else coming forward, Mayor Rodriguez closed public audience. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Accept the resignation of Brian Miller, a regular member of the Community Relations Board Motion Commissioner Orlove so moved. Commissioner Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed. B. Accept the resignation of Barry Ravel, an alternate member of the Code Compliance Board Motion 7 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL April 5, 2011 A. Review alternatives to the City's Shopper Hopper program and provide direction to staff. Mr. Livergood reviewed a report from staff to continue or replace the Shopper Hopper system. The current system had served the City very well since its inception in the mid 1990s when Palm Tran only had 7 routes within Palm Beach County and now has 36 routes. It started as the Boynton Beach Transit Authority to supplement the route to provide the City residents an additional mass transit alternative. It evolved and the ridership preferred central pickup locations and residents were given specified routes in designated neighborhoods on a scheduled weekday and taken to certain destinations. It is a costly system to operate. Palm Tran had implemented the Palm Tran Connection in 2004 with smaller buses that provide a program much like the Shopper Hopper program. Palm Tran Connection charges $3 one way to a number of locations at the rider's request. Staff recognized the need for a system to transport the citizens throughout the community. The Shopper Hopper operating expenses for previous years was approximately $269,000 with revenues of only $9,500 with the General Fund supplementing the difference. The subsidy per rider would be just over $20. The increased Palm Tran routes travel north to south and east to west with hubs at the mall or Tri-Rail station. Another option could be provided by the Volen Center funded by the residents of Palm Beach County for the area south of Hypoluxo Road. Rides are free for those who ride to a primary care physician. The primary function was to transport people to County- wide Senior Centers. Private alternatives would include taxi cabs, limousines and private providers. Many communities provide taxi subsidy services by issuing taxi coupons with the funding divided between the rider and the community. The taxi service would be selected by the local jurisdiction that sets a defined budget not to be exceeded and reviewed each year. Staff recommended a combination of Palm Tran Connection and Mae Vole even though they are $3 per trip rather than the $.50 or $1 charged by the Shopper Hopper Program. The option may be better because they are now limited to set routes and the destination and time of travel is chosen by the rider rather than a fixed route. Commissioner Orlove thanked staff for the exhaustive report. The concern was the City was subsidizing 90% of the Shopper Hopper service for the residents. He did questions if taking elementary children to after-school programs would be affected and Mr Majors indicated the after-school busing was a separate system. Commissioner Orlove did want more information on the program in Wellington using a taxi subsidy program with a much reduced burden on the General Fund 16 (j) Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: SHOPPER HOPPER Reviewed By: TERRY LONERGAN Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): DISCONTINUE SERVICE. REPLACE WITH A SUBSIDIZED TAXI SERVICE WITHIN CITY LIMITS. CHARGING A FARE THAT WILL HELP COVER THE COST OF OPERATION PLUS REQUIRING THOSE HOAS AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE ON THE FIXED ROUTE OF THE SHOPPER HOPPER TO PAY A FEE TO PARTICIPATE Pros of Recommendation: FAC SURVEY RESULTS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT DISCONTINUANCE. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN FISCALLY SUSTANIBLE. RIDERSHIP DOES NOT WARRANT THE EXPENSE. Cons of Recommendation: DISCONTINUANCE WILL PRESENT A HARDSHIP FOR THOSE NEEDIN G TRANSPORTATION TO THE BOYNTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER AND OTHER STOPS ALONG THE FIXED ROUTES. SENIOR CENTER MAY LOSE NATIONAL ACCREDIDATION IF THE SERVICE IS ELIMINATED. References (Staff, Documents, and Public): FAC SURVEY; MEETING WITH WALLY MAJORS; ATTENDANCE AT SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Impact on 2011/12 Budget: WILL ADD $200,000 TO CITY BUDGET Impact on Out Year Budgets: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE WILL NO LONGER BE NECESSARY Impact on Citizens: LEAVES SENIORS WHO ARE UNABLE TO DRIVE WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION TO THE SENIOR CENTER. WALMART. TARGET. WALGREENS. CVS AND OTHER STOPS ALONG THE FIXED ROUTES. WILL ALSO CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR CHILDREN GOING TO AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS. ACTIVITIES AND SUMMER CAMP WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION Impact on City Staff: AT THE PRESENT TIME, 3 FIT AND 1 PIT EMPLOYEES WILL HAVE TO BE REASSIGNED OR RETIRED Committee Vote Result: For: _ Against: _ TABLE PENDING PRESENTATION OF "TRANSPORTATION REPORT" TO THE CITY COMMISSION. ALSO, THE POSSIBILITY OF THE AVAILABILITY OF PALM TRAN. C.lDocuments and Senjngs\carusoe\Local SellingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK8E\FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendalion - Terry Lonergan.doc The City of Boynton /Jcach . FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 @6:00 P.M. LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435 AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Discussion and voting on recommendations that were tabled at the March 21 meeting (Attached) · FAC E-Billing Recommendation - Don Scantlan · FAC Museum Recommendation - Merline Pamplona · FAC Pensions Recommendation - Mike Madalena · FAC Shopper Hopper Recommendation - Terry Lonergan · FAC Solid Waste Residential Garbage Collection Recommendation - George Feldman 3. Quick review of recommendations voted favorably or unfavorably at the March 21 meeting (Attached) · FAC Cell Phone Recommendation - Bill Shulman · FAC eRA Functions & Development Department Merger Recommendation - Dave Madigan · FAC Forestry & Grounds Recommendation - Merline Pamplona · FAC Golf Recommendation - George Feldman · FAC Hiring Freeze Recommendation - Dave Madigan · FAC HOA Contribution to City Programs Recommendation - Bill Shulman · FAC Library Recommendation - Merline Pamplona · FAC Paperless Billing Recommendation - Don Scantlan · FAC Recreation & Parks Recommendation - Merline Pamplona · FAC Revenue Increase Recommendations - Bill Shulman · FAC Sale of Surplus Physical Property Recommendation - Dave Madigan · FAC Sale of Surplus Real Property Recommendation - Dave Madigan · FAC Solid Waste Franchise Recommendation - George Feldman · FAC Solid Waste Recycling Recommendation - George Feldman . FAC Survey Recommendations - Don Scantlan · FAC Take Home Vehicles and Car Allowance Recommendation - Bill Shulman · FAC Voluntary Separation (VSP) Recommendation - Dave Madigan 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment Future meeting dates . April 11 . April 25 . May 9 @) 1 of 2 Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: Solid Waste - Residential Garbage Collection Reviewed BV: George Feldman Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Amend residential garbage collection schedules such that garbage is collected one time per week (ENTIRE CITY). Existing service levels provide for residential garbage collection two times per week. This can be scalable to allow regional neighborhoods to select lesser service frequency. Neighborhoods (HOAs) would need to respond to a prepared questionnaire, choosing twice a week or once a week pickup. After reviewing responses, a cost effective determination could be analyzed saving the City operational expenses and reducing cost to taxpayers or HOAs. This would be a cost neutral approach before implementation. Pros of Recommendation: This action would allow for a total cost reduction of approximately $275,000 annually assuming the entire City is affected. Some customers may prefer twice per week collection. Cons of Recommendation: There are a number of cons as follows: 1. Many residents need twice per week collection either because of family size or the amount of refuse generated. 2. There will likely be an up front cost to implement this program. Carts are available today in two sizes, 65 gallons and 95 gallons. Many residents also currently use much smaller 35 gallon carts that are being phased out due to collection difficulties. Therefore, if the City transitions to once per week collection, many residents will request larger carts in order to accommodate larger volumes of garbage. Those residents that ask for large carts should be required to pay for the replacement cost of around $55 per cart. 3. Some residents will place extra garbage bags beside the City cart and expect it to be collected. This cannot be done with automated trucks. Customer complaints will rise and public health could be impaired. The City could return to rear load collection vehicles to allow flexibility on how residents place their garbage at the curb. Rear load vehicles require three employees so this could require the City to actually add staff which could offset the savings to go with one day per week collection. 4. Residents can request two carts and pay an extra monthly fee of $6.00 per cart. The City has some situations like this now. If once per week collection is implemented, some residents may request an additional cart. They may not have room to store this cart. Internal City tracking of these extra carts would become difficult. C:\Documents and Settings\carusoe\Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OLK8E\FAC Solid Waste Residential Garbage Collection Recommendation. George Feldman.doc 5. The biggest negative impact would be to those residents who have regular garbage collection on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day and on the variable days of Christmas and New Years Day. fhe City does not collect garbage on these dates. Because the City is on a six day per week collection schedule (cost reduction measure in 2010), there are no make days available. Therefore, those with Thanksgiving Day garbage collection would go two weeks without garbage service and those whose collections days fait on Christmas and New Years will go three weeks without collection. 6. The public might expect a rate reduction in the monthly water bill. The public may perceive reduced solid waste services to correlate with reduced solid waste costs. This therefore would not benefit the General Fund deficit References (Staff, Documents, and Public): Discussion with Larry Quinn, Solid Waste Manager, Christine Roberts, Asst Director of Public Works, and Jeffrey livergood, Director of Public Works Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Savings of $275,000 to change entire City to once per week collection. Savings will vary if larger neighborhoods are allowed to opt in or out. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Regular inflationary growth Impact on Citizens: Impact on the public will be varied. Those that prefer once per week garbage collection would be pleased. Those that prefer twice per week collection will not. The most noticeable impact may be an increase in fly dumping. The City already experiences fly dumping despite the fact that the City collects garbage twice per week and also collects unlimited amounts of bulk trash and landscape waste twice per week. By reducing services levels for garbage collection, some may choose to fly dump causing the appearance of the community to diminish. Impact on City Staff: Two staff positions (Equipment Operators) will be eliminated. Committee Vote Result: For: _ Against: ___ TABLED - TO BE REVISED C:\Documenh and Settings\carusoe\local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OlK8E\FAC Solid Waste Residential Garbage CollectIon Recommendation - George Feldman.doc Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: Merge CRA Functions (CRA/BB Dev. Dept) (BB Dev DeptICRA) Reviewed By: David R. Madigan Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): The CRA based on its past year (s) actual reported public and private actions perceived public and private actions, is a perceived political "hot dog" and best left alone for the Boynton Beach Mayor and Commission to direct its immediate future. Pros of Recommendation: Neither the CRA or Boynton Beach Development Department compliment each other in their operations/missions statement. Merger considerations should be scrubbed. Cons of Recommendation: References (Staff, Documents, and Public): City Staff suggested areas of study for FAC in a memo dated 8/20/10. Impact on 2011112 Budget: NIA Impact on Out Year Budgets: NIA Impact on Citizens: N/A Impact on City Staff: Allow staff of CRA to stabilize, regroup and rededicate toward a successful operation led by a 7 person Boynton Beach Citizen CRA Board. The sooner the current 5 Commission Board Members step aside from the CRA Board and appoint 5 Boynton Beach Citizens to replace them to join the current 2 Boynton Beach Citizens on the eRA Board, the perceived political posture will end and measurable positive results can be achieved. Committee Vote Result: For: _7_ Against: _0_ C;\Documents and Settings\carusoe\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8f\FAC CRA Functions Development Department Merger Recommendation - Dave Madlgan.doc (j) Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject / Topic: Homeowner Association Contributions to City Programs Reviewed By: William Shulman Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Strongly recommend that the City institute this prOlUam .Contributions received will assist certain departments in obtaining urgently needed equipment which they cannot obtain during this budgetary crisis. Pros of Recommendation: Costs to City is minimal; consisting of typin!!. and mailing costs (and possibly updating the "Homeowner data file ". This program will assist certain departments to obtain much needed equipment they cannot now afford to purchase. It may also act to make Homeowner Associations feel part of aiding the City during this time of need. Cons of Recommendation: None. except perhaps some Associations may not respond because of their own financial problems. References (Staff, Documents, and Public): None Impact on 2011/2012 Budget: Will have very little impact on the 201 J /2012 budget because these items were not bud!!.eted for. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Probably none unless program is reinstituted which is not recommended. Impact on Citizens: Excellent results for citizens of Boynton Beach .No adverse effect because this will be a ioint effort by about 200 homeowner associations Impact on Staff: Minimal costs oftypin!!. and mailing and some administrative costs. Committee Vote Results: For:___7__ Against:__O_ C 'Ducuments and SNllO~s\carus()e\Lncal Se"If1~.s I'::mrorarv !nt(^ITlo::'l h!es',f):,k Sf- ~ A( HUA Ci'nirtbullon ro C Ilv t)f'lgrams Rccommt"lId:-tHon BlIi Shulman d<Jc Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject I Topic: Suggested Increases in Revenue Sources-2011/2012 Budget Year Reviewed By: William Shulman Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Strongly suggest these recommendations be implemented especially in view of projected budget deficits for the 201112012 budget year. Pros of Recommendation: Will increase revenues as follows: Revenue increases for fees Fire assessment increases Total $ 456,772 759.467 $ 1,196,739 * * Excludes other possible revenue increases not determinable at this time. Cons of Recommendation: There may be some negative feedback from certain citizens and businesses, since some people do not want to pay additional fees. But the increased revenues derived from this program will assist in keeping the property tax ratable increase to a lower level so that these people who complain (and who also reside in Boynton Beach and are subject to property taxes) will benefit from lower property taxes. References (Staff, Documents, and Public): See page I of cover letter "Reviewed the Following Documents) Impact on 201112012 Budget: Could possibly reduce the projected budget deficit by approximately $1,200,000 Impact on Out Year Budgets: Could also assist in reducing future budgets by approximately $1,200,000 Impact on Citizens: Affirmative impact. Will reduce any Increases In property taxes for taxpayers. Impact on Staff: Will require City staff to implement fee increases for all selected departments subject to fee increases. Committee Vote Results: For: _'_Against_O_ @J Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject / Topic: Suggested Increases in Revenue Sources-20 11/20 12 Budget Year Reviewed By: William Shulman Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Strongly suggest these recommendations be implemented especially in view of projected budget deficits for the 20 1l/20 12 budget year. Pros of Recommendation: Will increase revenues as follows: Revenue increases for fees Fire assessment increases Total $ 456,772 759,467 $ 1.196,739 * * Excludes other possible revenue increases not determinable at this time. Cons of Recommendation: There may be some negative feedback from certain citizens and businesses, since some people do not want to pay additional fees. But the increased revenues derived from this program will assist in keeping the property tax ratable increase to a lower level so that these people who complain (and who also reside in Boynton Beach and are subject to property taxes) will benetit from lower property taxes. References (Staff, Documents, and Public): See page ) of cover letter "Reviewed the Following Documents) Impact 00 2011/2012 Budget: Could possibly reduce the projected budget deficit bv approximately $1,200,000 Impact 00 Out Year Budgets: Could also assist in reducing future budgets by approximately $1,200,000 Impact on Citizens: Affirmative impact. Will reduce any Increases In property taxes for taxpayers. Impact 00 Staff: Will require City staff to implement tee increases tor alJ selected departments subject to fee increases. Committee Vote Results: For: _7 _Against_O_ Proposed Suggested Increases in Revenue Sources for Boynton Beach for Budget Year 2011-2012 @ Attn: Kurt Bressner, City Manager Date: February 15,2011 Su bject: Proposed Suggested Increases in Revenue Sources for Boynton Beach for Budget Year 2011-2012 From: William Shulman, Financial Advisory Committee Methodology and Discussion: A. Reviewed the following documents: 1. City of Boynton Beach, Financial Services Department, Financial Advisory Committee Review of Revenue Projections for all Funds ( through F/Y 2010/2011 2. City of Boynton Beach 2010/2011 Revenue Projections. 3. Ordinance of the City Commission of City of Boynton Beach Amending Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances Section 13-4 by Providing for a 5% increase in the Business Tax Fee Scheduler Proposed 6/19/2009) 4. Various Other Fee Schedules and Documents from Other Boynton Beach Departments. 5. Articles from Newspapers and Internet Sources 6. 2010 Local Government Financial Information Handbook, October, 2010, Pu blished by the Florida Legislature, Office of Economic and Demographic Research. B. Prepared a Summary Schedule by: 1. Type of revenue source 2. Proposed 2010/2011 annual revenue sources( only those applicable to this assignment) ['roposed Suggested Increa.>cs m Revenue 'Ollh:C\ !('- BOYnlon Beach ItJr Budget Year 2011.2012 ._--_._---,._-"------_._---~-~---.._.._,..~-"._-.._._.----~,.. ~-------,--"_. -. _..._.--..,..,.._..._..."~_...._--_...,'---_..."._-------.-.".-."--" 3. Comments and methods of increasing revenues 4. Anticipated additional revenues C. Discussion 1. In most cases it was determined that all departments, for all uses, should increase fees by a minimum of 10%. This is based on lack of increases over the past several years and the cost of living increases that did prevail during this period, thereby increasing the costs to deliver these services even with the City "pay freeze" which is effect. 2. It should be pointed out that there are several exceptions. It was determined that the licenses for alcoholic beverages , and all fines i.e. code enforcement, false alarms, library parking, etc. should be increased by 20% to act as a deterrent for future citizen violations 3. Further, the Fire Assessment increase should be approximately 30% because the present fee is so low ($68) and the increase to $88 for residential should be acceptable. See Survey Monkey results regarding this item. D. Other Items There are other items which should be considered for additional sources of revenue that will need further and more extensive research and investigation: I. Selling Waste Management Services to Ocean Ridge. 2. Selling Building Services to Briny Breezes and Ocean Ridge. 3. Assessing internet usage fees 4. More intense marketing of Intercoastal Boat Club. 5. Developing a program for naming rights at various public sites. 6. Possibility of getting revenue from inserting ad flyers in mailings of our water bills to residents. See examples of FP&L ad flyers. 7. Soliciting voluntary contributions from not- for - profit organizations such as religious organizations, hospitals, schools, CIl)ocumcnts and SettmgslcarusoelLocal Settings' r"mporary Internel hles,OI K8E\FM :~"v"nue Increase R"cummendatH,"s . Hd: Shulman doc Proposed Suggested Increases in Revenue Sources lor Boynton Beach lor Budget Year 2011-2012 (Ij) who avail themselves to City services. In so doing, we must be certain that such voluntary solicitations are not construed as a "tax". See article in the Wall Street Journal dated January 28, 2011. With regard to items number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, each of the appropriate City departments should immediately begin instituting a planned program to implement these programs, if said program will increase revenues. As to item 7, if this is agreeable and acceptable by the City Manager, the Financial Audit Committee can begin this program; similar to what was presented in the Solicitation of Homeowner contributions. E. Resultant Possible Increases in Revenues Based on a preliminary analysis and subject to further scrutiny and review, it is deemed that the following additional revenues could be achieved for the City of Boynton Beach. This excludes the items listed in Paragraph D. Other Items C\Documenls and Sellings\carusoe\l.ocal Sellings\Temporary Inlemel Files\OLK8E\FAC Revenue Increase Recommendations _ !JIll Shulman doc Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Toplc: Solid Waste - Residential Recycling Collection Reviewed By: George Feldman Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Eliminate Curb Side Recycling Pros of Recommendation: This action would allow for a total cost reduction of approximately $475,000 annually. This could lead other to a reduction in the monthly garbage fee paid by the customer or a corresponding increase in the fund transfer from Solid Waste to the General Fund. No other pros. Cons of Recommendation: There are a number of cons as follows. 1. Chapter 403 of the State Statutes created a goal of recycling of 75% of the waste stream by 2020. Without a local recycling program, the City would be unable to help meet this goal. 2. There has been expanded effort over the last two decades to encourage individual recycling efforts. The possible cut to local recycling shows that the recycling process has a cost to society 3. Elimination of curb side recycling would force an addition to the solid waste stream. These additional materials would have to be disposed of in the landfills rather than recycled. These recyclable materials would be placed into the regular residential garbage cart for disposal thereby taking up additional volume in the cart. Elimination of recycling services is therefore not compatible with other service reduction initiatives such as reductions in frequency of collection. One cart would probably not be able to handle the added regular garbage and the addition of the recyclable materials. 4. The public might expect a rate reduction in the monthly water bill. The public may perceive reduced solid waste services to correlate with reduced solid waste costs, hence a rate reduction. This therefore would not benefit the General Fund deficit References (Staff, Documents, and Public): Discussion with Larry Quinn, Solid Waste Manager, Christine Roberts, Asst Direction of Public Works, and Jeffrey livergood, Direction of Public Works Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Savings of $475,000. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Regular inflationary growth Impact on Citizens: Those residents that would still choose to recycle would need to locate other venues, both private and public (County). Impact on City Staff: Three staff positions will be eliminated. Bulk of savings is equipment and fuel Committee Vote Result: For: _0_ Against: _7_ C.\Oocuments and Settings\carusoe\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8E\FAC Solid Waste Recycling Recommendation - George Feldman.doc 1Z~ 1 of LV Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: City Services Survey, general Reviewed By: Donald Scantlan Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): Review the results of the City Services Survey and use them as a data point during budget discussions this year Pros of Recommendation: The results of this survey reflect the opinions of 513 citizens of Boynton Beach (using self-attestation as the source of residency). The survey did prevent two submissions from the same IP address to prevent overstuffing the survey. Although it is not obvious, the number of persons responding is a statistically significant number to represent the adults in Boynton Beach using a 95% confidence level and a +1- 5.7 error rate Cons of Recommendation: As stated above, the number of respondents represents a statistically significant sample size. What would make this an invalid assumption is that if the sample were not truly random. Since a very few respondents chose to enter their names, the assumption of randomness cannot be verified. The obvious question is, was there an abnormal number of a specific group represented in the survey (such as did more city employees answer the survey compared to the population of Boynton Beach). I believe (intuitively, not supported by data) that the results of questions 20 and 23 indicate that there was not an excess of city employees that answered the survey. References (Staff, Documents, and Public): The questions were developed thru a combined effort of city staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. The answers were from the general public who chose to respond. Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on Citizens: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both increases in fees and/or taxes as well as reduced or increased services available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on City Staff: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are possibilities for lay-offs, furloughs as well as some staff increases expressed by the opinions in this survey. Committee Vote Result: For: _7_ Against: _0_ C;\Documents and Settings\carusoe\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8E\FAC Survey Recommendations. Don Scantlan.doc 01. ') Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: City Services Survey, Question #8. What is your annual family income? Reviewed By: Donald Scantlan Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): The results of this question call into consideration the true randomness of the sample. Pros of Recommendation: Of the 297 respondents who provided their annual family income, 36% said their annual family income exceeded $lOOK. Since intuitively (new census data forthcoming would answer this specifically), I do not think that 36% of Boynton Beach residents have annual family income that exceeds $lOOK, then the answers in this survey may not be a true representation of Boynton Beach residents. Cons of Recommendation: Since there is the possibility of an excess of wealthier residents who responded to the survey, the opinions to allow increases in taxes and fees may not represent the actual opinions of the most of Boynton residents. References (Staff, Documents, and Public): The questions were developed thru a combined effort of city staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. The answers were from the general public who chose to respond. Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on Citizens: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on City Staff: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are possibilities for lay-offs, furloughs as well as some staff increases expressed by the opinions in this survey. Committee Vote Result: For: _7_ Against: _0__. C:\Oo~uments and Sett,"gs\carlJSoe\Lo~al Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8f\FAC Survey Recommendations _ Don Scantlando( --.\ 3 Of@) Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: City Services Survey, Question #s 11, 13, 18 & 26. How important were the following factors in influencing you to move to Boynton Beach? Question 13. Thinking back to the previous question about how important the following factors were in influencing you to move to Boynton Beach, how important are these same factors in influencing you to remain in Boynton Beach? Question #18. To maintain the property tax rate at 6.7626 mills, are you in favor of cutting services for Public Safety (j.e., Police, Fire, and Communications)? Question 26. Relating to Police coverage/response time, would you rather: Increase property taxes, or Reduce coverage and see a possible decrease in response time Reviewed By: Donald Scantlan Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): The results of the responses to these questions indicate the importance of public safety in the decision to move to and stay in Boynton Beach. It (public safety) received the highest number of extremely important responses. Items in the budget relating to public safety should be weighted higher relative to other issues. If this survey is conducted next year, a response option of "low taxes" should be added to questions 11 & 13. Pros of Recommendation: The factor of Public Safety as an attraction to get people to want to move to and remain in Boynton Beach is foremost, according to the responses. Citizens are willing to pay more taxes to keep good response times. Cons of Recommendation: Taking public safety issues "off of the table" means that other issues face deeper cuts or that taxes must be raised. References (Staff, Documents, and PUblic): The questions were developed thru a combined effort of city staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. The answers were from the general public who chose to respond. Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on Citizens: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on City Staff: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are pOSSibilities for lay-ofts, furloughs as well as some staff increases expressed by the opinions in this survey. Committee Vote Result: For: _7_ Against; _0_ C:\Oocuments and Setlings\carusoe\local Setlings\Temporary Internet Files\OlK8E\FAC Survey Recommendations _ Don Scantlan.doc 40f9 Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: City Services Survey, Question #s 11, 13 & 19. How important were the following factors in influencing you to remain in Boynton Beach? Question 13. Thinking back to the previous question about how important the following factors were in influencing you to move to Boynton Beoch, how important are these same factors in influencing you to remain in Boynton Beach? Question 19. To maintain the property tax rate at 6.7626, are you in favor of cutting Cultural and/or Recreation services (i.e., Library, Recreation programs)') Reviewed By: Donald Scantlan Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): The results of the responses to this question indicate the willingness of the community to forgo Cultural and/or Recreation services during these challenging times. City amenities and cultural factors received the lowest ratings in questions 11 & 13 (schools was second lowest for question 13, followed by city amenities). Pros of Recommendation: The factors of city amenities and cultural factors as an attraction to get people to want to move to and remain in Boynton Beach is insignificant, according to the responses. Citizens accept cuts in costs/services in these areas. Cons of Recommendation: Especially during challenging times, the use of city amenities is more critical to many citizens. As families look for ways to stretch their budgets, use of public facilities (library, parks and recreational facilities goes up). References (Staff, Documents, and Public): The questions were developed thru a combined effort of city staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. The answers were from the general public who chose to respond. Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on Citizens; Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are both cost savings and revenue increases available from the opinions expressed in this survey. Impact on City Staff: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there are possibilities for lay-ofts, furloughs as well as some staff increases expressed by the opinions in this survey. Committee Vote Result: For: _7_ Against: _0__ C:\Documents and Seltmgs\carllsoe\Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OlK8E\FAC SUNey Recommendations Don Scanrlan doc ,~ (~CI) 60f9C/ Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: City Services Survey, Question # 22. The City's Fire Rescue Assessment is a non-ad valorem fee (i.e., not based an property value). Are you in favor of an increase in the residential Fire Assessment, which is now set at $68 a year, to $88 a year and a corresponding increase in the current rates for non-residential buildings (e.g., commercial, institutional and industrial/warehouse bUildings) to enable Fire Rescue to maintain its current quality levels of emergency response times and level of service? For residential buildings, this represents a monthly increase of approximately $1.67 a month; for non-residential buildings the fee is calculated on a square footage basis. For a 10,000 square foot building, this represents a monthly increase of $39.22 for commercial buildings and $9.80 for industrial/warehouse buildings. Reviewed By: Donald Scantlan Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): The results of the responses to this question indicate the willingness of the community to pay more for the fire rescue assessment. This could offset fire department operational costs and reduce general fund expenditures for fire operations. Note cons below and comments to question 8. Since this assessment is levied on all properties (including those that pay no ad valorem taxes) the assessment is viewed by some as being more fair. Pros of Recommendation: The assessment increase would offset some costs currently borne by the general fund. Cons of Recommendation: This is a tax increase borne by all property owners. References (Staff, Documents, and Public): The questions were developed thru a combined effort of city staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. The answers were from the general public who chose to respond. Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Costs of fire operations currently being funded by the general fund, could be shifted to the revenue generated by increasing the assessment. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Costs of fire operations currently being funded by the general fund, could be shifted to the revenue generated by increasing the assessment. Impact on Citizens: This would be a tax increase on all residential property owners of $20/year and depending on the size of the commercial property an increase of roughly 30%. Impact on City Staff: It is expected that a dollar for dollar reduction in the amount of fire operations that would be shifted from the General Fund to be funded by the increased revenue from the fire assessment, thus, this in and of itself should have no impact on City Staff. However, the funds made available to the general fund because of this shift could make more funds from the General Fund available for other City operations. Committee Vote Result: For: _7_ Against: _0_ (:\Oocuments and Settinlls\carusoe\Local Settinlls\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8E\FAC Survey Recommendations. Don Scanllan.doc R 01 q Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committee Subject/Topic: City Services Survey, Question It 25 Relating to garbage pick up, would you rather' Decrease service (fewer pickupdays), or Increase fees Reviewed By: Donald Scantlan Recommendation (Specific Action Recommended): The results of the responses to this question indicate a reduction in service is preferred to increasing fees. I also talked to many citizens about this issue and the common response was that with the bigger garbage cans, pickup was only required once a week. Pros of Recommendation: While not expected to be a 50% cost reduction, significant savings should be available by reducing pick up to once a week Cons of Recommendation: larger households that generate a lot of garbage could have difficulties with once weekly pick up. References (Staff, Documents, and Public): The questions were developed thru a combined effort of city staff and the Finance Advisory Committee. The answers were from the general public who chose to respond. In addition to the responses to the survey, I personally asked a lot of citizens this question. Impact on 2011/12 Budget: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there could be significant savings to the city by reducing solid waste staff and reducing fuel and maintenance costs of sanitation vehicles. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Depending upon the decisions made by the City Commission, there could be significant savings to the city by reducing solid waste staff and reducing fuel and maintenance costs of sanitation vehicles. Impact on Citizens: Citizens who generate a lot of garbage may have to request another garbage can. Impact on City Staff: By changing to once weekly pick up, it is expected that fewer sanitation/solid waste workers will be required. Committee Vote Result: For: _7_ Against:_O_ C\Documents and Settings\carusoe\Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OLK8E\FAC Survey Recommendal1ons Don Scantlan.doc . (~ . v~ .~ 'N.J1' / \ '\J . \ ;j) 10f2~ Recommendation From Boynton Beach Financial Advisory Committ e I SUbJect/Topic: Solid Waste - Residential Garbage Collection Reviewed By: George Feldman Recommendation (SpecIfIc ActIon Recommended): Amend residential ga such that garbage is collected one time per week (ENTIRE CITY). Existing service levels provide for residential garbage collection two times per eek. This can be scalable to allow regional neighborhoods to select lesser service frequen Ne hborhoods (HaAs) would need to respond to a prepared questionnaire, choosing twice a wee or nee a week pickup. After reviewing responses, a cost effective determination could be analyzed s ving the City operational expenses and reducing cost to taxpayers or HOAs. This would be a cost eut I approach before implementation. Pros of Recommendation: This action would allow for a total cost re cti n of approximately $275,000 annually assuming the entire City is affected. Some customers m pr fer twice per week collection. Survey Says: Once a week garbage coUection preferred. Cons of Recommendation: There are a number of cons as follows: 1. Many residents need twice per week collection either because of fa refuse generated. available today in m h smaller 35 gallon if t e City transitions to ord r to accommodate Id be required to pay or the amount of 2. There will likely be an up front cost to implement this propam. Ca two sizes, 65 gallons and 95 gallons. Many residents also currently us carts that are being phased out due to collection difficulties. Therefor once per week collection, many residents will request larger carts i larger volumes of garbage. Those residents that ask for IaI'l8 carts s for the replacement cost of around $55 per cart. 3. Some residents will place extra garbage bags beside the Oty cart and It to be collected. This cannot be done with automated trucks. Customer complaints II ri and public health could be impaired. The City could return to rear load collection vehic s t allow flexibility on how residents place their garbage at the curb. Rear load vehicles req ire hree employees so this could require the City to actually add staff which could offset the sing to go with one day per week collection. 4. Residents can request two carts and pay an extra monthly fee of $6. some situations like this now. If once per week collection is implemen , me residents may request an additional cart. They may not have room to store this cart. Inte nal City tracking of these extra carts would become difficult. C:\users\GEORGE\AppOata\LocaI\MIcrosaft\Wlndows\Tempcnry Internet FlIes\tow\Content.lE5\RY6A25AR AC Id Waste Residential Garbage Collection Recommendatlon - Georp Feldmanl1].doc of :) 5. The biggest negative impact would be to those residents who have reg lar ~rbage collection on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day and on the variable days of Christmas and Ne Years Day. The City does not collect garbage on these dates. Because the City is on a si day per week collection schedule (cost reduction measure in 2010), there are no make days a aila Ie. Therefore, those with Thanksgiving Day garbage collection would go two weeks wit ut arbage service and those whose collections days fall on Christmas and New Years will 0 tree weeks without collection. I e ~ublic may perceive . lhis therefore would i 6. The public might expect a rate reduction in the monthly water bill. reduced solid waste services to correlate with reduced solid waste co not benefit the General Fund deficit References (Staff, Documents, and Public): Discussion with Larry Quinn Sol d Waste Manager, Christine Roberts, Asst Director of Public Works, and Jeffrey livergood, Director of P blic Works Impact on 2011/U 1Judaet: Savings of $275,000 to change entire City to 0 ce er week collection. Savings will vary if larger neighborhoods are allowed to opt in or out. Impact on Out Year Budgets: Regular inflationary growth Impact on Citizens: Impact on the public will be varied. Those that prefer onc per week garbage collection would be pleased. Those that prefer twice per week collection will t. he most noticeable impact may be an increase in fly dumping. The City already experiences fly dum ing espite the fact that the City collects garbage twice per week and also collects unlimited amounts of ulk rash and landscape waste twice per week. By reducing services levels for garbage collection, some ma choose to fly dump causing the appearance of the community to diminish. Impact on City Staff: Two staff positions (Equipment Operators) will be elimina ed. Committee Vote Result: For: _ Against: _ EVISED 3/27 /t I i I , "\U~"\G,"'G''''''''''U'''''''\M'-,,\'''"_\' __~ '''om.. "..\...\"'"~"''''''''''''^'' 1.0 'i.'.ld Waste Residential Garbage Collection Recommendation. George Feldman[tldoc I i I I '