Loading...
Minutes 05-01-12 MINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2012, AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 100 EAST BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Woodrow L. Hay, Mayor Lori LaVerriere, Interim City Manager William Orlove, Vise -Mayor Commissioner James Cherof, City Attorney Mack McCray, Vice Mayor Janet Prainito, City Clerk Steven Holzman, Commissioner Marlene Ross, Commissioner 1. OPENINGS A. Call to order - Mayor Woodrow L. Hay B. Invocation C. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Commissioner Ross Mayor Hay called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Vice Mayor McCray gave the invocation and Commissioner Ross led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. D. Brand Promise Statement Mayor Hay reviewed part of the Branding Promise. He exclaimed Boynton Beach has much to offer and the City Commission is very proud of the City. E. Agenda Approval: 1. Additions, Deletions, Corrections Commissioner Ross removed Consent Agenda Item 6 B. 2. Adoption Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to approve. Vice Mayor McCray seconded the motion. Vote The motion passed unanimously. 1 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 2. OTHER A. Informational Items by Members of the City Commission Commissioner Ross celebrated Earth Day and enjoyed seeing the solar project on the rooftop of the Emergency Operations Center. There were Electric Vehicle Charging (EVC) Stations at the City Library, and she expressed they were two great events. Commissioner Orlove explained he and the Mayor attended the County Commission meeting regarding the Dive Shop and the Marina. The Community Redevelopment Agency sought to alter and beautify the Marina; however, the County did not agree with the plans. The County requested staff bring back another solution which staff was addressing. He also attended an art walk in the Art District on Industrial Avenue and there was an art reception at City Hall celebrating its new exhibit. The artist was present. A project wherein the artist will float a panel into the Gulfstream and be tracked by a sensor to identify its travels would take place. Commissioner Orlove announced he was appointed Vice Chair of the South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Disposal Board ( SCRWTB), and Vice Mayor McCray was appointed Treasurer. The City operates this facility with the City of Delray Beach. There were some issues discussed relating to the Interlocal Agreement they have and he reminded the members he and Vice Mayor McCray have a duty to sit as members of that Board, the City Commission and Community Redevelopment Agency Board. At a later time, he would request an item be put on the agenda regarding the City's issues with the Interlocal Agreement. The City of Delray Beach was doing the same, and there would be items to discuss at the July meeting. Commissioner Orlove worked with the Recreation and Parks Department regarding the Wedding on the Waterway which would occur on May 26, 2012, at 4 p.m. for the nuptials of Esther Baptiste and TiMarc Pierre. All components of the wedding were donated by local businesses, and it was a great way to showcase Oceanfront Park. Vice Mayor McCray attended the Senior Center Volunteer Breakfast and as a senior citizen himself, was excited about the enthusiasm of the young people there. He complimented staff on a job well done. Mayor Hay reiterated he also attended the SCRWTB Quarterly Board Meeting and the Senior Citizen Breakfast. The attendees were jubilant. He attended the League of Cities meeting and noted there are issues forthcoming that could affect the City which he would speak about with the City Manager. He commented the matters may come back to the Board. 2 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 He attended the Arbor Day Tree Planting at Oceanfront Park and participated in planting a tree. Six trees were planted and he commented it was a fantastic project. Lastly, he commented the community March occurred on April 28th. Over 1,000 individuals participated in spite of the rain. After the March, a rally took place which was also well attended. There are activities and programs for youth that are being planned. He invited all to visit the website which was www.boyntonunited.com for more information as well as videos and pictures of the event. He thought the City was moving in a positive direction and he thanked all who participated. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMUNITY & SPECIAL EVENTS & PRESENTATIONS Mayor Hay announced the proclamations were posted in the hallway and he would read a shortened version of them. A. Proclaim the month of May as "National Preservation Month" with a brief presentation by staff and Gregory Mount, PhD Student, Department of Geosciences, Florida Atlantic University Mayor Hay read a condensed version of the proclamation which was presented to Mr. Mount. Warren Adams, Boynton Beach Historic Preservation Planner, explained part of his responsibilities was to identify historic sites and the Barton Memorial Park Cemetery caught his attention. The Cemetery is located at the corner of NW 5th Street and NW 12th Avenue abutting 1 -95. He explained the Cemetery has a turbulent history. For quite some time, it was left alone and became unkempt. It was used as dump and around 1979, the City brought the Cemetery up to standard. There was always a question whether some human remains were relocated to the Sara Sims Cemetery to allow for the construction of 1 -95, but his research suggested it was never done and the City should have a Cemetery which maintains its integrity. The County Archeologist was contacted who suggested Mr. Mount of FAU may be of assistance. Mr. Adams explained his research reflects there were 60 burials, but there were only 20 headstones and the question was whether they could identify how many burials took place and where they were. Mr. Mount conducted geographical research, free of charge. The estimated value of the service was between $8,000 and $10,000. Mr. Mount provided a brief PowerPoint presentation and explained the research was done as a teaching experience for FAU students. They used Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) which provides for rapid data collection. He explained the methodology used and explained that based on the data, he believes there are potentially buried objects, but they have no means to confirm what they are. When asked if there was any available land at the Cemetery, as the City was running out of cemetery lots, Mr. Mount expressed some areas appeared clear. 3 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 B. Proclaim May as Mental Health Month. Accepting the proclamation will be Ms. Gerda Klein of the Boynton Beach Mental Health Initiative (BBMHI). Mayor Hay read a condensed version of the proclamation which was presented to Ms. Klein. C. Proclaim May 3, 2012 as the National Day of Prayer. Pastor Chuck Brannon, Gateway Community Church, will accept the Proclamation. Mayor Hay read a condensed version of the proclamation. The representative was not present to accept the proclamation. D. Proclaim the month of May as Better Hearing Month. Accepting the proclamation will be Dr. Valerie Rossetti. Mayor Hay read a condensed version of the proclamation which was presented to Dr. Rossetti. E. Request for closed door session to be held at the end of the regular City Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 2012 regarding CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC., Plaintiff vs. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, Defendant - Case No. 502011 CA014815XXXXMB(AJ). Attorney Cherof announced the request noted above and commented the City Commission, City Manager, Special Counsel and he would attend the session which was anticipated to last about 20 minutes. 4. PUBLIC AUDIENCE INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS (at the discretion of the Chair, this 3 minute allowance may need to be adjusted depending on the level of business coming before the City Commission) Reverend Fredrick Garbandal, 2018 S. Federal Highway, commented about traffic at the intersection of S. Federal Highway and Woolbright Road while the Intracoastal Bridge was up. The traffic backed up and caused a massive traffic jam and a fire truck and ambulance could not get through. He requested the City synchronize the traffic lights so when the bridge is up, travelers on Woolbright Road not be permitted to cross Federal Highway, because it was the cars on Woolbright that blocked the north /south traffic flow on Federal Highway. 4 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 Mark Karageorge, 240A Main Boulevard, thanked all associated with the community march and Bury the Violence movement. He noted leadership was shown and was appreciated. He commented one -fifth of the participants were students or school district personnel. There was a Teen and Leadership Summit that occurred later that day. On Friday, the City, Community Redevelopment Agency and Chamber will hold an event for Homeowner and Condo Association leaders and business leaders. "Building a Better Boynton Beach" was the workshop to be held at the Woman's Club. The Chamber will handle registration. He commented economic development was occurring. The Branding Promise would also be discussed. The Taste of Boynton at Benvenuto Caterestaurant will be held on May 17th. He encouraged all to obtain tickets early from the Chamber as the event always sells out. David Katz, 67 Midwood Lane, provided the clerk with a copy of official records. One document was an affidavit signed by former Mayor Rodriguez, and duly notarized on October 18, 2011, indicating his place of residence for the last four years. He commented that this meant he either lied on his fitness to run for office and serve, or he violated federal banking laws, because it has to do with a transfer of property. He commented this speaks to Mr. Rodriguez's character. He commented when an injustice is done and one knows of it and allows it to continue, they are just as guilty as the perpetrator of the injustice. He expressed his opinion the Interim City Manager was pressured by the former Mayor who alleged to her that he was lobbied by Mr. Katz. He pointed out the matter was brought up four years later. He explained the Interim City Manger took those statements as the truth over the statements of four elected officials, two of them former commissioners, and the findings of the State's Attorney. Mr. Katz thought she should admit she was pressured, just as she was pressured to cover up a DCF investigation. David Dennis, 1314 S. Seacrest Boulevard, thanked the Commission and all City Divisions that were involved in the Bury the Violence March. He offered his sincerest thanks to the City for the opportunity to provide a landmark March. He supported Boynton United to Bury the Violence and requested a resolution be given the last weekend in April each year to Boynton United, a Celebration of Non - Violence. Dr. Piotr Blass, 113 W. Tara Lakes Drive, supported the March and favored making it permanent. He noted Gandhi was a great prophet of non - violence and teacher of Martin Luther King. He thought it was appropriate that Boynton Beach be dedicated to non - violence. He proposed the only individuals in the City with firearms be law enforcement and military personnel. 5 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 He also commented he is a scientist and there are individuals with hearing problems, but it should be a problem of the past. He meets many senior citizens that cannot hear and pointed out there is a web application individuals can obtain for the telephone that can convert a voice message to text. Charles Gaulkin, 8 Colonial Club Drive, had a question about the Commission's procedures. There was a speaker who wanted to speak earlier about the high school, but was advised it was not the appropriate time for comment. It was clarified Public Audience was for items not on the agenda. Since the item was on the agenda, he could speak to that item at that time. Herb Suss, 1711 Woodfern Drive, relayed he and his wife are volunteers at Galaxy Elementary School, and the principal was very appreciative of the good relationship the School has with the City. He noted former Commissioner Bob Ensler initiated the Boundless Park and thought there should be some commemoration of his efforts at the Park such as a plaque or bench. Additionally, he noted business coming into the City was up 35% to 40 %. He expressed his gratitude to all City departments for working hard under a tough budget. He thought there should be some recognition by the City's residents of the employees' work as it should not be taken for granted. He did not support outsourcing any City function. Paul Dalton, Teacher at Forest Park Elementary School, was present with Safety Patrol Captains Carine Silvan and Marcio Baris. Ms. Silvan thanked all who donated to the Safety Patrol's Washington D.C. trip. Mr. Dalton added the entire school was appreciative of the donations to allow the students to participate in the trip. Vice Mayor McCray commented he represented the Poinciana School Safety Patrol years ago and it was a joy. He commented the students were in for the experience of a lifetime and he acknowledged the students had to be excellent students to be on the Patrol. He commented the City was proud of them. No one else coming forward, Mayor Hay closed Public Audience. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Appoint eligible members of the community to serve in vacant positions on City advisory boards Motion Vice Mayor McCray appointed Brad Sveldson as a regular member to the Special Events Ad Hoc Committee. Commissioner Orlove seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 6 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 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 regular meeting held on April 17, 2012 B. Accept the second quarterly report regarding the Volen Center Shopper Hopper program This item was pulled by Commissioner Ross as she wanted to raise awareness of the program. Wally Majors, Recreation and Parks Department Director, commented there was an upswing in the ridership, consistent with what they experienced in the past. Part of the increase was attributed to seasonal residents. As to funding, the Volen Center had not received an update regarding their application to help expand their lift program. This program was discussed in September of last year as an alternative to provide transportation for seniors. Mr. Majors explained without knowing about the grant, he thought they could still provide the service as it currently exists. Ms. LaVerriere commented on the grant for the fift and explained the funding cycle for it was due for January of next year. She anticipated hearing about the grant in the summer and noted the grant was through the South Florida Regional Transit Association. She agreed there had been a push to move forward with the grant as the deadline for it was September of last year. Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to accept the report. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Approve a motion to release final surety bond to the Sembler Company in the amount of $220,000 for road work constructed on Old Boynton Road as part of the Boynton Town Center project. D. Approve reduction of the performance bond by the amount of $396,000 for the completion of the improvements to Gulfstream Boulevard in association with the Walmart project. 7 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 E. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R12 -040 - Approve a contract with A -C -T Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. of Bartow, FL for "ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE LINKS GOLF COURSE" in the amount of $80,000 as a result of RFQ #043 - 2911- 12/TWH. 7. BIDS AND PURCHASES OVER $100,000 A. Approve award for "Annual Bid for Medical and Drug Supplies ", Bid No. 047 - 14102- 12 /JMA to the following four vendors; Bound Tree Medical, LLC, Guardian Medical Products, Henry Schein, Inc., and Midwest Medical Supply Co., LLC. The projected annual expenditure for these supplies is $103,000 Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to approve. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion. Vice Mayor McCray requested staff comment as he wanted to ensure staff agreed with the item and that it was the best they could do for the two cities. Tim Howard, Deputy Finance Director, explained both Delray and Boynton Beach worked together on the specifications. Delray collected the bids, tabulated them and would seek the Delray Beach City Commission approval first. It would then come to the Boynton Beach City Commission. He was in agreement with the item. Vote The motion passed unanimously. B. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R12 -041 - Approve the attached Agreement with Sensus USA Inc. (Sensus) for Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and authorize execution of the Agreement by the Interim City Manager in order to standardize meter reading equipment and regain meter reading efficiency. Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to approve. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion for discussion. Barry Atwood, Finance Director, reviewed at the last meeting, the City Commission voted to proceed with negotiations with Sensus for the replacement registers on top of 8 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 the meters. He recognized Barb Conboy and Waneya Bryant of the Utilities Department for their efforts on the matter. With the assistance of Davenport Lawrence, they negotiated free replacement of warranty items that went bad, and a deeply discounted price to replace the out of warranty units. He explained there are three kinds of registers. The first involved staff manually reading the register which the City does not do. The second type, an AMR System, which the City does have, used a truck to drive by and if all goes well, a computer records the meter consumption. That was the method that was failing. The third and more sophisticated system was a tower reading system, similar to wireless, which continually reads water consumption, which the City would move to. Currently, 6,000 of the 30,000 registers failed. He explained the conversion process would take two to three years. He hoped with final approval, they could start next week. The cash credit was negotiated. The only item that had been pending was the catastrophic element of 4% was not approved by the higher management at Sensus. As to the cost involved in maintaining the upgraded equipment, Andy Honeycut, Davenport Lawrence, clarified should that equipment fail, the equipment would be shipped to the City and replaced by City staff. If it exceeded the 4% failure rate, Sensus would assume the equipment replacement and labor to install. He noted a Catastrophic Warranty is a very unique item in the agreements they have with a few of their customers, and the City was fortunate to be one of those cities. He noted the City of Apopka used the AMI system and has a read rate of 99 %. He believed Boynton Beach would have the same success. Vice Mayor McCray recognized employees Patricia Kellner, Derrick Russell and Mark Hurley, of the Meter Services Division, who went above and beyond the call of duty, going outside their scope of work, on their own time. He praised them on a job well done. Vote The motion passed unanimously. 8. CODE COMPLIANCE & LEGAL SETTLEMENTS None 9. PUBLIC HEARING 7 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE AGENDA PERMITS 9 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 The City Commission will conduct these public hearings in its dual capacity as Local Planning Agency and City Commission. A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 12 -007 - FIRST READING - Amending Section 26- 8, "Water and sewer connection, deposit and service charges ", of the City's Code governing water and wastewater rates. The revised fee structure for particular services provided to utility customers will be effective July 1, 2012 (TABLED ON 4/17/12) Motion Vice Mayor McCray moved to remove. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 12 -007 by title only on First Reading. Motion Vice Mayor McCray moved to approve. Commissioner Orlove seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Orlove inquired, in comparisons with other municipalities, whether the charges were fair and reasonable, and whether it would be a deterrent to some of the issues raised in the backup materials. Staff believed it was fair. They had surveyed other municipalities and found the rates for Boynton Beach were slightly lower. Staff also believed the fees would deter certain aspects, especially theft of services or meters, which currently have no penalty. Staff calculated the cost for each service provided that had no charge and ensured the recommended fees would cover just the cost to perform the service. No profit would be made. Mayor Hay commended staff for thinking outside the box. The study was well done and was available for public inspection in the City Manager's office. It was also suggested a copy of the survey be placed at the Library. Vote City Clerk Prainito called the roll. The vote was 5 - 0. B. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 12 - 010 - FIRST READING - Amend the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to implement recommendations of the Moratorium Study, Notice of Intent (NOI) #2011 -01, pertaining to 1) location of not - for - profit uses in certain zoning districts, and 2) the replacement of the lists of approved uses 10 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 for the three Planned Industrial Development Districts (PIDs) with the standard use regulations listed in the Use Matrix. Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 12 -010 by title only on First Reading. Motion Vice Mayor McCray moved to approve. Commissioner Orlove seconded the motion. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, commented the Department was requesting a short extension of the Notice of Intent (NOI). If given, they would like to have the Planning and Development Board review the document and it would return to the City Commission in June. The City adopted an Economic Development Initiative which resulted in the NOI, in order to enact a moratorium to hold all in place while a zoning study was conducted. The focus was on Not - For - Profit (NFP) businesses in certain zoning districts, with special emphasis on Planned Industrial Development Districts and the corresponding use standards and zoning matrix. There were issues regarding religious uses and charter schools. Those uses were removed from the moratorium, but were included in the zoning study. He reviewed a PowerPoint presentation detailing the objective was to maximize contributions to the tax base, maximize land for profit businesses and maintain a defensible Code. The study identifies locations for NFPs and land incompatibilities. It would avoid creating non - conforming uses and it preserved priority land. A list of NFP organizations in NOI affected zoning districts was distributed as Exhibit "A" and reviewed. In general, the costs exceeded the benefits. Mr. Rumpf noted land availability was limited and staff wanted to preserve those lands that were most important in terms of tax values. There were 71 vacant properties in commercial and industrial districts and 8 in mixed -use districts. The recommendations were broken down into NFP and Planned Industrial District categories. Many NFPs were better off closer to their user base, which was why the new Social Service use was added to the R -2 and R -3 districts as conditional uses. The uses were currently zoned as offices and were located throughout the City. NFPs generally included social services, places of worship, schools, civic and fraternal organizations and museums. These would be permitted in the C -1 and C -2 Districts. Schools were permitted in PUDs classified with Government and Institutional land use options. Houses of worship would be permitted in 13 zoning districts excluding Public Use and Recreation Districts. Schools would be allowed in 9 of the 24 zoning districts and social service organizations were limited to four zoning districts. 11 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 One of the study objectives was to avoid creation of non - conforming uses. Staff proposed that any use that was not permitted due to the changes in the use matrix would not become non - conforming. They would remain conforming with restrictions added to expansions. A question was posed about the Women's Circle as they had wanted to purchase homes. It was an expansion but not on the same lot. Mr. Rumpf explained it would be subject to the non - conforming rule. If expansion was wanted, the property could be rezoned and the request brought to the Planning and Development Board and the City Commission. The changes were user - friendly, advanced the City's Economic Development Initiatives and created review criteria. An adoption schedule was also reviewed. It was hoped the Planning and Development Board would review the request on May 22nd, be considered by the City Commission on June 5, 2012, and adopted on June 19, 2012. Maps of the City depicting the location of the various uses within the City were reviewed and it was suggested it be included in the backup materials when the Ordinance goes to second reading. An inquiry was also made if other entities that could be affected were informed of the potential impact. Mr. Rumpf responded staff identified several but had not approached NFPs individually. It was suggested the changes be clearly communicated. Mr. Rumpf agreed and commented Sister Ryan had already called and would be meeting with him. Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to approve Proposed Ordinance 12 -010. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion. Vote City Clerk Prainito called the roll. The vote was 5 - 0. 10. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Commissioner Holzman requested hearing Item B first as there were several attendees in the audience present for the item. 12 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to change the order of the business of the day to allow for public discussion first on Item 11.B. There was agreement the speakers would be limited to three minutes. B. Presentation and discussion of two proposals for Redevelopment of Old High School. Dr. Piotr Blass, 113 W Tara Lane, felt the Old High School was originally designed as an educational institution and had a great history. After hearing both proposals, he hoped there would be a compromise allowing a museum to exist and fulfill an educational role. He was sure some space would be there perhaps for a charter school or lectures. He also requested the City continue to own the school. Barbara Ready, 329 SW 13th Avenue, read a statement introducing James Carras, Principal of Carras Community Investment Inc., in Ft. Lauderdale. He was retained by the Historical Society to review the financial packages of both proposals. She indicated this was the last, best chance to bring the Old High School to its full potential and become an asset to the entire community. James Carras, Principal of Carras Community Investment, Inc., distributed a memo detailing some concerns about the financing of the proposals. More specifically, he discussed New Market Tax Credits (NMTC). The U.S. Treasury authorized $3.5 billion and about 25% of it, or $840 million was available to Community Development Entities (CDE) and about 30 to 35 transactions financed with the NMTCs would occur in Florida. The program has not been reauthorized for fiscal year 2013 so the commitments being made in Florida would be to the highest quality and best fiscally structured proposal. He noted the New Urban Communities was a mixed -use project, and he opined it was unlikely to be considered for the NMTCs because of the multiple non - connected sites. The regulations require the project must be on contiguous tracks, per Statute. Any CDE making the decision to finance the building would need a private ruling letter from the IRS, which could take up to six months and it was unlikely a CDE would finance entities requiring such letter. Lansing Melbourne also requested the NMTC and obtained a soft letter from TD Bank. While the letter was not binding, it did indicate strong interest in financing the project. As to the guaranteed rent contained in the New Urban Communities proposal, their financing structure was for 20 years, not a seven -year term. The seven -year term was for the NMTC and the City and /or CRA would be responsible for the rent for 20 years. 13 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 There is no underwriting of a start -up museum, so they were not a viable tenant from an underwriting view. The residential component of the proposal did not reflect 20% of the units must be affordable and available to individuals earning 80% of the median income, which was not indicated in the pro forma. Therefore their numbers are higher than they could be because of the 20% requirement. Paul Kerchof, 702 NW 10th Avenue, favored the New Urban proposal or anything to save the building. The building was crumbling for 10 years and something needed to be done. He was aware it would cost millions to renovate the building and the City did not have the funds. He commented the City tried to give the building to a developer, but there was no interest until last month. The museum would spend $5 million to refurbish the building and funnel people to the downtown. He suggested giving away land that is not utilized and removing it from the tax rolls. The developer was assuming all the risk. He urged the City Commission to take a careful look. Mike Kane, 309 SW 8th Avenue, Forest Park Neighborhood Association, favored the Lansing Melbourne proposal and thought it was best for what the community needs. Jeff Morgan, 745 SW 1st Court, urged the City Commission to make a decision for one of the proposals. Sherrie Johnson, 145 NE 4th Avenue, supported restoration. She commented as a social service agency, they see needs in the community. She thought the location of the Lansing Melbourne project would benefit the community as it basically was a walking community and the proposal would provide a great opportunity for employment. When she spoke with a prior developer about the development of MLK Boulevard, the key element was to have a grocer within a mile of the neighborhood. She commented the Green Market was almost an identical concept. As she wanted to be the area grocer, she hoped there would be some tweaking in providing an affordable food center and thought there could be some modifications in the landscaping. She requested those factors be kept in mind. Jerry Taylor, 1086 SW 26th Avenue, explained the two options presented require the City Commission to give away hundreds of thousands of dollars in City and CRA funds and property. He acknowledged some think of the high school as historic, but suggested, as a third option they build a memorial using a cornerstone or part of the fascia next to the Schoolhouse Children's Museum. Using technology, they could project pictures of the school onto the wall and include its history. He noted if the building was torn down, there would be commercial entities lining up to purchase it for the money the City needs, while creating a tax revenue. The City would have a new facility constructed for less money than it would take to rehabilitate the building. He requested the City Commission look at Option 3. 14 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, favored the Museum of Natural History. He expressed it had many of the elements of success and it would be in an area the residents want to be an up and coming arts and educational area. There is a housing boom occurring in Boynton Beach for rental housing. It fits in well with the Children's Schoolhouse Museum, and it would not require an extreme amount of renovation. As to the Lansing Melbourne proposal, Mr. Buchanan felt adding glass cubes would not do anything. He noted putting a restaurant there did not guarantee success as restaurants have a high failure rate. The Lansing Melbourne proposal would destroy the building's historical significance and relied on the same difficult concept as the other proposal. He requested the City Commission move forward with New Urban. Brian Edwards, 629 NE 9th Avenue, disagreed with Mr. Buchanan's comments and he supported Lansing Melbourne. He agreed the project would cost money, but he thought it was time to build something as it has been discussed for 15 years. He commented his research indicated everything Lansing Melbourne touched turned to gold. Every project was beautiful, long- lasting, and it served the community well. He felt the City should use the CRA money and the project works to the benefit of the City. Mike Fitzpatrick, 175 SW 2nd Street, spoke in opposition to the New Urban proposal. He noted they planned to put a traffic circle on Seacrest which he opposed since Seacrest was widened in 1970 to four lanes for emergency vehicles and improved response time. He pointed out the average attendance for eight museums was 237,000. He commented this would be a decrease of 200,000 because it involved bulldozing the Children's Schoolhouse Museum and Kids Kingdom. He noted 1,500 volunteers helped build Kids Kingdom, and it would displace programs at the Civic Center. Vice Mayor McCray left the dais at 8:32 p.m. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building was occurring in Boynton Beach and in Galaxy Elementary School and the building needed to be LEED certified. Mr. Fitzpatrick did not believe below- market value apartments would be beneficial and the financing was questionable. He attended the school but preferred Option 3 to the New Urban Group. Vice Mayor McCray returned to the dais at 8:34 p.m. Emily Little, 113 SW 30th Avenue, was born and raised in Boynton Beach. The school means everything to her. She agreed with the comments made by Mr. Edwards and requested the City Commission do something for Boynton Beach. It was time to outdo Delray Beach. 15 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 Voncile Smith, 1747 Banyan Creek Court, President of the Boynton Beach Historical Society, was excited about the two proposals, but the question of funding arises and they were concerned about the tax credits, feasibility and timeline. There was a concern they would not be available next year which was why they retained Mr. Carras. The proposal by Lansing Melbourne offered some opportunity for the tax credits where the other did not. She requested this be kept in mind. She urged the City Commission not to pass up the opportunity or engage in any more studies and get the project underway. Ms. Smith clarified she was speaking for the Historical Society. Herb Suss, 1711 Woodfern Drive, had concerns with the New Urban Community proposal as the City was financially strapped. He thought the school and land should be leased to the developer. He thought the Lansing Melbourne presentation looked okay but both should be looked into. He also thought option 3 should be considered. He did not like the traffic circle proposed by New Urban Communities and thought the information about rental apartments and contiguous properties should be researched. If not going with Lansing Melbourne, the City Commission should consider option 3. Linda Stabile, 3811 Wall Street, Delray Beach, supported the Lansing Melbourne proposal which was supported by the charrettes. Commissioner Holzman left at 8:42 p.m. She commented the residents want to have financing in place that would not burden the taxpayers. The Natural History Museum, when located in Dania Beach, experienced bankruptcy. She commented only one proposal was truly viable which was the Lansing Melbourne proposal. She requested the Commission think what the residents asked for and what would benefit them as taxpayers. Audrey Danster, 331 NW 1st Avenue, owns a historic home in Boynton Beach. She commented it was in deplorable condition when she purchased it and it was now a showpiece. She was proud of how she took it from something that was dilapidated and made it into something beautiful. She favored saving the high school. Commissioner Holzman returned to the dais at 8:45 p.m. She was glad the City obtained a Historic Planner. She was not in favor of removing the Civic Center because parking is needed and using the high school for cultural events and classes. Ms. Danster commented the quality and workmanship of the high school can not be replicated and it was important to save it. It was a part of the City and its history. 16 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 William Combes, 631 Woolbright Road, was in full support of the Lansing Melbourne proposal. John McGovern, 2620 Spiceberry Lane, commented in addition to his written comments on the issue, he felt in the final analysis, Lansing Melbourne would provide the greatest public good for the community. An expert commented on the improper application of the NMTC and the non - contiguity which was a core issue. Mayor Hay closed public comment. Commissioner Orlove was happy there was a Board that was supportive of preserving the building for the benefit of the public. He noted there were a lot of moving parts with each proposal. The Commission has to determine which vision they want to take. He acknowledged the support for Lansing Melbourne, but was concerned about the historical side of it. He felt their proposal altered the building both on the interior and exterior. He wanted to move forward with a proposal for New Urban Communities, and noted they will be travelling a path that may have obstructions, but they still had the ability to go back to the other proposer. Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to have staff work with New Urban on their proposal and to come back in 120 days with more information and whether or not this project is viable and in the best interest of the City. Mayor Hay passed the gavel to Vice Mayor McCray and seconded the motion. The motion failed 2 — 3 (Vice Mayor McCray and Commissioners Holzman and Ross dissenting). Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to ask staff to move forward with Lansing Melbourne and to come back in 120 days to provide more information about the proposal, with both financial and other informational details they need to move forward in the best interest of the City. Commissioner Holzman seconded the motion for discussion. He commented in his discussions with Lansing Melbourne, the proposal is what it is and it should not take staff 120 days to discuss and move forward. He proposed an amendment to 30 days. Discussion followed to make it less than 120 days because there would need to be more time to vet the proposal. Peter Flotz, Lansing Melbourne Group, confirmed 30 days would not be enough timeand they would need all of the 120 days. Discussion followed the term up to 120 days would be sufficient and they agreed to return to the Board and give a monthly update. 17 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 As to what would be accomplished within 120 days, Vivian Brooks, Community Redevelopment Agency Executive Director, suggested the proposer be vetted by a financial institution. She explained a loan commitment costs money and that was what they would want to see at the end of 120 days. Commissioner Orlove commented he wanted to see more concrete designs, how it would be a LEED building, and if they inserted two glass cubes into the building exterior, how it would be historically preserved. Mr. Flotz explained whatever route they take, they would ensure the building would be seen by the State as being historically preserved and it be on the National Register. There was a multi - layered plan that had to be done. Ms. Brooks did not think they would receive a national designation as they were looking for Historic Tax Credits and would not be able to obtain that within the 120 days. She thought there could be a commitment on the traditional financing component which would provide confidence it was a solid project. The building was in a qualified Census Track which was the main portion of the financing and thought the NMTC would not be an issue. The Historic Tax Credits would come if the building was designated and went through the process. Mr. Adams explained the first step was to submit a one page form to the State which was a determination of eligibility for the National Register. Staff could submit that when authorized by the Commission. He commented it was important they run the proposal past the State first in order to avoid being awarded National Register eligibility and then have it removed due to inappropriate alterations to the building. He could not guarantee a response would be received in 120 days, but he would push for a fast answer regarding the Determination of Eligibility and would stress how urgent it was if that was the Commission's direction. Discussion followed the Commission selected Lansing Melbourne, who would meet with staff, put a plan together of what needs to happen, the timeline, and at the next meeting, they would give a report. If extensions were needed they could be given one. Commissioner Orlove pointed out he wanted to see the historic aspect put on the list of items they would work on through the process. Vice Mayor McCray commented he witnessed the first jail and fire station being torn down. He was present when they demolished Poinciana Elementary School which many of their parents went to and which he attended. It was history. He requested pushing the project forward as fast as possible. Mayor Hay expressed the sense was that the modifications would take the building out of the historic category. Mr. Flotz responded that was not their intent. He referenced the Louvre. When it was remodeled, they put a glass cube on top of it to create a new entry, so it was transparent. One could still see the building, and it created a modern space that was usable. They have to change the building a little bit, but they want to change it in a way so that it would meet the historic standards. He commented he is 18 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 the founding Chairman of the Historic Board in Melbourne. He was attempting to do the same thing in Melbourne with a high school as was being sought in Boynton Beach. He commented he could not promise a hard commitment in 120 days, but only an update every 30. At the end of the 120 days, they would present their work and if the Commission was dissatisfied, the relationship was over. Commissioner Orlove inquired if they were willing to have discussion about historic preservation with the plan they have and, if vetted through the State or however Mr. Adams recommended, moving forward in that direction within the 120 days. If delayed, the Commission can make a decision at that time. There were no objections to the request. Motion Commissioner Orlove amended his motion to give an update every 30 days. There was no second to the amendment but a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Ross agreed with the attempts to save the historic aspects of the building and appreciated the example given about the Louvre as it provides a good sense about any alterations. She pledged her support to facilitate the project. A. Rank City Manager candidates based on individual interviews and provide direction on additional phases of the search process. Mayor Hay explained it takes a 4 -1 vote in order to bring in or let go of a City Manager. He spoke with all six candidates and ranked them. He expressed he had no desire to hire any of them as he was satisfied with the current one. He thought if there was another member on the Board that felt the same, it would save the City money. Commissioner Orlove agreed, but pointed out they decided on a process which should be followed. A question was posed if there would be any legal ramifications if they did not follow through on the process. Attorney Cherof responded the Commission should have no concern about that, only the item on the agenda. It did not require the Commission to complete any action, only to take a step as listed on the agenda. Motion Vice Mayor McCray moved to quit the process. Commissioner Orlove seconded the motion for discussion. Vice Mayor McCray clarified he was happy with the Interim City Manager and she was doing a fantastic job. Commissioner Ross noted she took a lot of time to interview the 19 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 candidates and rank them. She wanted to meet with all three. Vice Mayor McCray also ranked his choices. Commissioner Holzman thought it was important to continue the process. He thought they should only discuss the candidates and any other action be noticed in the same manner. He also took a lot of time interviewing the candidates, and indicated they should meet with them. Mayor Hay acknowledged the comments, but thought the vote would still be a stalemate and did not see the sense to spend taxpayer money. Commissioner Orlove removed his second to the motion. He felt they should submit their rankings to the Human Resources Director to tabulate and see how to move forward. Mayor Hay passed the gavel to Vice Mayor McCray and seconded the motion for further discussion. He inquired what the budget was to bring the candidates to Boynton Beach. Julie Oldbury, Human Resources Director, responded about $1,000 per candidate. The time staff spent on the project was also a consideration. Discussion followed one could not assume how the vote would be in the future, and they would not know until they met the candidates. There was movement occurring in the City and it was not known how it would play out. Commissioner Orlove inquired if Ms. Oldbury had enough time to tabulate the rankings submitted and provide a final ranking to which she responded she did. Vote The motion failed 2 - 3 (Commissioners Holzman, Orlove and Ross dissenting). Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to allow Ms. Oldbury to review the rankings and return later in the meeting with the tabulations. Ms. Oldbury collected the rankings from the Commission members; however, Commissioner Holzman commented he would not provide rankings as he did not believe it was fair to rank individuals over the phone. Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to suspend the process. 20 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 Discussion followed the Commission needed to follow the process they established. Commissioner Holzman agreed to provide his rankings. Commissioner Orlove withdrew his motion. Commissioner Ross put it on record she was disappointed with the lack of consideration of at least one member for the reasonable action that a Commissioner is saying they misplaced one. There was agreement Ms. Oldbury would return later and provide the rankings. 12. NEW BUSINESS None 13. LEGAL A. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R12 -042 - Approve extension of the moratorium commenced under the "Notice of Intent" to study zoning regulations, through June 19, 2012 (37 days) to cover the period required to finalize the review and consideration of recommended amendments to the zoning and land development regulations intended to implement Economic Development Implementation Initiatives. Attorney Cherof read Proposed Resolution No. R12 -042. Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to approve. Vice Mayor McCray seconded the motion for discussion. Vice Mayor McCray inquired when they voted for the Charter School, if this extension would have affected them. Mr. Rumpf responded they were exempt and were not affected. Vote The motion passed unanimously. B. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 12 - 008 - FIRST READING - Approve amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance as codified in the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Part III, Chapter 1, Article II (Definitions), Part III, Chapter 1, Article VII, 21 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 (Administrative and Decision Making Bodies), and Part III, Chapter 4, Article IX (Building, Construction and Historic Preservation) (TABLED ON 4/17/12) Motion Vice Mayor McCray moved to remove. Commissioner Orlove seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 12 -008 by title only on First Reading. Motion Vice Mayor McCray moved to approve. Commissioner Orlove seconded the motion. Vote City Clerk Prainito called the roll. The vote was 5 - 0. C. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 12 - 009 - FIRST READING - Approve Ordinance amending sale of City owned real property. (TABLED ON 4/17/12) Motion Vice Mayor McCray moved to remove. Commissioner Orlove seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 12 -009 by title only on First Reading. Motion Commissioner Ross moved to approve. Vice Mayor McCray seconded the motion. Commissioner Holzman inquired how this would affect the project they plan to approve regarding the Old High School and how would it affect projects they approved in the past. Attorney Cherof responded it could facilitate the sale and transfer of all those properties. The Commission, on a case -by -case basis, will confer with the City Manager and staff to determine what the best procedure was for offering the property and transferring it. In some cases, the Commission may opt to have a broker list the property, and in others, to expedite the process, agree by vote to sell the property. Commissioner Holzman did not see any selection criteria regarding the use of a broker and inquired if there was any process outlined. Attorney Cherof responded it 22 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 was addressed in Section C. The guidelines for choosing a broker would have to be established by the Commission. Commissioner Holzman inquired if there were any suggestions to add language for it. Attorney Cherof agreed to contemplate the suggestion and commented it may be more appropriate to have the flexibility of how to select the Broker at that time. Vote City Clerk Prainito called the roll. The vote was 5 -0. D. Designate election date for charter amendment referendum. Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to put a Charter Amendment referendum on the March ballot to coincide with the municipal election. Vice Mayor McCray seconded the motion. Discussion followed about which issues would be reviewed. It was noted there were several election dates. Commissioner Ross wanted to revisit the 50 plus one rule, but it was agreed that issue would be discussed after the date issue. Further discussion followed it made sense to put it on the municipal election ballot in March to ensure City voters pay attention to those issues. It was noted the November election may be better because when discussing a Charter Amendment, it was important to get the issue before the most voters and turnout for municipal elections was poor. Commissioner Orlove was opposed to using the November elections as City issues would be put at the end of the ballot and voters would have to shuffle through national and state issues on the ballot first. Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to allow the public to speak. Vice Mayor McCray seconded the motion. Herb Suss, 1711 Woodfern Drive, expressed his opinion March was the proper time. Brian Edwards, 629 NE 9th Avenue, agreed March was the better date for the referendum. He served on the Charter Review Committee. He was disappointed to read what was moved forward, but noted the Commission could change the recommendation. His concern was how the change might benefit those on the dais. He expressed municipal elections are for municipal issues. 23 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 Loretta Wilkinson, 2458 SW Cranbrook Drive, agreed with the March ballot as the November ballot would be convoluted. Some people only vote in presidential elections and by the time they reach the municipal issues, they would vote for anything. She did not like the idea something could pass that would seriously affect the City Charter. Ron Washam, 127 S. Atlantic Drive, W, spoke as a lifelong resident of the City, and commented the issue has gone back and forth. He favored the March ballot. Perception was important and he suggested keeping City issues in March elections. Mayor Hay closed public audience. Commissioner Ross went on record saying she has confidence in the voters of Boynton Beach. She trusts when they go to the polls they are very informed, whether it was November or March and she has no reason to be self - serving. She was just an elected official who believes in the voters of this City. She wanted the citizens to know she trusts in them completely when it comes to their voting decisions. She did not doubt their good intentions whether it was in March or November. Commissioner Orlove summarized his motion was to have the Charter Amendments put on the municipal ballot in March of 2013. Vice Mayor McCray seconded the motion. Vote The motion passed 4 -1 (Commissioner Ross dissenting). Ms. Oldbury noted one of the candidate ranking forms was not completed as it pertained to her tabulating the results. This would be corrected by the Commission member on the way to the closed -door session. Closed door session to be held at the end of the regular City Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 2012 regarding CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC., Plaintiff vs. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, Defendant - Case No. 502011 CA014815XXXXMB(AJ). Attorney Cherof announced a recess would be held to discuss a pending lawsuit with Clear Channel Outdoor Inc., vs. City of Boynton Beach. In attendance would be the City Commission, City Manager, Special Counsel Mike Burke and a court reporter. At the conclusion of the closed -door session, the City Commission would reconvene to conclude its business and thereafter adjourn. 24 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 Motion Commissioner Orlove moved to recess. Vice Mayor McCray seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The Commission recessed at 9:49 p.m. and reconvened at 10:13 p.m. Ms. Oldbury distributed her tabulation sheets for the City Manager position. After reviewing them, the members reached consensus that the top three candidates be interviewed. Motion Commissioner Holzman moved to invite Oscar Rodriguez, Michael Stampfler and Michael Miller, the top three candidates to be flown in for in- person interviews. Commissioner Orlove seconded the motion for discussion. Ms. Oldbury suggested having a meet and greet, or a reception to allow the candidates the opportunity to meet with key personnel. The next day, they could conduct the interviews. She recommended the candidates be prepared to make a presentation, such as a 90 -day plan, allow them 15 or 20 minutes and the City Commission determine what questions to pose. After presentation and questions, deliberations would take place. Commissioner Holzman inquired if it would be proper to meet with the candidates one - on -one in a private setting, which Ms. Oldbury responded was permissible. Commissioner Orlove disagreed with personal sessions as he had spent more than an hour with some of the individuals. He did not need the one -on -ones and felt now was the time to bring the candidates in through a public setting. He also preferred the meet and greet be held on a Friday afternoon or evening and have the public interviews on a Saturday, so they could leave in the afternoon or evening. After discussion, Ms. Oldbury agreed to contact the top six candidates to advise of the shortlist of three and to inform them of the interviews on June 1st and 2nd. One -on- one interviews were optional for those that wanted them. Questions should be provided by the City Commission and would not be provided to the candidates in advance of the meeting. Ms. Oldbury would email the members requesting questions they may have and would schedule the interviews. 14. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS A. Update on In -house Medical Clinic- 6/5/12 B. Police Study - 5/15/12 25 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 C. Update on Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) - 5/15/12 D. HUD Voluntary Compliance Agreement - 5/15/12 E. Special City Commission Budget Meetings, Monday, July 16, 2012 @ 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 17, 2012 @ 9:00 a.m. and Wednesday, July 18, 2012 @ 2:00 p.m. in the Library Program Room at the City Library 15. BRAND PROMISE STATEMENT — "BREEZE INTO BOYNTON BEACH — AMERICA'S GATEWAY TO THE GULFSTREAM" The members recited the Brand Promise Statement. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was properly adjourned at 10:28 p.m. (Continued on next page) 26 Meeting Minutes Regular City Commission Boynton Beach, FL May 1, 2012 CITY OF : OYNTON BEACH W a ayo " Ma i e Mayor Steven H I - Commis ••' - ATTEST: arlene Ross, Commissi•ner ( /►n )- ( Jan t M. Prainito, MMC C-t' Clerk Catherine Cherry Recording Secretary 050212 27 1 1uIIII1111111uIuII111'I CFN 20110400193 OR BK 24819 PG 0304 AFFIL: >AVIT RECORDED 10/27/2011 14 :37:04 (Not One and the Same Person alm Beach County, Florida Sharon R. Hock, CLERK & COMPTROLLER S " OF FLORIDA Pg 8384: t log ? • rirTY OF PALM BEACH BEFI2RE htE, the undersigned authority, personally appeared the undersigned party who has executr Affidavit, who made the following, statements: 1. ,..,..!_squrpose of Affidavit. I am making this Affidavit for the purpose of establishing and I here to that I am not the same person as against whom the judgments, liens or other encumbranc * recorded as follows: A. %rx30;recorded in Official Record Book 24708, Page 1043, Public Records of Palm Beach Co tys..lorida. 2. Owner. I am the owner of the real property described as follows: Condominium Parcel tr0?.c of PALM BEACH WHITE HOUSE NO. 3, a Condominium, according to the Decl. .,:"Of Condominium thereof, as recorded in Official Records Book 1396, Page 223, of the ' r )Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, and all amendments thereto, together with its unigVuiled share in the common elements. 3. Places of Resi.. e. ! g the past four (4) years I have resided at twos t • *tltlt:� t <\.E r:, `t. ��. . Rodriguez Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of October, 2011 by Jose A. Rodriguez. [Notary Seal] Notary Publc Printed Name: ��-- -. 444 wE+erunzone Q My Commission Expires: *WVPI616- 4iMtt�tF�tls Wa Wine PMlIG�gi Cf1kAll ft MM Book24819 /Page304 Page 1 of 1 11IIIIII11'III'IIIII1 CFN 20110400192 OR BR 24819 PG 0301 RECORDED 19/27/2811 14 :37 :84 Palm Beach County, Florida Prepared by and return to: AMT 74, 989.98 Stella 5rcz -Rita Doc Stamp 518.98 At /Law Sharon R. Bock, CLERK & COMPTROLLER Stel co Rita, PA Pga 8391 - 393; t 3pga) 814 ` ' ttpa Road Suite 1 Lantan ,`- ' .i.. 62 ,• 561 -586- : °: File Number: 3,814)-123 Will Call No ,-; �!3v s ^ __(Space Above This Luse For Recording Datal s Warranty Deed This Warranty De = j . e this 18th day of October, 2011 between Jose A. Rodriguez, a married man whose post office address is 2565 S. 1 - : lvd., C 114, Palm Beach, FL 33480, grantor, and Eric Molares, a single man, whose post office address is 6529 Eme (d If ones Drive, Apt. 306, Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411, grantee; J� (Whenever used hereon the tenns " ,,.end "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and a trusts and trustees) C S'''. r.` Witnesseth, that said grantor, fa a � c'' onsideration of the sum of TEN AND NO /100 DOLLARS (510.00) and other good and valuable considerations to • , .2 ., tor in hand paid ay said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the t 4 • tee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Palm Beach C. �•)'larida to -wit: Condominium Parcel No. C -114, •BALM BEACH WHITE HOUSE NO. 3, a Condominium, according to the Declaration of C. . ,: 'alum thereof, as recorded In Official Records Book 1396, Page 223, of the Public Records r 4 Beach County, Florida, and all amendments thereto, together with its undivided share in 046i on elements. Parcel Identification Number: 50 -43-44 E1 - 000 -1140 { Consideration/Purchase Price: 574,000.00 Subject Property is not the Homestead of Grantor. Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Flave and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2010. Doublelime. 1 Book248191Page301 Page 1 of 3 11M11uruuusuII CFN 20110458395 OR HK 24898 PO 0389 RECORDED 12/89/2111 12:22:14 I Lean It: Palo Beach County, Flor3ds 0641559778 .4 Boab,CL81BI & COIIYPTRttt.LER {� Pg 03891 tipg) k ,,, II Prepared By. Lanm/NTC, 2100 Alt 19 r "xpalm Hsrttor,PL 34683 , ';4'.9152 when Re*urn To JPM Bank N.A. C/O 100 Alt. 19 North Palm Ha", 34683 SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE KNOW ALL t' Y TIiBSE PRESENTS, that BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER 1'O +1 LLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR WMALT 2005.10 is the owner and holder ttisettain mortgage executed by JOKE A RODRIGUEZ in the amount of and recorded in Official Records B W 32, Page 1 410, or Document # , in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Cant of PALM BEACH County; , hereby authorizes the Recorder to discharge the same of record The property situated in sai a%lard County is more fury descnbed in said mortgage. WITNESS true signature of sakotikration by its VICE PRESIDENT on 11/ 11(MMIDD/YYYY). BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. R BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE 'WMALT 2065.10, by JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., its Atterney n -Fact C 0 � rCr , Arcola Freeman v ti._ VICE PRESIDENT �._. 1+i �.„ '' fad George Standiter r ' here / STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF OUACHITA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on 11! ,9,c 12011 (MMIDOIYYYY) by Arcola Freeman as VICE PRESIDENT of WMOROAN CHASE BANK, N.A. as Attomey -in -Faux for BANK OF AMERICA. N.A. AS SUCCESSOR 13Y MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR WMALT 2005 - 10, who, being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained. Hershey is (are) personally ;mown to tun 4111. Oa% Notary Public - State of LOUISIANA Commission expires: LIFETIME 14%\tai4.4) CHAS615131785 _0 WAMU C33381290 SPOFLI 111111111101111 •15131785* 1* 1 Book248981Page389 Page 1 of 1 • I®I IIr111111IInIIII II CFR 20110458395 OR BR 24898 P13 0389 ROOMED 121i9/2S11 12 :22:14 County. Florida Laev<71 06415d1778 Palo RNtdr Shoran B. Dock, CLERK & COMPTROLLER Prepared By: p'9i t1pg1 Laace/NTC 2100 Alt 19 Harbor. PL 34583 fFs 152 When _• Retu n To: 1PM. W, Bank,N.A. Cl0 +'100 Alt. 19 North Palm Hariiaf. }.34583 { SATISFAG ZION OF MORTGAGE 111111111111111111111 CF'N 20110400194 OR BK 24819 PG 0305 Prepared by and Return To: RECORDED 10/27/2011 14:37:04 Law Office of Stella Suarez-Rita, PA Pala Beach County, Florida 814 W. Lantana Road, Suite 1 Sharon R. Bock, CLERK & COMPTROLLER . antana, FL 33462 Pg 0305; Ogg/ Affidavit :„r "of Florida y of Palm Beach ' Befc'� , the duly undersigned authority, personally appeared JOSE A. RODRZ who being first by me duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says: 1. dire owner of the following property ( "the "): IL dominium Parcel No. C -114, of PALM BEACH WHITE MUSE NO. 3, a Condominium, according to the Dation of Condominium thereof, as recorded in Official Re , T, Book 1396, Page 223, of the Public Records of Palm Bea' ' .nty, Florida, and all amendments thereto, together with i .�, ', 'ded share in the common elements. . 2. A f fi a n t has neve ' . - l adjudicated bankrupt or incompetent and that no judgments or liens , _ ; been filed against them said person, but that various matters of record agagik tnitar names are against some other person or persons. s 3. Affiant has received no ndt letters or demands indicating that the holders of the following j , f is have started or intend to start proceedings to levy agains e,Iperty. 4. Affiant further states that Affiant is familiar with the nature of an oath; and with the penalties as provided by the laws of the State aforesaid for the falsely swearing to statements made in an instrument of this nature. Affiant further certifies that Affiant has read the full facts of the Affidavit and understands its content. FURTHER, AFFIANT SAITH NOT. .w Jose A. Rodri �; State of Florida County of Palm Beach Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18' day of October, 2011 who has produced Florida Driver's License as identification. Notary Signature 1. .. VIONIfLOPME111110 tr'i MsIpPrlla- �aHqiAU 4 .1.E - � t MONtn E Book24819 /Page305 Page 1 of 1 Q - m E E E- E E c c c :� c c c c c c c X 0 0 0 0 EEE a s as a s Lu 000 . 000000 0 ✓ . ` C c - c c w N N .' 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0) ` N F i s a � v > > > > > > > > > c > +� U U U U= U U U U 0) 0) O ' (U O) 0) 0) N O) 5a) (� L L L L ppp L L L Lp ppp , 0°0000 L p 1 o m 0) a • m w w w o F EEEE0o0oEEEEoO- _ - • E ' 0 0 0 0 E O C O 0 0 0 0 0 E N N N =; N N N N N N o in UUUU E aUUUU E -7010-0 C ° -0 -0� 7 a 70- N O m m m ... w m O c c c N' c c c c c c c 7 ., 7 7 7 7 To L_ CD CD 7 7 7 7 0) 0 0) c. 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 7 N E E E E c c c E E E E c c c c c c c c c c E c :, :, 0 0 0 0 0 U U U 0 0 0 0 U c m m m c m m m m m m E m 0 1 , 00000pp0000000 aaa_ �� aaaaaa M M M M m m m M M M M m V O O O- 1 0 0 0 O O O M O UUUUUUUUUUUUUU _ aaam • aaaaa.aoa (n OO OMLn5�'�OaO COOO M O) �d 200 up �OO N NO)N- M OO �t ;71 LC) O O 00 d M Ln O O) M O C7 N r- N O ti t� M O) Ln CO rZ M CO M O O 00 28 tom- co 0 x O)NM in MOOO)ct00MM - NOCnti - 0Ot`O in M ( O M Lf) , t M O) ti - M 00 O) O O N M O O d N M N O O V " o d ch O N Ln ,- M O M O N N N M LO N N O) d- 0 O CO r V N ? EA EA 69 K)EAb4� N El d4 ERCf? M E!>b4 N N �C Y > 69 n L. O m 6g Z 2 z O �- 1 _ N .‹.:c QQ . .‹.:c 00 J J J S 2 Q U 0 D D W 1- W W QQ O u'LL. 0 o aZ o 0 00 Z aQQ Q aZZ a-O( . . U cn 'UUU 0 LL ' 00 0 00%-'0w000 OZZ z Z2 � =I= O O W , ZZImww -- WOOL' < J 0 �� OOUa > wQQ w��U J.� .��rnr �v~) www z i UUu_wJ J(�C� y j . O Q - 1 ‹.‹ � - } p Q .l o*$ Qw..mmmOO= Q O w .i , �� WU W U ( w ' o 0 .o zw ���� m Z Z • 4' I I OO D Z ?wZZ >ZZ 1 OM co - Q' aaaJJwU2 LU J J F- a J m 0 0 Q U J Z , u_u_F- =Q 00 m 00 p J a JNW= u_u_LL000ZQ (1) 1 II(O n W _ x m w W J �' 000J J j Z '' • Q Q Z o p a Q Q J = 2 2 l II W LLL ' Q Q p w i t eC U O .� .� oWOmmOUu_mm J O 00 O O OUOO= •, OOOU F- �� ZZ — W ZO ZZ �OZZ � Q p J Q . . mm W Q m Q W Q QQ - Z J u O E-1— W> N 0 i-i- �W I —F— QQ "o� =w o 000 Q QOo Z - . zz U ZZwWW mF-. �� OZI- =��OOO Q o .�� m — o 00Q = 2 = 00 000 ,1 mm2000mmm000mu. - - u_mwm ∎ www,,-.05D O 0 >, >. a c N 000 c c W O • O O O LL M N N N N N N N N N N N N N_ __ m m m O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 m 0 L L ,� _O O_ O O O O_ O O O O O O O m m m , N N N N O W o 5) )v_)5)5rnrnm E E E c 6 �_ >>> . d 0) 0) 0) O) N 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 ) 0) , N N L L L • Ill O L t .c o o o o o o . o o L L Iii L E a o 0 0 0 o m m m U. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7— U U > N L . c L-c =0 55 . .c r L L r r - c L r L L L r . > > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O UUUUUUUUUUUUUU 0001 (nfn(nU)U)u)cnu) Z m T S O O h O O O O O O O O O O O M O 2533f- 0 �- O O �r M O) O O N O) Cn M M N O, O Ln W O O O O M N T- O O •-- O COON O N O) O LO M N 0 0 000000000 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln O NN. O O O O 00000000.j x Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q w.. a 0 0— 0 t,- M M C) 0 0 t-- e-- N O O) N 0 0) CO CO 1 N- N 0 1` > 0000% O O M O N O O O O M O O N N O o0 N 00 00 M M M d N .- N t` (O Ln CO N N N. t` cO o0 r ...I t+ N N M N O N N N M M M O N N O N <- LO Ln LO Ln C0 In 'n Ln L0 L0 11) (O to LO G L) Ln CO Ln Ln O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Q Q ('3 ('3 ('3 ('3 ('3 (‚3 ('3 (‚3 (‚3 (‚3 (‚3 (') ('3 ('3 M M M M M M M M M M M M• c V d• d d c f ct ct 't ch '4 ct c t , 4 d- v - ct - Q L. 00 CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO 00 00 CO CO CO O 03 CO 03 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00000000000000 O O O O 0000000.01- O. Good evening. Tonight we stand at a very important and exciting threshold in the life of the Old High School that some have been waiting decades to witness. You have in front of you, 2 proposals for the old school and you hold the key as to how our City will proceed into the future. I cannot stress strongly enough that this could very well be our last, best chance to begin to bring the Old School to its full potential to become an asset to our entire community. Will the school become the multi -use facility that the connnunity has repeatedly stated a preference and desire for, or will you embark on a path with a proposal whose financial package raises many questions and could potentially negatively impact the City financially for many years to come? I'm just a citizen, but I have many questions about these potential impacts, and on behalf of the Boynton Beach Historical Society and Save the BOSS, we have engaged a development finance professional who is a recognized authority and has the credentials and expertise to comment on the financial packages of both proposals. I'd like to introduce James Carras. Mr. Carras is Principal of Carras Community Investment Inc, a development finance consulting firm in Ft. Lauderdale. He has provided advisory services to over 200 clients in 40 states over the past 25 years, including public, private and non - profit clients. He is certified by the National Development Council as an Economic Development Finance Professional and has taught Community and Economic Development classes at MIT's Department of Urban Planning and Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and most recently as a Visiting Professor at Florida Atlantic University's Department of Urban and Regional Planning. He has helped structure numerous economic development incentive programs as well as specific project transactions with local, state and federal funding sources. Mr. Carras is a well recognized resource for numerous professional trade organizations that focus on issues of affordable housing, community redevelopment and economic development. I hope after listening to Mr. Carras, and asking him any questions you may have, you will weigh his words carefully, because if you make the decision tonight to go against the expert's analysis and select to negotiate with New Urban, you will be held accountable months down the road when their financial boondoggle begins to unravel. There will be no excuses that you did not know this would happen. CARRAS COMMUNITY INVESTMENT, INC. DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COUNSEL New River Trading Post 330 SOUTHWEST SECOND STREET SUITE 212 FORT LAUDERDALE FLORIDA 33312 TELEPHONE 954 415 2022 Boynton Beach High School Reuse Project Financial Transaction Observations Submitted on behalf of the Boynton Beach Historic Society James Carras, Carras Community Investment, Inc. Financing Structure - New Markets Tax Credits: 1. Limited number of credits available - The last round of New Markets Tax Credit resulted in awards of $3.5 billion. Approximately 25% of the total ($840 million) is available to Community Development Entities (CDEs) that serve the Florida market. These CDEs also serve other states with this allocation. Thus, the amount available to Florida and the number of transactions is relatively low (estimated at about one -third of the total available to Florida $280 million or 30 to 35 transactions) and CDEs will only finance those transactions of the highest quality and greatest impact. Congress has not approved the NMTC for FY 2013 thus it will be incumbent on both proposals to seek and obtain a NMTC commitment as quickly as possible. 2. Both proposals are contingent on New Markets Tax Credits financing. The New Urban Communities proposal states that it qualifies for NMTC based on its mixed -use proposal (i.e. cultural space and housing (of which 20% minimum must be affordable housing). However, in my opinion, it is highly unlikely that the transaction will be considered because of the proposed use of multiple, non - connected sites. NMTC regulations require that a mixed -use, multiple site project must be on "contiguous" tracts of land for purposes of determining whether the proposed buildings may be treated as a single building as required by § 168(e)(2). Any CDE prior to committing to financing would need to receive a private ruling letting from the Treasury Department to allow for such a transaction to take place. This may take up to six months or longer and thus would jeopardize the likelihood of NMTC placement because of the limited availability of NMTC financing for Florida transactions. 3. The Lansing Melbourne proposal also seeks NMTCs. It has included a "soft" commitment letter from TD Bank plus has identified the needed debt leverage to make the transaction viable. While the soft letter is non - binding it does indicate market interest in the Lansing Melbourne proposal signally a higher likelihood of successful NMTC financing. Rent to Support Debt Service: 1. The New Urban Communities proposal relies partially on rent payments from the Palm Beach Natural History Museum for an annual gross Carras Community Investment, Inc. 1 "guaranteed" rent of $180,000. The Museum is essentially a start -up organization with virtually no evident current cash flow or liquid assets. The proposal does not include a market analysis other than data that provided references to "Visitor Profiles" based on two national museums - American Museum of Natural History and the British Museum which are irrelevant to a regional institution with a limited collection. The expected annual attendance is 50,000 growing within three years to 100,000. There is no evidence that these projections are valid or conclusive. The competitive analysis provided shows well - established institutions (e.g. Museum of Discovery and Science, South Florida Science Museum and various Art Museums in south Florida). In my professional opinion, any financing underwriting will call into question the viability of expected rent payments from a start -up cultural facility with limited demonstrated public appeal. It is likely that the requested CRA guarantee will be necessary for at least three years until the Museum can establish itself. Also the guarantee most likely needs to be in place not just for seven years but the life of the bond financing - 20 years. (The New Urban proposal also footnoted that the 20 year bond financing they assume they will qualify for is AA rated at 3.9 %. This bond financing is only available to the highest quality of borrowers thus one can only assume that the full faith and credit of the City and CRA will be key to achieve this high quality financing.) 2. The Lansing Melbourne proposal does not seek a guarantee of the CRA or City in case of tenant non - payment of rent or vacancy. The CRA /City will not hold any responsibility for any debt or failure for this project. However, its proposed uses of retail and restaurant will demand that high quality tenants be identified as soon as possible to make the underwriting of the transaction viable. 3. The New Urban Communities proposal did not show in their pro forma "affordable" rents for the NMTC requirement of at least 20% of the units be affordable housing. Thus the likely, anticipated rental income in the Operating Budget is lower than indicated. With an average rent of $1200 a month, the units would be only available to those earning above $50,000 in annual income significantly higher than the area median income. James Carras, Principal, of Carras Community Investment, Inc. is recognized national as an expert in development financing including New Markets Tax Credits transactions. He is certified by the National Development Council (NDC) as an Economic Development Finance Professional and has taught community and economic development finance both at universities and professional training seminars. Carras Community Investment, Inc. 2 _ Tr CO l N CO v- c EC) (0 O 4 \° M M A l CO � N N Of ° (a 7 LC) O CI so_ to G� N N- O cc) n C° (0 N HI 6 � N n co Tr Tr H V N O N n O CO M EA EA G9 EA EA EA l N. CO p I ,- f7 CO N M CO O) rl (0 (C) O 0 0 n �' N V R p O O 01 >- n CO CA _ C) CO O 0 0 0 0 O C.0 0 r- -1 M EA O EA EA 64 E/4 _ EA EA EA O 0) O n O n N- O o to M CD O O a o M O M O M V V O (f) N fD (O } RI Q 5 v• C CO CA 0 (O a o�D 0 N I O 0 V CO 0 ^ N . EA O 69 EA CA } V) EA EA EA N V, (O n N N N n n N N 0 O 0 CO 0 M 0 (0 ID F.: v v CO O o v m RI 0 (p 00 O N M M (O W CO M In M V >- M 00 a) O O (O } co (O EA (P 69 EA EA EA - 69 fA 69 E/7 To N M _ Tr ( ( (n0 E j co 0 ( p 4 n O O G c E 6 N CD � CO M co O V O O O To 7 N c-. t!7 O O r CO w O O (O N R Tr (O op >" co O O O O } O N O n E ER fA EA fA W3 . EA EA EA 69 7 co (0 C V O m M 0 CO C v O O r (,.) CO CO O a 0 R I (n n CO n N 0 Of ° � R co N r a, 0 O N N >- M n n O EA r•-: ) co () O f N ) O C r N EA 69 EA } O EA vf EA 69 C EA EA N C 0) C0 CO _ N O • N I C A co O p r e N (O C `') (O O "a c a CO O V C A 4 N (0 (O A - Op ( N 0 0 O c } N co n 7 CA ?o' CO N- at O O? r n N I) 0 0 EA EA EA EA >4. ( A M EA 69 >. b9 EA N O O O .. M p j 0 O ^ 0 O N ° I- 0 0 0) V o N N O N (a in 00 (P) Iii a) O co 0 ( E� 0 N W N r- 0 6 6 N " V CO Y CO V r 7 EA 69 69 EA EA Ni EA EA 69 EA CO C N N rn 2 a) _ a O 0 p O a) o n n ea y n ti N 0) CV CO N > 0 N O CU r- O d co O > N m a) N CO _ CO CO G► CO O 7 f X N cn N N C 0 _c 0 N c N C CO 0 O C O (0 1 - C ro C) a+ (6 ~ e) N X co _ N C R R a 7 a LL c c (T R a 7 a c 6 T = C = 0 is E LL a 7 w (u Q O o E 7 « Cu r u. a • °) x ~ LL m v °) a) x y a Q co w O c F m F- R uJ F d 2 (o '~ Ul x m o a�i o m x co 2 a a) C7 0 () 9 C F ~ (0 E c 0) LL 0 C < F f LL a) 01 m c u E H w 0 0 0 E y ( ma c . R j, a a O cu N o w 4)) 2 n C7 cu w • (u 2 E � . Q > m a < F- U' ct Z W 0_ CO d Q z W a z E w o t 0 Q poi *2011 Ctity of Boynton Beach Utility Fee Recommendatio 1 By Patricia Kellner, Derrick ssel4 and Mw* Hurley Of the Meter Services Division ...„ w ... 1 . " ." , • , 0 I ii I • *2011 City of Boynton Beach Utility Fee Recommendations* by Patricia Kellner, Derrick Russell, and Mark Hurley of the Meter Services Division With the recent City budget crisis and DavenportLawrence report, our group chose to examine customer billing structures directly related to departmental work in Meter Services. After comparing our service fees with neighboring utilities and calculating our cost of doing business, it became readily apparent that customers pay only a marginal amount, or nothing, for expensive services rendered. We feel that service fees should be instituted or raised to at least the operational cost of our Department. Unless this is done, Boynton Utilities will continue to absorb dramatic monetary losses and struggle with declining budgets and the shortfalls and frustrations of such a situation. We believe these fee increases would be fair to customers provided that they are aware of the fees beforehand (via website update, mailers, and handouts), and that it is possible to provide a high level of customer service without waiving fees or undercharging for services. In the following pages, we outline in detail our proposed modifications to The City of Boynton Beach Utility's fees, the City's current fees, and the price other neighboring cities charge. Additionally, we provide operational cost estimates and/or explanations of every change we examine and have numerical data showing typical work order volumes throughout the course of a month. Lastly we compare the fiscal impact each change would have on our budget. We have over eleven years of combined field experience performing the activities examined in this study and continue to do them on a daily basis. Each recommendation was made after significant research, discussion, and deliberation. We hope The City of Boynton Beach will find value in our group's recommendations and adopt each as suggested. Meter Services Recommendations Row Recommendation Current Process / Fee Justification Comparison Propose a "Field Visit Charge" category listing specific job actions, WPB $28.00 including initial read on, initial read $20.00 just for turn on (this fee is waived if water is already on) Currently the city receives no Tequesta $20.01 shut, final read on, final read shut, $20.00 charge for turn off is on compensation for these field Lake Worth $30.00 temporary disconnects, non emergency rate study sheet from 2002, and visits that have costs associated Pinellas County $32.00 1 shut off for repair, shut off for water Ord. 26 -8. We are unsure if this with them. Davie $30.00 running inside property, customer issue no water calls, customer requested is being applied. There are no S. Martin Regional Util. $30.00 meter locates, and fire hydrant work. fees for any of the other services *See Attached Margate $10.00 $20.00 charge for each visit. listed. Miami /Dade $25.00 This list can be expanded as needed. Propose a " Temporary Service WPB $28.00 Activation Fee for Property Inspection" Lake Worth $60.00 flat rate fee of $50.00 this would be Pinellas County $32.00 Currently the city receives no collected at time of setup. (includes turn Miramar $50.00 2 on and shut off field visits). There are no fees - this is a compensation for these field Boca $60.00 or courtesy. visits that have costs associated with them. Martin County * *Customer opens a new account Hallandale * receives bill with field visit charges and Opa-Locka * usage. _ Tequesta * Palm Beach $400.00 Propose a "Tampering Fee" for Miramar $125.00 unauthorized reconnection of service of Currently there are no charges The city is not compensated for Davie $300.00 3 $40.00. If damage results from for any meter tampering. Opa-Locka $450.00 time or damages to property. tampering a per hour rate for staff -time Ord.26 -8 Hallandale $150.00 and material will be applied. Boca $30.00 Propose a "Pulled Meter / Reinstallation Fee" of $40.00 in addition to the "Tampering Fee" for instances in which Miami /Dade $250.00 The city is not compensated for unauthorized connections cannot be Tequesta $93.94 secure) disconnected due to tam erin Currently there are no charges time or damages to property. Nor 4 y p g for pulling or reinstalling a meter is the customer penalized for Boca $80.00 and /or damages or inability to lock the which is timely and costly. theft from or damages to city Opa-Locka $50.00 meter. property. If damage results from tampering a per hour rate for staff -time and material will be applied. Propose an "Illegal Meter Bypass Fee" Staff -time is required for Boca $60.00 of $75.00 for theft of service after meter discovery and removal. The city is not compensated for has been pulled or if customer runs Supervisor -time is required for time or damages to property. Nor Davie $250.00 5 jumper lines around existing meter. If documentation and the filing of a is the customer penalized for Miramar $200.00 damage results from tampering a per police report. Currently the city is theft from or damages to city Hallandale $500.00 hour rate for staff-time and material will not compensated for time, property. Palm Beach $400.00 be applied. damages. or unaccounted water. Boca $50.00 Propose an increase of fees for Current fees do not cover cost of Lake Worth $30.00 6 "Customer Request Re- Read" $20.00 for all time and labor Miami /Dade $20.00 Residential - $30.00 Ord.26 -8 Commercial /Multi - family - $40.00 *See attached Palm Beach $35.00 Martin County $20.00 Proposing an increase of fees for "Meter Testing" based on Meter Size 3/4" testing $130.00 Boca 1" testing $150.00 Tequesta 1 -1/2" testing $206.00 Currently we charge $30.00 for Current fees do not cover cost of WPB "See 7 2" testing $230.00 all meter testing services. time and labor. 3" and above testing $515.00 g Pinellas County Attached Ord.26 -8 Margate *See attached g In -House Testing is currently Martin County unavailable due to staff shortage but Palm Beach will be available for 3/4" & 1" in the future. I j-" N O O O O O O co 0) CO N .- O N V N eq O = q CO 0 0 0 N N .- N N 04 0 ko 2 LL N U E N E .- o N o 0) co N N O N 0 d y CO N C) N r CO r 0) 0) O CO 04 CO N CO N CO N N - fn 0 q E N Q N O O .- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 05 LO O. N E – CO .' N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N N m a o d CI N 0 y N !- d N Q c0 O c N •Q co N co o f N N q o N (= E r to a co N o, co ° r n _ 0 q LO a) d 0 N n N "A 0. N N N O M M co N O N , — a co co ZZ 2 Q r 0) d ^ r 0 co 07 CO CO N N N N — O N E d O d Q Q 0 M N CO d O N q A W _ 7 > 2 'I M to C O . O O o . O – . 0 O c') O r .. C A 7 w 3 r O x _ U q " O N Q to d N 0 CO r N co y M C O — c o N IC O 1 - o a O N co Q r r (0 co r (o r to co o " Y d w O O y t_ • L N —3 3 A o y O .— .- 0 N 0 0 0 0 .' . . co Q _> m D m ›- J M c . . . O U . 3 .- N d CO CO 0) N O) CO (O ' w F N N co O y+ c 8 to to CO OO r 0) .- d CO to N CO N 3 N o CO u FL CO C o E. O t0 N c0 0) co co o co co co co N n y c m co o O aD co m co N co a0 N A C c t M d c0 N d to N t0 co N = ° N Cn co d q C d m t0 co O co O) co co Q ° co N O J p re 3 - a (0 r W j 0 r d 04 r L- d N CO M d CO cO 0 N N 0 C.) 0. Q r .4 To — _ - 0 — (O Z G d to m r . M 0) 0) V) (0 0) o I o - a w 0 I 0 m o o O N 0' N ( M N Q OM - . - H b ta M W d c L co t() CO 0) 7 m N 0) (0 0) 00 Q to lL to - o 0 N O _ M .s 3 (? = Q O c0 d m N Q OO t0 r N C ~ M r t O O N N Q Cl O r t0 r io y n U y >` O 0 O d i=-'. r O) 04 N c0 o O Q LL N t- 0 co ° N N �i m m M tc N N N N w q '1 N c LL a0 (� CO N W .- m ^ O o m O co O W c M N N N r m _ A F F. N N N N a U N C N 0) A 2 ` d A 0 O) d O N d F p 0. D E V o LL g Q 2 , -' Q N O O U 0 LL E m y z O _ z ,_ N M d N (O r m 0) O .- N co Q to co r co 0) a r N t0 N N N N M DEFINITIONS FIELD VISIT: Final Read - On/Final Read -Shut — A situation in which an old customer has made satisfactory arrangements to begin/end service. Field technician is responsible for verifying water service is on or turning on service if it is off. A current reading must be recorded. Initial Read- Shut/Initial Read -On — A situation in which a new customer has not yet made satisfactory arrangements to begin service or has applied for new service. Field technician is responsible for the securement of service disconnection. A current reading must be recorded. Temporary Disconnect (other than Shut Off for Non - Payment) — Various scenarios where customers have either requested water service to be disconnected or Customer Relations has determined water service needs to be disconnected. Field technician is responsible for the securement of service disconnection. A current reading must be recorded. Non - Emergency Shut Off For Repair — Any situation requiring disconnection of water service so that a customer can make repairs and/or alterations to privately owned (customer side) service lines, fixtures, valves, irrigation, pumps, etc. Field technician is responsible for service disconnection. A current reading must be recorded. Water Running Inside — Any time water service is activated and meter dial does not stop. If customer is not home, service is disconnected and a notice is left on the door. The customer must contact customer relations to reactive water service. A current reading must be recorded for each visit. Customer Issue No Water Calls — Any situation in which a customer has no water and the reason for this has to do with one or more issues on the "customer side ". Typically this is because the customer's house valve has been shut off, but can be for a variety of reasons. Field technician is responsible for making sure "city side" valve is on and receiving water from main service in street or easement. If city side is in good standing, field technicians are often able to determine why customer has no water, but cannot touch or manipulate "customer side ". A current reading must be recorded. Customer Requested Meter Locate — Service requested by customers who wish to have their water meters located. Field technician is responsible for locating and exposing meter. This may require uncovering or digging up meter. Additionally it may be necessary to flag meter, paint meter -box lid, or mark meter in the street. A current reading must be recorded. 4 PROPERTY INSPECTIONS — Temporary service connection for the intended purpose of professional inspection of structure and/or property relating to a real estate transaction. A current reading must be recorded, during both service activation and disconnection. CUSTOMER REQUESTED RE -READ / HIGH CONSUMPTION INVESTIGATION — A lengthy process involving the verifications of meter reading and appropriately sized meter parts, the investigation of possible leaks, and the attempted explanation of high consumption. Often times these work orders are by appointment resulting in explanation(s) to customers. A current reading must be recorded and compared to last reading taken for billing purposes. TAMPERING / ILLEGAL USAGE: Tampering — Any manipulation of water meter or "city side" service line resulting in removal of lock, unauthorized service connection, damages, etc. Pulled Meter — Removal of a city water meter when unauthorized connections cannot be securely disconnected due to tampering and/or damages, or inability to lock the meter. Illegal Meter Bypass — Theft of service after meter has been pulled, or if customer runs "jumper lines" around existing meter. METER TESTING — Professional testing of meter calibration, Flow, etc. 5 Meter Services Recommendations Customer Requested Re -Read (CR) Residential LABOR COSTS Employees Needed Quantity Average Average Total Labor Cost Hourly Rate Time Field Worker 1 $13.50 0.75 $10.13 Supervisor /Office 1 $22.00 0.5 $11.00 $0.00 TOTAL $21.13 EQUIPMENT Equipment Needed Quantity Average Average Total Equipment Hourly Rate Time Costs Truck 1 $15.00 0.75 $11.25 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $11.25 MISC Materials Needed Quantity Cost of Item Other Total Equipment Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 TOTALS Total Total Total Total Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Materials Cost $21.13 $11.25 $0.00 $32.38 Standard 10% Markup: $3.24 TOTAL COST: $35.61 6 Meter Services Recommendations Justification - Revenue Gain CR - Residential CURRENT CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Current Charges Revenue Earned Comments Jan -March 2011 51 $20.00 $1,020.00 April -June 2011 82 $20.00 $1,640.00 July -Sept 2011 84 $20.00 $1,680.00 285 accounts were visited, 12 of these Oct - Dec 2011 56 $20.00 $1,120.00 had water meter issues and these had $0.00 charges waived. $0.00 TOTAL: 273 $20.00 $5,460.00 PROPOSED CHARGES/EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Proposed Cost Proposed Earnings Comments Jan -March 2011 51 $30.00 $1,530.00 April -June 2011 82 $30.00 $2,460.00 July -Sept 2011 84 $30.00 $2,520.00 Oct -Dec 2011 56 $30.00 $1,680.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 273 $30.00 $8,190.00 I Increase /Loss in Revenue (Current vs. Proposed Charges): $2,730.00 I COMMENTS DavenportLawrence recommendation: "The CR fee appears to be lower then the cost of service delivery, this process is time consuming. The city should evaluate the direct costs associated with CR orders and adjust the fee structure that supports service delivery expense as well as diverting orders by absentee property owners that now use CR tickets as a means of private property inspections." Appendix A -6 on rate study from 2002 recommended $20.00 even though the cost was calculated at $25.00 and the cost of employee rates have gone up from then. 7 Meter Services Recommendations Customer Request Re -Read (CR) Commercial / Multi - Family LABOR COSTS Employees Needed Quantity Average Average Total Labor Cost Hourly Rate Time Field Worker 1 $13.50 125 $16.88 Supervisor /Office 1 $22.00 0.5 $11.00 $0.00 TOTAL $27.88 EQUIPMENT Equipment Needed Quantity Average Average Total Equipment Hourly Rate Time Costs Truck 1 $15.00 1.25 $18.75 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $18.75 MISC Materials Needed Quantity Cost of Item Other Total Equipment Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 TOTALS Total Total Total Total Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Materials Cost $27.88 $18.75 $0.00 $46.63 Standard 10% Markup: $4.66 TOTAL COST: $51.29 8 Meter Services Recommendations Justification - Revenue Gain CR Commercial / Multi - Family CURRENT CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Current Charges Revenue Earned Comments Jan -March 2011 8 $20.00 $160.00 April -June 2011 9 $20.00 $180.00 July -Sept 2011 12 $20.00 $240.00 Oct -Dec 2011 8 $20.00 $160.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 37 $20.00 $740.00 PROPOSED CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Proposed Cost Proposed Earnings Comments Jan -March 2011 8 $40.00 $320.00 April -June 2011 9 $40.00 $360.00 July -Sept 2011 12 $40.00 $480.00 Oct -Dec 2011 8 $40.00 $320.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 37 $40.00 $1,480.00 I increase /Loss in Revenue (Current vs. Proposed Charges): $740.00 I COMMENTS Davenport Lawrence recommendation: "The CR fee appears to be lower then the cost of service delivery. This process is time consuming. The city should evaluate the direct costs associated with CR orders and adjust the fee structure that supports service delivery expense as well as diverting orders by absentee property owners that now use CR tickets as a means of private property inspections." Appendix A -6 on rate study from 2002 recommended $20.00 even though the cost was calculated at $25.00 and the cost of employee rates have gone up from then. 9 Meter Test Tracking 2011 (January 1- December 30) Test Location Results Cost to Actual Cost Credit Date ROW Meter Size Issued Customer to the City Finalized Onsite Sent In Cust Issue City Issue Y or N? 1 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 12/30/2011 2 3/4" $ $ $30 00 $128.93 N 12/30/2011 _ 3 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 12/30/2011 4 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 11/17/2011 5 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 11/17/2011 6 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 11/3/2011 7 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 11/3/2011 8 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 10/24/2011 9 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 10/24/2011 10 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 10/5/2011 11 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 10/5/2011 12 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 10/5/2011 13 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 8/9/2011 14 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 7/8/2011 15 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 6/8/2011 16 3/4" $ $ $30 00 $128 93 N 6/8/2011 17 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 5/18/2011 18 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 3/29/2011 19 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 3/29/2011 20 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 3/29/2011 21 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 3/1/2011 22 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 3/1/2011 23 3/4" $ $ $0.00 $128.93 Y 3/1/2011 24 3/4" $ $ $0 00 $128.93 Y 2/15/2011 25 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 2/15/2011 26 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128.93 N 2/1/2011 27 3/4" $ $ $30.00 $128 93 N 2/1/2011 28 3/4" $ $ $0 00 $128.93 Y 1/6/2011 29 1" $ $ $30.00 $147.63 N 12/30/2011 30 1" $ $ $0.00 $147.63 Y 11/17/2011 31 1" $ $ $0.00 $147.63 Y 10/24/2011 32 1" $ $ $30.00 $147 63 N 7/8/2011 33 1" $ $ $0 00 $147.63 Y 3/29/2011 34 1" $ $ $30.00 $147 63 N 1/18/2011 35 1 5" $ $ $0.00 $206.11 Y 12/30/2011 36 1 5" $ $ $30 00 $206.11 N 11/17/2011 37 15" $ $ $30.00 $20611 N 11/3/2011 38 6" $ $ $150.00 $515.35 N 8/1/2011 TOTALS: ( $780.00 1 $5,629.50 COSTS ABSORBED: $4,849.50 10 Meter Services Recommendations Meter Testing 3/4" Sent to Sensus LABOR COSTS Employees Needed Quantity Average Average Total Labor Cost Hourly Rate Time Field worker 1 $13.50 0.5 $6.75 Supervisor 1 $22.00 1 $22.00 $0.00 TOTAL $28.75 EQUIPMENT COST Equipment Needed Quantity Average Average Total Equipment Hourly Rate Time Costs Truck 1 $15.00 0.5 $7.50 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $7.50 MISCELLANEOUS COST Materials Needed Quantity Cost of Item Other Total Equipment Costs Register 1 $52.67 $52.67 Shipping 1 $15.00 $15.00 Sensus Test Fee 1 $13.29 $13.29 TOTAL $80.96 TOTALS Total Total Total Total Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost MISC Cost $28.75 $7.50 $80.96 $117.21 Standard 10% Markup: $11.72 TOTAL COST: $128.93 11 Meter Services Recommendations Justification - Revenue Gain 3/4" Sent to Sensus CURRENT CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Current Charges Revenue Earned Comments 1/2011 16 $30.00 $480.00 $0.00 $0.00 Out of 28 meters sent in for testing, 12 had $0.00 credits issued after the $0.00 test for fee and usage. $0.00 TOTAL: 16 $30.00 $480.00 PROPOSED CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Proposed Cost Proposed Earnings Comments 1/2011- 12/2011 16 $130.00 $2,080.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 16 $130.00 $2,080.00 Increase /Loss in Revenue (Current vs. Proposed Charges): $1,600.00 COMMENTS Meters sent to Sensus for testing are more detailed because they cut open the register to test the internal components. While doing this process the register is destroyed. Comparison Boca outsourced is at cost WPB $66.00 Tequesta $60.07 Margate $30.00 Martin $20.00 Palm Beach $70.00 12 Meter Services Recommendations Meter Testing 1" Sent to Sensus LABOR COSTS Employees Needed Quantity Average Average Total Labor Cost Hourly Rate Time Field worker 1 $13.50 0.5 $6.75 Supervisor 1 $22.00 1 $22.00 $0.00 TOTAL $28.75 EQUIPMENT COST Equipment Needed Quantity Average Average Total Equipment Hourly Rate Time Costs Truck 1 $15.00 0.5 $7.50 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $7.50 MISCELLANEOUS COST Materials Needed Quantity Cost of Item Other Total Equipment Costs Register 1 $52.67 $52.67 Shipping 1 $15.00 $15.00 Sensus Test Fee 1 $30.29 $30.29 TOTAL $97.96 TOTALS Total Total Total Labor Cost Equipment Cost MISC Cost Total Cost $28.75 $7.50 $97.96 $134.21 Standard 10% Markup: $13.42 TOTAL COST: $147.63 13 Meter Services Recommendations Justification - Revenue Gain 1" Sent to Sensus CURRENT CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Current Charges Revenue Earned Comments 1/2011-12/2011 3 $30.00 $90.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 of the 6 accounts had meter issues. 2 $0.00 accounts had test fee waived and credit for $0.00 usage. $0.00 TOTAL: 3 $30.00 $90.00 PROPOSED CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Proposed Cost Proposed Earnings Comments 1/2011-12/2011 3 $150.00 $450.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 3 $150.00 $450.00 Increase /Loss in Revenue (Current vs. Proposed Charges): $360.00 COMMENTS Meters sent to Sensus for testing are more detailed because they cut open the register to test the internal components. While doing this process the register is destroyed. Comparison Boca outsourced is at cost WPB $66.00 Tequesta $73.38 Margate $30.00 Martin $20.00. 14 Meter Services Recommendations Meter Testing 1 -1/2" Sent to Sensus LABOR COSTS Employees Needed Quantity Average Average Total Labor Cost Hourly Rate Time Field worker 1 $13.50 1 $13.50 Supervisor 1 $22.00 1 $22.00 $0.00 TOTAL $35.50 EQUIPMENT COST Equipment Needed Quantity Average Average Total Equipment Hourly Rate Time Costs Truck 1 $15.00 1 $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $15.00 MISCELLANEOUS COST Materials Needed Quantity Cost of Item Other Total Equipment Costs Register 1 $55.69 $55.69 Shipping 1 $30.00 $30.00 Sensus Test Fee 1 $51.18 $51.18 TOTAL $136.87 TOTALS Total Total Total Total Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost MISC Cost $35.50 $15.00 $136.87 $187.37 Standard 10% Markup: $18.74 TOTAL COST: $206.11 15 Meter Services Recommendations Justification - Revenue Gain 1-1/2" Sent to Sensus CURRENT CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Current Charges Revenue Earned Comments 1/2011-12/2011 2 $30.00 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 of the 3 accounts $0.00 had meter issues and had fees waived. $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 2 $30.00 $60.00 PROPOSED CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Proposed Cost Proposed Earnings Comments 1/2011-12/2011 2 $206.00 $412.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 2 $206.00 $412.00 I Increase /Loss in Revenue (Current vs. Proposed Charges): $352.00 I COMMENTS No 1 -1/2" meters were tested during this time period. We do not have the facilities to test these meters in house. Meters sent to Sensus for testing are more detailed because they cut open the register to test the internal components. While doing this process the register is destroyed. Comparison Boca outsourced is at cost WPB $137.00 Tequesta $86.74 Margate $50.00 Martin $20.00. 1 6 Meter Services Recommendations Meter Testing For 2" Sent To Sensus LABOR COSTS Employees Needed Quantity Average Average Total Labor Cost Hourly Rate Time Field worker 1 $13.50 1 $13.50 Supervisor 1 $22.00 1 $22.00 $0.00 TOTAL $35.50 EQUIPMENT COST Equipment Needed Quantity Average Average Total Equipment Hourly Rate Time Costs Truck 1 $15.00 1 $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $15.00 MISCELLANEOUS COST Materials Needed Quantity Cost of Item Other Total Equipment Costs Register 1 $55.69 $55.69 Shipping 1 $30.00 $30.00 Sensus Test Fee 1 $71.97 $71.97 TOTAL $157.66 TOTALS Total Total Total Total Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost MISC Cost $35.50 $15.00 $157.66 $208.16 Standard 10% Markup: $20.82 TOTAL COST: $228.98 17 Meter Services Recommendations Justification - Revenue Gain 2" To Sensus CURRENT CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Current Charges Revenue Earned Comments 1/2011-12/2011 $30.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 0 $30.00 $0.00 PROPOSED CHARGES 1 EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Proposed Cost Proposed Earnings Comments 1/2011-12/2011 $230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 0 $230.00 $0.00 I Increase /Loss in Revenue (Current vs. Proposed Charges): $0.00 COMMENTS No 2" meters were tested during this time period. Meters sent to Sensus for testing are more detailed because they cut open the register to test the intemal components. While doing this process the register is destroyed. We do not have facilities to test this size meter in house. Comparison Boca outsource is at cost WPB $137.00 Tequesta $120.08 Margate $50.00 Martin $20.00. 18 Meter Services Recommendations Meter Testing In House 3/4" and 1" LABOR COSTS Employees Needed Quantity Average Average Total Labor Cost Hourly Rate Time Field worker 1 $13.50 2.75 $37.13 Supervisor 1 $22.00 1 $22.00 $0.00 TOTAL $59.13 EQUIPMENT COST Equipment Needed Quantity Average Average Total Equipment Hourly Rate Time Costs Truck 1 $15.00 2.75 $41.25 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $41.25 MISCELLANEOUS COST Materials Needed Quantity Cost of Item Other Total Equipment Costs Water Usage 1 $2.00 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $2.00 TOTALS Total Total Total Labor Cost Equipment Cost MISC Cost Total Cost $59.13 $41.25 $2.00 $102.38 Standard 10% Markup: $10.24 TOTAL COST: $112.61 19 Meter Services Recommendations Justification - Revenue Gain 3/4" and 1" In House Meter Test CURRENT CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Current Charges Revenue Earned Comments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 0 $0.00 $0.00 PROPOSED CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Proposed Cost Proposed Earnings Comments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 0 $0.00 $0.00 Increase /Loss in Revenue (Current vs. Proposed Charges): $0.00 COMMENTS No meters were tested in house during 2011 due to staff shortage. These meters would be tested on the test bench located in our Meter Repair Shop. Comaarison Boca at site $60.00 or removed $100.00 Pinellas 3/4 & 1" testing $30.00, 1 -1/2 & 2" $45.00. 20 Meter Services Recommendations Large Meter Testing On Site 3" and Above LABOR COSTS Employees Needed Quantity Average Average Total Labor Cost Hourly Rate Time Field Worker 4 $13.50 4 $216.00 Supervisor 2 $22.00 1 $44.00 Site Inspection 1 $13.50 1 $13.50 TOTAL $273.50 EQUIPMENT COST Equipment Needed Quantity Average Average Total Equipment Hourly Rate Time Costs Truck 3 $15.00 4 $180.00 Site Inspection 1 $15.00 1 $15.00 Truck Use $0.00 TOTAL $195.00 MISCELLANEOUS COST Materials Needed Quantity Cost of Item Other Total Equipment Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 TOTALS Total Total Total Labor Cost Equipment Cost MISC Cost Total Cost $273.50 $195.00 $0.00 $468.50 Standard 10% Markup: $46.85 TOTAL COST: $515.35 21 Meter Services Recommendations Justification - Revenue Gain Large Meter Testing On Site - 3" & Above CURRENT CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Current Charges Revenue Earned Comments 1/2011- 12/2011 1 $150.00 $150.00 Customer agreed to an $0.00 increased meter test fee of $150.00 as $0.00 discussed by the $0.00 Supervisor, but normally we would $0.00 have only charged $0.00 $30.00 in accordance with our current TOTAL: 1 $150.00 $150.00 ordinance. PROPOSED CHARGES / EARNINGS Month / Year Total Visits Proposed Cost Proposed Earnings Comments 1/2011-12/2011 1 $515.00 $515.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: 1 $515.00 $515.00 I Increase /Loss in Revenue (Current vs. Proposed Charges): $365.00 I COMMENTS Equipment needed for safety and to complete job on site: meter tester, tri -pod, ladder, sockets, wrenches, cones, chain, lock, hard hats, vests, pumps, generator, gas, blower, gas detector. Comparison WPB testing on 3" meter or greater, the cost is $339.00 Pinellas and Margate 2" or above are at cost to customer. 22 *2011 City of Boynton Beach Utility Fee Recommendations* By Patricia Kellner, Derrick Russell, and Mark Hurley Of the Meter Services Division In summary, we feel these recommendations adequately reflect practices that will help Boynton Beach Utilities reach better monetary solvency with methods currently used throughout the state. There has been no effort to suggest dramatic increases or to price gouge our customers. We have observed, however, that Boynton Beach lags behind current practices by other utilities and is due for a reexamination of its fee and pricing schedule(s). The suggestions discussed here demonstrate our thoughts on how this city can fairly apply an adjusted system of fees better reflecting current operating costs. We examined all aspects of our job description looking for areas where we felt our knowledge would help justify any increases. Additionally, we discussed at length all dollar amounts and every suggestion we have made was agreed upon by all involved in this project. Careful attention was paid to making reasonable proposals. These subjects are ones that we have discussed as a group for a while. This project and these advisements reflect years of ideas and brainstorming as a unit. We are pleased to have the opportunity to express our perceptions and look forward to any implementation of our recommendations. 23 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Boca Raton Person Spoke With: Jean (Cust. Service Rep.) Contact #: (561) 338 -7300 Date Called: 12/29/2011 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. I would like to know in detail your one day home inspection meter turn on procedure? A: We turn it on for 24 hours. One day's notice is needed. $60.00 anywhere in service jurisdiction 2 Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Boca Raton Person Spoke With: www.ci.boca- raton.fl.us Contact #: Water Billing Page; Rates PDF Date Called: 9/27/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for a high consumption investigation? A: There is a "Customer Requested Investigation" fee of $50.00 2. Is there a charge for meter testing? A: On site testing is $60.00, removed meter testing is $100.00, outsourced testing is at cost 3. Is there a charge for illegal usage? A: There is an "Unauthorized usage fee (meter removed)" of $60.00 4. Is there a charge for a pulled meter due to non - payment? A: There is a "Reinstall" of a pulled meter fee of $80.00 5. Is there a charge for tampering with a meter? A: There is an "Unauthorized usage fee (meter locked)" of $30.00 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Town of Davie Person Spoke With: www.davie- fi.gov Contact #: Water and Sewer Service Rates Date Called: 9/27/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a tampering charge? A: There will be a charge of $300.00 for tampering with any utility service, plus any and all repair costs incurred. 2. Is there a charge for using a jumper or other form of illegal meter bypass? A: There is a charge of $250.00 for any illegal meter bypass. 3. Is there a field visit charge? A: Connect charge: Between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday, to establish service at customer's request: $30.00 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 n of Davie, FL - 2011 Rate Sheet Davie Customers Page 2 of 3 Institutional Classes) All Usage $4.03 SEWER Volume charge per 1,000 gallons of sewer (All retail classes) All Usage $6.12 Wastewater billing cap for single family accounts — 15,000 gallons Wastewater billing cap for multi -unit accounts — 12,000 gallons Wastewater billing cap for mobile home accounts — 9,000 gallons PRICE BLOCKS BY CUSTOMER CLASS Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6 Single family 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 Over 50,000 Multi -Unit 4,000 8,000 16,000 24,000 40,000 Over 40,000 Mobile Home 3,000 6,000 12,000 18,000 30,000 Over 30,000 Irrigation 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 Over 50,000 CONSERVATION SURCHARGE (PER ORDINANCE 2008 - 5) Block 1 0% $ 3.13 per thousand gallons Block 2 10% $ 5.14 per thousand gallons Block 3 20% $ 7.48 per thousand gallons Block 4 30% $10.13 per thousand gallons Block 5 40% $13.12 per thousand gallons Block 6 50% $16,40 per thousand gallons ACCOUNT DEPOSIT Residential (Single - family, Multi -Unit, Mobile Home) Water Service $ 50.00 Sewer Service $ 50 00 Water & Sewer Service $100.00 Residential — Rental Units (Single family, multi -unit, mobile home) Water Service $ 75.00 Sewer Service $ 75.00 Water & Sewer Service $150.00 Non - Residential, Commercial Institutional WATER SEWER WATER & DEPOSIT DEPOSIT SEWER DEPOSIT 5/8" or 3/4" $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $150.00 1" 150 00 150.00 300.00 1-1/2" 200.00 200 00 400.00 2" 300 00 300.00 600.00 Irrigation Meters - $50.00 for each calculated ERC MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Connect Charge. Between 8.30 am and 5.00 pm $30.00 Monday through Friday, to establish service at Customer's request http: // www.davie - fl.gov /Pages/DavieFL_i _)tiltyDpt/2011 RATESHEET ?textPage =1 9/27/2011 ,vn of Davie, FL - 2011 Rate Sheet Davie Customers Page 3 of 3 After 5:00 pm or during Weekends or $100.00 Holidays, to establish service at Customer's request Disconnect Charge. Between 8:30 am and 5.00 pm $30.00 Monday through Friday, for non - payment of account or returned checks After 5:00 pm or during Weekends or $100.00 Holidays, for non - payment of account or returned checks Reconnection will be at no additional cost once payment is received. Late Charges: Payment will be considered late if not received by 5:00 pm on the DUE DATE indicated on the bill. The late charge is $7.00 or 12% of the bill, whichever is the greatest. Returned Checks: There will be a charge of $25 for all returned checks If payment for returned check is not made before date On bill, a late charge will be added. Tampering Charge: There will be a charge df $300 for tampering with any Utility service, plus any and all repair cok incurred. Removal of Jumper $250.00 or other Illegal Bypass Unauthorized Use of $500.00 Water from Fire Hydrant: http: / /www.davie- fl.gov/ Pages /DavieFL_UtiltyDpt/2011 RATESHEET ?textPage =1 9/27/2011 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Hallandale Beach Person Spoke With: Esther (Cust. Service Rep.) Contact #: (954) 458 -3251 Date Called: 12/29/2011 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. What is the procedure to temporarily turn on water at a house for a home inspection? A: Fill out paperwork to have an account and pay a $170.00 deposit. Customer must pay for water used. 2. Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called. City of Hallandale Beach Person Spoke With: www.hallandalebeach.orq Contact #: FAQ Page Date Called 9/29/2011 Caller Name GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for tampering? A: Accounts will be charged $150.00 for each occurrence for illegally reconnecting 2. Is there a charge for illegal bypass? A: Accounts will be charged $500.00 for each occurrence for illegally using jumpers. 3 Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 ,ndale Beach, FL - Official Website Page 2 of 3 7. How can payments be made? 1) Mailing your payment with the remittance stub to City Hall 2) Bringing your payment and remittance stub to City Hall between the l to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday(excluding Holidays), payments recer pm are credited to the account on the same day and payments received are credited the following business day 3) Depositing payments with the remittance stub in an envelope in the n by City Hall's main entrance (no cash please); payments will be posted 1 business day 4) Signing up for payment bank drafting, payment of your utility account automatically draft from your checking or savings account. Payment dra approximately fifteen days from the billing date - program participants cor a bill to inform you of the amount and the draft date; call (954) 457 -1360 information on how to join the program (All payments are applied to the oldest outstanding balance first) Bank Draft Sign -up Form 8 . Is there a tampering charge? Accounts will be charged $150 for each occurrence for illegally reconneCk and $500 for each occurrence for illegally using jumpers. j 9. How can I finalize my account or make changes? You must notify Utility Customer Service when requesting to finalize an requests to finalize an account must be made by the account holder in v accompanied by a picture ID If you are selling a property, you must alsc and executed copy of the warranty deed. You are responsible for all acc until you notify customer service and provide the required documentation a utility account, including requests for disconnection, must be in writing accompanied by a picture ID. Documentation may be brought, faxed at i or mailed to the Utility Department. Update /Change Utility Account Foal 10. How can I change the mailing address? Please mail the address correction request form. Update /Change Utility 11. What happens if my check is returned? Checks which are returned to the Finance Department will result in a ret charge. Returned checks and the returned check charge must be redeel within 24 hours or service may be terminated resulting in additional fees 12. When do I get my deposit back? The City retains your utility deposit on file until you terminate your servic the deposit is applied to your final bill and the difference is either refund( you 13. How do I sign up for automatic bank drafting? http: / /www.hallandalebeach .org/faq.aspx ?TTD =24 9/29/2011 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Lake Worth Person Spoke With: Susie (Cust. Service Rep.) Contact #: (561) 533 -7300 Date Called: 12/29/2011 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. How much does is cost to turn on water for one day for a home inspection? A: $60.00 and a completed application 2. Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Lake Worth Person Spoke With: Customer Service Information Guide Contact #: Service Guidelines & Fees (Pg. 3) Date Called: 9/15/2011 Caller Name: PK Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for a field visit? A: There is a "Special Field Trip" charge of $30.00 each trip 2. Is there a charge for a customer requested meter reread? A: There is a "Special Field Trip" charge of $30.00 each trip 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 <•O 0 tr) Cx > ° o - .° • - o • a >, - mo o o W F a�i U W w . 0 0 .S 5 > w W "Cl ..0 o OZ cdF� o po > w 0 N • � a a a O F- •c 3 o ° ° W ° a U ,x .g o .E mow "a ° W - ,.0 b oa .0 w N w AZ �� ...1 Q r d ., � OW U m z- - �o �wp 3w � CA a CO W U �' p N cd s. ° O O a Q 3 Q F C Z A . ° ic o c o i `" L o b A o) io L Q wA d dZ o c u) o o a n o • C 44 ,-.1) a o .... w 6* "ti„ . , ,,-; , ..c c : ) ; - „ , v . ) it 1 ��' a" date x - �, w �, E -0 0 = Z F - d F V o U 4• a1 a, U 3 Cti Tai 0.0 cu Y o a Cil .4 -o a ) ° O �," 0 .'a C7 w c� 'o y . a cn co 4 CU .5 co b W F o „S ` Z r 0 '- () ,...0 - o y }- `c� V � �" s. A o O a a' i °' a° -6 c' a . 0 9, R. 0 w A �-°a c °' o a _ • a >, r.7 W -' U ;3 a a"i ° C Eat a-o , o � O-oo wF � - °- 0 - o U 0 E o 0 5 U .-, N M Vl -_ --2 = - - 3 - — - -• - CA • w acv '° a c .- R. • , o E a) a g U o F . cv 0 o c i. � � o v, o cz al ° o c a `r : o V 9, V . G a> o 0 c� a) o G a 0 0 o EA o 0 o O c . ' s., o ° , ° o o .c .c a� cd C.) ° _ ca ^ 0 0 [� M vi v1 V v? O •-' a> ° a) v; O O U ti cd 'S s. o a) b "T M ifl c. � ' ° >' `. 69 ' 3 t a� cd V) c ^o a a Q a a' i c4 6 N co4 Z � ca CL) >, cod a> E 'U X) N A b .a 0) all a i 0) x }d a, aa) a b a) a� cr h cd a7 • a > 'O ° a. 'o 0 ... c U W 3 o E d o g a o 16 • t cu Z O 2 ,.. g O (L) OA w 3 c o a o Z ,-,i0m 4 E 0 E g r, cn x a cn `d b ° co E + `. a ca N n cu o O U N cA' a) d s co ^ s. • ° •� r.., �° g r N Q a� :' [� Oz F" ai ' `� o > 5 o ° ;? ¢ on ° � a> >,'- a a) 0. e t 0 U Q c U U U U o es 0 . c ` PPo U o N y .S 3 Z Z E- tii a 0 O g V o o w o U os ° .� 3 0 a� . a p :=4' W - . + - O �-. cC cd 0 7 . .. i. O O W rx d a. a w ° x d a b a° -o a a' i R. • a; ' ' b o b ' � U o . Q W a s W U a) Y 4 - • o x >., a 0) >, ai N a) • 0 U V O Q k. y O E N N M "' 0) ' - O ..ts 0 N ,FA o . c a .� ae -4 ¢ W F' [ -, ° is 0 = a x 6 � c '' ` 2 > 0 >, •-• c4 A V a LG Q� o a d Q �G A. " -" �"' a'C.+ -C 3 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Margate Person Spoke With: www.margatefl.com Contact #: Ordinance No. 2008 -22 Date Called: 10/1/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for a field visit? Turn on and turn off meter for convenience of customer during regular working hours: $10.00. A: Service calls, other than turn -on or turn -offs for convenience of customers during regular working hours: $15.00. 2. What are the fees for meter testing? A: Meter tests for meters 5/8" to 1": $30.00, meter tests for meters 1 1/2" to 2 ": $50.00, meter tests for meters larger than 2" are "by agreement ". 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 - I Ordinance No. 2008 -22 1 2 Multifamily Class Fees 3 All Meter Sizes(Per Unit) $85.00 4 5 Commercial Class Fees 6 5/8" Meter $135.00 7 1" Meter $495.00 8 1 1/2" Meter $830.00 • 9 2" Meter $1,685.00 10 Over 2" shall be by agreement. 11 12 4-e)-(g) The following provisions shall apply to ourchargco for 13 14 ocrvicco late and non - payment policy: 15 16 (1) - - z-- : _: _ _ _ .... 17 for cach time that acwcr and /or water 18 ocrvicco arc diocontinucd bccauoc of the failure to pay chargco 19 for oamc. Thcrc further ohall be a 20 -- _: _ - . .. 21 water ocrvicco nccc©oitatcd by the failure to pay chargco for 22 oamc. There shall be a non - payment bill fee of forty dollars 23 ($40.00)for discontinuance or resumption of water /wastewater 24 services whether or not service is physically turned off. 25 26 (2) Thcrc ohall be impoocd a ourchargc of ten dollaro ($10.00) 27 for discontinuancc or resumption of ocher and /or water ocrvicco d0 - {4}(h) Fire hydrant charge. A fire hydrant charge of two dollaro 31 : : _ _ - three dollars and thirty -five cents 32 ($3.35) per account per year shall be applicable to each single 33 family, multiple unit and commercial account throughout the service 34 area. 35 36 - (- g--(i) Schedule of meter fees. The following schedule of meter 37 fees shall be applicable to all classifications of customers at 38 initial commencement of service at any location: 39 40 41 42 43 Meter Size 44 (inches) Fee 45 5/8" meter $115.00 $190.00 46 1" meter 225.00 $240.00 47 1 -1/2" meter . . . . 400.00 $490.00 (� { 48 2" meter . . . 525.00 $580.00 49 49 All over 2" shall be by agreement. �® r 51 _ -- ' ellaneous charges: �✓ 52 53 (1) Turn on and turn off meter for convenience of customer , 54 during regular working hours . . . $10.00 55 13 CODING: e'• , Words in underscored type are additions. •r• - -- k •. 2008 -22 3 . . 10.00 Service calls, other than turn -on or turn -offs for 4 convenience of customers during regular working hours t � V � 4 $15.00 5 uTi e,..5 5 5 1 �G�`�'�`lo A lr r\ 7 (3) Turn on mctcr, Application for Service, new customer, duri 8 regular working hours. . 10.00 $15.00 9 10 Turn on ing regular working hours . . . 11 4 -8-r44 $50.00 12 13 (5) Turn on and reset meter, when meter has been removed due to 14 tampering, only done during regular working hours. . 15.00 $50.00 15 16 - - - - _ - _ -- - _ - 17 = - = _ --- 18 � 19 (I6,Adjust meter box, raising or lowering at reques ` customer 20 d to the customer's changing the grade of his yard.. 50.00 21 22 ($7) Meter bench test at customer's request, if meter 23 proves faulty n/c 24 25 If meter proves accurate: 26 5/8 by 3/4 inch and 1 inch meter . . 15.00 $30.00 27 28 1 1/2 inch to 2 inch meter 25 00 $50.00 2: 30 Above 2 inches at coot By Agreement 31 32 (48) No meter -- jumper 100.00 $190.00 33 34 (499) To restore service after service line has been removed 35 because of nonpayment and /or because of jumper 50 00 $.1.00 36 37 (ki0) - - -: - -- 38 without permiooion of utility 25 00 39 40 Unauthorized Transfer of Meter by developer. =40.00 41 1411) Fire line charge per year: 42 43 4 inc 'ne 300.00 $370.00 44 45 6 inch line -00 $860.00 46 47 8 inch line . . . . 1,200.00 $1,475.00 48 49 (4412) Lock charge . . 10.00 $20.00 50 51 (4413) Returned checks issued to the city (for any reason, 52 including water and sewer payments) to be charged in accordance with 53 that provided by Florida Statute. 1 54 14 CODING: Words in Words in underscored type are additions. I Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Martin County Person Spoke With: Karla (Cust. Service Rep.) Contact #: (772) 221 -1434 Date Called: 12/29/2011 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. What do 1 have to do for a temporary water turn on for a home inspection? A: Start a new account and pay a deposit (can have water on any amount of time). 2. Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Martin County Person Spoke With: www.martin.fl.us Contact #: Customer Service/ Rates & Charges Page Date Called: 9/29/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for a field visit? A: There is a fee for turn -on or turn -off at customer request of $20.00 2. Is there a charge for meter testing? A: $20.00 if meter was correct 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Special Service Charges Page 1 of 2 News 1 Jobs 1 Contact 1 Help Search for Services Aar A EOu,--\---i __ fr.: Utilities Water, Recycling, Waste and Environmental Protection Utilities & Solid WE �— Agendas Martin County Utilities & Solid Waste > Customer Service > Rates and Charges > Utilities Special Service Charges Solid Waste Customer Service /Rates and Charges Customer Service "Bill Payment Optic Special Service Charge ■ Rates and Charge: 'Residential Servi 'Commercial & Iri Service fee for new customers moving $ 20.00 *Master Metered t into existing service addess: 'Irrigation ServieE Same day service turn -on fee: $ 45.00 'Special Service C Weekends, holidays and after 4:00 p.m. 'Capital Facility C s -call out charge: $ 50.00 ► 'Connection Chan weekdays 9 'Reducing Water U: Special services provided in an attempt 'Applying For Servi to collect an unpaid bill: $ 50.00 ► Customer Service Turwion or, turn -off at customer's ► Agreement request: $ 20.00 ► Service Availabilit Technical Services Testing of meter for high bill complaint: Important Document If meter was correct $ 20.00 Correspondence Curr If meter malfunctioned No Charge Events Calendar (Usage charges to be adjusted) Contact Us Current Budget Removal and /or replacement of meter due to unpaid charges Connection Map Services or unauthorized use: The current connection charge. Charge FDEP Permit Apps Removal and replacement of sewer service lateral due to Design & Constructio unpaid charges and continued unauthorized use: At Cost Photo Gallery l m -i a r �4 • eG 0 Y j e • � l { _ a r P I 4 � � `� �^ Currently No Ac at CV \QatiA ACA g 0 ``e `; r , '►r�' �il� 0 5ct 0\e' .., ., . http: / /www. martin .fl.us /portal/page ?_pageid =351 566166 &_dad portal &_schema= PORT... 9/29/2011 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department Person Spoke With: www.miamidade.gov /wasd /rates.asp Contact #: Schedule of Water Fees and Charges Date Called: 10/112011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for a field visit? A: Additional charge if a field visit is required: $25.00 2. Is there a charge to pull a meter (resulting from non - payment)? A: "Third attempt" water meter removal charge: $250.00 3. Is there a charge for a high bill investigation? A: Customer requested high bill investigation which does not meet established criteria: $20.00 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 MIAMI -DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT SCHEDULE OF WATER FEES AND CHARGES WA ER Effective October 1, 2010 C Additional charge if a field visit is required to connect the water meter or obtain a water meter reading• Regular working hours 525.00 Non - regular working hours $30.00 11, Dther Service Fees A. Office investigation of a delinquent account resulting from: Active meter violation $30.00 Returned payment (check, draft, or other order for the payment of money) (F.S. 2005 - 125.0105, 832.08(5)): If face value of payment does not exceed $50.00 525.00 If face value of payment exceeds $50.00 but does not exceed $30.00 $300.00 If face value of payment exceeds 5300.00 $40.00 (or 5% of the face amount of payment, whichever is greater) B. Field attempt to collect a payment or deposit or to discontinue $20.00 water service by cutting or locking service or removing meter and plugging service C. Field attempt to reconnect a cut -off or locked service or to reinstall a meter: Regular working hours $30.00 Non - regular working hours $35.00 D Field visits after initial attempt to read meter or to inspect backflow $50.00 prevention device required due to denied access E Customer requested check read $12.50 Penalty for failure to provide a meter reading or a meter for $150.00 inspection as required for floating (construction) meters ;. Customer - requested high bill investigation which does not meet $20 00 established criteria Charges the Department incurs on behalf of $5,00 the customer which shall be passed on to the (minimum charge) customer Page 3 of 27 MIAMI -DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT SCHEDULE OF WATER FEES AND CHARGES W ' Effective October 1. 201Q E Fee for Renewal of Expired Personal Transponder (one year from date of issuance) (Consultants, Contractors, Non -Water and Sewer Department Staff) Per Person 515.00 F. Fee for Replacement of Personal Transponder (transponder lost, stolen, etc.) Per Person $15.00 G. Fee for Issuance of Initial Transponder for Vehicle or Equipment Per Vehicle or Piece of Equipment $25.00 Fee charged for processing costs for issuance of vehicle or equipment transponder to access Department facilities (Consultants, Contractors, Non -Water and Sewer Department Staff) H. Fee for Renewal of Expired Transponder for Vehicle or Equipment (one year from date of sssuance) (Consultants, Contractors, Non -Water and Sewer Department Staff) Per Vehicle or Piece of Equipment 525.00 I. Fee for Replacement of Transponder for Vehicle or Equipment (transponder lost, stolen, etc.) Per Vehicle or Piece of Equipment $25.00 41. Subscription Fee to Access Customer Information System ICIS) ee per user $6,300.00 1nnual fee charged to title and lien companies to provide access to the Department's Customer Information System (CIS) via the Internet. 42..ut For Non - Payment (CONN hard Attempt Water Meter Removal Charge 5250.00 I ee charged to customers who intentionally blocked access to water meter on two previous attempts to collect or lock service for non - ayment. Page 11 of 27 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Miramar Person Spoke With: Melissa (Cost. Service Rep.) Contact #: 954- 602 -3028 Date Called 1/3/2012 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. What do I do to schedule a temporary turn on for a home inspection? A: There is a 1 day (24 hour) temporary turn on for inspection. If it was shut off for nonpayment, the cost is $50.00. If the meter was pulled, the cost is $125.00. 2. Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4 Question 47 A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5 A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Miramar Person Spoke With: www.ci.miramar.fl.us Contact #: Water Rates & Fees Page Date Called: 10/1/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for illegal usage? A: "Tampering fee - service connection with meter bypass" $200.00 2. Is there a fee for tampering with the meter? A: "Tampering fee -meter tum on by customer" $125.00 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 4 untitled OWNER $125 - 5/8" meter size DELINQUENCY (LATE) FEE $15 EXPEDITED LIEN SEACH $100 TAMPERING FEE - METER TURN ON BY CUSTOMER $125 TAMPERING FEE SERVICE CONNECTION WITH METER BYPASS $200 TAMPERING FEE - WITH RESULTING DAMAGED $150.00 PLUS A PER HOUR RATE FOR STAFF TIME AND MATERIALS. AFTER -HOUR TURN ON FEE $135 NEW ACCOUNT SET UP FEE $25 ACCOUNT TERMINATION FEE $25 SERVICE CALL FOR WASTEWATER BLOCKAGES - RESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY $75 ($135 AFTER HOURS) SERVICE CALL FOR WASTEWATER BLOCKAGES REQUIRING SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT - RESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY $170 ($255 AFTER HOURS) Adjustments when Filling up a Pool OD VIA e/ . 1 V\ S feCA 0 VI : ,- (,...6 50 zl-- nf C- c)v\v \ eCk- -- 4 k/z_s - ,-P (lie Me,±e r Page 2 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Opa-Locka Person Spoke With: Sekena (Cust. Service Rep.) Contact #: (305) 953 -2868 Date Called: 12/29/2011 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. What do I have to do to get water turned on temporarily for a home inspection? A: Open a new account and pay a deposit. 2. Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of Opa -Locka Person Spoke With: www.opalockafl.cov Contact #: Deposits & Penalty Fees Page Date Called: 10/18/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for tampering? A: Tampering fee is $450.00 2. Is there a charge for pulling a meter due to non - payment? A: Meter Removal fee is $50.00 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Opa- Locka, FL - Deposits & Penalty Fees Page 1 of 2 Personalize your online experience to stay up -to -date on news, events and other information you care about. View m _dashboard Sign In The great Chu of rm JIoridA HOME CiOVEf fkmEf1T D EC aPTf"?EfiTS PF :SIC) ::(1TS • You are here: Home > Departments > Finance > Utility Billing / Collections & Lien, Search Deposits & Penalty Fees © FOLLOW 1ft JON Tube VIEW Customer Standard Deposits Amnesty Program Meter Size Amount Deposits & Penalty Fees 3/4" $170 How to Read Your Meter 1" $1,000 How to Detect Leaks 1 1/2" $1,500 Water Rates & Fees 2" $2,000 3" $3,000 © SHARE ; R55 Email Porn 4" $4,000 6" $6,000 EMERGENCY ALERTS 8" $8,000 ONLINE BILL PAYMENT Illegal Usage Water Deposit FORMS & DOCUMENTS This amount does not include any uncollected water usage, which Meter Size Amount EMPLOYMENT 3/4" $340 OPA TV 1" $2,000 1 1/2" $3,000 2" $4,000 3" $6,000 4" $8,000 6" $12,000 8" $16,000 Other Fees • Tampering fee: $450 • Shut -off fee: $25 • Lock meter fee: $40 • Meter removal fee: $50 ( 3c) 73 Z zg � http: / /www.opalockafl.gov /index.aspx ?1VID =121 10/18/2011. Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Palm Beach County Utilities Person Spoke With: Amy (Cust. Service Rep.) Contact #: (561)740 -4600 Date Called: 12/29/2011 Caller Name: WB Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for a field visit? There is no charge to shut off a meter, but there is a $35.00 fee for turning on a meter. There is a A ' $35.00 fee for locating a meter. 2. Is there a charge to turn on a meter for a home inspection? There is a $35.00 fee for the service. Also, the listing agent must fax over proof and payment must A " be made a head of time. This is for a one day inspection. 3. Is there a charge for tampering, illegal usage, or pulled meters due to non - payment? A: There is a $400.00 fee plus charges for damages that may be used for any instance of tampering or illegal usage. The application of the fee is the supervisor's determination. 4. Is there a charge for a customer requested meter reread or high consumption investigation? A: There is a fee of $35.00. 5. Is there a charge for meter testing? A: There is a fee of $70.00 for all meter calabration tests. Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Pinellas County Person Spoke With: Curtis (Cust. Service Rep.) Contact #: (727) 464 -4000 Date Called: 12/29/2011 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. What is the procedure to get your water turned on for a home inspection? A: The homeowner needs to open an account. If they won't, you can get it turned on as a tenant by setting up an account but then you assume responsibility. The water can be shut off any time. 2. Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Pinellas County Person Spoke With: www.pinellascountv.orq /UTILITIES/ Contact #: Rates and Fees Page Date Called: 10/15/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for a field visit? A: Part IV Service Charges, No. 2 Turn on fee same date $32.00 2. Is there a charge for customer requested meter rereads? A: Part IV Service Charges, No. 9 Check last reading fee (if routine or special meter reading was correct) or off -cycle reading or billing $19.00 3. Is there a charge for meter testing? Part IV Service Charges, No. 12 Meter test in shop 3/4" to 1" $35.00/ Part IV Service Charges, No. 13 A: Meter test in shop 1 1/2" to 2" $45/ Part IV Service Charges, No. 14 Meter test in field larger than 2" at cost 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 IV. SERVICE CHARGES 1. Tum on Fee (seduled) future date $16.00 2. Tum on Fee same date $32.00 3. Pre - termination notice $18.00 4. Delinquent turn off $21.00 5. Delinquent tum on future date $19.00 6. Delinquent turn on same date $32.00 7. Return check processing Per Florida Statute 8. Special meter reading - water already on $16.00 9. Check last reading fee (if routine or special meter reading was correct) or off- $19.00 cycle reading for billing 10. Meter reset fee - 3/4" - 1" $30.00 11. Larger than 1" at cost 12. Meter test in shop (if meter is registered within accuracy range - 3/4" to 1" $35.00 13. Meter test in shop (if meter is registered within accuracy range - 1 -1/2" to 2" $45.00 14. Meter test in field (if meter is registered within accuracy range - larger than 2" at cost 15. Hydrant meter deposit charge at cost Services that are provided after hours at the request of the customer will be charged at two times the approved rate. V. FIRE PROTECTION CHARGES A. Installation charge for fire hydrant only - 5 1/4" at cost B. Standby Charges for unmetered private fire protection facilities: 1. Annual Charge 6" or less fire line $102.00 2. Annual Charge 8" fire line $174.00 3. Annual Charge 10" fire line $342.00 4. Annual Charge 12" fire line $390.00 Persons desiring to have public fire protection facilities relocated shall pay in advance 100% of the estimated cost of relocation. Upon completion of the project they shall be billed actual cost plus overhead, less the amount advanced. Governmental age C. Potable fire hydrant flow test $75.00 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: South Martin Regional Utilities Person Spoke With: www .southmartinreaionalutilitv.com Contact #: Appendix A Feb. 1, 2011 Rate Tarriff Final Date Called: 10/1/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for a field visit? A: Premises visit (in lieu of disconnect): $30.00 2. Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 WATER 1 WASTEWATER RATES MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE Applicable to all customers of the utility system. During Normal Hours After Normal Hours Initial connection of service $20.00 $40.00 Reconnect Service (Incl. Turn -off and $30.00 $60.00 Turn-on) Premises visit (in lieu of disconnect) $30.00 $60.00 Meter Installation Fee: 5/8" $294.00 1" 360.00 1 1/2" 556.00 2" 653.00 Over 2" Actual Cost Water Tap on Fee: 1" $375.00 2" 658.00 (or at cost, whichever is greater) Sewer tap on Fee $327.00 (or at cost, whichever is greater) Road Push: 2" $1000.00 (or at cost, whichever is greater) Late Payment Charge $2.00 up to $133.00, above this amount: 1.5% of the total past due amount Inspection Fee One percent (1 %) of construction cost of project with a minimum charge of $500.00. Plan Review Fee Two percent (2 %) of construction cost of project with a minimum charge of $750.00. Development Project One half percent (.5) of construction cost of project with a Administrative Fee minimum charge of $250.00 Return Check Service Charge /Service Fees: As provided in Section 832.07, Florida Statutes, the greater of the service charge authorized in Section 832.08(5), Florida Statutes((a) $25, if the face value is less than $50, (b) $30, if the face value is more than $50 but less than $300, and (c) $40, if the face value is more than $300), or 5 percent of the face amount of the returned check. -6- APPENDIX A — Feb 1, 2011 RATE TARIFF FINAL Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Village of Tequesta Person Spoke With Lee (Cust. Service Rep.) Contact #: (561) 768 -0421 Date Called. 1/3/2012 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. What is the process to get a temporary turn on for a home inspection? A: Fill out an application and set up an account with a deposit. Small meters are 113.42 for deposit and the prices are different for other sizes. Must pay for any water used. 2 Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: Village of Tequesta Person Spoke With: www.tequesta.orq Contact #: Resolution No. 22 -11 Date Called: 10/1/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1. Is there a charge for pulling a meter clue to non - payment? A: There is a $93.94 "Meter removal charge" 2. Is there a charge for a field visit? A: There is a $20.01 "Field premise visit" fee 3 Is there a charge for meter testing? For 5/8" or 3/4" meters the fee is $60.07, for 1 " meters the fee is $73.38, for 1 1/2" meters the fee is A ' $86.74, for 2" meters the fee is $120.08 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 "Exhibit A" Water Rate Res. 22 -11 D. Meter Re -read .$13.34 E. Meter Testing 5/8" or 3/4" $60.07 1" ...$73.38 12" $86.74 2" ...$120.08 F. Field Premise Visit $20.01 G. Line Location Services $53.39 H. Plan Review 3% of the construction cost, $150.00 minimum. L Inspection Fee, Per Visit .$76.33 15. Tampering with Turned -Off Service A. Removal charge $93.94 B. Re- installation charge 5/8"or3/4" $234.85 1" or Larger Actual Cost C. Destruction of meter related equipment (1) Assessment for replacement of meter or meter related equipment (2) A minimum of $27.75 administrative charge per occurrence 16. Surcharge - Customers Outside the Village - 25% surcharge on monthly rates, fees, and charges. Sep 2011 -Resolution - Exhibit A - Utility Fee Exhibit Page 5 of 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of West Palm Beach Person Spoke With: Bill (Customer Service Rep.) Contact #: (561) 822 -1300 Date Called: 12/29/2011 Caller Name: MH Questions Asked 1. What do I have to do to get water turned on at a house I am thinking of buying for a home inspection? One walk through per year is free. It must be scheduled one day a head of time. Water is turned A: on at 11:00 AM and shut off at 3:00 PM. Each additional walk through per year is $28.00. Service is subject to availability. Currently there is a one week waiting period. 2. Question 2? A: Answer to Question 2 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 Questions to Surrounding Utilities Organization Called: City of West Palm Beach Person Spoke With: www.wpb.orq Contact #: Water & Wastewater Rate Schedule Date Called: 8/26/2011 Caller Name: GR Questions Asked 1 Is there a charge for a field visit? A: Field visit charge during normal working hours: $28.00 2. Is there a charge for a meter test? The charge for a meter test for a meter up to 1": $66.00, charge for a meter test for a 1 1/2" or A. 2" meter: $137.00, charge for a meter test for a meter 3" or larger: $339.00 3. Question 3? A: Answer to Question 3 4. Question 4? A: Answer to Question 4 5. Question 5? A: Answer to Question 5 amer Service « WPB Public Utilities Pagu2 o2 C) O EFFECTIVE October 1, 2010 RES *166 -08 V v RESIDENTIAL: (As Applicable) Service Charge (PER DWELLING UNIT) Water Sewer o d ;17.70 ;10.37 Commodity Charge (PER UNIT OF WATER USED) (1 unit = 100 cu ft or 748 gallons) 0 -8 Units ;2.05 $3.06 9 -16 Units ;2.57 ;3.06 (up to 16 units) 17 -36 Units ;3.02 N/A 37 -76 Units ;3.54 N/A 77 -200 Units ;4.08 N/A 201 and above. $4.58 N/A GENERAL SERVICE: Service Charge (Based on Meter Size) Water Sewer 5/8 Inch ;17.70 810.37 3/4 Inch ;26.57 ;15.56 1 Inch ;44.27 ;25.95 11/2 Inch 888.61 ;51.83 2 Inch ;141.78 ;82.92 3 Inch ;265.85 $155.49 4 Inch ;443.09 ;261.06 6 Inch ;886.17 *518.23 8 Inch ;1,417.84 ;829.20 10 Inch ;2,038.16 81,191.98 12 Inch *3,806.06 ;2,229.98 Commodity Charge (PER UNIT OF WATER USED) (1 unit = 100 cu R or 748 gallons) 0-8 Units *2.05 ;3.06 9 -16 Units ;2.57 ;3.06 17 -36 Units ;3.02 83.06 37 -76 Units 0.54 ;3.06 77- 200 Units ;4.08 83.06 201 and above. *4.58 83.06 IRRIGATION Service Charge (Same as above) Commodity Charge (PER UNIT OF WATER USED) (1 unit = 100 cu ft or 748 gallons) 0- 75 Units 83.54 ;N /A 76- 200 Units *4.08 $N /A 201 and above. ;4.58 $N /A WITHOUT CITY WATER: Sewer commodity charge is *48.96 per dwelling unit /equivalent unit INACTIVE ACCOUNTS: Is equal to the Service Charge as listed for residential and non - residential accounts SURCHARGE: Outside City Limits - A 25% surcharge will be added to all rates, fees and charges to those customers outside City of WPB limits per City Resolution. Mandatory Water Restriction - A 10% surcharge for each water restriction phase put into effect by SFWM will be applied to all usage above 8 CCF. MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES AND FEES EFFECTIVE October 1, 2010 Res. *166 -08 Service Initiation Charge up to 1" ;43.00 overt *66.00 Collections Disconnect Charge up to 1" $ 56 00 over 1" *87.00 Multi -Unit Delinquent Turn Off Notice ;5.00 (per unit) Meter Re -reads & Special Reads 828.00 ` Returned Chedc Charge *25.00 MINIMUM DEPOSITS REOUIRED Field Visit Charge Meter Sin Residential General During Normal Working Hours ;28.00 • SrvG After Normal Working Hours ;43.00 •--. 5/8 ;190 ;220 Meter Test Charge - up to 1 Inch ;66.00 • . 3/4" ;285 ;330 Meter Test Charge - 1 1/2 inch & 2 inch *137.00 1" ;480 8550 Meter Test Charge - 3 inch and greater 8339.00 - 1 1/2" ;955 ;1,100 Private Hydrant Testing 860 • 2" ;1,530 ;1,760 For Plan Review and Construction Fees contact 3" ;2,865 *3,300 Public Utilities Engineering at 561- 494 -1040 4" $4,775 ;5,500 Cut Back& Restore to Water or *800.00 6" 89,550 ;11,000 Wastewater Main: 8" ;15,280 *17,600 Wastewater Lateral Tap In Charge: ;1,005.00 10" ;21,965 *25,300 Water /Wasterwater Insp. ;104.00 12" ;41,085 ;47,300 Fee (Contractor Inst Only) Fire Hydrant Meter Deposit ;1,300 Late Payment Fee: ;2.50 or Detector Chedc Meter 1% of unpaid balance of each service agreement, Deposit $175.00 whichever Is greater WATER & WASTEWATER RAW WATER IRRIGATION ram CAPACITY CHARGES Rate for Service Meter Water Wastewater Revocable Permit Required ;50.00 Size Residential ;21.15 monthly 5/8" ;2,190 ;1,270 General Servke 25% of the currently 3/4" ;3,285 $ 1,905 (must be metered) effective potable water 1" * 5,475 $ 3,175 irrigation rate based on 1 1/2" $ 10,950 8 6,350 usage 2" ; 17,520 * 10,160 3" $ 35,040 * 20,320 INSTALLATION 4" $ 54,750 $ 31,750 *Contractor City 6" ; 109,500 ; 63,500 Meter Sin )nstall Charae Tao -In Charge 100 ; 251,850 * 146,050 " $ 251,850 * 146,050 5/8" $529 $ 1,712 12" 8 470,850 $ 273,050 5/8" DC ; 297 ;N /A 3/4" ; 492 ;845 PRIVATE FIRE LINE 1" 8 694 * 1,870 PROTECTION SERVICE 1 1/2" $ 819 $ 2,803 (BILLED MONTHLY) 2" $ 1,196 $ 3,114 Size Deposit Monthly ••3" ; 2,882 ***N/A 2" ;60 ;24.10 ••4" 2 1/2" ; 80 ; 37.67 ; 6,920 •••N / A 3" * 90 ; 45.18 ••6" ; 9,228 ***N/A 4" ; 155 ; 75.29 ■•8" ; 11,316 •••N /A 6" ; 240 ; 150.60 ••10' ;15,203 ***N/A 8" ; 500 * 240.98 ••12" * 17,033 ***N/A http:// www .wpb.org/utilities/Rates.html 8/26/2011