Loading...
Minutes 04-19-73MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA HELD AT CITY HALL~ THURSDAYs APRIL 19, 1975 at 4:00 P. M. Re - PA~MLA~ (CHAPTER WORLD) PRESENT Emily M. Jaekson, Mayor Joe DeLong~ Vice Mayor David Roberts~ Couneilman Edward P. Harmening~ Councilman Porrest L. Wallaee~ Councilman Frank Kohl~ City Manager Tereesa Padgett~ City Clerk Ernest Simon~ City Attorney Mayor Jackson: Welcome to the Special Meeting of April 19 called for the purpose of discussing the Palmland suit-Charter World, I~d like to have it show for the reoords that this meeting~ I did not call it it was called by tmanimous consensus of the Council. Who wants to start? Who wants to begfza? Mr. Robez~s: I~d like to make a statement for the records too. Sometime ago when Palntland Corp. had their attorney make a statement: I think it was their former attorney~ Lovett~ and on the basis of that statement a meeting was called to meet with Palmtand and with the Council. At that time there was apparently no progress in sight and the meeting broke up so I want to m~ie it clear there was no meeting and no ~egotiations in regard to settling the suits. There was another meeting called later on at which time there was only one member of Council present (that's my- self) the others not coming in due to the fact that it was not properly advertised and at that time there was very little negotiations if any~ accomplished. So I would say actually this is the first time the com- plete Council has been sitting in and discussing this particular matter. }irs. Jackson: Mr. Simon~ I would like to have it clarified for the record. I asked you just a few minutes ago whether we woutd~ any of us~ he in conflict of interest in discussing a lawsuit in which we ame in- volved? Mr. Simon: In my opinion~ there would be no conflict of interest - you would be free to discuss it Mrs. Jackson: Who would ~e to start? Mr. DeLong: I would like to m~ie my feelings known right before we start~ because I don~t intend to participate in the functions of this particular special meeting~ and I respectfully request my following marks be included in the public record of this special meeting of the City Council of Boynton Beaeh~ and the Patmland Development Corp. ~It appears to me that the procedures on annexation and zoning were not strictly complied with during the initial City and Palmland proceedings. As of this date~ the developer has not submitted to the City a prelim- inary development site p!an~ ~nd has demanded a building per,nit in order to construct model apartments. The developer did submit to the former City Planner a colored layout~ pinpointing the zoning classifications he was interested in. BY no stretch of the imagination could this layout be considered a site plan nor does it bear the official seal of the City MINHTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1975 approving it as such. I find no record of a zoning hearing before the Flapping 6 Zoning Board or City Council advertised in a newspaper rela- tive to zoning classifications for the proposed Chs30ter World project. In answer to Mr, Cooper~ the Attorney for Palmland: who raised a ques- tion at the last Council meeting regarding which law I should follow, I hereby advise the gentleman from Orlando: the law I will always follow 18 the law of the City Charter of Boynton Beach~ adopted by the voters of our City by referendum~ and not the supplemental procedure as pro- vided by Chapter 171.16, Florida State Statutes that was substituted for the City Cha~ter provisions on anneXation~ for reasons best known to all involved. The 6.7 units per acre of density~ PalmIand agrees to abide by: is not a true picture. No way c~n you oaneulate 6~ 700 units o£ t~-2A and R-3 zoning const~,ueted on a total of 66~. 8 acres of land as numberSd on Road Plan #7~501 submitted by Palmland and arrive at 6.7 units per acre. What is the justification for agreeing to 9rant at the developer's insistence C-i and C-~ zoning on the west side o~ and con- tiguous to Congress Ave. when a developer 1/4 of a mile north of Charter World on the east side and contiguous to Congress .Ave. was refused zoning? The developers reruns and plans for the ec~struction o~ Charter World's water and sewer system leaves much to be desired by the City. If the members of the City Council decide to vote for a settlement with thereby eliminating,pending litigation~ then in my opinion thethe developerinterests of the people of Bo~toz% Beea h, sW e es ebser de Y starting from scratch, not on the develop ~ Y P P procedural requirements the developer mUst.show a wil]~.ngness tO honor and abide by providing reasonable low dSnslty standards that th~ people of Boynton Beach aah accept and live with for many years after the developer has completed and sold Out his development. Thank you~ Madsyn Mayor. ~ Jackson: Anyone else like to say anything? Mr. Wallace: I~asmuch as a point of order~ for the Attorney. Inasmuch as the gentleman, Mr. DeLong~ the Vice Mayor~ has stipulated or stated that he is not going to participate as far as the meeting according to the rules and regulations of which this Council is operating under - interpretatiOn if he is sitting here and refuses to vote is that not a vote of yes to those questions that are brought up before Council? Mr, DeLong: I am not going to participate in the negotiations, but I will vote when it comes to a vote! Mr. Wallace: Mr. DeLong~ I'm not going to get into personalities with this bit this afternoon - I simply ask a direction and question as far as the Attorney is eoneernedo Mr. Simon: As - as I understand it - Mr. DeLong is saying he's not going to participate in negotiations but he just said he~s going to vote when the question comes up for a vote. · ' d Mr. Wallace: As long as it's e!ar~f~e . Thank you. Mayor Jackson: Anyone else have anything to say? MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEET/NG APP~IL 19~ 1973 Mr. Roberts: Well~ at this point~ nothing has happened. I don't know what I can say~ except my position is that and I feel that arunexation is something we must face. However, there are certain items to possibly be ironed out. The idea of an objection was filed because of this den- sity which was apparent to many agencies and also the Council - or at least some of the m~bers of the Council. It was unrestricted and I have a sheet here that shows that evez~zthing could have been used resi- dential with a tremendous amount of units, In fact I was one of the in- dividuals involved in the suit that was filed asking for clarification from the court. If this had been acted upon much would have been cleared up~ perhaps somewhere along the line. It has been postponed and we started negotiating fo~ lower density. There has been some concessions and I thought that since the entire Council is here-a meeting has been called - perhaps we should examine the situation and seeJhow we come up and anybody that does not agree with any of these things has the right to abstain o~ object or stay out of the argzunento Tha~fs ~oout all I eau say at the moment. Mr. Ha~mening: Madam Mayor~ in order to expedite this thing and get go- ing I suggest we sta~t~ I think~ I believe~ we all have a copy of this ~entative stipulation and agreement. I suggest we start through it~ and where any of us have any questions or additions or we don~t agree I sug- gest we try to iron out and resolve any conflicts - if possible reach a settlementf Mayor Jackson: Before we get into that I~s like to make my statement. Because as far as I~m concerned~ I~m willing to sit here and let any- body speak~ and t want everybody that wants to to speak. I~d like to just say that my ~eeting is in the lawsuit that Mr. Roberts and I were involved in they brought out the fact that at the time on Nov. 7th when this 2nd reading was held on this ordinance the propert~ was not owned by Pal~nland. As a matter of fact, in their own stipulation they say that on Nov. 7 the City Council of the City of Boynton Beach passed on second and final reading Ord. ~72-27. Then on or about Nov. 28, 1972~ in the last, upon the action of the City of Boynton Beach the plaintiff exercised this option to purchase said lands~ Now the reason I'm saying this - is because this was passed in an ordinance, which is supplemental which says owner or owners of the real property in the unincorporated ac~as. I~d also like to point out that it says further this one last thing - the plaintiffs David Roberts and Emily Jackson~ members of the City Council of the defendant City are in doubt as to their rights and duties in such capacity ... believing that unless a referendum-election is held annexation of such land will be ine~feotive~ null and void~ and that they will possibly incur personal liability by permitting the City funds to be expended in providi?ng public services and facilities to the area purportedly annexed. I~m going to stick to what I said the other night - a referendum3 Mr. Wallace: Just as a point of clarification~ and before we'll say= and I can agree with Mr. Harmening~ the more statements that we here ~ke~ the more we a~e delving into the personalities and losing the true meaning shall we say~ of why we are here %his afternoon. I thiDk if you refer back to the minutes o~ the last Council meeting and as % stipulated -3-- MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL ~ETiNG APRIL 19~ 1973 earlier that there was a 5-0 vote as far as the Council being here this a~ternoon specifically for the purpose of trying to negotiate the set- tlement o~ the problem that concerns us again with Charter World. I assume that that is what we are here for this afternoon. I said~ ! think that I can tak~ the occasion to refute some of the statements that have been made here already this a£ternoon inasmuch as I know that there have bean past actions te~ken by Councils of this City concerning people as far as ownership of property at that particular time that was not actually ~nership. In ~act we just completed one the other evening with Mr. Milnor of P~chae!s Corp. But that being as it may - at this time~ in order to get this thing say moving in a specific or specified direction I would like to ask that M~. Cooper or whoever is going to be representing as ~ar as Charter Wor!d~ if they would take this microphone and possibly answer the questions that some me3nbers of us have that we could work thru this thing as h~s been stated - item by item or by para- ~raph or whatever is necessary in order to come to some conclusion. Mayor Jackson - Please come forward~ ~4r. Cooper. Mr. Cooper: I don~t want to get out of ... Mayor Jackson: I~d just l~ce to say - I just wanted to get my statement out of the way first. Mr. Harmening: While we are all making s~atements and getting them on the record, Madam Mayor~ I would like to go on record as clarifying this one particular question and ~n order to do so I would have to ~sk the City Attorney a question. I~ this present litigation continues into court - I know this is ~n extremely difficult Question now: and I'm only asking for a general answer~ which I'm sure is the best you can get. What would you estimate it would cost the City to defend the par- ties~ the ten parties~ in which the City is paying the bill? Mr. Simon: It's very difficult to say - obviously there is a great deal involved here. You have four lawsuits. There is no real way to give you any general idea even. Lawsuits are going to run expensively in any event. I can tell you: if you wanted a rough f~gUre, I'd say it's going to cost you more than $10~ 000. Mr. Harmening: I think that's very rough~ and on the conservative side~ if I may say so. Thank you~ sir. Mayor Jackson: Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper: If I could make a suggestion. If people have comments we could go thru and get all the comments because I won't be able to answer every Question. I have the engineer here and things of this nature and I think your suggestion that we go thru the a~reement is probably the best say of moving us fo~ard so if we could go thru the whole thing and get wherever you want an answer then we'll try to an- swer them in that order. If that's alright with the Council. -4- MLkW/~E S SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1975 Mr. Wallace: If nobody else is going to open the ball game then I~ll start. Mr. Cooper: I thought maybe it was all alright. }~r. Wallace: One of the basic questions is, it's not a basic question but lookir~on page 4~ paragraph C - M~. Harmening: I beg your pardon~ but since I have a question prior to that~ on page 3~ so we don't have to go back and forth~ could we start on page 5? Mr. Wallace~ Mr~. Cooper: How about page 13 why don't we go thru in order~ anybody have any cerement on page 17 Mr. Wallace: That's what we gotten to right now. We~ve gotten through and do%~n to page 3. P~r. Harmening: The only reason I interrupted was I thought it might be a more orderly process if we started as near the beginning as we could and work from there. Alrigl~, on page 5 the last sentence I believe in paragraph 1, everybody to that point? I refer specifically to this is more or less out of context now you understand~ but this is the portion that I'm particularly interested in. That there was as stated in said notice the development map a~d site plan showing a zoning or proposed zoning of the property to be annexed~ and zoned in a said ordinance on file in the office of the City Mana~r, City Hall of Boynton Beach~ Plorida. In order to elarify my thinking on this and explain my think- ing~ I have never seen this. I have talked to several people who are in and out of City Hall very regularly during the period that this pur- ports to eover~ and I have yet to find anyone 9gno specifically eoutd say they knew what they were talking about or what this refers to~ and I rather take exception to this being in here since it doesn't seem to be very well substantiated, at least not in my mind. Now I realize - t~ve heard - this may not be very material to the whole stipulation but nevertheless I find it rather~ well ~hall we say: objectionable. ~r. Cooper: If I may address myself to that - we have and there is in file in the court the deposition of Mr. Largent: I believe it was, who identified and they are attached to thedeposition copies of this map. They are not colored copies~ but he identified them as reproductions of the map that was on file. ~r. Harmening: Then may I further ask - how long does his deposition state how long this particular map was on file for public view in the City Manager's office? Mr. Cooper: I~d have to get it and read it~ sir. It was at all times ~aterial and really I wasn't at that deposition~ I can get it and read it. -5- MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1975 Mr. Harmening: It seems to me... Mr. Cooper: Mr. Hol~lingsworth was there, I believe~ and I don't know if Mr. Simon was or not. Mr. Hammening: /~ this is really material statement of fact it should be - there should be some time limit on this ~hing. i mean a person or persons could put something in the office of the City Manager for 5 minutes or I hour or 1 day~ 1 week, 1 month, i year~ and the degree of accessibility to the public in general se~ms to me would have some bearing on the ... and I ... Mr. Cooper: Let me get the deposition and I~!l look it up for you. Mr. Ho]]~ugsworth: Madame Mayor~ if I may, perhaps I can help a little on this point. Mr. Harmening: I would apologize if this seems to be a small insigni- ficant point. Mr. Hollingsworth: As a ma~ter of fact: I Bm for the record, Fred Hol- lingswor~h, Attorney-for the various parties involved here. I did not raise that question in my lawsuit. I~m the one who injected the issue as to the propriety of the method of announcing the zoning~ of adver- tising it and the description of the property. I did not raise an issue as to this thing being or not being in the City Manager's office, that's not a point of contention in this case. As a matter of fact, some uncertainty arose during deposi~ons but this is not, frankly I don't think, an issue in this case. The issue is, assuming that it was~ whether it was proper or not. %~en I filed my lawsuit, I assu~ned that it was~ and it doesn't make a bit of difference to me whether it was or wasn't, as far as the lawsuit is concerned. Mr. Harmening: I~m certainly not trying to substantiate your lawsuit, Counselor Hollingsworth. That's the reason its there because I filed ~hat lawsuit~ I presume. I don~t thimk it makes much difference one way or the other - that particular lawsuit. Mr. Wallace: Just for a point of clarification - when this thing - what Mr. Harmening is alluding to - When this was first filed with the City~ was this in a closed cover form? In other words, the same type of book- let that was put out, we'll say~ at a later time? Was this how this was presented? ? It is my understanding that map right there... Mr. Wallace: Now I know this map is marked for court: because I asked for it to be brought in this afternoon because it was out of the Build- ing Depa-~tm~t office. Mr. Cooper: They were identifying it for these depositions, but that is the map that was presented~ and that has been in the possession of Largent, I believe the City Manager~ was he? --6-- MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Mayor Jackson: No~ City Planner. Mr. Cooper: He was the one identifying it. But it's the same one that's right over there. %fnich, let the record show I~m pointing to the right. It don't always make sense when you read these things back mud say it was over there. Mr. Roberts: Mro Cooper, perhaps I could fill him in~ The original exhibit according to this taken from that folder which was presented by Charter World indicated on the basis of City designated color code R-2A, R-SA, C-1 and C-2, all residential~ end I think this raised a great many questions when it came before the adoption of the ordinance for annexa- tion~ why all this was zoned residential, which would create quite a few people in that area - I think I made mention of that at the last meeting that we had. And that was possibly one of the reasons that the density question came up in the suit. I just thought I~d ans~,~r that. Mr. Wallace: We may be getting a little bit afield but let me ask a question° Maybe someone that's there - what we are referring to at this particular instance. Is this what they are referring to that was filed in City Hall? That and the rest of it? Mr. Cooper: Yes~ sir~ that is what was filed~ and that was the map that they referred to as a zoning map. Excuse me. Mr. Wallace: Don't go away I got ... Are these the two specific docu- ments that are being referred to? Mr. Roberts ? I don~t know, I~m not ... Mr. Simon: Mr. Wallace, while they are looking, if I understand your thm~ question~ the map that referred to in this settlement agreement is map over here. Mr. Wallace: Right[ But what I am saying is, also the question was brought up of which that I had asked - I'm just trying to clarify the question in that I had asked previously and had made the statement that I not seen these specific copies thereof as originally presented by Palm!and or Charter Wor!d~ and these were found in the file here in City Hall yesterday afternoon. That'S the reason I'm trying to clarify to see if this is what is being referred to. Mr. Cooper: Those are the ones~ sir! Mr. Harmening: Is there anything in the deposition from Mr. Largent stating the time or ... Mr. Cooper: Yes~ he - I hate to bring this out, but he's confused on it. But let me~ I'll just read it to you here - OK and this is on page 4 - page 3 - Is this map that I have the map which you brought us in response to the subpoena referring to that map over there? He says, Yes Sir. Do you recall approximately when you first saw this? I think the night of the hearing it was presented by Palmland. --7-- MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ '1975 Mr. Cooper, conrad. Do you recall when that hearing~ what hearing that was, the date? Ques- tion and the answer the date question~ no I mean which one. Was this before the City had the first meeting on the ordinance before the City Council or was this the meeting at which the City Council ordered the publication of the ordinance or was this the meeting of the Planning & Advisory Board~ i~ you remember: if not. Answer - If you are talking about this exact map here. Question - I me~n this exact map. Answer - This one with the figures that are on it now is the map that was presented to the City Council the night of the City Council's hearing on annexation. Question - Now is this the one that was presented to the City Council at the time it ordered the publication of the zoning ordinance? Answer - I'm trying to remember clearly because there were changes in the map and those changes were relative to height. It is not too clear in my mind~ but I do think that the map was changed the same day the City Council held their meeting. Question - in which of the hearings was this? ~nswer - No response. If you don't remember that's all right. Answer - No I really don't. The City Council had a meeting and which one as far as I know, I don~t remember which one it was. Mr. Harmening: Thenif we are to believe Mr. Largent's testimony and his deposition and I think that it can be safely assumed that he was in and out of the City Manager's office fairly frequently. He never apparently never saw it in the City Manager's office. Mr. Cooper: No sir: he was identifying it as the one brought here. He couldn't remember whln it was. Mr. Harmenln~' Yes Sir~ I understand what he said~ but it se~ms to me ~ad it been ~ the City Manager's ?ffiee he w?uld hgve identified ~ at some period here as being in the Cmty Manager's offmce. ~rmor ~o ~nese other meetings. Mr. Cooper: Well~ I~m not privileged to speculate on what he might have said. Mr. Harmening: Well~ I'm only speculating too, admittedly: but u=nder all circumstances ... if it is not ... if you don't feel ... and I think this ~uestion is directed more to you than your principals ... -8- MEETING SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1975 Mr. Cooper: Let me show you the dilemma we get into. We're trying to effect a settlement, and we're trying to state the facts. Not tidying to state them incorrectly. ! think Mr. Simon and Mr. Hollingswoz~ch will agree with me on this. There is no way if there wasn't a map here that the City can agree to any Zoning. You lcnow~ you can't just go do~u/ and make up facts. We have to have some basis for the settlement. This becomes very material. This would be a litigated issue. Mr. Harmening: In and of itself M~. Cooper: Yes~ sir. All the things that everybody has raised with reference to notice whether it was adequate notice so that they would put somebody on ... identify. It becomes very germane and necessary in order for the court to act on it. We have to give them some factS. We tried to state it as we thought the facts were based on the depositions and infoz~aation we hadD and when I say wed I'm speaking of the lawyers in preparing this, not just us. Mr. Harmening: Based on the explanatiOn I~ve heard here I have no par- ticular objection to this being in here at this time. Mr. Cooper: It's for the purpose of allowing the court to act. Mr. Roberts: I think we got to page ~ now. There is another para~£aph on that which I don't know just how we stand because of the Council - that's the ~nd paragraph about building permits. There is no Council action taken on building permits~ and I would assume before anything can be ereeted~ models or whatever, you have to have septic tanks or some kind of drainage, water or something along that line and ... M~. Cooper: Have to satisfy the City on that~ you're correet~ sir. I don't know whether it's your Public Works: City Engineer, Building Dept.~ hut your City has to be satisfied on that. Mr. Roberts: As I say, if they weren't satisfied or they were satisfied~ I don~t have much knowledge~ and I don't think that's too important as I~m concerned: the models can be put up anytime. The eause as far thing is - Mr. Cooper: Alright, the reason that's in there~ if I may interrupt you~ ~. Roberts~ is wed one of our suits was a suit of mandamus to require the issuance of this permit and they have refused to issue it~ they, the City. And it is our information that the reason it was not issued was because they don't know what the zoning is. It's not any administra- tive problem - it's a policy problem. OkayD that's another thing bring- ing in - why would we have a mandamus suit if you had issued a permit? Again~ it's for the purpose of settlement. Mr. Roberts: I sm not involved in the Building Dept. ~ but it seems to be reasonable when yo_~,~have a map produced in fro~nt of a~n a~udi, en~c~e here~ askin~ for zonin~ and~arked a color code - I don't anyDOGy mn rne au- ~ienc~ would be ~ware~ of what the zoning would be and that, I believe, would also be one of the reasons that would sort of cause a dilemma in exactly arriving at the of zoning that you had on this piece of property and that's why t..y.pe -9- MIBVdTES SPECIAL CITY COONCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Mr. Cooper: I'll just m~ke this comment, Mr. Roberts, if everyth/ng had been just right I don't think we would be here today, and I hope that our purpose of our being here today is trying to straighten out .... Roberts: I'm in favor of that. Mr. Wallace: I think basica!ty~ if that were a continuing point~ could that not be taken care of say as far as the septic tank issuance of a per~it until such time as sewer and water: etc. - In other words, it could be worked out to the satisfaction of everybody. Mr. Cooper: Yes sir~ again we are dismissing - if we enter into the settlament we are dismissing that suit also. Mr. Cooper: Maybe Jack could comment on it. They have worked out the details with you on that pretty much to your satisfaction, haventt they- maybe a few things you need - or am I putting you on the spot? Jack Barrett: No, no~ not at all. Mayor Jackson: Jack, please give your name. Mr. Barrett: Jack Barrett, Building Official~ City of Boynton Beach - my contention was if the County would grant the septic tank permit then it would be a step toward getting a permit. However, the reason for my rejecting the permit: an application for a permit was because there was doubt and uncertainty as to the creation of the zoning: validity of the annexation in the minds of the Council° Until the Council is satisfied I mm not going to issue the permit. Mr. Cooper: It's part of the whole ball of wax~ I think, and that's the reason we have got it in here. Mr. Roberts: These are the things we are supposed to ask questions about. Mr. Cooper: Yes~ sir. Mr. Wallace: Closer to the bottom of the page under Item C, page 4, for clarification - I won't read all of its but Palmland reserves the right to use said parcel of land for any and all accessory uses inci- dental thereto. Now this is talking about the site or the acreage for the 200 room motel and hotel rental rooms. Now on the following page it does eliminate some items. Could we at this time or a little bit later be specific as to what Palmland per se has specifically stated that they wish to be put in that parcel other than the hotel? M~. Cooper: A1 right, sir: that's tracking your zoning ordinance .... That's what it says for motels and any and all accesso~y uses incidental thereto, that was copies right out of your ordinance .... I assume that, and we can ask them on it~ that contemplates restaurants and you know things of that nature - all of this. -10- MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL !9~ 1975 Mr. Wallace: This is why I wanted a clarification because I think this is one of question that has not been brought up. Mr. Cooper: A!right, sir~ we will answer that~ but we did copy that out of your ordinance. I hope~ that's what we tried to do. Mr. Roberts: I was hoping that - I think at the last time we did meet~ I was hoping that we could get these parcels spelled out as to the num-~ bet of units and density of eaeh~ I think we have that in one of you~ latest broehures~ or whatever you c~l! this doeument. At this point it is left blaD/<~ and I was wondering if something could be done. lfr. Cooper: I think we commented on that the last time I was here. We original!~ on the residentially zoned parcel, we said there would be that many units on the residentially zoned parcels. Somebody objected to that and said we want you to limit it to everything you got~ so we have limited it to the entire tract of tand~ and in the things that we said we would covenant on the C~2 and C-1 things~ for example. Put in there - no residential used and again we will go back and put it just on the residential areas or on the whole~ whichever you all want. Mr. Harmening: I think this C-1 and C-2 with the stipulation - no resi- dential uses - at least that is what I interpreted right now the deal would be fine. Mr. Cooper: Ail right. Mro Harmening: This precludes any residential in the commercial. my interp~etation~ That ' s Mr. Cooper: That's correct. Mr. Wallace: Anybody~ anything else for page 4? Mayor Jackson: Page $? Page Mr. Roberts: On Page 5. I believe that - I don't know if you want to call it a last gathering, but there was a question of 6700 units with a piece sliced of~ representing 60 acres: ten of which is in the County~ so let's ta/k about 50 acres then, since we are not concerned with the other ten being in the County~ and on those particular figures that were submitted 6.7 density 50 acres will represent a little over ~00 about 550 units. Now~ it seemed that at that time I mentioned the fact ~nd again this was not a meeting it was a discussion: but it would seem that 350 would be subtracted from this pa~tieu!ar overall, and this was not my own thinking as others would question me on it and come up with a lower figure. Now~ should the option not be pieked up within the year then~ it would seem~ we could extend the number of units to 6700 as originally requested. But on this basis, you are still getting the 6700 units whether its picked up or not and brings the actual density up to 7.! plus or 7. something plus, ~nd again the 50 seres in my opinion is a very vital piece of land in there~ but that is one o~ the questions we had~ MINHTES SPECIAL CIT~ COUNCIL MEETING APP~IL !9~ 1975 Mm. Cooper: If I may comment, Mr. Roberts~ and I don't know~ maybe you've gOt a Plaguer here. I don't understand planning. I disagree with planners very often. I am told: however, that good planning prac- tice works on an area a gross density. Now~ we're basing it here on 6700 units rather than you use the term 6.7 per acre. That's not true on a residential prope~cy. Obviously the C-1 theC-2 is out and we are stipulating it is out - so the unit density is greater on the residential property than 6.7. Now, and this is where I am told that Planners con- sider gross density because what you're looking for is the green area. Let me go to an extreme. You put up a 900 floor building out there on and acre of land and you got 990 acres of green area. You put up 450 story on two acres: and you got the same density but less green area on the same gross density. So~ what they look for is the green area within an area~ ~nd therefore work on gross density and this is the reason we don't feel that you're wanting to knock some off beeanse this is going to be a golf course ~d recall that that is a covenant and restriction on the use of that land to Delray Dunes that it can be used only for golf course purposes. So it's gQing to be a Green area° And will be a green area. There will be no mo~e Green are. a if we build 6700 including it than there will be if we build 6700 and mrs 9-£een area. Maybe I ~m confusing you. I sound confused. Mr. Roberts: Well, you gotta get confused once in a while, but the point this 6700 units regardless was the amount of units talked about on this thousand acres as against the 7900. Mr. Cooper: Right, a gross unit density. Mr. Roberts: Right, and, however~ if you spread that number of units and include the 50 acres and say we don~t want to go into 90 story buildings or 22 story buildings. The point is the remainder of those units taken out of there the 500 units will have to be placed somewhere else, and while you may have a green area as far as the overall 1000 acres is concerned~ you're going to have some pretty well cluttered up areas, and you will have to put up more four story buildings to absorb these units. If you gave that land away, and the only reason that I mentioned it is because, well, if they don~t pick up the option we will still retain 6700 units: I think it should be in reverse - the 6400 units should be there an~ if they don't pick it Up~then you could go ahead and add your 530 units. Mr. Cooper: HOw about ~9 i~ they don~t pick it up? You're working us backwards, there~ I've got to watch you. You are goin§ to outslick me. Mr. Wallace: Mr. Cooper, now one of the points that has been alluded to in talking about green areas and we usually refer to Green areas as those that most of the people in the area are going to be getting usage of~ and let's say in this particular instance you say that that is a green area~ but yet it is not simply for those particular people living in that 1000 acres. Therefore: to me it is termed as a commercial area, green or otherwise. So~ what I am saying~ if you take the overall acreage and say you take the 105 acres for the golf course and look at it in that respect~ if you t~ke the 20 acres let's say as far as the C~y MINU~ES SPECIAL C1TY COIRNCIL MEETING APRIL i9~ 1973 Mr. Wallace~ cont'd. and a couple of other ooncessions~ so basically what Mr. Robemts is bringing out her~ is a good point~ and in this particular instsnce we will say it may be a minute factOr in the overall plar~ing~ at this stage it looks like the 500 or 350 units had been mentioned is one of the bones of contention at this time~ possibly more so than some of the other £actors, Mr. Roberts: I just want to add to that~ let's assume you slice off another 50 acres or 60 acres; well again you can ask for the 6700 units and say it's a lot of ~een area~ but you keep slicing it down and pretty soon you're going to wind up with that 90 story building. Mr. Cooper: If it's sliced off~ Sir: we have o~fered to put restrictive covenants on this land ~nd we're limiting our height. You are going to run out of physical land to do it if we slice it off. These covenants ~un~ they can't come back and change those. I~ I understood your com- ments - if we sold the pink part up there to Joe Doe this 6700 covenants run and we built our 6700 on the 9~een pa~t now I don~t know which ones I~m referred to then Joe can build nothing on his~ because those coven- ants run with the land, and I don't want to give you all legal advice but I think your attorney will advise you they will be binding. Mr. Wallace: Can we do this at this particular point - seems like we're hung up on this one for a few minutes - can we go ahead and go all the way through this and that will give you a chance to catch your breath~ and maybe we need to catch our breath with some questions~ Cooper: I got the motel and the 6700 units written down here~ motel uses~ I believe these are the two things we have hit thus far. Mayor JacP~on: Does anyone have any questions on Page 6? Mr. Wallace: The only thing I would relate to on Page 6, the width o~ the roads and so forth do meet the specifications and as far as the City itse~_f is eonee~ned~ I think on the 24 feet where it goes down to the private roads were they not what 20 or 22? Mr. Cooper: Your code requires 22, sir, we offering 24 on the public and go with the code on the private. Wallace: Okay. Mr. Harmening: No problem. Mayor Jackson: I think that while we are on Page 6 at the bottom it men- tions something about w&ter and treatment p!ants~ maybe Mr. Klinck would like to ... Fn~. K]_incl% would you like to; on page 5 it mentions some- thing about the wate~ treatment plant~ etc. Mr. Ha~mening: Paragraph 5~ page 6. Mayor Jackson: Last paragraph -15- MIh~dTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 197D Mr. Roberts: That is open, t believe. Wasn't that open? I think you are aware of that~ that instead of constructing the plant I guess Palm- land would be willing to contribute an equal amount to the ...... Mr. Cooper: Yes~ there is an alternative paragraph 5 that accompanies it. That's where we got messed up in preparing it~ and just sent both~ and not trying to push one and not the other. Is it permissible for me to smoke~ M~s. Mayor~ while speaking. Mayor Jackson: Yes~ go ahead: be my guest. Mr. Klinek~ would you like to meke any comments about this? Mr. K!inck: I'm John Klinck with R~ssetl & Axon, Consulting Engineers for the City on water and sewer. The proposal to provide on site water supply and treatment facilities is not really in cor~formity with the City's need for providing its own water supply and treatment facilities and upgrading, not upgrading: but increasing its capacity. We believe that it's to the best interest of the City that for the needs of any developers water that the developers would be called upon to pay their share of increasing the capacity of the City's water suppty~ wetis~ its raw water transmission facilities~ treatment facilities and add those to your system~ To have proliferation of water plants supplying numbers of different developers out west of the City and under the City's control will increase your cost of operation and the problems of operations and maintenance would get you outside of your fiscal capabilities and your operating eapabi!ities. Now~ this maybe out of my bracket: but the map: Exhibit Bp shows the water treatment plant site which was designated on the engineering proposal. That Tract !aA: 4 aores, could be zoned eom- merciai. I don~t know whether this is in conformity with your zoning codes. In any event, it is not recommended by your Consulting Engineers that separate water treatment facilities be permitted on this development or any other development under the City's jurisdietion~ that should be provided by the City. Mr. Harmening: Mr. Klinck~ while you're up there maybe you could clarify one other point. I seem to be having trouble finding it, I know it's in here. But unable to state where it is~ it refers to payment in 5 equal instalments, I believed in regard to the ~. (maybe it's back in the sup- plemental, maybe that is why I can't find it). Mayor Jackson: It's at the bottom of page 7 under Supplementary. M~. Harmening: Okay: here it is. I have it marked~ still couldn't find it. Need my classes changed. Now~ since we are talking about water and sewer. This is kind of out of our established procedure here in taking these pages in order~ but it says Palmland agrees to pay the City amount equal to its estimate of its cost of initial phase of construction upon said contract being let. The remaining balance of the cost of the entire project shall be paid to the City in 5 equal annual instalments. Well~ now~ I can understand two ~easons at least why they would prefem this~ in a sense I can sympathize with them and yet~ how do you feel that 5 equal instalments ior the balance a~ter the initial phase, so to speak~ ~its into our fiscal policy as far as water and sewage is concerned? MINGTES SPECIAL CITY COU/~CIL MEETING APRIL 19:1975 Mr. K!inck: In the first place it isn't very practical to build a water treatment plant in phses of small increments in accordance with any one dove!operas needs. You have a master plan of proposed improvement of your water plant~ as well as your water system - advance copy of which was brought in the other night because of this need: and any such devel- opment ought to be carried cut in line with an orderly .plan such as pre- sented in there. Now the cost of that facility should not be based~ I mean the cost of payment by the developers to the City should not be based on what it would cost the developer to provide his own facility~ but what it's going to cost the City to provide them, re].a~ed to the developer's needs based on his pro rata share of what capacity is being provided for him. And as far as paying~ your question addresses itse]gf to his method o~ paying for those facilities. This is a matter of~ I think would have to be resolved after some determination of the City's financial capabilities of its own plant. Mr. Harmening: ! u~derstand that~ but we are tying to reach a point here where we can stipulate something today that will be done in the future so we need something a little more concrete than a study that would be a weeI% a month in the future. Mr. Klinck: So why not say that as soon as there is a determination of the cost of the next phase of expansion of the plant~ and this devel- oper's share of it be determined that he be required to produce the money when it is needed for that construction? Mr. Harmening: Sounds good. I l~ke that. I just have a hunch Mr. Cooper won't ag~-ee to it at all. Mr. K!inck: This is dollars and cents~ and it's the City's dollars end cents~ and where are they going to get the money otherwise? Mr. Harmening: I know that~ I understand that - I agree with that but~. Mr. Wallace: Let me interject one thing here - at one time - I'm having to recall this from out in left field somewhere, i know I heard it stated - I don~t know whether i read it but I kn~ I heard it stated at some time that there is a specific amount of money that the developer was willing: in essence we?ll say to give to the City as for the devel- opment of these type of facilities. If that were done: of course it would be to the City that they would have to specifically justify and give the developer a contract that those facilities would be available as they are needed by the developer. In other words~ this works both ways for ...... ~ but as it has been stated possibly this is a point that is open as far as negotiations is concerned somewhere down the line. But it seems a little bit strange after getting back and reading into these things at this stage and it is still knowin~ the critical system as far as water and sewage is concerned that in going back and reading some of the first documents that were presented and gathered by the City that I don~t think that there was an objection ans~here down the line. from any one of the particular department heads in the City as to the problems that might arise as far as this particular deve!opmen~ -15- MI~kVdTES SPECIAL CiTY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1975 Mr. Wallace~ cont~d. was concerned provided we use a little bit of common sense with it? And inasmuch as it was done at that time and there here again just reeently~ we went through with the process of a we will say a moratorium that looked for a point of a limit and supposedly based on such and such a study and we have lifted the moratorium even though we 9~anted those other areas~ we are still seem to able to present all the activities the developers coming into the City with the water and sewer that they need. So I me~, let's take Mr. Ktinck~s comments into consideration and pos- sibly~ of course I know that the attorneys have heard these same things that we have been talking about and know!ingly again that maybe this is one of the points that we are hung up on that we can come back to and delve into with the Attorney. We will say in this instance, we will be the ones to give and take with it unless there are other speoific ques- tions. F~. Ha~mening: There is one other on this page, while Mr. Klinek is here and I believe that the en§uineer for Palmland won't have any problems with this. This is approximately in the middle of the page end refers to 60 pounds per square inch pressure. Now I think it would be rather dif- ficult for the City to provide them or guarantee them 60 pounds per square inch pressure~ due to the fact that our normal plant pressure and considering the existing height of our elevated tanks - 57 to 58 pounds is our normal pressure~ and it would certainly be more than inconvenient to try to boost it up to 60. Fir. ](linck: You are correct in taking this point. The .. I believe the stipulation in here should refer to maintain pressures equivalent to that provided other customers under like circumstances. It is very difficult to pin something like this down~ because of the difference of trans- mission. Mr. Harmening: I realize that~ yes. Right. Maybe we can qualify one point~ now finalty~ can your people agree to this? Mr. Cooper: To the 60 pounds? Mr. Harmening: Yes, sir. Mr. Cooper: I am told that if you were designing a new system that you would design above that but 55 to 60 - that was just a criteria .~ Mr. Harmening: I figured it was. I did not think there would be any problems. I didn't want in case of some future disagreement for this thing to be brought up as a point of contention or violation of the stip- ulation. Mr. Cooper: Let me make this general eo~ment ~oo~ if I may~ to the Coun- cil. Again: this was lawyers trying to write up engineering data and .. -16- MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL N~ETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Mr. Harmening: I can appreciate that~ but I maintain that we should have as clear as possible picture so there won't be problems arising in the future which can come back to this agreement and say that you didnTt live up to this, and therefore you are .. Mm. Cooper: I am referring more to like the payment-schedule. We would l~<e to pay for it as we need it and you know, so we could not figure what that was~ and we said how about five equal. You know this was law- yers just talking. I think: in what i am saying~ if we can arrive on parameters where it will be furnished what we need~ fine - then this takes study by.. Mr. Harmening: Then on this one item there is no problem. ing to agree to the reconstruction of the sentence in~ say~ temminaology just expressed by Mr. Klinek? Are you will- similar 14r. Klinck: .... provided to the other eonsu~ers of the City be main- tained in that area. You can't nail this dovzn ..... Mayor Jackson: Mr. Klinek did you say~ did I understand you to say that you did not agree about the fees being charged for the connection of any sewer and water? Top of page 9. Top of the page, very top. Paragraph 7, very top. Mr. Xlinck: Let us go back to a general recommendation that this devel- oper be treated the same as any other developer in like circumstances. That whatever connection charges that are required for either water or sewer would be applied. Now what those connection charges are used for is a different matter. It may be that these connections are used to compensate ~or plant improvement or expansion. But this basically in- volves another consideration as to whether they are pez~nitted to put in- terim facilities on their land which the City doesn't wan~ but would eventually come out. And they should in no way affect the consideration of connection charges: whether you call them connection charges or plant expansion expenses or whatever. Or if they do contribu~to the expan- sion of the plant and pay for the transmission facilities and their on-site facilities as other developers are expected to pay~ it would be perfectly reasonable~ I believe: that these so-called connection charges be applied to that plant expansion or vice versa. Now: ordinarily~ the developers in the past have not been ~equired to pay a share of plant expansion~ The plant's there - they get their use out of it - they put their piping in to 9et to it. Mr. Hammening: Now then~ the money that thDy are paying - that portion of the money they are paying for eonneetion charges is actually~ so to speak~ and this is very toosely~ held in escrow for future improvements- a portion of: anyway. I believe something to that effect is in the bond ordinances. Mr. K!inck: Yes, and then going back to your Drexel contract~ too~ you have a similar consideration where the money that they pay as connection charges is used for future expansion of the transmission facilities. You want to stay on your line of doing this page by page now. -17- MINTdTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL APRIL 19~ 1973 Mr. Hammening: I really think that would be best. I mean~ that way we won't overlook anything~ and we cover the whole ...... Mayor Jackson: When we get to something else maybe you will want to say something else. Anything else on page 6? Did you want to speak nov: Mr. Cooper? Did you want to say anything more about page 6? Mr. CoOper: Wetl, we aah come back - One~ I think we can dispose o£ the zoning on 1SA. if you get it it wou!dn~t be zoned obviously, and it was in that C-! area, ar~ if the City wanted the land it wou!dn~t be zoned commercial. I thoug~cMr. Klinek con~nented on that. Mr. Harmening: That is the location of the water plant? Mr~ Cooper: Yes, sir! We are under alternative .... Mr~ Hammening: It was my understanding~ or, no~ it wasn't my understand- ing~ it was my thought that instead o~ the City getting the site ~or the water plant - the actual site would remain in Charter World and they would reimburse us dollar for dollar on the value basis o~ the acreage - and - Mr. Cooper: and cost of the plant~ the whole ball of wax. Mr. Hammening: Beeause we haven~t~ I won't say we haven't: but I can't think of any anticipated use for a - what is it 4.2 acres~ 3.2 or ..... ? Mr. Cooper: It is 400 by 400~ i believe~ which is almost 4 acres. Mr. Hammening: Yeah~ about 4 acres: more or less - in the middle of Chamfer World. I mean maybe my vision is not but I think the City could use the value of this land in money to apply to their water plant expansion ..... Mr. Cooper: The only reason we included it in the zoning was because o~ the a!ter~ative plans. Mayor Jackson: Any more questions on page 6? Page 7? Mr. Roberts: Well, the same thing applies down to the sewer treatment~ I would like to hear ~rom the engineers in regard to the sewer treatment plant. Mr. Klinck: As £ar as sewer treatment is eonce~ned~ I would like to make a comment that will apply to both water and sewer~ but wanted to say it both at one time. There is a~ I am not sure it is on this~ we are on 7? One moment: the constmuction of water lines and sewer lines and all facilities pertinent thereto on site on the Palmland development site~ none of which should go ahead without the submission of engineer- ing plans and specifieations~ to be approved by either your City Engin- eer or your Engineering Consultants: but you have no way of knowing what they are going to put in~ the materials they are going to use~ the method o~ construction, fittings~ and so on~ to make sure thatrthey are MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL t9~ 1973 Mr. Klinck= cont~d. i~conformity with City standards and other requirements that the City has followed OU-er>~he~years. And after such approval then construction could be permitted~ but as far as sewage treatment and disposal is con- cerned, realizing the City's present problem of capacity in the plant~ the treatment plant: it is quite obvious that something is going to have to be done in a relative hurry to provide treatment capacity to take care of this mud other developments that are pending. Yet the only way we can do that~ is to allow this developer or any o~her developer~ to construct an on site interim sewage treatment plant. This wou!dhave to be done in accordance with the County Area Planning Boamd and the Depamtment Pollution Control mules that have been adopted and approved by the State. Which would mean that such plants would be constructed on an interim basis~ subject to turning them over to the City for operation and main- tenance: and for event,.al disconnection and re~oval as soon as the City's so-called ~egionai facility is capable of handling them. Now this is provided their rate of development cannot be hand!ed by the City's plante If that is done~ it must be realized that s~ch interim plant is purely £or the developer's ~urposes~ and it is of no value to the City and that the operation and maintenance of such a p!ant~ the cost of it should not be imposed on the City~ We believe that the developers should pamtic!- -. pate in the cost of that operatiOn and maintenance~ in addition al all other charges for sewage system and t~eatment. Now we are presently try- ~ r ing to get a one mil!i~ngallon irdzerim treatment plant togeuher fo - on your present plant site. The question of whether or not we will be in a position to provide treatment fOX'this d~¥e!opmemt in time for their needs depends on a lot of things beyond the City~ Control. This was made very much more evident last TUes~day in Tallahassee when the Depart- ment of Pollution Control changed the priorities for the 197D funding~ and nobody knows that its going to be £~£ 197~ - orhow far down the line the City of Boynton is in being able tO get any help. We don~t know~ I don't think ~vbody in the State knows the answe~to that onei ~ncl~d- ing most of the ~eopte mn the Dept. O~ Potiutmon Control. The Yeeera± Environmental Protection Agency is right n~ ~o-v~ up.to the top of the heap and is calling all the sh~ots on ~his. ~A~i!l~he City beready? don't know. But if the developsr needs an on siteinterim p!ant, and can base the size of that plan~ on h~s projected ~ate of development~ and build a plant particularly !a~ge enough fo~ t~at - he does not have io build a plant big enough t'o serve this whele 6700antieipated units~ or that. we hope is £ar beyo~d~ the ~ime when yoq! eau sero. ye them. .~w~ think ~hat the de~ails of' this matter that we ace not mn any on such short notice to resolve~ but ~he concept ,o~ mt we can. And . would suggest that the word g this be st r d tha?. f within · = -= ~--~ ~ ~n/{o~ he det~rained~th~t ~he uityw!li De aDie to · ~ *hr ~m~d sewace disposal servmce rot camm±aura oevemopme~u that they be pemmitted to go on thejbasms of the ~eK~stmng rule~ or he County and State and Federal~P~tlut%On C°ntr°tA~eneies to provide in- terim faei!itmes at their own e×penSe~ but then t/%ey have to be turned over to the City for operation. -19- MINUTES SPEC/AL CiTY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Mr. Harmening: Welt~ Mr. Klinck~ in here they stipulate in here that they %~ill be turned over after 1500 units are connected, and this is for operation and maintenance. Lu other words, they will operate and main- tain their interim treatment sewage treatment plant, until such time as 1500~ and this seems very reasonable to me. Mr. ](linck: Wel!~ I don~t know what the reason for the 1500 is~ what the criteria is for establishing that .... Mr. Ha~mening: If we started to operate it the day after they built it and there was only 10 people hooked on it~ we would have a very high cost ratio of operational e×penses: would we not? Mr. Klinek: In line with my suggestion that the developer pay the City for the operation and maintenance of that p!ant~ he would be charged an operating cost based on the size of the plant, whether he had 10 connec- tions on it or 1000. We know he wants to go ahead and build out there Mr. Harmening: Well~ this is a kind of a departure here, sounds good to me~ and I wonder Mr. Cooper. In arriving at the 1500 figure we were advised that 500 was about a break-even point so we tripled it - that's how we arrived at that. In due respect to Boynton and from what I have seen of Boynton I think they try harder than most governments. We think we can operate cheaper than paying the City to operate. We would rather pay all the cost of operation up to where there is no question that it's a money maker for you.~ and ..... Mr. Harmenin~: Sewage - sewers very seldom make very much money, .it:s usually a !os~ng propo~mtmon. Mr. Cooper: Is it: Well, maybe we will operate it forever~ then, but we'll lose less than you wi!~ And that was our thought on it. With reference to Mr. Klinck's other comments: that was exactly what we were trying to write down. Everything is approved by you by every Board~ if an interim plant has to go in: fine.~ You know~ as ~ under- stand it~ the City has to approve it~ Palm Beach Area Planning, the Dept. of Pollution Control. This is something that really nobody has any control over, and we thought we were saying that in here, so we have no objections to any of that. We might discuss some more on this opera- tion and here, speaking pure dollars-and cents~ if we build a plant and this is not being facetious about government~ government has the over- head of City Hall you know~ everything. Which they figured the City Manager~ part of his time is on a sewer p!ant~ for example~ where we don't have that overhead. We can operate at a cheaper rate~ and i~ 1500 is the wrong figure then make it 2: 000~ or you know: whatever. This is a guesstimate figure~ where we were told 500 would be about a break-even point for the direct cost of power and labor out there and a!l~ so we tripled it. So, again~ that was merely an arbitrary figure in trying to be conservative ~rom the City's standpoint. -20- MINUTES SPEC/AL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Mr. Klinel~: The 1500 figure is of really no consequence, and I am not trying to pick at that, I don~t know why they had a figure like that. Cooper: I was just trying to explain. Mr. Klinck: Another factor that again is not entirely beyong the CityTs control, but it depends on the Area Planning Board. They at present~ in their regional plan that was promulgated a year ago~ in which Boynton~ Delray: L~ke Worth and Boca wore all designated as regional agencies: area ageneies~ they also came out with a statement that there would bed I mean a proviso that there would be no package or interim treatment plants within the city limits of the municipalities within Palm County. Fir, Harmening~ They have got a problem. Mr. Klinck: Now this has to be overcome in order to go that route. I don~t say you can't because De!ray did. They have gotten special exemp- tions from that by providing to the Area Planning Board a very detailed and a very worked out set of ground rules or guidelines for the adminis- tration of the construction and operation of these pl~ts, and how they are to be taken care of. And those ground rules were presented to the Area Plenning Board~ and were approved~ and the AreaPlanning Board has ir~orporated those into their regional plan for Delmay Beach. Now Boyn- ton will have to do the same thing~ in fact, I believe, so that before all these remarks about an interim package plant or anything on your o~ whether it is permanent or interim, can be resolved~ it has got to be settled with your Area Planning Board. Fzm. Roberts: Mr. Ktinek, was there some talk about the hookups? At what point do we get hookups~ and at what point do they get free hookups? Is there something to be said about that subject? I think you mentioned that they requested free hookups, since theyTre installing the plant and I just wondered at what point this thing stops or does it go on forever~ or would there be some .... Mr. Klinek: No: as I said~ I don't believe that there should he any waiver of connection charges for either water or sewer. You might want to apply them ~o some other consideration, like I said - plant expansion. Now, this matter of on site sewage disposal facilities is one that might be so complicated in getting approval through the other ageneies~ that it might be much more to the b~nefit of the developer to look into it from the standpoing of, as I pointed out at the water p!ant: of their contribution~ not oontribution~ but to their participation in the con- struction of your own treatment facilities to sez~e them. I don~t know anybody who can assure the way any of these waste disposal plan programs a~e going to go with the rapid day by day change in the mules that are coming out. Mr. Harmening: That's the reason I said if they can build a sewage treatment plant out there~ more power to'them. -21- MIh~dTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19: 1973 M~. Ktin~k: Yeah~ if they can do that: if they can go the route~ this is interim, of eourse~ of the Area Planning Board approval: EPC approval~ that would get a lot of headaches off your back but it wouldn't be a permanent solution, and I think that the wo~ding of this ought to have a swinging gate eiause in it which provides for things like that which are beyond your control and ...... Mm. Harmening: May I ask a question? How does De!ray handle these new package interim treatment plants insofar as~ I understand they are mostly on the developers pmoperty~ how are they being paid for as far as opera- tion and maintensunce is concerned? I know the City is charging a sur- charge to cover cost of construction and so one~ but how is it for opera- tion and maintenance? Mr. Klinck: Now I will run over the whole thing very briefly. A devel- oper brings in a set of plans and its application to the Dept. of Pollu- tion Control to the City. The City reviews the plans to see that they're in conformity with their requirements~ and their is an agreement already prepared - a form agreement that is used for every developer~ it does not change f~om one to the other~ in which the provisions for construction of the plant are in there - the cost - the fact that it is turned over to the City for maintenance and operation and the schedule of operating costs - monthly operating cost based on the size of the plant. There is the capacity of treatment. A bond is put up by the developer to assure that when the City's regional p~ant is constructed and able to take care b~ethis development that plant ~ill be demolished within 60 days. Will removed from the site. Now when the plant is constructed those plans for that plant have to show a bypass, valving arrangement in there so they can be turned off and bypassed as soon as ~equired, and then the removal of that plant is at the developer's expense. Then his bond is s.¥~rrendered~ not surrendered~ but is cancelled, I~m sorry~ and the plant ms out of the way~ and they are back on the line. NOW, in the case of Delray: there is one provision in the disposal of the effluent, the treated effluent from t~e plant. I don't know how this would be handled in Boynton. Because of the location and some of the other facilities involved~ and that is the liquid effluent~ the treated effluent from the plant has to go into the Delray Beach collec- tion system to be disposed of through their ocean outfall. This is ap- proved by the Bept. of Pollution Control. The solid, the sludge, is carried off and is used for land dressing or is disposed of in the dumps or in some other approved method. But the City assumes none of the cost of this operation and maintenance~ construction or removal. Mr. Roberts: You didn't mention hookups. Mr. Xlinek: They also pay the same connection charges that anybody else pays. Mr. Cooper: On an interim plant: that is. Mr. Klinck~ Yes~ sir. -22- MIhq/TES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Mr. Cooper: Okay. Not when we build you a pem~mmuent one: If I could - I would like - on paragraph 6 on Page 7 - says Palmland will design and construct at its expense waste water treatment facility and/or disposal facility as is or may be required by the applicable governmental regu- latory agents~ agency~ or agencies which that is what I say~ we agree with everything that Mro K!inck is saying. That you all have got to approve it. We are talking about a concept here .... we can't write down the detailed plans at this t~me. Mr. Harmening: Is your interpretation of applicable governmental regula- tory agencies, the City of Boynton Beach? l~r. Cooper: Yes sir, they made us take out State~ we had just State in there~ and your City Attorney made us take State regulatory agencies out of there. And your code says your City Engineer has to approve~ whether its regulatory agencies or not, I don~t know~ but your code says your Consultant or your City Engineer has to approve. Mr. Harmening: I~m aware of that. Mro Klinck covered that~ and I was going to insist on this, and i just want to ela~J~fy - I wasn't sure of the meaning of this particular - whether it could be construed to include the City. Mm. Cooper: We think your code included us and we didn't - we had some arguments - !a%~;er arguments whether you were regulatory agencies, and so we include everybody. I~r. Harmening: Let's spell it out in here though~ next time, okay? Mr. Cooper: We~!l put down individual names if you want them in there, no argument on that. Mm. Harmening: So a layman - be sure he understands it. Mr. Wallace: In other words, so far, what has transpired up to this point~ let us say~ there is that possibility of working out the agree- ments and arrangements and so forth to this particular point. Mr. Cooper: Yes sir. I think it is something, as Mr. K!inck has said, these fellows up in Ta!lahassee change every day. They decide one thing today~ sometimes deciding is worse than not deciding~ and decide some- thing else tomorrow. And it's 9oing to be a continual process i am sure~ throughout the life of~ you know until the whole thing is com- pleted and approved. Mr. Roberts: But there hasn't been any talk about the conveyance being operated and maintained by the City of Boynton Beach or: as you say~ you retain the maintenance and operation since you can do it cheaper. Mr. Cooper: We!l~ a!right sir~ so this was again eontemplating us build- ing the whole thing~ the whole plant there would be built in stages. This may not be and regulatory agencies as I understand it~ and I think ~lr. Ktinck just said it~ they spell out this sort of thing too~ that when maintenance is taken over and this so~3_ _ of thing ..... '~.MINUTES, SPECIAL CITY COqNCILMEETING, APRIL 19, 1975 too~ that when maintenance is taken over and this sort of thing -- Mr. K!inck: They say it will be operated by the city. They say it will be~ Mr. Harmening: %l~at sounds mandatory. Mr. Cooper: Well, if. that's what they say, then we say we will do it in accordance with their regulations. You recall, Mr. Roberts, the day you were here and nobody else was here, Mr. Katz made refer- ence to the fact that these folks are not going to let you get a loser ..... and with reference To the polution control people -. ..... Mr. Roberts: There is a slight difference here between an interim plant and a permanent plant. Mr. Cooper: Yes sir, and we are saying we will pay for the oper~tlon of it ourselves totally and we put in a arbitz~ry figure and don't get hung up on that figure - if you want to tell us what you wilt charge per gallon, or I don~t even know the units - per bushel or box or what have you. ~en you loc us know. I don't know if you have a set rate. Harmening: Guess we do~ don~t we? Cooper: Ok, can you express a rate now~ maybe Mr. Hopkins can. th/nk it willdepend on the size of the plant and everything else and this again wehave to be on concept rather than detail. I Mr. Harmeninq: I agree. Mr. Klinck: The best word to use there is pro rata share. that covems it from one end to the other, doesn't it? I think Mr. Cooper: Well, we don~tknow how expensive your lawyers and consulting engineers are. We may not want to pay for them if they are pamt of the pro rata share. I know you don~t want to pay Palmland. Now, I am being facetious on that. We would like some definition, if we are the only one using it then it's all ours. But~ I don't know how you compute your rates whether it includes your recreation department~ you know. Mr. Harmening: ~aile the bond ordinances, bond holders, take a dim view of this putting too many overhead expenses in the water and sewer funds, as I'm sure you're aware, so I think they try to keep that to a realistic ~ Mr. Cooper: I think this is a detail there is no problem on. If we can just be advised of it and again, I don't want to hang up on us saying 1500 units. We were merely attempting to put a figure that would not cost the city any money. Mr. Harmening: Again~ while Mr. Klinck is here, on the same page, para,apb 6A. The reason I~m kind of stuck on this point~ I know from past~perience that there are many, many ~evelopers and I don't try to ~ any one in partmcular by mak/ng this statement - who have installed sewer lineS in extz'emely poor fashion and eondit/ons. I~ ~[Ih~tTES, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1973 not so much speaking in the materials as I am in the workmanship~ although the materials would bear to a certain extent also. And even though the materials and the design is of very first class nature~ the actual end result~ the workmanship is so poor that it results in a loss of revenue or 9~eat cost to the city to maintain and repair and even creates other problems further down the line at the treatment ptant~ lift stations~ etc. I would like to see if Mr. Klinck would go along with this. i would like to see included in tb/s paragraph a resident professional engineer who shall certify, together with your engineer~ Black Crow and ? that the work is installed, constructed, according to the plans and specifications beyond a least shadow of a doubt. Cooper: I donTt think you'll get an engineer to say that. Mr. Harmening: No, ok, that was merely my meaning. I didn't expect that to be in the certificate. M~. Klinck: I think the verbage there that you're reaching for is something to the effect that plans and constructions, subject to %nspection and approval of the city's engineerS. That would pez~nit first that your plans would have to be reviewed and accepted by the city and then the construction is subject to inspection by city eng- ineering persoonel. It could be your own city engineer - it could be your consultant or in - professional engineer of good standing which their consultants are. Mr. Harmening: Maybe I should have included in there - this separate- i~m speaking of a separate individual who is not a member of their firm together with their firm. !~m trying ro pin this thing down so that there is a fair amount of sewer lines out here and I hope that they will be built in good condition and I~m just trying to include in this area of the agreement some stipulation which will attempt to insure it. Mr. Wallace: If I may, let me inject a thought, along this line, because there is one that is connected with this and unless there is some legal advice ...... I don~t see any way that you can get around it. Relating to the same situation, in other words, which simply or specifically states as far as the posting of a performance bond that specifically relates to your sewer and water areas. Now, I think as was stated the other evening~ that it was brought about a~long as the roads etc that this can be bypassed inasmuch as the roads supposedly being built before the development or what have you. But stitl: to my estimation, as far as our own code and ordinances specifically states that a performance bond in these particular categories must be posted. And, if I recall cor~ectly~ I think the g~ntleman back here can verify the situation that the past deve!operwas required to do this in every instance. Now this is amp!y, means meant that after a performance bond in as much as they have said it is going to be built in sections, so to speak~ of the development. Then a bond would be put up for that particular section ...... at that particular time. When it is done and meets all of the specifications ete as far as the engineers are concerned then that particular bond can be flip flopped to the next development on the next section. Now~ I think this is what happened as far as the city itself is concerned previously in this type of development. Now~ would this not strenghthen what he t~s asked and what you have talked about here as far as engineers are 25 '~MIN~TES~ SPECIAL CITY COLINCIL MEETINGs APRIL lS~ 1973 concerned~ on site or what have you. Mr. Cooper: Are you talking to me? M~. Wallace: Itm ta~<ing to both of you. M~. Cooper: Airight, Sir. I think your city code requires what you are say ...... Performance Bond - it also requires the inspection, M~. Harmening: I understand that, no question about that in my mind. I am only attempting ..... various cities have a very similar code and while this is not the most extensive sewer work in the world~ I am only attempting to inject stronger language into this inspection bit~ whereby we can all rest assured that it will be performed in satis- factory maruner under all circumstances. Mr, Cooper: Yes~ Sir. I appreciate your point. We can.age'ce that you will inspect it. We cantt aD~ee that you will have a good inspector. And that's what you're asking us to do. Your code says you witl~ now if your inspector~ and the code says we~!l build it ~ight and sc it takes two w~ongs there. Mr. Harmening: Yes~ but so many times inspire of these pro~ective covenants: the end result is less than desirable. Bm I not right~ Mr. Klinek? ~. Wallace: If there is some way~ in other words~ the question is being it's got to be worked out. I only recall one p~evious situation it did not have to do with an engineer in which the city was involved as far as the hiring of a particular professional and the developer also was paying that professional at the same time. In other wo~ds I know what type of taste it leaves~ even if everything is ethica!~ above board and what have you. Is there not some form or manner or means or say as far as the eity~ in this particular instances being repaid and it seems tike the developer - we're taking an awful lot of money on the assumption that we ean a~ree to this point and letting the city hire that specific engineer ~f which that they are talking about as far as resident engineer. It may be~ we'll say the same firm the gentleman is here at the present time. Mr. Harmening: I think we should also stipulate in there~ there will be full t/me inspection. In othe~ words any t/me that the work is in progress the inspeetor ~il be there. Mr. Cooper: Again: I come back~ we could stipulate that but~ if he is your inspeetor we can't make him be there. I appreciate your point. We can't make him be good. F~. Wallace: I thinkwhat you says though~ M~. Cooper, again in coming back as far as coneept~ if you can come to the idea of concept. If this thing can be carried about in this particular manner~ then ofcourse: it is~ we~!l say~ our skin that is going to be scraped off as far as if the engineer that is hired in this ease if it were Kiinck~ in other words~ and he did not do the job et~ that would be our responsibility, That's what I~m trying to say. Mr. Cooper: They are just pointing out here that your ordinance 26 M!A~iTES, SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19~ requires us to pay for the engineer. 1973 Mr. Wallace: Ri~t~. Mm. Harmening: Well~ yes, but, it doesn't require a megiste~ed professional engineer, I mean other than as... He is working or employed for a professional consultant. Mr. Wallace: I think we are whipping a dead horse. If they pay £or~ we can hire the engineer of ou~ ohoise and if we hi~e a high quality one then I don:t thi~c there is a question. Mr. Cooper: It says~ I think, if I can quote your code, it says, ~the city's engineer or city's consultant'S, and it's at our expense. ~t~. Clark: The amount is not limited in our ordinance. It's Ordinance No. 72-24 and it says that con~llting se~vicem will be paid for inspections ere, ~ill be paid for by the developer. Mr. Hammening: Alright, again~ if this agrees that they agree to comply with our ordinance, I have no objection. We can find the people. Mm. Cooper: It's mandatory. As we said tonight, we have tried to put everything right under your code~ ..... the specifications, the bonds, we were mistaken on that because your code didn't give latitude on that, we put those back in and the materials under your code and we want to be a part of the city. Mro Harmening: Does your code designate particular materials? I don~t believe it does. M~. Cooper: The code designates the criteria that you have. I don~t know what - it says your design criteria - I asked Mr. Simon what it was and he didn't know if you had any. Again, on sewer, though~ you are getting back to Palm Beach County. You are dealing with Palm Beach Area Planning or whatever it is. Mr. Klinek: The thing M~. Harmening is bringing out is that some cities permit the use of certain types of materials that other cities don~t per, cit. One city will allow the use of plastic pipe for sewers which are approved by the State Board of Health. Some will allow you to use certain other things like fibre glass or whatever and some cities mequire nothing less than a certain grade of olay pipe, etc. And these things a~e subject to oecassional change and revision depending upon technology improvement. Mr. Ha~mening: Thereare a ~eat many matemials that have the Boa~s approval. Mr. Cooper: What does the city have? Mm. Ha~mening: That's a .......... ? The eity has ~ policy that they follow ~ wate~ lines sewer lines: ....... 27 MI~d~ES .. S?ECLAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1973 Mr. Hammening: We have p~evious!y established a standard mo~e or less. Mr. Cooper: O Kay~ we %~ill follow it more or less~ It~s the same standard you get -- if you've got a standard~ wetI1 follow it~ thatts what !~m trying to say. Mr. Harmening: It, s possible that a standard will be determined~- .w~. Coope~: Don~t find one special for us - that's what we worry about. If you've got a standard~ we'll follow it. Mr. Harmening: It's not a formalized standard act~zally~ I don~t believe. I don~ t thir~k you could say that in viewing what is in the ground~ whether water o~ sewer~ that the eity has .... you'd find exceptions to any good standard practioe ar~ T don~t mean to leave this as an escape hatch. Mr. Cooper: No Sir~ we want to do it in accordance with present city standards. Mr. Harmening: Alright: I~!l buy that. [~. DeYoung: Madam Mayor~ I~m Curtis DeYoung~ %%m with Blaek~ Crowe and Eidsness representing Palmland for engineering~ as their con- sultant. I would like to make our intent known. We do not intend to design any thing fo~ the city other than at this point clay pipe for gravity sewers, either brick man holes or if applicable and allowed by the city - a precast man hole - coated inside and out with a bituminous mastic compound if this is allowed~ otherwise brick manholes. As far as water mains are concerned this will be cast iron or ductile iron, if the size dictateS. Mayor Jackson: Anyone else h&ve any further questions of Mm. Klinck on sewer and water? [f~. Wallace: ! thought we star,ed on this thing, page by page. %~ere are we? Mr. Harmening: Down at the bottom of page 7. Mr. Wallace: Didn't the statements though, that we have been talk- ing about .... unless there are specific areas .... take us down through 9? ~. Harmening: Well, there is one here on 8, I believe that was never firmly clarified. It is on page 8 and maybe at this time, while we are on page 8~ we should attempt to reduce it to clarity to the point where there will be~ I don't know what the attorneys could come up with on this thing. We,re still back here with the 1500 equivalent building units and Mm. Klinck apparently didn't agree with that, and ..... Mr. Cooper: I tell you~ you have a code provision, if I can read it correctly. You?re talking about when the city can take over. When ~8 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUATCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1975 the city has to take over or when they can take over. Mr. Harmening: Well actually ...... Mr. Cooper: Because we will give you whenever you want to. Mr. Hammening: If we arrive at .... if you agree to the cost of opera- tion then the point and t/me as far as connections is not material. In other wo~ds, were you agmeeing that the city will take it over and operate it and you would pay the entire costs or ...... Cooper: Well, I added what thatwould be. Now, let me just look here~ Mm. Ha~mening: I think this could be worked out in other ways but I think we should arrive at a firm understanding at this point. Mr. Cooper: Ok, can we? We:re ~ying to spend no more money. You know, be honest about that. Can we say in here that we will arrive at a figure at the city's published cost of operation or whatever you call your figure: and that we will pay that or we will, well that's what you want~ isn't it? ~. DeYoung: I don~t think you want to have the city pay a, have the development corporation pay the city fom the total cost of operation and at the same time have the city collect the revenue. Mr. Harmening: We would like that~ Mr. Cooper: I assumed that you were talking about the difference, the loss .... of a ...... Mm. DeYoung: We said yes, I think this is not a normal operation. We had gone through tl~%s approximately two or three weeks ago in the city that we were dealing with. In that case we were the con- sultants for that city - did agree to take the plant as s gift and operate it. They had the option from the State that they could supervise the opemation. In other words, the development corporation actually operates the plant at their cost and the city supervised this operation - for that they were getting revenue. This was for the interLm period of low flow. Mr. Harmening: How does that sound to you~ Mr. Klinck? Mr. Klinck: Well~ that depends a lot on the capabilities of the city involved and their operating personnel and their budget. It may go one way or the other~ but I dont know~ I don~t think that. Well~ my statement was predicated on what the PaLm Beach County Amea ~lanning Board has set up for this region and I would like to make a suggestion as to the word]~b that will also lead into this same ~uestion. On page 7, pamagmaph 6, where it says that Palmland will design and constmuet so on and so forth about the waste water treatment facility. I think that ought to be pmedicated on a state- ment ahead of that~ that if circumstances are such that it is not 29 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19: 1973 pmactical om possible to~ fora the city to p~ovide centmal t~eatment facilities or expand its own , that they will be pe~tted to go this moute: subject to these govemnmental agencies. M~. Coope=: That~ s fine~ We got into this because they thought you all had 4~ 000 hookups to begin with and then we found you got zemoo I mead in the papem this momninq that you got no watem. And~ I don't know if the paper is might. A lot of things amc wmong in the papem but --and that yeam 1980 befome you will have enough to service the west side of town and all. Believe it~ s quoting somebody f~om youm fiz~n. Mm. Harmening: They weme misquoting a little~ Mm. Coopem: Well~ fine, but might: but if you had it we wouldn~ t even be talking about this stuff. It's b~ought about because it has been repmesented to us theme is not the capacity on the sewe=----and I think theme is some question f~om the newspape~ on watem. We ~nt to watem the golf coumse. Mm. Ha~mening: Ame you going to use wells~ om amc you going to buy watem? Mm. Coopem: %%~ichwevem is cheapem in 5 gallon bottles. I think, M~. Harmening to answem youm question~ I think we could wmite down, engineem~s back the~e. We don~t want it to cost you any money. We can set up an ammangement wheme you can supemvise opemations o~ what have you so that the city, if you'~e going to collect the fees and it ~uns at a loss: we don~t want you to do that. If we opemate it and you ame supemvising it, and it muns at a loss, we eat it up. I mean we bea~ the loss and I guess this would be on youm normal fee basis. You get the pmoblem of what is your cost of opemating it and if you can define that for us~ well~ you got a guideline. Mr. Harmening: Possibly two separate cost of opemating. As you may be awame: theme is the actual cost of opemating and then theme is the vamious funds that have to be maintained by th bond omdinances. And~ at least theo~etically~ theme is enough extma pmofit om ~evenue above and beyond---theme should be at least---to fund these vamious funds and hopefully, which is seldom ~ealized~ theme is a little sum- plus pemhaps. In othem womds~ I would thi~< that we should be in a position with this to put a pmo ~ata shame based on the number of connections into ou~ ~enewal and meplaeement~ because act~aal!y~ from the day you put this in the 9~ound theme is that factom. Now~ pemhaps you would be willing to maintain this system. Mm. Coopem: If you mean by p~o ~ata shame and I am not sure I undem- stand that---that the city would not---let~s talk about water. As I undemstand it~ the city would not put in a new watem treatment plant just to semvice this area~ They would put in a largem one. Mm. Harmening: Yes, Sir~ 30 MI~N~dTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 M~. Cooper: All right Sir~. And we have got one hookup on it, YEn, that' s a bad loss for you.~ Same thing with sewer~ you would put in a larger plant mather tD~n just to service this. Now~ if you want-- this is where we say in the interim or on the water plant~ if we build it~ if that's the way we are to go~ that we will operate it until it is showing a p~ofit above its opemating expense. We put in the fi~u~e~ ambitmary figure, but whatever it~ s a~ived at ..... Or you can ~ake it any time you wanted it. Then you get it alt. And~ we have made all the capital out]ay. And the other way~ we ~ive you the capital outlay and - but you - we still get an operating loss. We don' t give you enough for youm great huge plant~ but you still got an operating loss because you are going to build for a future develop- ment. And~ if you are asking us to pay part of that operating loss because you build bigge~ than you need today hut what you logically and in good business should build rom tom.o.rrow~ t~n that'S what I am: kinda~ga{Sund. That's hard to ~-bite d~n l%ow we don't do t~ant. I think ~/e want to do what yo~ want us to do~ if we can w~ite it down~ and agree in concept and let them work out the figures. I don't mean to refer to any member of the council individually - I say you - you all. If you've got the words that we can put down~ we amc happy to do it. Nr~. Wallace: Coming back to the point and you're talking about concept, would this not be the time, as far as references - if this idea and so forth is compatable to a certain degree to sit down with the appropriate individual and both as far as the city, e~gineers and so forth, and I say a lot hinges on what the developer is able to do as far as the ecological factor is concerned, county, state and what have you. All these things being done and so for and by the time say you'~e going in that light, and if the city should go that route, it gives these people at the same time: time enough to come up with a study--shall we say in both a~eas of direction as to whether it would be ofeourse looking for the benefit of the city whether it would be to our benefit for you to give us X number of dollars and operate it on our own or the other way around. M~. Cooper: And I don't think, like you say, you can determine that until they know which way they are gonna go. So, if we could put this concept in safeguarding you and safeguarding us against excess and safeguarding you against not enough ---inadequacy, then that is what we want, what I thinkwe're getting at. Mr. Ha~mening: Can that concept be adjudicated reasonably well? It is awfully hard. Mr. Simon: I think we tried: as lawyers, but when we get down to this kind of thing--- Mr. Harmening: Would this concept work? The city's engineers and your consulting engineers and by that I don't refer to f-~ture ones I refer to the present eonsultinq engineers. ~here there is-- CAn we somehow stipulate, in this~ as far as water and sewer, that they will agree9 --They will agree ? 31 MINI1TES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 M~. Cooper: Thatts like asking two lawyers to agree. Mr. Hamening: A!right~ and we will agree to abide by the results. Mr. Wallace: Should that not happen, we can come back and go to the courts for binding arbitration for the .... two engineers. Mr. Cooper: ~qat do you fellows think about that? ..... I hate to bU. Harmening: I realize that locks us into one engineer and locks you into another one. At least it locks yours in, I don~t know that it locks ours in .... Mr. Cooper: No, I am not worrying about, as long as we are dealing with, you know, I don~t care who the personal/ties are--professional engzneers- But you got em head to head. Think how it would be if you had four commissioners--or two--might get a standoff. Mr~ Wallace: Then again~ with all input from the city officials as welt - as far as their own city people are concerned, so here again~ in as much, if~ we:lt say~ going this route, they generally have the history of the city--the complete past history or knowing the factors as far as revenue etc., and the capabilities of the city and being totally aware of the situation. Then perhaps we could have possibly no one better than the gentleman that~ who is sitting here now~ on our side and carrying the ball in this instance and we:l! say perhaps, that give and take bit--it could be done. Mr. Cooper: Theoretically, it could. Mr. Simon: Mr. Cooper, what about--I don~t know if it will work. Could it be approached from the standpoint of giving the city the option to exercise. The city has the option on the one hand and the right to reeords available that could help to make that decision. Could we approach it from that basis? Cooper: Give them the option~ Mm~ Simon: The city has the option to exercise from t/me to time and has to have information ..... Mr. Cooper: You mean as to when they want to take over the operation? Certainty~ ~m. Simon: We are talking about the case of the sewer~ for example~ you want to know if it's operating eeonomieaily: sufficiently for you to take over. Mm. Cooper: That's right[ As a matter of ~aet~ we gave you the~ right to take it over at any time. We had a cutoff point, but is there any problem with us agreeing to let them do it whenever they ~ant to? Itts right in the artiole. Mr. Cooper: No, beyond 1500 units. 32 MINUTES ~- SPECIAL M£ETiNG CITY COUNCIL APRIL 19, 1973 Mm. Simon: %~at I~m Saying - - Mr. Cooper: Hers saying net put a mandatory point in--- Mr. DeYoung: That's no problem then. Mr. Simon: tf Palmtand agrees to make the records and information available to you~ ~o you can make an intelligent decision as to whether or not it is economically feasible and .... Mm. Ha~mening: Yes: I don~t see how the city could get hurt on that basis. Mr. Coope~: Mr. Wallace: Mr. Cooper: No prob!em~ no probtem~ Oh~ boy, you have to a smart What page are we down to? Do you want that on the water alternate or do we not .... Mr. Harmening: No, no: we are just going to take the water. Mr. Cooper: O Kay. Mr. Harmening: Not as ~ar as I~m concerned--that is not even subject to negotiations. ~. Cooper: Going to take the money? Mr. Harmening: Oh, yes~ Mr. Cooper: So~ on page 8, and paragraph C, we need some lan~uage ~here we talk about 1500 units to say that such time as the city shall elect and we will furnish records o£ operation and all... Is that what you are ta~<ing about? Mr. Simon: Yes~ thatrs about the idea of it. Mr. Harmening: Actua!ly~ maybe we could make that applicable to the ..... bad thought~ Mr. Wallace: %~aere are we? Mr. Cooper: I think we got ...... Mro Simon: Before we leave Jthat,. Mr..Cooper~ I want to be sure, are we talking about taking it in ~nases? Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. Mr. Simon: Understand now--from time to time? Mr. Har~ening: Right, but we never did- never speak o~ the money though~ in phases I mean, we never did fully clarify the money MINUTES SPECIAL CI~f COUNCIL MEETING APP~-L 19~ 1973 situation on the water treatment plant. plus 5~ Ia that correct? The~ are taking the initial Fm. Cooper: Okay. Mr. Simon: Before we leave the sewem~ I want to be sure we u_nder- star,--on the sewer facilities only the election to take from time 'to time in various phases and the stages will depend upon the city's option. Mr. Harmening: Right, right[ Mr. Cooper: It may be all in that big Delray plant or something. You don~t know.~ Mr. Harmening: Itts possible. Mr. Cooper: P~om what they are saying. Mr. Roberts: I think that possibly our engineer can determine the amount of money as megards to the water. You know theme was a ques- tion ..... Mm. Cooper: Right~ Roberts: as to arriving at ....... Mr. Cooper: That's correct, if I point out---you get the distribu- tion lines as they are completed. We are only talking about the plant. I assume distribution lines don~t cost you a~ything. Okay~ i don~t know: did we solve or discuss to the end the hgokup fees? Mm. Wallace: I think that is the question that Mm. Roberts asked awhile ago of the ehgineems~ and I don~t think he ever got an answer to it. Or m~yb% if he did, it went flying over our heads here at this time. Roberts: [ghere do we stand on that? Mr. Cooper: We stand squarely for not paying them. Mayor Jackson: Mm. Klinck~ ...... Mm. Cooper: If we give you the money for the plant~ ........ Mr. Hazmening: What about the meters? If there~ s. no hooku~ fees: who pmovides the meters? The meters ame normally paid out o~ the hookup fees. You know, distribution is one thing~ concerting the main line, but then when you leave that point and you ame~ now you are talking about house semvices and water metems~--who is putting in the house services to the vamious ........ ? M~. Klinek: charges? Are the metem charges separated from the connection MINUTES SPECL~LY CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1973 Mr. Harmening: Mr. Hopkins, they are all included, aren't they? Mr. Klinck: Meter is separate, connection charge is going to apply to plant expansion~' Mr. Harmening: We!l~ we are getting for plant expansion--we'll use the money from the well fields~ their raw water lines and the plant, plus and also the site .... the ground ...... Mr. Clark: Like Mr. Klinck said~ it would be an interim facility which wouldn't require any waiving of any fees on the city's part~ for interim facilities. Mr. Cooper: We just wan~ to go under your code, which says if we build we don~t pay a connection fee. if we don't build it, obViously-- it applies to both. Mr. Clark: You talking about permanent facilities---interim? Mr. Cooper: Yes~ Sir, but if you took title to the interim faeilities and took them over then they would be pemmanent as far as we are concerned. Mr. Klinck: Even though they are interim? Cooper: _z you take them they are not ours. ~r. Klinck: I don't think they would take them on title, but I thine they would take them on a nominal lease figure for operation and maintenance. I am talking about interim facilities. Mr. Cooper: Well, that's their option. I mean: if you take our plant---again we have given you something. If you dont want ±t, you know, we'll operate it you know~ like you say~ we tear it down. Mr. ]Clinck: The interim plant would come back to you. The city would accept it on a lease basis rather than on a ...... title. Mr. Clark: The interim plant would be to the developers benefit. In other words, we could say you pump into the ~orce main and Drexel is going to build and sooner or later we'll have pump it all back to Delray. But~ you put in an interim faeility at your own expense. Go ahead and pay the connection charges, maybe just 500~000 gallons or a million gallons interim facility then later on De!may says we're ready, you pump your own sewage right across the street into the Delray's plant. Mm. Cooper: I must be missing it somewhere~ because we are paying to hook up for the plant, we're paying for which does not make sense to me. Mr. Clark: The interim plant doesn't do 5he city any good at all. It's for your benefit. We don~t want the interim plant. We can say ~5 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL .MEETING APRIL 19, 1975 you can spend three times as much money and pump all the way to our plant. This would be our option if we are going to waive our connec- tion fees. ~. Cooper: Okay, can we do that? Pmmp to your plant? Mr. Clark: Sure, if you think that's the best way. We will have to still agree to it. Mr. Harmening: We could for a little while, till we ran out .... Mr. Wallace: See here, again we are coming back to a point to say in time it has to be apoint that is going to be determined as far as people that---specialist in that part~cular field--to be able to figure out just to this point and say okay~ maybe we could accept that at the plant for a specified period of time. In that specified period of time you may be able to build a smaller interim plant than what you had in the first place and during that period of time~ we might be able to have increased the size of the one in which we hopefully~ we now own. What I am saying is, if these things that we are speaking of in concept form---if there is a possibility for it to be done~ without, we'll say the cost to the city that looking in that direction and legal expertise over here, say that it can go that route. Then~ I think ~ight now, we are stymied right now. ! don~t think presently, I can say yay or nay to what we are speaking Of because its out of my realm in this field. Cooper: You mean as to specific item or to the concept? Mr. Wallace: To the concept, I can go but to the specifics, items of which we evidenttywe are trying to pin-point down at this time it has to go ...... M~. Cooper: Could we not put in ...... I think like the water plant we are not going to build it. There's no problem there. But we're going to give you the money so there is no hookup on that. I don~t see .... is there a problem with that? Mr. Clark: If you build a water plant we could waive the connection charges against your pro rata share of the water plant. Mr. Cooper: Alright, Sir, but we are just going to give you .... are not going to build the plant. We are going to give you the money. We Mr. Cla~: Right[ We c~-n take that out of the connection charges. Mr. Harmening: We can take off that portion of the connection charges. Mr. Clark: Right! Mr. Cooper: You still charge the same amount? 36 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY coUNCIL MEETING APP~!L !9~ 1973 PL~. Harmening: ItTs a cost to the city~ Mm. Cooper: That's a little contrary to your code: sure now. I think~ I am not Mr. DeYoung: If your connection charge is there to offset the capital cost of providing water to the treatment plant~ treating it and trans- mitting it to the tract, if they provide this~ why should there be a connection charge? Mr. Harmening: Maybe you misunderstood, 14m. Clark, when he said that the pro rata share ..... we are going to have to make distri- butions~ capital improvements---in order to serve a development the size of Palmland. There is no question about it. You recognize this? Therefore, that portion of it should be subject to a connec- tion charge. Fir. DeYoung: To serve somebody else? Mr. Har~ening: We are talking about serving Palmland. We are going to have to make capital expenditures on distribution improvements in order ro properly semite that area. Now~ I will go so far as to a~mee that we will probably build it to service other adjoining areas in the future. In other words, it might~ the total cost might not necessarily need to be borne by Palmland but ........ Mr. DeYoun9-: It's about the same thing .... Palmland is going to pay for it. Mr. Hammening: Ok~ you're going to pay rom it. We are not talking about plant: we are talking about distribution. Mr. DeYoung: We need transmission to get to that point not distri- Put_on to get to it--~but transmission. Mr. Harmening: Okay, transmission. DeYoung: Now~ if that transmission has built into it, capacity beyond the need for peak hourly demand for Palmland~ then that portion should be the city's share. Mr. Harmening: Agreed~ Mr. DeYoung: Then we are both talking about the same thing. Mr. Harmening: Where do we get this money for transmission lines then~ if we don~t get it out of the hookup charge? Mm. Cooper: It says, with respect to the property, the owner of which has constructed at his own expense and turn over to the etiy~ that's I, little (i)~ paid to the city as part of sewage and water extension project funds sufficient to construct water and sewage MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 197 !975 treatment facllz~mes adequate to semve such property. These ~are exc~ptions and this. is No. 2-b - Says no water ~d s~er con_~ctions othe~ than the additional charge under sub-section c~ if applmeable shall be due. If~ with respect to the property owner of which has paid to the city, as part of the sewer and water system extension project funds sufficient to construct sewer and water treatment ~acilities adequate to serve such property. It says, we don~t have to pay it. ~Wallace: iAgain~ are we talking about the land right now~ the out to the facility? Cooper. Yes-~ M~. Wallace: If I recall correctly, it has been the policy in the past that the developer came in and said, I think in all the con- dominiums that are in the area etc., and they were required to a specific size line .... they paid for that particular size line and the city in turn paid for the ir~tial cost of the larger line. Mr. Clark, or Mr. Hopkins~ isn't that what we have done in the past? Mr. Clark: I~m sorry, I mised that last question. Mr. Wallace: ~en a developer, to a~ if I recall correctly, I think lets say a developer needs a 6 inch line coming in to a particular area - the city feels that a 10 inch line is required - the developer pays for the 6 and the city then pays the cost raising it up the 4 inches. Now~ I think this has been the policy in the past and at least to my knowledge~ of the time of which that I have sat on the council. Mm. Clark: The city participates in oversizing the costs. Mr. P~tlace: Right~ Now, does this get to the point of what you're speaking of? Mr. Harmening: Yea; I already agreed to that. They would only pay the pro rata share of this distribution or transmission line to that area which we will have to bear. Mm. Cooper: We really offered to pay you more. We offered to pay you the cost of - you are pointing to that Sir~ and this is the exceptions under that. We offered to pay you our entime cost~ no~ just cost of running the line out there as a differential in the cost. The entire cost of what it would cost us to build a plant there. And we're paying for the distribution system that:s out there. Mr. Harmening: I understand. I~m speaking of that~ portion. We got into this over connection fees. Mr. Cooper: And, we say that your code-says when we build it~ or we MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 pay for it: the part that would have gone on our land - that there {s no connection fee. That's No. 72-24. You got that one~ Ernie? M~. Harmening: Maybe we:ye been charging some of these developers more money than we should? M~ Cooper: No~ I~m sure they would have squawked~ if you had. we were just paying for you to run the main to us fine, you know connection fee. If Mr. Harmening: But, we weren't talking about the full connection fee because full connection fee includes these other parts. Mr. Roberts: Was that portion cleared up about the meter? ._ M-~. ~Harmening: No~ not yet, I don~t believe. M~. Waliaee: When Leisurevilte came in, they put in the line they also paid the connection fees~ did they not? They paid the tap fee~ but they bought the meters. Mr. Hopkins: The city bought them and they paid for ...... Mr. Wallace: ~at I~m saying in all actuality they paid for the meters. Mr. Hopkins: Yes, they paid all costs incurred ...... Mr. Wallace: Right ~. Cooper: Now that you-have read it% He agz~es with me that if we pay for the p!ant~ we don~t pay the connection charge. Now we're talking about the interim plant~ am I correct? Mr. Clark: Let me explain what Mr. Cooper read in the document ar~ I can't take exception to that because, it's in there. It say~s, that when the developer either gives the city money sufficient to provide the treatment facilities to serve his area, there is an exception to connection charges. Or~ if he does in fact build treatment facilities sufficient to serve his property, then this is also an exception, to connection charges. Mr. Harmening: Alright: what happens to the meter? This portion of the connection eharge is adaptable to the meter. Who is going to pay for the meter? Mr. Clark: The meter charge is-an entimely different connection charge which should be imposed. Mr. Harmening: It's considered as part of the connection charge. Mr. Clark: It's not even mentioned here - it's under another ordin- ance and it iS another charge entirely which ~ould be imposed. 39 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL [~EETING APRIL 19~ 1975 Mm. Hazvneninq: Flat fee~ called a tap-in fee? Mm. Cooper: They define connection charge here as connection fee and capital improvement fee. Mr~ Clark: Let me explain Capital improvement fee~ is sometbiing weT me not concerned with here. This is a fee when the city aetua!ly~ in- fact builds and pays £or transmission facilities and mt s a mlnlmt~n fee ~hich is really not pertinent to this at all. Mm. I~ammening: So the tap fee could be included in this. o It should be. Mr. Cooper: How much is that? Mr. Hopkins: $80.00---$120,00 ..... 3/4 inch service $80.00 .... 1 iz~h $12o. oo .... 1-1/ ......... Mr. Cooper: %~at do you use for a house? Mr. Hopkins: Three-quarter Mr. Cooper: That's $80.00. Mm. Narmening: Yeah~ Mr. Cooper: 80 x 7000 - That's a half million dollars. Good Gracious. Mr. Hammening: A 5/4 inch meter costs what--about $56.00. Mr. Hopkins: $55.00. Mr. Clark: In the event of multiple dwelling units~ where you have a 2 inch con~tion~ the charge would be only around $200.00 --- $5~0.00 which might serve 20 units. Mr. Cooper: I~ll come back and say, all we're asking is what your code says. I'm not arguing taps with you. Mr. Narmening: Narold~ is it included in our code: a tap-in ~ee? i~r. Hopkins: It's a resolution that stipulates the tap fee. Mr. Cooper: We will do what we are supposed to. Mr. Harmening: Resolution - that'S it - it may not be as strong~ but that's theme. Mr. Clark: I wish I could get copies of all those.~ ........ Mr. Harmening: I didnTt realize that. Then you~il agree to pay a tap ~ee? ~0 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1973 Mr. Cooper: If we are required to under your resolution or codes, not directed to Palmland, in accordance with your existing standards, fine. If you feel that that's satisfactory, OK. Mro Simon: So, what you really want to do is to change this to no connection fees, instead of no fees. Top of Page 9. P~. Cooper: By golly~ we left that loose, didn't we. Learn not to find fees and things ........ No connection and capital improvement since they say they are not applicable. OK Dwight? Mr. Simon: We~d have to strike that last sentence though, where it refers to a~y fees of any kind whatsoever. Mr. Harmening. That kind a ..of elim/nates every~ing~ Mr. Simon: We probably ought to put in here a positive statement that Palmland will pay the usual tap-in fees, to avoid'any oonf~sion. Mr. Cooper: We will miss that specifically, eh~ and then miss all the rest. Mr. Harmening: Does anybody have anything about Item, Paragraph 8? On Page 97 I mean. This is that portion of that's not mandatory, it's only permissive---we can or we can't. Mr. Wallace: This is the point to which I alluded to earlier. As ~ar as they speeifica~ly~ they sta~e that they will build to speci- ieations~ etc. of th? city. And if it is writte~ in legal ramifi- cations and to the point, un!e~s that they are built then ofcourse~ anything else comes tb a grindmng halt. Mr. Cooper: Then we get no certificate of occupancy. Mr. Wallace: And, if roads, ofcourse, quit some of the first thi should this thing go? this thing is complet that those roads, str the same condition as them go in ther? a~ the city specif~cat~o euer it may be for a I understand correctly and they stated that the ~ naturally, going into the development would be ngs that would be built. Now, somewhere in there I think that also, at the same time, that when ~d, that it also should state and stipulate ~ets, both public and private will--shall be of they were first laid. Because I~d hate to see ~e~ll say, out the streets in there that meet ns. Then, ~fter a 5 or l0 year period, what- ~riod of time of construction, as far as hea~y quipment etc., that ~re goring over those roads. And then come back o the point that tbs city is going to have to refurbish those roads nd bring them up-to-date ~or that the people living out there as it is an intrigal part of the city. Somehow, I'd like to see this-- some type .... into it. nCOoper: May I ask a question on that, Mr. W~llaee9 How do you normally handle that there in the city? I know Orange County City of Orlando~ for example, when you get a building permit that MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1973 is going to require big dirt hauling or things tha.t will tear up the r0&d~ t~ey make the contractor post a bond to repalr the roads.. Is ~hi~ What you're referring to? Because, to just say they're golng to be the same five years from now is ........ M~. Wallace: Well, this is something we're reaching way out there for. P~hat I'm trying to simply state it - if the roads are built to specifications, let's say that within less than the normal period of time of wear and tear, and then go back to that road and somebody that you sold a home to out there falls in a pot hole. Ofcourse~ they~me going to be very upset as far as your coneemned, but they are also be very upset at the people that happen to be sitting up heme at that partieular time. And also~ then those othez~ people out ~here you having to go back theme and mepair those roads that should h~ve been built and etc.~ to begin with. If there is some way, I Rnow it's maybe it's an intangible tbing~ as far as the intent-- something needs to be in theme, say as far as guaranteeing that particular thing. I don't know how you're going to go about it. I don~t even know if it's feasible that it is an intangible and yet it's something that the city must look to. Mr. Cooper: I think, with reference to the private roads, that they will nct uet the traffic. So, I don~t think--you know you're talking over about 4 om 5 period of time and I don~t think there is a problem.there. With reference to public roads..come up with what you want ..... Mr. Wallace: Maybe this is also something, going as far as engineers are eoncemned~ if you build a section of private homes and they were sold out~ I'm sure that the people that you sold those homes to will not want the heavy equipment~ so forth running through their residential area that is there, so under the assumption that they're not going that way, that another access road being built back in the development area , we'll say will keep the heavy traffic off it ...... Mr. Cooper: I think I~m correct on this~ ~ight, are all of these private cul de sacs off these public roads? Would heavy trucks ride across private roads? If you've developed parcel one: would the construction equipment run on the private roads to get to parcel 2 or 3 om 4? Mr. Wardlaw: Haul roads would he provided and construction equipment as such would be ........ Mr. Wallace: Now this is what I was referring to when I said ........ Mr. Wardlaw: We anticipate a provision that haul roads will be pro- vided to devert construction equipment. After Parcel 1 and 2 amc completed, I don~t think people would be vemy happy hag~ng dump trud~s ~unning up and down the streets. Mr. Cooper: If we put in a provision that haul roads will be pro- vided to convert construction traffic ....... MINUTES SPECIAL CI~f COUNCIL MEETING A~PRIL 19~ 1975 /~Lr~. Wallace: Simply bY doing this it's going to make the people %_]%at you sold to, theytre going to be happy and I know that fallows up here are going to be happy. Mr. Wardlaw: Construction equipment traffic on the public moads? M~. Clark: What paragraph are you dealing with there? Mr. Cooper: We'll put in 8 or we could put it back in the road paragraph. Mr. Clark: It might better be put it in the road paragraph~ where would'you prefer it? Mr. Cooper: %~hy donT t we put it in there as an additional paragraph sub-section unde~ that ..... Mr. Roberts: What kind of roads are those? Mr. Cooper: How about up there before they say positive storm drainage about !, 2, 5~ 4, 5, up from the end of paragraph 3~ on page 6. Is that OK? Mr. Cooper: %~ite this down again Linde ...... road will be constructed to eliminate construction equipment traffic on the public right-of- ways we call those public streets~ I think, don't we? Mr. Barmening. Mr. Clark~ how is our drainage ordinance? Mr. Clark: Our drainage ordinance, I believe, the way it reads, if i'm not mistaken, it just says subject to our approval of our city~ as the council knows~ within the city timits, it's difficult to get positive drainage~ but on this subdivision, we do require positive drainage especially if it's feasible. I'm talking about like Mango Heights, a small subdivision which we worked ou% something less than positive drainage. I understand they use it in New York. Mr. Cooper: He has already made us put that positive drainage in there~ We had a big discussion. We didn't know what that meant. Mr. Clark: We use the same thing the County does---5 year storm. Mr. Wallace: We are still on Page 9. Right~ Or are we on page 9? Can we go back for a moment, on one item? Coming back to p~qe 4 down where you have listed~ first section of Parcel 19, 20,/~a2~°~ed It is ~rther agreed that the said parcels may be developed in accordance with the said zoning classification as exists on the effec- tive date of Ordinance No. 72-27~ except as hereinafter limited. In your interpretation of this~ how does this, what is the difference that you have seen between this particular point that you placed in here, as that which we would do provided according to our new zoning regulations as far as to the e~fective boards that have been set up. M_INUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL ~9~ 1973 AS far as Site Plan approval and these types of boards? Mr. CoopeT: It does not effect your Boards or anything else. This has to do~ and we had quite a lengthy discussion when we were dTaw- ing this up. You have changed certain usage, area coverage eta.. undeT youT C-2 c!asslrleatlon. This !s listed u. nder C-2, ~n the. zo - ing seetion of your code.Your Planning Board; Site Plan apprOVai.~ this sort of stuff~ is a separate ordinance: We're speaking only to the item~ that ate listed where it says C-2 ~ses~ Area~ ! believe another one you have is a ....... which was a separate ordinan~e~" Thi§ was oum intent on it and that~ s what we tried to express. BecaUse, your oily attorney brought up that we're still---are you tr~ing to get a~ound site. plan appToval and these things and - and we ..... MT. Wallace: And~ in essence you weTe ....... Mr. Cooper: No Sir, we weTe not. You see~ one of the tings, one of the issues involved in the law suit is, we contend that s city cannot come in and say, under R-2: you used to could build ~X~ now we~ve changed and in R-2~ you can only build ~Y~. We haven't changed youT zoning, we changed youT use within that zop_ing classification. We~e saying we have the same uses. MT. Wallace: I~m not, arguing. Maybe we are arguing in the s~me direction. I~m not aTguing the point because, you have specifically spelled out parcels of which will be designated specifically for specific items to be built in. Now, this is only already, suppos~dly~ well say~ this much of it has been g~anted. Now, what I am saying is, to really, that after this is once given to you. In other words, it was given to you per se~ eomplete in its entiretT, Then the city in essence has no contTot as to what happens. Cooper: Oh, Yes Sir[ You've still got site plan appToval. You've got your beautification ..... Mr. ~llace: ~hat you~Te saying is your willing to site plan approval, beautifieation~ etc. You're willing to go this route. Mr. Cooper: Yes SiT, or any other oTdinance. Mr. Wallace: I just want to make sure that it's specifically spelled out so that answeTs the question. I don~t want to labor it any further ...... 0K, that answeTs the question. Now, coming back to a point that was alluded to earlier and at this stage~ imasmuch as Roberts brought it up in the past and knowing what happened, we~l! say at the last go-aTound~ when we mentioned to the point we~lt say, as fat as dropping the zoning, before ! specifically asked the question. Knowing what the ramifications weTe fTom the last time that we met and simply came through with zoning theTe is a gToup that is here this afteTnoon. ATe they impoweTed to this point. 9hould it be so deeided~ in other words~ should you decide, do you have the authority to lower the zoning of which the developer asks% Not the 44 MIS~TES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1973 zoning, but the dSnsity? Mm.~Cooper: No Sir, he will not lower that. Mr. Wallace: Wetl~ this is what I was ....... ~. Cooper: We have the authority, but that authority is NO and you asked me a point blank question and I answered it abruptly and if I could ....... Mr. Wallace: Now this is the reason I asked the question, because I said, knowing the r~nlfieation fzx~n the last time, that this was proceeded that the ...... Mr. Cooper: Sometimes i~m too abrupt~ and !don't mean co sound arbi- t~aryo It's not my nature and I~d like to explain that if t could Sir. If you want to hear it~ Mr. [~llace.~ · I?m not, you:re not huz'ting my feelings, because this is the answer that i was looking for and I realize why it was given. Mr. Wallace: Any questions? Mr. Roberts: I would suggest that Parcels 3 and ~ be included in youm plans for developing if you are going to retain 6700 units. Mr. W!lace: In other words, asking the same question, Mr. Cooper, could it be done? [Mr. Cooper: Well, apparently not and keep what's the gentlemans name? (De!ray Dunes)- Mr. Sexton, not and keep them happy, ah~ I~m trying ...... Mr. Roberts: There's a good possibi!it~ that option may not be picked up. From what I gather, there is a strong possibility that option won't be picked ups there is quite a bit of money involved and some of the people are not in accord, I don~t think ...... Mr. Cooper: Then, it's no probtem~ Mr. Roberts: Well, then again we should work the other way around as I suggested before. You start! tvi~. Cooper: I don't k~now that there is a strong possibility they won't pick it .up. We come back to, and the old thing of concepts, you know, if you look at some of the other projects which have nothing to do with this, if you go on a unit density, you are much higher than this one on a unit density. I just read over some city Couneilminutes and one of them is 20 points s~mething in all and I don~t know whether I haven't seen them and they maybe beautiful because, there are places for that sort of thing and 45 MIS~dTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL !9~ 1975 Mm. Roberts: Those ame small units. M~. Coopem: Yes, the objections on population, you'me limited the whole a~ea to population. Again, not to the objections i've heard have been: you know~ again meading old council minutes reading~ they'.re going to double the population in Boynton~ well that is cut down whether there on 1 acre or 2 aeres, now this is a new objection, not new: not new, f~om you Sir, a new one on a per square inch density~ I'll call it. Mm. Roberts: Wel!~ the thing has been bmought up as I say by myself at the last g~oup gathe~ing~ 9~oup set up and again it's been poin- ted out that I'm not against annexation and I've made that etea~ although I don't know how the rest feel. Howeve~ one of the draw- backs when we started the talk at this first meeting~ when we never got anywhere on the basis of what Mm. Lovett had mentioned~ but we tmied to contain the total number of units to 6000, which was apparently not acceptable and we broke up and I think, as I recatt~ a member of the Council said we could possibly compromise to about 6500, which did no good at the time and I think we went even further when we arrived at 67~ but then they sliced off a piece of land and they were back where we staTted f~om: and this seems to be a stumbl- ing block for possibly adding to what we've already covemed. 9~ieh seems to be acceptable. Mm. Coope~: Weil~ eh~ and I don~t mean to sound abrupt aqain~ Mr. Roberts, if we honestly and respecting each other~ disagree on it, it's got to a point that we can't give on. You know, we've made our decision on that, and I respect you and if that's it, then you know theme are 5 things that can happen you know, we can be a~nexed, we can go to law suit or you know ....... Mm. ~oberts: I know~ Mr. Katz mentioned that the very same thing to deannex possibility, if he would like to go that route: ah, that may solve the problem. M~. Coope~: No~ you know it solves it for you, but it doesn't help youm people, you stil!~ if you deannex and they got them out there, it doesn't help the crowds or anything else. M~. Roberts: No~ you'll have crowds and the ~oads will be congested~ but again, eh~ we just have to take a chance on the ultimate numbem of people that a~e put there~ and at this point~ I feel that it won't be any higher than 6000 people. ~ereas, right now we're talk- ing about 6400 to 6700. Mmo Coopem: Again, not being abrupt on it, they gave what they felt and begr~dg~ngly, I'm sure, I wasn't here then~ hut they gave what they felt they could on the economics of the situation. I don't remember 7900~ I think was their original and then it got to 6900. F~om their standpoint now~ not from yours and you all .have given in, too. Roberts: Let's agree, Mr. Cooper, that the 7900 at the time that MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1973 it was zoned, it was not a binding figure, when you have zoning that allows four story buildings throughout a 1~000 acmes you ....... M~. Cooper: Wgit, you~r~ putting certain covenants with land that run forever, Sir~ until everybody concerned removes .......... Mm. Roberts: Right[ That came later~ after the hen, I don't know which came first~ the egg or the hen. Mr. Wallace: This goes back to another question, Mm. Cooper. It's speculative.even to where covenants and deed restmietions and what have you. Knowing and looking at the development of this size, to a point that it is a speculative type of thing that is there, what happens ....... to an a~ea and possibly an impass in a certain area What would a developer say within two years fmom now~ or three years fmom now~ when he comes back to the city and says: Now look: parcel suoh and such; I~d like a change? Mm. Coopem: And, we have put the covenance on there? You can't do it. You can not change it. He can not change it. Mr. Ha~mening: Why, he can come back and make an Mr. Cooper: No Sir~ That covenant runs, ICm giving you legal advice now. Ask your own Counsel. But, in my opinion that covenant muns with the land. Everybody in that development and we even provided in he~ethe City, which it was questionable whethem they would have a standing, to enforcing the Code~ we provided that they Can't. So anybody, the City of Boynton, anybody that has any land out there can en~omce those covenants. That's st-monger than you~ i1 ever get in zoning and those are·covenants. Now, the City eould~ lets say~ I don~t think you could change the zon.inq~ a, if a, C-2 sat there. Let's say they let the C-2~nd sit there 5 years. I~m talking hypothetically now~ did no development: no plans for it for I0 years in a situation wheme the city wasn't a stop chain. You could come in and change that zoning to A-1 say. Thatrs what is justified agmiculture, you can lower the classification, hut it could never be maised. Now, you. can't lower it on them tomorrow~ om at least it would be my opinion, on the settlement, that you could not lower it under .... a..tomorrow you~e not covenanting it that it will always be zoned~ that they are covenanting that they will never make any use of this regardless of the zoning in that location. Mr. Wallace: But, what you are saying also states at the same time that they could not, what you're stipulating~ at least I feel that you say that they could come back and say as far as lowering it was concerned, what you s~ in lowering it~ then you're coming back in and asking for an ~X~ number of apartments or townhouses or etc. for that particular parco!: that basically would incmease the total density of the total 1000 acres. Mm. Cooper: They cant do it! This is my opinion and I tI~nk Mm. Simon shares it. 47 MI}-~TES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL ~ET!NG APRIL 19, 1973 M~. S/mon: The restrictive covenance runs with the land. Mr. Cooper: The City could not give it to us. Mr. Simon: It would take a great substantial change to warrant the court to ...... Mr. Wallace: This is what I understood, but I want to make sure that... ~-~. Cooper: If every resident of Boynton, Palmland and the City and everybody said do it, then yes, but thatts like any deed restriction. If everybody in the area says yes, then we will provide that the city is a party to give them standing to enforce it. Mr. Roberts: There are certain number of people involved here and I don~t know if they are going to do anything about its except ask the attorney to ask for a hearing or get some kind of a judgement on the original suit. Ail I can say, as far as allowing building permits for the other things, I don~% I wouldn't have any objections to that. Mr. Wallace: If I understand you correctly, in other words~ ~hat you are st,.ting, at this point is that if the land zoned...that all of the agreements and stipulations that have been drawn up here this afternoon, and say, if all of those things could be worked out. In Item number 9, says upon approva% of this agreement that applies hereto~ the City of Boynton Beaeh, as far as the building per,nits for models~ heretofore requested by Pa!m!and, to be issued with due dispatch. Now, on tha~as far as, ramifications and etc., and all that ..... can, and a motion be made as far as this council is con- cerned, as far as ~o the issuance of the building permits for models based upon the County~ etc ....... the codes for septic tanks and what have you, and the other specifications of the city? Mm. Roberts: Mm. Barrett has a point. Mr. Barrett: One thing I want to inject here, in any event, the building permits could not be issued until after the 26th, when we lift the moratorium; because these are more than 3 years. Mr. Harmening: V~hat about fact finding, preliminary fact finding? Mr. Simon: I think we could go through all stages if you so desire ...... the actual...but not the issuance of ...... Mr. Roberts: Thatts only a shot ...... They have to get a septic tank and some water or something down there so it will take a week any way. So, I mean, if our requirements are met Mr. Cooper: Let me speak to that language, eh, we want it to meet your qualifieations. Our information was, it was being that it met all the adm/nistrative tests, basically, and then it was just this question of zoning. So~ eh, you know to be issued when it meets the requirements of the City. Is what we're trying to say, but don~t hold us up on that ..... 48 MIA~TES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETTNG APRIL 19~ 1973 Mr. Wallace: Well this is: I~m not trying to hold you up on this particular thing~ this particular item. I~m simply saying that some of that needs to be clarified~ eh~ unless it were clarified~ you may possibly wind up with a building permit and not be able to get a septic tank permit f~om the County~ or what have you and then you got something setting out there so ....... ~. Cooper: I think~ for example on that~ they could put in a d~y model. I mean we can, as I understand, they ~d.~'~ have any admin- istrative problems~ the p~obtems were higher up~ whateve~ kind of p~obl~ms those are. Pit. Roberts: Well, then again, we get back to the basic request about someone, I don~t kr~w who, mentioned deanJ~×ation. That w~re not going to have a meeting of the minds and not leave the door open which I consider not too stringent, and will be in keeping with the original ~6700. There~ s probably no point putting up a model there, unless I suppose they could put the model up even if it~ s deannexed. Mr. Cooper: Yes, well~ ofcourse~ if we don~t have a settlement, then you're not required to give us a building permit. We filed a suit on that and we'll let the couPt d~cid&'~it. Eh~well, they held up giving us what we ~eally feel like they ought, to have becaussg we build at our own peril, if not entitled to it. We~!t have to tear it down~ so ..... Know one in Winter Park, Florida. They put about 950 thousand dollars in the bank foundation and it's still just a concrete thing out there. Now, they didn't build a building. They went on their own peril, and lost. Mr. Roberts: Well, I~ll repeat again. I believe sometime ago, I made a statement several years ago~ that trm in favor of annexation with controls and my feeling, going back and reviewing the method that was used for the type of zoning, which started the whole ball rolling, and again, theme are certain questions that never were answered and that was as I say: the map was not presented to the public and explained how the z~ing and again~ this was for the coumt to decide anyway, !~m not trying to began attorney, because I don~t have any knowledge of that, but I would have to discuss with N~. Holtingswomth and possibly ask as I say, for a hearing which was supposed to have come up a long time ago. And it was postponed or I believe it was postponed, due to a request by the Palmland attorney. M~. Cooper: May, eh~ you all have at some time, city council, talking to you alone. I was going to say, you want us to step out, so you all can talk ....... but~ you can't do that. That's bad. .How do you make up your mind? You have to think out loud don~t you? Mr. Wallace: Let me make a statement here~ on the basis of what's been talked about. As far as this afternoon and together in fact~ up to what has transpired, if a building pe!~nit were issued, well say~ provided it under the specifications of this~ to that point maybe, I don~t know one way or the other, 'possibly, so I can vote, because all 49 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1975 of the%other things are going to be contingent upon so many factors of which we:Il'say it's going to have to be a meeting of the minds, to come to the city. In that period of time, and one of the questions that was brought up here, we'll say is governed as far as Mr. Roberts is concerned, and others etc., when it became to the speci- fied acres that it ..... Inasmuch as you were saying that there was the possiblity that an option may not be taken again and you're stating ghat at the ime there was, beyond your knowledge right now, that you didntt know nothing about it. Cooper: Was that option taken or exercised? P~. Wallace: It was exercised. That perhaps~ in the meantime, in coming back tb~t working with Mr. Katz, as was this problem~ possibly could be ironed out to some form or some manner, so that when it came back again; because wetll say if it came back, when it comes back, we could find out we~d hassle same old ball of wax, so to speak, would be, I think, there would be that possibility. Mr. Cooper: Of them not taking an option, or of us finding out they dontt want to? Mr. Wallace: Right[ At least you're looking into the matter, and therefore, in corning back, at least you can say look specifically legally, that it's going to be gone through %~ith and that itts going to be gone through with, then ..... that particular acreage of land and then it comes back to the bone of contention, what do we do with the three hundred? Mr. Cooper: Certainly, we could Sir. In answer to your question. As I mentioned the other night, we're clicking off money. We're taking all this valuable time at a high daily rate and you note sometL~es I just think we're at a point we got to decide we can, I mean, if it's unacceptable to you, and you cantt go on it~ and then we can go get them to not exercise it then we can come back to you. Please let us know now. Mr. Wallace: Good~ At this point r~w: it seems like that there has been, shall I say, some 9~_ve and take? That this, basically~ right now, seems to be the only really hang up at the present time~ P~. Cooper: If I may eomment on that. That has been a hang up before and we~ve worked on these figures, down what we thought was an acceptable figure. Gave more than we really .... gave 200 units, more than we thought we could economically live with. You know, it was a bone of contention then, and again~ it's difficult, I haven't been here discussing with you, but discussing with your lawyers the input into them. We thought.we had a figure~ now we could come back eh, next week and maybe it's clearly defined now, that its sixty your knocking off three hundred units, 6400 if they're in the 6700 if they're out. If you're making that in a form of a proposition, fine. I~m getting that from two people~ you know and this is ......... ~. Wallace: This is what Itm after, as long as there is that parti- cular possibility this ......... 50 MINUTES SPECIAL CI1~f COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1973 Mm. Roberts: I was about To ask for a meeess of 10 minutes because~ of healthmeasons. Mr. Cooper: I need one too, sure enough. I appreciate that. Recess: Mayom Jackson: Where do we go from here? Mm. Klinek: Did you want to make a ........ Mr. Harmening: Jack do we have a...have...they ever submitted a p~elimina~y site paln..o~.. Mr. Bammett: 9~en you'me talking of a pmeliminary site plan~ amc you talking about this particulam thing om a designated - eh - say rom instance .... [~. Harmening: ~ designated area. om ...... Mr. Bamrett: A lot~ block om a system of building? Mr. Hammering: Yeah~ Mr. Bamrett: No Sim: they have not. Mayor Jackson: Well~ where do we go fmom here? We have to hummy up and get out of here. Mm. Ha~mening: Can we ask Chartem Womld about a pmeliminary site plan. %'~nen .... before we issue the pemmits for the models? Maybe that, s prematume, just on the models~ -.but before anything otheT than the models~ I think we should certainly have a preliminamy site plan. Mm. Wallace: I think the idea. on the models is a moot question because - as soon as youm momatorium is lifted, the 26th and things being as to what they are and they meet the city speci~ieations~ you're going to have to issue them a pemmit ..pemiod. Mr. Coopem: On the model? Mr. Hammening: Yea, that's t~ue~ but I~m speaking of the development beyond the models. I mean~ I would assume that maybe the time pmeliminary site--maybe it's a little eamly for a prelim/nary site plan. Mr. Bamrett: I think j perhaps maybe we might better temm it as a development plan. Mr. Harmening: Development plan? P~. Barmett: ! thi~< so. Mr. Hammerd_ng: OK~ 51 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1975 Mr. Barrett: HoW they propose to develop section by section. What they propose tO put in each particular section, ~ae same as we did with Leisurevilte - ~n seetions so that they show not necessarily Mr. Harmening: Streets etc.? Mr. Barrett: inner roads and everything where they plan to develop these, or tentatively plan to develop them at least. Mr. Harmening: Right[ Right[ Mr. Roberts: I think I~d like to make one point if I may~ take your time Mr. Cooper. In discussing the number of units .... the green area .... that option is picked up~ will not repz~sez~ any 9Teen area. It will be cut off entirely and again, you're back to a 7 point some- thing on other density, which is not in keeping~ I don~t think~ with any, lets say reduction or very little difference. And ofcourse, if the 7900 units were retained for instance~ you carved out another, th e same 50 acres and ofcourse your density again will be upped. There is no green area left if the option is picked up. If it's going to be .... Again, you're not being 'the right .... we're not requesting that you reduce the number of uDits...that is below 6.7...unless the option is picked up and then that makes the difference. I don~t see how there is any difference if you carve it out and leave it at 7 point something there is no reduction as far as the overall density is concerned. That's the way I, and I know several others feel about it. Other than that~ there is no problem. Mayor Jackson: Did you want to speak - Jack? Barrett: Something just occured to me here. Mr. Roberts: I hope it is in our favor. Mr. Barrett: Well~ you brought it to mind. You're talking about overall density here. Your maximum density ~fter the 20th of this month will be 10 per acre. Mr. Harmening: Yes, that's correct. Jack Barrett: figures . ordinance Mr. Roberts: Well, t don~t know how it will effect this, since the action started before that ....... Mr. Barrett: I wouldn't argue this point Mr. Harmening: This may be prior to that, I~m not sure. Mr. Cooper: Mr. DeLong. Mr. Barrett: Ail I~m asking for is an indication of how you want to go. Whether you want to go with prior zoning or this~ all I~ asking. 52 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Mr, Cooper: Didn't you figure out it was 600 .... and ....... Mr. DeLong: 622.88 which averages out to 10.11 -..that is taking ........ F~. Harmeninq: 10 point one one. %,~hile yo~re mulling this~ Mr. RDberts questions over~ maybe you can answer Mr. Barrettes question and mine regard to tentative development plan. This has never been brought up ... to my knowledge. Cooper: How they will develop - what section etc.? Mr. Harmening: Yes, Yes~ Mm. Cooper: Dwight, stop me if I'm wrong here. Section I, which is Parcel I~ Itm sorry, which is the Northeast corner, painted pi~c is the - the blue on the Northeast corner is parcel 25, I believe, the motel site. OK, the first development is in Parcel I, up there. They anticipate on the outside 500 units. ~s was how our water plan was derived and on the first year. Then, do you go around the circle that way? Mr. Harmening: These are single story? Mr. Cooper: Yes, Mr. Roberts: Mr. Mr. Cooper: Yes, Mr. Roberts: Is Mr. Cooper: that one. Sir~ then continue ~n around ........ Cooper, this is not the revised map~ is it? Sir. it revised? it...that..~.ehanged the road from the way it is to .... Mayor Jackson: Tereesa: are you taking the minutes on that? Cooper: The one on the easel, over there; shows the whole road plan which was changed to stop that access out on 23rd Mr: Hamening: Charter World - Palmland - does have plans to submit thms to the building department, Ipresume. To the for site plan approval in sta~es, Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir~ as they go along. Mr, Harmening: Right~ Mr. Wardlaw: Fact is, Right~ Parcel I, Site Plan~ was presented at both the hearings - both the zoning hearing and the city council hearings way back last fall. Mr. Cooper: Is that in that m~teriat - that~ Mm. Wardlaw: No, it was a large rendering. MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APP~TL 19~ 1975 Mr. Harmening: Oh yeah~. I remember that one now, Come to think about it. I guess t didn't actually recognize the site. Mayor Jackson: Does some one want to make some kind of decision? We have to get out of here in fifteen minutes. Mr. %~.~llace: Well, !~ll make a motion that the agreement as drawn up by the pamties being the City of Boynton Beach and Palmland Develop- ment~ which including the proviso provided all the stipulations and s~ecifieations that were mentioned can be and all of these things that can be drawn up in a legal document, then I make a motion that it be granted. Mr. Harmening: I second the motion. Mr. Delong: Will you repeat that? Mayo~ Jackson: Yes, will you repeat the motion? Mm. Wallace: The motion that we made, help me if I'm a little off on this Mm. Simon. The motion will read that the agmeement between the parties of Ci~M of Boynton Beach and Palmland Developer as d~awn up by this meeting .... Mr. Simon: Let me suggest to you this ..... I think what you're suggesting is that this agreement that's been submitted as amended by agreement today and discussed, In that total package after it's put in final form and I think your~e talking about expression~ aren't you? Mayor Jackson: Concept? M~. Wallace: Concept, right~ Mr, Simon: Expression by acceptance of the concep% reduced to final ~iting, or do you want to move fo~ the acceptance of this settlement on the basis that you have it now. Mr. P~llace: No. I'm talking about on the total concept of which was discussed here this afternoon. Mr. Roberts: Does that include the discussion we just had in regard to carving out of some land and 6700 units? Was that included in the motion? Mr. Wallace: Nc, I simply made the motion in other words, to get something out on the floor here,, as far as to see in which direction and see what we are going to nee'd to be done. Mr.' Roberts: I don't see the need of putting a lot of people to work unless we've come to some final conclusion. It would be unfair to keep ev~bo~y ........ ~ ~ ~ ~ll w~thdraw the motion and let me ask Mr. Mr. ~llace~. A~ >' ' 54 M_/~dTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Cooper a question, and then on the basis of ...... Jackson: Just a second~ Mr. Harmening: I withdraw my second. Mr. Wallace: Then, on the basis of that, then each member of the Council can make a decision. Fir. Roberts: If I may add:-- 1~ere are two points to consider. There has been an exoression several times on the part of Palm!and they may want to deannex, because of the fact that we cannot agmee. Now, this thing seemed to have been going along pretty well and I feel there is no extmeme request made~ since they will not be deDied, as I say depending upon an option. I don't figure it out myself and on that basis, I don't see any need to make a motion and everybody get together and type up a lot of agreements, if the thing will go no further. I'd have it consmmated. I think it's unfair to even ask anybody to ....... [~. Wallace: The discussion here is the idea -- if I make a pro- posal to a motion, that stipulates we'll say here as far as ~X~ number of units: we'll say, then it goes down. Say it is voted down. It is your perogative of choice then to come back with another motion ~nich may include this of which you have discussed. That in turn can be voted upon and in as much as which ever direction that this goes, this specifically gives indication~ shall we say, to the developer. Mr. Roberts: Well, there is another point to consider. We ~ay pass a motion and have it passed, but theme is still a suit pending and which some of us people are involved in. So again~ it may not go a~fwhere so ...... It would seem to me to go anywhere at all, we must have an angreement of the minds here before we can proceed any further. That's just an opinion. Mr. Wa!!aee: This is the point I've been asking. I have asked on three different occasions as far as the City Attorney is concerned. Of which~ the answer has been given on all three times, will say ss far as the affirmative and as far as the decision~ that was handed down by, as the attorney general, that was there. V,~ieh means that I as an individual~ in sitting here as far as the Council--there is a direction as an individual member of the council 99mber, that I must go back. Now, I~m su~there are other ramifications for~ we'll say individuals or that may be involved as lam as the other but in sitting here, this thing has to be separated ~etween what is provided as far as the eity itself is concerned and what is provided on the other issues of the ease that is outside of the realm of the city. So, consequently, there has to be a deeision, then if those people on the outside of the realm of the city do not like the decision they have a choice of either persuing it one direction or the other. Then the city in ~grn will have to come back to make up its mind as to which direction it's going to go. Basically, let's say there can 55 MIlfdTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1975 only be a decision reached by members of this Council on these suits that specifically involve the city as eouneil members. Mr. Roberts: If it wilt help any, I'll give you an expression. I'm in favor of everything that's happened so far today, up to a point. I think a lot of issues have been resolved and everybody seems to be having no fault to find. There is one issue that hasn't been resolved and I don't know how you can make a motion just to accept up to the end of this agreement and leave the other one 'hangir~3, so .... M~. Wallace: ! think that it would possibly. Now, again:- give one of two things. You have made an expression of an opir~ionand let's say~ the motion was ~l~ou~nt up and let's say, going under the assump- tion that it was defeated. Let's say in this instance again, the motion is made on the basis of 6700 and it is defeated. Alright, there on that basis and we have asked specifically of the attorney as to the opinion of the developer as to what might or might not be done. He in turn has the capability at this time of going back to the developer and saying, '~look ther~ is a good possibility without going through all this again, we can come hack to the city of Boynton Beach and say~ there is a possibility that this will be passed on basis of 6400~. Now~ you can choose that route: or you can choose to continue, shall we say~ to fight the thing throughout the courts as far as the city is concerned, or you can fight the ting as far as deannexation is concerned. These are opportuni~t~ s that's open to the developer. I think I only have one specific - specified area to travel at this particular point. ~r. beLong: M~. Simon, I'm not getting involved in any negotation, but as a point of o~der, in so far as procedure is concerned~ I would like to ask you at this time: and in order to sort of eliminate this road block, or impass, if it wodldbe, would it be fitting and ~rDper at time to adjou~ _and ~h~n Dome ~ek,in special session after the a~angements of the agreements here today have been put in w~it- ing and then at that time to pass your motion for the adoption of the agweement? Roberts: I don' t see why that wouldn't work. ~. Simon: I think that Palm_land would be agreeable to doing tha% if ey had some idea that the work would be productive. At this point to put it in final fo~m, wouldn't serve any useful purpose~ unless they thought or had some good idea, that you were going to be willing to accept it in its £inal form. Mr. beLong: It wouldn't be nothing out of order then, ~ach individual without making a motion, could express his own opinion as what he intends to do. Sortof like a straw vote is what it would be and all ...... M~. Simon: This comes out in general discussion as yo~ discuss generally your own personal feelings will be reflected in what you have to say. 56 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19~ 1973 Mayor Jackson: You mean not take a vote, just each one individually-- expres their opinion.? Simon: You can always have a general discussion. Mr. Harmening: Letts have a general discussion. Mr. Wallace: Wait a minute - before you get into this - We've discussed all afternoon, and we met one Saturday afternoon. It was not a p~oductive afternoon, so to speak, on things that came about or transpired. There again~ we t~ied to a certain point and as we said, Mm. Roberts was here~ the rest of us were not. We took action at a council meeting and says OK, we're going to meet in a special meeting to resolve the issue'that's there---and I think it behooves each one of us as an individual member of the Council, to give a vote one way or the other. And, I said only by doing this, do I feel that the developer could really say or could know whether there is a good solid intention as far as the individual members of the council are concerned. Because~ we~li say, people can change their minds, tether easily. You can put a vote down and put it in the record that such and such didn't and possibly there is a question to come back for on what basis did we change it. Though it may not get anywhe~e~ I willmake the motion .... That the agreement as was previnusly stated, the previous motion that I made, and that was described by M~. Simon~ as the Attorney, I will make that motion at this time. Mayor Jackson: Mrs. Padgett, will you read that back? Roberts: %~atts that for a straw vote? Mrs. Padgett: I did not completely get it. I;ll piece it Dogether off the record. Mr. Simon: I think the motion shall probably state that Mr. Wallace moves the acceptance of the p~oposal which is combined in the w~iting before each of you, together with what's been agreed to in concept will constitute an acceptance of a settlement of these law suits and that upon approval by the Court that they be implemented and be submitted to the court for acceptance as provided in the agreement. Mayor Jackson: I think we better have a roll call Mr. Roberts: It hasn't been seconded, has it? Mr. Ha~mening: I~ll second this ~Otion. Mayor Jackson: Any discussion. M-~. Roberts: In view of the fact that I~m a party to another suit which i have am willing to withdraw, and I have the support of let's say !~ 2, ~, 4, 5 people that there is one item~ as I mentioned before that's a road block and I would therefore be against this 57 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1975 particular motion. I thought I~d mention this in case anybody wants to take exception to it. Mayor Jackson: Your vote---It~s just discussion, is this eormect? Mm. Wallace: Yes~ it's under discussion. Mayor Jackson: Anybody else have any further discussion. You ready for the question? Alright, I~m going to ask fom a roll call. 1. Mm. Roberts NO 2. Mm. Harmening YES 5. Mm. Wallace YES 4. Mm. Delong Mm. DeLong: Mm. DeLong will qualify his vote and wantS the recomd tom mecord it as not being opposed to annexation pem se, but I still memain a staunch suppomter of the peoples might of refemendum that has been denied in this instance. I vote NO. Mayor Jackson: F~ vote is for the same meason, because I feel that we should have a mefemendum, so my vote is NO. The motion is lost, 3-2. Move to adjourn? Meeting adjourned. ATTEST '. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Davmd Roberts ~ counc~lma ~d~fa-~d~.- ~a-~e~i~g, Couneil~a~ 58