90-CCCCCCRESOLUTION NO. 90-~~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR
AND CITZ CLERK TO EXECUTE A CERTAIN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOYNTON
BEACH, FLORIDA AND FAU/FIU JOINT
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND URBAN
PROBLEMS; A COP¥ OF SAID AGREEMENT
BEING ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A";
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
~f
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission
the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, that:
Section 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby
uthorized and directed to execute a certain Agreement
between the City of Boynton Beach and FAU/FIU Joint Center
for Environmental and Urban Problems to develop a report
outlining a recommended fee structure for a fixed fee.
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ,~ day of September, 1990.
FLORIDA
~TTEST:
'
CitI~/Clerk
Corporate Seal
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR~ ....... ~
General Consulting ~ C E~i
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the~Czty of Boynton Beach,
hereinafter referred to as "the City", an~,[FAU/FIU Joint Center for
Environmental and Urban Problems
hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant", in consideration of the
~mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified.
Project Designation.
perform
project designated
The Consultant is retained by the City to
services in connection with the
Interim Service Fee Study
2. Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to perform the services,
identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, including the
provision of all labor~ materials, equipment and supplies.
Time for Performance. Work under this contract shall commence
upon the giving of written notice by the City to the Consultant
to proceed. Consultant shall perform all services and provide
all work product required pursuant to this agreement within
135 calendar days from the date written notice is
given to proceed, unless an extension of such time is granted in
writing by the City.
Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for
work and for services rendered
completed
under this agreement as follows-
Payment for the work provided by Consultant shall be made4 3
provided on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, provided that t~) -~
total amount of payment to Consultant shall not exceed / ~7~.~
$ 22,080 without express written modification of th~__ $~
agreement signed by the City. .~. ~
The consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per
month during the progress of the work for partial payment
for project completed to date./~ S~h vou~her~will be
checked by the City, and upon approval thereof, payment will
be made to the Consultant in the amount approved.
Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the
contract przce earned will be made promptly upon its
ascertainment and verification by the City after the
completion of the work under this agreement and its
acceptance by the City.
total
Payment as provided in this section shall be full
compensation for work performed, services rendered and for
all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary
-to complete the work.
The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this
agreement are to be kept available for inspection by
representatives of the City and state for a perio~ ,o~ ~ ·
Consultant Agreement
Page 2
three (3) years after final payments. Copies shall be made
available upon request.
Ownership and Use of Documents. Ail documents, drawings,
specifications and other manerials produced by the Consultant in
connection with the services rendered under this agreement shall
be the property of the City whether the project for which they
are made is executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted
to retain copies, including reproducible copies, of drawings and
specifications for information, reference and use in connection
with Consultant's endeavors.
6. Compliance with laws. Consultant shall, in performing the
services contemplated by this agreement, faithfully observe and
comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and
regulations that are applicable to the services to be rendered
under this agreement. ~ Uir~ ~$-]~): .~?~j~t~$~/~ ~/
7. Indemnification. Consultant shallD indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from and
against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion
thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury
or death to persons, including injuries, sickness, disease or,~~-~
death to Consultant's own employees, or damage to ~ro~ertv
occasioned Consultant. bye/ a negligent act, omission or failure of the
th~roughout the duration of this contract comprehensive.-general
liab'i~it_y insurance with a minimum coverage of $500,000 per
occurrence~and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; and
$500,000 per occurrence/aggregate for property damage, and
professional liability~ Snsurance in-~the amoun= of $1,000,000.
Said general liability polic~~ shall name the City of Boynton
Beach as an additional-named insured--and shall include a
provision prohibiting cancellation of said POlicy except upon
thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Cit¥.~__ Certificates
of coverage as required by this sec=ion shall be deIivered to the
City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this agreement..
9. Independent Contractor. The Consultan~ and the City agree that
the Consultant is an independent contractor with respect to the
services provided pursuant =o this agreement. Nothing in this
agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of
employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither
Consultant nor any employee of Consultant shall be entitle~ to
any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services
provided under this agreement. The City shall not be responsible
for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or
social security or for contributing to the state industrial
insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties of an employer
with respec~ to Consultant, or any employee of Consultant.
. .- \ /
Consultant Agreement
Page 3
10. Covenant A~ains~ Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants tha~
~' he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than
a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, ~o solicit
or secure this contract, and that~e has no~ paid or agreed to
pay any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working
solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent ~on
or resulting from the award or making of this contract~o~?~
breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall h~ ~
r~ght to annul this contract without liability or, in its
discretion to deduc~ from the contract price or considerat!on, or
otherwise recover, t~e full amount of such fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
11.~Discriminati°n Prohibited. The Consultant. with reard to ~
~r this agreement,'will notgdiScrim
~r~h~erf~m~d
gr n s of race, color, national origin, religion, cre~
age, sex or the presence of any physical or sensory handicap in
the selection and retention of employees or procuremen~ of
materials or supplies.
12.
Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or asszgn any of the
servzces covered by this agreement without the express written
consent of the City.
13. Non-Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this
agreement or any time limitation provided for in this agreement
shall no~ constitute a waiver of any other provisi~7~
14. Termination. ~ z.,~ ~z~ !
a. The Cit~reserve~the right to terminate
any time by giving ten (10) days written notf'~e~D/the
15.
at
In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of
the Consultant, or any of its supervisory personnel assigned
to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant
hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this
agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section
shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this agreement
between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if
the City so chooses.
Disputes. Any dispute arising out of the terms or conditions of
this agreement shall be adjudicated within the courts of Florida.
Further, this agreement shall be construed under Florida Law.
Consultant Agreement
Page 4
16. Notices. Notices to the City of Boynton Beach shall be sent
the following address:
City of Boynton Beach
P. O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL. 33425-0310
Attn: Carrie Parker
Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
Sharon L. Massey
Joint Center
F~33 University To~r, Suite 709
to
17.
220 SE 2nd Avenue
Integrated Agreement. This Agreement, together with attachments
or addenda, represents the entire and integrated agreement
between the City and the Consultant and supersedes all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral.
This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed
by both City and Consultant.
DATED this
day of
S/i~ature GENE MOORE, MAYOR
Attest/Authenticated:
SUSANNE 5[. KRUS~], CITY--CLERK
, 19
~%ORDA ATI.ANTtC UNIVEI~Y, admg ~?
~nd on beha~f of the Board of Regents,
Cons~~
Title
"&'~ to Form:
Approve~d.
/ f /
Of~ice~f the i~ Attorney
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERIM SERVICES FEE
CITY' OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
AUGUST 20, 1990
FAU/FIU JOINT CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
AND URBAN PROBLEMS
UNIVERSITY TOWER, SUITE 709
220 SOUTH EAST 2ND AVENUE
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
305/355-5255
BACKGROUND
Increasingly local governments have been forced to be innovative in meeting
the conflicting demands of the public. The public is demanding fiscal prudence on the
part of all governments, especially local governments. The two better known tax
limitation measures, Proposition 13 in California and Proposition 2 1/2 in
Massachusetts, were directedat I'mltmg' local government revenues, specifically the
property tax.
While citizens are demanding fiscal conservatism, they are also demanding
increased services. This is most apparent in growing commun t es. Thus, local
government.s have faced a dilemma of how to prov dethe quantity and qua ity of
services which the public deman.d.s, within th.e fiscal constraints ir~posed Th~
alternative commonly turned, to s us. er fees. Impl.ement ng user ~ees as a means to
finance selected public services avoids the imposition of a~id tional taxes while
meeting the public? demands !.O.,r Services. The impact fee is an outgrowth of the
movement toward fnCreased utilization of user fees.
It is ~nities'grow there will be a need for making
mak~ ~er The source of revenue to
requiredto rne~t If taxation is the source of revenue
growth, then all taxpayers are being asked to pay for that
user fees .an;d the movements
toward The doctrine which has evolved is that new
development ,,pay fts' fair' share."
Within Florida, local governments are not authorized to impose taxation upon
new development a.s a means of financing needed c.ap tal mprovements. Thus Ioca
governme~s m~st use thei'r !egulato~y act OhS to attalr{ the desired objective. Impact
fees are rog?atDp/actions by locai governments, and as such, are not taxes. Being
regulatorY' i~ natur(~
development as, a r 1 local government's power to regulate new
;afety and welfare.
I Flodda failed after being subjected to
The ~ ~ by the City of Gulf Breeze
s dedicated five
area to percent of their land
dedication, purposes or pay an amount in lieu of
ordinance was ~upp. 94) the
requirements, without authority to impose such
a on.e percent additional charge for the
issuance ~ revenues dedved
parks and utilized for
Supp. 139 Fla.
relevant; to be The next
adopted a five ity of Maitland which, like GUlf of Breeze,
The Maitland ordinance was stricken
(26.7. Fla.~ .S,o.2d860). The court
found 1 the authority of,the city.
The" t fees came witch Broward Oo:untv v Janin
975). Breward County, adopted a "land use
2
fee" of $200 per dwelling unit to be used for roads and bridges' '"m close proximity" to
the development. The court found that the "land use fee" was, in fact, an unauthorized
tax.
The milestone year in the evolution of impact fees was 1976. First, with Wald
Corporation v. Metropolitan Dado County (Fla. App. 338 So.2d 863) the court held
that~ a local government could require offset dedications (for canals) as a condition of
development approval. The court
found that there was a "sufficient rational nexus to
[the county's]
goals of achieving intelligent planning designed to protect health, safety
and welfare of county citizens to uphold constitutionality of such ordinances as a valid
exercise of police ,,power, n that, inter alia, property was located n ar
period c flood nn Th" ..... .~ __., .... eas subject to
~--- ~ ..,,=,-,~.u ~u [[IoS~ slgnlflcan! event was
_Builders As$ociat on Of P ne las Co, ,-+.- - ,-' -:- .... Contractors ~nd
~,,w ,,. ~., ~.v or uuned (329 So.2d 314 (Fla 1976)
The City of Dunedin had adOpted a series of impact fees to pay for the expansi~)n of
the city water and sewer system. The court held that raising expansion capital by
setting connection charges which do not exceed a pro rate share, is reasonable, if use
of themone is mie ' "
...... Y . t d to meeting the the costs of expansion. Additionally, the court
note(] mat !ne funds co lected must be specifically earmarked and spent for the
purpose for which they were colleCted.
,, T.h,,e Dunedin case applied to water and sewer connection charges. Utility
hook up charges have b~en Con~monly used Thus, there was a body of thought that
held that Dune~lin ap.plied only to Utility type sen/cas. However,· no s ·
was a part of the decision; BmWaird ~ ~;tv w~,- ...- · .... - : uc.h restriction
· ~ · ~ Ou_., _,=~ ,,u i [~[ m move aneao w
.application of Dunedm principles t~ Other'sen/cas. Brow t.h the
~mpact fees for.oarks r~)~,~o ~;-" .... '. .. ard adopted a set es of
, . ,- , .~,.~, ,=Hu.~;nools strlctlv aDntv no the D ' ·
parks tees were ti ~. ,.. - ,-~-, ~ unedm cntena. The
· gated. Thecou ,eva ed
the Fourth D ' ; ......: rfty ~ .at. the c rcu~t court leve On a ea
strict Court of A a~ · ' PP ,
F~. I:s wr0!e,an opm on wh ch s oke ' '
general In II '~ ' P to mpact fees
Y. ldo vwood Jnc. v..¢Broward Co 43
the DCA addr .; ,~,,,~ .~,; ..: : urlty( 1. So.2d 606 [Fla. 4th DCA 1983
· essed the d,ff~,,,t~Ce,be~ ' · . · ])
,h..o_.s.e p. rev,ously stricken The; m~l di/fee~;ntchee ~n~.pa,~_fe__e.s ,reposed by Brcward and
· · ;, , a~ ~.u aanerence to !he Dunedin
principles and. the estabiishme~t ~ 'ratior~al nexus between "th
requirement or fee and th~ ~nfib~,,-,*,--~ ,_ . . e ded cation
. . ~ ........,~,.~,~.,..neeas ~tor !ne communit
development· 'Since ~th im,~ nfh~r ~i.;..~, ~ - -- Y because of new
at t ...... ..,.., ~u..,, roes nave De '
state and · en es!ab shed
uphe d m cou '- , across the
rt. It Is Clear that ~m act fee "
rata shar ' ,.~: _ . , p s can be utd~zed to re ,,
-.-. e of the cost of c,~t,~l ex ansio~ rea 'md hv n~,~ -'- ' .COUp a pro-
lne ro i3s .. P.:~ :~ ~uJ,~_ _y -uw ueveiopmem
P p alcontaned h · · ·
· erein ~..to develo an in nm ·
opposed to Impact f p..~. tn, ~,,,,, ,,;, ......P t¢ . sen/cas fee, as
· : e__, ..., T ..... o. oe,~ery costs n the Cit of B
.above discuss ~n regardin,~ Im,,-,-* ~*-.-~ ;-~ = ...... ;!ty oynton Beach The
~ ~"~-~ ,uu~ ~ p~esent'ea to ShOw the history of impact
tees· There is no such h story or prece~ende for the adopt on- of interim sen/ce fees.
It is possible th~ ado?t on of inte]:im serv ce fees could r 'suit i
similar to those tesultm,, f .... ~_~ _ . ,,. . ~ n legal challenges
u ,u,,, ~uupuo~.or ~ne early Impact fee ordinances as {here is
no case la.w or specific stat. utory,authority to; support the * *
fee. Devsn Such · · - : ,. aidoptlon of an Interim sen/c
g a fee ~s d~fficult Sa . es
must clearl be formu t ,.h charg,e_...s' o.n re~ ently developed ro ed
Y a ed as a fee, not a tax, to w,mstand judicial scrutiny, p p Y
· A f.actor to be consJdered~n deveIoPin, g the nterim s · -
relationship between the fee Da d and th~ ~,~; .... , .,_ : .on/roes !ce Includes a direct
........ ~,~,u~, u~ [ne serVices to the' development
3
served. Such a fee might be based on the individual impact of people, attributable to
differing types of development, such as: residential, commercial and industrial.
Clearly, developing an interim services fee using the cdteria listed above carries the
risk of litigation without pdor case law on which to base opinions in favor of the fee.
QUALIFICATIONS
The Florida Atlantic University/Florida International University Joint Center for
Environm ental and Urban Problems proposes to develop an interim services fee for
the City of Boynton Beach.
The FAU/FIU Joint Center is an applied research arm of south Florida's two
state universities. The Joint Center applies the talents and resoumes of both Florida
Atlantic Univers ty and F c;rida International University to address and help resolve
major environmental, growth management, and urban problems facing the state. The
Joint Center fulfills this mission through the following activities:
-the creation of multidisciplinary reseamh teams of political scientists, planners,
economists, geographers, attorneys~ eng nears, natural scientists, and others to study
and develop options.for important publ c policy issues involving such issues as growth
management; environmental regulation; public administr-a~ion; land use regulation;
urban plannin§; and intergovernmental relations,
-the organization of policy conferences and seminars to promote discussion
between diverse interests involved in environmental and growth management issues.
-the publication of monographs, manuals, and a quarterly journal on new
innovations and issues impacting environ mental and growth management concern s in
Florida and the nation as a whole,
-the development and dissemination of accurate and timely public opinion
information on key public pal cy issues through the combined efforts of the Joint
Center and the FAU Social Science Research Laboraton/.
-the provision of training and technical assistance to upper level management
in state, regional, an local levels of government through the combined efforts of the
Joint Center and the FAU Institute of Government.
The Joint Center's core research staff fluctuates between 10 to 15 researchers.
When the scope of a Particular project requires additional expertise or staffing, the
Joint Center may draw upon the expertise and experience of faculty in other
universities within the State University System or expertise from the private sector in a
a coordinated effort to fulfill a part cular project's requirements.
4
The Joint Center has created two previous intedm services fee models. One, for
the City of Oakland Park, Florida, was adopted in 1989. The other for the City of
Tamarac is awaiting a decision to proceed with adoption.
Examples of more general work conducted in the field of urban planning which
demonstrates the Joint Center's qualifications for the proposed project includes:
-City of Miramar-assisted the City of Miramar in updating its comprehensive
plan,1989. revising its land development regulations, and managing organizational change,
-City of Fort Lauderdale - provided program management and administrative
support for Downtown People Mover prelect, May 1988.
-City of Fort Lauderdale - developed two Proposed model zoning ordinances to
regulate the location, size, and type of social service residential facilities and child day
care facilities, April 1988.
-Broward County - served as a consultant to an independent County Charter
Review_panel and studied form of government, single member districts, growth
management structures, departmental organization and annexation, among other
topics, 1988.
-Town of Davie - assisted the Town in the Davie Visions 2000 process, which
was established under state legislation, and which included citizen participation in
setting community goals and objectives to shape the Town's future; designed follow-up
conferences to assist in implementation, October 1988.
-South Florida Regional Planning Council - assisted the Council staff in
implementing its Comprehensive Regional Policies Plan, with a particular focus on the
local plan review process, 1988.
-South Florida Regional Planning Council - assisted the Council in devising
immeth°dSoacts off°rcoastalanticipatingdevelopment,and developing1988, strategies that respond to the cumulative
1989. -Ann exation Impact Analysis," prepared for the City of Naples, Florida, January
"T
- ransfer of Development Rights for Retaining Breward County's Agricultural
1983.Lands'" prepared for the Broward County Soil and Conservation District, October
5
-"Largo: Evaluation of Performance Zoning," prepared for the Urban Land
institute, October 1985.
-"State Transportation Modal Alternatives for Growth Management," prepared
for the Florida Department of Transportation, February 1986.
-"Problems of Municipal Annexation: A Case Study of Broward County," Star
Grant, January I985.
Community- ~ematwesAffairs, Junet° Feel 985.Simple Land Acquisition," prepared for ihe Department of
-'A Study of Miramar's Public Safety, Fire Protection, and Recreational Service
Levels," July 1985.
-"Recreation and Leisure: Inventory and Analysis for Improving the Quality of
Life in the City of Miramar," 1986.
-nun: erous econe rnic Impact statements which address the economic
implications of: proposed rules and legislation; the designation of specific areas as
areas of cdtical state concern; and, the designation of coastal construction lines.
-"Housing Linkage Study," January 1990.
-"City of Jacksonville 2010 Plan Update," research in progress.
-"Florida Growth Management Techniques," research in progress.
-"Suburban Land Assembly," July 1990.
'D
- evelopment of Regional Water and Sewer Infrastructure for the State of
Florida," May 1990.
-"East Everglades Planning Case Study," August 1989.
6
STAFFING
The Joint Center staff who will have the pdmary responsibility for the City of
Boynton Beach interim services fee development will be Marie L. York, Senior
Research Associate under the direction of Dr. John M. DeGrove, director of the
FAU/FIU Joint Center. Additionally Robert E. George, economist of Boca Raton, Dr.
James C. Nicholas, Ph.D., and Charles Siemon of Siemon and Larson will participate
in the development of the model and fee schedule.
Dr. John M. DeGrove, the Director of the Joint Center, is a nationally recognized
expert and author on growth mana.gement and urban issues. As the past Secretary of
th~ Department of ~ommunity Affai~-s,.past Board Member of
Management District, an . .. South Flodda Water
d member of numerous otner commissions and professional
councils, Dr. DeGrove will r ·
p ov de spec~a ns~ght into the policy implications of service
fees.
Ms. Marie L. York, an economist, led the team who developed the interim
services fee for the City of Oakland Park and the City of Tamarac. Ms. York specializes
in analyzing the economic effects of policy and p~anning decisions made by local
governments, Before joining the staff at the FAU/FIU Joint Center, Ms. York was the
economist planner for the City of Boca Raton, Flodda.
Robert E. George, an economist, currently services as a private consultant to the
City of Boca Raton and the Boca Raton Community Redevelopment Agency. He is a
former Boca Raton assistant city manager, Chief of Growth Management Division,
Chief of Special Projects, and Economist Planner, as well as finance director for
DeKalb, Illinois.
Dr. Nicholas has vast experience in the field of urban economics, is a
recognized expert in the development of impact fees throughtout the nation, and
ParkParticipatedand Tamarac.in the review and development of the interim services fee for Oakland
Mr. Charles Siemon is a nationally recognized expert in the field of land use
law. Mr. Siemon also Participated in the legal research with the Joint Center for the
previous interim service fees developed for Oakland Park and Tamarac.
Significant assistance from the City of Boynton Beach's departments in
developing the necessary data would also be required.
7
SCOPE OFSERVICES
The scope of services to be completed include:
A. The collection of data specific to the City of Boynton Beach relating to:
residential, hotel, motel, commercial, and industrial development; employment;
sources of revenues; and expenditures for services;
B. The design of a model to assign service expenditures per type of use;
C. An interim report for City review of data, methodology and preliminary
results; and
D. A final report outlining a recommended fee structure.
TIMING
A. An interim report will be due 90 days after signing of a contract between the
Joint Center and the City,of Boynton Beach. The interim report will be based on data
estimates and initial model development.
B. Final report will be due 45 days after City Council's affirmative decision to
proceed with fee adoption. If council adoption does not occur within one year of the
submission of the interim report, preparation of the final report is not to be provided
under this proposal, but will require a new proposal and contract.
PAYMENT
It is suggested that if this proposal is accepted that the contract be a fixed fee
contract, and that the payment schedule be: one-third due at time cf'c6ntract signature;
one-third at receipt of intedm report; and one:third at receipt 0f final report.
8
BUDGET
Director
Dr. John M. DeGrove
Principal Investigator Marie L. York
Research assistant
20 weeks at 50% time
Research associate
20 weeks at 50% time
Economio consultant
Robert E. George
Economic consultant
James C. Nicholas, Ph.D.
Legal consultant
Charles Siemon
Partial Services Donated
Miscellaneous expenses
(communication, local travel,
publication, etc.)
Subtotal
Overhead at 20%
TOTAL
Services Donated
$ 3,190
$ 4,130
$ 5,380
$ 2,000
$ 1,250
$ 1,250
$18,400
$ 3,680
_$22.080
9
'A Year of
~989-90
G~NERAL COUNSEL
(407 ~7-~007
November 14, 1990
James Cherof
City Attorney of Boynton Beach
c/o Josias & Goren, P.A.
3099 E. Commercial Blvd.
Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
FLC)RIr-)A ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY
P.O. BOX 3091
Re: Interim Services Fee Contract between FAU/JIU Joint Center for
Environmental and Urban Problems and the ~ity of Boynton Beach
Dear Jim:
Enclosed is a copy of a liability Certificate of Coverage with a Policy Number
shown as GL-90-0117 issued by the State Insurance Commissioner. Will this
suffice for your Risk Manager,s purposes? If you or the City need further
information, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. Ansbro
Associate General Counsel
TJA/rvr
Enclosure
CC:
Sharon Massey, Admin. Asst., w/enc.
FAU/FIU Joint Center
~OV 2? ig$0
~: riCE
FLORIDA CASUALTY INSURANCE
RISK .MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND
Policy Number:
GL-90-Ol17
General and Federal Civil Rights
· Liability Certificate of Coverage
Named Insured:
~LORIDA ATI~2qTIC UNIVERSITY
Rights Liability Coverage prodded pursuant to Chapte}
General
and
Federal
284, Part II, Section 768.28, l~orida Statutes, and any rules promulgated thereunder.
Coverage Limits:
General Liability:
each person
each occurrence
$100.000.00
$200.000.00
Federal Civil Rights
Liability: ~ each person
Unlimited each occurrence
Inception Date: 07/01/90
Expiraffon Date: 06/30/t) I
TOM GALLAGHER
TREASURER AND
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
GL 7177 R~'V 7/84