HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Council 012882CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
JANUARY 28, 1982
The Workshop Meeting of the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida,
was called to order by Mayor Kiedis at 8:00 P.M. in the Assembly Room,
10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; and opened with
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL: The roll was called by the City Clerk and present were: Mayor Kiedis,
Vice Mayor Martino, Councilman Aldred, Councilwoman Monroe, and Councilman
Kiselewski. City Manager John Orr and Attorney William Brant were also
in attendance.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Kiedis announced the monthly meeting of the City's Merit System
Board will convene at 7:30 P.M., on Tuesday, February 2, 1982.
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE OF APPRECIATION TO MR. ROBERT LAI;GS -ELD, MEMBER OF THE CITY'S PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AND SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE SINCE NOVEMBER 1, 1979
On behalf of the City, Mayor Kiedis presented a Plaque of Appreciation to
AM Mr. Robert Langsfeld, who, because of his relocation to San Diego, Calif.,
mr resigned from the City's Planning and Zoning Commission and Site Plan and
Appearance Review Committee after serving since November 1, 1979.
DISCUSSION WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF "PEPPERWOOD" LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PROSPERITY FARMS
ROAD, SOUTH OF BURNS ROAD, RE: MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION
On January 18, 1982, the City received a coaununication from 26 residents
of the unincorporated "Pepperwood" single family subdivision located on
the west side of Prosperity Farms Road contiguous to the east of the
Aiamanda Elementary School properties within our corporate boundaries,
requesting to address the Council at a future meeting re: municipal
annexation. (The Village of North Palm Beach has recently exercised
Public Hearings for the purpose of receiving input from the freeholders
of unincorporated lands within this area re: annexation of their lands
into their corporate boundaries. The reason for the residents addressing
the Council at the ctirrent meeting was to learn information about our
City to better enable them to determine if they wish their lands to
remain unincorporated or be annexed into the Village of North Palm Beach
or our City.)
City Council Workshop Meeting, 1/28/82 Page 2
The members of the Council and City Manager responded to various questions
of Mr. Wally Short, 2638 Pepperwood Cir., Mr. Joe Monello, 2537 Pepperwood
Circle, Mr. Gene P- trino, 2574 Pepperwood Circle, and Mr. Gerald Rosenthal,
2534 Pepperwood Circle, re: our City, including the extent of our services
and the property and franchise taxes levied for providing same, the
response time of our Police & Fire Departments to their area, the City'q
Fire Insurance Rating, the Council's thoughts re: zoning along Prosperity
Farms Road and the Dual- Taxation Suit various municipalities have pending
against Palm Beach County, etcetera.
In response to the inquiry of Mr. Gary Rosenthal, President of the
"Pepperwood" Homeowners Association, the Council advised they would be
receptive to considering the voluntary annexation of their lands, but
would first need information re: the subdivision, including the number
of lots /homes, the status of the streets, etcetera. (Per State Statutes,
properties may be considered for annexation into a municipality IF 100%
of the freeholders of lands in the unincorporated area make application/
are in favor of it. Otherwise, the question must be posed to both the
City's residents and the freeholders of the unincorporated lands with
passage determined by those participating in the Special Referendum
Election.)
Mr. Ron C.imerata, one �f the tour owner~ of properties .along "Palm Line ",
a ghollrock road smith of "Pepperwood ", addressed the Coun,.il indicatiu�,
he did not wish has Iznds to be con�rdered for annexation.
ITEMS BY THE CITY MANAGER:
REQUEST FOR ADDI-
Subsequent to the City Manager reviewing with the Council the data pre -
L DISPATCHER/
CLERKIN THE POLICE
CLERK
pared by Lt. Raymond Larrett re: the need for an additional employee in
DEPT.
the Police Department to defray the necessity of present personnel working
extensive overtime to accomplish the increased dispatch and clerical work,
he was requested to compose a job title /description for a new position in
the department for the Council's consideration of incorporation into the
City's Merit System Rules and Regulations and authorization to fill this
position.
AUDITED FINANCIAL
The City Manager provided for the Council's review the Audited Financial
STATEMENTS PRE-
PARED BY CITY
Statements prepared by Ernst & Whinney, CPAs, for the fiscal year ending
AUDITOR FOR 1980/
September 30, 1981, together with a separate report containing our
19:_. FISHY YEAR
auditor's comments, and the City Manager's statement of explanation/
rebuttal concerning his comments.
City Council Workshop Meeting, 2/28/82 Page 3
REAPPORTINOMENT The City Manager was requested to urge, by telegram, the House Reappor-
MAP PROPOSED FOR tionment Committee to disapprove the reapportionment map the Committee
ILA. HOUSE DIS-
vW IN P. B. staff proposed for the Florida House Districts in Palm Beach County.
COUNTY The Council wishes our entire corporate boundaries be a part of the one
district that includes the Village of North Palm Beach and the Town of
Lake Park.
REPORTS: Councilman Kiselewski announced that on February 20, 1982, at 10 :00 A.M.,
COUNCILMAN there will be a formal dedication at the office of state personnel involt
KISELEWSKI in the acquisition of property for the northward extension of I -95 and
the widening of Alternate A -1 -A (i.e., at the double -wide trailer on the
north side of PGA Boulevard, east of the I -95 ramp).
MAYOR KIEDIS: Mayor Kiedis reported on the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting he
attended on January 26, 1982. The minutes of this meeting are on file
in the City Clerk's office.
COUNCILWOMAN At their Workshop Meeting of February 11, 1982, the Council will discuss
MONROE: amending the restrictions on campaign signs for candidates in the City's
General Election and Ordinance 17, 1982, repealing the City's Code of
Ethics.
RESOLUTIONS: During the discussion re: Resolution 6, 1982, based on the request of
RESOLUTION 6, Mr. E. B. Shearin for an extension of the permissible time to use a
182 temporary trailer at his business, Mr. Shearin advised he will continue
to explore a resolution to his nroblem with insufficient storage space.
Resolution 6, 1982, amending Resolution 71, 1980, to provide for an exten-
sion of one year a trailer may be used for the storage of hay at "Shearin'
Hardware and Ranch Supply ", 4223 Northlake Boulevard, PBG, will be con-
sidered for adoption by the Council at their Regular Meeting of February
4, 198;..
ORDINANCES: Mr. Leo Passi of Nu -View BuiLders, Mr. Fred Cohen, Attorney, and Mr.
ORDINANCE 2, David Voss, Engineer of Record, addressed the Council pursuant to the
1982 intent of Ordinance 2, 1982, based on the application of Mr. Issac Camel,
outer /de»e]nper, for amendments to Phase II of the Vision One PUD located
on the west side of IlilrLary Trail at its interse�tlon with Burns Road.
11
City Council Workshop Meeting, 1/28/82
Page A
In reference to Section 2 of the Ordinance, Attorney Cohen advised that,
® with the permission of Mr. L. J. Brodd & Biscayne Federal Savings and
Loan Association, ^he owners of Phase I of the project, Mr. Gamel is
agreeable to bringing the berm area along the front of that phase ir.
compliance with the landscaping plans and specifications attached to the
Ordinance that created the PUD (i.e., Ordinance I2, 1978). They are
awaiting the response of the owners and a cost estimate from Jack Kouns
Co., Inc. for the restoration of the automatic sprinkler system they
installed; and hopefully, with the financial participation of the owners,
these matters will be resolved prior to the Council's consideration of
passage of Ordinance 2, 1982.
Mr. Passi reviewed with the Council their plans for Phase II, as modified
per the discussions at past workshop sessions on this application. The
swimming pool complex proposed to be developed in lieu of the tennis courts
initially approved will be set back 30' from the easterly property line of
the project (i.e., 30' from the wea_e ly line of the proposed 60' right -
of -way of Military Trail). The lights will be installed on the inside of
the pillars of the fence enclosing the pool. Tne gazebo and clubhouse, to
is consist of men's and women's restrooms and showers and an equipment room,
will "match up" with the appearance of the townhouse four - plexes. The
only "tie -in" from Phase II to Phase I is a very small portion of the
overall drainage system; the storm waters that drain off the roadway to
the east flow into a small retention area, where run -off flows south to
a storm drain that falls into the canal south of the project. The fire
hydrants are already installed. Site lighting has not been installed;
however, they will check to see if they are required per the originally
approved plans for the project. They expect the entire project to have
one unified property owners' association, once Phases I & 11 of the PUD
are both completed. They will have a response re. the restrictions on
the parking of recreational vehicles within the project, prior to the
Council's consideration of approval. of the requested amendments to the
PUD. The bicycle path located along the west side of Military Trail in
front of the project will be restored to its as -built condi:.ion within
60 days.
City Council Workshop Meeting, 1/28/82
r
Page 5
Mr. Voss advised the State DOT owns the right -of -way of State Road 809
(Military Trail); however, Palm Beach County has design jurisdiction over
thr road. Improve-ments have been made to Military Trail per the plans
approved by Mr. Alan Curtis, agent for the County Engineer, and filed
with the City. These improvements included the addition of paved area
south of the Burns Road /Military Trail intersection in order to affect
the installation of a stacking lane for northbound traffic to make a
left -hand turn into the project; and the striping of the existing pavement
of Military Trail, north of the intersection, to include a transition
section and a stacking lane for southbound traffic to turn left onto
Burns Road.
A Public Hearing and the Council's consideration of adoption of ordinance
2, 1982, will take place at the Regular Meeting of March 4, 1982.
ORDINANCE 11, The members of the Council briefly exchanged thoughts re: the May 13, 1981
1981 draft of Ordinance 11, 1981. Councilwoman Monroe felt that not only
should the height of a building be a determining factor as to whether a
developer would be required to donate to an account set aside for special
improvements to the City's fire equipment /facilities, but the depth of the
building should, as well - large expansive buildings also cause the need
for aerial ladder trucks. Councilwoman Monroe also felt it should be
outlined clearly in the Ordinance the monies derived from these donations
are to be used solely for the special fire - fighting equipment /personnel/
facilities the higher /larger projects prompt the need for. Vice Mayor
Martino recommended the footage, in height, of a building be the deter-
mining factor as to whether a developer would be required to pay the
fee - not the quantity of stories.
During the workshop session, the Council modified the first WHEREAS
paragraph by inserting the word "primarily" between the words "is" and
"to" in the first line and rewording the third line to read "equipment,
services and /or facilities, as the development of buildings ". Also, the
irord "major" was inserted between the words "or" and "fraction" in
Sub- paragrapb B. under Section 1 of the Ordinance.
City Council Workshop Meeting, 1 /28/82
Page 6
Mr. Lew Lauder, Director of Governmental Affairs for the Home Builders
and Contractors Association of Palm Beach County, addressed the Council
commenting on this uroposed Ordinance, including implications that if /when
the Ordinance is adopted, the Association will challenge its legality in
court. Mr. Lauder did not disagree with the need for adequate /special
fire protection; but rather, the proposed method for its implementation.
Mr. Lauder provided the Council an outline, in writing, of the comments he
made at this meeting, which are attached and made a part of these minutes.
The members of the Council will be provided background information on the
draft of this Ordinance, including the comments of the City Manager, the
Fire Chief, and the City Attorney. Also, the sums the City would receive
from developers of Commercial Professional Offices approved via Ordinances
21, 28, and 32, 1981, if this Ordinance were adopted, as written.
"REWRITE" OF
Mr. Raymond Royce, Attorney for Bankers Land Company in their proposed
CITY'S PCD CODE
application for Planned Community District zoning on a 481 -acre parcel
of land located within Sections 5 & b, Range 43 East, Township 42 South,
reviewed, in detail, with the Council the revisions the City's Planning
and Zoning Commission at their duly advertised Public Hearing on January
26, 1982 recommended be made to the City's Planned Community District
Code (i.e., Section 17 of Article VII of Appendix A, Zoning of the City's
Code of Ordinances). This "rewrite" will be further workshopped by the
Council at their meeting of February 11, 1982.
PROPOSED "TREE
The City Manager reported on his meeting, this date, with personnel of
PRESFRVATiON`I 'RD.
the City of Boca Raton re: the experiences they have had with enforcing
their Tree Preservation Ordinance. The City Manager will provide the
Council his recommendations, in writing, re: our proposed Tree Preservation
Ordinance for their workshop at a Special Meeting in the near future.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION!
DEDICATIOII OF
Mayor kiedis reported that Mr. Robert Harris, President of N.P.B. Holdings,
"SANDTREF DRIVE " /
11BPLATTiNG "SAND-Inc.
/developer of the "Sandtree" PUU, phoned him this date relating his
TREE "' PUD
wishes that the City not implemeat the proposal /agreement he and Mr. John
Trusser, Vice President, made during and subsequent to the discussions on
the creation of the PUD to dedicate "Sandtree Drive" to the City. He, at
least, wishes to be successful in negotiations with the owners /developers
of adjacent lands to make a monetary payment to him for use of this road-
way to gain access to their projects.
City Council Workshop Meeting, 1/28182
Page 7
Mr. Harris' application for the replatting of the "Sandtree" PUD created
June 1, 1978 by Ordinance 7, 1978, will be workshopped by the Council at
their meeting of February 11, 1982. Per the concensus of the Council, the
City Attorney will, at this meeting, make a recommendation re: the City
taking steps to dedicate the subject right -of -way lands and accepting the
roadway improvements made within it by Kendall Construction Company in
exchange for Mr. Harris' permission for them to gain access to their
unincorporated "Northport" multi- family project located contiguous to the
east. Meanwhile, Attorney Brant can, perhaps, initiate the further dis-
cussions Mr. Harris proposes to have with the developers of the "Northlake
Trade Center" proposed to be developed north of the "Sandtree" PUD on
the southwest corner of "Sandtree Drive" and Northlake Boulevard.
LETTER TO BANKERS At the Regular Meeting of January 21, 1982, the Mayor was requested to
LAND COMPANY RE: investigate the possibilities of the City obtaining from the owner, Bankers
20 ACRES EAST OF
GARDENS PARK Land Company, the 20 acres of land located contiguous to the east of
Gardens Park for recreational purpose. The other members of the Council
were in favor of the communication the Mayor proposed to send to Mr. Wm.
Finley, President, soliciting the company's thoughts re: this recommenda-
tion made by the City's Recreation and Parks Department and Advisory Board.
ADJOCF,NT4ENT; With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M..
MAYOR KIEDIS
VICE MAYOR MARTINO
/ 1
CITY CLERK
U
COUNCILMAN ALDRED
COUNCILWOMAN MONROE
4(:�CCKI
0 January 18, 1982
Council Members
City of Palm Beach Gardens
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
The following Property Owners of the unincorporated residential
area of Pepperwood, which abutts your City, hereby request that
an -- -Lt (
. m in your next reeting's agenda be set aside to consider
annexation of Pepperwood and it's surrounding unincorporated
areas to your City.
NPLIIIE
ADDRESS
;L-S t
7
v2p 7- Piip-d�awvv
jCI
2.z
Ar
;L-S t
7
v2p 7- Piip-d�awvv
bi
1'
I
To The Village Councils of
® North Palm Beach and Palm Beach Gardens
February 8, 1982
We wish to thank both councils for taking the time to explain
the annexation process, provi.de comparison .information, and
answer our questions.
•It was indicated at the North Palm Beach village council meeting
on January 12, 1982 that the council would ii).e some input from
the residents of tho unincorporated areas.
We respectively submit (attached) copies of petitions containing
thirty -eight (38) signatures as a formal means of providing that
information to the respective councils. The originals have been
retained in case addition copies are necessary. As the petition
states, the parties who signed wish at this time to remain unin-
corporated.
We do not represent any formal organization, merely a group of
neighbors sharing a common concern. We have made no effort to
represent the residents of Pepperwood ertLe pro or con inasmuch
as they have their own association and are a new community with
their own objectives.
The attached map has been highlited to indicate the primary areas
® the petitions represent.
If either council wishes to proceed with an annexation program
we wish that at least the three (3) parties listed below be
notified in writing. This, hopefully, will permit time for
further informal discussion prior to formal action.
Mr. & Airs. R. J. Camarata
2520 Palm Lane
Lake Park, Fl. 33410
Mrs. Margart Webster
10179 Prosperity Farms Rd.
Lake Park, fl. 33410
Mrs. W. Peterson
2615 Wabash Dr,
Lake Park, rl.. 33410
Enc: 5 pages (Petition & Map)
11
Respectfully
County Residents
PETITION AGAINST ANNEXATION
We the undersigned wish to have our properties remain unincor-
porated and do NOT wish to be annexed by the Village of North
Palm Beach or any other township.
Each person signing this petition has indicated his property
location on the attached map which is a reduced portion of The
Palm Beach Countyimap fort RGE 43, TWP 42 SEC 8 Dwn E.D.Keshian
12-1-75 Rev. 1-12-78c
Name, Date Location of property
Address (All or part of noted parcel(a))
I j
2 09�0 I
A41 9
26'i r
T I
!7
_7
L
J
?_ ,
A-
_7
PETITION AGAINST ANNEXATION
We the undersigned wish to have our properties remain unincor-
porated and do NUT wish to be annexed by the Village of North
Palm Beach or any other township. F
Each person signing this petition has indicated his property k
location on the attached map which is a reduced portion of The
Palm Beach Countyimap fors RGE 43, TWP 42 SEC 8 Dwn E.D.Keshian
12 -1 -75 Rev. 1- 12 -78c
Name, Date Location of property
Address (All or part of noted parcel(s)) '
-CA: x
' lc.: �.�.a, -� iG' _ .f ,, /,. .ri c ._ c ✓ L . / A L.J_ ....711 ,j�'._.— _.rFi�— L.'j+ -i�'
oF �o BaX /�i17 74)S_,,,' 704 `( - - - - - - - --
PETITION AGAINST ANNEXATION
We the undersigned wish to have our properties remain unincor-
® porated and do NOT wish to be annexed
by the Village of North
Palm Beach or any other township.
Each person signing this petition has
location on the attached map which is
Palm Beach Countyimap for: RGE 43, TWP
indicated his property
a reduced portion of The
42 SEC 8 Dwn E.D.Keshian
12 -1 -75 Rev. 1- 12 -78c
Name, Date
Location of property
Address (All or
part of noted parcel(s))
M
WNW,
'r
PETITION AGAINST ANNEXATION
We the undersigned wish to have our properties remain unincor-
porated and do NOT wish to be annexed by the Village of North
Palm Beach or any other township.
Each person signing this petition has indicated his property
location on the attached map which is a reduced portion of The
Palm Beach Countysmap fors RGE 43, TWP 42 6EC 8 Dwn E.D.Keshian
12 -1 -75 Rev. 1 -12 -780
Name, Date Location of property
Address (All or part of noted parcel(s))
dGtv4G� iy2A�.GLv �- 2.1i��'Z - - = - /Dcicl! I-- ���f7�d_ s21�ir1art�. -C
+�w
IM
1.01 AIG.
O
+ �71 ii
n 00 717
As
i e(0) 716
hU� �l�MV 1`i'ih•rll d�v.7MfIV N "AYMN
.I
Pi
T!B •��a 54 I
3.47 AC,
R � 00 1
of
12 ?� 7-91 X11 AL 1
700 p: PPrR�+oo� 44f.
21I� 9olsilAfai 14' I� 14 1s
I.La AC
2.43 ACA96 af3 16 _ 10 l 1 r 4
oa • _ _
�i �0 Is la 1� '81RM iRI�F
r4 Ia ro a 6 + a IJ I- a 1 • e 2 s i
PLrPP`RvVuOD cracu6 l6
a o y
TD 06 ZJ
141 11 9
Y 2.0 AC. IMO K. W OU
i 1.30 Ac. •� ck Pit 4 ROBIN
y 0 71,1 , 00 711. a a' ° l0 AC,
� Q O 706 � � 3
Ids '
2,02 ac. viii 00
5
"Ago" t h oo - 701 i k t • A
04 703.1 00 7oa� 1'�T'a
LILAC, - 1a 21q
A. ra AC.. - _ III
s 10 -
-- OSPREY
t
vJAe S WAIKH
1t 3c ' 1Y~ 2 . , y RJ I e f 00.000.700
17
VILLACr s. - a -
ACRES IB
a
,n
„i
NIGHTH
10" 4 SAN w
4
I,
21 4 1
- 20
22 `tom"
horri btilders & cordricRAors
association of palm beach county inc.
2921 AUSTRALIAN AVE 14'EST PAL N" REACH, FLORIDA 33407 (30.;) 849540D
® STATEMENT OF
LEW LAWDER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
HOME BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
January 28, 1982
PALM BEACH GARDENS CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 411, 1981
"FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES AND /OR SERVICES IMPACT FEE"
GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT ORDINANCE 011 -1981, THE FIRE PROTECTION
FACILITIES AND /OR IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE.
FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS LEW LAWDER AND AS DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS FOR THE 1,200 MEMBER HOME BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS ASSN.
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THAT COMMITTEE AND
THE ASSOCIATION'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO ADDRESS THAT MATTER.
CERTAINLY NO ONE WOULD QUARREL WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE
AS TO OPPOSE SATISFACTORY FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES MORE
THAN 2 STORIES HIGH WOULD BE PARALLEL To ARGUING AGAINST MOTHER-
HOOD AND THE AMERICAN FLAG.
IF I OPPOSE THE LATTER TI-10 REFERENCES I WOULD BE OPPOSING SOME=
THING I BELIEVE IN AND WOULD CERTAINLY FIND MYSELF IN A VERY UN-
POPULAR POSITION. COME TO THINK OF IT I MIGHT BE IN THAT POSITION
IN A MOMENT OR TWO ON THE IMPACT FEE ASPECT OF THE ORDINANCE.
E
2
IMPACT FEES ... RE6`ARDLESS OF HOW THEY ARE DISGUISED... AND WHERE
THEY APPLY TO THE BUILDING INDUSTRY ARE TOTALLY UNPALITABLE AS
® THE BUILDER, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IS THE CONDUIT THAT PASSES
THE COST OF GOVERNMENT-AND IMPACT FEES..ON TO THE CONSUMER WHO
ULTIMATELY ENDS UP PAYING THE BILL.
THIS ASSOCIATION HAS HAD SOME EXPERIENCE WITH IMPACT FEES.
WE AHVE VIOLENTLY OPPOSED ENABLING LEGISLATION EVERY TIME IT HAS
COME UP IN TALLAHASSEE. AND WE HAVE OPPOSED IT SUCCESFULLY BECAUSE
SUCH LEGISLATION HAS NOT YET BEEN PASSED. (THE LEGISLATURE)
IN 1978 THE JUNO FIRE DISTRICT ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE WHICH
WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A PAYMENT OF $100 PER UNIT, WITH SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES EXEMPTED, TO HAVE PLANS STAMPED BY THAT FIRE DISTRICT.
WE CONSIDERED THAT TO BE AN IMPACT FEE ALTHOUGH NO SUCH REFERENCE
WAS CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCE.
WE AUTHORIZED OUR GENERAL COUNSEL TO INITIATE ACTION TO HAVE
THAT ORDINANCE REPEALED AND WHILE MY MEMORY MAY BE A BIT HAZY...
AFTER ALL IT WAS ROUGHLY 31 OR 4 YEARS AGO ... IT IS MY RECOLLECTION
THAT WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER WE EMBARKED ON THIS ISSUE THAT THAT
ORDINANCE WAS REPEALED.
SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE TOWN OF GREENACRES CITY ADOPTED AN
"INTERIM SERVICE FEE" ORDINANCE. LIKE THE JUNO FIRE DISTRICT ORDINANCE,
NO WHERE WAS THERE ANY REFERENCE TO IT BEING AN IMPACT FEE, BUT
WE REGARDED IT AS SUCH.
r�
2
cl
AGAIN, WE AUTHORIZED GENERAL COUNSEL TO INITIATE ACTION TO
HAVE THAT ORDINANCE REPEALED AND WITHOUT ACTUALLY FILING SUIT
THE TOWN OF GREENACRES CITY REPEALED THE ORDINANCE AND AGAIN,
IF MY MEMORY IS ACCURATE, IT WAS DONE WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER OUR
COUNSEL ADDRESSED THE ISSUE
AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE VILLAGE OF ROYAL PALM BEACH ALSO
ADOPTED AN INTERIM SERVICE FEE ORDINANCE AND AGAIN WE INITIATED
LEGAL ACTION FOR ITS REPEAL.
REGRETFULLY, THE VILLAGE OF ROYAL PALM BEACY SAW THIS ISSUE
IN A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN DID GREENACRES CITY AND ELECTED
TO HAVE THE CASE GO TO TRIAL. AFTER SOME EXTENSIVE DELAY DUE
® 10 THE BACKLOG OF CASES WAITING FOR TRIAL IT FINALLY GOT ON THE
COURT'S CALENDAR AND JUDGE WILLIAMS RULED IN OUR FAVOR.
THE VILLAGE OF ROYAL PALM BEACH APPEALED AND AGAIN WE WERE
SUCCESSFUL. THEY FINALLY TOOK THE CASE TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT AND AGAIN WE PREVAILED.
AT THIS POINT THE VILLAGE OF ROYAL PALM BEACH HAp TO REFUND
4LL MONIES COLLECTED UNDER THE ORDINANCE WITH INTEREST.
UNDOUBTEDLY THE CASE THAT THE MOST HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT IS
THE PALM BEACH COUNTY ORDINANCE #79 -9 ENTITLED "THE FAIR SHARE
CONTRIBUTION FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE" WHICH ORDINANCE,
INCIDENTALLY, I BELIEVE YOU EXEMPTED YOURSELF FROM PARTICIPATION
3
C
n
LJ
4
AS DID ALL BUT ABOUT 5 OR 6,MUNICIPALITIES.
WE OPPOSED THE ADOPTION OF THAT ORDINANCE FROM THE DAY IT WAS
FIRST INTRODUCED BECAUSE IT WAS, IN OUR OPINION, AN IMPACT FEE
UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME. AND I THINK WE WERE TOTALLY HONEST AND ABOVE
BOARD WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON JUNE 19, 1979 WHEN, PRIOR TO
ITS ADOPTION BY A 3-2 VOTE, WE TOLD THEM THAT WE FULLY INTENDED
TO TEST ITS LEGALITY IN THE COURTS IF IT WAS ADOPTED.
INCIDENTALLY, WE DON'T THINK A 3 -2 VOTE IS A VERY CONVINCING
MARGIN ON AN ISSUE OF THIS MAGNITUDE. IT SUGGESTS TO US THAT 2 OF
THE COMMISSIONERS FELT AS WE DID.
IN NOVEMBER OF THAT YEAR THE HOME BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS ASSN.
SECURED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FROM THE COURT WHICH PREVENTED
THE COUNTY FROM ANY FURTHER COLLECTION OF THIS IMPACT FEE UNTIL THE
SUIT WE FILED IN AUGUST HAD COME TO TRIAL,'
ON ONE, AND I BELIEVE, TWO OCCASIONS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
WENT TO COURT TO HAVE THE "TRO" INVALIDATED. IN BOTH INSTANCES THE
COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR.
LAST OCTOBER, AFTER A 4 DAY TRIAL, FINAL ORAL ARGUMENTS WERE
MADE AND WE ARE NOW WAITING FOR A DECISION. I THINK IT IS PRETTY
OBVIOUS THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT DECISION IS, IT WILL BE APPEALED.
4
IF WE CAN WIN, WE "RE SURE THE COUNTY WILL APPEAL AND I CAN
® ASSURE YOU THAT Ii= WE LOSE WE WILL CERTAINLY APPEAL SO THIS MATTER
MAY NOT BE SETTLED FOR SOMC TIME.
AS I SAID EARLIER, WE HAVE HAD SOME EXPERIENCE WITH IMPACT FEES...
PERHAPS MORE EXPERIENCE THAN ANY ONE OR ANY ORGANIZATION IN PALM
BEACH COUNTY. THE SCORE AT THE MOMENT IS 3 -0 IN OUR FAVOR
WITH A RUNNER AT THIRD BASE ... THAT RUNNER BEING THE COUNTY'S FAIR
SHARE CONTRIBUTION FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE #79 -9.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE BENEFITTED FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF
THE FLORIDA HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION HEADQUARTERED IN TALLAHASSEE
WHO HAS REVIEWED COUNTLESS PROPOSED IMPACT FEES AROUND THE STATE
AS WELL AS THAT OF WASHINGTON BASED NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HOME BUILDERS WHO ARE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THIS LSSUE ON A NATIONAL
BASIS.
WITH THAT ADDITIONAL LEGAL SUPPORT I THINK IT CAN BE SAFELY
SAID THAI' WE DO HAVE SOME DEGREE OF EXPERTISE ON IMPACT FEES AND
A SOUND BASIS ON WHICH TO MAKE SOME OBSERVATIONS.
WE DO NOT, AS I SAID INITIALLY, OPPOSE THE MOTHERHOOD ASPECT FOR
ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION BUT WE DO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE METHOD
FOR IT'S IMPLEMENTATION WHICH...AND I QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM THE
ORDINANCE IS:
5
"FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES AND /OR SERVICES IMPACT FEE."
NOW, TO RAISE SOME ISSUES WHICH WE BELIEVE NEED TO BE
SERIOUSLY ADDRESSED:
A. WHAT KIND OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE
IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AND DEFINE A NEED FOR SUCH FACILITIES AND
SERVICES?
IF ANY BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND /OR STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE WE WOULD
APPRECIATE HAVING A COPY OF ANY EXPERT REPORTS. IF NO SUCH
BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND /OR STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE, AGAIN, WE
WOULD APPRECIATE BEING ADVISED OF THE NAMES OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS
WHO WORK FOR THE CITY OR WHO WERE HIRED AS CONSULTANTS ON THIS ISSUE,
B. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE, DATED MAY 13, 1981,
WAS SUBMITTED TO FIRE CHIEF FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT AND WE WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE A COPY OF HIS REPORT FOR ANANLYSIS. IN AS MUCH AS
IT IS NOW JANUARY 28, 1982 IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THOSE DOMMENTS WERE
IN EXCESS OF SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THEY WERE RECEIVED.
C. WHAT ABOUT ZONING?
ARE THERE ANY FIRE REGULATIONS IN EITHER OR BOTH OF THESE WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES AND SERVICES
FOR STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF TWO STORIES HIGH?
6
® D. HOW DOEa THE PAYMENT OF A FEE CONSTITUTE REGULATION?
IN PARAGRAPH C OF THE FIRST "WHEREAS" CLAUSE, THE ORDINANCE STATES
IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CITY, "TO REGULATE THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT
OF BUILDINGS IN EXCESS OF TWO STORIES HIGH BY REQUIRING THE PAYMENT
OF FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES AND /OR SERVICES IMPACT FEE."
L-1
E
USUALLY REGULATION IS NOT ACCOMPLISHED BY THE IMPOSITION OF A
FEE ... BE IT AN IMPACT FEE OR ANY OTHER KIND OF A FEE ... BUT
THROUGH BUILDING CODES, FIRE CODES AND THE LIKE.
E. WHAT FACILITIES OR SERVICES ARE INTENDED TO BE PAID FOR WITH
THIS FEE?
THAT IS A VERY BASIC QUESTION.
ARE THE FEES TO GO FOR THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES INCLUDING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OR ARE THEY TO GO TOWARD THE REPLACEMENT OF
EXISTING FACILITIES?
AT THIS POINT I WILL PAUSE AND SOLICIT YOUR COMMENTS....
ARE THEY FOR:
1. EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES, OR
2. FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES? AND FINALLY
3. WHO SPECIFICALLY WILL BENEFIT FROM THESE SERVICES?
7
F. WHAT BASIS EXISTS FOR REQUIRING THIS FEE OF A BUILDING IN
EXCESS OF TWO STORIES RATHER THAN THREE STORIES ... OR EVEN FOUR STORIES ETC?
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO AND THREE STORY
BUILDINGS THAT WOULD REQUIRE "FACILITIES AND /OR SERVICES" INCLUDING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS?
OF COURSE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SECOND AND
THIRD FLOOR IS A MATTER OF TEN OR TWELVE FEET, BUT IS THERE ANY
SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE ZONING OR BUILDING OR EVEN THE FIRE
CODE THAT RELATES TO THIS POINT?
G. WHAT BASIS DOES THE COUCIL HAVE FOR PICKING A FEE OF $80.00
® PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET?
WHAT KIND OF RELATION DOES THIS NUMBER HAVE TO PROVIDING SUFFICIENT
FUNDS FOR THE FACILITIES?
0
WERE THERE ANY STUDIES DINE TO DETERMINE A POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF TWO STORIES IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THIS AMOUNT?
H. WHY SHOULD THE FEE BE PAID ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE FIRST
TWO FLOORS?
ARTICLE VI, SECTION 26 -43, B SAYS, IN PART, AND I QUOTE,
"THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY A FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF EIGHTY (80$) DOLLARS
PER EACH ONE THOUSAND (1,000) GROSS SQUARE FEET OR FRACTION
THEREOF OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF TWO (2) STORIES..."
GRANTED, THAT REFERENCE DOES SAY "IN EXCESS OF TWO (2) STORIES"
8
BUT IN OUR OPINION IT COULD VERY EASILY BE INTERPRETTED TO MEAN
THAT IT IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS AS WELL
AS THOSE IN EXCESS OF TWO STORIES.
IF THE PAYMENT OF THIS IMPACT FEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST
AND SECOND FLOORS, BUT ONLY TO THE THIRD FLOOR AND THOSE ABCVE
THAT FLOOR, THEN THIS SECTION SHOULD BE SPECIFIC ON THAT POINT JUST
AS IT IS SPECIFIC TO BUILDINGS OF TWO (2) STORIES OR LESS IN THE
LAST SENTENCE THEREOF WHICH SAYS ... AND I QUOTE:
"THE PRESCRIBED FEE SHALL NOT APPLY TO A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OF
TWO STORIES OR LESS."
THESE ISSUES, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ARE ISSUES WHICH WE
FEEL YOU SHOULD ADDRESS BEFORE FURTHER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN
+ TO THE ADOPTION OF THE "FACILITIES AND /OR SERVICES IMPACT FEE"
® ORDINANCE YOU ARE WORKSHOPPING TONIGHT.
11
THE HOME BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION CERTAINLY SUPPORTS
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE BUT WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE METHOD
OF RAISING THE FUNDS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT IT, AS OUTLINED IN
ORDINANCE 11, 1981.
OUR OPPOSITION TO IMPACT FEES OF ANY NATURE IS, I BELIEVE, WELL
KNOWN TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY AND CERTAINLY TO THE
JUNO FIRE DISTRICT
THE TOWN OF GREENACRES CITY
AND THE VILLAGE OF ROYAL PALM BEACH
9
® A5 WE SUCCESSFULLY ATTACKED THEIR IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES ALTHOUGH
SOME OF THEM WERE DISGUISED UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME AND THE COUNTY'S
"FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE" WHICH
HAS BEEN TIED UP IN COURT SINCE AUGUST OF 1979 AND WHICH, SINCE
NOVEMBER 14th OF THAT YEAR BY A TRO WE SECURED FROM THE COURT
HAS PREVENTED THEM FROM ANY FURTHER COLLECTION OF SUCH FEE.
IT IS OUR DESIRE TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH YOU.
FIRE PROTECTION IS A "MUST" AND OUR ONLY CONCERN, AS I HAVE
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IS THE METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION.
IN ORDER FOR US TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INPUT AT YOUR NEXT WORKSHOP
OR PUBLIC HEARING, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE FOLLOWING COULD BE
MADE AVAILABLE TO US.
1. ANY BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND /OR STUDIES THAT ESTABLISH AND
DEFINE THE NEED FOR THIS ORDINANCE.
2. IF THE ABOVE I,S''NOT AVAILABLE, MAY WE BE SUPPLIED THE
NAMES OF THOSE PERSONS, EITHER EMPLOYEES OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
OR CONSULTANTS, WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND TO
DEFINE THE NEED FOR THIS ORDINANCE?
3. A COPY OF THE COMMENTS OF THE FIRE CHIEF.
4. COPIES OF THE APPROPRIATE SECTION OF THE FIRE, BUILDING AND
ZONING CODES WHICH REQUIRE SPECIFIC FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES
AND SERVICES FOR STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF TWO STORIES?
13
■
0
E
ON BEHALF OF THE HOME BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO ADVISE US ... AS YOU HAVE
SO THOUGHTFULLY DONE IN THE PAST ... OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES AND
WITH REFERENCE TO THIS ORDINANCE IN PARTICUALR OF ANY FURTHER
WORKSHOPS AND /OR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE TIME TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS ON THE
"FACILITIES AND /OR SERVICES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE TONIGHT."
RI