Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcocc_council_mtg_packet_20190618 CAPE CANAVERAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING City Hall Council Chambers 100 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 AGENDA June 18, 2019 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Any member of the public may address any items that do not appear on the agenda and any agenda item that is listed on the agenda for final official action by the City Council excluding public hearing items which are heard at the public hearing portion of the meeting, ministerial items (e.g. approval of agenda, minutes, informational items), and quasi- judicial or emergency items. Citizens will limit their comments to three (3) minutes. The City Council will not take any action under the "Public Participation" section of the agenda. The Council may schedule items not on the agenda as regular items and act upon them in the future. CONSENT AGENDA: 6:15 p.m. 6:20 p.in. 1. Approve Minutes for May 21, 2019 City Council Regular Meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 6:20 p.m. 6:30 p.m. Item 2 must be removed from table by majority vote be ore considering for discussion. 2. Discuss opportunities to allow "Food Trucks" or any other Mobile Food Vendor in the City limits of Cape Canaveral. (Council Member Morrison) (tabled on May 21, 2019) 3. Discuss the addition of language to our ordinances in Section 2.05 which would give the City Manager explicit authority to approve correspondence methods and times between selected City Staff and the City Council. (Council Member Morrison) (Council voted to forgo discussion on May 21, 2019 due to time.) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:30 p.m. 6:45 p.m. 4. Ordinance No. 10-2019; amending the City Code regarding the payment of impact fees; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, second reading. 5. Ordinance No. 11-2019; regarding Code Enforcement procedures; providing for a Special Magistrate Code Enforcement process; updating the procedures related to the Criminal Nuisance Abatement Board authorized by Section 893.138, Florida Statutes; adopting conforming amendments; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions,incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, second reading. 6. Ordinance No. 12-2019; providing for a referendum election and ballot language for an election to be scheduled by the City Council;providing for an Economic Development Ad City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Meeting June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Valorem Tax Exemption pursuant to Section 196.1995, Florida Statutes; providing for coordination with the Supervisor of Elections; providing for severability and an effective date, first reading. ITEMS FOR ACTION: 6:45 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7. Review and Approve: the City Council 2019 Priorities, Projects, Initiatives and 5-Year Capital Improvement Projects; City Council Strategic Planning Retreat Minutes of March 27, 2019; the Cape Canaveral Vision Statement, Mission Statement and Organizational Values; and the following projects: Canaveral City Park Redevelopment/Multi- Generational Facility (MGF) - $5 million; Cultural Arts Preservation Enrichment(CAPE) Center- $1.2 million; West Central/Thurm Boulevard Streetscape - $2.87 million; Central Boulevard Streetscape-$1.2 million; Galactic Pocket Park(Cumberland Farms)-$30,000; Southgate (Wagner) Pocket Park- $70,000; Long Point Estuary Park - $1.38 million; and Dog Park - $65,000; Intermediate Lift Station - $355,000; WWTP SCADA System Improvements - $960,000; Rehab Lift Station No. 3 - $320,000; Replace Force Main No. 7 - $340,000; Effluent/Influent Disk/Drum Filters - $1.35 million; Construct Pump and SO2 Buildings-$1.225 million; Rehab Lift Station No. 8 - $380,000;Relocate Lift Station No. 5 - $475,000; and Center Street Stormwater Park(Land purchase only) - $295,000. 8. City Council designate one (1) City Official to be the Voting Delegate at the 93rd Annual Florida League of Cities Conference scheduled for August 15-17,2019 in Orlando,Florida and decide if it wishes to propose resolution(s) for the League's consideration. 9. Ratify the Composite City Manager Performance Evaluation and discuss/determine how to proceed with the provisions of Section 2, Salary and Evaluation, of the Employment Agreement between the City of Cape Canaveral and City Manager David L. Greene. REPORTS: 7:00 p.m. 7:15 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, that person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose that person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission into evidence of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: all interested parties may attend this Public Meeting. The facility is accessible to the physically handicapped. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in the proceedings should contact the City Clerk's office (868-1220 x207 or x206) 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Item No. 1 DRAFT CAPE CANAVERAL CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 100 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY May 21, 2019 6:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the Meeting to Order at 6:01 PM. Council Member Raymond led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Mike Brown Council Member Wes Morrison Council Member Rocky Randels Council Member Angela Raymond Council Member Absent: Mayor Bob Hoog Others Present: City Manager David L. Greene City Attorney Anthony Garganese City Clerk Mia Goforth Community Development Director David Dickey Community Services Director Joshua Surprenant Administrative/Financial Services Director John DeLeo Capital Projects Director Jeff Ratliff Culture and Leisure Services Director Gustavo Vergara Economic Development Director Todd Morley City Planner Brenda Surprenant Executive Assistant to the City Manager Lisa Day Brevard County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Alan Confreda Canaveral Fire Rescue Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal John Cunningham PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Alicia Spring, 126 Oak Lane, spoke regarding a City survey of Oak Lane and urged Council to approve a corrected survey based on a list of alleged errors that she submitted to them. PRE SENTATIONS/INTERVIEWS: Presentation of Proclamation declaring the week of May 18-25, 2019 as National Safe Boating Week to William Giers and Commander Lou Pernice, Flotilla 17-6, 7th District, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary: Mayor Pro Tem Brown read the Proclamation into the record and presented it to Commander Pernice and Mr. Giers. The gentlemen thanked City Council for helping to promote boating safety. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Pro Tem Brown inquired if any items needed to be removed for discussion. Council Member Morrison removed Item No. 2. DRAFT City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 21,2019 Page 2 of 5 1. Approve Minutes for April 16, 2019 City Council Regular Meeting, 2. Resolution No. 2019-05, amending Appendix B, Schedule of Fees of the City Code related to assessment of Zoning„ Building and other Permit Fees, providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date. 3. Resolution No. 2019-09, becoming a member of the American Flood Coalition, providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions, severability and an effective date. 4. Approve Work Squad Contract#W 1140 with Amendment 1 changes between the Florida Department of Corrections and the Cit of Canaveral in the amount of$57,497,and authorize City Manager to execute same. A motion was made by Council Member Randels, seconded by Council Member Raymond, to approve Item Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The motion carried 4-0,with Mayor Hoog absent. 42 Discussion ensued and included an email distributed by Council Member Morrison to the community regarding opposition to the Item, Community Development Department and growth in the City being subsidized by City taxpayers, amending the Schedule of Fees will relieve some of the burden to property owners,how developers should pay for the privilege to build in the City, increased construction in the City, City Budget and Code Enforcement Officer positions, tabling the Item, growth in the City related to competitive fees, low fees and property taxes make the City an attractive place to live. A motion was made by Council Member Raymond, seconded by Council Member Randels, for approval of Item No. 2. The motion carried 3-1, with Mayor Hoog absent and Council Member Morrison voting against. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. Ordinance No. 09-2019, amending Section 110-28 of the City Code related to Due Process and Special Local Notice Requirements for certain zoninghearings_providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, second reading: City Attorney Garganese read the title into the record and summarized the Item. Discussion ensued and included First Class mail vs. Certified mail, the number of residential properties built in City commercial zones and costs.The Public Hearing was opened. Sarah Hodge, 369 Coral Drive, indicated she would withhold comment. Joe Abreu, 225 Long Point Road, spoke in favor of continued use of Certified mail. Patrick Campbell, 307 Surf Drive, stated Certified mail has value and suggested considering alternatives that provide the same level of security at reduced cost. Martha Minkler, 425 Harrison, inquired how an out-of-state property owner would receive notice of a proposed zoning change. City Attorney Garganese provided the process by which the City obtains the official mailing addresses of property owners in the City from the Brevard County Property Appraiser's Office for noticing purposes and further explained the burden lies on the property owner to provide a forwarding address to that same Office. The Public Hearing was closed. Discussion continued regarding comparisons to the water and sewer utility bill, the Item should go to the Planning and Zoning Board first for recommendation and opposition to an informal opinion provided by City Attorney Garganese. Mayor Pro Tem Brown closed discussion. City Attorney Garganese advised City Council has a right to hear legislative ordinances prior to the Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency which is required to make recommendations to the City Council prior to the final adoption of an DRAFT City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 21,2019 Page 3 of 5 ordinance;pointed out that zoning ordinances are legislative and nothing under the law limits City Council authority to give legislative direction first and prior to Planning and Zoning Board consideration of an ordinance;he pointed out that if Council were to follow the logic of a Council Member who is in disagreement of that opinion,Council Members should not discuss certain Items coming up later on the Agenda. Discussion ensued and included opposition to the City Attorney's opinion and support for the professional experience and knowledge of the City Attorney and City Manager. Mayor Pro Tem Brown accepted a request to speak from Katie Thompson of 7555 Magnolia Avenue who expressed there are more effective ways to notify people than by mail, registered or certified. A motion was made by Council Member Randels, seconded by Council Member Raymond, for adoption of Ordinance No. 09-2019 at second reading. The motion carried 3-1,with Mayor Hoog absent and Council Member Morrison voting against. 6. Ordinance No. 10-2019, amending the City Code regarding the payment of impact fees, providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, first reading: City Attorney Garganese read the title into the record and summarized the Item. Discussion ensued and included pros and cons of the Item, the current impact fee collection process, new hotels being constructed on Central Boulevard, a future plan for an assisted living facility,roads and the need for customer access,the responsibility to follow State law, the City Capital Improvement Plan and Budget inclusion of two new law enforcement officers and how the City Comprehensive Plan must be followed and emails collected in opposition. The Public Hearing was opened. Katie Thompson, 7555 Magnolia Avenue, expressed support of the Item as a local property developer and business owner. Sarah Hodge, 369 Coral Drive, indicated she would withhold comment. Patrick Campbell, 307 Surf Drive, questioned what happens to pre-paid permit and impact fees if a building does not get built. City Manager Greene indicated City Council would need to make a decision at that time. Robert Baugher, 118 Sunset Drive, Cocoa Beach, stated that as a developer he is able to speak regarding both sides of the issue, expressed support for the Item and importance of having matching funds and planning ahead for projects. Joe Abreu, 225 Long Point Road, suggested taking half of the fees up front and collect the rest later. Danny Ringdahl, developer in the City since 2001, shared his experience with Brevard County not being able support his completed construction project upon receiving a Certificate of Occupancy years ago, forcing him to install temporary sewage treatment at his own expense and expressed support for paying impact fees that he budgets for in soft costs up front. The Public Hearing was closed. Discussion continued regarding correcting inconsistent ordinances, the need for Council to work together as a governing body, other municipalities handle impact fees the same way and some developers request a payment plan. A motion was made by Council Member Randels, seconded by Council Member Raymond,for approval of Ordinance No. 10-2019 at first reading. The motion carried 3-1, with Mayor Hoog absent and Council Member Morrison voting against. 7. Ordinance No. 11-2019, regarding Code Enforcement procedures, providingfor or a Special Magistrate Code Enforcement process, updating the procedures related to the Criminal Nuisance Abatement Board authorized by Section 8983.138, Florida Statutes, adopting conforming amendments, providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, first reading: City Attorney Garganese read the title into the record and summarized the Item. Discussion ensued and included a number of emails received by a Council Member that indicated opposition to the Item, ongoing Code Enforcement issues over the years, the idea of a special magistrate was discussed in prior DRAFT City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 21,2019 Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting discussions,the difficult situations Code Enforcement Board Members face as residents of the City, substandard housing conditions continue to be cited over and over again, most citizens follow the law, displeasure with Council Member tactics in building opposition in the community against the Item and how current Code Enforcement Board Members could serve on the Nuisance Abatement Board as a result of adoption of the Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened. Sarah Hodge, 369 Coral Drive, indicated she would withhold comment. Patrick Campbell, 307 Surf Drive, expressed his reasons for maintaining the Code Enforcement Board process. The Public Hearing was closed. Discussion continued and included clarification provided by City Attorney Garganese on how adoption of the Ordinance keeps the Code Enforcement Board in the City Code of Ordinances and adds a special magistrate for the first time, each as alternatives; and that once the City Council appoints a special magistrate to handle Code Enforcement, the current Code Enforcement Board is abolished/disbanded; however,the Board stays in the Code as an alternative in the event City Council decides to go back to that process by terminating the Special Magistrate and reappoint Members to the Board without any Ordinance change. City Attorney Garganese further explained the City has not yet submitted a Request for Proposal. City Manager Greene pointed out the fact that City Council decided upon using a Special Magistrate based upon unanimous adoption of Ordinance No. 05-2019. A motion was made by Council Member Morrison to table the Item. The Motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by Council Member Randels, seconded by Council Member Raymond, to approve Ordinance No. 11-2019 at first reading. The motion carried 3-1, with Mayor Hoog absent and Council Member Morrison voting against. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 8. Discussion on the opportunities and challenges to consider improving ocean and beach safety in the Cit of Canaveral by funding and or drafting policy to add lifeguard services to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community_(Council Member Morrison): Council Member Morrison explained his Item. Discussion ensued and included reasoning for and timing of the Item, the desire to take up discussion at a later time, the issue was resolved several years ago and the cost factor and background of why the City decided to forego lifeguard services. City Manager Greene provided current conditions and information regarding the topic including the general cost per lifeguard stand as $187,000, which does not include 24 hours a day/7 days a week beach coverage. Rhonda Breininger, 426 Jefferson Avenue, voiced concerns regarding children and parents on the beach and expressed support for City lifeguard service.Patricia Dugan, 300 Columbia Drive, expressed opinions regarding legislative decisions made during the meeting and concerns over natural habitat. Discussion continued regarding loss of life at the beach and collection of that data, support for and opposition to the Item and how the community helps each other with regard to mishaps on the beach. Council Member Morrison requested Council consensus or a motion to direct Staff to research the Item for further discussion at a later date. Mayor Pro Tem Brown indicated support for the request. Council Member Randels and Council Member Raymond each expressed they could not support the request. Council consensus was not reached to bring the Item back to Council for discussion. 9. Discuss opportunities to allow "Food Trucks" or any other Mobile Food Vendor in the City limits of Cape Canaveral. (Council Member Morrison): Council Member Morrison explained his Item, his support for it, engaged Staff on costs for special events put on by a businesses and inquired whether a food truck vendor was told to leave the private property of a local employer. DRAFT City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Regular Meeting May 21,2019 Page 5 of 5 Discussion ensued and included Comprehensive Health Services, also known as CHS, allowing food trucks on its private property during special events is permissible by the City because it does not serve the general public and is similar to a catering service, there is no cost or fee charged for businesses to hold special events on private property, food trucks are allowed by the City through its Leisure Services Special Events Program,there is no issue between the City and CHS regarding food trucks on its property, businesses are not permitted to allow food trucks to serve the general public and where food trucks would go if permitted. Jeff Sirmans, restaurant owner, expressed opposition to allowing food trucks from outside Brevard County to operate in the City,the negative impacts on the business community and local taxpayers and his support of food trucks for City permitted special events and private catering.Lewis Hines, 122 Ocean Garden Lane and food truck owner, expressed his support for allowing food trucks to operate in the City as a local resident, taxpayer and business owner. Katrina Freeman, 504 Fillmore Avenue, expressed support for both the restaurants and food trucks, explained the City food truck event is not well attended by the community due to poor selection; and heavy traffic in the City during holidays and weekends provides enough customers to go around. Edward Lee, 6855 Poinsetta Avenue, expressed support for food trucks but not for setting up in front of restaurants in the City. Discussion continued over best locations for food trucks and finding property owners willing to allow it, model legislative language, food truck groups from the Orlando area not interested in doing business in the City, food truck owner that poured grease down a City stormwater drain, primary concerns over the need for restrooms, parking and trash services, Planning and Zoning Board recommendation not to advance food trucks initiatives to the City Council, local restaurant owners not in favor of food trucks, a desire to bring the Item back to the Planning and Zoning Board and caution over possible legal action. Council Member Morrison requested a consensus vote from the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Brown stated there is no requirement to move forward or vote on the Discussion Item; expressed desire to further review the Item. City Attorney Garganese advised Council may direct him to draft an ordinance or move forward without voting on the Item. A motion was made by Council Member Raymond, seconded by Council Member Morrison to table the Discussion Item. City Attorney Garganese advised Council must vote on the motion and the tabling of the Item means that Council can vote to take it off of the table in the future. The motion carried 3-1, with Mayor Hoog absent and Council Member Randels voting against. 10. Discuss the addition of language to our ordinances in Section 2.05 which would give the City Manager explicit authority to approve correspondence methods and times between selected City Staff and the City Council. (Council Member Morrison): A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Brown, seconded by Council Member Morrison, to forgo discussion of Item 10 due to the time. The motion carried 4-0,with Mayor Hoog absent. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the Meeting adjourned at 9:24 PM. Bob Hoog, Mayor Mia Goforth, City Clerk, CMC [City Seal] City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/19 Item No. 2 Subject: Discuss opportunities to allow"Food Trucks" or any other Mobile Food Vendor in the City limits of Cape Canaveral. (Council Member Morrison) (tabled on May 21, 2019) Item must be removed from table by majority vote be ore considering Item for discussion. Department: City Clerk's Office Summary: At its May 21, 2019 Regular Meeting, City Council voted 3-1 to table/postpone Agenda Item 9-Discuss opportunities to allow"Food Trucks"or any other Mobile Food Vendor in the City limits of Cape Canaveral. (Council Member Morrison). City Attorney Anthony Garganese, who serves as Parliamentarian at all City Council meetings (City Code Sec. 2-127), recommends: 1. The City Council must remove the Item from the table by majority vote before any discussion on the Item takes place. 2. If the Item is not removed from the table, it will not be considered by Council. 3. If the Item is removed from the table, discussion on the Item will occur and Council can provide direction it deems appropriate. Submitting Department Director: Mia Goforth Date: 6/10/19 Attachment: Copy of the original Agenda Item 9 from the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 - Discuss opportunities to allow"Food Trucks" or any other Mobile Food Vendor in the City limits of Cape Canaveral. (Council Member Morrison) ATTACHMENT [City Seal] City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 05/21/2019 Item No. 9 Subject: Discuss opportunities to allow "Food Trucks" or any other Mobile Food Vendor in the City limits of Cape Canaveral. Department: City Council Summary: Due to the community interest and support of private property rights our Mayor and Council should consider allowing food trucks in the City limits to help expand economic growth and opportunities for the entire community. The City Vision Statement supports commerce and a unique mix of uses, sidewalks and umbrella covered cafe tables at restaurants and bistros where friends gather, interact and enjoy drinks and dinner. The last public discussion regarding food trucks was held at the December 13, 2017 Planning and Zoning Advisory Board Meeting where the recorded minutes confirmed the Board's opposition to drafting an ordinance to allow Food Trucks in the City limits of Cape Canaveral. As stated above, not allowing local owners the ability to use their property in a safe way with the presence of food trucks/mobile food vendors may limit our ability to expand economic growth and fulfill the Vision Statement of Cape Canaveral. Further, opposing this type of use on a property based on the claim that it will negatively impact the economic success of local Cape Canaveral based businesses (restaurants) should be considered after evaluation a form of local protectionism. Aggressive policies or lack there of that due not promote a free market can increase the costs on consumers while reducing the variety of options for our residents and visitors. Submitting Council Member: Wes Morrison Date: 5/9/2019 Recommendation to Mayor & City Council Members: Direct City Attorney to draft an Ordinance to allow Food Trucks or any other Mobile Food Vendor within the City Limits of Cape Canaveral to be considered at a future City Council Meeting. Attachment(s): 1. 7 Myths and Realities about Food Trucks 2. How Food Trucks and Carts Stack Up to Restaurants on Sanitation 3. Fort Pierce Food Trucks Lawsuit 2019 Attachment 1 SEUER MYTHS AflD REALITIES ABOUT F000 TRUCKS: WHY THE FACTS SUPPORT FOOD-TRUCH FREEDOM Published by the Institute for Justice's National Street Vending Initiative Authored by Bert Gall & Lancee Kurcab November 2012 SEUEfI MYTHS Af1D REALITIES ABOUT FOOD TRUCHS: WHY THE FACTS SUPPORT FOOD-TRUCH FREEDOM By Bert Gall and Lancee Kurcab1 Food trucks continue to grow in popularity throughout the country. But as the Institute for Justice detailed in a recent report, some cities have responded by enacting and enforcing laws that do not advance public health and safety, and serve no other purpose than to "protect" restaurants from competition from food trucks.2 Arguing in favor of these laws—such as those that bar food trucks from operating in popular commercial areas or that prohibit food trucks from parking within several hundred feet of any restaurant—their proponents rely upon several myths. Below, we list the seven most prevalent of these myths and, using facts and real-world examples, debunk them. MYTH #1: The presence of food trucks is harmful to a city's restaurant industry. REALITY: The presence of food trucks does not hurt a city's restaurant industry, but instead helps it. Claims that food trucks spell doom for local restaurants are not only unsupported,3 but are also contradicted by the experiences of Los Angeles and Austin, which have enthusiastically welcomed mobile -food entrepreneurs. For example, the continued growth of the food -truck industry in Los Angeles—the birthplace of the modern food truck—in no way diminished L.A.'s vibrant restaurant scene. In fact, customers in a recent Zagat survey reported that they think the restaurant scene has continued to improve.4 In Austin, local restaurateurs and economists generally agree that the city's robust mobile -food scene has boosted the restaurant industry as a whole.5 Citing Los Angeles and Austin as positive examples, a group of restaurateurs in Pittsburgh have joined together to ask their city to get rid of restrictive regulations that have stifled the growth of the food -truck industry there because they have recognized that the "cities with the most vibrant food -truck scenes also have booming restaurant industries.i6 Indeed, food trucks all over the country are helping to bolster the local restaurant industry in (at least) three specific ways: 1. Food trucks' presence increases the number of customers available to restaurants. Austin's food trucks and food trailers are a rising tide lifting all boats in the local restaurant industry; one way they have done so is by attracting more people—both new residents and tourists—into the city.' In Houston, restaurants have experienced increased business generated by food trucks parking nearby and drawing more people to the restaurants' neighborhoods. It is for this reason that restaurant owners have asked the Houston City Council to ease existing laws that make it difficult for food trucks to operate.8 And in Las Vegas, George Harris, the owner of Mundo, an award-winning upscale restaurant in Las Vegas, has observed that food trucks help his business by bringing new customers to the neighborhood.9 Furthermore, historical evidence suggests that banning food trucks from an area in which they currently operate will harm nearby restaurants by decreasing the number of potential customers. For example, when street vendors were banned from New York's Lower East Side and Chicago's Maxwell Street Market, brick -and -mortar businesses complained that they suffered lower revenues as a result.10 Simply put, food trucks draw people out of their offices and homes and into the community, opening their eyes to all of the meal options their neighborhood has to offer. 2. Food trucks provide restaurants with a great way to market and expand their business. All over the country, restaurant owners are launching their own food trucks. For example, the owners of Curried, an Indian restaurant in Chicago, started a food truck with the same name in order to better market the restaurant. Mission accomplished: "We've definitely seen an increase in business at the restaurant," says Scott Gregerson, Curried's managing partner." Jose Hernandez, general manager at POPS Cheesestakes in Las Vegas, says that the business at the restaurant's physical location has been boosted by the restaurant's food truck: "The truck has been great advertising.i12 Brian Pekarcik and Rick Stern, co-owners of Spoon and BRGR restaurants in Pittsburgh, just launched a BRGR truck for the same reason. "As brand recognition, it's a great advertising piece," they explained. "And we expect that it will drive customers to our restaurants.i13 Similarly, Paul Lee, owner of The Winchester restaurant in Grand Rapids, Mich., explained that he opened the What the Truck food truck to serve "as an extension of [T]he Winchester. It allows for us to reach a greater audience and provide something unique to the city."14 3. Food trucks often serve as incubators for new restaurants. Several restaurants got their start as food trucks: Many chefs with a great concept, but without enough capital to start their own restaurant, launched food trucks to bring their cuisine to customers. Finding success in the food -truck arena, these chefs then accumulated enough capital to launch their own restaurants. For example, the New York Food Truck Association has 42 members, and 40 percent of them—including Mexicue, Souvlaki GR and Schnitzel & Things—now also have brick -and -mortar establishments.15 These entrepreneurs are not an anomaly. Hundreds of other food -truck owners, including those profiled on the next page, have also opened new restaurants. Without the availability of the food -truck business model, these chefs might not have been able to open their restaurants. In sum, food trucks provide a boost to a city's restaurant industry. 2 Examples of Food -Truck Entrepreneurs Opening Brick -and -Mortar Establishments Austin: In 2006, Michael Rypka opened a small food trailer on South First Street in Austin called Torchy's Tacos. The trailer became so successful that he was able to expand: Torchy's Tacos now has eleven brick -and -mortar restaurants, not just in Austin, but also Dallas and Houston. Michael now employs about 450 people.16 Boston: Ayr Muir graduated from MIT, earned his MBA from Harvard and began his career working at McKinsey & Company. But in 2008, he left the corporate world to follow his dream of becoming an entrepreneur and launched Clover Lab Food Truck. His locally sourced vegetarian fare has been such a huge hit with customers that Ayr has now been able to launch a total of six trucks and two restaurants in the Boston area.17 He now employs over 140 people.18 Chicago: In 1963, Dick Portillo opened a six -by -12 -foot hot dog trailer on North Avenue in Villa Park. Years later, Portillo's is a national brand—indeed, a brand that is nearly synonymous with the iconic Chicago hot dog—with 47 locations in Illinois, Indiana and California. Portillo Restaurant Group is now the largest privately owned restaurant company in the Midwest, with over 4,000 employees.19 Cleveland: Chris Hodgson was inspired to bring affordable gourmet food to Cleveland when he visited taco trucks in New York City. His first food truck, Dim and Den Sum, was so successful that he launched a second truck—Hodge Podge—which received nationwide fame when it finished second in the Food Network's hit show, The Great Food Truck Race. Chris partnered with a restaurateur to open Hodges restaurant in downtown Cleveland, and it now employs about 50 people. 20 Seattle: In 2007, Chef Josh Henderson started serving classic American food, but with a gourmet twist, out of an Airstream trailer called Skillet. Skillet quickly became popular, in large part because of the delicious bacon jam in its gourmet burgers. In 2011, Josh opened up the Skillet Diner in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, and his business now includes catering and selling its bacon jam through retailers all over the country. He now employs almost 100 people.21 Washington, D.C.: Mike Lenard brought Korean fusion -style tacos to the nation's capital in August 2010 when he opened Takorean using a remodeled 1985 Ford step -van. Mike has now opened a permanent location at D.C.'s Union Market, serving up the same menu that made his truck so successful. Takorean was honored to be named one of Washingtonian Magazine's best food trucks in summer 2012, and the magazine recently billed the new Union Market location as one of 11 new restaurants its readers should visit.22 Mike currently employs nine people, and has imminent plans to hire five more employees if his sales continue their upward trend.23 3 MYTH #2: Trucks have an "unfair" advantage over restaurants because of their mobility. REALITY: It is true that food trucks' mobility allows them to serve customers in different parts of a city, but any advantage that this provides is offset by the many disadvantages of being a mobile operation. These disadvantages include: • Food trucks do not have a fixed location, which is a source of business goodwill and stability for restaurants.24 After all, it is easier to build a customer base when the customer can always be sure where the business is located. But food trucks have no guarantee that they will be able to find a parking location that is both available and convenient for their customers.25 • Food trucks—unlike restaurants, which can offer climate -controlled dining rooms to their customers—are completely at the mercy of the weather. If it is raining, snowing or extremely hot, people will be far less inclined to stand in line at a food truck. Instead, they will go to a place where they can eat inside.26 Many trucks even take a hiatus during the winter because of the weather.27 Ice and snow present dangerous conditions, and spending hours each day in freezing temperatures can significantly affect their most valuable asset— their truck.28 • Food trucks cannot offer seating and table service for their customers. • Food trucks have extremely small kitchens that can hold far less inventory than restaurant kitchens; this means that food trucks can sell less food and must have a smaller menu. Additionally, preparing food in a small, cramped food -truck kitchen is more difficult than preparing food in a larger restaurant kitchen.29 • Food trucks cannot serve as many customers during the day as can an average restaurant. For example, once a food truck finds a parking space, it can take 30 minutes for set-up, and a similar amount of time to clean and pack up after the meal service is over.30 This means that a truck that parks in a space with a two-hour parking limit only has around an hour to serve customers. That's less than half the time that a restaurant can generally allot to lunch service, and less than a quarter of the time that a restaurant can generally allot to dinner service.31 • Food trucks, unlike restaurants, can, and often do, break down. Until repairs are made, the truck cannot serve customers, employees miss out on their shifts and the food in the commissary refrigerator may spoil.32 • A liquor license is a big moneymaker for restaurants,33 but food trucks are usually unable to obtain that license under local and state laws because they do not meet the requirement of having a fixed location.34 4 In a free-market system, there really are no "unfair" advantages between business models because all are free to be used by anyone. Even if a food truck's mobility could create an "unfair" advantage over restaurants, the many disadvantages described above swamp that one small advantage. MYTH #3: Trucks have an "unfair" advantage over restaurants because they are not subject to the same set of costs. REALITY: Restaurants generally do have higher costs than food trucks (e.g., buying or leasing restaurant space), but their return for paying all of those costs is getting the benefit of a fixed location and thus avoiding the many disadvantages that food trucks have. Furthermore, food trucks are in fact subject to many of the same costs that restaurants face. For example, food -truck owners must purchase liability insurance and pay license and permit fees.35 Like other small business owners, truck owners must pay sales taxes, income taxes and payroll taxes.36 They must spend money to pay and train new employees, to purchase inventory and to market their business.37 Restaurants must either pay property taxes or rent, and the same is true for food trucks: Most cities require that food trucks associate with a commissary in which they can park and clean their truck, store their inventory and partially prepare their food.38 This means that food -truck owners must (in addition to paying taxes on their vehicle) either pay property taxes or rent on the commissary space. There are other costs that food trucks have to pay that restaurants do not. For example, food -truck owners must spend money to purchase their trucks. A brand-new truck can cost anywhere from $75,000 to $300,000; a used truck can cost between $15,000 and $99,000.39 Owners must spend additional funds to outfit their trucks and maintain them. Truck owners must also pay for the costs of fuel (between $250 and $500 a month),40 propane, parking, rental fees or building costs for a commissary or commercial kitchen,41 as well as fees required to park in food -truck lots and to participate in festivals and other community events.42 Finally, trucks that operate within more than one jurisdiction must pay for permits and fees within each of those jurisdictions.43 In short, food trucks forgo the higher costs of operating a restaurant by forgoing all of the advantages that owning a restaurant provides. Food trucks are nonetheless subject to a whole host of costs, some of which restaurants do not have to pay. MYTH #4: Food trucks have an "unfair" advantage over restaurants because operating a food truck is easy. REALITY: Just like running a restaurant, running a food truck is extremely hard work. Ignoring all of the disadvantages and costs of the food -truck business model, many people still believe that, in the real world, running a food truck—unlike running a restaurant—is an easy way to make a lot of money. Try telling that to Miley Holmes, who runs the Easy Slider food truck in Dallas. 5 She explains that "[t]he biggest misconception about this business is that it's a way to get rich quick. Margins are tight, space is limited, and the market is unpredictable. So the reality is that you are never going to make a fortune from running a food truck." Holmes describes workdays that begin at 9 a.m. and stretch to 3 a.m.: "People forget that we've been prepping for hours before our doors open," Holmes said, "and we spend hours cleaning after we're closed. And we do it all two or three times a day, sometimes 14 or 15 days in a row!" Furthermore, "[t]here is no such thing as time off, just time off the truck. We're constantly emailing, making phone calls or sourcing product."44 Holmes' 18 -hour workdays are not atypical. Even for operators who do a single meal service per day, the typical workday can range between 17 to 20 hours.45 And make no mistake, the work is hard. Indeed, many people who experience running both restaurants and food trucks believe that running the latter is at least as difficult—or more difficult—than running the former: • Celebrity Chef Ludo Lefevre has been a successful chef at some of Los Angeles' best restaurants and in 2010 he opened his critically acclaimed LudoTruck, which serves "impossibly juicy... fried chicken [that] is pretty close to the godhead," according to one famous critic.46 Ludo is undoubtedly well-positioned to compare the difficulty of running a restaurant with that of running a food truck. As he points out, much of the work is the same: "People don't realize [that a food truck] is like a restaurant. You need to rent a commissary kitchen, hire a staff, and prep the staff. It's the same headache of a restaurant. It's not easy." And he notes at least one way in which running a food truck is more difficult: "At the restaurant, you have a big walk-in; you can always go and get some more vegetables." But with a food truck, "Sometimes our commissary kitchen is far away, and sometimes we're going to run out of food. There's nothing we can do.i47 • Luke Holden started his Luke's Lobsters restaurant in New York City in 2009, and he opened three more brick -and -mortar locations before launching his food truck, Mobile Nauti, which topped Zagat's ratings of New York's food trucks for two consecutive years. For Holden, it's clear that his food truck is "more difficult to manage" than his restaurants. He says that his truck "has been more of an outreach tool than a cash-flow tool. There are a lot of inherent struggles that come with operating a truck. You can't determine what the weather will do or parking issues. It's a difficult business to build stability in, and if you can't build stability in, it's harder to staff.i48 • David Schillace owns New York's Mexicue restaurant, with two brick -and -mortar locations and a food truck. Based on his experience, "Hands down, bricks -and -mortar is easier." He explains, "Running three or four trucks, then working sixteen hours a day, is a nightmare. And it's still not going to make you rich." He notes that finances are a lot less predictable and stable with food trucks because people tend to order more food at a restaurant than at a food truck.49 In sum, running a food truck is hardly an easy job. Indeed, given all of the difficulties encountered by food -truck owners, it isn't surprising that many of them want to transition from the food -truck business model to the more stable restaurant business model, where issues such as the weather and inventory limitations are no longer constant obstacles.5° 6 MYTH #5: Food trucks are unsanitary "roach coaches." REALITY: According to the available evidence, food trucks are generally just as clean and sanitary as restaurants. Just like restaurants, food trucks are subjected to health inspections on a regular basis. It is often the case that food -truck operators are inspected more frequently than their brick -and -mortar counterparts.51 Indeed, for a forthcoming report, the Institute for Justice reviewed health department sanitation grades in Los Angeles from May 2009 through May 2012 and found that, on average, the food trucks in that city are just as clean and sanitary as restaurants. MYTH #6: Food trucks cause harmful sidewalk congestion. REALITY: No evidence supports the assertion that food trucks cause harmful sidewalk congestion. Although critics of food trucks complain that they cause harmful sidewalk congestion, there is no evidence to support that claim. To test it, the Institute for Justice collected original data in Washington, D.C. Researchers measured foot traffic and congestion in locations where food trucks were present on several different days, in different locations, and during the busy hours surrounding lunch. They found that the presence of a food truck did not drastically increase foot traffic on the sidewalk. In fact, the average time it took a pedestrian to travel the block varied by only one second when a food truck was added.52 Furthermore, the researchers documented a phenomenon that is common to anyone who has seen a food truck in action: Customers spontaneously form a single -file line alongside the edge of a sidewalk so that other pedestrians have plenty of room to pass by. Because it is in the interest of the food trucks to maintain positive relationships with neighboring businesses and the community, food -truck owners and operators encourage their customers to keep their lines orderly. The Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington has formalized this practice by adopting a code of conduct in which they have pledged to "mak[e] regular announcements reminding customers in line to keep the sidewalk and any building entrances clear so as not to impede public access.i53 And, of course, cities can pass a law, like Los Angeles has done, that instructs food trucks not to operate in a manner "which will interfere with or obstruct the free passage of pedestrians or vehicles along any such street, sidewalk or parkway."54 MYTH #7: Food trucks create a special trash problem because their customers are especially prone to littering. REALITY: Food -truck customers are not especially prone to littering, and food -truck operators act responsibly to ensure that trash is properly disposed. 7 Food trucks' customers—just like the customers of fast-food restaurants and people who eat their packed lunch outdoors—have the potential to generate litter after consuming their food, but there is no evidence that food -truck customers are more likely to litter 55 Food trucks are generally required by municipal laws to carry a trash receptacle for their customers' use or to pick up any litter near the truck.56 Moreover, food -truck operators often go beyond the requirements of the law to ensure that they leave the areas in which they operate cleaner then how they found them.57 Conclusion Food trucks do not have an "unfair" advantage over restaurants. The restaurant business model is more favorable than the food -truck business model in several ways, and food trucks actually help the local restaurant industry. There is no basis for the argument that restaurants need government intervention to "protect" them from food trucks. (And, as several federal courts have recognized, regulation for the sake of mere economic protectionism is constitutionally impermissible.58) Nor is there any basis for the notions that food trucks pose some special threat to public health and safety. Instead of creating public policy based on these myths, elected officials should allow food trucks to operate freely within their cities, subject only to reasonable health and safety regulations. Doing so is good for the local entrepreneurs, the local economy and the local community. For guidance in creating a good legal framework for food trucks, see the Institute for Justice's most recent legislative report, Food Truck Freedom: How to Build Better Food Truck Laws in Your City. For more on the benefits provided by food trucks and other street vendors, check out the Institute's 2011 report, Streets of Dreams: How Cities Can Create Economic Opportunity by Knocking Down Protectionist Barriers to Street Vending. Both of these reports are available at www.ii.org/vending. 8 Endnotes 1 Bert Gall is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. He directs Ifs National Street Vending Initiative, a nationwide effort to vindicate the right of street vendors to earn an honest living by fighting unconstitutional vending restrictions in courts of law and court of public opinion. Lancee Kurcab serves as the Institute for Justice's outreach coordinator. Through her outreach efforts and grassroots organizing, she helps entrepreneurs fight for their right to earn an honest living free from protectionist regulation. 2 Norman, E., Frommer, R., Gall., B. & Knepper, L. (2011). Streets of Dreams: How Cities Can Create Economic Opportunity by Knocking Down Protectionist Barriers to Street Vending. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://www.ij.org/images/pdf folder/economic liberty/atl vending/streetsofdreams webfinal.pdf. s Common reasons restaurants fail include not having a clear strategy, lack of flexibility, location, lack of capital, lack of knowledge and poor communication with consumers. Parsa, H. G., Self, J., Njite, D. & King, T. (August 2005). Why Restaurants Fail. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 304-322. a About Los Angeles Food Trucks. Roaming Hunger, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://roaminghunger.com/la; (2011, September 11). Zagat Celebrates 25 Years in Los Angeles; 2,027 Restaurants Surveyed by 11,166 Local Diners, Zagat.com, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.zagat.com/node/3695295. 5 Gaar, B. (2012, September 15). Food trailers bloom into key piece of Austin's economy. Austin -American Statesman, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.statesman.com/news/business/food-trailers-bloom-into- key-piece-of-austi ns-econ/nSLPx/. 6 Letter from Pittsburgh restaurateurs to Pittsburgh City Council, October 10, 2012. Gaar, 2012. 8 Dietrichson, M. (2012, September 19). Houston food truck ordinance taken to City Council. Houston Tomorrow, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/houston-food-truck- ordinance-taken-to-city-council/. 9 Harris, G. (2012, October 11). Brick -and -Mortar Restaurants Should "Embrace" Food Trucks. Nevada News and Views, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://nevadanewsandviews.com/archives/17195. 10 Kettles, G. (2004). Regulating Vending in the Sidewalk Commons. Temple Law Review, 77(1), 31-32. 11 How My Restaurant Launched a Food Truck. NFIB, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://www.nfib.co m/busin ess-resou rces/busi ness-resou rces-item?crosid=60625. 12 Harris, 2012. 13 Batz, Jr., B. & Parrish, M. (2012, October 4). New website, talks, law keep Pittsburgh's food truck scene moving forward. Pittsburgh Post -Gazette, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.post- gazette.com/stories/life/food/new-website-talks-law-keep-pittsbu rghs-food-truck-scene-moving-forwa rd- 656055/#ixzz2AJ rL5 R51. 14 Rosalez, S. (2012, September 7). What the Truck supports local youth programs. The Rapidian, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://therapidian.org/what-truck-supports-local-youth-programs. 9 15 Clark, E. (2012, July 11). Hell on Wheels: Why Food Truck Owners Are Increasingly Turning to Brick -and -Mortar Shops. New York Magazine, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2012/07/food- trucks-turn-to-stores-for-convenience-reliability.html. 16 Lynch, L. (2012, June 29). Michael Rypka of Torchy's Tacos talks Expansion and Secret Menu. Texas Monthly Magazine, Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/eatmywords/?p=7678; Gaar, B. (2012, September 15). Food trailers bloom into key piece of Austin's economy. Austin -American Statesman, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.statesman.com/news/business/food-trailers-bloom-into-key-piece- of-a ustin s-econ/nSLPx/. 17 Tilak, V. How to be a New England Vegetarian in the winter. The Boston Globe, Retrieved November 9, 2012 from http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2012/11/03/how-new-engla nd-vegeta ria n- winter/g5tsi4eafXj rW3vwCaJ k4N/story. html. 18 (2012, February 2). How They Work: Clover Food Lab. Wistia, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://wistia.com/blog/how-they-work-clover-food-lab/. 19 History: From Modest Beginnings To The Midwest's Largest Privately Owned Restaurant Group. The Portillo Restaurant Group, Retrieved October 29, 2012 from http://www.portillos.com/history/. 20 Goodman, V. (2012, April 20). Hodges Downtown offers some of the food trucks' playful fare. WKSU News, Retrieved October 15, 2012 from http://www.wksu.org/news/story/31324. 21 Evolved Cuisine. Skillet, Retrieved October 2, 2012 from http://skilletstreetfood.com/company.php. 22 Spiegel, A. (2012, October 10). 22 New (or Newly Improved) Places to Eat and Drink This Fall. Washingtonian Magazine, Retrieved October 29, 2012 from https://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/bestbites/food-restaurant- news/22-new-or-newly-improved-places-to-eat-and-drink-this-fall.php; Washingtonian Staff. (2012, July 5). Best of Washington 2012: Best Meals on Wheels. Washingtonian Magazine, Retrieved October 29, 2012 from http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/best-of/best-of-washington-2012-best-meals-on-wheels/index.php. 23 Interview with Mike Lenard, owner of Torchy's Tacos, November 5, 2012. 24 Courtis, J. (1983). Business Goodwill: Conceptual Clarification Via Accounting, Legal and Etymological Perspectives. The Accounting Historians Journal, 10(2), 1-38. This article reviews what attributes lead to business goodwill; location is prominent among those attributes. 25 Clark, 2012. 26 Clark, 2012. 27 Myrick. R. (2012, October 9). Prepping Your Food Truck for Winter Storage. Mobile-Cuisine.com. Retrieved November 9, 2012 from http://mobile-cuisine.com/under-the-hood/food-truck-storage-tips/. 28 Myrick, R. (2011, December 15). Winter Food Truck Safety Tips. Mobile-Cuisine.com, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://mobile-cuisine.com/under-the-hood/winter-food-truck-safety-tips/; Myrick, R. (2012). Running a Food Truck for Dummies. P. 216. 10 29 Trattner, D. (2011, September 28). Along for the Ride. Cleveland Scene Magazine, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/along-for-the-ride/Content?oid=2737264. 30 Gall, B. and Frommer, R. (November 2012). Food Truck Freedom: How to Build Better Food Truck Laws in Your City. P. 18, from www.ij.org/vending. 31 Fine, G. (1990). Organizational time: Temporal Demands and the Experience of Work in Restaurant Kitchens. Social Forces, 69(1), 98-99. The author notes that general lunch and dinner hours are between 11 a.m.-2:30 p.m. for lunch, and 5 p.m. -12 a.m. for dinner. 32 Weber, D. (2012). The Food Truck Handbook: Start, Grow, and Succeed in the Mobile Food Business. P. 14; Clark, 2012. 33 O'Toole, M. (2010, September 20). Path to Liquor License Often Bumpy. New York Times, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/path-to-liquor-license-often-bumpy/. 34 Food trucks cannot obtain liquor licenses in most jurisdictions, and the handful of jurisdictions in which trucks can obtain a liquor license have only granted them to trucks or carts that operate in a single location and are able to provide a defined outdoor dining area. See, e.g., Collins, G. (2011, June 9). What's Always Been Missing in Food Trucks: Alcohol. The New York Times, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/what-youve-always-wanted-in-a-food-truck-booze/; Rayle, S. (2012, April 23). Cartlandia—Portland's food carts gain a year-round liquor license. Examiner, Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://www.examiner.com/article/cartlandia-portland-s-food-carts-gain-a-year-round-liquor- license. 35 Gall and Frommer, 2012. 36 A helpful collection of links to state government websites detailing the tax obligations of small businesses can be found on the website of the U.S. Small business administration at http://www.sba.gov/content/learn-about-your- state-and-local-tax-obligations. Information on the federal tax obligations of employers can be found in the IRS Employer's Tax Guide at http://www.irs.gov/uac/Publication-15-%28Circular-E%29,-Employer%27s-Tax-Guide. 37 Myrick, 2012. 38 Gall and Frommer, 2012, p. 26. 39 Myrick, 2012, p. 32-33. 40 Myrick, 2012, p. 217. 41 Weber, 2012, p. 100. 42 According to Matthew Geller, CEO of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association, "Most events charge 10% which drastically eats into [food trucks'] margins. Lots can cost $25 to $200 just for the privilege of serving hungry customers." Interview with Matthew Geller, November 8, 2012. 43 According to Matthew Geller, CEO of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association, "Many food trucks have multiple business licenses and health permits. In cities like Los Angeles, many of the trucks must obtain multiple city permits in order to serve the demand around Los Angeles County. Most trucks in the area have eight business licenses with an average cost of $250. Many trucks also serve multiple counties. Each county 11 requires a county health permit. Many trucks have two or three health permits with an average cost of $750 each." Interview with Matthew Geller, November 8, 2012. 44 Daniels, L. (2012, June 4). Dreaming of Starting a Food Truck? First Read This, Then Figure Out Your Goal. Dallas Observer, Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/cityofate/2012/06/dreaming of starting a food tr.php. 45 Clover Food Truck 101. CloverFoodLab.com, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.cloverfoodlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Food-Truck-101.pdf; Myrick, 2012, p. 10-11; Interview with Jon Goree, co-owner of Seoul Food, October 20, 2012. 46 Gold, J. (2010, February 26). 99 Things to Eat in L.A. Before You Die. LA Weekly, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.laweekly.co m/2010-02-26/eat-d ri n k/99-th ings-to-eat-in-I-a-before-you-die/10/%20mo%20th ica/. 4' Oches, S. (2012, October). Pedal to the Medal. QSR Magazine, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.gsrmagazine.com/executive-interviews/pedal-metal?page=2&microsite=575. 48 Zionts, S. (2012, March 1). Food Trucks' Rocky Roads to Success. Fox Business, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/entrepreneurs/2012/03/01/food-trucks-rocky-roads-to-success/. 49 Clark, 2012. 50 Moore, G. (2012, August 17). Free lunch in the Financial District? Not at these food trucks. Boston Business Journal, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bottom line/2012/08/food- truck-regulations.html?page=a11. 51 Norman, Frommer, Gall and Knepper, 2011, p. 32; Armour, S. (2012, May 9). Gourmet Food Trucks Fight Inspectors' Perceptions. Bloomberg Businessweek, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-09/gourmet-food-trucks-fight-inspectors-perceptions#p1; (2012, July 19). Food Trucks Inspected for Safety," WBNS-10TV, Retrieved October 26, 2012 from http://www.l0tv.co m/content/stories/2012/07/19/col u tubus-food-trucks-inspected-for-safety.html. 52 Norman, Frommer, Gall and Knepper, 2011, p. 32. 53 Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington/D.C. Food Truck Association, Food Truck Code of Conduct, Retrieved October 18, 2012 from http://www.google.com/u rl?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sou rce=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=OC B4QFIAA&u rl=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.dcfoodtrucks.org%2Fdl%2FDCFTA Application.pdf&ei=1FmBUJ7iG6fCOQGOgoCQBA&usg=AFQICNFLCc fiq82QmZe kfmpbbZU U7gQ&sig2=nSOR5aCeFNXFRaRwVMhmVA. 54 See L.A. City Code § 56.08(c). ss Hermosillo, J. (2012). Loncheras: A look at the stationary food trucks of Los Angeles. Masters Thesis, Los Angeles: University of California. P. 8. Although police and city officials complained that loncheras increased litter, this is "contradicted by the reputation many seem to enjoy among their neighbors for maintaining their areas clean." 56 Gall and Frommer, 2012, p. 21. s' The Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association takes it upon itself to pay for street cleanup after First Fridays and other community events in which food trucks participate. Interview with Attorney Jeffrey D. Dermer, 12 counsel for the Southern California Mobile Food Vendor's Association, November 6, 2012. The Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington requires members to "keep the area around [their] vehicle clean and remove all trash at the end of [their] service period, leaving the location cleaner than when [they] arrived." Food Truck Association of Metropolitan Washington/D.C. Food Truck Association, Food Truck Code of Conduct, Retrieved October 18, 2012 from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=OCB4QFIAA&url=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.dcfoodtrucks.org%2Fdl%2FDCFTA Application.pdf&ei=1FmBUJ7iG6fC0QGOgoCQBA&usg=AFQICNFLCc fiq82QmZe kfmpbbZU U7gQ&sig2=nSOR5aCeFNXFRaRwVMhmVA. 58 See, e.g., Merrifield v. Lockyer, 547 F.3d 978, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (striking down regulatory regime because it "was designed to favor economically certain constituents at the expense of others similarly situated, such as Merrifield"); Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220, 229 (6th Cir. 2002) (invalidating a rule permitting only funeral directors to sell caskets because it was a "naked attempt to raise a fortress protecting the monopoly rents that funeral directors extract from consumers"); see also St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille,—F.3d—, No. 11-30756, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22060, at *4 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2012) ([N]either precedent nor broader principles suggest that mere economic protectionism of a pet industry is a legitimate government purpose....") 13 Attachment 2 STREET HITS, SAFE EATS: HOW FOOD TRUCHS AfflJ HMS STIICH UP TO REsTnunnTs on snnimion 40 BY Armin C. ERICHS011 IJ JUI1E 2014 STREET EnTSo SRFE EFT OWFOOI TOEST BY w vcws Rn UHflTSOfl SEE J I ER C° n n ^o RTS STRC UP flDTRTDOfl EXECUTDUIE summflRV Street food, long a part of American life, has boomed in popularity in recent years. Yet an idea persists that food from trucks and sidewalk carts is unclean and unsafe. This report tests that com- mon, but unsubstantiated claim by reviewing more than 260,000 food -safety inspection reports from seven large American cities. In each of those cities, mobile vendors are covered by the same health codes and inspection regimes as restaurants and other brick -and -mortar businesses, allowing an apples -to -apples comparison. The report finds: • In every city examined—Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Seattle and Washington, D.C.—food trucks and carts did as well as or better than restaurants. • In six out of seven cities—Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami and Washington, D.C.—food trucks and carts averaged fewer sanitation viola- tions than restaurants, and the differ- ences were statistically significant. • In Seattle, mobile vendors also aver- aged fewer violations, but the differ- ence was not statistically significant, meaning mobile vendors and restau- rants performed about the same. The results suggest that the notion that street food is unsafe is a myth. They also suggest that the recipe for clean and safe food trucks is sim- ple—inspections. Just as sanitation inspections help assure the public that restaurants are clean and safe, they can do the same for mobile vendors. More burdensome regulations proposed in the name of food safety, such as outright bans and limits on when and where mobile vendors may work, do not make street food safer—they just make it harder to get. THE IIISTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Af1ALYZED THOUSAf1DS OF IfSPECTIOf1 REPORTS COUERIf1G MOBILE UEf1DORS, RESTAURAf1TS Af1D OTHER PURUEYORS OF FOOD FROM SEUEf1 OF AMERICA'S LARGEST CITIES-BOSTOf1, LAS UEGAS, LOS AIIGELES, LOUISUILLE, MIAMI, SEATTLE Af1D WASHIf1GTO11, D.C. DflTOIUCTDOfl America loves food trucks. These new mobile vendors are creating jobs, satisfying hunger and making downtowns cool again. But they are not an entirely new concept. Street vending has long been an entry point for entrepreneurship in America. During the Great Depres- sion, Americans pushed carts in the street to sell five cent apples.' Waves of immigrants sold oysters, pickles, kabobs, halal and more. Despite this country's deeply rooted history with street food and America's growing love for food trucks, some peo- ple have claimed that food trucks and food carts are unsanitary and nothing more than "roach coaches." Take, for example, a recent news story by Eric Flack, a reporter for Louisville's WAVE3, who asked if food trucks are "really all that clean?" In an apparent"gotcha" moment, Flack asked Connie Mendel— head of the local office in charge of food inspections—if she ate at food trucks. Mendel chortled at such an idea and said, "That's funny."' But "all that clean" compared to what? How do food trucks stack up to restaurants? Flack does not ask these questions or compare food trucks to any other food source except for this opinion from Mendel: "We feel you can operate safer from an actual building."3 Unfortunately, city officials often rely on such claims that brick -and -mortar restaurants are safer to justify restric- tions on both food trucks and carts, including outright bans on mobile vend- ing as well as limits on when and where vendors may sell. These laws not only push food trucks and carts out of cities, they also stifle entrepreneurship, destroy jobs and hurt consumers.4 As American culture shifts towards re -embracing street food, this report tests the claim—common but unsub- stantiated—that food trucks and carts are unsafe. The Institute analyzed thousands of inspection reports covering mobile vendors, restaurants and other purveyors of food from seven of Amer- ica's largest cities—Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Seattle and Washington, D.C.' In each city, mobile vendors are covered by the same health codes and inspection regimes as restaurants, allowing an apples -to -apples comparison of sanitation practices.' The results show that mobile food vendors, including food trucks and carts, are just as safe and sanitary as restaurants— often more so. mETROIS To examine differences between food trucks, carts and other types of food establishments—particularly restau- rants—this report relies on inspection data collected from government agen- cies in Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Miami, Seattle and Washing- ton, D.C. The Institute requested data going back to 2008 or the first year with accessible data that included mobile ven- dors. Data were collected through part or all of 2012 or, in the cases of Boston and Louisville, through July 2013. In all, the Institute reviewed 263,395 inspec- tion reports across the seven cities. During the inspections, officials count the number of food -safety violations they observe.' For example, inspectors look for minor things like clean counters and proper labeling, bigger concerns like proper food storage and hand -washing facilities, and serious issues such as sick employees and spoiled foods. For each city, the Institute calcu- lated the average number of violations per establishment for each category of 6 food service—food trucks, restaurants and so on. These raw numbers are useful, but not sufficient for determin- ing how mobile vendors compare to brick -and -mortar establishments. Other factors, such as variations in traffic or greater frequency of inspections, could be driving any differences. Addition- ally, any differences in the raw numbers could be simple random chance—it just so happens that during a given period of time when a random group of establish- ments was inspected, one category of food service received fewer violations— instead of a genuine distinction. To control for factors that could muddy comparisons and to deter- mine whether the differences between mobile vendors and brick -and -mortar restaurants are genuine or mere ran- dom chance, this report relies on two types of statistical analyses. The first, fixed -effects OLS regression, provides the average number of violations for each food -service category compared to mobile vendors. In other words, the first type of analysis estimates how many more or fewer violations restaurants would receive, on average, than mobile vendors, after controlling for various factors.' The second type of analysis, Poisson regression, provides a rate esti- mating how many times more or fewer violations each food -service category would receive, on average, compared to mobile vendors.' When looking at the rate of viola- tions, keep in mind that the average numbers of violations were low for all types of food service in all cities. Thus, some eye-popping comparisons are not as dramatic as they may appear. For example, it may be startling to see the Boston results below (Table 2) suggest- ing that restaurants received 385 percent more violations than food carts, but food carts averaged just one violation per cart, so 385 percent more is only about four violations per restaurant. In some cities, the data did not make it possible to distinguish between food trucks and food carts, so they were lumped together in one "mobile vendor" category. In others, trucks and carts are separate categories, so separate anal- yses compared each of them to restau- rants, grocery stores and so on. Further details about the analysis can be found in Appendix A, and Appendix B provides full regression results.'° ESULTS Across the seven cities, findings were consistent: Food trucks and carts are every bit as clean and safe as restaurants and other types of brick -and -mortar food estab- lishments. As Figure 1 shows, in recent years, violations per establishment were few, regardless of the category of food service. In six of the seven cities, violations by food trucks and carts ranged from just one to four violations per truck or cart, while restau- rants averaged just four to eight. The exception, Seattle, appears to have had more frequent violations for both mobile vendors (nearly 14 per vendor) and restaurants (almost 17 per restaurant), because the city's inspection regime weights each violation more than the other cities. ACROSS THE SEUEf1 CITIES, FIf1DIf1GS WERE COf1SISTE(1T: FOOD TRUCHS AI1D CARTS ARE EUERY BIT AS CLEAfI Af1D SAFE AS *00 RESTAURAf1TS Af1D OTHER TYPES OF BRICH-FMD-MORTAR FOOD ESTABLISHmEf1TS. 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Figure 1: Average Food -safety Violations by Category of Food Service 0 Boston Las Vegas Los Angeles Louisville Miami Seattle Washington, D.C. ('ll -July '13) ('09 -.July '12) ('09 -July '12) ('10 -July '13) ('08 -July '12) ('09 -.July '12) ('11-'12) Food Carts Food Trucks ❑ Restaurants 111 Other Hotels Notes: In Louisville, Miami, Seattle and Washington, D.C., the "food truck" category includes both trucks and carts. Due to differing inspection regimes, comparisons across cities are not valid. Not only were violations infrequent, but mobile vendors compared well to their brick -and -mortar counterparts, as shown in Figure 1, and this was confirmed by statistical analysis. In analyses for six of seven cities, food trucks and carts had fewer violations than restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. In Seattle, even though mobile vendors had fewer violations on average than restau- rants, upon statistical analysis, the difference was not statistically significant. This means mobile vendors and restaurants in Seattle performed about the same. s BOSTOn The Boston Inspectional Services Department, which inspects all food establishments for potential violations, provided inspection data for 2011 through July 2013. In that time, the department conducted 29,898 inspec- tions of food establishments, including trucks, carts, restaurants and other establishments such as grocery stores, cafeterias and caterers. Table 1 provides the average number of violations by establishment type. It also breaks out different types of violations as classified by Boston—critical foodborne, critical, non-critical and total. A critical foodborne violation refers to activities that are the most prevalent contributing factors to foodborne illness as identified by the Center for Disease Control—such as not posting consumer advisories and improper labeling of ingre- dients. A critical violation is one that is more likely than other violations to affect the public health—such as unclean food contact surfaces and improper sewage and waste water disposal. Non-critical violations will not seriously affect the public health; these are things such as adequate lighting and hair restraints. As Table 1 shows, violations were uncommon across all categories of food service, and both Boston's food trucks and carts outperformed restaurants, as trucks averaged 2.7 total violations, mobile food carts—hot dog stands and other sidewalk carts—just one, and restaurants 4.6. The story is similar when looking at different types of violations. Trucks and carts received fewer critical and non-crit- ical violations than restaurants. For critical foodborne violations, trucks and restaurants were comparable and carts received fewer violations, but all averaged less than one violation per establishment. These differences held up under statistical analysis, as shown in Table 2. Results show that Boston's food trucks averaged fewer total violations, critical violations and non-critical violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. On critical food- borne violations, the difference between trucks and restaurants was not statistically significant, meaning they were essentially the same. Boston's food carts averaged fewer total violations, critical foodborne violations, critical violations and non-criti- cal violations than its restaurants, and the differences all were statistically significant. Table 1: Boston Food-safety Violations, 2011-July 2013* =IM- Average (Mean) Standard Violations Deviation Minimum Maximum Total ViolationsAna_ ■ Food Trucks 2.68 2.90 0 18 Restaurants 4.56 4.46 0 Carts 0.98 1.53 0 10 Other 2.67 3.36 0 30 Critical Foodborne Violations Food Trucks 0.87 1.25 0 6 Restaurants 0.84 1.33 0 12 Carts 0.36 0.75 0 6 Other 0.47 0.93 0 9 Critical Violations Food Trucks 0.11 0.32 0 2 Restaurants 0.30 0.55 0 4 Carts 0.04 0.21 0 2 Other 0.17 0.43 0 4 Non-critical Violations Food Trucks 1.70 1.94 0 11 Restaurants 3.42 3.37 0 30 Carts 0.57 1.08 0 8 Other 2.03 2.60 0 23 *Data provided by Boston Inspectional Services Department and based on 296 inspections of 76 food trucks, 17,634 inspections of 2,813 restaurants, 1,447 inspections of 497 carts and 10,521 inspections of other food establishments. Table 2: Estimated Differences in Food-safety Violations, Boston, 2011-July 2013 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* 1.111 Average Rate of Average Rate of Violations Violations Violations Violations Compared to Compared to Compared to Compared to Food Trucks Food Trucks Food Carts Food Carts Total Violations Restaurants 1.87 more 69% more 3.39 more 386% more Other 0.19 fewer 2% fewer 1.33 more 181%more Critical Foodborne Violations Restaurants 0.03 more 4% fewer 0.45 more 136%more Other 0.37 fewer 48%fewer 0.06 more 28% more Critical Violations Restaurants 0.18 more 156%more 0.25 more 568% more Other 0.03 more 37% more 0.10 more 258%more Non-critical Violations Restaurants 1.65 more 101%more 2.70 more 535% more Other 0.14 more 19% more 1.19 more 275%more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Because of the use of two different statistical analyses, the direction and significance for average violations and rate of violations may differ where the differences between trucks or carts and restaurants are small. Full regression results for total violations can be found in Appendix B." 12 ob, LAS UEGAS The Southern Nevada Health District, which inspects all food establishments in Las Vegas, provided inspection data from 2009 through July 2012. In that time, the agency conducted 84,816 inspections of food establishments in Las Vegas, including trucks, carts, restaurants and other establishments such as grocery stores, cafeterias and food processors. Table 3 provides the average number of violations by establishment type.12 As the table shows, all categories of food service had few violations, and both Las Vegas' food trucks and carts outper- formed restaurants, as trucks averaged 3.3 violations, mobile food carts—hot dog stands and other sidewalk carts—two, and restaurants seven. Statistical analysis confirms these differences, as shown in Table 4. Results show that Las Vegas' food trucks and carts averaged fewer violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. Table 3: Las Vegas Food -safety Violations, 2009 -July 2012* t Average (Mean) Violations Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Food Trucks 3.27 4.88 I 0 I 31 Restaurants 6.99 6.78 0 89 Carts 2.05 3.62 I 0 I 46 Other 4.39 5.08 0 100 *Data provided by the Southern Nevada Health District and based on 494 inspections of 163 food trucks, 42,611 inspections of 8,670 restaurants, 1,993 inspections of 602 carts and 39,718 inspections of other food establishments. Table 4: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Las Vegas, 2009 -July 2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* Average Violations Compared to Food Trucks Rate of Violations Compared to Food Trucks Average Violations Compared to Food Carts Rate of Violations Compared to Food Carts Restaurants 3.58 more I 108% more I 4.71 more 237% more Other 1.09 more 31% more 2.22 more 111% more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results can be found in Appendix B. Uf1FORTUf1ATELY, CITY OFFICIALS OFTEfI RELY Ofl CLAIMS THAT BRICH-AnD-MORTAR RESTAURAfTS ARE SAFER TO JUSTIFY OUTRIGHT BATS Ofl MOBILE UEf1DIf1G AS WELL AS LIMITS Ofl WHEf1 Af1D WHERE UEI1DORS MAY SELL. THESE LAWS f10T only PUSH FOOD TRUCHS Af1D CARTS OUT OF CITIES, THEY ALSO STIFLE EfTREPREfEURSHIP, DESTROY JOBS AI1D HURT COf1SUMERS. • - FOR THOSE POLICYMAHERS COf10ERf ED ABOUT HEAITH Af1D SAFETY, THEY SHOULD EfSURE-THROUGH If1SPECTIOf1S-THAT MOBILE FOOD UEfDORS ARE HELD TO THE SAME SAf1ITATIOf1 STAf1DARDS AS RESTAURAI1TS. Ifl THIS WAY, THE PUBLIC CAf1 E(1JOY FOOD FROM UEf1DORS THAT IS BOTH DELICIOUS Af1D SAFE WHILE ALLOWIf1G EfTREPREf1EURSHIP Af1D ECOf10MIC GROWTH TO THRIUE. LOS Rf1OELES The Los Angeles County Depart- ment of Public Health, which inspects all food establishments for potential violations, provided inspection data for 2009 through July 2012. In that time, the department conducted 45,611 inspections of Los Angeles' food estab- lishments, including trucks, carts and restaurants. Table 5 provides the average number of violations, showing that violations were uncommon across all categories of food service.13 Both Los Angeles' trucks and carts outperformed restaurants, as trucks averaged 3.6 violations, mobile food carts—hot dog stands and other sidewalk carts -2.4, and restaurants 7.8. These differences held up under statistical analysis, as shown in Table 6. Results show that both Los Angeles' food trucks and food carts had fewer violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. Table 5: Los Angeles Food -safety Violations, 2009 -July 2012* Average (Mean) Violations Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Food Trucks 3.59 6.40 I 0I 100 Restaurants 7.82 5.25 0 100 Carts 2.37 5.74 1 0I 36 *Data provided by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and based on 2,928 inspections of 601 food trucks, 42,089 inspections of 7,542 restaurants and 594 inspections of 236 carts. Table 6: Estimated Differences in Food -safety Violations, Los Angeles, 2009 -July 2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* Average Restaurant Violations Compared to Food Trucks Rate of Restaurant Violations Compared to Food Trucks Average Restaurant Violations Compared to Food Carts Rate of Restaurant Violations Compared to Food Carts 4.48 more I 120% more I 5.65 more I 237% more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results can be found in Appendix B. 1? LOUISUILLE The Metro Health and Wellness Department in Louisville, which inspects all food establishments for potential vio- lations, provided inspection data for 2010 through July 2013. In that time, the department conducted 34,500 inspections of food establishments, including mobile food vendors, restaurants and other establishments such as grocery stores, caterers and cafeterias. The department does not distinguish between food trucks and mobile carts, so they were analyzed together as mobile vendors. Table 7 provides the average number of violations by establishment type.14 As the table shows, violations were rare across all categories of food service, and Louisville's mobile vendors outperformed restaurants, as vendors averaged 1.9 total violations and restaurants 4.4. Statistical analysis confirms the difference, as shown in Table 8. Results show that Louisville's mobile vendors averaged fewer violations than its restau- rants, and the differences were statisti- cally significant. Table 7: Louisville Food-safety Violations, 2010-July 2013* Average (Mean) Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Violations Mobile Vendors 1.87 3.11 0 35 Restaurants 4.39 4.51 0 42 Other 3.44 4.08 0 40 *Data provided by Metro Health and Wellness Department and based on 648 inspections of 117 mobile vendors, 16,958 inspections of 2,540 restaurants and 16,894 inspections of other food establishments. Table 8: Estimated Differences in Food-safety Violations, Louisville, 2010-July 2013 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* lehl Average Violations Rate of Violations Compared to Mobile Vendors Compared to Mobile Vendors Restaurants 2.44 more 128% more Other 1.35 more 82% more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results can be found in Appendix B. -v f .67'r tlr 'roi. .. 1/14., '''' I7;ft...,T. .i '; LL_.+, '' W .0414{ 9 4 t+' litv vG r • . 11 Y hIlr _ , r. 4444 r + Mal si 441,1 ` - , MIAMI The Florida Department of Busi- ness and Professional Regulation, which inspects Miami food establishments for potential critical and non-critical violations of the food code, provided inspection data covering 2008 through July 2012. In that time, the depart- ment conducted 25,463 inspections of food establishments in Miami, including mobile vendors (the department groups together food trucks and carts) and restaurants. Table 9 provides the average number of violations by establishment type. It also breaks out different types of viola- tions as classified by the department— critical, non-critical and total. Critical violations refer to both foodborne illness risk factors (such as foods improperly cooked and toxic substances stored improperly) and violations pertaining to safety and good business practices (such as an unsafe water source and not displaying a current license). Non-critical violations, such as poor maintenance of surface areas and improper storage of cleaning equipment, are generally target- ing preventive measures. As Table 9 shows, both categories of food service saw few violations and Miami's mobile vendors outperformed restaurants, as vendors averaged 3.7 total violations and restaurants 8.2. The story is similar when looking at differ- ent types of violations. Food trucks and carts received fewer critical and non-crit- ical violations than restaurants. These differences held up under statistical analysis, as shown in Table 10. Results show that Miami's mobile vendors averaged fewer total viola- tions, critical violations and non-critical violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. Table 9: Miami Food-safety Violations, 2008-July 2012* Average (Mean) Standard Violations Deviation Minimum Maximum Total Violations Mobile Vendors 3.71 3.62 0 31 Restaurants 8.15 7.97' t] 69 Critical Violations JIM Mobile Vendors 3.31 3.15 0 26 Restaurants 5.43 5.39 0 47 Non-Critical Violations Mobile Vendors .40 .94 0 10 Restaurants 2.72 3.25 0 36 *Data provided by Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and based on 1,627 inspections of 730 mobile vendors and 23,836 inspections of 3,959 restaurants. Table 10: Estimated Differences in Food-safety Violations, Miami, 2008-July 2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* Average Restaurant Violations Rate of Restaurant Violations Compared to Mobile Vendors Compared to Mobile Vendors Total Violations 4.19 more 117% more Critical Violations 1.96 more 61% more Non-critical Violations 2.24 more 597% more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results for total violations can be found in Appendix B." 21 SEATTLI The King County Board of Health, which inspects all food establishments in Seattle for potential violations, provided inspection data for 2009 through July 2012. In that time, the board conducted 34,122 inspections of Seattle food estab- lishments, including mobile vendors, restaurants and hotels. The board uses mobile food service as a classification and does not separate trucks from carts, so they were analyzed together. Table 11 displays the average num- ber of violations by establishment type.16 As the table shows, Seattle's mobile vendors outperformed restaurants, as vendors averaged 13.6 total violations and restaurants 16.9. However, these differences disap- peared under statistical analysis, as shown in Table 12. Results show that the difference between Seattle's mobile ven- dors and restaurants was not statistically significant, meaning that mobile vendors and restaurants performed essentially the same. It is worth noting that Seattle's higher levels of violations, compared to other cities, likely result from an inspection regime that counts each violation based on the severity. For example a non-criti- cal violation may count as two, whereas a critical violation may count as 15. Table 11: Seattle Food-safety Violations by Establishment Type, 2009-July 2012* r- Average (Mean) Violations Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Mobile Vendors 13.59 21.05 0 95 Restaurants 16.91 20.37 0 155 Hotels 7.06 11.47 0 65 *Data provided by King County Board of Health and based on 1,143 inspections of 139 mobile vendors, 32,230 inspections of 2,762 restaurants and 749 inspections of 63 hotels. Table 12: Estimated Differences in Food-safety Violations, Seattle, 2009-July 2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* ____________ Average Violations Rate of Violations Compared to Mobile Vendors to Mobile Vendors Restaurants 1.51 fewer 9% fewer Hotels 6.89 fewer 60% fewer *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results can be found in Appendix B. -a 1 'N..% •,"k. . 44 lir. syr' ,-i 1 . - * - 1 t r .n: WASHIfGTOf1, D.C. The Washington, D.C., Department of Health, which inspects all food establish- ments for potential violations, provided inspection reports for 2011 and 2012. In that time, the department conducted 8,985 inspections of food establishments, including mobile vendors, restaurants and other establishments such as grocery stores and wholesalers. The Department does distinguish between food trucks and carts; however, the populations were too small to analyze separately and so were combined into one category. Table 13 provides the average num- ber of violations by establishment type. It also breaks out different types of violations as classified by D.C.—critical, non-critical and total. Critical violations refer to both foodborne illness risk fac- tors and public health interventions, such as foods cooked improperly and failure to display consumer advisories. Non-critical violations refer to good retail practices, such as the presence of insects and rodents and improper disposal of sewage and waste water. As Table 13 shows, violations were uncommon across all categories of food service, and D.C. mobile food vendors outperformed restaurants, as vendors averaged 1.8 total violations and restau- rants 4.3. The story is similar when looking at different types of violations. Mobile vendors received fewer critical and non-critical violations than restaurants. Statistical analysis confirms these differences, as shown in Table 14. Results show that D.C.'s mobile vendors averaged fewer total violations, critical violations and non-critical violations than its restaurants, and the differences were statistically significant. Note that while restaurants and other brick -and -mortar establishments received an estimated 10 times as many critical violations as vendors, this difference is not as large in reality as it may appear. Mobile vendors received a tiny fraction of a violation per vendor, and the other categories received fewer than two per establishment. Table 13: Washington, D.C., Food-safety Violations, 2011-2012* MIMI Average (Mean) Standard Violations Deviation Minimum Maximum Total Violations Mobile Vendors 1.81 1.31 0 7 Restaurants 4.27 4.74 0 Other 3.83 3.84 0 22 —11111 Critical Violations Mobile Vendors 0.12 0.410 2 Restaurants 1.80 1.97 0 14 Other 1.45 1.63 0 10 Non-Critical Violations Mobile Vendors 1.69 1.14 0 6 Restaurants 2.47 3.26 0 26 Other 2.38 2.75 0 16 *Data provided by Washington, D.C., Department of Health and based on 133 inspections of 102 mobile vendors, 7,749 inspections of 2,762 restaurants and 1,103 inspections of other food establishments. Table 14: Estimated Differences in Food-safety Violations, Washington, D.C., 2011-2012 (Statistically Significant Results in Italics)* EMIE Average Violations Rate of Violations Compared to Compared to Mobile Vendors Mobile Vendors Total Violations Restaurants 1.63 more 94%more Other 1.55 more 89%more Critical Violations W Restaurants 1.30 more 1,066% more Other 1.12 more 934%more Non-critical Violations Restaurants .34 more 23% more Other .44 more 28% more *Results listed derived from OLS and Poisson regressions. Full regression results for total violations can be found in Appendix B." 25 concLUsDon Thanks to low start-up costs, street vending is an ideal opportunity for entre- preneurs with big ideas but little capital. Not surprisingly, following the recession, the number of food trucks on the streets exploded, with vendors selling everything from ice cream and hot dogs to creme brulee and sushi. Consumers appreciate the diverse menus, low prices and conve- nience of mobile vendors. In the seven cities studied here, street food is every bit as safe as food from a restaurant. In each of these cities, food trucks, carts and restaurants are held to the same sanitation stan- dards, and trucks and carts did just as well if not slightly better during sanita- tion inspections than restaurants—and violations by all types of food businesses were rare. The notion that food trucks and carts are unsafe is simply a myth. Sensationalist news reports like the WAVE3 story misinform both the public and policymakers. The WAVE3 report caused an uproar, with custom- ers who bought tickets to an upcoming food -truck festival asking for refunds and some vendors saying new custom- ers are now more reticent to try their products.18 Such misinformation has also been offered to justify laws that unfairly restrict mobile vendors' ability to compete. But this report shows that it makes no more sense to shut down or burden food trucks or carts with anti-competitive regulations under the guise of food safety than it would to shut down or burden restaurants, hotels or grocery stores. It shouldn't be surprising that food trucks and carts are just as clean and sanitary as restaurants. Both business models rely on repeat customers, and few people are going to eat twice at a place that made them ill. With the rise of social media like Yelp, word of mouth about a business—whether good or bad—spreads further and more quickly than ever before. And one advantage of food trucks and carts is that it is easier to watch as your food is being prepared—something you simply cannot do at most restaurants. So consumers can rest assured that food trucks and carts are as clean as restau- rants, and in fact are often more so. For those policymakers concerned about health and safety, they should ensure—through inspections—that mobile food vendors are held to the same sani- tation standards as restaurants.19 In this way, the public can enjoy food from ven- dors that is both delicious and safe while allowing entrepreneurship and economic growth to thrive. Ifl THE SEUEf CITIES STUDIED HERE, STREETIMEUERY BIT AS SAFE AS FOOD FROM A RESTAURAf1T. THE fOTIOf THAT FOOD TRUCHS HD CARTS ARE UASAFE IS SImP1Y A MYTH. nppEulu no UufUls To isolate the influence of establishment types (j3) on the inspection scores (Y) received, these analyses measured differences using OLS regression with fixed -ef- fects. Inspection scores were regressed on establishment types and dummy variables representing day of the week (0), month (X) and year (Q). Weekday, month and year reveal variability of inspections across time. Seattle and Washington, D.C., include a risk variable (W), which those cities use to identify the potential risk associated with an establishment dependent on the manner in which it prepares and serves food. For example, high-risk categories include establish- ments that handle raw ingredients extensively, like most sit-down restaurants; moder- ate -risk categories include establishments that have limited preparation, like a deli or coffee shop; and low-risk categories include establishments such as hot dog stands and convenience stores that primarily serve prepackaged or limited preparation foods. An establishment can be inspected once or multiple times in one year with little consistency across establishments. Additionally, the type of food served at or from an establishment determines the level of detail required during a health inspection, which means not all the inspection categories apply to every establishment. The establish- ment fixed effect (cD) isolates and eliminates the individual specific differences.20 Because sanitation scores are a count of the number of violations during an inspection and most inspections have few violations, a Poisson regression was also used. As with the OLS, inspection scores were regressed on establishment types and the time dummy variables. Standard errors were clustered by establishment to account for multiple inspections per business. The following is the OLS model for Boston: Y=130+rl (restaurants)+132 (other)+O+X+52+cD+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(30+(31 (restaurants)+132 (other)+O+X+52 "Y" represents inspection demerits with zero or no demerits being the best score. The reference year is 2011 with the analysis covering 2011 through July 2013. j31 represents the coefficient for restaurants, and 32 represents the coefficient for grocery stores, cafete- rias, caterers, etc. The models were run separately for food trucks and carts. The OLS model for Las Vegas is: Y=130+rl (restaurants)+132 (other)+O+X+52+cD+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(30+(31 (restaurants)+132 (other)+O+X+52 "Y" represents inspection demerits with zero or no demerits being the best score and up to 100 demerits being the worst score. The reference year is 2009 with the analysis covering 2009 through July 2012. j31 represents the coefficient for restau- rants, and j32 represents the coefficient for grocery stores, processors, cafeterias, etc. The models were run separately for food trucks and carts. The OLS model for Los Angeles is: Y=130+rl (restaurants)+O+X+52+cD+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(30+(31 (restaurants)+O+X+52 "Y" represents inspection demerits where zero is the best possible score.21 The analysis is from 2009 (the reference year) through July 2012. j31 represents the coef- ficient for restaurants. The models were run separately for food trucks and carts. The following is the OLS model for Louisville: Y=(30+(31 (restaurants)+132 (other)+O+X+52+cD+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(30+(31 (restaurants)+132 (other)+O+X+52 "Y" represents inspection demerits.22 The reference year is 2010 with the analysis covering 2010 through July 2013. j31 represents the coefficient for restaurants, and j32 29 represents the coefficient for grocery stores, cafeterias, caterers, etc. The OLS model for Miami is: Y=130+r1 (restaurants)+O+X+52+cD+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(30+131 (restaurants)+O+X+52 "Y" is the number of violations coded consistent with the other cities above, and [31 represents the coefficient for restaurants. The analysis is from 2008 (the reference year) through July 2012. The OLS model for Seattle is: Y=(30+(31 (restaurants)+132 (hotels)+O+X+52+'P+cD+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(30+(31 (restaurants)+132 (hotels)+O+X+52+'P "Y" is the number of inspection demerits with zero being the best possible score. The reference year is 2009 with the analysis covering 2009 through July 2012. R1 represents the coefficient for restaurants, and j32 represents the coefficient for hotels. Seattle also has a risk rank fixed effect (W). Seattle ranks establishments that sell pre-packaged food with limited preparation as the lowest, one, and establishments with complex food preparation and storage as the highest, three. The OLS model for Washington, D.C. is: Y=130+rl (restaurants)+132 (other)+O+X+52+IP+cD+E The Poisson model is: In (Y)=(30+(31 (restaurants)+132 (other)+O+X+52+'P "Y" is the number of violations. The analysis was run for 2011 and 2012. R1 represents the coefficient for restaurants, caterers, cafeterias and hotels, and j32 rep- resents the coefficient for grocery stores, corner stores and wholesalers. Like Seattle, Washington, D.C. has a risk rank fixed effect (W) based on the District's ranking of establishments, where one is the least risky and five is the riskiest. RPPEFr1IDX 3: MESSDOfl OUTPUT Table 15. Boston Food Trucks OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 1.872 0.253 0.00 0.527 0.107 0.00 Other -0.187 0.251 0.46 -0.020 0.109 0.86 1 Weekday 1111 Tuesday -1.399 0.909 0.12 -0.261 0.287 0.36 Wednesday -1.514 0.906 0.10 -0.284 0.287 0.32 Thursday -1.523 0.907 0.09 -0.298 0.287 0.30 Friday -1.413 0.908 0.12 -0.240 0.287 0.40 Saturday -1.447 0.907 0.11 -0.253 0.287 0.38 Sunday -2.507 0.944 0.01 -0.867 0.324 0.01 Month wall February -0.046 0.117 0.69 -0.094 0.040 0.02 March 0.329 0.126 0.01 0.095 0.039 0.02 April 0.088 0.135 0.51 0.058 0.041 0.16 May 0.284 0.126 0.02 0.138 0.037 0.00 June -0.077 0.133 0.57 0.006 0.040 0.89 July -0.517 0.130 0.00 -0.111 0.042 0.01 August -0.140 0.132 0.29 -0.021 0.042 0.62 September -0.402 0.123 0.00 -0.151 0.043 0.00 October -0.153 0.128 0.23 -0.027 0.041 0.51 November -0.341 0.141 0.02 -0.027 0.044 0.54 December _imiiii0.273 0.152 0.07 0.009 0.048 0.85 II Year 111 2012 0.461 0.095 0.00 0.148 0.028 0.00 2013 0.335 0.116 0.00 0.129 0.034 0.00 Intercept 3.529 0.978 0.00 1.178 0.315 0.00 sigma_u 2.471 sigma_e 3.012 rho 0.402 32 Table 16. Boston Carts OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 3.391 0.092 0.00 1.580 0.079 0.00 Other 1.334 0.087 0.00 1.033 0.082 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.231 0.149 0.12 0.438 0.171 0.01 Wednesday 0.123 0.147 0.40 0.415 0.171 0.02 Thursday 0.118 0.147 0.42 0.404 0.171 0.02 Friday 0.226 0.147 0.13 0.462 0.171 0.01 Saturday 0.181 0.148 0.22 0.447 0.171 0.01 Sunday -0.353 0.222 0.11 -0.099 0.235 0.67 . Month inillli February -0.032 0.115 0.78 -0.090 0.040 0.03 March 0.358 0.126 0.00 0.101 0.039 0.01 April 0.102 0.131 0.44 0.058 0.041 0.16 May 0.269 0.122 0.03 0.135 0.037 0.00 June -0.058 0.129 0.65 0.012 0.040 0.76 July -0.492 0.126 0.00 -0.111 0.042 0.01 August -0.145 0.127 0.25 -0.031 0.042 0.47 September -0.393 0.122 0.00 -0.150 0.043 0.00 October -0.160 0.127 0.21 -0.027 0.041 0.50 November -0.330 0.138 0.02 -0.033 0.044 0.45 December -0.231 0.150 0.12 0.017 0.048 0.73 Year Allilli 11 .1. 2012 0.450 0.092 0.00 0.145 0.028 0.00 2013 0.318 0.113 0.01 0.124 0.034 0.00 Intercept 0.387 0.182 0.03 -0.573 0.165 0.00 sigma_u 2.324 sigma_e 2.970 rho 0.380 33 Table 17. Las Vegas Food Trucks OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 3.575 0.287 0.00 0.732 0.096 0.00 Other 1.085 0.286 0.00 0.267 0.096 0.01 Weekday Tuesday 0.375 0.291 0.20 0.113 0.055 0.04 Wednesday 0.191 0.291 0.51 0.078 0.055 0.15 Thursday 0.123 0.290 0.67 0.064 0.055 0.24 Friday 0.048 0.290 0.87 0.051 0.055 0.35 Saturday -0.371 0.289 0.20 -0.026 0.055 0.63 Sunday -0.239 0.310 0.44 -0.051 0.060 0.39 . Month February -0.064 0.079 0.42 -0.006 0.015 0.68 March -0.161 0.079 0.04 -0.022 0.015 0.15 April -0.105 0.085 0.22 -0.015 0.016 0.37 May 0.030 0.088 0.74 0.015 0.016 0.36 June -0.055 0.082 0.50 0.003 0.016 0.83 July 0.166 0.087 0.06 0.040 0.016 0.01 August 0.322 0.095 0.00 0.076 0.018 0.00 September 0.028 0.086 0.74 0.013 0.017 0.44 October -0.176 0.087 0.04 -0.020 0.017 0.25 November 0.100 0.102 0.33 0.035 0.019 0.07 December -0.124 0.104 0.23 -0.007 0.020 0.72 IL Year ANMIIMI liMillili. 2010 0.107 0.039 0.01 0.021 0.008 0.01 2011 0.544 0.045 0.00 0.100 0.009 0.00 2012 1.306 0.060 0.00 0.231 0.011 0.00 Intercept 2.758 0.409 0.00 1.073 0.111 0.00 sigma_u 1.578 sigma_e 5.558 rho 0.075 34 Table 18. Las Vegas Carts OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 4.711 0.112 0.00 1.214 0.054 0.00 Other 2.221 0.110 0.00 0.748 0.055 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.359 0.276 0.19 0.110 0.054 0.04 Wednesday 0.181 0.275 0.51 0.076 0.054 0.16 Thursday 0.118 0.275 0.67 0.063 0.054 0.24 Friday 0.038 0.275 0.89 0.049 0.054 0.36 Saturday -0.362 0.274 0.19 -0.026 0.054 0.62 Sunday -0.204 0.295 0.49 -0.044 0.059 0.46 . Month 111111 111=111.111.1 February -0.061 0.078 0.43 -0.005 0.015 0.71 March -0.160 0.078 0.04 -0.022 0.015 0.14 April -0.106 0.084 0.20 -0.015 0.016 0.34 May 0.038 0.087 0.67 0.016 0.016 0.32 June -0.049 0.081 0.54 0.004 0.015 0.82 July 0.176 0.086 0.04 0.042 0.016 0.01 August 0.340 0.094 0.00 0.080 0.018 0.00 September 0.059 0.085 0.49 0.019 0.017 0.25 October -0.170 0.087 0.05 -0.019 0.017 0.26 November 0.130 0.100 0.19 0.041 0.019 0.03 December -0.107 0.103 0.30 -0.003 0.020 0.88 Year 2010 0.107 0.038 0.01 0.021 0.008 0.01 2011 0.549 0.044 0.00 0.103 0.009 0.00 2012 1.300 0.059 0.00 0.233 0.011 0.00 Intercept 1.618 0.294 0.00 0.591 0.076 0.00 sigma_u 1.569 sigma_e 5.524 rho 0.075 35 Table 19. Los Angeles Food Trucks OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 4.484 0.143 0.00 0.786 0.049 0.00 WeekdayIL Tuesday -0.313 0.424 0.46 0.145 0.074 0.05 Wednesday -0.233 0.421 0.58 0.145 0.074 0.05 Thursday -0.187 0.420 0.66 0.144 0.074 0.05 Friday -0.242 0.421 0.57 0.133 0.074 0.07 Saturday -0.206 0.426 0.63 0.122 0.074 0.10 Sunday 1.110 0.516 0.03 0.248 0.089 0.01 II Month February 0.124 0.115 0.28 0.012 0.017 0.45 March 0.101 0.097 0.30 0.018 0.015 0.23 April 0.041 0.102 0.69 0.006 0.015 0.71 May -0.021 0.097 0.83 -0.006 0.014 0.70 June 0.081 0.110 0.46 0.018 0.016 0.26 July 0.251 0.128 0.05 0.030 0.018 0.10 August 0.326 0.123 0.01 0.033 0.018 0.06 September 0.533 0.121 0.00 0.069 0.017 0.00 October 0.282 0.135 0.04 0.025 0.019 0.19 November 0.104 0.132 0.43 0.011 0.019 0.55 December -0.141 0.120 0.24 -0.004 0.018 0.81 Year 2010 -0.402 0.067 0.00 -0.056 0.009 0.00 2011 -0.701 0.070 0.00 -0.094 0.010 0.00 2012 -0.829 0.090 0.00 -0.102 0.013 0.00 Intercept 3.721 0.450 0.00 1.178 0.091 0.00 sigma_u 2.430 sigma_e 4.633 rho 0.216 36 Table 20. Los Angeles Carts OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 5.648 0.237 0.00 1.214 0.105 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.254 0.393 0.52 0.264 0.074 0.00 Wednesday 0.440 0.391 0.26 0.275 0.073 0.00 Thursday 0.436 0.391 0.26 0.268 0.073 0.00 Friday 0.443 0.390 0.26 0.265 0.073 0.00 Saturday 0.402 0.394 0.31 0.245 0.074 0.00 Sunday 0.843 0.492 0.09 a 0.265 0.091 0.00 II Month February 0.130 0.116 0.26 0.013 0.016 0.43 March 0.131 0.097 0.18 0.020 0.015 0.16 April 0.040 0.101 0.69 0.005 0.015 0.74 May 0.024 0.097 0.80 0.000 0.014 0.98 June 0.232 0.111 0.04 0.037 0.016 0.02 July 0.321 0.132 0.02 0.036 0.018 0.05 August 0.342 0.126 0.01 0.032 0.018 0.07 September 0.452 0.119 0.00 0.058 0.017 0.00 October 0.289 0.138 0.04 0.025 0.019 0.20 November 0.034 0.123 0.79 0.003 0.017 0.85 December -0.155 0.121 0.20 -0.004 0.018 0.84 Yearall . 11111.11u 2010 -0.468 0.069 0.00 -0.064 0.009 0.00 2011 -0.849 0.070 0.00 -0.113 0.010 0.00 2012 -0.958 0.091 0.00 -0.118 0.012 0.00 Intercept 1.996 0.458 0.00 0.635 0.127 0.00 sigma_u 2.454 sigma_e 4.520 rho 0.228 3? Table 21. Louisville Mobile Vendors (Trucks and Carts) OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 2.441 0.164 0.00 0.826 0.076 0.00 Other 1.354 0.166 0.00 0.596 0.077 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.200 0.243 0.41 0.030 0.112 0.79 Wednesday 0.177 0.247 0.47 0.024 0.113 0.83 Thursday 0.102 0.246 0.68 0.016 0.112 0.89 Friday 0.095 0.256 0.71 -0.017 0.114 0.88 Saturday -0.019 0.273 0.94 -0.051 0.117 0.67 Sunday -0.044 0.215 0.84 -0.101 0.116 0.39 Month dill= Oa February 0.000 0.101 1.00 0.023 0.032 0.46 March -0.158 0.095 0.10 -0.058 0.032 0.07 April 0.151 0.141 0.28 0.069 0.035 0.05 May 0.208 0.188 0.27 0.067 0.043 0.12 June 0.060 0.113 0.60 0.027 0.030 0.37 July 0.009 0.097 0.93 0.009 0.029 0.75 August -0.356 0.222 0.11 -0.090 0.079 0.26 September 0.201 0.117 0.09 0.107 0.033 0.00 October 0.070 0.112 0.53 -0.009 0.034 0.80 November -0.099 0.103 0.34 -0.040 0.032 0.21 December -0.060 0.106 0.58 0.005 0.033 0.88 Yea_ 2010 0.719 0.073 0.00 0.201 0.026 0.00 2011 0.606 0.113 0.00 0.160 0.037 0.00 2012 0.282 0.068 0.00 0.062 0.025 0.01 Intercept 1.352 0.346 0.00 0.523 0.137 0.00 sigma_u 1.913 sigma_e 3.729 rho momii 0.208 30 Table 22. Miami Mobile Vendors (Trucks and Carts) OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 4.191 0.126 0.00 0.773 0.032 0.00 WeekdayIL Tuesday 2.922 0.378 0.00 0.868 0.105 0.00 Wednesday 2.524 0.371 0.00 0.826 0.105 0.00 Thursday 2.606 0.372 0.00 0.841 0.105 0.00 Friday 2.529 0.377 0.00 0.826 0.105 0.00 Saturday 2.205 0.374 0.00 0.775 0.105 0.00 Sunday 0.732 0.515 0.16 0.354 0.136 0.01 II Month 111111MAI February 0.308 0.211 0.15 0.060 0.029 0.04 March 0.228 0.218 0.29 0.052 0.029 0.07 April -0.482 0.212 0.02 -0.042 0.031 0.18 May -1.080 0.213 0.00 -0.106 0.031 0.00 June -1.730 0.201 0.00 -0.255 0.031 0.00 July -0.215 0.231 0.35 -0.011 0.030 0.72 August -0.391 0.241 0.11 -0.023 0.032 0.47 September -0.565 0.239 0.02 -0.054 0.032 0.09 October -0.522 0.242 0.03 -0.053 0.032 0.10 November -0.598 0.272 0.03 -0.049 0.036 0.17 December -0.852 0.257 0.00 -0.107 0.035 0.00 Year 2009 -1.368 0.151 0.00 -0.154 0.017 0.00 2010 -1.487 0.225 0.00 -0.175 0.027 0.00 2011 -3.323 0.150 0.00 -0.435 0.019 0.00 2012 -3.495 0.213 0.00 -0.466 0.027 0.00 Intercept 3.533 0.438 0.00 0.761 0.112 0.00 sigma_u 2.877 sigma_e 6.570 rho 0.161 39 Table 23. Seattle Mobile Vendors (Trucks and Carts) OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants -1.505 1.368 0.27 -0.094 0.111 0.40 Hotels -6.893 1.589 0.00 -0.915 0.191 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.103 2.951 0.97 0.292 0.256 0.25 Wednesday -0.849 2.963 0.77 0.264 0.256 0.30 Thursday -0.251 2.980 0.93 0.270 0.257 0.29 Friday 0.741 2.964 0.80 0.387 0.257 0.13 Saturday -0.596 3.003 0.84 0.279 0.257 0.28 Sunday vie-0.315 3.358 0.93 0.120 0.283 0.67 . Month IIMIIII February -1.626 0.934 0.08 -0.085 0.070 0.22 March 0.898 0.932 0.34 0.102 0.078 0.19 April -2.009 0.894 0.03 -0.113 0.067 0.09 May -3.274 0.893 0.00 -0.286 0.072 0.00 June -2.652 1.026 0.01 -0.158 0.073 0.03 July -0.298 1.232 0.81 0.011 0.099 0.92 August -1.090 1.257 0.39 -0.028 0.090 0.76 September -5.733 1.042 0.00 -0.400 0.083 0.00 October -6.436 1.009 0.00 -0.522 0.093 0.00 November -5.098 0.976 0.00 -0.428 0.083 0.00 December -5.743 0.982 0.00 -0.409 0.084 0.00 Year 2010 -0.135 0.621 0.83 0.007 0.056 0.90 2011 -0.801 0.585 0.17 -0.006 0.054 0.91 2012 -0.318 0.745 0.67 0.061 0.060 0.31 riMsk Rank 2 -3.243 0.822 0.00 -0.567 0.140 0.00 2/3 -8.459 1.727 0.00 -1.243 0.347 0.00 3 5.419 0.760 0.00 0.506 0.104 0.00 Intercept 12.828 3.140 0.00 2.313 0.267 0.00 sigma_u 8.730 sigma_e 15.340 rho 0.245 40 Table 24. Washington, D.C., Mobile Vendors (Trucks and Carts) OLS Poisson Coefficient Robust SE p Coefficient Robust SE p Restaurants 1.630 0.151 0.00 0.661 0.088 0.00 Other 1.550 0.169 0.00 0.636 0.092 0.00 Weekday Tuesday 0.732 0.918 0.43 0.224 0.305 0.46 Wednesday 0.837 0.913 0.36 0.325 0.148 0.03 Thursday 0.641 0.912 0.48 0.370 0.148 0.01 Friday 0.945 0.917 0.30 0.329 0.148 0.03 Saturday 0.739 0.919 0.42 0.399 0.148 0.01 Sunday 0.859 1.575 0.59 0.327 0.148 0.03 Month ‘ rr IiMillilk February 0.113 0.258 0.66 0.248 0.182 0.17 March -0.024 0.248 0.92 -0.006 0.059 0.93 April 0.021 0.255 0.94 0.025 0.034 0.45 May 0.061 0.233 0.79 -0.013 0.032 0.67 June -0.142 0.241 0.56 -0.017 0.033 0.60 July 0.337 0.263 0.20 -0.006 0.032 0.85 August 0.396 0.246 0.11 -0.021 0.034 0.53 September -0.287 0.243 0.24 0.069 0.033 0.04 October -0.349 0.230 0.13 0.065 0.031 0.04 November -0.418 0.230 0.07 -0.089 0.033 0.01 December -0.524 0.252 0.04 -0.104 0.032 0.00 II Year 2012 -0.586 0.088alliiiimill .0.00 0.147 0.033 0.00 Risk Rank 2 0.489 0.192 0.01 -0.174 0.035 0.00 3 1.344 0.193 0.00 0.374 0.063 0.00 4 2.051 0.273 0.00 -0.164 0.012 0.00 5 -0.162 0.472 0.73 -0.046 0.168 0.78 Intercept 1.110 0.934 0.23 0.168 0.055 0.00 sigma_u 0.000 sigma_e 4.719 rho 0.000 41 EflIflOTES Public Broadcasting Service. "Timeline of the Great Depression." http://www. pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/fea- tures/timeline/rails-timeline/. http://www.wave3.com/ story/22818583/health-department- worried-about-food-truck-saniation- safety. http://www.wave3.com/ story/22818583/health-department- worried-about-food-truck-saniation- safety. Norman, E., Frommer, R., Gall, B., & Knepper, L. (July 2011) "Streets of dreams: How cities can create eco- nomic opportunity by knocking down protectionist barriers to street vending." Institute for Justice: Arlington, VA. Initially Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle and Washington D.C. were cho- sen from the 50 largest cities in the U.S. because their sanitation records were accessible and included ways to distin- guish by establishment type. Later both Boston and Louisville were added after news reports suggested that food trucks 42 performed worse than restaurants during inspections. 3 Local codes are governed by state sanitation laws, which are mainly con- cerned with cleanliness, food sourcing and storage, food temperatures and employee health and knowledge. They also address vermin, refuse, consumer protection, utensils and equipment. Additionally, the seven municipalities studied all require food -truck and cart owners to work out of a commissary— shared commercial kitchen—where they must store food, containers and supplies as well as prepare food, clean utensils and dispose of liquid and solid waste. The commissaries, like restaurants and mobile vendors, must pass periodic health inspections to remain open. In Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville and Seattle, violations are given demerit values depending on the severity of the violation. For example, a foodborne violation may have a demerit of five whereas a business practice violation may have a demerit of one. In these cities, the sum of the demerits is the number provided by the agencies and is reported here as number of violations. 6 Analyses controlled for when an establishment was inspected—day of the week, month and year—because variations may occur with higher traffic and lower traffic days and with sea- sonal and yearly fluctuations in demand, weather, foods, pests and other fac- tors. The analyses also controlled for each individual establishment because some businesses may be inspected more often or have consistent issues based on something other than the type of food establishment they are. The analyses for Seattle and Washington, D.C., also controlled for risk categories assigned by the cities. These categories are assigned based on establishments' methods of food preparation and deliv- ery—pre-packaged versus fresh food, ice cream versus warm lunch entrees and so forth. Analyses controlled for these categories so that an abundance of high-risk, and therefore potentially high -violation, establishments in one category would not skew results. 3 The Poisson regression is commonly used for analyzing count data, which we have here (i.e., counts of viola- tions). However, the results of OLS regression tend to be easier to under- stand and are included here for ease of interpretation. The full regression output for mod- els in Boston, Miami and Washington, D.C., using the numbers of critical and non-critical violations can be supplied upon request. 11 The full regression output for the models using the number of critical foodborne, critical and non-critical violations sepa- rately can be supplied upon request. 1? The number of violations here is actually the number of reported demer- its, where more severe violations receive more demerits. 13 The number of violations here is actu- ally the number of reported demerits, where more severe violations receive more demerits. i,=. The number of violations here is actu- ally the number of reported demerits, where more severe violations receive more demerits. `= The full regression output for the models using the number of critical and non-critical violations separately can be supplied upon request. 16 The number of violations here is actu- ally the number of reported demerits, where more severe violations receive more demerits. 43 1? The full regression output for the models using the number of critical and non-critical violations separately can be supplied upon request. 18 http://fatlip.leoweekly. com/2013/07/26/inspection-scores- suggest-Louisville-food-trucks-arent-as- sca ry-as-wave3-th i n ks/. 19 For more information on good food - truck laws see: Frommer, R. & Gall, B. (November 2012) "Food -truck freedom: How to build better food -truck laws in your city." Institute for Justice: Arling- ton, VA; http://ij.org/vending. 44 20 The OLS models were also run with- out the establishment fixed effects and the Poisson models were run with establishment fixed effects. The results of these models were not appreciably different from the ones used in this report. These results can be provided upon request. 21 These values were transformed from the original grade that removes demer- its from 100. 22 These values were transformed from the original grade that removes demerits from 100. 45 fl3ELR C. EDCSOfl Angela C. Erickson is a research analyst at the Insti- tute for Justice, where she works with the strategic research team conducting original social science research. Before joining IJ, Erickson was a research assistant at the Cato Institute. She holds a Master's in Public Policy from the University of Chicago and received a Bachelor's degree in economics and political science from Beloit College. The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, public interest law firm that litigates to secure economic liberty, school choice, private property rights, freedom of speech and other vital individual liberties and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government. Founded in 1991, IJ is the nation's only libertarian public interest law firm, pursuing cutting-edge litigation in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion on behalf of individuals whose most basic rights are denied by the government. The Institute's strategic research program produces high-quality research to inform public policy debates on issues central to IJ's mission. Institute for Justice 901 N. Glebe Road Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 www.ij.org p 703.682.9320 f 703.682.9321 5/14/2019 Fort Pierce Food Trucks k INSTITUTE I ffirJUSTICE LITIGATION BACKGROUNDER Fort Pierce Food Trucks Attachment 3 Food Truck Owners Challenge One of the Most Anti - Competitive Vending Restrictions in the Country Fort Pierce's business owners keep inviting food truck owners Benny Diaz and Brian Peffer to set up on their properties. The business owners know that legions of fans follow Benny's Taco Trap and Brian's Creative Chef on Wheels food trucks everywhere they go. But Benny and Brian cannot accept any invitations to serve food because Fort Pierce's city commission has made operating a food truck within 500 feet of any restaurant a crime. The law bans food trucks, even those on private property, from operating within 500 feet of a restaurant or any business that sells food. Of course, in Fort Pierce, an unlimited number of restaurants can open up next to each other, and food trucks can open up next to as many brick -and -mortar stores as they like, provided that the stores do not sell food. But it is literally a crime for any food truck to ever come within 500 feet of any restaurant. The restriction was enacted at the request of restaurant owners to limit competition, and it has succeeded, making it almost impossible for food trucks to do business there. This law hurts just about everyone in Fort Pierce—citizens who want more food options, property owners who want to invite food trucks onto their properties, and the food truck owners themselves. Consumers love the choices provided in neighboring towns by food truck owners. Whether it is Benigno ("Benny") Diaz's Taco Trap truck or Brian Peffer's Creative Chef on Wheels truck, Fort Pierce's citizens would rather have these food trucks come to them than the other way around. And Benny and Brian would love to do so, just like they do elsewhere. But with all of the viable spots in Fort Pierce banned, that is not an option. What Fort Pierce's city commission is doing is not just wrong, it's unconstitutional. The Florida Constitution prohibits the government from picking winners and losers in the marketplace, which is exactly what this protectionist law does. That's why this group of entrepreneurs has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight for their right to earn an honest living. They have filed a lawsuit asking the court to strike down Fort Pierce's 500 -foot ban for violating the Florida Constitution. Operating a food truck is hard but rewarding work. For many, it is an opportunity to earn an honest living and become self- sufficient. For others, it is a stepping stone to one day opening a restaurant. And for others still, it is a chance to do something they love. The ban on food trucks hurts real people like Benny and Brian. For them, like countless other Americans, opening a food truck has been an entry point for entrepreneurship.[i] Their food truck businesses have allowed them to serve delicious food to hungry consumers without needing a ton of money to get started. And in cities across the country, these https://ij.org/utility/case-print/?case-name=115490 1/3 5/14/2019 Fort Pierce Food Trucks hardworking entrepreneurs are welcomed with open arms.[ii] Take, for example, Benny Diaz. When Benny started using his grandmother's recipes to make unique taco creations at a local restaurant, patrons encouraged him to start his own business. After saving up some money and a lot of preparation, Benny opened his food truck, and his fans were thrilled. Benny's success is a testament to the entrepreneurial spirit, but no matter how badly Fort Pierce property owners and the general public want him there, the city's 500 -foot ban shuts him out. The ban is one of the widest and most draconian in the country, and it exists solely to protect brick -and -mortar restaurants from competition. Unfortunately, Benny and Brian's woes are all too common. While the national trend is in favor of allowing food trucks to give the public what they want,[iii] where they want it, some politicians choose to do the bidding of restaurant owners instead. These outliers, like Fort Pierce's city commission, would rather provide a private benefit to restaurant owners than allow the public to benefit from food trucks.[iv] That's not just wrong, it is unconstitutional. That is why the Institute for Justice (IJ) is teaming up with Benny and Brian to assert a constitutional challenge to Fort Pierce's 500 -foot ban. Fort Pierce's 500 -foot Ban Against Food Trucks Fort Pierce's government is openly hostile to food truck entrepreneurs. The Fort Pierce City Code provides that: "Mobile vending units must comply with the following minimum distance requirements, which shall be measured from the approved vending location to the nearest point of an established property line ... Five hundred (500) feet from a similar type business."[v] Even among the vanishing number of cities that are openly hostile to food trucks, this is one of the largest bans in the nation. In Fort Pierce, a food truck's ability to operate, even on private property at the invitation of the property owner, turns on whether a nearby brick -and -mortar business sells food. Before the city will issue a permit, the code enforcement department sends an officer to the proposed site and personally measures to make sure it is at least 500 feet away from any restaurants. Food trucks that violate the 500 -foot ban face $200 fines per violation[vi] and the revocation of their vending permit[vii] The 500 -foot ban does nothing to protect the public or help consumers. All it does is protect brick -and -mortar restaurants from competition, which is exactly what city commissioners admitted when they passed the law in September 2014. In the words of then -Commissioner Edward Becht, the 500 -foot ban exists because allowing food trucks to compete, and consumers to choose for themselves, would "hurt the brick -and -mortar businesses."[viii] Economic Protectionism Is Not a Legitimate Use of Government Power Fort Pierce's 500 -foot rule is unconstitutional. The Florida Constitution does not allow government officials to use their power in order to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. In the words of the Florida Supreme Court, "one economic group may not have the sovereign power of the state extended to it to the detriment of other citizens."[ix] By enforcing its 500 -foot ban against food trucks, the city is depriving food truck entrepreneurs of their constitutional right to pursue an honest living of their choosing. The Florida Constitution protects the right of individuals to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference. There is no legitimate justification for prohibiting a food truck from operating on a certain block because a brick -and -mortar business located almost two football fields away also sells food. The 500 -foot ban unfairly protects restaurants and other brick -and -mortar eating establishments from healthy competition, all while hamstringing job creation, depriving consumers of choice, and preventing property owners from deciding how best to use their property. Simply put, the government cannot impose burdens on food truck entrepreneurs for no legitimate reason. And limiting competition is not a legitimate reason. Under the Florida Constitution, the customers themselves, not the government, get to decide where the customers get their lunch. The Plaintiffs Benny Diaz https://ij.org/utility/case-print/?case-name=115490 2/3 5/14/2019 Fort Pierce Food Trucks Benny Diaz owns and operates the "Taco Trap" food truck. He started out making his unique tacos from his grandmother's recipes at a local restaurant, where the patrons encouraged him to start his own business. With a little start-up capital, a lot of passion, and a great -tasting product, he started his food truck to meet the demand of local consumers. Benny and his fans would like nothing more than for him to offer his tacos inside Fort Pierce just like he does in other towns, but the 500 -foot ban effectively prevents him from doing so. Brian Peffer Brian Peffer owns and operates "Creative Chef on Wheels." Brian's claim to fame is that regardless of what is on his menu, he can, and will, come up with any variation the customer requires to satisfy their tastes or dietary restrictions. Brian has been all over the world, working in the culinary industry as he traveled, and he has brought those skills home to provide a creative food truck experience. Brian simply wants to compete to provide his customers with the best food and service he can, but the 500 -foot ban stops him from competing before he gets the chance. The Defendants The Defendants are the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, along with its Mayor, all members of the City Commission, and Code Compliance Manager Peggy Arraiz, all of whom are named in their official capacities. The City Commission passed and enacted Fort Pierce's 500 -foot ban in September 2014. IJ's National Street Vending Initiative IJ's National Street Vending Initiative vindicates the right of street vendors to earn an honest living by fighting unconstitutional vending restrictions in courts of law and the court of public opinion. As it has done across the country (https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/vending/), IJ stands ready to challenge these anticompetitive restrictions, and it will help street vendors oppose attempts to use unconstitutional protectionist laws to shut them down. The Litigation Team The litigation team consists of IJ Florida Office Managing Attorney Justin Pearson and IJ Constitutional Law Fellow Dane Stu h lsatz. [i] Bonnie Berkowitz et al., What's in a Food Truck?, The Washington Post (May 14, 2018), https://www.wash i ngtonpost.com/graphics/2018/food/food-trucks/? nored i rect=on&utm_term=.559a8644577c. [ii] Lindsay MacNevin, The 12 Best Food Truck Cities in America, EscapeHere, https://www.escapehere.com/i nspiration/the-12-best-food-truck-cities-i n-america/. [iii] America's Food -Truck Industry is Growing Rapidly Despite Roadblocks, The Economist (May 4, 2017), https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai I/2017/05/04/americas-food-truck-industry-is-growing-rapid ly-despite- roadblocks (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/05/04/americas-food-truck-industry-is-growing-rapidly- despite-roadblocks); Jonathan Gold, How America Became a Food Truck Nation, Smithsonian Magazine (Mar. 2012), https://www.smithson ianmag. com/travel/how-america-became-a-food-truck-nation-99979799/. [iv] Kelsie Foreman, From Food Truck to Franchise: The Impact of Mobile Food on Commercial Real Estate, Utah Business (Jul. 7, 2017), https://www. utahbusiness.com/food-truck-franchise-impact-mobile-food-commercial-real-estate/. [v] Fort Pierce, Fla., Code § 9-111(b)(1) (2018). [vi] Id. at § 2-206(a) (2018). [vii] Id. at § 9.95(b) (2018). [viii] Fort Pierce City Council Meeting, Aug. 4, 2014. [ix] See Liquor Store v Continental Distilling Corp., 40 So. 2d 371, 375 (Fla. 1949). https://ij.org/utility/case-print/?case-name=115490 3/3 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 3 Subject: Discuss the addition of language to our ordinances in Section 2.05 which would give the City Manager explicit authority to approve correspondence methods and times between selected City Staff and the City Council. (Council Member Morrison) (Council voted to forgo discussion on May 21, 2019 due to time.) Department: City Clerk's Office Summary: At its May 21, 2019 Regular Meeting, City Council voted unanimously 4-0 to forgo discussion of Agenda Item 10 - Discuss the addition of language to our ordinances in Section 2.05 which would give the City Manager explicit authority to approve correspondence methods and times between selected City Staff and the City Council. (Council Member Morrison), due to the time/lateness of the hour. The May 21, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting was adjourned before any discussion took place regarding this Item. Council may now decide to discuss the Item. Submitting Department Director: Mia Goforth Date: 6/10/19 Attachment: Copy of the original Agenda Item 10 from the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 - Discuss the addition of language to our ordinances in Section 2.05 which would give the City Manager explicit authority to approve correspondence methods and times between selected City Staff and the City Council. (Council Member Morrison) ATTACHMENT City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 05/21/2019 Item No. 10 Subject: Discuss the addition of language to our ordinances in Section 2.05 which would give the City Manager explicit authority to approve correspondence methods and times between selected City Staff and the City Council. Department: City Council Summary: The Mayor and or City Council Members may have been instructed by the City Manager and or other Staff to communicate directly with certain personnel on a variety of City related business matters. While the intent may be in good, the City Code states the following regarding Prohibitions for the City Council: Section 2.05 (c.) Interference with administration. Except for the purposes of inquiries and investigations under section 2.09, the city council or its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction of the supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager, and neither the city council nor its members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately. To improve correspondence and eliminate the risk of confusion between the Mayor, City Council, City Manager and or City Staff by communicating in a way which may result in a violation of the City Ordinances. We may consider working with the City Attorney and Staff to provide language in our ordinances that gives the City Manager the explicit authority to approve certain correspondence methods and times between selected City Staff and Mayor and the City Council. A proposed amendment to the ordinance could be as follows. (d.) The City Manager may provide an authorization form to the Mayor, City Council and Staff which would need to be signed by all parties involved on any approved communication times and formats. Submitting Council Member: Wes Morrison Date: 5/9/2019 Recommendation to Mayor & City Council: Direct the City Attorney to provide language in our ordinances that gives the City Manager the explicit authority to approve correspondence methods and times between selected City Staff and the City Council. Attachment(s): None City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 4 Subject: Ordinance No. 10-2019; amending the City Code regarding the payment of impact fees; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, second reading. Department: Community Development Summary: As discussed at the 2019 Strategic Planning Retreat on March 27, 2019, Staff has prepared the attached Ordinance to shift the timing of impact fee payment to the time of building permit issuance. One of the customary costs of developing/redeveloping property throughout Florida, including Cape Canaveral, is the payment of impact fees. Currently the City collects impact fees for the provision of sewer, library, general government, police and fire/rescue and parks and recreation services. The City collects transportation impact fees on behalf of Brevard County for projects within City limits. Impact fees are collected so that new development pays its equitable share of public improvements that must be constructed to serve new growth. The City currently collects impact fees when a project is completed and ready to be occupied, which is generally at the point the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). With larger projects in particular, the demands placed on the City are felt in advance of the issuance of a CO. As an example, if a large project is going to generate significant impacts to the local road network or wastewater system, the City may be put in a situation where improvements, over multiple years, are needed to accommodate the proposed project. Continuing with this example, year one (1) would include the design and engineering phase of the required improvements, while the actual construction would occur in year two (2). As indicated above, impact fees are currently not paid until the issuance of a CO. This can delay the City's ability to commence with even the design and engineering of needed infrastructure until after the opening/occupancy of a project. The proposed Ordinance would shift the payment of impact fees to the building permit stage. This occurs early in the development process and would provide the City funding to timely pay for needed public improvements concurrent with infrastructure demands associated with new development. Otherwise, other City revenue sources, such as ad valorem taxes, will continue to be unduly burdened. At its May 21, 2019 Regular meeting, the Council approved Ordinance No. 10-2019, 3-1 at first reading. Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in Florida Today on June 6, 2019. Submitting Department Director: David Dickey `y Date: 6/6/19 Attachment: Ordinance No. 10-2019 Financial Impact: Cost of advertising and codification; Staff time and effort to prepare this Agenda Item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 6/5/19 The City Manager recommends that City Council take the following action: Adopt Ordinance No. 10-2019 on second reading. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene V' Date: 6/6/19 1 ORDINANCE NO. 10-2019 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 4 OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; 5 AMENDING THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE 6 PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR THE 7 REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND 8 RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, 9 SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10 11 WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the State 12 Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by 13 law; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, has previously found 16 and determined it to be in the best interest of the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of the 17 City of Cape Canaveral to establish sewer, library, general government, police, fire and rescue 18 services, and parks and recreation impact fees to require new development to pay their equitable 19 share of public improvements that must be constructed to serve new growth; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the City is legally justified to impose 22 impact fees on new construction pursuant to applicable law. See §163.31801, Florida Statutes; 23 See also, Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000); Contractors 24 and Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, 329 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1976); Wald 25 v. Metropolitan Dade County, 338 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward 26 County, 431 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and 27 28 WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that Section 163.3202(3), Florida Statutes, 29 encourages the use of innovative land development regulations which includes the adoption of 30 "impact fees;" and 31 32 WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that the impact fees required by this Ordinance 33 are necessary to mitigate impacts reasonably attributable to new development; and 34 35 WHEREAS, impact fees, when based on a comprehensive plan and used in conjunction 36 with a sound capital improvement plan, can be an effective tool for ensuring adequate 37 infrastructure to accommodate growth where and when it is anticipated; and 38 39 WHEREAS, the City Council also recognizes that the Florida Legislature has mandated 40 that local government plan comprehensively for future growth and that this regulatory Ordinance is 41 consistent with that mandate. See, e.g., Ch. 163, Fla. Stat.; and 42 43 WHEREAS, new land development activity generates public facility and service demands 44 within the City and it is reasonable to require new development to pay a fair share of the cost of 45 expanding new public facilities and services attributable to new development especially before the 46 increased demands are experienced by the City if possible; and 47 48 WHEREAS, currently the City collects impact fees at the time a certificate of occupancy is 49 issued for the new construction project; and City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No.10-2019 Page 1 of 4 1 2 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to change the payment schedule for impact fees and 3 hereby finds that collecting impact fees after the new construction is ready for occupancy does not 4 generally allow the City to timely pay for public infrastructure required to accommodate the new 5 development and that payment of impact fees sooner, at the time building permits are issued, will 6 generally help the City fund such public improvements concurrently with the public infrastructure 7 demands and needs of new projects without placing an undue burden on other City revenue sources 8 such as ad valorem taxes; and 9 10 WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance that the City Code require that 11 impact fees imposed by the City shall be collected at the time building permits are issued for new 12 construction; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds 15 this Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of 16 Cape Canaveral. 17 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 19 OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: 20 21 Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this 22 reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape 23 Canaveral. 24 25 Section 2. Code Amendment. Sections 2-234 and 78-122 of the Code of Ordinances, City of 26 Cape Canaveral, Florida, are hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates 27 additions and strikeout type indicates deletions): 28 29 Sec. 2-234. - Payment. 30 (a) The impact fees imposed by this division shall be paid in legal tender unless 31 the city council accepts an in-kind contribution of real or personal property for 32 public use which serves the same public purposes as those for which the impact 33 fees are imposed. Credit for such in-kind contribution shall be based upon the fair 34 market value of that property as of the date the city council accepts such offer of 35 dedication. The appraised value of the property shall be verified by at least one 36 competent independent opinion thereof. 37 (b) All impact fees shall be paid by certified funds at the time of issuance of a 38 building permit the certificate of occupancy for such new construction. 39 40 Sec. 78-122. - Payment. 41 The assessments as set forth in this division shall be paid by certified funds at 42 the time of issuance of a building permit certificate of occupancy for such new 43 construction. Except as provided in section 78-34, a building permit shall not be 44 issued unless a sewer permit has been first obtained. The amount of the assessment 45 shall be determined in accordance with the rates established in section 78-121 in City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 10-2019 Page 2 of 4 1 effect at the time a sewer permit is issued by the city. A sewer permit shall not be 2 issued until a city sewer main line is placed within 150 feet of the applicant's 3 property. If the assessment is not paid by the 30th day following that for which a 4 billing has been rendered, then an amount equal to five percent of such assessment 5 due shall be added thereto as a late charge. Upon failure of any user to pay for the 6 assessment within 60 days from being billed, the city shall shut off or cause to be 7 shut off the connection of such user and shall not furnish him or permit him to 8 receive from the system further service until all obligations owed by him to the city 9 on account of the services shall have been paid in full. If such sewer service is shut 10 off pursuant to this section, then before such service shall be restored, the user 11 thereof shall pay a reinstatement fee in the amount as set forth in Appendix B to 12 this Code in addition to any other assessments and charges due. In addition [to], 13 and as an alternative means of, collecting such assessment, late charges and 14 penalties, the city shall have a lien on such lot or parcel of land for which the sewer 15 connection has been made, for which such lien shall be of equal dignity with the 16 lien of state and county and municipal taxes. Such lien may be foreclosed by the 17 city in the same manner provided by the laws of the state for the foreclosure of 18 mortgages upon real estate. 19 20 Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior 21 inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of prior ordinances 22 and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. 23 24 Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Cape 25 Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be 26 changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and 27 like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the 28 construction or meaning of this Ordinance and the City Code may be freely made. 29 30 Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or 31 provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of 32 competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural or any other reason, such portion shall 33 be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the 34 validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. 35 36 Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon 37 adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. 38 39 40 41 42 [Adoption Page Follows] 43 44 45 46 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 10-2019 Page 3 of 4 1 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral,Florida, this 18th day of June, 2 2019. 3 4 5 6 Bob Hoog, Mayor 7 8 ATTEST: For Against 9 10 Mike Brown 11 12 Mia Goforth, CMC Robert Hoog 13 City Clerk 14 Wes Morrison 15 First Reading: May 21, 2019 16 Advertisement: June 6, 2019 Rocky Randels 17 Second Reading: June 18, 2019 18 Angela Raymond 19 20 Approved as to legal form and sufficiency 21 for the City of Cape Canaveral only by: 22 23 24 Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 10-2019 Page 4 of 4 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 5 Subject: Ordinance No. 11-2019; regarding Code Enforcement procedures; providing for a Special Magistrate Code Enforcement process; updating the procedures related to the Criminal Nuisance Abatement Board authorized by Section 893.138, Florida Statutes; adopting conforming amendments; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions, incorporation into the Code, severability and an effective date, second reading. Department: Community Development (CD) Summary: At its August 21, 2018 Budget Workshop, City Council expressed interest in making policy revisions to augment current Code Enforcement tools, to include adoption of the most recent edition of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and the implementation of a Code Enforcement Special Magistrate (Magistrate) system. On February 19, 2019, Council - through the adoption of Ordinance No. 05-2019 - adopted the 2018 edition of the IPMC, which calls for the appointment of one or more Magistrates. This action signaled the policy decision to implement a Magistrate system with respect to the City's Code Enforcement program. To this end and in fulfillment of the Council's direction, Ordinance No. 11-2019 (Attached) has been prepared by the City Attorney. Section 162.03, Florida Statutes, expressly permits a municipality to designate Magistrates to conduct Code Enforcement proceedings and they shall have the same status as an enforcement board. In general, Magistrates shall have jurisdiction to enforce building, zoning, land development and other non -criminal local government ordinances that safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the City. Magistrates will retain wide latitude in their investigative duties to discover facts, hold hearings and draw conclusions. The Magistrate shall have the power to: • adopt administrative rules for the efficient conduct of hearings; • subpoena alleged violators and witnesses for hearings; • subpoena evidence deemed relevant to hearings; • take testimony under oath; • assess and order the payment of civil penalties; and • issue orders having the force of law. Minimum qualifications for the selected Magistrate include the following: • Member of the Florida Bar in good standing for five or more years; • Must demonstrate satisfactory knowledge of municipal law and the general procedures for enforcement of municipal codes; • Not be a City employee or officer; and • Must demonstrate a temperament suitable for the exercise of quasi-judicial powers. The Ordinance abolishes the current Code Enforcement Board (Board) (Section 4 of the Ordinance). However, the Ordinance maintains a provision for Code Enforcement Boards, if the City Council decides someday to reestablish the board by subsequent resolution (see Article VI, Division 2). Any reference to only a Magistrate or Board in the Code shall be used City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 5 Page 2 of 3 interchangeably. Cases that are currently being processed by Code Enforcement Staff/Board will be transitioned to the Magistrate as appropriate (Section 5 of the Ordinance). Upon request of a Code Enforcement Officer, the Magistrate may conduct a meeting to hear cases on the agenda for that day. All hearings are open to the public and the City will provide clerical personnel as is required. Cases will be presented by a Code Enforcement Officer. All testimony will be given under oath and shall be recorded. The burden of proof shall be upon the City to show, by a preponderance of evidence, that a violation exists. The Magistrate shall take testimony from the Code Enforcement Officer, alleged violator and any relevant witnesses. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern these hearings. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Magistrate shall issue findings of fact, based on the evidence and conclusions of law, and shall issue an order. The order shall be announced orally at the hearing and shall be reduced to writing and mailed to the alleged violator. The order may be recorded in the public records. An aggrieved party may appeal a final order of the Magistrate within 30 days. All appeals shall be filed to the circuit court. A request for satisfaction, release or reduction of a Code Enforcement lien shall be considered by the City Council. To improve the existing Code Enforcement section of Code and to avoid redundancy by repeating the same provisions in the Code Enforcement Board and Special Magistrate Divisions, the ordinance adopts several key general definitions applicable in Divisions 2, 4 and 5 and general procedures and requirements that are applicable to both a Magistrate or Code Enforcement Board (see Article VI, Division 1). Additionally, the Ordinance updates the Criminal Nuisance Abatement Board provisions to fully incorporate statutory changes which broaden the Board's authority regarding violations of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes, and Pain Management Clinic violations (see Article VI, Division 6). This is a useful and specialized Code Enforcement tool. Please note, once the City implements a Special Magistrate system, a separate Criminal Nuisance Abatement Board will need to be established by Council (if there are new cases) as Florida law requires a local board to handle these cases, and does not expressly authorize a Special Magistrate to handle them. A number of conforming amendments are included in the Ordinance to provide for internal consistency within City Code and to reference the alternate Special Magistrate system of enforcing Code. To expedite the implementation of a Magistrate, the City Attorney has prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) with the intention of coordinating the RFP response date and appointment of a Special Magistrate on or about the time the Ordinance is adopted. Subsequent to first reading of the ordinance, the City Attorney has made several small revisions to include proposing that the ordinance go into effect immediately upon adoption by the Council and the addition of Section 2-261 (b) to address the appointment of the Magistrate as well as the transition from the Code Enforcement Board to Magistrate. This new language will be codified in the Code. City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 5 Page 3 of 3 At its May 21, 2019 Regular meeting, the Council approved Ordinance No. 11-2019, 3-1 at first reading. Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in Florida Today on June 6, 2019. Submitting Department Director: David Dickey ` / Date: 6/6/19 Attachment: Ordinance No. 11-2019 / Financial Impact: Cost of advertising and codification; Agenda Item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Staff time and effort to prepare this Date: 6/5/19 The City Manager recommends that City Council take the following action: Adopt Ordinance No. 11-2019 on second reading. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene 0`i3-1- Date: 6/6/19 1 ORDINANCE NO. 11-2019 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 4 OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; 5 REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; 6 PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE 7 ENFORCEMENT PROCESS; UPDATING THE 8 PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL NUISANCE 9 ABATEMENT BOARD AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 10 893.138, FLORIDA STATUTES; ADOPTING CONFORMING 11 AMENDMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF 12 PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND 13 RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE, 14 SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15 16 WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the State 17 Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by 18 law; and 19 20 WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes (the "Local Government Code Enforcement 21 Boards Act") authorizes municipalities to adopt and utilize several alternate code enforcement 22 systems; and 23 24 WHEREAS, Section 162.03, Florida Statutes expressly permits a municipality, at its 25 option, to create or abolish by ordinance local government code enforcement boards; and 26 27 WHEREAS, Section 162.03 additionally expressly authorizes a municipality to designate 28 special magistrate to conduct code enforcement proceedings and expressly states that a special 29 magistrate shall have the same status as an enforcement board and references in Chapter 162, 30 Florida Statutes to an enforcement board shall include, except in Section 162.05, a special 31 magistrate if the context permits; and 32 33 WHEREAS, in furtherance of the authority granted the City Council pursuant to Chapter 34 162, Florida Statutes, the City Council hereby finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of 35 Cape Canaveral to adopt an alternate special magistrate code enforcement system and to bestow 36 upon one or more appointed special magistrates jurisdiction to adjudicate any code violations 37 requested by City Code Enforcement Officers under said system or as expressly required by the 38 City Code; and 39 40 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 41 OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: 42 43 Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this 44 reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape 45 Canaveral. 46 47 Section 2. Code Amendment. Chapter 2, Article VI. — Code Enforcement of the Code of City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 1 of 33 1 Ordinances, City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, is hereby amended as follows (underlined type 2 indicates additions and strikeout type indicates deletions): 3 4 5 ARTICLE VI. - CODE ENFORCEMENT 6 DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY 7 Sec. 2-246. - Authorization to enter upon property. 8 A code enforcement officer charged with the duty to enforce this article shall have the right 9 to enter upon private real property in accordance with applicable federal and state law. If entry 10 upon private real property is denied, the city manager is hereby authorized to direct the city 11 attorney to obtain an inspection warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction for purposes of 12 authorizing a code enforcement officer to inspect the private real property and personal property 13 thereon. 14 Sec. 2-247 Definitions. 15 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings 16 ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning or 17 applicable state law provides a conflicting meaning: 18 19 Code or City Code means collectively the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances and any 20 statute, code, rule, ordinance or regulation incorporated into the Code by reference. 21 22 Code Enforcement Officer means any authorized agent or employee of the city who has been 23 designated by the city manager to enforce the city's Code and ordinances. 24 25 Code Enforcement Board means a board created by the city council by resolution pursuant to 26 section 2-256. 27 28 Repeat Violation means a violation of a provision of the Code by a person who has been previously 29 found through a code enforcement board or a special magistrate, to have violated or has admitted 30 violating the same provision of the Code within five (5) years prior to the violation, 31 notwithstanding the violations occur at different locations. A repeat violation can occur only after 32 correction of the previous violation has been made. 33 34 Special Magistrate means an individual designated and determined to be qualified by the city 35 council or city manager pursuant to Section 2-261 of this article. 36 37 Uncorrectable Violation means a violation which is irreparable or irreversible in nature and which 38 cannot be remedied after the violation has been committed because the violation constitutes a 39 single prohibited act rather than an ongoing condition or circumstance. 40 41 Violator means that person or entity responsible for a violation of the Code (the property owner, 42 tenant, or business entity on the premises, or any combination thereof) and may include the 43 property owner on whose property the violation occurs regardless of who commits the violation. A City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 2 of 33 1 violator may include, but is not limited to, any person, individual, trustee, associations, joint 2 ventures, partnerships, corporations, trusts, sole proprietorships, and any and all other groups or 3 combinations and legal entities. 4 5 Violation shall mean the act of breaking, infringing or transgressing any provision of the City 6 Code, its ordinances or other law by a person, pursuant to this article. 7 8 Sec. 2-248. Provisions are supplemental; Conflicts with state law. 9 10 (a) Nothing contained in this article shall prohibit the city from enforcing its Code by any 11 lawful means including, but not limited to, a summons, an arrest, a notice to appear, civil action 12 for injunctive relief, a stop work order or demolition. The enforcement procedures outlined in 13 this article are additional and cumulative to all others and shall not be deemed to be prerequisites 14 to filing suit for the enforcement of any section of this Code. 15 16 (b) If any provision of this article conflicts with the provisions of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, 17 or other applicable state or federal law, the conflicting provision in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, 18 or other applicable state or federal law shall apply if the state or federal law preempts the 19 conflicting provision of this article. 20 21 Sec. 2-249. Code references to special magistrate or code enforcement board. 22 Wherever there is a reference to only the special magistrate or code enforcement board in the 23 City Code other than contained in this article, the reference to the term special magistrate shall be 24 interchangeable with the term code enforcement board and vice versa to the extent necessary to 25 conduct the hearing requested by the code enforcement officer. It is the intent and purpose of this 26 article and section that code enforcement cases may be brought by code enforcement officers using 27 alternate code enforcement systems authorized by the city council including before a special 28 magistrate or code enforcement board. 29 Sec. 2-250. Duties of code enforcement officers - Generally. 30 Code enforcement officers shall have the duties, responsibilities and powers related to code 31 enforcement as set forth in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes and the City Code including as set forth 32 in this article. 33 Sec. 2-251. - Prosecution of violations with no criminal penalty. 34 Any violation of the City Code which the city elects to prosecute before the code 35 enforcement board or special magistrate shall have no criminal penalty as to said violation. 36 However, this Section shall not be construed to abrogate or repeal any provision of the City Code 37 or applicable state or federal law that expressly imposes a criminal penalty as to said violation and 38 said violation is prosecuted as a criminal infraction in accordance with law. 39 40 Sec. 2-252. Special magistrate and code enforcement board administrative fines; costs of 41 repairs; and filing of liens. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 3 of 33 1 2 L The special magistrate or code enforcement board, upon notification by the code 3 enforcement officer that an order of the special magistrate or code enforcement board 4 has not been complied with by the set time or, upon finding that a repeat violation has 5 been committed, shall conduct a "Massey" compliance hearing after notice of the 6 hearing is provided to the violator by the code enforcement officer. At the compliance 7 hearing, the violator will be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether 8 the violator is in compliance with the special magistrate or code enforcement board 9 order, and upon a determination of non-compliance, the special magistrate or code 10 enforcement board shall order the violator to pay a fine in an amount specified in this 11 section for each day the violation continues past the date set by the order for 12 compliance. In addition, if, pursuant to a finding by the special magistrate or code 13 enforcement board, the condition causing the violation presents a serious threat to the 14 public health, safety, and welfare, the city may, at its discretion, make all reasonable 15 repairs that are required to bring the property into compliance and charge against the 16 violator the cost of the repairs along with the fine imposed pursuant to this section. An 17 accounting of the cost of repairs will be presented to the special magistrate or code 18 enforcement board for consideration in such cases. Making such repairs does not 19 create a continuing obligation on the part of the local governing body to make further 20 repairs or to maintain the property and does not create any liability against the city for 21 any damages to the property if such repairs were completed in good faith. 22 2310j A fine imposed pursuant to this section shall not exceed $250 per day for a first 24 violation, and, shall not exceed $500 per day for a repeat violation, and, in addition, 25 may include all costs of repairs pursuant to subsection (a). The fine for an uncorrectable 26 violation shall not exceed $5,000 per violation. 27 28 fRI In determining the amount of the fine, if any, the special magistrate or code 29 enforcement board shall consider the following factors: 30 31 (1) The gravity of the violation; 32 33 (2) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; and 34 35 (3) Any previous violations committed by the violator. 36 37 j1 A special magistrate or code enforcement board may reduce a fine imposed pursuant 38 to this section before an order imposing a fine is recorded as a lien in the public records. 39 After the lien is recorded, the lien shall run in favor of the city council. 40 41 Lej A certified copy of an order imposing a fine may be recorded in the public records of 42 the county and thereafter shall constitute a lien against the land on which the violation 43 exists and upon any other real or personal property owned by the violator. Upon petition 44 to the circuit court, the order may be enforced in the same manner as a court judgment 45 by the sheriffs of this state, including levy against the personal property, but such order 46 shall not be deemed to be a court judgment except for enforcement purposes. A fine 47 imposed pursuant to this section shall continue to accrue until the violator comes into City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 4 of 33 1 compliance or until judgment is rendered pursuant to this section, whichever occurs 2 first. A lien arising from a fine imposed pursuant to this section runs in favor of the city 3 council and the city manager may execute a satisfaction or release of lien entered 4 pursuant to this section in accordance with the authority granted to the city manager 5 under section 2-260. 6 7 After three months from the filing of any such lien which remains unpaid, the special 8 magistrate or code enforcement board may authorize the city attorney to foreclose on 9 the lien or to sue to recover a money judgment for the amount of the lien plus any 10 accrued interest. No lien created pursuant to the provisions of this Section may be 11 foreclosed on real property which is a homestead under Section 4, Article X of the State 12 Constitution. The money judgment provisions of this Section shall not apply to real 13 property or personal property which is covered under Section 4(a), Article X of the 14 State Constitution. 15 16 Sec. 2-253. Service of Notice for special magistrate and code enforcement board 17 proceedings. 18 19 All notices required in this article related to special magistrate or code enforcement 20 board proceedings shall be provided to the alleged violator by certified mail, return 21 receipt requested; by hand delivery by the sheriff or law enforcement officer of the city, 22 code enforcement officer, or other person designated by the city council; or by leaving 23 the notice at the violator's usual place of residence with any person residing therein 24 who is above 15 years of age and informing such person of the contents of the notice. 25 In the case of commercial premises, leaving the notice with the manager or other person 26 in charge. 27 28 02) In addition to providing notice as set forth in subsection (a), at the option of the special 29 magistrate or code enforcement board, notice may also be served by publication or 30 posting as follows: 31 32 f Such notice shall be published once during each week for four consecutive 33 weeks, with four publications being sufficient, in a newspaper of general 34 circulation in the city. The newspaper shall meet such requirements as are 35 prescribed under Chapter 50, Florida Statutes, for legal and official 36 advertisements. 37 38 tal Proof of publication shall be made as provided in .S§ 50.041 and 50.051, Florida 39 Statutes. 40 41 a) In lieu of publication as described in subsection (1) above, such notice may be 42 posted for at least ten days in at least two locations, one of which shall be the 43 property upon which the violation is alleged to exist and the other of which shall 44 be at city hall. Proof of posting shall be by affidavit of the person posting the 45 notice, which affidavit shall include a copy of the notice posted and the date 46 and places of its posting. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 5 of 33 1 2 Notice by publication or posting may run concurrently with, or may follow, an 3 attempt to provide notice by hand delivery or by mail as required under 4 Subsection (a). 5 6 f,E1 Evidence that an attempt has been made to hand deliver or mail notice as provided in 7 Subsection (a) together with proof of publication or posting as provided in subsection 8 (b) shall be sufficient to show that the notice requirement, of this part has been met, 9 without regard to whether or not the alleged violator actually received the notice. 10 11 Sec. 2-254. Enforcement procedures. 12 13 (a) Code enforcement officers shall have the authority to initiate code enforcement 14 proceedings as provided in this article. Special magistrates and code enforcement boards 15 shall not have such authority. 16 17 (b) Except as provided herein, a code enforcement officer who finds a violation of the Code 18 shall issue a notice to the violator stating that the violator has committed a violation of the 19 Code. The notice shall specify a reasonable time period within which the violator must 20 correct the violation. This determination shall be based on considerations of fairness; 21 practicability; ease of correction; ability to correct; severity of violation; nature, extent and 22 probability of danger or damage to the public; and other relevant factors relating to the 23 reasonableness of the time period prescribed. 24 25 (c) If, upon personal investigation, a code enforcement officer finds that the violator has not 26 corrected the violation within the time period specified in the notice, the code enforcement 27 officer shall notify the special magistrate or code enforcement board and request a hearing. 28 If the violation is corrected and then recurs or if the violation is not corrected by the time 29 specified for correction by the code enforcement officer, the case may be presented to the 30 special magistrate or code enforcement board even if the violation has been corrected prior 31 to the hearing, and the notice shall so state. 32 33 (d) If a repeat violation is found, the code enforcement officer shall issue a notice to the 34 violator but is not required to give the violator a reasonable time to correct the violation. 35 The code enforcement officer, upon notifying the violator of a repeat violation, shall notify 36 the special magistrate or code enforcement board and request a hearing. The case may be 37 presented to the special magistrate or code enforcement board even if the repeat violation 38 has been corrected prior to the hearing, and the notice shall so state. If the repeat violation 39 has been corrected, the special magistrate or code enforcement board retains the right to 40 schedule a hearing to determine costs and impose the payment of reasonable enforcement 41 fees upon the repeat violator. 42 43 Lej If a code enforcement officer has reason to believe a violation or the condition causing the 44 violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare, or if the violation 45 is an uncorrectable violation, the code enforcement officer shall make a reasonable effort 46 to notify the violator and may immediately request a hearing. 47 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 6 of 33 1fes' If the owner of property that is subject to an enforcement proceeding before the special 2 magistrate or code enforcement board transfers ownership of such property between the 3 time the initial pleading was served and the time of the hearing, such owner shall: 4 5 (1) Disclose, in writing, the existence and the nature of the proceeding to the prospective 6 transferee. 7 8 Deliver to the prospective transferee a copy of the pleadings, notices, and other 9 materials relating to the code enforcement proceeding received by the transferor. 10 11 (3) Disclose, in writing, to the prospective transferee that the new owner will be 12 responsible for compliance with the applicable Code provision and with orders issued 13 in the code enforcement proceeding. 14 15 (4) File a notice with the special magistrate or code enforcement board of the transfer of 16 the property, with the identity and address of the new owner and copies of the 17 disclosures made to the new owner, within 5 days after the date of the transfer. 18 A failure to make the disclosures described in subsections (1), (2) and (3) before the transfer 19 creates a rebuttable presumption of fraud. If the property is transferred before the hearing, 20 the proceeding shall not be dismissed, but the new owner shall be provided a reasonable 21 period of time to correct the violation before the hearing is held. 22 (g) Nothing herein shall prohibit a violator from waiving his or her rights to the hearing 23 required by this section and entering into a pre -hearing code enforcement settlement 24 agreement, which must be memorialized in writing and executed by the violator and city 25 manager. Such agreements may include terms and conditions to bring the violation into 26 compliance, impose and require payment of an agreed upon penalty and reimbursement of 27 costs incurred by the city related to the violation, and other terms and conditions deemed 28 necessary to settle the violation. 29 Sec. 2-255. Scheduling and conduct of hearing. 30 31 Laj Upon request of the code enforcement officer, or at such other times as may be necessary, 32 a special magistrate or code enforcement board may call a hearing. Minutes shall be kept 33 of all hearings by each special magistrate or code enforcement board, and all hearings and 34 proceedings shall be open to the public. The city manager shall provide clerical and 35 administrative personnel as may be reasonably required by each special magistrate or code 36 enforcement board for the proper performance of his or her duties. The city manager shall 37 designate a city staff person to serve as clerk to the special magistrates or code 38 enforcement board. 39 40 Q The clerk or their designee shall send a notice of hearing in the same manner of service as 41 outlined in Section 2-264. 42 43 (c) The clerk or their designee shall call hearings on a monthly basis or upon the request of the 44 special magistrate or code enforcement board. Except as provided herein, a hearing date City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 7 of 33 1 shall not be postponed or continued unless a request for a continuance, showing good cause 2 for a continuance, is received in writing by the special magistrate or code enforcement 3 board at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the date set for hearing. 4 5 (d) A special magistrate or code enforcement board shall postpone a hearing if the named 6 violator, prior to the scheduled hearing date, files with the duly authorized city board or 7 official of appropriate jurisdiction, if any, an administrative appeal concerning the 8 interpretation or application of the Code provisions upon which the alleged violation was 9 based. However, once an issue has been determined by a special magistrate or code 10 enforcement board in a specific case, that issue may not be further reviewed by a city board 11 or official in that specific case. 12 13 Lej Each case before a special magistrate or code enforcement board shall be presented by a 14 code enforcement officer or by a duly authorized representative of the city. If the city 15 prevails in prosecuting a case before the special magistrate or code enforcement board, it 16 shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in prosecuting the case before the special 17 magistrate or code enforcement board and such costs may be included in the lien authorized 18 under Section 2-266. 19 20fes' A special magistrate or code enforcement board shall proceed to hear the cases on the 21 agenda for that day. All testimony shall be under oath and shall be recorded. At the hearing, 22 the burden of proof shall be upon the City to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, 23 that a violation does exist. The special magistrate or code enforcement board shall take 24 testimony from the code enforcement officer and alleged violator, as well as any relevant 25 witnesses. Relevant written evidence and documentation may also be submitted into the 26 record. Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded, but all 27 other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the 28 conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be 29 admissible in a trial in the courts of the State of Florida. Formal rules of evidence shall not 30 apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. 31 The special magistrate or code enforcement board may exercise reasonable discretion in 32 managing the hearing agenda and may continue or reschedule cases to the extent 33 reasonably necessary to afford due process, address continuances for good cause shown, 34 or effectively manage the case load. 35 36 At the conclusion of the hearing, the special magistrate or code enforcement board shall 37 issue findings of fact, based on evidence of record and conclusions of law, and shall issue 38 an order affording the proper relief consistent with powers granted herein and in Chapter 39 162, Part I, Florida Statutes. The order shall be announced orally at the hearing and shall 40 be reduced to writing and mailed by regular U.S. mail to the alleged violator. The order 41 may include a notice that it must be complied with by a specified date and that a fine may 42 be imposed and, under the conditions specified in Section 2-266 the cost of repairs may be 43 included along with the fine if the order is not complied with by said date. A certified copy 44 of such order may be recorded in the public records of the county and shall constitute notice 45 to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest, or assigns if the violation concerns 46 real property, and the findings therein shall be binding upon the violator and, if the violation 47 concerns real property, any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest, or assigns. If an City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 8 of 33 1 order is entered by the special magistrate or code enforcement board pursuant to this 2 subsection and the order is complied with by the date specified in the order, the special 3 magistrate or code enforcement board shall issue an order acknowledging compliance and 4 if the original order was recorded in the public records, the order acknowledging 5 compliance shall likewise be recorded in the public records. A hearing is not required to 6 issue such an order acknowledging compliance with the original order. 7 8 Sec. 2-255.1 Appeal of Special Magistrate or Code Enforcement Board order. 9 10 An aggrieved party, including the city, may appeal a final order of a special magistrate or 11 code enforcement board to the circuit court. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but 12 shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the special magistrate or code 13 enforcement board. An appeal shall be filed within 30 calendar days of the issuance of the order 14 sought to be overturned. Failure to make such appeal within the prescribed 30 -day period shall 15 render the findings of the special magistrate or code enforcement board conclusive, binding and 16 final. 17 18 Sec. 2-255.2 Additional enforcement powers. 19 20 In addition to the powers and authority given to the special magistrate or code enforcement 21 board for the city pursuant to this division, the city may, in its discretion, exercise any powers 22 given to municipalities or their special magistrate or code enforcement board by Chapter 162, 23 Florida Statutes, as amended. 24 25 DIVISION 2. - CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 26 Sec. 2-256. - Created. 27 A code enforcement board is hereby may be established by the city council, upon adoption of 28 a resolution, pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 162, Florida Statutes F.S. ch. 162, or any 29 Successor statute. If a code enforcement board is established by the city council, the provisions of 30 this division shall apply. 31 Sec. 2-257. - Membership. 32 The city council shall appoint members of the code enforcement board in accordance with the 33 terms of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes F.S. § 162.05, or any successor statute. 34 Sec. 2-258. — Code board proceedings; Duties, responsibilities and powers. 35 The code enforcement board shall have duties, responsibilities and powers as set forth, and 36 shall be governed in all respects, by the provisions of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes and division 1 37 of this article by F.S. ch. 162, or any successor statute, and shall have the power to hear appeals as 38 otherwise set forth in the Ceity Code of Ordinances. 39 Sec. 2-259. Administrative Rules. 40 The code enforcement board may adopt administrative rules for the efficient conduct of 41 hearings consistent with the city code and other applicable law. Said rules shall be in a form City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 9 of 33 1 approved by the city attorney. Any violation of the city Code of Ordinances which the city elects 2 to prosecute before the code enforcement board shall have no criminal penalty as to said violation. 3 DIVISION 3. — CODE LIEN SATISFACTIONS 4 Sec. 2-260. - Application for satisfaction, release, or reduction, of code enforcement liens. 5 (a) Where a certified copy of an order imposing a penalty or fine, as described in F.S. ch. 162, 6 has been recorded in the public records of Brevard County, Florida, and has become a lien 7 against the land and/or property of the violator, such violator, or the violator's successors 8 and assigns who has an ownership interest in the property, (collectively, the "applicant") 9 may apply for a satisfaction, release, or reduction of such lien as follows: 10 (1) Lien satisfaction. Upon full payment by the applicant of the fine or penalty imposed in 11 accordance with this division, the city manager is hereby authorized to execute and record 12 in the public records of Brevard County, Florida, a satisfaction of lien on behalf of the City. 13 The applicant shall be responsible for paying all costs of recording. Lien satisfaction 14 requests do not require a full application required by subsection (b) of this section because 15 the applicant is paying the full amount of the fine or penalty due the City. 16 (2) Lien release or reduction. Upon request for a release or reduction of a fine or penalty 17 imposed in accordance with this division, the applicant shall submit a written application to 18 the city manager or designee, in accordance with this section. 19 (b) Application. The application for release or reduction of lien shall be in written form, typed 20 or handwritten, by the applicant and shall be submitted to the city manager, or designee. 21 The application shall be executed under oath and sworn to in the presence of a notary public, 22 and shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: 23 (1) A copy of the order imposing a lien upon the property including the code enforcement case 24 number; 25 (2) The date upon which the applicant brought the subject property into compliance with the 26 City Code; 27 (3) The basis upon which the applicant believes the application for release or reduction of lien 28 should be granted; 29 (4) The terms upon which the release or reduction of lien should be granted; 30 (5) The reasons, if any, compliance was not obtained prior to the order of penalty or fine being 31 recorded; 32 (6) The reduction in penalty or fine sought by the applicant; 33 (7) A statement verifying whether the applicant was issued any title policy or policies for the 34 subject property encumbered by the lien after the date the lien was recorded in the public 35 records of Brevard County, Florida. If such a policy or policies were issued to the applicant, 36 a copy of any such title policy shall be submitted with the application; 37 (8) Any other information which the applicant deems pertinent to the request, including but not 38 limited to the circumstances that exist which would warrant the reduction or satisfaction of 39 the penalty or fine. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 10 of 33 1 (c) Reimbursement to city for recording costs at time of application. The applicant shall submit, 2 at the time of application, an application fee established by the city to defray some or all of 3 the city's costs of processing the application including, but not limited to, personnel, legal, 4 and costs associated with recording the order imposing a penalty or fine and the requested 5 release or reduction of lien. These costs are nonrefundable, without regard for the final 6 disposition of the application. 7 (d) Application review. Upon receipt of the application and payment provided above, the code 8 enforcement division shall confirm that the violation, which resulted in the order imposing 9 penalty or fine, has been corrected. If the violation has been corrected and there are no 10 current code violation(s) upon the property in question, the code enforcement division shall 11 place the application and a staff recommendation upon the agenda of the next meeting of 12 the city council code enforcement board for the City of Cape Canaveral for a hearing. 13 (e) At the hearing before the city council code enforcement board, the board city council shall 14 review and consider the application for reduction or release of lien, provide the violator with 15 an opportunity to address the board regarding the application for reduction or release of lien, 16 and to take the testimony of other interested parties, including but not limited to city staff. 17 Upon review of the application and any testimony presented, the city council code enforcement 18 beard shall by motion or writing approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application 19 for reduction or release of lien. 20 Whenever a recommendation or decision is made under this section, the following factors shall 21 be applied by the city in determining the amount of any reduction or release: 22 (1) The amount of any administrative and out-of-pocket costs incurred by the city which are 23 directly associated with the underlying code enforcement case and lien including, but not 24 limited to, code enforcement staff and attorney time, postage, advertising and recording 25 costs, and other city expenses related to any measure taken by the code board or city to abate 26 a nuisance caused by the violation; 27 (2) The gravity and number of the violation(s); 28 (3) The amount of the requested reduction; 29 (4) The time in which it took to bring the property into compliance; 30 (5) Whether the applicant was responsible for the violation which caused the lien; 31 (6) Whether the applicant is or will be a bona fide purchaser of the subject property and is filing 32 or has filed for a homestead exemption evidencing a desire to reside within the city on a 33 non -transient basis, or whether the property is or will be acquired for investment or other 34 purposes; 35 (7) Whether the applicant acquired the subject property with knowledge of the subject lien or 36 should have knowledge of the lien through reasonable due diligence; 37 (8) The accrued amount of the code enforcement fine or lien as compared to the current market 38 value of the property; 39 (9) With respect to a speculator, non -homestead purchaser of the subject property, the accrued 40 amount of the code enforcement fine or lien as compared to the investment/profit that will 41 be gained as a result of the purchase or sale of the property and the reduction or satisfaction; City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 11 of 33 1 (10) Any previous or subsequent violations pertaining to the property unless an order finding 2 a violation is under appeal at the time of determination; 3 (11) Any previous or subsequent violations of the applicant pertaining to the other properties 4 owned within city, unless an order finding a violation is under appeal at the time of 5 determination; 6 (12) Any relevant information contained in any title policy required to be submitted to the city 7 under this section; 8 (13) Any financial hardship; 9 (14) Any other mitigating circumstance which may warrant the reduction or satisfaction of the 10 penalty or fine; and 11 (15) Any other administrative review criteria relevant to whether it is equitable to reduce or 12 release a lien which are adopted by the city manager, in writing, and are intended to be 13 applied to all applications on a uniform basis. 14 (f) To the maximum extent feasible, the city council code enforcement board shall collect, at a 15 minimum, all administrative and out-of-pocket costs incurred by the city as specified in 16 subsection (e)(1). If the city council code enforcement board approves the application to 17 reduce or release the lien and the approval is conditioned upon the applicant paying a 18 reduced penalty, fine, or any other condition, the satisfaction or release of lien shall not be 19 prepared or recorded in the public records of Brevard County, Florida by the city manager 20 until the condition(s) imposed by the city council code enforcement board have been 21 satisfied. 22 (g) Compliance and right of appeal. The applicant shall have 30 days in which to comply with 23 the conditions imposed by the city council unless otherwise approved by the city council in 24 a written agreement with the applicant. code enforcement board or submit a written appeal 25 as provided herein. Failure of the applicant to comply or timely appeal will result in tho 26 automatic denial of the application. 27 (1) If the application is denied, or if the application is automatically denied due to the failure 28 of the applicant to comply with the conditions imposed by the city council code enforcement 29 board or timely appeal, the applicant shall thereafter be barred from applying for a 30 subsequent reduction or release of lien for a period of one year from the date of denial. 31 During the one-year period, the lien may only be satisfied and released upon full payment 32 of the fine or penalty imposed in accordance with this division. 33 (2) The applicant may appeal the code enforcement board's decision to the city council, by 34 filing a written appeal within ten days of the date of the decision with the city clerk. Tho 35 notice of appeal shall state the decision that is being appealed, the grounds for appeal, and 36 a brief summary of the relief being sought. A nonrefundable filing fee of $100.00 shall 37 accompany the notice of appeal. Upon submittal of a timely appeal, the city manager shall 38 place the appeal of the determination upon the agenda of the next regularly scheduled city 39 council meeting to the extent practicable. The city council shall render a final decision on 40 the application based upon the sworn application, the code enforcement board determination 41 and any other relevant information or testimony provided to the city council at the meeting 42 by the applicant, city manager or any other interested party. Any decision made by the city 43 council pursuant to this section shall be deemed final and not subject to any further City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 12 of 33 1 administrative review by the city. The applicant shall have 30 days, or such time period 2 determined by the city council in a written agreement, in which to comply with any decision 3 of or condition imposed by the city council or the application shall be deemed automatically 4 denied and thereafter, the applicant shall be barred from applying for a subsequent reduction 5 or release of lien for a period of one year from the date of the city council's decision. During 6 the one-year period, the lien may only be satisfied and released upon full payment of the 7 fine or penalty imposed in accordance with this division. 8 9 10 (3) When a lien is satisfied as a result of reduced payment or release as ordered by the city council, the city manager is hereby authorized to execute and record in the public records of Brevard County, Florida, a satisfaction of lien on behalf of the city. 11 (h) Partial release of liens; liens recorded in error. Under appropriate circumstances 12 determined by the code enforcement board or city council to be in the best interests of the 13 city, the code enforcement board or city council may approve an application conditioned 14 upon a partial release of lien that releases a city lien from a specific piece of property. 15 However, the lien will remain in effect and will encumber any other properties which are 16 subject to the lien pursuant to law. Partial releases of lien may also be authorized by the 17 cods enforcement board or city council to account for any funds paid to the city to reduce 18 the amount owned owed on the lien. In addition, nothing herein shall prohibit the city 19 manager from releasing a lien, in whole or part, that was recorded in error by the city. An 20 application shall not be required to release a lien recorded in error. 21 (i) The provisions of this division shall be deemed supplemental and in addition to the city 22 council's right, at its discretion, to collect a lien imposed by the City and to compel or bring 23 properties into compliance with the City Code by any other lawful means deemed 24 reasonably necessary by the city council. 25 DIVISION 4. — SPECIAL MAGISTRATE 26 Sec. 2-261. Special Magistrates. 27 28 (a) The city council or city manager may appoint one (1) or more special magistrates to hear 29 code enforcement cases. The primary special magistrate shall be appointed by the city council. 30 However, the city manager shall have the authority to appoint secondary and alternate special 31 magistrates on an as needed basis in situations when the primary special magistrate has a conflict 32 of any kind; is unavailable on account of illness, disability or death; or the city's case load 33 temporarily requires an additional special magistrate to handle cases in a timely manner. 34 Appointments shall be made in the sole discretion of the city council or the city manager, as the 35 case may be, in accordance with applicable law on the basis of experience or interest in the subject 36 matter jurisdiction of the violations. 37 38 (b) At such time the City Council appoints an initial special magistrate after June 17, 2019 in 39 accordance with this Section, the then existing City of Cape Canaveral Code Enforcement Board 40 shall be deemed abolished upon the effective date of such appointment, subject to the future 41 reinstatement and reassignment of cases to the City of Cape Canaveral Code Enforcement Board 42 by the City Council pursuant to Section 2-256, City Code. All cases pending before the City of 43 City of Cape Canaveral Code Enforcement Board on the effective date of any such abolishment 44 shall be transferred to the special magistrate(s) designated by this Section. Further, if a special 45 magistrate(s) is established and thereafter abolished, all cases pending before the special City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 13 of 33 1 magistrate(s) shall be reassigned to City of Cape Canaveral Code Enforcement Board in 2 accordance with the direction given by the City Council. 3 4 (c) Special magistrates may be abolished, suspended, removed or terminated with or without 5 cause by the council. Appointments to fill any vacancy shall be for the remainder of the unexpired 6 term. 7 8 (d) Special magistrates shall be members of the Florida Bar in good standing for five or more 9 years. The special magistrate must demonstrate satisfactory knowledge of municipal law and the 10 general procedures for enforcement of municipal codes, and must demonstrate a temperament 11 suitable for the exercise of quasi-judicial powers vested in each special magistrate. Special 12 magistrates shall not be city employees or officers. The city manager shall be responsible for 13 negotiating and executing a contract on behalf of the City with the special magistrate and the 14 special magistrate may be compensated at a rate to be agreed upon in the contract. The contract 15 will be in a form prepared and approved by the city attorney. 16 17 (e) The city attorney may attend the code enforcement hearings conducted by the special 18 magistrate and represent city staff in the presentation of cases, or the code enforcement officer 19 may present cases, at the option of the city manager depending upon the substance and 20 complexities of any given case. To the extent necessary and consistent with the city's interests to 21 ensure compliance with City Codes, the city attorney will defend final orders of the special 22 magistrate which are appealed by violators to a court of competent jurisdiction. 23 24 Sec. 2-262. Powers of Special Magistrates. 25 26 Special magistrates shall have the power to: 27 28 (a) Hear and decide violations of the Code. 29 (b) Adopt administrative rules for the efficient conduct of hearings consistent with the city 30 code and other applicable law. Said rules shall be in a form approved by the city attorney. 31 (c) Subpoena alleged violators and witnesses for hearings; subpoenas shall be served by the 32 county sheriff, process server or by the city staff. 33 (d) Subpoena evidence deemed relevant to hearings. 34 (e) Take testimony under oath. 35 (f) Assess and order the payment of civil penalties as provided herein. 36 (g) Issue orders having the force of law to command whatever steps are necessary to bring a 37 violation into compliance. 38 (h) Have jurisdiction to consider and address orders previously entered by the city code 39 enforcement board. 40 41 Sec. 2-263. — Special Magistrate proceedings; Duties, responsibilities and powers. 42 The special magistrate shall have duties, responsibilities and powers as set forth, and shall be 43 governed in all respects, by the provisions of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, this division, and City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 14 of 33 1 division 1 of this article, and shall have the power to hear appeals as otherwise set forth in the city 2 Code of Ordinances. 3 4 Secs. 2-2644-2 279. - Reserved. 5 DIVISION 5 a. - CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATIONS 6 Sec. 2-280. - Intent and purpose. 7 (a) It is the intent and purpose of this division to provide a supplemental procedure for the 8 enforcement of city codes and ordinances. Nothing contained in this division shall prohibit 9 the city from enforcing its Code and ordinances by any other lawful means. 10 (b) It is also the intent and purpose of this division to enhance the effectiveness of code 11 enforcement within the city by authorizing the enforcement methods and penalties contained 12 in this division for the betterment and promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare of 13 the citizens of the city. 14 Sec. 2-281. – Reserved. 15 16 clearly indicates otherwise: 17 18 19 20 21 22 (a) Code enforcement officer shall mean city manager designated employees or agents whose but arc not limited to, code inspectors, building inspectors, the building official, law city council and/or city manager. All such officers employed by the city shall receive training as prescribed by the city council and/or city manager. 23 (b) Person shall mean any individual, associations, joint ventures, partnerships, corporations, 24 25 (c) Repeat violation shall be as defined by F.S. ch. 162, and as may be amended from time to 26 time. 27 (d) Violation shall mean the act of breaking, infringing or transgressing any provision of the 28 City Code, its ordinances or other law by a person, pursuant to this division. 29 Sec. 2-282. - Authorization of citation program. 30 (a) The city hereby adopts a code enforcement citation system to provide an additional and 31 supplemental method of enforcing the enumerated codes and ordinances enumerated in 32 section 2-283 or specifically made subject to this division elsewhere in the City Code. The 33 enforcement method shall be by the issuance of citations for violation of duly enacted city 34 codes and ordinances in accordance with the rules and procedures established by this division 35 and F.S. Ch. 162. 36 (b) Code enforcement officers shall not have the power of arrest for purposes of bringing a 37 violation in compliance. For each violation, the code enforcement officer shall determine, 38 using reasonable discretion, whether to prosecute the violation through the civil citation 39 system under this division and/or the code enforcement board or special magistrate. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 15 of 33 1 Sec. 2-283. - Applicable codes and ordinances; class violation. 2 (a) The following city codes and ordinances may be enforced by civil citation to the Brevard 3 County Court, and are assigned the violation classification enumerated below: 4 (1) Chapter 38, article IV, Fireworks Class II. 5 (2) Chapter 34, article II, Litter Class I. 6 (3) Chapter 34, article III, Property Maintenance Standards Class I. 7 (4) Chapter 34, article V, Noise Class I. 8 (5) Chapter 34, article VII, Lights Class I. 9 (6) Section 14-3, Bees and beehives prohibited Class I. 10 (7) Chapter 14, article III, Sea Turtles Class I. 11 (8) Section 110-467, Garage sales Class I. 12 (9) Section 110-582, Swimming pool barriers Class II. 13 (10) Chapter 62, Solid waste Class I. 14 (11) Section 110-487, Rental restrictions on dwelling units Class IV. 15 (12) Chapter 82, article XIV, Numbering of Buildings and Property Class I. 16 (13) Chapter 82, article V, Registration and Maintenance of Properties in Foreclosure 17 Class IV. 18 (14) Section 94-6, Prohibited signs and features Class I. 19 (15) Chapter 90, article V, construction site stormwater runoff control Class II. 20 (16) Chapter 92, Fertilizer Land Application Class I. 21 (17) Chapter 6, article III, Possession and Consumption Class I. 22 (18) Chapter 50, section 50-4, Sleeping and Camping in Public Areas and Beaches Class 23 I. 24 (b) In the event of a conflict between the civil penalties enumerated in this section and a civil 25 penalty specifically enumerated elsewhere in this Code or other ordinances, the more stringent 26 penalty shall apply. 27 Sec. 2-284. - Training of code enforcement officers. 28 (a) The training and qualifications of the code enforcement officers shall be established by the 29 city council or city manager. 30 (b) Except for sworn law enforcement officers, the designation of code enforcement officers 31 under this division does not confer the power of arrest or other law enforcement powers nor 32 subject the code enforcement officers to the provisions of F.S. Ch. 943. 33 Sec. 2-285. - Citation powers; personal investigation; reasonable cause. 34 Any code enforcement officer is hereby authorized to issue a citation to a person when, based 35 upon personal investigation, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person has City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 16 of 33 1 committed a civil infraction in violation of the duly enacted code or ordinance which is either 2 identified in section 2-283 of this division or specifically made subject to this division elsewhere 3 in the City Code, regardless of whether the violation constitutes a repeat violation. Nothing in this 4 section shall prohibit the city from enforcing its codes or ordinances by any other means. 5 Sec. 2-286. - Violation; penalties; general. 6 (a) A violation of a city code or ordinance specifically made subject to this division is hereby 7 deemed a civil infraction. 8 (b) Each violation of a city code or ordinance specifically made subject to this division is a 9 separate civil infraction. Each day such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute 10 a separate civil infraction. 11 (c) The maximum civil penalty pursuant to this division, shall not exceed $500.00 plus all 12 applicable court costs and legislative assessments, per violation. 13 (d) Any citation issued pursuant to this article may be contested in county court. 14 (e) Any person who willfully refuses to sign and accept a citation issued by a code enforcement 15 officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in F.S. 16 §§ 775.082 and 775.083. 17 (f) The provisions of this part shall not apply to enforcement pursuant to sections 553.79 and 18 553.80 of the Florida Building Code, as applied to construction, provided that a building 19 permit is either not required or has been issued by the city. 20 Sec. 2-287. - Citation issuance procedure. 21 All citations issued pursuant to this division by a code enforcement officer shall be in 22 accordance with the following procedure: 23 (a) Warning notice. Except as provided in subsection (b), a code enforcement officer shall 24 provide a warning notice prior to issuing a citation. The warning notice shall at a minimum 25 provide the following: 26 (1) The code or ordinance provision violated; 27 (2) The date of the issuance of the warning notice; 28 (3) Specified time for compliance (the time period for compliance shall not exceed 30 29 days); 30 (4) Maximum amount of fine if violation is not corrected; 31 (5) Code enforcement officer's signature; and 32 (6) A place for the signature of the person receiving the warning. 33 If upon personal investigation, the code enforcement officer finds that the person has not corrected 34 the violation within the time period, the code enforcement officer may issue a citation to the person 35 who has committed the violation. The citation shall be in a form proscribed in section 2-288. 36 (b) Repeat violation, serious threat to public, or irreparable. A code enforcement officer is not 37 required to provide the person with a reasonable time period to correct the violation prior to 38 the issuance of a citation and may immediately issue a citation if a violation is found or if the City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 17 of 33 1 code enforcement officer has reason to believe that the violation presents a serious threat to 2 the public health, safety or welfare, or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible. 3 (c) Delivery of citations. After issuing a citation to a person, the code enforcement officer shall: 4 (1) Deposit the original citation and one copy of the citation with the clerk of court for the 5 Brevard County Court. 6 (2) Provide the person cited with one copy; and 7 (3) Retain one copy in the code enforcement officer's case file. 8 (d) Issuing citations to persons. Written warning notices, if applicable, and citations shall be 9 issued to a person as follows: 10 (1) If the person is an individual, the code enforcement officer shall issue the warning notice 11 or citation to the person by hand delivery. In the absence of the person who has committed 12 the violation, issuance of a warning notice or citation may be accomplished by leaving a 13 copy of the warning notice or citation at a person's usual place of residence with any 14 person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of the 15 contents or forwarding a copy of the warning notice or citation by registered or certified 16 mail, return receipt requested. 17 (2) If the person is a business or other entity, the code enforcement officer shall issue the 18 warning notice or citation to any employee or principal of the entity, during regular 19 business hours, and inform the employee or principal of the contents or by forwarding a 20 copy of the warning notice or citation by registered or certified mail, return receipt 21 requested. Each employee of the business or principal shall be deemed to be an agent of 22 the business for service of warning notices and citations. 23 (e) Person required to sign citation. Except in the absence of the person who has committed the 24 violation, a code enforcement officer shall require the person to sign and accept a citation 25 being issued. If the person refuses to sign and accept the citation, the code enforcement officer 26 shall write the words "refused to sign" or any other words of similar meaning in the space 27 provided in the citation for the person's signature and shall leave a copy of the citation with 28 the person if possible, or mail a copy to the person, if possible, by registered or certified mail, 29 return receipt requested. Following such refusal to sign and accept, the code enforcement 30 officer shall also contact the city police department or sheriff to report such violation of section 31 2-286(e) and F.S. § 162.21(6). 32 Sec. 2-288. - Citation form. 33 Unless a uniform code citation is promulgated by administrative order issued by the chief 34 judge of the 18th judicial circuit or state statute, the citation issued by a code enforcement officer 35 shall be in a form prescribed by the city council by resolution, and shall contain at a minimum the 36 following: 37 (a) The date and time of issuance; 38 (b) The name and address of the person to whom the citation is issued; 39 (c) The date and time the civil infraction was committed; 40 (d) The facts constituting reasonable cause; City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 18 of 33 1 (e) The number or section of the code or ordinance violated; 2 (f) The name and authority of the code enforcement officer; 3 (g) The procedure for the person to follow in order to pay the civil penalty or to contest the 4 citation; 5 (h) The applicable civil penalty if the person elects to contest the citation; 6 (i) The applicable civil penalty if the person elects not to contest the citation; and 7 (j) A conspicuous statement that if the person fails to pay the civil penalty within the time 8 allowed, or fails to appear in court to contest the citation, the person shall be deemed to 9 have waived his or her right to contest the citation and that, in such case, judgment may 10 be entered against the person for an amount up to the maximum civil penalty. 11 Sec. 2-289. - Payment of penalty; court hearings. 12 (a) Citation not contested. If the person elects not to contest the citation, the person shall pay in 13 full the applicable civil penalty, made payable by cash or check to the city and delivered to 14 the city manager, within 14 calendar days after issuance of the citation. The civil penalty shall 15 be deposited in the city's general fund. By paying the citation, the person shall be deemed to 16 have admitted the infraction and waived the right to a hearing. The city manager shall instruct 17 the code enforcement officer who issued the citation to promptly notify, in writing, the clerk 18 of the court for the county court that the person elected not to contest the citation and the 19 matter involving the particular paid citation has been closed and requires no hearing before 20 the court. 21 (b) Failure to pay citation and request court hearing. If the person cited fails to pay the civil 22 penalty by the 14th calendar day after the issuance of the citation or fails to request a court 23 hearing within the time prescribed in subsection (c), the person shall have waived any right to 24 contest the citation and a judgment shall be entered against the person cited in an amount up 25 to the maximum civil penalty plus applicable court costs. In addition, an order to show cause 26 may be issued by the county judge requiring the person cited to appear in county court to 27 explain the person's failure to pay or request a court hearing. Failure to respond to an order to 28 show cause may result in issuance of an arrest warrant or other lawful action by the court. 29 (c) Citation contested. If the person elects to contest the citation, the person shall, within 21 30 calendar days of issuance of the citation, request, in writing, the clerk of the court for the 31 county court to schedule a hearing before a county judge. The person shall immediately notify 32 the city of the request for hearing by U.S. mail or hand delivery to the city manager. Said 33 hearing shall be scheduled as soon as the court calendar shall permit. 34 (d) Judicial determination of violation and penalties; civil judgments; payment of civil 35 judgment. 36 (1) A county judge, after a hearing on the citation, shall make a determination whether or 37 not a violation of the code or ordinance cited has been committed. If a violation is found 38 to have occurred, the county judge may order the violator to correct the violation and may 39 impose a civil penalty up to the maximum civil penalty plus all applicable costs of 40 prosecution and legislative assessments, plus applicable court costs; in no event, however, 41 shall such civil penalty imposed by the county judge be less than the reduced civil penalty 42 set forth herein. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 19 of 33 1 (2) The county judge may provide for the civil penalty to be paid, and the violation to be 2 corrected, within such time as the county judge determines to be appropriate. If the person 3 found to be in violation fails to pay the civil penalty or correct the violation within the 4 time provided, a civil judgment shall be entered against that person in an amount up to 5 the maximum civil penalty plus applicable court costs. 6 (3) Should the person cited schedule a hearing as provided for herein and thereafter fail to 7 appear at such hearing, the person shall be deemed to have waived the right to contest the 8 citation, and a civil judgment shall be entered against the person in an amount up to the 9 maximum civil penalty plus applicable court costs; provided, however, that the court shall 10 have the discretion to continue or reschedule any hearing when it determines that doing 11 so will further the interest of justice. In such an event, the clerk of the court shall notify 12 the code enforcement officer and the person cited of the date and time of the hearing. In 13 addition, an order to show cause may be issued by the county judge requiring the person 14 cited to appear in county court to explain the person's failure to appear at the hearing. 15 Failure to respond to the order to show cause may result in issuance of an arrest warrant. 16 (4) Should the person cited willfully fail to comply with a court order to abate or correct 17 the violation, the court, after due notice and hearing on the matter, may hold the violator 18 in civil contempt and may enter an order to that effect. 19 (5) In the event that a civil judgment is entered against the person cited as provided herein, 20 the city may record a certified copy of said judgment in the official records of the county 21 and the same shall thereafter constitute a lien against the land on which the violation 22 exists and upon any other real or personal property owned by the violator. 23 (6) In the event that an order is entered finding that a violation of the ordinance cited has 24 been committed, the city may record a certified copy of said order in the official records 25 of the county and the same shall thereafter constitute notice to and be binding upon the 26 violator and any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns if the violation 27 concerns real property, and the findings therein shall be binding upon the violator and 28 any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns if the violation concerns real 29 property. 30 (7) Payment of any civil penalty imposed by civil judgment or county judge shall be made 31 to the clerk of the court, who shall forward the monies collected to the city manager for 32 deposit into the city's general fund. If a judgment has been entered for the civil penalty, 33 the clerk of the court shall notify the city when the judgment has been paid and the 34 necessary satisfaction of judgment shall be prepared and recorded in the official records 35 of the county. 36 (8) 37 38 39 Should the provisions of this section conflict with any administrative order issued by the court which sets forth the court's procedures required for handling code enforcement citations, the conflicting provisions of the court's administrative order shall prevail. 1 1 40 A code enforcement officer charged with the duty to enforce this division shall have the right 41 to enter upon private real property in accordance with applicable federal and state law. If entry 42 upon private real property is denied, the city manager is hereby authorized to direct the city 43 attorney to obtain an inspection warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction for purposes of City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 20 of 33 1 authorizing a code enforcement officer to inspect the private real property and personal property 2 thereon. 3 Sec. 2-291. - Classes of violations and penalties. 4 (a) All violations of city codes and ordinances authorized for enforcement under this division 5 shall be classified and assigned civil penalties as follows: Violation Civil Penalty Class I $100.00 Class II 200.00 Class III 300.00 Class IV 500.00 6 7 (b) Any city code or ordinance enacted subsequent to the adoption of this division may set forth 8 the applicable civil penalty for violations by designating the appropriate violation 9 classification provided in this section. 10 (c) All city code or ordinance provisions which are subject to this division and which do not 11 specifically set forth an applicable civil penalty classification shall be penalized as a class I 12 violation. 13 DIVISION 6 4. - CRIMINAL NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD 14 Sec. 2-292. - Purpose and intent. 15 Pursuant to the city's authority established in F.S. § 893.138, the purpose of this division is to 16 promote, protect and improve the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of the 17 City of Cape Canaveral by creating an administrative board with the authority to impose 18 administrative fines and other noncriminal penalties in order to provide an equitable, expeditious, 19 effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing the City Code under circumstances when a pending 20 or repeated violation continues to exist. 21 It is the intent of this division to provide the city with an additional and supplemental means 22 to abate drug, prostitution, dealing in stolen property, and criminal street gang activities amounting 23 to a public nuisance. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the city from abating nuisances under 24 F.S. § 60.05 or as otherwise provided by federal, state or local law. 25 Sec. 2-293. - Establishment; membership; meetings; definitions. 26 (a) Criminal nuisance abatement board established. Pursuant to F.S. § 893.138, the code 27 enforcement board or a separate board established by resolution of the city council in City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 21 of 33 1 furtherance of implementing the intent and purpose of this division is hereby designated and 2 established as the criminal nuisance abatement board and shall act as the city's administrative 3 board to hear complaints regarding nuisances as provided for in this division. 4 (b) Membership. Depending on how the city council chooses to designate and establish the board 5 pursuant to subsection (a), tThe terms of office of the board members shall either coincide 6 with the terms of office of the code enforcement board members or the separate board' s terms 7 of office shall be established in accordance with Section 2-171 of the City Code. 8 9 10 11 12 (c) Meetings. The board shall establish a schedule of regular meetings as deemed necessary. such intervals as the board may determine, but not less frequently than once every two months. regularly scheduled meetings of the code enforcement board and may be cancelled by the chairperson if there is no business to come before the board. 13 (d) Definitions. As used in this division, the following terms shall have the following meanings, 14 unless the context clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended: 15 City manager shall mean the city manager of Cape Canaveral or the city manager's designee. 16 Controlled substance shall mean any drug, narcotic, or other substance identified and 17 prohibited under F.S. ch. 893, as may be amended, and any substance sold in lieu of a controlled 18 substance in violation of section 817.563 or any imitation controlled substance defined in section 19 817.564, Florida Statutes. 20 Criminal street gang shall have the same meaning as set forth under F.S. § 874.03, as may be 21 amended. 22 Criminal street gang activity shall mean those activities committed by a criminal street gang 23 or member thereof as set forth under [F.S.] § 874.03, as may be amended. 24 Dealing in stolen property shall have the same meaning as that provided under F.S. § 812.019, 25 as may be amended. 26 Nuisance abatement coordinator shall mean the officer or officers of the Brevard County 27 Sheriff's Office Department or city staff person designated by the city manager responsible for 28 overseeing and enforcing the provisions of this division on behalf of the city. 29 Prostitution or prostitution -related activity shall mean any act constituting a violation of F.S. 30 § 796.07, as may be amended. 31 Recording secretary for the nuisance abatement board/recording secretary shall mean a city 32 staff member or clerk assigned to the criminal nuisance abatement board. 33 Recurring criminal nuisance means any single or multiple instance of conduct prescribed in 34 F.S. § 893.138, as may be amended, that occurs during the effective term of an order entered by 35 the board. 36 Stolen property shall mean tangible, intangible, personal or real property having any monetary 37 or market value and that has been the subject of any temporary or permanent criminal taking in 38 violation of the laws of the state. 39 Sec. 2-294. - Powers. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 22 of 33 1 The criminal nuisance abatement board shall have the powers delineated in F.S. § 893.138, 2 which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 3 (a) Adopting rules for the conduct of its hearings. 4 (b) Subpoenaing alleged violators and witnesses to its hearings. 5 (c) Subpoenaing records, surveys, plats, or other documentary evidence which subpoenas 6 shall be served by the police department or sheriff. 7 (d) Taking testimony under oath. 8 (e) Issuing orders having force and effect of law commanding whatever steps are necessary 9 to bring a violation into compliance. 10 (f) Establishing and levying fines. 11 Sec. 2-295. - Criminal nuisances established; violations. 12 It shall be a criminal public nuisance and a violation of this division for any place or premises, 13 or any part thereof, to be used or allowed to be used: 14 (a) On more than two occasions within a six-month period for prostitution or prostitution - 15 related activities; 16 (b) On more than two occasions within a six-month period, as the site of the unlawful sale, 17 delivery, manufacture, or cultivation of any controlled substance; 18 (c) On one occasion as the site of the unlawful possession of a controlled substance, where 19 such possession constitutes a felony and that has been previously used on more than one 20 occasion as the site of the unlawful sale, delivery, manufacture, or cultivation of any 21 controlled substance; 22 (d) By a criminal street gang for the purpose of conducting a pattern of criminal street gang 23 activity; of 24 (e) On more than two occasions within a six-month period, as the site of a violation relating 25 to dealing in stolen property; - 26 (0 On two or more occasions within a six-month period, as the site of a violation of chapter 27 499, Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act; or 28 (g) Any pain -management clinic, as described in s. 458.3265 or s. 459.0137, Florida 29 Statutes, which has been used on more than two occasions within a six-month period as 30 the site of a violation of: 31 (1) Section 784.011, s. 784.021, s. 784.03, or s. 784.045, Florida Statutes, relating to assault 32 and battery; 33 (2) Section 810.02, Florida Statutes, relating to burglary; 34 (3) Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, relating to theft; 35 (4) Section 812.131, Florida Statutes, relating to robbery by sudden snatching; or 36 (5) Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, relating to the unlawful distribution of controlled 37 substances. 38 Sec. 2-296. - Enforcement procedures; notice; hearing. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 23 of 33 1 * * * 2 (d) All notices under this division shall be hand -delivered by the Brevard County Sheriffs Office 3 Department, where practical, or where not practical or impossible, by certified mail, return 4 receipt requested, to the property owner of record at the address as it appears in the public 5 records of the county property appraiser's office. If the notice is returned for any reason, then 6 service shall be effected by mailing the notice through regular delivery to the address of the 7 premises and by posting the notice in accordance with F.S. ch. 162. Proof of service shall be 8 by written declaration indicating the date, time, and manner in which service was made. 9 * * * 10 Sec. 2-297. - Penalties; fines; liens; recording. 11 (a) The city manager shall, upon notification by the recording secretary that an affidavit of 12 noncompliance has been filed by the nuisance abatement coordinator reflecting that a previous 13 order of the board has not been complied with, schedule a hearing before the board. Upon 14 evidence establishing that noncompliance exists, the board shall enter an order imposing 15 conditions and any other measures to abate the criminal nuisance as provided by this division, 16 including the imposition of a fine. 17 (b) A fine imposed pursuant to this section shall not exceed $250.00 per day for a first 18 occurrence of a criminal nuisance and shall not exceed $500.00 per day for a recurring 19 criminal nuisance. In addition to the fine, the violator shall also provide for the payment of 20 reasonable costs, including reasonable attorney fees associated with investigations of and 21 hearings on public nuisances, as reasonably determined by the board. However, total fines 22 imposed in any action brought pursuant to this division shall not exceed $15,000.00. In 23 determining the amount of the fine, if any, the board shall consider the following factors: 24 (1) The gravity of the criminal nuisance; 25 (2) Any actions taken by the owner to correct the criminal nuisance; and 26 (3) Any previous nuisances maintained or permitted by the owner. 27 (c) A certified copy of an order imposing a fine may be recorded in the public records of the 28 county, and thereafter shall constitute a lien against the land on which the violation exists and 29 upon any other real or personal property owned by the owner. Upon petition to the circuit 30 court, such order may be enforced in the same manner as a court judgment by the sheriffs of 31 this state, including levy against personal property, but such order shall not be deemed to be 32 a court judgment except for enforcement purposes. A fine imposed pursuant to this division 33 shall continue to accrue until the owner comes into compliance or until the judgment is 34 rendered in a suit to foreclose on a lien filed pursuant to this section, whichever occurs first. 35 A lien arising from a fine imposed pursuant to this section runs in favor of the city, and the 36 city may execute a satisfaction or release of a lien in the same manner as provided under 37 section 2-260, or may otherwise seek to foreclose on the lien. However, where the nuisance 38 abatement action is based on a stolen property nuisance, and is brought against a property 39 owner operating an establishment where multiple tenants, on one site, conduct their own retail 40 businesses, the property owner shall not be subject to a lien against the owner's property or 41 the prohibition of operation provision if the property owner elects to evict the business 42 declared to be a nuisance within 90 calendar days after notification by registered mail to the 43 property owner of a second stolen property conviction of the tenant. Any lien recorded against City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 24 of 33 1 real property may be foreclosed by the city and the owner of such real property shall be liable 2 for all costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, associated with the recording of all orders 3 and foreclosure. 4 (d) The board may further bring a complaint pursuant to F.S. § 60.05, seeking a permanent 5 injunction against any nuisance as described in this division. This section does not restrict the 6 right of any person to proceed under F.S. § 60.05, against any criminal nuisance. 7 Sec. 2-298. - Appeal. 8 A party aggrieved by a final administrative order of the board shall have the right to appeal 9 said order to a court of competent jurisdiction, pursuant to the rules of procedure of the court. 10 Sec. 2-299. - Reserved. 11 Section 3. Conforming Code Amendment. Generally establishing a code enforcement 12 special magistrate process requires conforming amendments throughout the City Code to insert a 13 reference to special magistrate. The following City Code sections are hereby amended as follows 14 (underlined type indicates additions and strikeout type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) 15 indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in the specific section set forth below. It 16 is intended that the text in specific section' s denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance 17 shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance: 18 19 Sec. 14-53. - Enforcement and penalty. 20 If the administrator shall find that any of the sections of this article are being violated, he shall 21 notify the property owner or occupant of such violations, in writing, indicating the nature of the 22 violation and ordering any action necessary to correct it. Any person found guilty of violating any 23 of the sections of this article after a first written warning shall be punished in accordance with 24 section 1-15. In addition to any other remedies, whether civil or criminal, violations of this article 25 may be enforced by the special magistrate or code enforcement board and may be restrained by 26 injunction, including a mandatory injunction, and otherwise abated in any manner provided by 27 law. 28 Sec. 30-35. - Penalty and enforcement. 29 Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of an offense against the city 30 and shall be punished as provided in section 1-15 of the City Code. The provisions of this article 31 may be enforced either by prosecution as a misdemeanor through the state attorney's office for 32 Brevard County, Florida, or through the powers and jurisdiction of the City special magistrate or 33 code enforcement board, or by any other legal or equitable form of action. 34 Sec. 34-43. - Abatement; assessment. 35 Under this division, if a property owner does not comply with the notice of violation and 36 corresponding order of the city special magistrate or code enforcement board within the time 37 specified, the city may remove the litter or cause the litter to be removed. The city may charge or 38 assess the property and owner with the actual cost of labor performed, materials furnished and 39 disposal fees. Such amounts shall constitute an indebtedness of the owner of the property to the 40 city and shall constitute a lien against the property which shall be superior in dignity to all other City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 25 of 33 1 liens, except liens for state, county, and city taxes and liens for special assessments for public 2 improvements. 3 Sec. 34-95. - Enforcement. 4 The code enforcement officer and special magistrate or code enforcement board shall enforce this 5 article. Alternatively, this article may be enforced through the issuance of a code enforcement 6 citation pursuant to the procedure set forth in chapter 2 of this Code. 7 Sec. 34-182. - Notice to abate. 8 (a) Issuance. Whenever it comes to the attention of the enforcement authority that any nuisance as 9 defined in section 34-181 appears to exist on private property, he shall cause a written notice to be 10 affixed to the property, declaring the existence of the nuisance and ordering whoever has an interest 11 in the property to comply with this article by removing the abandoned property or inoperable 12 vehicle within 72 hours of the notice. In addition to the foregoing notice, a copy of the notice shall 13 be delivered to the owner or occupant of the private property; if a copy of the notice cannot be 14 delivered to the owner or occupant, a copy of the notice shall be left at the property, with a duplicate 15 copy sent to the owner or occupant of the property by certified mail, return receipt requested. (b) 16 Contents. The notice shall contain the request for removal within the time specified in subsection 17 (a) of this section and the notice shall advise that upon failure to comply with the notice of removal 18 the enforcement authority shall undertake such removal, with the cost of removal to be levied 19 against the owner or occupant of the property. The notice shall also advise the person to whom the 20 notices are applicable of his right to contest the determination of the enforcement authority that a 21 violation under this article exists by requesting a hearing before the special magistrate or code 22 enforcement board and that, if such a hearing is desired, the request can be made by filing a written 23 request with the special magistrate or code enforcement board secretary. A request for a hearing 24 must be made within the time for removal set forth in subsection (a) of this section. 25 Sec. 34-183. - Special magistrate or code enforcement board hearing procedures. 26 (a) Setting date; notice. Upon receiving a request for a hearing pursuant to this article, the special 27 magistrate or code enforcement board secretary shall set the hearing before the next regular 28 meeting of the special magistrate or code enforcement board. Notice of the hearing shall be given 29 to the person requesting the hearing and to the enforcement authority. No other notices are 30 required. A request for hearing under this section stays all enforcement proceedings until an order 31 of the special magistrate or code enforcement board is entered. 32 (b) Conduct. Hearings under this article shall be conducted under and governed by the procedures 33 set forth in Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code section 2 216 et seq. 34 (c) Board determination. The special magistrate or code enforcement board shall determine either 35 that there exists a nuisance or that there does not exist a nuisance. With reference to hearings under 36 this article, the special magistrate or code enforcement board has no other authority and is not 37 authorized to modify or vary the terms and conditions contained in this article. 38 (d) Issuance, filing of board order. The special magistrate or code enforcement board shall issue a 39 written order, either finding the existence of a nuisance or finding that a nuisance does not exist. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 26 of 33 1 Sec. 34-184. - Compliance with notice or order to remove; removal by city upon 2 noncompliance. 3 Within the time for removal set forth in the notice for removal, or within 48 hours of the date on 4 which an order is entered by the special magistrate or code enforcement board affirming the 5 determination of the enforcement authority, the owner of the abandoned property or inoperable 6 vehicle and the owner or occupant of the private property on which the same is located, either or 7 all of them, shall cause the removal of the vehicle. If the violation is not remedied within the time 8 set forth in this section, the enforcement authority shall have the right to take possession of the 9 abandoned property or inoperable vehicle and remove it from the premises. In the event of removal 10 and disposition of the abandoned property or inoperable vehicle by the enforcement authority, the 11 owner of the abandoned property or inoperable vehicle and the owner and occupant of the private 12 property from which the abandoned property or inoperable vehicle is removed shall be jointly and 13 severally liable for the expenses incurred in so doing. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere 14 with, hinder or refuse to allow the enforcement authority to enter upon private property for the 15 purpose of removing the abandoned property or inoperable vehicle under the provisions of this 16 article. 17 Sec. 50-4. Sleeping and camping in public areas and beaches. 18 19 (f) Enforcement and penalties. 20 *** *** 21 (4) Any person who violates or fails to comply with any provisions of this section 50-4 shall be 22 subject to the following: (a) The issuance of a Class I citation in accordance with the provisions of 23 section 2-280, et seq., "Code Enforcement Citations"; or (b) Enforcement by other means 24 including, but not limited to: a summons; a notice to appear in the county or circuit court; an arrest; 25 an action before the special magistrate or /code enforcement board; or a civil action for injunctive 26 relief; or (c) Punished in accordance with the general penalty set forth in section 1-15 of this Code. 27 Sec. 54-25. - Suspension of use of city park. 28 (a) The suspension provisions set forth in this section are a management tool independent of any 29 other enforcement tool referenced under this article for the purpose of managing the city parks for 30 the common welfare and safety of all city park patrons and preservation of all city park facilities. 31 The intent and purpose of this section is to ensure compliance with this article and to protect the 32 public health, safety, and welfare of city park patrons. Suspension of a person's privilege to use 33 city parks or facilities therein are intended to occur only when that person has demonstrated an 34 inability to comply with the provisions set forth in this article or has engaged in certain illegal or 35 violent behavior in a city park in violation of the law. 36 (b) A person's privilege to use a city park or any facility therein may be suspended by city law 37 enforcement or the city's culture and leisure services director of leisure services when the person 38 has been found guilty of violating any provision of this article on more than two occasions within 39 a three year period. For purposes of this section, the term "guilty" shall include a plea of nolo City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 27 of 33 1 contendere, voluntary payment of a citation issued in accordance with this article, or an 2 adjudication of guilt by a court of law or special magistrate or code enforcement board. The first 3 suspension shall be for a period of up to 90 days, and each additional suspension thereafter, the 4 suspension period shall be for up to 90 days per applicable offense, not to exceed two consecutive 5 years for any one suspension. 6 (c) A person's privilege to use a city park or any facility therein may be suspended by city law 7 enforcement or the city's director of leisure services when a person is cited for a violation of 54- 8 15 (b), (d) or (e) for certain trespass cases, or 54-21 for interfering with personnel. Suspension for 9 a first offense shall be for 30 days, plus an additional 60 days for every other similar offense, not 10 to exceed two consecutive years for any one suspension. 11 (d) A person's privilege to use a city park or any facility therein may be suspended for up to two 12 consecutive years by city law enforcement for each incident in which that person has been charged 13 with committing a violent criminal offense in a city park including, but not limited to, breach of 14 peace under § 870.03, Florida Statutes; affrays and riots under § 870.01; aggravated battery under 15 § 784.045, Florida Statutes, and resisting an officer with violence under § 843.01, Florida Statutes. 16 (e) A person's privilege to use a city park or any facility therein may be suspended for up to two 17 consecutive years by city law enforcement for each incident in which that person has been charged 18 with engaging in or allowing in a city park the possession, use or sale of controlled substances, as 19 that term is defined in § 893.03, Florida Statutes, in violation of law. 20 (f) A person's privilege to use a city park or any facility therein may be suspended for up to two 21 consecutive years by city law enforcement for each incident in which that person has been charged 22 with engaging in or allowing prostitution in a city park. 23 (g) A person's privilege to use a city park or any facility therein may be suspended by city law 24 enforcement or director of leisure services for fees that are past due more than 120 days and which 25 are imposed pursuant to this article or pursuant to a citation imposed for violating the provisions 26 of this article. However, any suspension imposed under this subsection shall immediately expire 27 at such time the fees are paid. 28 (h) Any suspension order issued in accordance with this section shall be in writing and shall state 29 the name and address of the person who is subject to the suspension, the cause of the suspension, 30 the duration of the suspension including the effective and expiration date of the suspension, and 31 the city parks or any facility subject to the suspension. The order shall also state that the person 32 shall have the right to appeal the suspension to the city manager by delivering written notice of 33 appeal to the city manager within three business days of the receipt of the order. The notice of the 34 appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal. The city manager shall set the time and place for 35 hearing such appeal, and notice of the time and place shall be given at least five calendar days 36 prior to the date set for the hearing. The hearing shall occur no later than ten days after the date 37 the appeal notice is received by the city. Failure to timely file an appeal of a suspension order shall 38 constitute a waiver of the person's right to an appeal and the order shall be deemed final. 39 (i) The city manager shall adopt rules and procedures for conducting a fair and impartial hearing 40 to determine compliance with the provisions of this section. All decisions of the city manager City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 28 of 33 1 under this section shall be deemed final and shall be subject to appeal to a court of competent 2 jurisdiction. 3 (j) When a suspension may be ordered up to a maximum number of days under this section, the 4 city shall consider the following factors when determining the length of the suspension: (1) the 5 gravity of the violation; (2) the potential or actual harm or danger the violation had or caused on 6 other patrons or facilities of the city park; and (3) any mitigating circumstances. 7 Sec. 78-195. - Special magistrate or code enforcement board authority and violation liability. 8 (a) The city special magistrate or code enforcement board shall have jurisdiction and authority to 9 hear and decide alleged violations occurring in the corporate limits of the city and when warranted 10 levy penalties. Proceedings before the special magistrate or code enforcement board shall be 11 governed by its rules and procedures. 12 (b) Any person or customer found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this article or any 13 written order of the city pursuant thereto, shall pay all penalties, costs and expenses involved in 14 the case, including reasonable attorney's fees. Notice of such violation shall be given by delivering 15 the same to the premises and a copy thereof sent by certified mail to the billing address. Each day 16 upon which a violation of this article occurs shall constitute a separate and additional violation. 17 (c) Any person or customer in violation of any provision of this article shall become liable to the 18 city for any expense, loss or damage incurred by the city by reason of such violation, including 19 reasonable attorney's fees and costs of correcting the unauthorized work, tampering or damage to 20 the system. 21 (d) In addition to any penalty provided by law for the violation of any provision of this article, the 22 city may bring suit in the appropriate court to enjoin, restrain or otherwise prevent the violation. 23 Sec. 78-413. - Enforcement. 24 The special magistrate or code enforcement board shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide alleged 25 violations of this division. Each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. 26 Sec. 82-14. - Permit intent. 27 A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to 28 violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of 29 a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, 30 construction, or violations of this code. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work 31 authorized by such permit is commenced within six months after its issuance, or if the work 32 authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months after the time 33 work is commenced. The permit shall become invalid after three years from the date of its issuance 34 in zoning districts of the city, unless the building or buildings subject to the permit have exteriors 35 and landscaping which are in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications and comply 36 with the provisions of section 34-96, section 34-97, subsections 34-98(3)—(9), and (11), section 37 34-99, and section 34-122 of the City Code of Ordinances. Extensions of time for building permits 38 may be granted only by the city council. Further, any unfinished buildings or structures for which City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 29 of 33 1 a permit has lapsed or otherwise become invalid, and where the appearance and other conditions 2 of such unfinished building or structure substantially detracts from the appearance of the 3 immediate neighborhood, or reduces the value of property in the immediate neighborhood, or is a 4 nuisance shall be deemed to be a violation of the above referenced code sections, which violation 5 may be enforced by the special magistrate or code enforcement board. 6 Sec. 82-56. - Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code adopted. 7 The Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code, 1985 edition, as published by the Southern 8 Building Code Congress International, Inc., is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein 9 as if fully set. The Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code is hereby amended to read as 10 follows: 11 (a) Section 105.1. The special magistrate or code enforcement board shall serve as the board of 12 adjustment and appeals for this code. 13 (b) Section 605. Cost of repair or demolition; lien on property: collection. 1. Upon repair or 14 demolition of any building or structure, either with city crews or by independent contractor, all 15 costs of demolition and/or repair shall be assessed against and constitute a lien on the property 16 upon which the building or structure is/was situated. The lien shall be equal in rank, priority and 17 dignity with the lien of Brevard County ad valorem taxes and shall be superior to all other liens, 18 encumbrances, titles and claims in, to or against the property. Cost shall include, but not limited 19 to, administrative cost, attorney's fees, postage, newspaper publication fees and actual costs of 20 physical removal and/or repair. 2. The city clerk shall file such lien in the public records of Brevard 21 County Florida, showing the nature of the lien, the amount thereof, a legal description of the 22 property and the owner thereof. Such liens shall bear interest from the date of filing at the highest 23 rate allowed by law. 3. The lien may be enforced in the same manner as a court judgment by the 24 sheriffs of the State of Florida, including levy against personal property, and may also be 25 foreclosed in the nature of a mortgage. All costs and attorney's fees incurred in collection of 26 amounts due under any such lien shall also be secured by the property and included within the total 27 sum due under the lien. 28 Sec. 82-382. - Correction of violation; payment of penalty; notice of hearing. 29 Upon receipt of a citation, the person charged with the violation shall elect either to: 30 (a) Correct the violation and pay to the city the civil penalty in the manner indicated on the citation 31 or, (b) Within ten days of receipt of the citation, exclusive of weekends and legal holidays, request 32 an administrative hearing before the city's special magistrate or code enforcement board to appeal 33 the issuance of the citation in accordance with the procedures set forth in this article. Any request 34 for an administrative hearing shall be made and delivered in writing to the city manager by the 35 time set forth in this subsection. Failure to request an administrative hearing in writing within the 36 ten-day time period shall constitute a waiver of the violator's right to an administrative hearing. A 37 waiver of said right shall be deemed an admission of the violation, and penalties shall be imposed 38 as set forth on the citation. 39 Sec. 82-383. - Administrative hearings; accrual of penalties. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 30 of 33 1 (a) All administrative hearings held pursuant to this article shall be conducted by the special 2 magistrate or code enforcement board in accordance with Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code 3 and the requirements of the Local Government Code Enforcement Boards Act. 4 (b) During the administrative hearing, if the violator demonstrates to the special magistrate or code 5 enforcement board that the violation is invalid or that the violation has been corrected prior to 6 appearing before the special magistrate or code enforcement board, the special magistrate or code 7 enforcement board may dismiss the citation unless the violation is irreparable or irreversible, in 8 which case the special magistrate or code enforcement board may order the violator to pay a civil 9 penalty as set forth in subsection (c) below. 10 (c) During the administrative hearing, if the special magistrate or code enforcement board finds 11 that a violation exists, the special magistrate or code enforcement board may order the violator to 12 pay a civil penalty of not less than the amount set forth on the citation but not more than $1,000.00 13 per day for each violation. In determining the amount of the penalty, the special magistrate or code 14 enforcement board shall consider the following facts: (1) The gravity of the violation. (2) Any 15 actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. (3) Any previous violations which were 16 committed by the violator. 17 (d) During the administrative hearing, if the special magistrate or code enforcement board finds 18 that the violator had not contested or paid the civil penalty set forth in the citation within the time 19 required in this article, the special magistrate or code enforcement board shall enter an order 20 ordering the violator to pay the civil penalty set forth on the citation, and a hearing shall not be 21 necessary for the issuance of such order. 22 (e) All civil penalties imposed by the special magistrate or code enforcement board under this 23 article shall continue to accrue until the violator comes into compliance or until a judgment is 24 rendered by a court to collect or foreclose on a lien filed under this article, whichever occurs first, 25 regardless of whether or not the order of the special magistrate or code enforcement board sets 26 forth this accrual requirement. 27 Sec. 82-384. - Appeals of special magistrate or code enforcement board decisions. 28 Any person aggrieved by a final administrative order of the special magistrate or code enforcement 29 board pursuant to this article, including the city council, may appeal the order to the circuit court 30 in accordance with F.S. § 489.127(5)(j), as may be amended or renumbered from time to time by 31 the Florida Legislature. 32 Sec. 82-385. - Recording special magistrate or code enforcement board orders. 33 A certified copy of an order of the special magistrate or code enforcement board imposing a civil 34 penalty under this article may be recorded in the public records and thereafter shall constitute a 35 lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator. Such orders shall be enforced in 36 accordance with Florida law. 37 Sec. 92-14. - Enforcement and monitoring. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 31 of 33 1 (a) Violations of this chapter may be subject to civil citation pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VI, 2 Division 3 of this Code. 3 (b) The provisions of this chapter may also be enforceable by proceedings before the City of Cape 4 Canaveral special magistrate or code enforcement board, or by suit for prohibitory or mandatory 5 injunctive relief, or by any other lawful remedy existing at law or in equity for the enforcement of 6 municipal ordinances. Funds generated by penalties imposed under this chapter shall be used by 7 the City of Cape Canaveral for the administration and enforcement of F.S. § 403.9337, and the 8 corresponding sections of this chapter, and to further water conservation and nonpoint pollution 9 prevention activities. 10 Sec. 94-62. - Abandoned and hazardous signs. 11 (a) Abandoned signs. It shall be unlawful for any permittee or owner of a sign to fail or refuse to 12 remove any sign, after ten days of the service of notice from the administrator, which advertises a 13 business or product which has not been conducted or sold at the premises where the sign is located 14 for more than six consecutive months prior to the date of the notice from the administrator. If the 15 order to remove is not complied with, the administrator may remove the sign, and an assessment 16 lien, on parity with real estate taxes, may be filed against the property for the expense incurred in 17 removal of the sign. 18 (b) Hazardous signs. The administrator shall refuse to issue a permit for any sign, which will 19 constitute a hazard and a potential menace to the safety of the public, and the administrator may 20 require the removal of any sign which is not properly maintained or which is or will become unsafe 21 and constitute a hazard to the safety of the public. It shall be unlawful for any permittee or owner 22 to continue to display any sign that constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public. It shall be 23 unlawful for any permittee or owner to continue to display any sign that constitutes a hazard after 24 48 hours from the time of notice by the administrator requesting the removal of such sign, unless 25 within that time, the permittee or owner shall have filed with the administrator notice of his or her 26 intention to appeal his decision to the special magistrate or code enforcement board, or the 27 administrator has determined that exigent circumstances exist that require the immediate removal 28 of the sign in order to abate the public hazard. Any such sign displayed more than 48 hours after 29 notice to remove the sign may be removed by the city at the expense of the permittee or owner, 30 unless the matter is pending an appeal to the special magistrate or code enforcement board or 31 unless the decision of the administrator has been reversed by the special magistrate or code 32 enforcement board. 33 (c) Signs constituting traffic hazard. No sign or other advertising structure as regulated by this 34 chapter shall be erected at the intersection of any street in such a manner as to obstruct free and 35 clear vision; at any location where, because of the position, shape or color, it may interfere with, 36 obstruct the view of or be confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device; or which 37 makes use of any word commonly used on traffic control signs or signals. Visibility at intersections 38 shall be in accordance with the figure [found in section] 94-1. 39 Sec. 102-38. - Enforcement and penalties. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 32 of 33 1 (a) Enforcement. The city may enforce the provisions of this division by any lawful means 2 including, but not limited to, issuing a civil citation, bringing charges before the city's code 3 enforcement board or special magistrate master, and seeking injunctive and equitable relief. For 4 purposes of determining the penalties provided under this division, the removal or death of a tree 5 in violations of this division shall be deemed irreparable or irreversible. Further, each day a 6 violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. It shall also be a separate violation of this 7 division for each tree removed without a permit. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Section 4. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of prior ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 5. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Ordinance and the City Code may be freely made. Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. adoption by the City Council. ADOPTED by the City Council 2019. ATTEST: This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this 18th day of June, 7 Mia Goforth, CMC 8 City Clerk 9 0 First Reading: May 21, 2019 1 Advertisement: June 6, 2019 2 Second Reading: June 18, 2019 3 4 Approved as to legal form and sufficiency 5 for the City of Cape Canaveral only by: 46 47 Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney Bob Hoog, Mayor Mike Brown Robert Hoog Wes Morrison Rocky Randels Angela Raymond City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 11-2019 Page 33 of 33 For Against City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 6 Subject: Ordinance No. 12-2019; providing for a referendum election and ballot language for an election to be scheduled by the City Council; providing for an Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption pursuant to Section 196.1995, Florida Statutes; providing for coordination with the Supervisor of Elections; providing for severability and an effective date, first reading. Department: Economic Development Summary: The City of Cape Canaveral Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax (AVT) Exemption Program was created in November 2009 in accordance with Florida Statues Section 196.1995, which requires approval by Referendum. The Program is an Economic Development tool which incentivizes companies to invest in the City of Cape Canaveral by locating and/or expanding their businesses here and creating local jobs. The City Council grants AVT Exemptions on a case-by-case basis to qualified companies. The Program authorizes an Exemption of all or a portion of the local AVT collection for up to ten years. The Exemption only applies to Ad Valorem taxes levied by the City of Cape Canaveral. Brevard County additionally offers an AVT Exemption Program which was extended in 2014 by the County Electorate; frequently companies apply for both City and County AVT Exemptions. When combined, the joint Exemptions can be used to comprise the 20% match required under the State of Florida's Qualified Target Industry Economic Incentive Program. The City of Cape Canaveral AVT Exemption Program expires this November (10 years after initial approval) if not approved for extension. An extension of the Program must also be approved by Referendum. Section 196.1995(7) Florida Statues provides: The authority to grant exemptions under this section expires 10 years after the date such authority was approved in an election, but such authority may be renewed for subsequent 10 -year periods if each 10 -year renewal is approved in a referendum called and held pursuant to this section. Ordinance No. 12-2019 (Attachment 1) provides for a Referendum Election and ballot language extending the City's Economic Development AVT Exemption Program. Staff recommends the City retain this important Economic Development tool and place the Extension of the City of Cape Canaveral's AVT Exemption Program on the 2019 ballot. At its June 2, 2009 meeting, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-2009 (Attachment 2), which brought the initial City AVT Exemption Program to the voters. By majority vote, the Electorate of the City of Cape Canaveral voted to approve the item as part of the November 3, 2009 Election. At its November 18, 2009 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009- 44 (Attachment 3), formally creating a procedure for administration of the AVT Exemption Program. The intent and purpose in enacting the Resolution was to facilitate and foster the following: City Council Meeting Date: 6/18/2019 Item No. 6 Page 2 of 3 A) The provision of an incentive to those new or expanded businesses which make a positive contribution to the economy of the City of Cape Canaveral in terms of new jobs and improvements to real and personal property; B) Promotion of economy by creating jobs in the City of Cape Canaveral in such a manner so as to not disadvantage existing businesses while recognizing that productive competition assists economic growth; C) Enhancement of the quality of life for the residents of the City of Cape Canaveral by attracting new businesses or fostering expansion of existing businesses; D) The provision of incentives to certain eligible businesses (as defined by Florida Statutes) of diverse industries having a positive impact on the economy of the City of Cape Canaveral. E) Promotion of the public purpose of enhancing economic growth in the City of Cape Canaveral so as to benefit the City's corporate and residential citizens; F) The provision of a rational, non -arbitrary, non-discriminatory basis by which the Council may grant or deny economic development Ad Valorem tax exemptions, pursuant to the economic development goals of the City of Cape Canaveral; and G) The granting of economic development Ad Valorem tax exemptions in accordance with the factors and requirements of this resolution and any other factors which could result in economic growth within the City of Cape Canaveral. Since 2009, AVT Exemptions have been sought by and granted to two companies: 1. Oxysonix was granted an AVT Exemption via Ordinance No. 12-2012. However, the company opted to not locate in the City of Cape Canaveral, and 2. Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. (CHSi) was granted an AVT Exemption via Ordinance No. 05-2016. The company previously had 250 employees within the City and is required to employ at least 150 additional new employees in the City by December 31, 2019. CHSi has completed the (approximately) $4M in building renovations at 8600 Astronaut Blvd. and the company is operational in the City. Upon City verification of job generation and capital investment goals, the property will become eligible for the first full year of AVT Exemption when the Brevard County Property Appraiser publishes the new, appraised valuation of the property. Because this has not yet occurred, no AVT Exemption dollars have been realized by CHSi. Not to be confused with AVT Exemptions, the following companies sought Qualified Target Industry (QTI) matching grant fund Economic Development incentives from the City of Cape Canaveral. • Project Rocket (approved via Resolution No. 2010-36). • L3 IEC (approved via Resolution No. 2012-27). • Stark Armor (Resolution No. 2012-01). Staff also later prepared an AVT Exemption for Stark Armor via Ordinance No. 03-2012. No action was taken. City Council Meeting Date: 6/18/2019 Item No. 6 Page 3 of 3 These three companies opted to not locate in the City of Cape Canaveral. This underscores the competitive nature of Economic Development incentives. Many cities offer Economic Development incentives; if a city does not, that city often will not be considered by site selectors. Staff conducted a survey of Brevard County municipalities about AVT Exemption Programs (Attachment 3). Eleven (11) municipalities responded. Of those, five (5) have a current AVT Exemption Program and at least 4 of them intend to seek an extension of the Program when it expires. If the Electorate approves the extension of the AVT Exemption Program, Staff will update Resolution No. 2009-44, readopting procedures for administration of the Program at the November 19, 2019 City Council meeting. If the Electorate does not approve the extension of the AVT Exemption Program, there can be no new approvals and the existing granted AVT Exemption for CHSi will remain in place for the duration of the City's Agreement with CHSi. The Brevard County Supervisor of Elections Office deadline for all municipal referendums appearing on the 2019 November ballot is 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2019. Submitting Department Director: Todd Morley Date: 5/17/19 Attachment(s): 1. Ordinance No. 12-2019 2. Ordinance No. 06-2009 3. Resolution No. 2009-44 4. Survey of Brevard County Municipalities Financial Impact: Potential foregone Ad Valorem Tax revenue from companies receiving an AVT Exemption; Staff time and effort to prepare this Agenda Item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 5/17/19 The City Manager recommends that City Council take the following action: Approve Ordinance No. 12-2019, on first reading. cc Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene U Date: 5/17/19 Attachment 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. 12-2019 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 4 CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY FLORIDA; PROVIDING 5 FOR A REFERENDUM ELECTION AND BALLOT LANGUAGE 6 FOR AN ELECTION TO BE SCHEDULED BY THE CITY 7 COUNCIL; PROVIDING FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8 AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 196.1995, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR 10 COORDINATION WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS; 11 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 12 13 WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority under Section 2(b), Article VIII of the 14 State Constitution to exercise any power for municipal purposes except when expressly 15 prohibited by law; and 16 17 WHEREAS, section 196.1995, Florida Statutes, authorizes, upon approval by the 18 municipal electorate in a referendum, a municipality to grant Ad Valorem tax exemptions to new 19 businesses and expanding existing businesses; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to expand the commercial and industrial tax base 22 of the City of Cape Canaveral by attracting new businesses and expanding existing businesses 23 within the City of Cape Canaveral; and 24 25 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue to promote and enhance the economic 26 climate within the City of Cape Canaveral by making it financially attractive and by creating 27 additional local jobs through Ad Valorem tax incentives for new businesses to locate in the City 28 and for existing businesses in the City to expand; and 29 30 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it could assist and improve the long - 31 term economic climate of the City, and promote the public interest, health, safety and welfare of 32 the citizens of the City of Cape Canaveral, to propose to the electorate that the City Council be 33 authorized to grant property tax exemptions to new businesses and expansions of existing 34 businesses pursuant to Section 3, Article VII of the State Constitution and section 196.1995, 35 Florida Statutes; and 36 37 WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that if the electorate of Cape Canaveral grants 38 the authority requested hereunder, Ad Valorem tax exemptions can only be approved on a case - 39 by -case basis under the criteria specifically established under Florida law; and 40 41 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this 42 Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of 43 Cape Canaveral. 44 45 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE 46 CANAVERAL HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS: City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 12-2019 Page 1 of 3 1 Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this 2 reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of 3 Cape Canaveral. 4 5 Section 2. Referendum Election. A referendum election is hereby called and shall be 6 scheduled to be held by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral to determine whether the 7 ballot question appearing in Section 3 herein shall be approved by a majority of the votes cast in 8 such election in which qualified electors residing in the City shall participate. Such referendum 9 election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by law for all elections. The date 10 of the election shall be November 5, 2019, unless the City Council directs that the election occur 11 sooner. The places for voting in such referendum election shall be established for the election 12 when the election is scheduled by the City Council. All duly qualified electors of the City of 13 Cape Canaveral shall be entitled to participate in said election. The date and method of voting of 14 the election shall be coordinated by the City Clerk with the Supervisor of Elections of Brevard 15 County. 16 17 Section 3. Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption. 18 19 (a) Purpose of question. It is proposed that the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, be authorized to 20 grant Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemptions pursuant to section 196.1995, 21 Florida Statutes, which provides that a municipality may call a referendum within its jurisdiction 22 to determine whether the electorate in that jurisdiction will authorize that municipality to grant 23 such exemptions under Section 3, Article VII of the State Constitution. Upon a majority vote in 24 favor of such authority, the City may exempt, at its discretion and by Ordinance, from Ad 25 Valorem taxation up to one -hundred percent (100%) of the assessed value of all improvements to 26 real property made by or for the use of a new business, or up to one -hundred percent (100%) of 27 the assessed value of all added improvements to real property made to facilitate the expansion of 28 an existing business and of the net increase in all tangible personal property acquired to facilitate 29 such expansion of an existing business, provided that the improvements to real property are 30 made or the tangible personal property is added or increased on or after the day the Ordinance is 31 adopted. 32 33 (b) Ballot question. Concurrent with the election, when scheduled, the following question shall 34 be placed on the ballot. The caption and questions shall be worded substantially as follows: 35 36 37 38 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM 39 TAX EXEMPTION 40 41 Shall the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral be authorized to grant, 42 pursuant to Section 3, Article VII of the State Constitution, property tax 43 exemptions to new businesses and expansions of existing businesses that are 44 expected to create new, full-time jobs in the City? 45 46 YES For authority to grant exemptions. 47 City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 12-2019 Page 2 of 3 1 NO Against authority to grant exemptions. 2 3 Section 4. Coordination with Supervisor of Elections. To the extent necessary, the City 4 Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to instruct and coordinate with the Supervisor of 5 Elections of Brevard County to include the above-described referendum question on the ballot 6 concurrent with the election. 7 8 Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or 9 provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of 10 competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural or any other reason, such portion 11 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect 12 the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. 13 14 Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon 15 adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida; however, the ballot 16 proposal in Section 3 shall only become effective if a majority of the registered electors of the 17 City of Cape Canaveral, Florida who vote in the election to be held as scheduled by the City 18 Council approve the ballot question set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance. 19 20 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, in a regular 21 meeting assembled on the day of , 2019. 22 23 24 25 Bob Hoog, Mayor 26 27 ATTEST: For Against 28 29 Mike Brown 30 31 Mia Goforth, CMC Robert Hoog 32 City Clerk 33 Wes Morrison 34 35 Rocky Randels 36 37 Angela Raymond 38 First Reading: June 18, 2019 39 Advertisement: 40 Second Reading: 41 42 43 Approved as to legal form and sufficiency 44 for the City of Cape Canaveral only by: 45 46 47 Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 12-2019 Page 3 of 3 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. 06-2009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR A REFERENDUM ELECTION AND BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR AN ELECTION TO BE SCHEDULED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; PROVIDING FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.1995, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR COORDINATION WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority under Section 2(b), Article VIII of the State Constitution to exercise any power for municipal purposes except when expressly prohibited by law; and WHEREAS, section 196.1995, Florida Statutes, authorizes, upon approval by the municipal electorate in a referendum, a municipality to grant ad valorem tax exemptions to new businesses and expanding existing businesses; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to expand the commercial and industrial tax base of the City of Cape Canaveral by attracting new businesses and expanding existing businesses within the City of Cape Canaveral; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue to promote and enhance the economic climate within the City of Cape Canaveral by making it financially attractive and by creating additional local jobs through ad valorem tax incentives for new businesses to locate in the City and for existing businesses in the City to expand; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it could assist and improve the long term economic climate of the City, and promote the public interest, health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Cape Canaveral, to propose to the electorate that the City Council be authorized to grant property tax exemptions to new businesses and expansions of existing businesses pursuant to Section 3, Article VII of the State Constitution and section 196.1995, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that if the electorate of Cape Canaveral grants the authority requested hereunder, ad valorem tax exemptions can only be approved on a case-by-case basis under the criteria specifically established under Florida law; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 06-2009 Page 1 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. Section 2. Referendum Election. A referendum election is hereby called and shall be scheduled to be held by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral to determine whether the ballot question appearing in Section 3. herein shall be approved by a majority of the votes cast in such election in which qualified electors residing in the City shall participate. Such referendum election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by law for all elections. The date of the election shall be November 3, 2009, unless the City Council directs that the election occur sooner. The places for voting in such referendum election shall be established for the election when the election is scheduled by the City Council. All duly qualified electors of the City of Cape Canaveral shall be entitled to participate in said election. The date and method of voting of the election shall be coordinated by the City Clerk with the Supervisor of Elections of Brevard County. Section 3. Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption. (a) Purpose of question. It is proposed that the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, be authorized to grant economic development ad valorem tax exemptions pursuant to section 196.1995, Florida Statutes, which provides that a municipality may call a referendum within its jurisdiction to determine whether the electorate in that jurisdiction will authorize that municipality to grant such exemptions under Section 3, Article VII of the State Constitution. Upon a majority vote in favor of such authority, the City may exempt, at its discretion and by ordinance, from ad valorem taxation up to one hundred percent (100%) of the assessed value of all improvements to real property made by or for the use of a new business, or up to one hundred percent (100%) of the assessed value of all added improvements to real property made to facilitate the expansion of an existing business and of the net increase in all tangible personal property acquired to facilitate such expansion of an existing business, provided that the improvements to real property are made or the tangible personal property is added or increased on or after the day the ordinance is adopted. (b) Ballot question. Concurrent with the election, when scheduled, the following question shall be placed on the ballot. The caption and questions shall be worded substantially as follows: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION Shall the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral be authorized to grant, pursuant to s. 3, Art VII of the State Constitution, property tax exemptions to new businesses and expansions of existing businesses? YES For authority to grant exemptions. NO Against authority to grant exemptions. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 06-2009 Page 2 of 3 Section 4. Coordination with Supervisor of Elections. To the extent necessary, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to instruct and coordinate with the Supervisor of Elections of Brevard County to include the above-described referendum question on the ballot concurrent with the election. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida; however, the ballot proposal in Section 3. shall only become effective if a majority of the registered electors of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida who vote in the election to be held as scheduled by the City Council approve the ballot question set forth in Section 3. of this Ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, in a regular meeting assembled on the p2N01 day of , 2009. n _ ATTEST: Susan St' s, City Clerk Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for Rocky Randels, Mayor For Against Bob Hoog second Buzz Petsos motion Rocky Randels X C. Shannon Roberts X the Ciape Canaveral only: Betty Walsh X ANTHONYA. GARGANESE, City Attorney First Reading: a,S_ i y - lyog econd Reading: N,_ t - vidg Date: e5 -,Z,3- 1,6n City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance 06-2009 Page 3 of 3 SEP -09-2010 15:38 Frorn:SUPERVISOR ELECTIONS 3212646741 To:3218681248 P.2'11 STATE OF FLORIDA Official CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD COUNTY OF BREVARD We, the undersigned, Rhonda Babb, County Court Judge, Lori Scott, Supervisor of Elections, and Trudie Infantini, Member of the Board of County Commissioners, constituting the Board of County Canvassers in and for said County, do hereby certify that we met on the 3rd day of November, A.D., 2009, and proceeded publicly to canvass the votes given for the CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL GENERAL ELECTION held on the 3rd day of November, A.D., 2009 as shown by the retums on file in the office of the Supervisor of Elections. We do hereby certify from said returns as follows: For Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption the whole number of votes cast was 688 of which number YES (For authority to arant exemptions) NO (Against authority to Grant exemptions) (SEAL) received 388 votes received 300 votes MEMB R, BOAR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA; PROVIDING A GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTIONS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE CITIZENS OF CAPE CANAVERAL THROUGH THE SUCCESSFUL PASSAGE OF A DULY HELD REFERENDUM ON NOVEMBER 3, 2009; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 3, Article VII of the Florida Constitution, a duly authorized referendum ballot was held on November 3, 2009 whereby the citizens of Cape Canaveral, by majority vote, authorized the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral to consider granting economic development ad valorem tax exemptions to new businesses and expansions of existing businesses; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to utilize the authority to offer and grant such property tax exemptions for purposes of supporting economic growth within the City by providing an incentive for employment opportunities that will lead to the improvement of the quality of life of the residents of Cape Canaveral and the positive expansion of the local economy; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this purpose, the City Council desires to offer economic development ad valorem tax exemptions to new businesses relocating to the City of Cape Canaveral and to expansions of businesses already situated in the City of Cape Canaveral; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to offer and grant economic development ad valorem tax exemptions in accordance with the requirements and procedures contained in this resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Short title. This resolution shall be known as the "Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Resolution of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida." Section 2. Authority. The City Council is authorized and empowered to enact this resolution pursuant to Article VII, Section 3, of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Section 196.1995, Florida Statutes. In a referendum duly held on November 3, 2009, the electorate of the City of City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2009-44 Page 1 of 9 Cape Canaveral authorized the City Council to grant economic development ad valorem tax exemptions. Section 3. Intent and purpose. It is the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral ("Council") in enacting this resolution to facilitate and foster the following: (A) The provision of an incentive to those new or expanded businesses which make a positive contribution to the economy of the City of Cape Canaveral in terms of new jobs and improvements to real and personal property; (B) Promotion of economy by creating jobs in the City of Cape Canaveral in such a manner so as to not disadvantage existing businesses while recognizing that productive competition assists economic growth; (C) Enhancement of the quality of life for the residents of the City of Cape Canaveral by attracting new businesses or fostering expansion of existing businesses; (D) The provision of incentives to certain eligible businesses (as defined by the Florida Statutes) of diverse industries having a positive impact on the economy of the City of Cape Canaveral. (E) Promotion of the public purpose of enhancing economic growth in the City of Cape Canaveral so as to benefit the City's corporate and residential citizens; (F) The provision of a rational, nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory basis by which the Council may grant or deny economic development ad valorem tax exemptions, pursuant to the economic development goals of the City of Cape Canaveral; and (G) The granting of economic development ad valorem tax exemptions in accordance with the factors and requirements of this resolution and any other factors which could result in economic growth within the City of Cape Canaveral. Section 4. Discretion of Council. The Council shall have the sole and absolute authority and discretion, as provided by law, to grant or deny economic development ad valorem tax exemptions under this Resolution. Section 5. Eligible businesses. Only the following businesses, as defined by Section 196.012, Florida Statutes, or any amendments thereto, are eligible for an economic development ad valorem tax exemption under this Resolution: (A) New businesses, which shall mean: City of Cape Canaveral Resolution 2009-44 Page 2 of 9 (1) A business establishing 10 or more jobs to employ 10 or more full-time employees in the City of Cape Canaveral, which manufactures, processes, compounds, fabricates, or produces for sale items of tangible personal property at a fixed location and which comprises an industrial or manufacturing plant; (2) A business establishing 25 or more jobs to employ 25 or more full-time employees in the City of Cape Canaveral, the sales factor of which, as defined by section 220.15(5), Florida Statutes, for the facility with respect to which it requests an economic development ad valorem tax exemption is less than 0.50 for each year the exemption is claimed; or (3) An office space in the City of Cape Canaveral owned and used by a corporation newly domiciled in the City of Cape Canaveral; provided such office space houses 50 or more full-time employees of such corporation; PROVIDED that such business or office first begins operation on a site clearly separate from any other commercial or industrial operation owned by the same business. (4) Any business located in an enterprise zone or brownfield area that first begins operation on a site clearly separate from any other commercial or industrial operation owned by the same business. (5) A business that is situated on property annexed into the City of Cape Canaveral and that, at the time of the annexation, is receiving an economic development ad valorem tax exemption from Brevard County under section 196.1995, Florida Statutes. (B) Expansion of an existing business, which shall mean: (1) A business establishing 10 or more jobs to employ 10 or more full-time employees in the City of Cape Canaveral, which manufactures, processes, compounds, fabricates, or produces for sale items of tangible personal property at a fixed location and which comprises an industrial or manufacturing plant; or (2) A business establishing 25 or more jobs to employ 25 or more full-time employees in the City of Cape Canaveral, the sales factor of which, as defined by section 220.15(5), Florida Statutes, for the facility with respect to which it requests an economic development ad valorem tax exemption is less than 0.50 for each year the exemption is claimed; PROVIDED that such business increases operations on a site collocated with a City of Cape Canaveral Resolution 2009-44 Page 3 of 9 commercial or industrial operation owned by the same business, resulting in a net increase in employment of not less than 10 percent or an increase in productive output of not less than 10 percent. (3) Any business located in an enterprise zone or brownfield area that increases operations on a site collocated with a commercial or industrial operation owned by the same business. Section 6. Definitions. The following words or phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (A) Applicant shall mean any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other business entity or organization who files an application with the Council seeking an economic development ad valorem tax exemption. (B) Council shall mean the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. (C) Enterprise zone shall mean an area designated as an enterprise zone pursuant to section 290.0065, Florida Statutes. (D) Improvements shall mean physical changes made to raw land, and structures placed on or under the land surface. (E) Sales factor shall generally mean a fraction of which the numerator is the total sales of the taxpayer in the City of Cape Canaveral during the taxable year or period and the denominator is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the taxable year or period, pursuant to section 220.15(5), Florida Statutes. Section 7. Exemption established. (A) Established. There is hereby established an economic development ad valorem tax exemption. The exemption is a local, optional tax incentive for new and expanding businesses which may be granted or denied at the sole discretion of the Council. (B) Effective date. The exemptions shall not accrue to improvements to real property made by or for the use of new or expanding businesses when such improvements have been on the tax rolls prior to the effective date of this resolution or when such improvements have been made or have commenced being made prior to the effective date of this resolution. (C) Maximum exemption. The Council, at its discretion, may exempt from ad valorem taxation up to one hundred percent (100%) of the assessed value of all improvements to City of Cape Canaveral Resolution 2009-44 Page 4 of 9 real property made by or for the use of a new business of all tangible personal property of such new business, or up to one hundred percent (100%) of the assessed value of all added improvements to real property made to facilitate the expansion of an existing business and of the net increase in all tangible personal property acquired to facilitate such expansion of an existing business. (D) Replacement of property. Property acquired to replace existing property shall not be considered to facilitate a business expansion and therefore, such replacement property shall not be exempt from ad valorem taxation. (E) Time period. Any such exemption granted under this resolution shall remain in effect for up to ten (10) years from the date of adoption of the ordinance granting the exemption. The time period of the exemption shall be determined at the sole discretion of the Council, and nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the Council to grant an exemption for the ten (10) year maximum time period. (F) Land not exempt. No ad valorem tax exemption shall be granted for the land upon which new or expanded businesses are to be located. The sole intent of this resolution being to exempt from ad valorem taxation only certain improvements to real property and tangible personal property of new or expanded businesses. (G) Applicable taxes. The exemption shall apply only to taxes levied by the City of Cape Canaveral. The exemption shall not apply to taxes levied by the United States, Brevard County, school district, water management district or any other taxing district, or to taxes levied for the payment of bonds. (H) Granted by ordinance. Any exemption granted under this resolution shall be by a duly adopted ordinance of the Council. Section 8. Application. Any applicant desiring an economic development ad valorem tax exemption shall, in the year the exemption is desired to take effect, file with the City Council, or its designee, Form DR -418 prescribed by the Florida Department of Revenue, or any amendment or replacements thereto ("Application"). The Application shall request that the Council adopt an ordinance granting the applicant an exemption pursuant to this resolution and shall include the following information: (A) The name and location of the new business or the expansion of an existing business; (B) A description of the improvements to real property for which an exemption is requested and the date of commencement of construction of such improvements; City of Cape Canaveral Resolution 2009-44 Page 5 of 9 (C) A description of the tangible personal property for which an exemption is requested and the dates when such property was or is to be purchased; (D) Proof, to the satisfaction of the Council, that the applicant is a new business or an expansion of an existing business, as defined in Section 5 of this resolution. (E) The following information: (1) The anticipated number of employees of the business; (2) The expected numbers of employees of the business who will reside in the City of Cape Canaveral; (3) The average wage of the employees of the business; (4) The type of industry or business; (5) The environmental impact of the business; (6) The anticipated volume of business or production; (7) Whether relocation or expansion of the business would occur without the exemption; (8) Whether the business is/or will be located within an enterprise zone or redevelopment area; (9) The cost and demand for services or product produced by the business; (10) The source of supplies of the business and whether other businesses in the City will be used to meet the supply demands of the business. Section 9. Application Process. Upon receipt of an application for economic development ad valorem tax exemption, the application shall be reviewed in the following manner: (A) Pre-screening. The Planning & Development Director shall review the application within ten (10) days of submission to determine whether the application has satisfied all the requirements of Section 8 herein. (B) Preliminary analysis. The Planning & Development Director shall prepare, in writing, a recommendation of the applicant's eligibility for an exemption and prepare an economic impact analysis of the application. The analysis shall include a brief study on City of Cape Canaveral Resolution 2009-44 Page 6 of 9 the number of jobs created, wage rates, and capital investment. The recommendation and analysis shall be forwarded to the City Manager immediately upon completion. (C) City Manager Review. The City Manager shall review the application and the Planning & Development Director's recommendation and analysis to determine whether the applicant is eligible for an exemption and shall recommend to the Council approval or denial of the application (with or without conditions), and the degree and length of the exemption if approval is recommended. (D) Preliminary Review by Council. Within thirty (30) days of the City Manager's recommendation, the Council shall conduct a preliminary review of the application for the sole purpose of determining whether the application should be forwarded to the Property Appraiser for review. If Council determines that the application should be sent to the Property Appraiser, the Planning & Development Director shall retain a copy of the application for the City and forward the original application to the Property Appraiser. (E) Property Appraiser Review. Upon receipt and careful review of the original application, the Property Appraiser shall report the following information to the Council: (1) The total revenue available to the City for the current fiscal year from ad valorem tax sources, or an estimate of such revenue if the actual total revenue available cannot be determined; (2) Any revenue lost to the City for the current fiscal year by virtue of exemptions previously granted, or an estimate of such revenue if the actual revenue lost cannot be determined; (3) An estimate of the revenue which would be lost to the City during the current fiscal year if the exemption applied for were granted had the property for which the exemption is requested otherwise been subject to taxation; and (4) A determination as to whether the property for which an exemption is requested is to be incorporated into a new business or the expansion of an existing business, or into neither, which determination the Property Appraiser shall also affix to the face of the application. (F) Final Review / Adoption by Council. Upon receipt of the Property Appraiser's report, the Planning & Development Director shall schedule the application for City Council action at the Council's next available regular meeting. At that meeting the Council shall consider the application, recommendation of the City Manager and analysis of the Planning & Development Director, and the Property Appraiser's report to determine whether or not to adopt an ordinance granting the economic development ad valorem tax City of Cape Canaveral Resolution 2009-44 Page 7 of 9 exemption to the applicant. The ordinance, if adopted, shall be adopted in the same manner as any other ordinance of the City and shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1) The name and address of the new business or expansion of an existing business to which the exemption is granted; (2) The total amount of revenue available to the City from ad valorem tax sources for the current fiscal year, the total amount of revenue lost to the City for the current fiscal year by virtue of economic development ad valorem tax exemptions currently in effect, and the estimated revenue loss to the City for the current fiscal year attributable to the exemption of the business named in the ordinance; (3) The period of time for which the exemption will remain in effect and the expiration date of the exemption; (4) A finding that the business meets the definition of a new business or an expansion of an existing business as set forth in Section 5 of this resolution; and (5) A statement that the exemption is subject to the terms and conditions of this resolution and/or other terms and conditions required by Council. Section 10. Precedent non-binding. Applications for exemptions shall be considered by the Council on a case-by-case basis, after consideration by Council of the recommendations of the City Manager and Planning & Development Director, and the Property Appraiser's report. No precedent shall be implied or inferred by the granting or denial of an exemption pursuant this resolution. Section 11. All Exemption Granted are Conditional. All exemptions granted pursuant to this resolution shall be conditioned upon the applicant maintaining the new business or the expansion of an existing business, as defined in Section 5 of this resolution, for the duration of time in which the exemption was granted. In addition, the application is conditioned upon the Applicant submitting an annual report to the Council evidencing the satisfaction of this condition. The report shall be received by the Council no later than January 31 of each year. The applicant shall also submit any other information or reports as the Council deems reasonably necessary for purposes of determining whether the applicant is complying with the terms, conditions, and intent and purpose of this resolution, the terms and conditions of the ordinance granting the exemption, and any representations made in the application process. Section 12. Revocation of Exemption/Recovery of Funds. The Council reserves the right to revoke by ordinance any economic development ad valorem tax exemption granted pursuant to this resolution if an applicant fails to comply with any term or condition set forth in this resolution City of Cape Canaveral Resolution 2009-44 Page 8 of 9 or the ordinance granting the exemption. If an exemption is revoked, the Council may recover any ad valorem taxes previously exempted by this resolution. In addition, the City shall have the right to recover any and all costs and damages (including reasonable attorney fees) incurred in recovering ad valorem taxes from the applicant. Section 13. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Resolutions. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 14. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereto. Section 15. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, in a regular meeting assembled 'oh ,the. 1 8th day of November, 2009. ATTEST: AN LAA E N, City Clerk Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for the Ci C . pe Canaveral only: ANTHO A. GARGANESE, City Attorney ‹DcAelt (9,04.,D#Qfk ROCKY RA DELS, Mayor For Bob Hoog X Buzz Petsos Motion Rocky Randels X C. Shannon Roberts Second Betty Walsh X City of Cape Canaveral Resolution 2009-44 Page 9 of 9 Against Attachment 4 Survey of Brevard County Municipalities Regarding the existence of an Ad Valorem Tax Abatement Economic Incentive Conducted March 8, 2019—March 15, 2019 ("N/R" =No Response Received) Jurisdiction Does your jurisdiction In what year does the Does your jurisdiction currently have an Ad Ad Valorem Tax intend to seek an Valorem Tax Abatement Program extension of the Ad Abatement Program in expire? Valorem Tax effect? Abatement Program when it expires? Yes/No/Not Applicable Cape Canaveral Yes 2019 Yes Cocoa Yes 2024 Yes Cocoa Beach Yes 2024 N/R Grant/Valkaria No N/A N/A Indialantic N/R N/R N/R Indian Harbour No N/A N/A Beach Malabar No N/A N/A Melbourne Yes 2020 Yes Melbourne Beach N/R N/R N/R Melbourne Village No N/A N/A Palm Bay Yes (extended twice Yes Yes since 1998) Palm Shores No N/A N/A Rockledge N/R N/R N/R Satellite Beach No N/A N/A Titusville Yes 2024 Yes West Melbourne N/R N/R N/R City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Subject: Review and Approve: the City Council 2019 Priorities, Projects, Initiatives and 5 -Year Capital Improvement Projects; City Council Strategic Planning Retreat Minutes of March 27, 2019; the Cape Canaveral Vision Statement, Mission Statement and Organizational Values; and the following projects: Canaveral City Park Redevelopment/Multi-Generational Facility (MGF) - $5 million; Cultural Arts Preservation Enrichment (CAPE) Center - $1.2 million; West Central/Thurm Boulevard Streetscape - $2.87 million; Central Boulevard Streetscape - $1.2 million; Galactic Pocket Park (Cumberland Farms) - $30,000; Southgate (Wagner) Pocket Park - $70,000; Long Point Estuary Park - $1.38 million; and Dog Park - $65,000; Intermediate Lift Station - $355,000; WWTP SCADA System Improvements - $960,000; Rehab Lift Station No. 3 - $320,000; Replace Force Main No. 7 - $340,000; Effluent/Influent Disk/Drum Filters - $1.35 million; Construct Pump and SO2 Buildings - $1.225 million; Rehab Lift Station No. 8 - $380,000; Relocate Lift Station No. 5 - $475,000; and Center Street Stormwater Park (Land purchase only) - $295,000. Department: Community Development Summary: On March 27, 2019, Council met in a workshop setting to conduct a strategic planning analysis of the City (Attachment 1 — Appendix A). The workshop provided an opportunity for the Council to: (a) consider a report related to Council Established Priorities, Projects, Initiatives and 5 -Year Capital Improvement Projects as well as proposed on-going goals (Attachment 1 — Appendix B) as well as (b) discuss and possibly revise the City Vision Statement, adopt a City Mission Statement and adopt a set of Organizational Values (Attachment 1 — Appendix C -E). In preparation for this year's Retreat, Dr. Tom D. Freijo met with Department Directors on February 20, 2019, to (1) review the Vision Statement, (2) develop a Mission Statement, and (3) develop a set of Organizational Goals. Dr. Freijo met one-on-one with City Council Members on March 13, 2019 to: (a) Establish rapport, (b) Review the 2019 Strategic Planning process, (c) Preview what will occur at the Strategic Planning Retreat, (d) Review the proposed revisions to the City's Mission Statement, Vision Statement, and Organizational Values generated at the February 20, 2019 Staff session, and (e) Engage each Council Member in a discussion of the desired direction for the City. Workshop (a) At the workshop the City Manager presented a report related to Council Established Priorities, Projects, Initiatives and 5 -Year Capital Improvement Projects as well as proposed on-going goals, to include: (see Attachment 1 — Appendix B for a more complete discussion) PROJECT: Canaveral City Park Redevelopment Overview: Canaveral City Park is the most centrally located park in the City. A recent needs study revealed many deficiencies exist at the Park relating to mobility and amenities to serve the Community. Outside of improved mobility within and around the Park, the following amenities were found to be desperately wanted by the Community: City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 2 of 10 • Multi -Generational Facility (MGF) — This type of facility can be a catalyst for community health and engagement. The City is one of the few municipalities in Brevard County that lacks a public or private facility of this nature. Desired community amenities have been expressed and include indoor basketball/volleyball, fitness area, youth/teen area, banquet/gathering area, and indoor walking path. The facility would be utilized by all demographics and would serve as the host site for the City's Youth Center, summer camp, PAL and youth basketball programs. The facility would be the area's only public/private indoor fitness facility open to the general public. • Skate Park— A public skate park is another Community -engaging amenity that crosses age and race barriers. The right design not only becomes a central gathering place for a Community but also a tourist attraction, further enhancing the economic impact of a public facility. • Splash Pad — Operating and maintenance costs, as well as lack of property, prohibit the City from owning and operating a public pool. A splash pad serves the Community by bringing people together while having the experience of a water park. With almost 10% of the population under 18 years old, this would not only be a heavily used feature at the park but one that could also have a positive economic impact. • Design Features — To complete the park, improved playground equipment, pedways and landscaping will make this the most visited park in the City. Timeline: Thanks to a grant acquired FY 16/17, a preliminary Master Plan was created to include all Community -desired amenities. On January 18, 2018, Staff reviewed 9 responses to RFQ No. 2017-01 for services related to the design and construction of the MGF and CAPE Center. Architects RZK, Inc. from Cocoa was selected based on compliance with RFQ Instructions, Technical Expertise, Quality Control, Staff Credentials, Related Experience with Similar Projects, Location, Local Knowledge/Experience and Project References. At the end of December 2018, the MGF was mostly designed and reviewed by the City's Development Review Committee (DRC). Comments were collected and forwarded to the architect for the final construction document phase. Funding: Due to funding considerations, construction of the project has been phased. Phase I consists of the MGF at a cost of $5 million. Funding of Phase I is already in place as part of the $6.2 million in revenue notes issued in July of 2017. Funding of subsequent phases will explore sources including capital financing/grants/SPIA funds. PROJECT: Culture Arts Preservation Enrichment (CAPE) Center Overview: Repurposing the old City Hall building as an accredited institution of Cultural enrichment, with a focus on public engagement in all aspects of the arts as well as the promotion and preservation of Cape Canaveral's history. Supporting culture and education is one of the tenets outlined by the residents in the City's Vision Statement. This project would fulfill that expectation and serve to address other ideals outlined during the visioning process, to include: • Create inclusive destination point; • Entertain myriad of cultural interests; City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 3 of 10 • Engage multiple generations; • Operate at a capacity that is purposeful year-round; • Create a sense of place; and • Celebrate the City's identity. These goals would be achieved through the development of enrichment/educational programs, implementing a multifaceted public art program, promoting/preserving local history and hosting cultural events. Some of the possibilities include: • Engagement & Public Events o Commerce & Culture Socials o Art Shows o Rotating Art Exhibits o Senior Field Trips o Public Art Program Center o Public History Program Center • Enrichment & Education o Art & Writing Classes o Historical Research Instruction o Cultural Lecture Series o Student Speaker Opportunities o Educator Networking Socials o Student Volunteerism • Promoting & Preserving o Local Artifact Repository o Rotating Historical Exhibits o Youth History Fairs o Preservation Projects o Historical Site Restoration o Public Archeology Activities Timeline: On January 18, 2018, Staff reviewed 9 responses to RFQ No. 2017-01 for services related to the design and construction of the MGF and CAPE Center. Architects RZK, Inc. from Cocoa was selected based on compliance with RFQ Instructions, Technical Expertise, Quality Control, Staff Credentials, Related Experience with Similar Projects, Location, Local Knowledge/Experience and Project References. Preliminary Design took place FY 17/18. Design will take place FY 18/19. Exterior construction will be accomplished FY 19/20. Funding: Funding for the design/permitting/construction of the CAPE Center ($1.2 million) is already in place as part of the $6.2 million in revenue notes issued in July of 2017. PROJECT: West Central Boulevard /Thurm Boulevard Streetscape Overview: The proposed project represents a complete street project for West Central Boulevard and Thurm Boulevard, roads which together represent a major transportation corridor through the City. The total length of the two segments is 4,940 feet and includes the following notable components: City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 4 of 10 • Street improvements ($1.65k); • Construct an 8 -foot wide pedway where appropriate; • Construct 6 -foot wide sidewalks where appropriate; • Install pedestrian benches; • Replace concrete curbing where appropriate; • Mill and resurface West Central Boulevard from Thurm Boulevard to Astronaut Boulevard (5k sq.yds. per side); • Stripe roadway to include bicycle lanes in both directions; • Install solar -powered, LED -lighting along both sides of the roadway ($600k - 40 lights @ $15k/per); • Sanitary Sewer Relocation in the W. Central Boulevard right-of-way ($180k); • Plant native vegetation "islands" ($160k); and • Misc. Striping, Signs, Upgraded Intersection Paving ($100k). The total cost as proposed is $2.87 million. This does not include permitting or contingencies. Please note this project is contained in the City's Capital Improvement Plan and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Vision Statement. In addition, the project is consistent with Resolution 2011-09, which the City Council adopted to establish a Complete Streets Policy. Timeline: The City Engineer is currently working on design/engineering documents in support of this project. The project initially included only that section of West Central Boulevard between Astronaut Boulevard and Thurm Boulevard ($1.42M). However, due to development and funding opportunities, the scope has been expanded to include West Central Boulevard and Thurm Boulevard ($2.87M). Actual construction will occur once Impact Fees are paid, which happens at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Due to the scope of the hotel projects, this may not occur until sometime in FY 19/20. Funding: Funding for this project will be from an allocation of County Transportation Impact Fees ($1.435m), Stormwater ($100k), Mobility ($50k), Wastewater funds ($200k) and a contribution from the Casa Canaveral developer ($606k). County Transportation Impact Fees will be generated from three hotel projects, representing 525 rooms, which are currently moving through the City's development approval process. These include: • Dual Branded Hotel (116 room Hampton and 108 room Home2) located at 9004 Astronaut Boulevard; and • Springhill Suites (301 rooms) located at 8701 Astronaut Boulevard, west of the existing Radisson Hotel. Given the current County Transportation Impact Fee amount of $2,735/room, the listed hotel projects will generate $1.435 million in revenue. City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 5 of 10 PROJECT: Central Boulevard Streetscape Overview: This proposed project represents a phased complete street project for Central Boulevard from Astronaut Boulevard to Ridgewood Avenue. Phase I consists of East Central Boulevard from Ridgewood Avenue to North Atlantic Avenue. Phase II consists of West Central Boulevard from North Atlantic Avenue to Astronaut Boulevard. This is a significant east -west corridor through the City, which connects the river and ocean sides of the City. The total length of the two segments is 5,100 feet and includes the following notable components: • Street improvements; • Construct pedways where appropriate; • Construct sidewalks where appropriate; • Install pedestrian benches; • Replace concrete curbing where appropriate; • Stripe roadway to include bicycle lanes in both directions; • Install solar -powered, LED -lighting along both sides of the roadway; • Plant native vegetation "islands" where appropriate; and • Misc. Striping, Signs, Upgraded Intersection Paving. The total cost is estimated to be $1.2 million. This does not include engineering for plans, permitting, surveys, contingencies, etc. The project is consistent with Resolution No. 2011-09, which the City Council adopted to establish a Complete Streets Policy. Timeline: The design work related to the two phases will be completed by the City Engineer and will occur in FY19/20. Construction of Phase I may occur in FY 20/21 with Phase II in FY 21/22. Funding: Funding for this project may come from a variety of sources to include City General Funds, County Transportation Impact Fees or Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) funds. PROJECT: Galactic Pocket Park (Cumberland Farms) Overview: With the approval of Special Exception No. 2016-03, the City was granted an easement for construction of a pocket park at the south end of the Cumberland Farms project located at 9000 Astronaut Boulevard. The easement allows for signage, landscaping, public amenities (sidewalk, outdoor furniture, bike rack, water fountain or public art) and utilities. Phase I includes the following: • Park design and layout; • Site work to include clearing and grading to commence late March 2019; • Winding walkway, LID landscaping, and center plaza construction to follow with expected completion by May 2019; and • Site amenities to include permeable walkway featuring a photoreactive (glow -in -the - dark) inlaid Milky Way Spiral Galaxy, themed benches and branded bike rack. City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 6 of l0 Timeline: Upon completion of Phase I, Phase II additions include public art installation to take place FY 19/20. Funding: This project is estimated to cost $30,000 and will be paid from General Fund and/or CRA funds. PROJECT: Southgate (Wagner) Pocket Park Overview: This proposed pocket park is located at 8817 North Atlantic Avenue just south of Anchorage Avenue. The project represents the next step in the North Atlantic Avenue Streetscape Project. The property was donated to the City in December of 2016 by the owners of the Southgate Mobile Home Park, immediately to the west of the proposed park. The design and layout of this pocket park includes the following: • Site clearing and grading; • Removal and treatment of invasive Brazilian Pepper trees; • Construction of permeable winding walkways and fencing; • Low impact development (LID) landscaping (native wild flower butterfly garden); • Installation of site amenities such as, little free library, little free pantry, benches, shade structures, water fountain for both humans and dogs, bicycle facilities, solar lighting; and • Decorative stamped crosswalk with appropriate pedestrian crossing signage across North Atlantic Avenue. Timeline: Estimated completion of Wagner Pocket Park is the end of FY 18/19. Funding: Wagner Park will cost $70,000 and will be paid from the General Fund, Mobility Fund and/or CRA funds. PROJECT: Long Point Estuary Park Overview: This project includes a proposed 7.9 -acre park located on the City -owned property at the western end of Long Point Road that will incorporate several passive amenities. Prior to being displaced by invasive species, the property most likely consisted of five acres of wetland hardwoods and three acres of mangrove/salt marsh that represented one of the last natural habitats in the City. Phase I of the Project will consist of removing the invasive species (mostly Brazilian pepper -trees) and the replanting with native species. Phase II will consist of the actual infrastructure improvements to the Park including construction of: • Installation of pre -fab restrooms; • Construction of a kayak dock; • Construction of elevated boardwalks; • Construction of a nature center/pavilion; • Construction of a small parking area; and • Construction of educational kiosks around the property. Timeline: This is going to be a phased project, with Phase I (removing invasive species and replanting with native species) occurring in FY 19/20. Grant applications will be City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 7 of 10 submitted to various organizations to fund the proposed Phase II improvements in FY 20/21 with construction likely occurring in FY 21/22. Funding: Funding for Segment 2 Phase I tasks will be provided by the local developer. Funding for Segment 3 Phase I tasks will be through a construction agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD); the initial tasks will be funded by the City with later reimbursement from SJRWMD ($54,910) upon completion of monitoring activities. Mitigation credits will be split between Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the future widening of SR 528 and the local developer. Funding of Phase II tasks (estimated $865,000) will be pursued through the Brevard County Tourist Development Council as well as grants from the Florida Inland Navigation District and others. PROJECT: Dog Park Overview: A centrally located dog park was part of the original 2009 visioning. At those meetings an off -leash dog park was proposed for Manatee Sanctuary Park, but residents in the area vehemently opposed its construction because of noise and possible negative impact on that facility. In the subsequent years, the definition of service animals evolved and federal rules emerged on the matter limiting a municipalities' ability to control dogs if the owner simply claimed they were service animals. Although you could ask questions regarding the job the dog performed, you could not verify whether the dog indeed performed that job, making it virtually impossible to determine whether or not the dog was a bona fide service animal. Dogs accompanying park visitors/event attendees significantly increased during that time period as well, to the point that action had to be taken to accommodate demand. In 2017, the City began a trial period to analyze the impact dogs had on residents, parks and quality of life. On May 15, 2018, City Council voted to end the trial period and permanently allow on -leash dogs in City parks due to Community enjoyment and positive feedback. During that same period, Council approved construction of an off -leash dog park at Xeriscape Park for FY 18/19. Centrally located and without any impact to residences or businesses, this park offered the perfect location for the City's first off -leash dog park. Proposed amenities include: • Separated large and small dog areas; • Synthetic turf — aesthetically pleasing, reduces probability of infections, very clean for dogs and owners; • Splash pads in both large and small dog areas; • Obstacle course elements; • Benches; • All abilities drinking fountain; and • Solar lighting. Timeline: Design was completed in December of 2018. Sidewalk expansion was completed in January 2019. A water line from the City of Cocoa has been obtained. As of February 8, 2019, a purchase order has been created for the synthetic turf. Interior plumbing will be completed in late February. Turf and fence installation are scheduled for the beginning of April, followed by a pedway to the park from a newly constructed sidewalk on Taylor Avenue. Solar lighting will be added completing the park construction by May 2019. City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 8 of 10 Funding: This project was estimated to cost $65,000 and was paid from General Fund and the CRA. Lagoon Protection Initiatives — On -Going Overview: The City completed The City completed payment on two State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program loans with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in January and October 2016. Moneys from these two SRF Program loans (combined total of approximately eight million dollars) were used to finance upgrades to the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) beginning in 1996; these upgrades were the first large-scale improvements to the WRF since initial construction in 1966. The City obtained an additional SRF Program loan in the amount of approximately eight million dollars in 2013. Projects completed with this funding included: • Construction of a 2.5 -million gallon reclaimed water tank; • Installation of an additional belt press with extensive building expansion; • Rebuild (complete) of the oxidation ditch and conversion of the equalization tank into a backup oxidation ditch system; • Replacement of the gravity sewer pipe along Holman Road; • Replacement of the gravity sewer pipe from Holman Road to Lift Station No. 2; and • Extensive repairs to the stormwater pipe along West Central Boulevard. Obtaining this SRF Program loan allowed for the City's Enterprise Capital Fund to be used for other major improvement projects such as: • North Atlantic Avenue Streetscape Project; • City Park Exfiltration Project; • Replacement of Force Main No. 3; • Replacement of Lift Station Nos. 6 and 7; and • Banana River shoreline improvements at the WRF, Manatee Sanctuary Park and Banana River Park. In order to provide adequate funds to (1) improve several processes at the WRF, (2) replace/rehab equipment that is approaching (or is past) its estimated life span, (3) construct numerous collections system improvement projects and (4) purchase land for use as a stormwater park, City Council approved the City entering into one or more loan agreement(s) with FDEP for approximately six and one-half million dollars from the SRF Program. These funds will be used to construct nine capital improvement projects. Many of these projects, although completed as part of the sanitary sewer system, provide direct benefits to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) system including: • Eliminating leakage of raw sewage into the surficial aquifer — reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous which eventually discharges to the Banana River; • Limiting infiltration/inflow [14] of groundwater to sewer and stormwater pipes — leakage into sewer pipes requires increased treatment at the WRF — leakage into stormwater pipes directly discharges to the Banana River; and • Expanding the City's reclaimed water system thus limiting discharges of treated wastewater to the Banana River from the WRF. City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 9 of 10 Timeline: SRF Projects and Estimated Costs Technical Project Engineeing Services Construion Scheduled Fiscal Costs* Costs* Costs** Year Intermediate Lift Station $39,100 $30,400 $355,000 19/20-20/21 Rehab WWTP SCADA System $75,300 $58,600 $960,000 19/20-20/21 Improvements Rehab Lift Station No. 3 $25,000 $19,400 $320,000 19/20-20/21 Replace Force Main No. 7 $26,400 $20,500 $340,000 19/20-20/21 Effluent/Influent $106,000 $82,400 $1,350,000 19/20-20/21 Disk/Drum Filters Construct Pump and SO2 $96,000 $74,700 $1,225,000 19/20-20/21 Buildings Subtotal(FY18/19- 19/20) $367,800 $286,000 $4,550,000 Rehab Lift Station No. 8 $29,600 $23,000 $380,000 20/21 - 21/22 Relocate Lift Station No. 5 $49,600 $38,600 $475,000 20/21 - 21/22 Center Street Stormwater $3,000 $2,400 $295,000 20/21 -21/22 Park(Land purchase only) Subtotal(FY19/20-20/21) $82,200 $64,000 $1,150,000 Grand Total $450,000 $350,000 $5,700,000 $6,500,000 * -From 2019 draft Facilities Plan ** -From 2019 draft Facilities Plan plus 20% contingency. Funding: These projects are funded through a SRF funding Program as approved by City Council at the March 19,2019 regular meeting under Ordinance No. 06-2019. (b) City Mission&Vision Statements and Organizational Values -Dr. Freijo led Council in discussion about the current City Mission and Vision Statement as well as a set of proposed Organizational Values. Council suggested minor changes. (c) Council Concerns/Suggestions - Council members had an opportunity to express concerns about any matter of interest to them. Major concerns included the following. • There was concern that speed limits on AlA were not being enforced, thus creating a hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists. There was also a concern about lack of enforcement of ordinances regarding dogs on the beach. It was agreed that the City Manager and/or Mayor would meet with the BCSO regarding these concerns. City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 7 Page 10 of 10 • There was concern about advertising by external agencies confusing the City with Port Canaveral and Cocoa Beach and overlooking its existence despite massive contributions by hotels and facilities within the City in both revenue generation and levels of service. Council reached consensus to draft a resolution, for consideration at a future City Council Meeting, petitioning the Brevard County Tourism Development Council to properly recognize the City of Cape Canaveral in marketing and publications. (d) Follow Up Meeting - At a future regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the Council will discuss the results of the Strategic Planning Retreat and formally adopt continuing Goals, the Mission Statement, the Vision Statement, and the Organizational Values. Submitting Director: David Dickey Date: 6/11/19 Attachments: 1. Cape Canaveral 2019 Strategic Planning Retreat: Process and Results Report — April, 2019 A. Retreat Agenda B. Council Established Priorities, Projects, Initiatives and 5 -Year Capital Improvement Projects Report C. Vision Statement D. Mission Statement E. Organizational Values F. Council Member Code of Conduct 2. City Council Strategic Planning Retreat Minutes — March 27, 2019 Financial Impact: Staff time/effort to prepare Agenda Item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 6/11/19 The City Manager recommends that City Council take the following actions: Review and Approve: the City Council 2019 Priorities, Projects, Initiatives and 5 -Year Capital Improvement Projects; City Council Strategic Planning Retreat Minutes of March 27, 2019; the Cape Canaveral Vision Statement, Mission Statement and Organizational Values; and the following projects: Canaveral City Park Redevelopment/Multi-Generational Facility (MGF) - $5 million; Cultural Arts Preservation Enrichment (CAPE) Center - $1.2 million; West Central/Thurm Boulevard Streetscape - $2.87 million; Central Boulevard Streetscape - $1.2 million; Galactic Pocket Park (Cumberland Farms) - $30,000; Southgate (Wagner) Pocket Park - $70,000; Long Point Estuary Park - $1.38 million; and Dog Park - $65,000; Intermediate Lift Station - $355,000; WWTP SCADA System Improvements - $960,000; Rehab Lift Station No. 3 - $320,000; Replace Force Main No. 7 - $340,000; Effluent/Influent Disk/Drum Filters - $1.35 million; Construct Pump and SO2 Buildings - $1.225 million; Rehab Lift Station No. 8 - $380,000; Relocate Lift Station No. 5 - $475,000; and Center Street Stormwater Park (Land purchase only) - $295,000. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene :..►'L Date: 6/11/19 Attachment 1 [CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL SEAL AND TYPEFACE LOGO] CAPE CANAVERAL 2019 STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT: PROCESS AND RESULTS REPORT Prepared by: Tom D. Freijo, Ph.D. Strategic Planning Facilitator April 2019 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 2 RETREAT PROCEDURES 2 Opening Comments 3 Agenda Review 3 Strategic Planning Overview 3 Council Established Priorities, Projects, Initiatives and 5 -Year Capital Improvement Projects 3 Mission, Vision, Organizational Values 3 Council Concerns/Suggestions 4 Follow up Meeting 4 APPENDIX A: RETREAT AGENDA APPENDIX B: COUNCIL ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES, PROJECTS, INITIATIVES AND 5- YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS APPENDIX C: VISION STATEMENT APPENDIX D: MISSION STATEMENT APPENDIX E: ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES APPENDIX F: COUNCIL MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT INTRODUCTION The City of Cape Canaveral is beginning the fourth year of an on-going Strategic Planning Process. Strategic Planning is based upon an approach that (1) has the City Council, in consultation with the City Manager, setting long-range and short-range goals for the City; (2) has the City Manager and Staff developing and implementing strategies to achieve the goals; (3) provides for monitoring and reporting progress on an on-going basis; and (4) involves periodic reviewing of progress by the City Council and making adjustments as needed. This is an iterative process wherein each year the process described above is repeated, and the goals and activities of one year are based upon and extended beyond the accomplishments of the previous year — thus leading to continuous improvement. This report describes the events leading up to the 2019 Strategic Planning Retreat, what transpired at the Retreat, and results of the Retreat. Similar information related to the first two Strategic Planning Retreats are presented in the documents: Cape Canaveral 2016 Strategic Planning Retreat: Process and Results, Cape Canaveral 2017 Strategic Planning Retreat: Process and Results Report, and Cape Canaveral 2018 Strategic Planning Retreat: Process and Results Report. RETREAT PROCEDURES On Wednesday, March 27, 2019, Dr. Tom Freijo, the Facilitator for the City's Strategic Planning Process, facilitated a Strategic Planning Retreat for the Cape Canaveral City Council and City Manager. Also present, in a consultative capacity as needed, were key staff. The meeting was held in the Jamaica Conference Room at the Radisson Resort at the Port from 10:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., and included the following participants. Bob Hoog, Mayor Mike Brown, Mayor Pro Tem Wes Morrison, Council Member Rocky Randels, Council Member Angela Raymond, Council Member David Greene, City Manager John DeLeo, Administrative and Financial Services Director David Dickey, Community Development Director Anthony Garganese, City Attorney Mia Goforth, City Clerk Stephanie Johnson, Community Engagement Specialist Daniel LeFever, Deputy City Clerk Lisa Day, City Manager's Executive Assistant Todd Morley, Economic Development Director John Pekar, City Engineer Jeff Ratliff, Capital Projects Director Jane Ross, Human Resources/Risk Management Director Brenda DeFoe Surprenant, City Planner Joshua Surprenant, PWS Deputy Director/Community Engagement Director Gustavo Vergara, Culture and Leisure Services Director 2 Opening Comments The Facilitator opened the Retreat with welcoming statements followed by a brief set of remarks encouraging the retreat participants to fully avail themselves of the opportunity to move beyond the normal solution of day-to-day issues and, instead, to look at the big picture, to think big, to brainstorm, to look toward the future, and to express bold thoughts. The facilitator then shared his perception of his two -fold role during the retreat: (1) to assure that each of the Council members and the City Manager had ample opportunity to voice their ideas, and (2) to assure that the discussion stayed within the boundaries established by the agenda and moved forward in an efficient manner. He encouraged lively discussion, conducted in a spirit of civility and respect. Agenda Review The Facilitator presented the agenda along with some explanatory commentary, and then ascertained that the Council and City Manager were comfortable with pursuing that agenda. Having agreed with that agenda, the Facilitator reminded the group that it was important, in order to complete the work of the day, that discussion be limited to the agenda items. A copy of the agenda appears in Appendix A. Strategic Planning Overview The Facilitator next presented a brief overview of the strategic planning process. It was stressed that a strategic planning process is cyclical in nature and can significantly increase the likelihood that important and desired goals move from "wouldn't it be nice" discussions to concrete, objective, doable plans — grounded in the reality of a careful analysis of feasibility and availability of the resources necessary to implement the plans and achieve the goals. Further, it was stressed that the results of a strategic planning process were cumulative, since the accomplishment of one set of goals provided a new platform from which to pursue future goals. Progress on 2018 Goals Accomplishment and Presentation of Proposed On -Going Goals The City Manager presented a report related to Council Established Priorities, Projects, Initiatives and 5 -Year Capital Improvement Projects as well as proposed on-going goals (see Appendix B to this report). Mission, Vision, Organizational Values On Wednesday, February 20, 2019, the Facilitator facilitated a session with the key administrative staff to (1) review the Vision Statement, (2) develop a Mission Statement, and (3) develop a set of Organizational Values. The Facilitator subsequently shared these products with Council members during their one-on-one meetings on March 13. These three products are in Appendices C,D and E, respectively. The City Council reviewed the Mission Statement, Vision Statement, and Organizational Values and made minor suggestions for changes. 3 Council Concerns/Suggestions Council members had an opportunity to express concerns about any matter of interest to them. Major concerns included the following: ➢ There was concern that speed limits on AlA were not being enforced, thus creating a hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists. There was also a concern about lack of enforcement of ordinances regarding dogs on the beach. It was agreed that the City Manager and/or Mayor would meet with the BCSO regarding these concerns; and ➢ There was concern about advertising by external agencies confusing the City with Port Canaveral and Cocoa Beach and overlooking its existence despite massive contributions by hotels and facilities within the City in both revenue generation and levels of service. Council reached consensus to draft a resolution, for consideration at a future City Council Meeting, petitioning the Brevard County Tourism Development Council to properly recognize the City of Cape Canaveral in marketing and publications. Follow up Meeting At a future regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the Council will discuss the results of the Strategic Planning Retreat and formally adopt continuing Goals, the Mission Statement, the Vision Statement, and the Organizational Values. 4 APPENDIX A RETREAT AGENDA CAPE CANAVERAL CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT TO SET FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020 GOALS Radisson Resort at the Port 8701 Astronaut Boulevard, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 AGENDA Wednesday March 27, 2019 10:30 AM — 3:30 PM Facilitator: Tom D. Freijo, Ph.D. WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS/AGENDA REVIEW (10:30 —10:45) STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS REVIEW (10:45 —11:00) > Review of Strategic Planning Process > Explanation of how the Retreat ties in with Strategic Planning Process REVIEW COUNCIL ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES, PROJECTS, INITIATIVES AND 5 -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (11:00 — 1:30) 12:00 noon — 1:00 p.m. Working Lunch MISSION/VISION/VALUES DISCUSSION/AFFIRMATION (1:30 — 2:30) > Discuss Vision • Discuss Mission > Discuss Organizational Values ➢ Discuss/Affirm Council Values/Code of Conduct Affirm 2019/20 Goals NEXT STEPS DISCUSSION (2:30 — 2:45) > Budget Allocations/Funding MAYOR HOOG PRESIDES (2:45 — 3:30) THE CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE ACTION AT A FUTURE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 1) TO DISCUSS THE MISSION/VISION/VALUES STATEMENTS AND POSSIBLE REVISIONS/UPDATES; 2) TO DISCUSS AND SET GOALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20. PUBLIC COMMENT (3:00 — 3:30) Time limited to 5 minutes per Speaker. WRAP-UP AND ADJOURNMENT (3:30) APPENDIX B COUNCIL ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES, PROJECTS, INITIATIVES AND 5 -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Community Development MEMO TO: City Council VIA: David L. Greene, City Manager FROM: David Dickey, Community Development Director Brenda Defoe-Surprenant, City Planner DATE: March 22, 2019 RE: 2019/2020 City Council Strategic Planning Retreat — Project Report 1. CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES, PROJECTS, INITIATIVES AND 5 - YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SR A1A Improvements - On -Going Overview: In conjunction with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and its SR A 1A Access Management Project, the City is proactively working to improve pedestrian and motorist safety along that section of State Road A1A/Astronaut Boulevard/North Atlantic Avenue (SR AlA) within its municipal limits. The overall scope of FDOT's project is much larger than just Cape Canaveral; however, the City continues to take steps to make the Community bikeable and walkable and increase safety for everyone, including motorists, through: • Creation of the Cape Canaveral Vision Statement, which includes pedestrian safety as one of its main goals and updated in 2017; • Resolution No. 2011-09, adopting the establishment of a "Complete Streets" Policy; • Ongoing streetscape projects on Ridgewood and North Atlantic Avenues; • Creation of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for repairing, upgrading and installing bus shelters, bike racks, sidewalks and beach crossovers, as well as Citywide street resurfacing; • Resolution No. 2014-22, approving the City's list of SR A1A lmprovement Priorities; • Resolution No. 2015-06, updating the City's list of SR AIA Improvement Priorities; • ADA -accessible beach access recreation mats ("Mobi-Mats" ) installed at three (3) Cape Canaveral beach crossovers in 2017; • Ongoing improvements to pedestrian and cyclist Park amenities; • Approved Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Master Plan completed by Kimley-Hom Associates, Inc. in 2017; a Installation of the Manatee Sanctuary Park Zagster/Space Coast Bike Share Station in 2018 and proposed additional stations in 2019; • Movin' in the City Health, Wellness and Pedestrian Safety Event in 2018 & 2019; • Resolution Na 2018-01, updating the City's list of SR A1A Improvement Priorities; 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 • Active continual engagement with FDOT and the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (SCTPO) regarding SR A IA multimodal corridor improvements; • Installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon pedestrian crosswalk system at Washington/N. Atlantic Avenues and two solar powered 24-hour flashing beacons at Shorewood Drive/N. Atlantic Avenue; • Brevard County Sheriffs Office (BCSO) continues to encourage awareness of, and compliance with, traffic laws that protect the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists through a grant -funded "High Visibility and Enforcement" Program; • The City of Cape Canaveral, in partnership with SCTPO, presented a Community Outreach session on "Bicycle and Pedestrian and Safety" in 2018; • The 2018 Community Survey which yielded over 1,000 respondents, and asked targeted questions regarding SR A I A; • City Staff attended a stakeholder meeting with representatives from FDOT and SCTPO regarding the beginning phase of the design work for the corridor reconstruction/curb and gutter project from Long Point Rd. north to George King Blvd. in January 2019. During the meeting, Staff stressed the importance of priorities expressed in Resolution 2018-01; • Partnered with SCTPO to host a workshop on a County -wide initiative for their Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan in January 2019; • Currently participating in a Community-based Vulnerability Assessment to determine the City's exposure to chronic stressors including sea level rise and flooding which would impact the design and sustainability of the City's road network and infrastructure; and • Resolution No. 2019-01, which updates and acknowledges the City's continued prioritized needs for SR AIA improvements. FDOT District V is conducting a series of high-level Pedestrian Studies throughout the SR A lA corridor in Brevard County. Some studies are underway and others are being scoped. The goal is to ensure concurrence on issues/problems along SR AIA so that future improvements will maintain design consistency while acknowledging the individual character and needs of the jurisdictions. The Draft SR A I FDOT Access Management Report can be accessed via the City Website (News Tab). With this in mind, City Staff are often questioned at City events, meetings, on social media and through general Community interaction about what can be done to improve SR A IA. As a result, the 2018 Community Survey included several questions directly related to SR A1A, bikeability and walkability. Questions were as follows: Question 32: How important is it to be able to safely and easily bike or walk on SR AIA? • Approximately 82% of respondents indicated that being able to safely and easily bike or walk on SR A1A is either Very Important or Extremely Important to them. 12% said it was Somewhat Important, and only 7% indicated that it was either Not So Important or Not at All Important. However, the majority (47%) of respondents were either Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied with the level of satisfaction with biking or walking safety on SR AIA. Question 33: How satisfied are you with the level of ease or safety you feel when biking or walking on SRAIA? 2 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 • Approximately 21% of respondents indicated that they were either Very Satisfied or Satisfied with the level of ease or safety they feel when biking or walking on SR AIA. Approximately 32% said they were Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, and approximately 47% were either Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. Question 34: How important is it to be able to safely and easily bike or walk across SR A IA? • Approximately 88% of respondents indicated that being able to safely and easily bike or walk across SR A 1A is either Very Important or Extremely Important to them, and fewer than 3% indicated that it was either Not So Important or Not at All Important. Question 35: How satisfied are you with the level of ease or safety you feel when biking or walking across SR AIA? • Approximately 22% of respondents indicated that they were either Very Satisfied or Satisfied with the level of ease or safety they feel when biking or walking across SR A 1A. Approximately 28% said they were Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, and approximately 51% were either Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. Question 62: How would you rate progress in the City over the past 10 years in each of the areas listed below? • A majority of respondents indicated they had noted A Lot of Progress or Some Progress in overall City bikeability and walkability (72%)_ Participants were also allowed additional anonymous comments about desires and issues related to Cape Canaveral. Comments related to SR A 1A described it as dangerous, scary, not safe, un - crossable, a horror, needs improvement, unpleasant, not bike friendly, extremely hazardous to bikers and walkers. Other comments ask the City to lower the speed limit, add more signalized crosswalks, install bike lanes, traffic calming elements and medians. Because our Community has multiple pedestrian attractors (residential, commercial, office, recreational or other Land use that is expected to be an end destination for pedestrian trips) and pedestrian generators (residential, commercial, office, recreational or any other land use that serves as the starting point for a pedestrian trip) on both sides of the SR A IA corridor, it is vital that pedestrian safety improves. Furthermore, a recent, widely -published report titled Dangerous by Design (2019) by Smart Growth America ranked the Space Coast Area as the third most dangerous metropolitan area for pedestrians in the United States, while Florida topped their list for the fifth time as the most dangerous State, with nine (9) out of the top 20, and eight (8) out of the top ten most dangerous metropolitan areas for pedestrians. Smart Growth America found that decades -old policies and funding mechanisms create designs that make streets more unsafe because they continue to prioritize moving vehicles quickly and efficiently. Accordingly, maintaining pavement conditions generally takes precedence. The report indicates one way to make safety a higher priority is to get rid of the "level of service" design metric. Level of service, used by nearly all states, measures the success of a street solely based on vehicle delay. Minimizing vehicle delay as the number one goal often produces roads that are the most dangerous by design_ The Smart Growth America report implores local, state and 3 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat -- Project Report March 27, 2019 federal governments to design and/or redesign roads in ways that improve pedestrian safety using methods such as: • Lower speed limits; ▪ Frequent safe opportunities to cross streets; • Protected bike lanes; • Enforcing speed limits; • Public education; • Median islands; • Sidewalks; and • Greater separation from traffic with landscape buffers. Additionally, the report notes the need for a strong federal Complete Streets policy that requires state departments to plan for all people who use a street. Federal and state policies must be flexible and allow planners and engineers to develop innovative roadway designs. National policy must prioritize safety and allocate spending to projects that support walking, biking, transit and other modes of transportation. According to Smart Growth America, "This year, Congress has a major opportunity to reshape our mobility future as they begin the work of reauthorizing our federal transportation bill in 2020. To address our continuing safety problems, they must create policies that change the way we fund, design, and measure the success of our streets nationwide to make sure the safety of all people who use the street including people walking, is our highest priority." State and local actions include: • Prioritizing projects that will benefit those who suffer disproportionately; • Embracing the flexibility provided by FHWA to design safer streets; • Designing roads to reduce speeds wherever possible; • Passing actionable Complete Streets policies that lay the groundwork for implementation; • Stopping references to pedestrian fatalities as unavoidable "accidents"; and • Testing out bold, creative approaches to safer street design. Through these actions, we can raise the bar by innovating road design, decrease targets for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and work toward eventually eliminating all traffic -related deaths and serious injuries. Progressive safety initiatives include roundabouts, pedestrian sensor technology and innovative street design open to exploring such forward -thinking options. Staff has indicated to SCTPO that we are open to their pursuit of such educational opportunities within the City. Overall, it is imperative to the safety of our Community that City Council use every tool to protect residents and visitors of all ages and backgrounds from being seriously injured or possibly killed on SR AIA. Therefore, to lessen the number of Cape Canaveral pedestrians and motorists seriously injured or killed on/using SR AIA, the ongoing FDOT Traffic Study is necessary to support the installation of midblock crossings, native vegetation "islands," feeder street striping, traffic calming devices, a pedestrian/vehicle barrier and — most important — to lower the speed limit to 35 mph within City limits. 4 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 Resolution No. 2019-01 was approved by City Council at the March 19, 2019 regular meeting in order of priority: • Lower all speed limits to 35 m.p.h. • Public Safety Improvements: • Additional crosswalks at existing signalized intersections_ D North side of the signalized intersection of W. Central Avenue/Astronaut Boulevard_ D South side of the signalized intersection of Holman Road/North Atlantic Avenue. • All existing crosswalks and intersections to be audible and signalized. • New mid -block audible/signalized crosswalks with HAWK (High-intensity Activated crosswalk) beacons or PHB (Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons) at the following locations: D Burger King/SCAT bus stop D Columbia Drive 9 Jackson Avenue D Taylor Avenue • Cape Shores/East Hayes Avenue • Urban roadway profile safety improvements: • installation of wider landscaped medians with managed turning movement areas; low landscaping in medians to maintain driver visibility, with higher landscaping along sidewalks/pedways. • Installation of landscaping along SR A1A including, where appropriate, cluster landscape features. • Installation of street furniture and decorative lighting (solar powered lighting where possible) and traffic signage. • Construction of curb and gutter along both sides of roadway. This will require limited/as- necessary right-of-way acquisition funding for stormwater ponds and clipped corners at intersecting roadways. Consider bio-swales within landscaping plan for SR A1A; bio- swales will need to be located near existing storm drain inlets so stormwater overflow can enter system. • Construction of wide sidewalks in addition to wide buffered, protected and separated bike lanes (appropriately marked/stenciled), along both sides of SR AlA to more safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists; improve sidewalks along SR A1A in an ADA compliant manner. • Construction of low -maintenance stormwater improvements near stormwater outfalls that address ponding and water quality, including pre-treatment for nitrogen and phosphorus. Stormwater gardens might be considered in historic ponding areas. • Where appropriate and needed to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, install native vegetation "islands," crosswalk striping including on side -streets feeding into SR A1A and other arterial roadways, traffic calming devices, and pedestrian/vehicle barriers. • Realignment of International Drive - The realignment of International Drive with North Atlantic Avenue will require right-of-way (ROW) acquisition funding and must address not only the roadway alignments, but also stormwater drainage (possible wet detention pond) and 5 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat —Project Report March 27, 2019 pedestrian/bike crossings. Include marked crosswalks on all sides of this intersection. The International Drive Realignment Project Design is currently funded and underway. • New mast arms and audible/signalized intersection at SR A1A and Thurm Boulevard - The installation of an audible/signalized intersection at Thurm Boulevard will require the private property owners on the east side of Astronaut Boulevard to design and construct an aligned common driveway. • The remainder of SR A1A within the City of Cape Canaveral, from Long Point Road to the southern jurisdictional limits of the City of Cape Canaveral, and beyond, as appropriate, be advanced on the prioritized list of projects for curb and gutter improvements in order to provide for bicycle and pedestrian safety and while seamlessly transporting traffic through the City of Cape Canaveral and provide for the general aesthetic of a unified corridor_ City Vision Priority Items 1. Reduction in overhead lines to include undergrounding of utilities and replacement of existing utility poles with decorative poles. There are over 100+ overhead wires crossing SR A1A in the City. Any reduction in these wires (without impacting existing services) would improve the aesthetics of the entire corridor. 2. Wayfinding signage. Authorize the City to install and maintain an appropriate number of effective and efficient decorative wayfinding signage (with landscaping) directing pedestrians to parks, police, fire and other City and government facilities that pedestrians commonly need to travel. 3. Beautification efforts. Authorize and support City -initiated beautification efforts along SR AIA and other state roadways and land within the City such as the City's Adopt-A- Median/Roadway Landscape Program and Art Utility Box Program. 4. Ensure that all SR AMA public safety and vision priorities are implemented in a manner that is not only functional, but aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the City's on-going branding and strategic planning efforts. Timeline/Funding: Funding of priorities will be determined through Florida Department of Transportation budget process Communitv Survey -- Completed Overview: At the 2018 Cape Canaveral Strategic Planning Retreat, City leadership initiated a Community survey as a way to continue collecting feedback from residents. From March to June 2018, Management Consultant Dr. Tom Freijo and the Community Engagement Department developed the survey with input from the Mayor, City Council members and City Manager using knowledge gained from previous City surveys, outreach initiatives and the experiences of City Staff The final version of the survey was available to Cape Canaveral residents and property owners. The 6 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat -- Project Report March 27, 2019 survey which was live for nine weeks via SurveyMonkey, contained 69 closed -ended questions with the option for respondents to add additional clarifying comments. The City used various means to request resident participation in the Survey including: Nixie, the City Hall LED marquee, publicly placed flyers, a "Hometown News" article, direct mail postcards, a message on resident water bilis, the City website, social media posts (Facebook, Twitter, lnstagram, Snapchat and Nextdoor), regular features in "The Weekly Update," City meeting video messaging, through local faith -based organizations and City event outreach. A City Hall -based Community survey station with a laptop and technical support was created to address accessibility for residents in need. Staff received one request to participate in person. Once the survey was closed, responses were analyzed using data aggregation tools within SutveyMonkey, and the associated tables, graphs and charts were produced_ In total, 1,151 responses were collected --- the greatest number of respondents for any type of survey ever administered in City history! The key takeaway from the 2018 Community Survey is that the majority of respondents are satisfied with Community cleanliness, green space, level of ease or safety when biking on residential streets. They are satisfied with the attractiveness of completed streetscapes and feel that there has been positive progress over the last decade with respect to the majority of the topics and services addressed in the survey. While Staff is pleased to learn the majority ofresidents and property owners are satisfied with the above areas, we recognize the fact that there is always room for improvement. Areas in which respondents desire improvement includes bikeability and walkability on State Road (SR) A1A, the environmental health of the Indian River Lagoon, sustainability and resiliency initiatives and redevelopment of blighted areas. The results provided in the Cape Canaveral 2018 Community Survey report are the beginning of a larger City leadership and Staff exploration to translate the desires of the Community into strategic planning that determines short- and long-term goals for Cape Canaveral_ To view the full report, visit: https://www.cityofcapecanaveral. orgisurvey. Timeline: Survey planning took place from March 2018 to June 2018_ The survey opened on June 25, 2018 and closed on August 5, 2018. Funding: The project was funded by the Community Engagement Department and cost $4,550. W. Central Boulevard /Thurm Boulevard Streetscape — In Progress Overview: The proposed project represents a complete street project for W. Central Boulevard and Thurm Boulevard, roads which together represent a major transportation corridor through the City. The total length of the two segments is 4,940 feet and includes the following notable components: • Street improvements ($825k) • Construct an 8 -foot wide pedway where appropriate • Construct 6 -foot wide sidewalks where appropriate 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 • Install pedestrian benches • Replace concrete curbing where appropriate • Mill and resurface W. Central Boulevard from Thurm Boulevard to Astronaut Boulevard (5k sq.yds. per side) • Stripe roadway to include bicycle lanes in both directions • Install solar -powered, LED -lighting along both sides of the roadway ($300k - 20 lights @ $15k/per) • Sanitary Sewer Relocation in the W. Central Boulevard right-of-way ($180k) • Plant native vegetation "islands" ($80k) • Misc. Striping, Signs, Upgraded Intersection Paving ($50k) The total cost as proposed is $1.435 million. This does not include engineering for plans, permitting, surveys, contingencies, etc. Please note this project is contained in the City's Capital Improvement Plan and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Vision Statement. In addition, the project is consistent with Resolution 2011-09, which the City Council adopted to establish a Complete Streets Policy. 1 Project limits Aerial diagram of W Central/Thurm Boulevard Streetscape project limits. Timeline: The City Engineer is currently working on preliminary design/engineering documents in support of this project. 8 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 Actual construction of the streetscape will occur once the hotels currently under construction are completed, which will Iikely occur in the first quarter of 2020. Funding: Funding for this project will be from an allocation of County Transportation Impact Fees being generated by several hotel projects in the City limits. City Staff appeared before the Brevard County Impact Fee Advisory Committee and received a favorable recommendation for funding. In May of 2018, the County Commission approved the City's request for reimbursement of County Transportation Impact Fees. The fees will be collected by the County and forwarded to the City at the time the respective hotel(s) is issued a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). It is estimated that this could occur in the 1st quarter of 2020. Funding will be generated from three hotel projects, representing 525 rooms, which are currently under construction. These include: • Dual Branded Hotel (116 room Hampton and 108 room Home2) located at 9004 Astronaut Boulevard. • Springhill Suites and TownePlace Suites (301 rooms) located at 8701 Astronaut Boulevard, west of the existing Radisson Hotel. Given the current County Transportation Impact Fee amount of $2,735/room, the listed hotel projects will generate $1A35 million in revenue. Central Boulevard Streetscane —In Pro2ress Overview: This proposed project represents a phased complete street project for Central Boulevard from Astronaut Boulevard to Ridgewood Avenue. Phase 1 consists of E. Central Boulevard from Ridgewood Avenue to N. Atlantic Avenue. Phase 11 consists of W_ Central Boulevard from N. Atlantic Avenue to Astronaut Boulevard. This is a significant east -west corridor through the City which connects the river and ocean sides of the City. The total length of the two segments is 5,100 feet and includes the following notable components: • Street improvements. • Construct pedways where appropriate. • Construct sidewalks where appropriate. • Install pedestrian benches. • Replace concrete curbing where appropriate. • Stripe roadway to include bicycle lanes in both directions. • Install solar -powered, LED -lighting along both sides of the roadway. • Plant native vegetation "islands" where appropriate. • Misc. striping, signs, upgraded intersection paving. The total cost is estimated to be $1.2 million. This does not include engineering for plans, permitting, surveys, contingencies, etc. 9 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 The project is consistent with Resolution 2011-09, which the City Council adopted to establish a Complete Streets Policy. Timeline: The design work related to the two phases will be completed by the City Engineer and will occur in FY19/20. Construction of Phase I may occur in FY20/21 with Phase II in FY21/22. Funding: Funding for this project may come from a variety of sources to include City General Funds, County Transportation Impact Fees and/or CRA funds. Dog Park — In Progress Overview: A centrally located dog park was part of the original 2009 visioning. At those meetings an off -leash dog park was proposed for Manatee Sanctuary Park, but residents in the area vehemently opposed its construction because of noise and possible negative impact on that facility. In subsequent years, the definition of service animals evolved and federal rules emerged on the matter limiting a municipalities' ability to control dogs if the owner simply claimed they were service animals. Although you can ask questions regarding the job the dog performs, you cannot verify whether the dog indeed performs that job, malting it virtually impossible to determine whether or not the dog is a bona fide service animal. Dogs accompanying park visitors/event attendees significantly increased during that time period as well, to the point that action had to be taken to accommodate demand. ln. 2017, the City began a trial period to analyze the impact dogs had on residents, parks and quality of life. On May 15, 2018, City Council voted to end the trial period and permanently allow on -leash dogs in City parks due to Community enjoyment and positive feedback During that same period, Council approved construction of an off -leash dog park at Xeriscape Park for FYI 8/19. Centrally located and without any impact to residences or businesses, this park offered the ideal location for the City's first off -leash dog park. Proposed amenities include: • Separated large and small dog areas. • Synthetic turf — aesthetically pleasing, reduces probability of infections, very clean for dogs and owners. • Splash pads in both large and small dog areas. • Obstacle course elements. • Benches. • All abilities drinking fountain. • Solar lighting. 10 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat -- Project Report March 27, 2019 [Image of the area chosen for the Dog Park project] Timeline: Design was completed in December of 2018. Sidewalk expansion was completed in January 2019. A water line from the City of Cocoa has been installed. In February 2019, a purchase order was issued for the synthetic turf. Interior plumbing was completed in early March 2019. Turf and fencing are currently being installed, followed by a pedway to the park from a newly constructed sidewalk on Taylor Avenue. Solar lighting will be added completing the park construction by May 2019. Funding: This project is estimated to cost $65,000 and will be paid for by General Funds and CRA funds. Canaveral City Park Redevelopment — In Progress Overview: Canaveral City Park is the most centrally located park in the City. A recent needs study revealed many deficiencies exist at the Park relating to mobility and amenities to serve the Community_ Outside of improved mobility within and around the Park, the following amenities were found to be desperately wanted by the Community: • Multi -Generational Facility — This facility will be a catalyst for community health and engagement The City is one of the few municipalities in Brevard County that lacks a public or private facility of this nature. Desired community amenities expressed include: indoor basketball/volleyball, an indoor walking path, and specific areas for fitness, youth/teens, and banquet/gathering. The MGF could be utilized by all demographics and will serve as the host site for the City's Youth Center, summer camp, PAL and youth basketball programs. The 11 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 Facility would be the area's only public/private indoor fitness facility open to the general public. ($5,000,000) • Skate Park — A public skate park is another Community -engaging amenity that crosses age and race barriers. The right design not only becomes a central gathering place for the Community but also a tourist attraction. ($450,000) • Splash Pad — Operating and maintenance costs, as well as lack of property, prohibit the City from owning and operating a public pool. A splash pad serves the Community by bringing people together while having the experience of a water park_ With almost 10% of the population under 18 years old, this will not only be a heavily used feature at the park but one that could also have a positive economic impact. ($500,000 — Budgeted) • Design Features — To complete the park, improved playground equipment, pedways and landscaping will make this the most visited park in the City, ($450,000) Timeline: Thanks to a grant acquired in FY16/17, a preliminary Master Plan was created to include all Community -desired amenities. On January 18, 2018, Staff reviewed 9 responses to RFQ 2017-01 for services related to the design and construction of the Multi -Generational Facility (MGF) and CAPE Center. Architects RZK, Inc_ from Cocoa was selected based on compliance with RFQ instructions, technical expertise, quality control, Staff credentials, related experience with similar projects, location, local knowledge/experience and project references. At the end of December 2018, the MGF was mostly designed and reviewed by the City's Development Review Committee (DRC). Comments were collected and forwarded to the architect for the final construction document phase. Funding: Due to funding considerations, construction of the project has been phased. Phase I consists of the MGF at a cost of $5 million. Funding of Phase I is already in place as part of the $6.2 million in revenue notes issued in July of 2017. Funding of subsequent phases will explore sources including: CRA, grants, General Fund and use of SPLA moneys. ie Mill ,11-11110111®i=9fleal9 wm lat o ^o'° a o Nis; Rendering of Multi -Generational Facility 32 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 Culture Arts Preservation Enrichment (CAPE) Center — In Progress Overview: Repurposing of the old City Hall building into an accredited institution of cultural enrichment, with a focus on public engagement in all aspects of the arts as well as the promotion and preservation of Cape Canaveral's history. Supporting culture and education is one of the tenets outlined by the residents in the City's Vision Statement This project will fulfill that expectation and serve to address other ideals outlined during the visioning process, to include: • Create inclusive destination point. • Entertain myriad of cultural interests. • Engage multiple generations. • Operate at a capacity that is purposeful year-round. • Create a sense of place. • Celebrate the City's identity. These goals will be achieved through the development of enrichment/educational programs, implementing a multifaceted public art program, promoting/preserving local history and hosting cultural events. Some of the possibilities include: • Engagement & Public Events • Commerce & Culture Socials • Art Shows • Rotating Art Exhibits • Senior Field Trips • Public Art Program Center • Public History Program Center • Enrichment & Education • Art & Writing Classes • Historical Research Instruction • Cultural Lecture Series • Student Speaker Opportunities • Educator Networking Socials • Student Volunteerism • Promoting & Preserving • Local Artifact Repository • Rotating Historical Exhibits • Youth History Fairs • Preservation Projects • Historical Site Restoration • Public Archeology Activities 13 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 Proposed west and north elevations of Cultural Arts Preservation and Enrichment (CAPE) Center redevelopment of the old City Hall. Timeline: On January 18, 2018, Staff reviewed 9 responses to RFQ 2017-01 for services related to the design and construction of the Multi -Generational Facility (MGF) and CAPE Center. Architects RZK, Inc. from Cocoa was selected based on compliance with RFQ instructions, technical expertise, quality control, Staff credentials, related experience with similar projects, location, local knowledge/experience and project references. Preliminary Design took place FY17/18. Design in FY19/20. Exterior construction will be accomplished in FY 20121. Funding: Funding for the design/permitting/construction of the CAPE Center is already in place as part of the $6.2 million in revenue notes issued in July of 2017. Galactic Pocket Park (Cumberland Farms) — In Progress 14 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 Overview: With the approval of Special Exception No 2016-03, the City was granted an easement for construction of a pocket park at the south end of the Cumberland Farms project located at 9000 Astronaut Boulevard. The easement allows for signage, landscaping, public amenities (sidewalk, outdoor furniture, bike rack, water fountain or public art) and utilities. Phase I includes the following: • Park design and layout. • Site work to include clearing and grading to commence late March 2019. • Winding walkway, LTD landscaping, and center plaza construction to follow with expected completion by May 2019. • Site amenities to include permeable walkway featuring a photoreactive (glow -in -the -dark) inlaid Milky Way Spiral Galaxy, themed benches and branded bike rack. Timeline: Upon completion of Phase 1, Phase 11 additions include public art installation to take place FYI9/20. Funding: This project is estimated to cost 530,000 and will be paid from General Fund and/or CRA funds. Southgate (Wagner) Pocket Park — In Progress Overview: This proposed pocket park is located at 8817 North Atlantic Avenue just south of Anchorage Avenue. The project represents the next step in the N. Atlantic Avenue Streetscape Project The property was donated to the City in December of 2016 by the owners of the Southgate Mobile Home Park, immediately to the west of the proposed park. The design and layout of this pocket park includes the following: • Site clearing and grading. • Removal and treatment of invasive Brazilian Pepper trees. • Construction of permeable winding walkways and fencing. • Low impact development (LID) landscaping (native wild flower butterfly garden). • Installation of site amenities such as, Little Free Library, Little Free Pantry, benches, shade structures, water fountain for both humans and dogs, bicycle facilities, and solar lighting. • Decorative stamped crosswalk with appropriate pedestrian crossing signage across North Atlantic Avenue. Timeline: Estimated completion of Wagner Pocket Park is the end of FY18/19. Funding: Wagner Park will cost $70,000 and will be paid from the General Fund, Mobility Fund and/or the CRA (Funds Budgeted). Long Point Estuary Park — In Progress Overview: Since 2007 the City had been exploring a 35% matching grant with the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to fund environmental restoration of the Long Point Road site. 15 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 From 2007 to 2016 minimal City funds were expended to complete initial reporting requirements, define the scope of work, conduct site visits, develop management plans or interview contractors. In 2017 however, an opportunity allowed the City to work with a local developer and the St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) — both of whom were seeking mitigation credits for various projects — to pursue a management plan. This 7.9 acres of riverfront, City owned land located on the western end of Long Point Road consists of mixed wetland/exotic hardwoods, mangroves, fresh/salt water marsh, and the invasive species known as the Brazilian Pepper tree. Even in its current state, the Long Point Road property represents one of the last conservation habitats in Cape Canaveral. The City's goal is to tum this space into a passive conservation area for current and future generations of the Community to enjoy. The project segments are as follows: • Segment 1 (200± feet): Eastern end of the property already mostly cleared of vegetation as part of past Hurricane Matthew recovery efforts in 2016; • Segment 2 (4± acres): Middle portion of the property, where all activities will be funded by a local developer, entered into a Conservation Agreement on August 21, 2018; and • Segment 3 (3.88± acres): Western portion (waterfront) of the property, where all activities will be funded by SJRWMD, entered into a Conservation Agreement on October 16, 2018, Segment 3 Proposed Conservation Area Aerial exhibit of Long Point Estuary Park Segments 1, 2 and 3. 16 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat —Project Report March 27, 2019 Conceptual aerial drawing depicting possible future usesof the property and its phased/segmented development. Timeline: This project will be completed using a phased approach based an the SJRWMD permit and 5 -year Management Plan (Participation Agreement) which requires: a vegetative survey; planting plan specifications; invasive species removal/monitoring; on-site inspections and an 80% natural plant survival rate. • Phase I: Removal of all invasive species by various appropriate methods on Segment 1, 2 and 3 will take place in FY 19/20. • Phase II: The construction of passive park amenities such as but not limited to: bat/bird houses, prefabricated restroom, a riverfront elevated boardwalk and kayak landing, nature center/pavilion, educational kiosks, benches, gazebos and limited on-site parking will likely occur in FY21/22. Funding: All initial tasks will be funded by the City with later reimbursement from SJRWMD ($54,910) upon completion of all activities pursuant to the Participation Agreement. Funding for work performed on Phase I (clearing/replanting) Segment 2 will be provided by the local developer, and Segment 3 will be provided by SJRWMD. All mitigation credits will be split between Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the future widening of SR 528 and the local developer. Funding of the Phase II park amenity development tasks (estimated $865,000) will be pursued through various organizations in FY20/21 including the Brevard County Tourist Development Council and Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND). Additional Project Information: Since May of 2018 SJRWMD has been in discussions with City Staff, River Gardens Condominiums and Canaveral Bay Condominiums about the possible project inclusion of 5.9 acres of adjacent undeveloped property to the south. The privately owned area shares similar natural and invasive characteristics with Segments 2 and 3. Due to the aggressive nature of the Brazilian Pepper tree, the removal of all surrounding specimens would benefit surrounding community, increase the conservation footprint, and ensure the City's long - 17 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 term management objectives are met. At this time SJRWMD has expressed an interest in purchasing the River Gardens and Canaveral Bay properties and conveying it to the City. The City would be responsible for ongoing maintenance and would seek grant funds for initial mitigation work. Mitigation credits would be awarded to FDOT for the future widening of SR 528. Additional meetings with all concerned parties will be scheduled in the near future. Conceptual aerial drawing of the possible future uses of Long Point Estuary Park and its phased/segment development should the River Gardens and Canaveral Bay Condominium property be included in this mitigation project. Lagoon Protection Initiatives — On -Going Overview - The City completed payment on two State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program loans with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in January and October 2016. Moneys from these two SRF Program loans (combined total of approximately eight million dollars) were used to finance upgrades to the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) beginning in 1996; these upgrades were the first large-scale improvements to the WRF since initial construction in 1966. The City obtained an additional SRF Program loan in the amount of approximately eight million dollars in 2013, Projects completed with this funding included: • Construction of a 2.5 -million gallon reclaimed water tank; • Installation of an additional belt press with extensive building expansion; 18 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat — Project Report March 27, 2019 • Rebuild (complete) of the oxidation ditch and conversion of the equalization tank into a backup oxidation ditch system; • Replacement of the gravity sewer pipe along Holman Road; • Replacement of the gravity sewer pipe from Holman Road to Lift Station No. 2; and • Extensive repairs to the stormwater pipe along West Central Boulevard. Obtaining this SRF Program loan allowed for the City's Enterprise Capital Fund to be used for other major improvement project such as: • North Atlantic Avenue Streetscape Project; • City Park Exfiltration Project; • Replacement of Force Main No. 3; • Replacement of Lift Station. Nos. 6 and 7; and • Banana River shoreline improvements at the WRF, Manatee Sanctuary Park and Banana River Park. In order to provide adequate funds to (1) improve several processes at the WRF, (2) replace/rehab equipment that is approaching (or is past) its estimated life span, (3) construct numerous collections system improvement projects and (4) purchase land for use as a stormwater park, City Council approved the City entering into one or more loan agreement(s) with FDEP for approximately six and one-half million dollars from the SRF Program. These funds will be used to construct nine capital improvement projects. Many of these projects, although completed as part of the sanitary sewer system, provide direct benefits to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) system including: • Eliminating leakage of raw sewage into the surficial aquifer — reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous which eventually discharges to the Banana River; • Limiting infiltration/inflow [lft] of groundwater to sewer and stormwater pipes — leakage into sewer pipes requires increased treatment at the WRF -- leakage into stormwater pipes directly discharges to the Banana River; and • Expanding the City's reclaimed water system thus limiting discharges of treated wastewater to the Banana River from the WRF. 19 2019/2020 City Council Planning Retreat--Project Report March 27,2019 Timeline: SRF Projects and Estimated Costs Technical Engineering Construction Scheduled Project Costs* Services Costs** Fiscal Year Costs* Intermediate Lift Station $39,100 $30,400 $355,000 19/20-20/21 Rehab WWTP SCADA System $75.300 $58,600 $960,000 19/20-20/21 Improvements Rehab Lift Station No.3 $25,000 519,400 5320,000 19/20-20/21 Replace Force Main No. 7 526,400 520,500 5340,000 19/20-20/21 Effluent/Influent 5106,000 582,400 $1,350,000 19/20-20/21 Disk/Drum Filters Construct Pump and SO2 $96,000 $74,700 51,225,000 19/20-20/21 Buildings Subtotal(FY18/19- 19/20) $367,800 $286,000 $4,550,000 Rehab Lift Station No. 8 $29,600 523,000 5380,000 20/21 -21/22 Relocate Lift Station No. 5 549,600 $38,600 5475,000 20/21 -21/22 Center Street Stormwater 53,000 52,400 5295,000 20/21 -21/22 Park(Land purchase only) Subtotal(FY19/20-20/21) $82,200 564,000 $1,150,000 Grand Total $450,000 $350,000 $5,700,000 $6,500,000 * -From 2019 draft Facilities Plan ** -From 2019 draft Facilities Plan and includes 20%contingency. Funding:These projects are funded through a SRF funding Program as approved by City Council at the March 19,2019 regular meeting under Ordinance No.06-2019. 20 APPENDIX C VISION STATEMENT [City Seal] THE space BETWEEN' Cape Canaveral Vision Statement We envision: A bikeable and walkable Cape Canaveral that retains and enhances its welcoming residential feel and celebrates its unique sense of place. A residential and business -friendly atmosphere that is livable, attractive, safe and inclusive. A sustainable coastal community that embraces the oceanside and riverside as key amenities, and supports and promotes local tourism, culture, recreation, resiliency, commerce, municipal civic interests and education. We envision: Streetscapes with amenities such as low -impact development, bicycle facilities, covered transit stops and safe pedestrian crossings that encourage access to the beach, river, local neighborhoods and adjacent communities. Improved "complete streets" will allow pedestrians to travel to intimate waterfront destinations and a walkable uptown core with ease and safety. Generous tree lined and well -lighted multi -use paths for bikes and pedestrians so anyone can walk or bicycle safely anywhere in town, day or night. We envision: A welcoming community entrance that creates a sense of arrival and unique community identity as The Space Between`'. The "uptown core" and other areas will contain an architecturally rich and unique mix of uses, with wide tree -shaded sidewalks and umbrella -covered cafe tables at restaurants and bistros where family and friends gather, interact and enjoy refreshments and meals. We envision: An engaged and compassionate Community that: transforms blighted and unfinished buildings into attractive structures, offers City-wide green spaces, provides exceptional parks with ample shade and supports businesses that enhance economic viability while serving our residents and visitors with goodwill. We envision: Open shorelines and rivers accessible to the public, including amenities that showcase the coastline while providing art and entertainment venues, which support our historical and cultural identity. APPENDIX D MISSION STATEMENT [City Seal] THE SPACE BETWEEN° CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL MISSION The Mission of the City of Cape Canaveral government is to provide excellence in municipal services by supporting a high quality of life, fiscal responsibility and environmental stewardship, while celebrating diversity and fostering innovation. APPENDIX E ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES [City Seal] THE SPACE BETWEEN° CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES Commitment to Excellence: We believe our role is to make the City of Cape Canaveral the ideal community for our residents, businesses and visitors. Vision: We look toward the future, generating goals and strategies that make the City of Cape Canaveral an even better place to live. Dedication: We are dedicated to performing our duties to the best of our abilities and going above and beyond to achieve high quality results. Accountability: We have a responsibility to one another and the public to perform our jobs effectively and efficiently, and we take that responsibility seriously. Innovation: We encourage thinking outside the box in search of new and better ways to provide quality services to the Community. Proactivity: We actively seek to identify and plan for issues before they arise, with the aim of averting problems rather than having to solve them after they occur. Fiscal Responsibility: We are responsible stewards of the City's resources, Through professional management and transparent financial practices, we accrue the highest benefit from each tax dollar. Integrity: We strive to make decisions and take actions based upon what is right rather than what is expedient. We are honest and we own up to our mistakes. Teant Work: In recognition of the worth of each individual and their contributions to our mission, we value and honor one another and are committed to working together as one team. Civility: We treat all persons with kindness, dignity and respect_ Communication: We communicate openly, clearly, directly and in a timely manner with one another and the Community. Diversity and Inclusivity: We believe there is value in diversity and celebrate our uniqueness within the organization, the Community and the world. Fun: While we take our work seriously, we cultivate an environment that includes humor, friendship and camaraderie. APPENDIX F COUNCIL MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT City of Cape Canaveral Council Member Code of Conduct (City Code .Sec. 2-28. Code of Conduct) In addition ro adhering to the requirements of State Low, all Council Members shall Commit to the /ulloil'!ng Codi' alConduct by written affirmation, which shall rennalll on. file i ith the Citi Clerk, as follows: I affirm that the proper Statutory and City Charter role of a Council Member, as with any elected member of a legislative body, is to act collectively, not individually, to set and/or revise and/or to apply the City's governing policies and that the City Manager and Staff administer such policies. I understand that a Council Member does not manage the affairs of the City. I will not intrude into daily operations or spheres of responsibility designated by Florida Statutes, City Code, and City Charter to the City Manager as the chief executive officer; or undermine the City Manager's lawful authority, Furthcr, I understand that the City Manager is responsible for administering the policy direction established by a majority vote of the City Council and not the policy wishes of one individual Council Member. I will represent the interests of the entire City when making decisions and will rely upon available facts and my independent judgment. In my capacity as a Council Member, I will avoid conflicts of interest and avoid using my official position for personal, professional, or partisan gain. I will demonstrate dignity, respect, and courtesy toward those whom I am in contact with in my capacity as a Council Member. I will refrain from intimidation and ridicule of fellow Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, citizens of the City, and City utility customers. In my capacity as a Council Member, I will refrain from inappropriate language including statements that are malicious, threatening, slanderous, disparaging, mean-spirited, vulgar or abusive. All disagreements, concerns or criticisms shall be framed in language that is in keeping with the dignity and professionalism of an elected official and the honor of the City Council. I will focus on solving problems. I will maintain appropriate decorum and professional demeanor in the conduct of City business and work cooperatively and conscientiously with others as I request or receive information, examine data or weigh alternatives in the decision-making process. I will demonstrate patience and refrain from demanding, interruptive access to Staff or immediate responses or services when requesting information that requires significant Staff time in research, preparation or analysis or that will result in Staff neglect of urgent duties. Such requests will be made through the City Manager for scheduling and prioritizing through consensus of the City Council. I will devote adequate time for preparation prior to City Council Meetings and as much as possible, I will be in attendance at such meetings and all other scheduled events where my participation is required. I will respect diversity and encourage the open expression of divergent ideas and opinions from fellow City Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, citizens of Cape Canaveral, and City utility customers. I will listen actively and objectively to others' concerns or constructive criticisms. I will refrain from any individual action that could compromise lawfully authorized decisions of the City or the integrity of the City and my fellow Council Members. I will delineate clearly for any audience whether I am acting or speaking as an individual citizen or in my capacity as a representative of the City. I will maintain in confidence any privileged or confidential information provided to me by the City and will not disclose such information publicly or to any person who has not been duly authorized by the City to receive such information, unless such disclosure is duly authorized by the City Council or City Manager or required by law. In addition, I will refrain from copying any written privileged or confidential documents provided to me by the City and will keep such documents in safekeeping. Further, upon leaving office or upon request by the City Council or City Manager, I will return to the City any privileged or confidential documents or materials provided to me by the City while serving on the City Council. I will abide by all laws of the State applicable to my conduct as a Council Member, including, but not limited to, the Government in the Sunshine Law, the Florida Code of Ethics for Public Officers, and City Rules of Procedure and Codes of Conduct. I will promote constructive relations in a positive climate with all City employees, City Attorney, and City contractors and consultants consistent with my role as a Council Member, as a means to enhance the productivity and morale of the City. I will support the City Manager's decision to employ the most qualified persons for Staff positions. I will recognize the bona fide achievements of the City Manager, Staff, City Attorney, City contractors and consultants, business partners, and other sharing in, and striving to achieve, the City's mission. I will enhance my knowledge and ability to contribute value to the City as a Council Member by keeping abreast of issues and trends that could affect the City through reading, continuing education and training. I will study policies and issues affecting the City, and will attend training programs if required by the City. My continuing goal will be to improve my performance as a Council Member. I will value and assist my fellow Council Members by exchanging ideas, concerns, and knowledge through lawful means of communication. I will help build positive community support for the City's mission and the policies established by the City Council. I will support and advocate for my beliefs, but will remain open to understanding the views of others. I recognize that I share in the responsibility for all City decisions and will accept the will of duly authorized decisions of the City Council and City electorate. I understand that my first priority as a Council Member will always be to look out for the best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety and welfare. I will seek to provide appropriate leadership that nurtures and motivates City citizens to be stakeholders in the affairs and achievements of the City. I will be accountable to the City Council for violations of this Code of Conduct. Signature Date Print Name Witness Attachment 2 DRAFT CAPE CANAVERAL CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT TO SET FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020 GOALS Radisson Resort at the Port 8701 Astronaut Boulevard, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 WEDNESDAY March 27, 2019 10:30 A.M. —3:30 P.M. MINUTES Retreat Facilitator Dr. Tom D. Freijo opened the Retreat at 10:31 A.M. Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Mike Brown Mayor Bob Hoog Council Member Wes Morrison Council Member Rocky Randels Council Member Angela Raymond Others Present: City Manager David L. Greene City Attorney Anthony Garganese (arrived 10:39 A.M.) City Clerk Mia Goforth Administrative/Financial Services Director John DeLeo Capital Projects Director Jeff Ratliff City Engineer John Pekar City Planner Brenda Defoe-Surprenant Community Development Director David Dickey Community Engagement Specialist Stephanie Johnson Community Services Director Joshua Surprenant Culture and Leisure Services Director Gustavo Vergara Deputy City Clerk Daniel LeFever Economic Development Director Todd Morley Executive Assistant to the City Manager Lisa Day Human Resources/Risk Management Director Jane Ross Retreat Facilitator Dr. Tom D. Freijo WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS/AGENDA REVIEW: Dr. Freijo welcomed everyone with a brief set of remarks detailing the Agenda,reasons for/purpose of the Retreat,his role as Facilitator, the open,respectful nature expected of the planned discussions and thanked City Staff for planning and preparing the Retreat. STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS REVIEW: Dr. Freijo detailed the history of the City's Strategic Planning Process, duties of an appointed chief executive to a municipality/elected body and different personality and management styles. DRAFT City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Strategic Planning Retreat March 27,2019 Page 2 of 5 REVIEW COUNCIL ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES, PROJECTS, INITIATIVES AND 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: City Manager Greene stated SR A1A and Indian River Lagoon improvements have been identified as the two highest priorities of Council and presented the status of the following projects and initiatives: SR AlA Improvements: Items covered included lack of commitment from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), despite repeated efforts by the City, to implement necessary, identified improvements and FDOT prioritization of traffic flow in conflict with concerns over pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Central Boulevard and Thurm Boulevard Streetscapes: Items covered included recent rule changes which effectively exclude the City from funding opportunities, further reliance on impact fees, recommended Code revision to require impact fees be paid when building permit is issued rather than at issuance of certificate of occupancy, preliminary work that has already been conducted, possible difficulty justifying expending public funds to construct/reconstruct privately-owned roads,residents' complaints,attempts to acquire private roads, lack of positive response from Port Canaveral in efforts to further connect road networks between the City and Port and road access to a planned hotel in the north-end of the City. Canaveral City Park Redevelopment: Items covered included the Multi-Generational Facility moving forward on schedule, construction drawings being prepared, timeline of events in relation to the Cultural Arts Preservation Enrichment Center project, crucial timing of funding opportunities, Community Redevelopment Agency funds, the multi-phase nature of the entire Project, planned amenities, exceeding requirements for parking and efforts to further involve the Community. Dog Park: Staff efforts to bring the Project to fruition and "Rover's Space" being selected as the name were covered. Culture Arts Preservation Enrichment (CAPE) Center: Items covered included the Staff Historian's activities with the Brevard County Historical Society, continued progress on the Project,use of Community Redevelopment Agency funds, Community Engagement opportunities and popularity of the Irma Canoe display at City Hall. Southgate (Wagner)Pocket Park: Items covered included the land having been donated to the City and an envisioned area for residents and visitors to stop and visit on North Atlantic Avenue. Galactic Pocket Park (Cumberland Farms): Items covered included cooperation from all parties, celebrating the historical significance of North Atlantic Avenue to the Air Force Station and space program, low-cost nature of the Park, further establishing the City identity and difficulty with the Tourism Development Council recognizing the City in its marketing and publications. DRAFT City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Strategic Planning Retreat March 27,2019 Page 3 of 5 Long Point Estuary Park: Items covered included opposition to and support of the Project from residents, St. Johns River Water Management District acquiring more land to further expand the Project, City responsibilities for clearing invasive plant life, seeking additional funding from other agencies, planned parking area will have minimal effect on neighborhood, supporting quality of life improvements,prior missed opportunities in the City,projected reimbursements for City costs and past land acquisition negotiations. Lagoon Protection Initiatives: Items covered included the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan,taking advantage of current opportunities, existing and future exfiltration projects, continuing an aggressive approach to stormwater, wastewater and reclaimed water improvements, dedication to not being a Lagoon polluter, efforts to eliminate the last septic tank in the City, status of the City's State Revolving Fund loans and following-through with approved projects. City Manager Greene further discussed City accomplishments in the last ten years, constant attacks on local governments from the State legislature, cities paying the price for rampant private-interest lobbying at the State level, Staff working hard to salvage the future in spite of State actions, loss of revenue generation and short-term rental regulation, Staff and residents' concerns regarding a number of properties in violation of Code,legal status of a noncompliant property on Polk Avenue, Code Enforcement activities and Council ultimately deciding policy and overall direction of City. Council Discussion — Dr. Freijo opened the floor to Council. Discussion included further details on the status of the noncompliant Polk Avenue property, planned use of a Magistrate for Code Enforcement, legal status and history of public right-of-ways on privately-owned land, City performing minor repairs and patches on privately-owned right-of-ways but nothing more unless perpetual status as a right-of-way is secure,developers advancing impact fees before hotels receive certificates of occupancy, confirming the Canaveral City Park Redevelopment Project has not slowed down, inconsistent and inaccurate information from multiple sources causing anger and panic in residents, status and timeline of the Multi-Generational Facility with an estimated twelve-month construction period after contracts are expected to be executed in Summer 2019, proposed projects from previous years, other projects having been reprioritized and not cancelled, communicating City concerns to the State Legislature, efforts to deal with State activities deeply affecting local governments' functions and funding, other municipalities experiencing retaliatory State audits, informing residents that State actions against cities will lead to higher local taxes, desire for Space Coast League of Cities and Florida League of Cities to be more aggressive in their lobbying efforts at the State level and restrictions on public entities in dealing with State officials. Discussion continued regarding dogs on the beach and speed limit enforcement, communicating with the Brevard County Sheriff's Office to relay concerns, a desire for more visible enforcement on SR AlA,tragic incidents inspiring speed limit reductions and enforcement increases elsewhere, using liability to justify a culture change before a future tragic incident occurs in Cape Canaveral, high speeds of traffic entering the City from SR 528, concerns that officers are unfamiliar with local speed limits and misprioritizing roads that are patrolled, a request to see traffic stop figures, law enforcement staffing increases in the budget, past Council resolutions petitioning FDOT for DRAFT City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Strategic Planning Retreat March 27,2019 Page 4 of 5 speed limit reductions, City history of dogs on the beach, dog owners continuing to violate beach ordinances in areas with increased enforcement and confirmation that all ongoing projects detailed in this Retreat and past Retreats are listed in the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. MISSION/VISION/VALUES DISCUSSION/AFFIRMATION: Discuss Mission: Dr. Freijo presented the proposed Mission Statement and discussed its intent and purpose. Council reached consensus to consider adoption of the Mission Statement at a future City Council Meeting. Discuss Vision: Dr. Freijo presented the Vision Statement with revisions recommended by Staff. Discussion ensued and included the reduction in word count,cleaning-up verbiage to clarify intent, continued need to promote City identity,tourism-related entities and publications omitting the City of Cape Canaveral, confusing the City with Port Canaveral and Cocoa Beach and overlooking its existence despite massive contributions by hotels and facilities within the City in both revenue generation and levels of service. Council reached consensus to draft a resolution, for consideration at a future City Council Meeting, petitioning the Brevard County Tourism Development Council to properly recognize the City of Cape Canaveral in marketing and publications. Discussion continued regarding ensuring an inclusive nature to the Statement's wording, promoting City Branding Trademarks, SR A1A improvements necessary to bring the entire community together, liability-concerns regarding the Statement's terminology, aspirational nature of vision statements, removing portions of the Statement if a specific vision has been achieved and possibility of establishing an umbrella statement. Council reached consensus to consider adoption of the revised Vision Statement at a future City Council Meeting. Discuss Organizational Values: Dr. Freijo presented the proposed Organizational Values and how they detail Staff conduct and day-to-day operations. Discussion ensued and included typical nature of the values,widespread use of similar statements in both public and private sectors, geared more towards Staff than Council, careful use of terminology and phrasing and importance of fun. Council reached consensus to consider adoption of the Organizational Values at a future City Council Meeting. Discuss/Affirm Council Values/Code of Conduct: Discussion ensued and included a desire for long-term continuance of the Strategic Planning Process irrespective of future changes to Staff and Council, adherence to the City Code including the Code of Conduct, conflicts between appointed chief executives and elected officials in municipalities, responsibilities, respecting chains of command, past communication between property developers, Council Members and City Staff, importance of clear, consistent direction and spread of information, utilization of the Weekly Update in providing accurate, timely information, conflicts with contractors and subcontractors, timely resolutions of public safety concerns, adherence to State and Federal laws,requirements for public records, process of approving development projects and expectations for conducting City business going forward. Council reached consensus that no revision is necessary to the current Code of Conduct. DRAFT City of Cape Canaveral,Florida City Council Strategic Planning Retreat March 27,2019 Page 5 of 5 MAYOR HOOG PRESIDES: Mayor Hoog called the Meeting to order at 2:25 P.M. Discussion ensued and included appreciation of efforts by Staff and Dr. Freijo, differences of opinion, respectful discourse, impacts of State Legislature actions, resident feedback, responsibilities and duties of the City Manager's Office, addressing concerns, moving forward proactively rather than reactively, ethics training options, positive reasons for choosing the City as a home, striving for equality and reiteration of Staff and Council responsibilities and duties in relation to property developers and contractors. Council reached consensus to take action at a future City Council Meeting to follow-up, discuss and set goals for Fiscal Year 2019/2020. PUBLIC COMMENT:Arlyn DeBlauw, 8931 Lake Drive, discussed his support of the East Coast Greenway realignment through the City, his positive opinion of City beach crossovers, concerns regarding small electric and other powered vehicles using sidewalks and his preference against yellow-flashing crosswalk signals on multi-lane roads. Brendan McMillin, 397 Holman Road, commented on the positive and successful nature of the City Strategic Planning Retreats. WRAP UP AND ADJOURNMENT: Dr. Freijo commented on overcoming and moving beyond contentious discussion and thanked Council and Staff. There being no further business,the Retreat adjourned at 2:49 P.M. Bob Hoog, Mayor Daniel LeFever, Deputy City Clerk City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 8 Subject: City Council designate one (1) City Official to be the Voting Delegate at the 93rd Annual Florida League of Cities Conference scheduled for August 15-17, 2019 in Orlando, Florida and decide if it wishes to propose resolution(s) for the League's consideration. Department: City Clerk's Office Summary: The Florida League of Cities (FLC) is the united voice for Florida's municipal governments. Its goals are to promote local self-government and serve the needs of Florida's municipal governments. Growing from a small number of cities and towns, it now represents more than 400 cities, towns and villages. The League is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of elected municipal officials. The FLC's 93rd Annual Conference is scheduled for August 15-17, 2019 at the World Marriott Center in Orlando, Florida. League By -Laws require that each member municipality sending delegates to the Annual Conference of the FLC designate one (1) of its officials to cast its votes at the Annual Business Session. Additionally, the FLC adopts resolutions each year to take positions on commemorative, constitutional or Federal issues. If City Council wishes to propose a resolution, the League must receive it no later than July 10th, 2019. Staff requests Council designate one (1) City Official to be the Voting Delegate at the Conference and decide if it wishes to propose resolution(s) for the League's consideration. Submitting Department Director: Mia Goforth Date: 5/29/19 Attachments: (1) Letter (2) Designation of Voting Delegate form (3) List of Important Dates Financial Impact: Cost of attendance at Conference; Agenda Item. Reviewed by Administrative/Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Staff time and effort to prepare this Date: 5/28/19 The City Manager recommends that City Council take the following actions: City Council designate one (1) City Official to be the Voting Delegate at the 93rd Annual Florida League of Cities Conference scheduled for August 15-17, 2019 in Orlando, Florida and decide if it wishes to propose resolution(s) for the League's consideration. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene V— Date: 5/29/19 Attachment 1 [Florida League of Cities logo] 301 South Bronough Street a Suite 300 m P.O. Box 1757 ° Tallahassee, FL 32302-1757 (850) 222-9684 ° Fax (850) 222-3806 www.Floridaleagueofcities.com TO: Key Official FROM: Michael Sittig, Executive Directo DATE: May 13, 2019 SUBJECT: 93rd Annual FLC Conference VOTING DELEGATE INFORMATION August 15-17, 2019 — World Center Marriott, Orlando The Florida League of Cities' Annual Conference will be held at the World Center Marriot, Orlando, Florida on August 15-17. This conference will provide valuable educational opportunities to help Florida's municipal officials serve their citizenry more effectively. It is important that each municipality designate one official to be the voting delegate. Election of League leadership and adoption of resolutions are undertaken during the business meeting. One official from each municipality will make decisions that determine the direction of the League. In accordance with the League's by-laws, each municipality's vote is determined by population, and the League will use the Estimates of Population from the University of Florida for 2018. Conference registration materials will be sent to each municipality in the month of June. Materials will also be posted on-line. Call us if you need additional copies. If you have any questions on voting delegates, please call Eryn Russell at the League (850) 701- 3616. Voting delegate forms must be received by the Leag, e no Hater than August 9, 2019. Attachments: Form Designating Voting Delegate President Leo E. Longworth, Mayor, Bartow First Vice President Isaac Salver, Councilman, Bay Harbor Islands a Second Vice President Tony Ortiz, Commissioner, Orlando Executive Director Michael Sittig a General Counsel Kraig Conn Attachment 2 93rd Annual Conference Florida League of Cities, Inc. August 15-17, 2019 Orlando, Florida It is important that each member municipality sending delegates to the Annual Conference of the Florida League of Cities, designate one of their officials to cast their votes at the Annual Business Session. League By -Laws requires that each municipality select one person to serve as the municipalities voting delegate. Municipalities do not need to adopt a resolution to designate a voting delegate. Please fill out this form and return it to the League office so that your voting delegate may be properly identified. Designation of Voting Delegate Name of Voting Delegate: Title: Municipality of: AUTHORIZED BY: Name Title Return this form to: Eryn Russell Florida League of Cities, Inc. Post Office Box 1757 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1757 Fax to Eryn Russell at (850) 222-3806 or email erussell@flcities.com Attachment 3 Important Dates May 2019 Notice to Local and Regional League Presidents and Municipal Associations regarding the Legislative Committee and Resolutions Committee June 2019 Appointment of Legislative Committee and Resolutions Committee Members July 10th Deadline for Submitting Resolutions to the League office August 15th Legislative Policy Committee Meetings Voting Delegates Registration August 16th Legislative Committee and Resolutions Committee Meetings August 17th Immediately Following Breakfast — Pick Up Voting Delegate Credentials Followed by Annual Business Session City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 06/18/2019 Item No. 9 Subject: Ratify the Composite City Manager Performance Evaluation and discuss/determine how to proceed with the provisions of Section 2, Salary and Evaluation, of the Employment Agreement between the City of Cape Canaveral and City Manager David L. Greene. Department: Human Resources Summary: Section 2, Salary and Evaluation, sub -section "B" of the City Manager's Employment Agreement (Attachment 1) allows consideration for an adjustment to the base salary and/or other benefits based upon performance evaluation which is required to occur between May and July of each year. The Mayor and three City Council Member individual reviews were combined as written into the Composite Evaluation (Attachment 2). Council Member Morrison did not submit a performance evaluation for the City Manager. Submitted evaluation scores received were combined into a composite (Attachment 3). City Council Members are requested to ratify the Composite Evaluation and then discuss and determine how to proceed with the provisions of the Employment Agreement. Submitting Department Director: Jane E. Ross Date: 6/10/19 Attachments: 1. Excerpt from City Manager Employment Agreement. 2. Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L. Greene. 3. Composite Scores for Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L. Greene. Financial Impact: Dependent upon the actions of Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo the City Council. Date: 6/7/19 Attachment 1 EXCERPT FROM CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement "), is by and between the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and David Greene (hereinafter referred to by name or as "City Manager"). Section 2. Salary and Evaluation. A. For the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement, the City agrees to pay the City Manager an annual base salary of Ninety -Nine Thousand Five Hundred and No /100 Dollars (Currently: $149,760), payable in installments at the same time as other City employees are paid with an evaluation for a potential increase in the base salary within six (6) months of June 1, 2010, as determined by the City Council at the Council's discretion. B. In addition to the provisions of subparagraph A above, the City agrees to consider adjustments of said base salary and/or other benefits of the City Manager in such amounts and to such an extent as the City Council may determine desirable on the basis of an annual performance evaluation of the City Manager. Such evaluation shall be in such form as the Council and the City Manager agree upon and shall be made between May and July of each year in which this Agreement is effective. C. During the first year of this Agreement only, the City Manager shall have an additional evaluation that will take place between November 2010 and January 2011 and shall receive a potential increase in his base salary as determined by the City Council at the Council's discretion. D. All salary shall be paid less appropriate deductions for employment taxes, income tax and other lawful withholdings. The City Manager shall not be entitled to overtime or compensatory benefits. Attachment 2 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L. Greene Employee: David L. Greene Evaluation Period: June 2018 through May 2019 Objectives: Date presented: 6/18/2019 Date of Hire: 6/1/2010 • To evaluate the City Manager's performance of widely varied duties and responsibilities. • To evaluate certain skills and traits that shape a successful City Manager's ability to perform widely varied duties and responsibilities. • To assess the quality of municipal services by measuring the management team's level of performance in specific functional areas. • To enable the City Council to identify and address specific strengths, areas needing improvement, and performance objectives for the next evaluation period. • To provide a management tool for continued improvement of the City administration. Methods: The Mayor and City Council members are to individually assess performance criterion by placing an "x" on the evaluation scale that ranges from Exceeds Expectations (5.0) to Below Expectations (1.0). The performance standard evaluation scale is defined as follows: 1. Below expectations — Intolerable behavior or poor performance. 2. Marginal — Performance that is below recognized standards. Problems may exist in the quality, quantity, or timeliness of work performance and more than normal attention to improvement is required. Serves as a warning that work efforts could easily become unsatisfactory if not corrected. 3. Acceptable — Performance that requires only normal correction. Quality, quantity and timeliness of work are generally good. This is a person doing an average job when performance is compared to that of peers. 4. Optimal — The unusual performance with a minimum of direction needed and, with rare exception, good quality, quantity, and timeliness. This is a person doing an excellent job under ordinary circumstances. 5. Exceeds expectations — Outstanding performance. This is a person who constantly delivers above and beyond expectations of the job, always presenting excellent quality and quantity in a timely manner. This performance assessment may involve comparison to past performance, the performance of other similar municipalities, or another standard as determined by the evaluator, but should focus on performance during the specified evaluation period. City Council members are encouraged to note strong points and/or concerns in the comment section following the assessment of each performance criterion. Page 1 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Results: Completed evaluation forms are to be forwarded to Human Resources. Human Resources will tabulate and summarize the results into a final report that will later be presented to the City Council and the City Manager. Section I. Area Evaluation Rate the City Manager on his performance in each of the areas below by placing an "x" above the number you feel best describes his performance in that area. 1 =Below Expectations; 2 =Marginal; 3 =Acceptable; 4 = Optimal; 5 =Exceeds Expectations 1. Communications Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 4.5 NR 5 4.88 2018 Composite: 4.72 Maintains constructive relations with the press and communicates clearly with department heads, employees, the general public, and intergovernmental agencies; demonstrates effective listening, oral and written communication skills; provides opportunities for communications from citizens; effectively utilizes tools such as newsletters, press releases, the Internet and public speaking opportunities to inform the community about Council actions and policies,plans for the future and the economic outlook of the City. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David is very to the point with his communication skills. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager communicates effectively through use of email, oral and written communications. He ensures the community is informed as needed. City Manager should be commended on the effective manner in which he communicates. City Manager ensures that staff utilizes media such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Council Member Randels: Effectively communicates management decisions to achieve understanding and acceptance. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 2. Relationship with City Council Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Page 2 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene 2018 Composite: 4.80 Openly communicates with City Council members; promptly and properly responds to requests; keeps City Council members informed of current issues and remains accessible; provides support in carrying out Council decisions. Comments: Mayor Hoog: Always has the information at hand and always gets the end results. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager is accessible to council. I have never had a situation where I was not able to reach or communicate as needed. Even when City Manager was out for sick leave he was still accessible. City Manager expeditiously responds to all requests from Council and directs staff to respond in like manner. Council Member Randels: Displays productive assertiveness. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 3. Budgeting Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 2018 Composite: 4.85 Provides capital improvement plans or any other short and/or long range plans that anticipate the needs of the community; presents a timely annual budget which is well documented, organized, and one which closely represents the goals of the City Council. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David has provided the goals and objectives thru the Strategic Planning Sessions. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager has done well to keep millage rate one of the lowest in Brevard County while keeping provided services high. Council Member Randels: Gives meticulous attention to detail. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 4. Financial Management Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 2018 Composite: 4.95 Page 3 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Accurately and precisely reports and projects the financial condition, budgets realistically; implements management practices and policies to maintain or achieve a sound long-term financial condition; uses debt appropriately; plans for the long-term replacement and maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. Comments: Mayor Hoog: The Budget has always been well documented and carried out, to Council expectations. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager has ensured that the City is in a strong financial position and works to maintain such position for long-term stability. Council Member Randels: Forecasts with extreme accuracy. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 5. Asset Management Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 2017 Composite: 4.90 Oversees appearance & condition of City-owned facilities, equipment, and vehicles; reviews equipment and property for the purpose of future development/replacement. Comments: Mayor Hoog: This is the area in which David excels in—You can see the visual change. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager ensures that assets are maintained in good order for future use. City Manager has staff track property and maximize the return on City's assets. Council Member Randels: Manages assets as if they actually were his own assets. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 6. Planning and Organization Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 2018 Composite: 4.80 Works with the City Council in developing the City's long and short-term goals, objectives, vision and strategic plan; makes efforts to carry out the goals, policies and programs of the Council; demonstrates the ability to anticipate the needs of the City and recommends options to appropriately respond to those needs. Comments: Page 4 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Mayor Hoog: This is well implemented and very well documented, by the City's appearance and ongoing projects. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager seeks involvement from community and puts plans/objectives into place a directed by Council. City Manager ensures that staff facilitates an efficient work environment. Council Member Randels: Effectively formulates strategic action plans to achieve results. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 7. Decision Making Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Hoog Pro Tem Member Member Member Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 4.5 4.75 NR 5 4.81 2018 Composite: 4.70 Makes timely decisions that are well thought out and in the best interest of the City; accepts responsibility for outcomes; handles difficult situations in a professional and pro-active manner. Comments: Mayor Hoog: I have not seen a negative decision as yet. The interest of the City is forefront with David. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager is very proactive and looks forward to challenges. On rare occasion he outwardly shows his frustration. Council Member Randels: Exercises a wide range of decision making control. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 8. Council Meetings Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 2018 Composite: 4.95 Attends all meetings, informs City Council in advance of future non-attendance, and arranges for appropriate staff to attend; provides, on a timely basis, necessary documentation and information related to issues presented during meetings; participates in discussions and makes appropriate recommendations; provides timely agenda. Comments: Page 5 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Mayor Hoog: This is well documented and obvious at the Council Meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager comes to Council meeting prepared and ensures that Council receives all applicable materials. City Manager is open to meeting Council members prior to council meeting to discuss any pending issues. Council Member Randels: Effectively uses power and influence. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 9. Professional and Leadership Skills Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 4.5 5 NR 5 4.88 2018 Composite: 4.70 Represents the City in a professional manner; demonstrates a high degree of integrity; displays ability to handle crises; accepts constructive criticism; demonstrates courtesy, tact and skill in dealing with sensitive matters and in dealing with others; maintains an overall personable and warm attitude. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David shows high expectations of professional skills, not only in himself, but all of his staff. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager performs extremely well during crises and staff is equally prepared to hand crises. Council Member Randels: Provides subordinates with the resources needed to attain results. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 10. Community Relations Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score Score 4.5 4.5 4.5 NR 5 4.63 2018 Composite: 3.75 Maintains positive relations with community groups and organizations; attends community functions and designates appropriate staff to promote City Council through speaking engagements at civic and other such types of meetings; properly handles complaints from citizens. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David has limitations in this area, but the Community functions are well attended by the needed staff. Page 6 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Mayor Pro Tem Brown: While not being able to attend many City sponsored events, the City Manager ensures that staff are in attendance at all events. His staff does an excellent job in representing the City. Council Member Randels: Presents ideas with power and persuasion. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: Other Comments: Mayor Hoog: Mayor Pro Tem Brown: Council Member Randels: Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 2019 Section I. Average: 4.91 2018 Section I. Average: 4.72 Section II. Skills & Traits Evaluation 1 =Below Expectations; 2 =Marginal; 3 =Acceptable; 4 = Optimal; 5 =Exceeds Expectations 1. Planning Skills Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 2018 Composite: 4.95 Anticipates future needs,identifies viable options and implements appropriate measures to achieve goals; anticipates and analyzes problems and plans effective solutions. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David always seems to achieve the goals no matter the obstacles. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager ensures that proper planning is utilized to achieve goals and plans effective solutions to issues that might arise. Council Member Randels: Excels in developing action plans. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 2. Leadership Skills Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Page 7 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene 2018 Composite: 4.90 Builds and motivates a team,provides direction and supervision,monitors and adjusts performance as necessary; delegates to appropriate levels in the organization. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David has developed one of the most positive teams to work with. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager staff are motivated by his leadership and dedicated to improving all aspects of the City. Council Member Randels: Demonstrates decisive leadership ability. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 3. Negotiating Skills Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score Score 5 4.5 5 NR 5 4.88 2018 Composite: 4.80 Effectively resolves the numerous conflicts inherent in municipal government; negotiates effectively with developers and other interest groups, other governments and individuals to reach agreements that protect the community interest. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David has a good relationship with lobbyist and has gotten very good results for the City. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager negotiates with developers and other interest groups to reach agreements that are in the best interest of the City. Council Member Randels: Is a polished and confident speaker. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 4. Creativity Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score Score 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 2018 Composite: 4.85 Identifies effective, efficient and, when necessary, innovative solutions to problems. Comments: Page 8 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Mayor Hoog: David always finds a solution for a problem. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: Council Member Randels: Seems to create and promote an environment for new ideas. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 5. Honesty/Fairness Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Hoog Pro Tem Member Member Member Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 2018 Composite: 4.5 Is consistently open, straightforward, and impartial. Comments: Mayor Hoog: Plays no favorites, comes to the point. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: Council Member Randels: Accepts responsibility for own decisions. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 6. Adaptability Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 2018 Composite: 4.70 Responds positively in a timely manner to a changing world and local conditions. Comments: Mayor Hoog: Does not make hasty decisions. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: Council Member Randels: Excellent at handling the unexpected with coolness. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: Very up to date of community, county, state developments. 7. Initiative Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Page 9 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene 2018 Composite: 4.90 Uses initiative to develop new programs to meet the needs of the City or resolve identified problems; implements or modifies procedures and programs as necessary to improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David is good at identifying the changes needed to get results. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: Council Member Randels: Always a solution seeker. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 8. Resiliency Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Hoog Pro Tem Member Member Member Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 4.5 4.75 NR 5 4.81 2018 Composite: 4.80 Maintains energy and motivation in spite of constant demands; handles stress well. Comments: Mayor Hoog: Lots of energy when in pursuit of answers to the demands present. Does show a little frustration sometimes. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager is very energetic. He could handle stressful situations better at times. Council Member Randels: Very successfully copes with unintended consequences. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 9. Humor Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Hoog Pro Tem Member Member Member Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 4.75 NR 5 4.94 2018 Composite: 4.90 Maintains and shares an appropriate sense of humor to lighten the load. Comments: Mayor Hoog: Only on the receiving side of the desk. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager has a sense of humor which is often needed. Council Member Randels: Displays a pleasant demeanor and attitude. Page 10 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 10. Ethical Standards Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Hoog Pro Tem Member Member Member Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 2018 Composite: 4.45 Conforms to the high standards of the profession; follows and promotes the "ICMA Code of Ethics." Comments: Mayor Hoog: The highest standards are present in all areas and is also expected of his staff. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager sets a good example for employees of the City. Council Member Randels: Demonstrates credibility, and sets high standards. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 11. Job Knowledge Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 2018 Composite: 4.95 Has a solid knowledge of all phases of municipal government. Comments: Mayor Hoog: David excels in all phases of knowledge. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager has a wealth of knowledge in how to run a City. Council Member Randels: Thoroughly understands all aspects of job. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: Many years of experience. 12. Operational Efficiency Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite Name Hoog Pro Tem Member Member Member Score Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Page 11 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene 2018 Composite: 4.85 Generally obtains the best possible result for the resources expended. Comments: Mayor Hoog: Achieves results with the small amount of resource. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: Council Member Randels: Sets and maintains very high standards of personnel performance! Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: Other Comments: Mayor Hoog: Mayor Pro Tem Brown: Council Member Randels: Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 2019 Section II. Average: 4.95 2018 Section II. Average: 4.82 Section III. Quality of Municipal Service by Department/Division Rate the quality of service provided by each of the functional departments and divisions below by placing an"x"in the block beneath the number which you feel best describes the quality of service. 1 = Below Expectations; 2 = Marginal; 3 =Acceptable; 4 = Optimal; 5 = Exceeds Expectations; N/S = Not Scored Mayor Mayor Council Council Council Composite DEPARTMENT/DIVISION Pro Tem Member Member Member Hoog Brown Randels Morrison Raymond Score City Clerk 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Admin/Financial Services 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 Audit/Financial Services 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Contract Utility Billing 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Services HR/Risk Management 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Community Development 5 5 4.5 NR 5 4.88 Building/Code Enforcement 4.5 4.75 4.5 NR 5 4.69 Local Business Tax Receipts 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Planning and Zoning 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Economic Development 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Cultural and Leisure 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Services Page 12 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Community Services 5 5 5 NR 5 5 (formerly Public Works Services) Stormwater 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Infrastructure Maintenance 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Collections/Reclaim Field 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Services Plant Operations 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Community Engagement 5 5 5 NR 5 5 CONTRACTED SERVICES Engineering Services 5 5 4.75 NR 5 4.94 Fire/Rescue Services 5 5 5 NR 5 5 Police Services 4.5 5 5 NR 5 4.88 Solid Waste Recycling 5 5 5 NR 5 5 AVERAGE 4.95 4.97 4.94 NR 5 4.97 NR =Not Rated Specific Comments: Mayor Hoog: • Code Enf. should be more pro-active in the life/safety area. Some of last events have exposed this. • Police Serv. Overall good, but the speeding on A1A needs some very severe attention, the speeding is continuous all day, no enforcement. Mayor Pro Tem Brown: Council Member Randels: My reasons for: • Community Development—Oak Lane decisions. • Code Enforcement—Response to individuals and not applied to all. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: 2019 Section III. Average: 4.97 2018 Section III. Average: 4.88 Section IV. Strengths,Weaknesses, Performance Objectives STRENGTHS: What do you feel are some of the City Manager's strongest points and finest accomplishments since the previous evaluation? Mayor Hoog: Mayor Pro Tem Brown: City Manager brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the position. The City Manager and staff continue to work diligently to make the MGF and Cape Center a reality. The City Manager has a take no prisoner mentality when there are goals that need to be expedited. Page 13 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Council Member Randels: City Manager ability and determination to overcome unexpected health conditions. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: WEAKNESSES: What areas of the City Manager's performance do you feel most need improvement? Do you have any suggestions for improvement in these areas? Mayor Hoog: Mayor Pro Tem Brown: The only minor observation is that on occasion during stressful situations the City Manager demonstrates his frustration in a public setting. My recommendation would be to take a deep breath count to ten and never let them see you sweat. Council Member Randels: When a situation(Oak Lane)becomes to the point of our City's fault or mistakes due to our decisions—review and correct. Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: NEW OBJECTIVES: List new priorities you would like to see addressed in the next year. Mayor Hoog: Mayor Pro Tem Brown: • Blighted properties on SR-A1A. • Stepping up the level of Code Enforcement around the City. • City needs to have better lighting along SR-A1A. • Moving forward with projects such as Cherie Down. • SR-A 1 A roadway project. Council Member Randels: Thanks for Support of Legislative efforts to Jerry for CRA — Vacation Rentals. (An added comment.) Council Member Morrison: Council Member Raymond: City Manager Performance Evaluations conducted by the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members are retained by the Human Resource Director. This document represents the scores and comments of all as submitted. Employee Response: Page 14 of 15 2019 Composite Performance Evaluation for City Manager David L.Greene Acknowledgement Signature acknowledges receipt of performance evaluation ONLY and shall not be interpreted as agreement with the substance and/or content of the document. David L. Greene Date City Manager City of Cape Canaveral Page 15 of 15 Attachment 3 Composite Scores for Performance Evaluation for City Manager Greene Evaluation Period June 2018 through May 2019 Presented June 2019 Mayor Pro Council Council Council Composite Section I.Area Evaluation Mayor Hoog Member Member Member Tem Brown Score Randels Morrison Raymond 1 Communications 5 5 4.5 NR 5 4.88 Relationship with City 2 Council 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 3 Budgeting 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Financial 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 4 Management 5 Asset Management 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Planning and 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 6 Organization 7 Decision Making 5 4.5 4.75 NR 5 4.81 8 Council Meetings 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Professional and 9 Leadership Skills 5 4.5 5 NR 5 4.88 10 Community Relations 4.5 4.5 4.5 NR 5 4.63 4.91 NR=Not Rated Mayor Pro Council Council Council Composite Section II. Skills&Traits Evaluation Mayor Hoog Member Member Member Tem Brown Score Randels Morrison Raymond 1 Planning Skills 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 2 Leadership Skills 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 3 Negotiating Skills 5 4.5 5 NR 5 4.88 4 Creativity 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 5 Honesty/Fairness 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 6 Adaptability 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 7 Initiative 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 8 Resiliency 5 4.5 4.75 NR 5 4.81 9 Humor 5 5 4.75 NR 5 4.94 10 Ethical Standards 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 11 Job Knowledge 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 12 Operational Efficiency 5 5 5NR 5 5.00 4.95 NR=Not Rated 2 Council Council Council Section III. Quality of Municipal Mayor Pro Composite Mayor Hoog Member Member Member Service by Department/Division Tem Brown Score Randels Morrison Raymond City Clerk's Office 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Admin/Financial Services 5 4.75 5 NR 5 4.94 Audit/Financial Services 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Contract Utility Billing Services 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Human Resources/Risk Mgmt. 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Community Development 5 5 4.5 NR 5 4.88 Building/Code Enforcement 4.5 4.75 4.5 NR 5 4.69 Local Business Tax Receipts 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Planning and Zoning 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Economic Development 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Culture& Leisure Services 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Community Services 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Stormwater 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Infrastructure Maintenance 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Collections/Reclaim Field Services 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Plant Operations 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Community Engagement 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Contracted Services Engineering Services (Contracted) 5 5 4.75 NR 5 4.94 Fire/Rescue Services(Contracted) 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 Police Services(Contracted) 4.5 5 5 NR 5 4.88 Solid Waste Recycling (Contracted) 5 5 5 NR 5 5.00 4.97 NR=Not Rated 2018-2019 Section I.Area Evaluation 4.91 Section II. Skills&Traits Evaluation 4.95 Section III. Quality of Municipal 4.97 All Sections Average 4.94 2