Loading...
10-26-81 v AGENDA CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 26, 1981 Call to Order Invocation and Pledge to Flag 1. Approval of the Minutes of October 12, 1981 2. Recognition of Visitors 3. Correspondence A. Letter from HUD re Sea Gull Place 4. Advisory Planning Board 5. City Manager's Report A. Item 1/1 - Proposed Contract with Florida Municipal Health Trust Fund - Health and Life Insurance B. Item #E2 - Request by City Comptroller/Treasurer for Travel Reim- bursement - Toastmasters International Quarterly Conference C. Item ##3 - Authorization to Disburse $6,249.00 to Marvin Hill & Associates D. Item #4 - Authorization to Disburse $1,249.76 to Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman, Consulting Engineers E. Item #5 - Authorization to Disburse $12,967.50 to Robert Bates & Associates, Consulting Engineers, for Community Development Block Grant Project 6. New Business A. Request by Mrs. Frances Jones, Owner, and W. E. Davis, President, Island Wear, re Use of 1155 Atlantic Boulevard to assemble bathing suits B. Request by Margaret and Edward Then - Issuance of building permit at 193 Beach Avenue C. Bid Opening and Award of Contract for Four (4) Emergency Breathing Apparatus 7. Unfinished Business 8. Report of Committees 9. Action on Resolutions - Resolution x;'81-17 - 1971 Sewer Bonds 10. Action on Ordinances 11. Miscellaneous Business 12. ADJOURN MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD AT THE CITY HALL ON OCTOBER 26,1981 AT 8:00 P.M. V V PRESENT: William S. Howell, Mayor--Commissioner 0 0 Alan C. Jensen T T L. W. Minton, Jr, E E George R. Olsen, Commissioner D D AND: A. William Moss, City Manager Oliver C. Ball, City Atto 'ney M S Adelaide R. Tucker, City Clerk 0 E T C ABSENT: Catherine G. Van Ness, Commissioner I O Y NAME OF ONEN COMMRS . N D S 0 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Howell. The invocation,offered by Commissioner Minton, was followed by the pledge to the flag. Approval of the Minutes of October 12, 1981 Jensen x Motion:The minutes of the regular Commission meeting of October 12,1981 Minton x x be approved as submitted. Olsen x x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Howell x Recognition of Visitors Mr. George Bull, Sr. was recognized by Mayor Howell. Mr. Bull expressed his appreciation for the years of service Mayor Howell and Commissioners Minton and Olsen had given the city. Mr. Bull inquired about the new stop sign on Seminole Rd. Mayor Howell advised him that the sign iaas put up by the City of Jacksonville to slow traffic and added that the City of Atlantic Beach has only police jurisdiction over that section as it is out- side the city limits of Atlantic Beach. The Chair recognized Mr. Michael Brooks, 341 Seminole Rd. who asked for help in forcing a neighbor to turn off a spotlight that burns all night. Mayor Howell instructed the City Manager to look into the matter. Correspondence A. Letter from HUD re Sea Gull Place Mr. Moss stated that this letter was for information purposes. The Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development had notified Mr. Charles Kohn, Seabreeze Development that his proposal was not selected by the Central Office for funding under the Minority Business Enterprise Program. Of 900 proposals submitted nationwide, only 27 were funded. City Manager's Report A. Item##1-Proposed contract with Fla. Municipal Health Trust Fund-Health and Life Insurance Mr. Moss advised receipt of a rate increase from Florida Municipal Health, PAGE TWO 1 V V MINUTES Names of OCTOBER 26,1981 Commrs. MS YN City Manager's Report - continued-Item X11 Trust Fund effective November 1, 1981. The rates for health insurance will increase twenty percent. Life insurance premiums will remain at $4.64 monthly for $8,000. Mr. Moss requested Commission approval to extend the contract with Florida Municipal Health Trust Fund for one year at the new rates. He noted that the contract is on a monthl* basis and at any time the city felt they would rather change to another carrier, it could do so. Jensen x x Motion: Extend the health and life insurance contract with Fla. Minton x x Municipal Health Trust Fund for one year at the new rates. Olsen x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Howell x B. Item112 -Request by City Comptroller/Treasurer for Travel Reimburse- ment-Toastmasters International Quarterly Conference Mrs. Georgette Quigley stated that she had received letters from Mr. Jake Godbold, Mayor of the City of Jacksonville, and Congressman Charles E. Bennett congratulating her on her community involvement through Toastmasters. She presented a brief resume of Toastmasters activities. She stated that she would like to share her pride and honor with the City of Atlantic Beach and that is the reason she requested reimbursement for expenses when the budget was planned several months ago. Commissioner Olsen stated that he felt Mrs. Quigley should be reimbursed, but that any time in the future requests from any employee should be cleared in advance. Mayor Howell expressed no objections other than the fact that he did not feel this travel request was a city oriented function. Commissioner Olsen moved for approval for travel request reimbursement Olsen x to Mrs . Georgette Quigley in the amount of $152 . 36. The motion died for lack of a second. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. Item#3 - Authorization to dsiburse $6,249.00 to Marvin Hill and Associates The City Manager requested authorization to disburse $6,249.00 to Marvin Hill & Associates for professional services required to im- plement the program financed by the HUD 701 Contract (Zoning Ordinance) The disbursement will be charged to the 1980-81 budget but will not be issued until receipt of the final reimbursement from the State of Florida on the HUD 701 contract. Motion: Authorize the disbursement of $6,249.00 to Marvin Hill & Jensen x x Associates for professional services required to implement Minton x the program financed by the HUD 701 Contract (Zoning Ordi- Olsen x x nance. The disbursement to be charged to the 1980-81 budget Howell x and be issued after reimbursement from the State of Florida. Corrected Copy PAGE THREE MINUTES V V OCTOBER 26,1981 Names of Commrs. M S Y N NCR City Manager's Report - continued D. Item #4- Authorization to Disburse $1,249.76 to Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman, Consulting Engineers The City Manager requested authorization to disburse $1,249.76 to Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman for professional services required for the preparation and coordination of the Community Development Block Grant final application. This is the final payment due on the $7,000. contract. Motion: Authorize the City Manager to disburse $1,249.76 to Jensen x Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman, Consulting Engineers for their Minton x x final payment due on the $7,000. contract for the prepara- Olsen x x tion and coordination of the Community Development Block Howell x Grant final application. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * E. Item #5- Authorization to disburse $12,967.50 to Robert Bates & Associates, Consulting Engineers, for Community Develop- ment Block Grant Project Mr. Moss requested authorization to disburse $12,967.50 to Robert Bates & Associates for professional services covering an agreement to perform certain engineering services required for the CDBG program. The City has received the plans and specifications for the project, and the project has been advertised to call for bids. The firm is requesting payment due for completing 95% of the design phase service. Motion: Authorize the City Manager to disburse $12,967.50 to Jensen x x Robert Bates & Associates due for completing 95% of the Minton x x design phase service required for the Community Develop- Olsen x ment Block Grant Program. Howell x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * New Business A. Request by Mrs. Frances Jones, Owner, and W.E.Davis,President, Island Wear, re Use of 1155 Atlantic Blvd. to assemble bathing suits The City Manager stated that Mrs. Frances Jones is owner of the building at 1155 Atlantic Boulevard (West of Mayport Road and West of the Atlantic Boulevard overpass) and wishes to sell the business to W. E. Davis of Island Wear, Inc. The company intends to use the building to assemble bathing suits for women and indications to the City Manager suggest that up to thirty employees may be used to operate sewing machines to assemble swimwear. The property is zoned Business "A". Mr. Moss requested an interpretation of the code - Section 28-14. Mayor Howell commented that the company wishes to sel wholesale to other stores instead of retail, which is allowed, and the location of the property is prohibitive to retail.He had no obje tions. Commissioner Jensen expressed the opinion that the business is close PAGE FOUR V V MINUTES Names of OCTOBER 26, 1981 Commrs. M S Y N New Business - continued - A.-Mrs. Frances Jones re:Island Wear enough to fall under the catch-all phrase of "any other similar enterprise". The City Attorney advised that it will be appropriate as the Commission is showing legislative intent that it fits within the Ordinance as it is written. Motion: Approve the request by W. E. Davis of Island Wear, Inc. to Jensen x assemble bathing suits for women on a wholesale basis at Minton x x 1155 Atlantic Boulevard by giving legislative intent that Olsen x x the request fits within the Ordinance for Business "A" as Howell x it is written. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. Request by Margaret and Edward Then - Issuance of Building permit The City Manager stated that he had received a letter of request from Margaret and Edward Then to construct room additions to the property located at 193 Beach Avenue. Mr. Moss added that Mr. & Mrs. Then would also like a ruling on the status of their property as they feel that only the 25' lot to the north of their property was under Planned Unit Development. Mr. Moss read excerpts from minutes of 1977 for a duplex under PUD. At that time, the request was referr •d to the Advisory Planning Board. On August 8, 1977 a report came from the Planning Board for approval. A Public Hearing was held on Septem,er 12, 1977 for a Planned Unit Development application and was approved. The City Manager expressed the opinion that this request was for a 75' lot and not just a 25' lot. Mr. Moss furnished copies of the minutes of April 13th and 27th, June 8th and 22nd, 1981 in which Mrs. Then had submitted plans for Planned Unit Development to develo . the property to it's fullest. The application was sent to the Advisory Planning Board twice. The first time a motion for approval died for lack of a second. The second time a motion for approval was denied with three members voting no and one voting yes. The question now is whether or not only a 25' lot was the only lot under consideration for PUD in 1977 and how that effects this relates to a request to expand at this point and also to install an elevator and to install another balcony. Mr. Moss added that the original plans that were approved under PUD in 1977 clearly shows the two lot . 75 x 244.5 which indicates the request was for both lots, and if so, no changes can be made from the original plans without going back through the entire process (Planning Board and Public Hearing) to amend a PUD application. Mayor Howell expressed the opinion that the entire property was approved as a Planned Unit Development in 1977, but added that if it is not under PUD at this time, she can obtain a building permit, as long as it meets the code, without going throu•h the City Commission, Planning Board and a Public Hearing. Commission•r Olsen expressed the opinion from listening to the minutes that the entire property was approved under PUD, and made the following motio : Motion: Determine that it is the intent of the City Commission and Jensen x was the intent back in 1977 that the entire parcel (75 x Minton x x 244.5') is all under PUD which takes in all structures Olsen x x located on the property. _ Howell x PAGE FIVE V V MINUTES Names of OCTOBER 26, 1981 Commrs. MS Y N - ----- -- -, New Business - Request by Margaret and Edward Then - continued Mayor Howell then stated that working under the assumption that the property is under PUD, Mrs. Then brought in some plans in Apri1, 1981 to add two additional stories over an existing one story that would then bring the building up to a three story structure. In her original plans, she showed also a new balcony that would violate setback side- lines. This was brought before the City Commission on April 13, 1981, and was passed on to the Planning Board. They came back with no recommendation on April 27, 1981. The decision was made at that meeting to hold a Public Hearing on June 8, 1981. At that meeting considerable discussion was held and Dr. Mhoon moved to refer the application back to the Advisory Planning Board, with or without revisions, at the Then's discretion, for a definite decision from the Advisory Planning Board, and the motion passed. On June 22,1981 Mr. John Andresen, Chairman of the Advisory Planning Board, reported that the board had met on June 17, 1981 and disapproved the request with three members voting no and one voting yes. Mrs. Then had reque• ted not to be considered at the meeting of June 22, 1981 as she would be out of town at the time. The City Commission took no action at that meeting on her request. Mayor Howell expressed the opinion that it was his understanding that the Planning Board's problem at the meeting of June 17, 1981 was the balcony and not the two story addit on. Mrs. Then was recognized and stated she felt the Planning Board turn:d down the request because of public opinion having the opinion that she was putting in additional units. She added that they have not yet reached the maximum and she has no intention of adding additiona units, only to increase the size of the units by adding two rooms. Mayor Howell asked her to correct him if his understanding was wrong the addition of the two stories retain the same wall line that now exists; she will continue an existing roof line that now presently goes, and then drops, and then comes up and comes back up again, and all she is doing is filling in a void. This application is not for an additional living unit, but is an addition to two existing living units. Mrs. Then stated that he was correct. Commissioner Minton asked if the Commission could approve her request under PUD now. Commissioner Olsen stated that the Commission should know why the Planning Board voted no before the Commission takes action on the matter. Commissioner Olsen made the following motion: Motion: The City Commission request the Advisory Planning Board Jensen x to report at their next meeting of the Commission on Minton x x November 3, 1981 and reply just why they voted no and Olsen x x then the Commission can act on their decision. Howell x Before the vote was taken, considerable discussion was held on why the Planning Board voted no. Mr. Bull and another citizen voiced th= opinion that the plans were changed and another public hearing would _ have to be held. Mayor Howell suggested to Mrs. Then that she bring a rendering of how the building will look now without the balconies, etc. The vote was then taken and passed unanimously. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MINUTES V V PAGE SIX Names of OCTOBER 26,1981 Commrs. M S Y N A New Business - continued C. Bid Opening and award of Contract for four (4) emergency breathing apparatus The following bids were received and opened by the City Manager: UNIT PRICE EXT.PRICE GRAND TOTAL Jacksonville Fire Equipment Co. Four (4) Breathing Apparatus $642.95 $2,571.80 Four extra cylinders 184.80 739.20 $3,311.00 Jones Equipment Co. - -NO BID East Coast Fire Equipment,Inc. Four (4) Breathing Apparatus $698.00 $2,792.00 Four extra cylinders 198.00 792.00 $3,584.00 Fire Fighters Equipment Co. Four (4) Breathing Apparatus $635.33 $2,541.32 Four extra cylinders 182.61 730.44 $3,271.76 Griffin Municipal Supply Co. , Inc. Four (4) Breathing Apparatus $635.00 $2,540.00 Four extra cylinders 188.00 752.00 $3,292.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Moss advised that the apparent low bidder is Fire Fighters Equipment Co. The apparent low bidder states no variances, delivery within fourteen (14) days, net payment made within thirty (30) days, and stated that he saw no reason why the Commission cannot award the low bidder, Fire Fighters Equipment Co. for the contract of $3271. 76, Motion: Award the low bidder, Fire Fighters Equipment Co. , for the Jensen x contract of four (4) breathing apparatus and four extra Minton x x cylinders for the amount of $3,271. 76. Olsen x x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Howell x Action on Resolutions MINUTES V V PAGE SEVEN Names of OCTOBER 26, 1981 Commrs. MS Y N UMMIIIMMMEW Resolution No. 81-17 Mayor Howell presented and read in full Resolution No. 81-17, a Resolution redeeming 1971 General Obligation Sewer Bonds. Jensen x Motion: Passage of said Resolution. Copy of Resolution No.81-17 Minton x x is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Olsen x x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Howell x There being no further business, Mayor Howell declared the meeting adjourned. /, (SEAL) f/.1'./(1A/A. William S. Howell Mayor-Commissioner ATTEST: addiaLle2lat—e.dk., Adelaide R. Tucker City Clerk dtHl sr4 " � we artment of ladministrationp BOB GRAHAM Division of Retirement A.J. McMULLIAN III Governor State Retirement Director NEVIN SMITH MAILING ADDRESS TOM F. WOOTEN Secretary of Administration 530 Carlton Building Chief, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bureau of Enrollment& LOCATION Contributions Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida (904)488-8837 September 21, 1981 MEMORANDUM NO. 81- 53 TO: All Social Security Reporting Units FROM: A. J. McMulli n I SUBJECT: Wage Status of Value of Meals and Lodging BACKGROUND On June 8 , 1981 , the United StatesSupreme Court, in Rowan Companies , • Inc . v. United States, held that certain regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury which interpret the definition of wages in the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) to include the value of meals and lodging are invalid on the basis that they fail to implement the statutory definition of wages in a consistent or reasonable manner . The Court reasoned that the plain language and legislative histories of the relevant statutes indicate that Congress intended its definition of wages to be interpreted in the same manner for FICA and FUTA as for income tax withholding. The pertinent income tax statute (section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code) provides that the value of meals or lodging furnished by an employer to an employee is excluded from an individual ' s gross income if the meals or lodging are furnished for the convenience of the employer and if certain other conditions are met. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has interpreted the decision to mean that the convenience of the employer rule prescribed in sec- tion 119 of the Internal Revenue Code should apply in determining whether meals or lodging are wages for social security purposes. The purpose of this Memorandum, which supersedes so much of Memorandum 79-19 , July 17 , 1979 , that pertains to free meals , is to provide employers with SSA instructions concerning the wage status of the value of meals or lodging furnished since the Rowan decision. The effect of the Rowan decision with respect to the wage status of meals or lodging prior to the decision and with respect to the payments 11111 other than meals or lodging is still being considered and will be communicated to you as the appropriate decisions are made . EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER e • i Memorandum No. 81- 53 September 21, 1981 Page 3 1111 For meals or lodging to be considered as furnished for the convenience of the employer, there must not be an option for the employee to receive cash in lieu of the meals or lodging. Such an option negates a finding of convenience of the employer. Based on pertinent regulations, rulings , and instructional issuances, the State and local government employers will generally be able to determine whether meals or lodging are furnished for the convenience of the employer . How- ever, if the issue is specifically raised (e.g., SSA on- site review or claims process) , the mere statement by an employer that meals or lodging are furnished for a sub- stantial noncompensatory business reason is not sufficient to establish that they are furnished for the convenience of the employer. The substantial noncompensatory business reasons set forth below may be considered to establish that meals or lodging are furnished for the convenience of the employer . Generally, meals furnished before or after the employee ' s working hours, or on nonwork days , are not con- sidered to be furnished for the convenience of the employer. 41/0 2 . Substantial Noncompensatory Business Reasons (a) Meals are furnished to an employee during working hours to have the employee available for emergency call during the meal period. Emergencies must have occurred , or be reasonably expected to occur , in the employer ' s business which have resulted , or will result, in the employer requiring the employee to perform services during the meal period. (b) Meals are furnished to an employee during working hours because the employer ' s business required the employee to be restricted to a short meal period and because the employee could not be expected to eat elsewhere in such a short meal period. This might occur where there is a peak workload during normal lunch hours. However , a substantial noncompensatory business reason does not in- clude a restricted meal period if the purpose is to shorten the employee ' s workday. (c) Meals are furnished to an employee during working hours because the employee cannot otherwise secure proper meals within a reasonable meal period , e.g. , there are insuff- cient eating facilities in the vicinity of the employer ' s premises. • (d) Meals are furnished to a restaurant or other food service employee for each meal period occurring during, immedi- ately before, or immediately after the employee ' s working hours. Memorandum No. 81- 53 September 21, 1981 toPage 5 duty at all times. The employer furnishes the employee with meals and lodging at the institution. Under the applicable State statute the meals and lodging are regarded as part of the employee' s compensation. Nevertheless, the value of the meals and lodging is not wages for social security purposes . 3 . An employee of an institution is given the choice of residing at the institution free of charge, or residing elsewhere and receiving a cash allowance in addition to the salary. If the employee elects to reside at the institution, the value to the employee of the lodging furnished by the employer is wages because residence at the institution is not required in order to properly perform the duties of employment. 4 . A hospital maintains a cafeteria on its premises where all of its 230 employees may obtain a meal during their working hours. No charge is made for these meals. The hospital furnishes such meals in order to have each of 210 of the employees avail- able for any emergencies that may occur , and it is shown that each such employee is at times called upon to perform services during the meal period . Although the hospital does not require such employees to remain on the premises during meal periods , 1110 they rarely leave the hospital during their meal period . Since the hospital furnishes meals to each of substantially all of its employees in order to have each of them available for emer- gency call during the meal period , the value of such meals for all of the hospital employees who obtain their meals in the hospital cafeteria is not wages for social security purposes. 5. A university cafeteria worker who works from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. is furnished two meals a workday. The university encourages the worker to have breakfast on the premises before starting work, but does not require the worker to have breakfast there. The employee is required , however , to have lunch on such pre- mises. Since the worker is a food service employee and works during the normal breakfast and lunch periods, neither the value of the breakfast nor the value of the lunch is wages for social security purposes. 6. A State forest ranger is provided lodging. It is a condition of employment that the ranger be available at all time in case of emergency. The value of the lodging is not wages for social security purposes. QUESTIONS If you have any questions concerning the above revisions , please contact the Enrollment Section at (904 ) 488-8837 , SUNCOM 278-8837 . • AJM/cgc