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