No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-13 - City Commission Special Budget Meeting MinutesMAIL. REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320 5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE w TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 September 13, 1982 NOTICE OF BUDGET HEARING FISCAL YEAR 1982/83 The following will be considered for discussion and possible action by the City Council on Monday, September 13, 1982 at 7:00 PM in the Council. Chambers of City Hall, 5811 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. ITEM#1 - Temporary.Resolution 2446 - A Resolution adopting an aggregate proposed miage rate for Fiscal —Year 1982/83 at 3.303 per thousand dollars ($1000.00) assessed valuation. ITEM #2 -Temporary Ordinance #1000 - An Ordinance establishing the Tentative General Fund Budget not to exceed $8,625,639.83 for fiscal year 1982/83. First Reading. ITEM #3 - Final Public Hearing - Announcement of the Time and Place for the final Public Hearing on the Ad Valorem Millage Rate and General Fund Budget - Fiscal Year 1982/83. The City Council may consider such other business as may come before it. The Public is invited to attend. Pursuant to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City 'ouncil with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED TENTATIVE SAL FUND BUDGET -- FISCAL YEAR 1982/83 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY, SEER 13, 1982 at 7:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 5811 N. W. 88TH AVENUE, TAMA.RAC, FLORIDA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING PUBLIC INPUT, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1982/83. A summary of the Proposed Tentative General Fund Budget 1982/83 follows: ACCOUNT 1981-82 BUDGETED ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATED NAME ESTIMATED 'THROUGH 1982-83 REVENUES REVENUES 8/82 REVENUES AD VALOREM 3,300,000. 3,004,856. 3,196,490. INTEREST ON TAX DISTRIBUTION -0- 21,508. -0- PRIOR YEAR - PERSONAL PROPERTY -0- 8,134 -0- COUNTY HELD TAX CERTIFICATE -0- 4,166. -0- GOOD FAITH COUNTY -0- 60,394. -0- SALES & USE TAXES -0- -0- 715,647. FRANCHISE TAX - ELECTRIC 780,000. 853,129. 890,000. FRANCHISE TAX - TELEPHONE 35,000, -0- 37,000. FRANCHISE TAX - CATV 22,000. -0- 25,000. FRANCHISE TAX - SOLID WASTE 29,000. 29,025, 30,000. NEWSPAPER COLLECTION 4,400., 2,040. 2,000. BURGLAR ALARM PERMITS & FEES 112,000. 60,915. 65,000. OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES 132,000. 168,125. 165,000. BUILDING PERMITS 370,000. 236,518. 240,000 AQUATIC WEED CONTROL 21,000. 936. 21,000. CIGARETTE TAX 85,000. 50,342. 65,000. STATE REVENUE SHARING 710,000. 670,083. 869,000. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE 9,900. 5,112. 9,000. HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION -0- 17,909. -0- GAS REBATE CITY VEHICLE 6,000, 6,990. 7,000. COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE TAX 120,000. 99,648. 34,500. COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE 37,000. 41,581. 50,000. PARKING LOT - CITY 3,800. 3,155. 3,500. PARKS & REC. PROG. ACT. FEES 2,000. 1,965. 1,000. SUMMER RECREATION 14,000. 8,199. 10,000. INTERIM SERVICE FEES 110,000'.. 78,874. 70,000. ENGINEERING FEES UNRESTRICTED 135,000. 220,612. 100,000. PLANNING FEES AND REVENUES -0- 40,377. 30,000. LOT CLEARING -0- -0- PARKING VIOLATIONS -0- 12,740. 5,000. FINES & FORFEITURES (COUNTY) 85,000. 92,596. 100,000. POLICE GENERAL & MISC. 9,000. 10,769. 12,000. SALE OF CONFISCATED ITEMS -0- 165. -0- MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 50,000. 39,034.1 50,000. RECYCLE OIL SALES -0- 23. -0- COLLECTION ON CITY DISP. -0- 23. -0- TELEPHONE COMMISSIONS -0- 184. -0- PROCEEDS FROM INS. CLAIM -0- 321. -0- INTEREST INCOME 450,000. 407,824. 470,000, REV. FROM SALE OF SURPLUS EQUIP. -0- 1,500. -0- APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE 1,425,734. -0- 1,306,348. RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN DATA PRO- CESSING /UTILITY EAST 2,100. 1,400. 2,300. RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/UTILITIES WEST 31;000. 25,833. 58,500. RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN ADMIN. SERVICES/ UTILITY WEST 25,000. 20,833. 27,500. RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN LIEU OF TAXES/UTILITY EAST 6,000. 5,500. 6,600. RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN DATA PROCESSING/UTILITY WEST 30,000. 25,000. 50,000. RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN LIEU OF TAXES UTILITY WEST 130,000. -0- 157,000. RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN PSC 12,000. 12,000. -0- TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 8,2939934. 6,350,351. 8,881,385. I 001)"ORNOR : DEPARTMENT/ ACT IVTI'Y 1981/82 BUDGET AFTER REVISIONS CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDS LEGISLATIVE 98,150. 110,261. CITY ATTORNEY 153,699. 160,902. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 65,215. 72,124. CITY MANAGER 88,261. 94,486. CITY CLERK 199,477. 238,016. FINANCE 266,405. 443,302. PUBLIC WOWS 1,080,989. 1,120,567. CITY ENGINEER 131,033. 148,200. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE 350. 350. PLANNING BOARD 1,200. 1,200. CHARTER.BOARD 2,370. 1,335. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 400. 400. PUBLIC INFORMATION BOARD 5,650. 5,650. DEBT SERVICE 70,210. 165,863. PERSONNEL -INSURANCE 98,250. 115,000. PERSONNEL 92,350. 112,443. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE 499,100. 520,620. POLICE 2,455,998. 2,813,522. FIRE 1,045,529. 1,158,026. BUILDING 354,169. 307,191. WELCOMING COMMITTEE 200. 200. CONSUMER AFFAIRS BOARD 650. 650. SANITATION SERVICES 890,000. 725,000. SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD 6,400. 7,400. RECREATION 97,884. 133,675. OONTINGENCY 277,111. 200,000. CAPITAL RESERVE 312,883. 225,000. TOTAL 8,291, 3 8,88 ,3 5. The figures reflected within this ad may be subject to certain minor administrative changes between the dates of this ad and the date of hearing. Printed hand-outs of the budget to be reviewed in the course of the hearing will be available to the public an the hearing date. Pursuant to Chapter 80405 of Florida Law, Senate bill No: 368. J a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. t�;;: • - 4 PUBLISH: Broward Section - Friday,.August 27 , 1982 Miami Herald Monday, September 6, 1982 Broward Neighbors - Thursday, September 2, 1982 North Zone CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND TAX MILLAGE SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the Public Hearing to order on Monday, September 13, 1982 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Councilman Irving M. Disraelly Councilman Philip B. Kravitz Councilman David E. Krantz ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro ALSO PRESENT: Laura Z. .Stuurmans, City Manager Jon M. Henning, City Attorney Steve Wood, Finance Director Carol A. Evans, Assistant City Clerk MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Falck called for a moment of silent meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Falck informed the Public that this was a budget meeting for the General Fund Budget and Tax Millage for the City of Tamarac. He added that if members of the Public had any complaints about their property assessments, they go to the Property Appraiser. If there was a complaint_abaut_the County Tax, they could contact the County Commissioners. Any complaints about the school taxes should be taken to the Board of Education as that was riot the city's responsibility nor the city's jurisdiction. Mayor Falck, read the official Notice of Public Hearing . 1. TEMPORARY RESOLUTION #2446 - A Resolution adopting an aggregate proposed millage rate for Fiscal Year 1982.83 at 3.303 per thousand dollars ($1000.00) assessed valuation. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R -$ 2 -1 -PASSED . Laura Stuurmans informed Council and the public that the Florida Statutes require that the first order of business be the setting of the millage rate, prior to the approval of a tentative budget before final and second reading, the later part of this month. She added that to proceed in that order, she suggested that the City Attorney read into the record by title Temp. Reso. #2446, the resolution on the aggregate proposed millage rate for Fiscal Year 1982/83. Jon Henning read the Resolution by title only. Laura Stuurmans reviewed the Summary of Estimated Expenditures, which had been revised since publication date, (see attachment #1). She also reviewed the Summary of Estimated Revenues (see attachment #2). Mrs. Stuurmans added that the millage rate for 1981/82 was 4.7808 . mills, which would equate to $4.78 per $1,000.00. As she had indicated earlier, the amount that was reflected in the notice received in August was 4.3255 mills. She explained that the amount that would be required to fund the budget that was just reviewed, would be 3.303 mills. She added that this is a decrease in the millage rate of 30.91% from last year. C/M Kravitz questioned the remark that the budget had gone up 4%. He added that in checking the figures under Estimated Revenues, a figure of $715,000 in Sales and Use Tax, that was not included last year, added to the budget would bring the figure up to over $1 million dollars. He asked for an explanation - The City Manager answered that the Sales and Use Tax monies are being used to offset what would have otherwise been required from ad valorem proceeds. She added that the requirement to operate the City in the next fiscal year as has been projected by the administration at this time, is an increase of 4%. C/M Disraelly remarked that the ad valorem tax has been reduced by approximately $900,000 and because of the 1� sales tax that is instituted beginning next year, the City share will be $715,000. He added that the State says that the City must use a percentage of that, but they do not have to use all of it. He said that most of the -1- 9/13/82 surrounding cities were using approximately 40% of the 1G sales tax, and using the other 60% for other purposes. He added that Tamarac is using the entire 100% of that sales tax in order to reduce the ad valorem tax. C/M Disraelly said if C/M Kravitz would add together the ad valorem tax that will be charged, plus the sales and use tax, that adds up to $3,150,000, which is still less than what the ad valorem tax would have been a year ago. C/M Kravitz questioned Burglar Alarm Permits and Fees having been reduced from last year's figure of $112,000 to this year's figure of $65,000. Laura Stuurmans answered that at the time that last year's budget was being drawn, at the same time the Burglar Alarm Committee was considering an Ordinance which would have impacted the fee side of the Burglar Alarm functions more critically. She added that the Ordinance in that form was not passed, therefore the amount of revenues derived from burglar alarm function never netted the $11�,000 that had been projected. She said that $65,000 that is shown in the budget for next year, more closely aligns itself to what can be anticipated in terms of fees and fines in this category. C/M Kravitz questioned Building Permits; last year the estimated figure was $370,000 and this year the estimated figure is $240,000. He said there is an increase in building in this area and with the interest rates going dawn, he did not understand why they were dropping this figure so drastically. The City Manager said she felt that this figure was based on this year's experience, coupled with the trends that they have seen within the last few months. Steve Wood, Finance Director added to this that the average collection for building permits for the last several months has been under $23,000 per month. He added that that was one of the reasons that the revenue projection was down; the other instance is that the City has c nnitted a lot less to developer agreements during the later months this fiscal year than they had in Prior later months in prior fiscal years. C/M Kravitz questioned Parking Violations, a new item with $7,500 for the coming year. He said he had understood that the figure was going to be much higher than that for the cities. Steve Wood said that the parking violations are those given out by the City of Tamarac, those are not coming back fram, the court system if he was thinking about the $2.00 that would be caning back; that was a different thing. Steve Wood said that the $2.00 that would be coming back would provide for police education and training which is a separate fund other than the general fund. C/M Kravitz asked what was included in miscellaneous revenue, $50,000. Steve Wood said that this figure was a composite of a lot of small items; for example, duplicating cost, miscellaneous sales that take place, items that are closed out. C/M Kravitz questioned if they had used $50,000 last year? Steve Wood said that they had. C/M Kravitz raised the question of the Welcoming Committee during the first hearings on this, that it was the feeling of the Council that the Welcoming Committee should not get outside income from other sources. He added that they would run it strictly on what the budget is, and he had pointed out to Council that if that were the case since they raised $500 during the year, it would have to be increased to $700. He said he noticed that nothing was done in this budget. The City Manager pointed out that C/M Kravitz was supposed to get input back to them. She said she had reviewed the budget workshop minutes and that was one of the open areas that did remain. C/M Kravitz said he had given the number of meetings and the cost of each meeting and the total was between $600 and $700. Mayor Falck said this should not be debated now. Mayor Falck suggested they get a copy of the minutes of the meeting at which this matter was discussed, and then they can do one of two things, Council can determine if they want to increase and will so instruct the City Manager, and if they do not, they will tell them what they want as far as fund raising activities on behalf of the committee. C/M Kravitz questioned the. Building Department Budget which he noted was. practically the only item that has gore down in the recommendation for the current estimated expenditures. He added that he would prefer to have some input on that, but would like to reserve that until after the Public Hearing. He said that the reason he raised these questions was that he feels that the contingency and the reserve that canes up is a big factor. -2-- 9/13/82 /nrr Mayor Falck opened the Public Hearing on both the proposed millage and the tentative budget for FX 1982/83. Don Perlman asked for an explanation of the category, Debt Service. The City Manager informed him that this was the building, the fire trucks. He asked then what was the estimated $100,000 raised from last year to this year? Steve Wood said that last year the majority of the debt service cost was funded out of Federal Revenue Sharing Fund, and this year it was not being delegated to Federal Revenue Sharing, and is coming back into the General Fund. Mr. Perlman said that there was. a great need in the City of Tamarac for a teen center, and year after year goes by with nothing being done. He said he thought it was very important. He mentioned that the juvenile specialists, Judy Kitograd and Dave Harris only had opportunities to get to the middle school age children. When they did get in touch with teen agers, it was already after they had done something wrong. There is nowhere in the City for teenagers to go, unless they hang out around bowling alleys._. He added that out of boredom canes mischief and mischief imposes a burden upon all— He said it has been 7 years since they have been trying to get some- thing like this and the time was coming that they would,have to and he was asking for Council's support to somehow get a program like this on the ground. Morris Landman said he noticed a 50% drop in newspaper collections. He said in his area alone, the homeowners constantly put out the newspapers and they have to plead with sanitation to take those away and they refuse and no one comes around to pick the newspapers up. It has gotten to the point now where people were putting it in the garbage just to get rid of it. He asked whether or not the City has a contract with an organization. If the City does, they are losing revenue. C/M Disraelly said that the City did have a collector and was getting good collection, and then one time he was ill, another time his truck broke down and the City is right now in the throes of rearranging and hope that he did pick up this week. The City Manager said he also had to cut down some areas because he had scene financial losses. She added that the newspaper value apparently is not what is was when the City initially contemplated the program, so this is not a livelihood for the individual. She said the papers were not being picked up by BFI as they were helping with the program as the City had told them not to pick up newspaper. She said that she had now informea the regular garbage collector that if the papers were there to pick them up. Mr. Landman asked if Police General and Miscellaneous would take in . Code Enforcement? Steve Wood said that that account was the sale of I.D, cards, accident reports. He added that Code Enforcement would come under Fines & Forfeitures (County). He also questioned the Interest Income. Steve Wood said that that was funds available in the General Fund. Mr. Landman agreed with Mr. Perlman that the City of Tamarac was in dire need of a recreational center. He added there are teenager's and youngsters in this City that need a place they can go to aside from the regular clubhouses. He said that not everyone has a clubhouse. He said that the City sends Senior Citizens to Margate. He said that the money was there and they were not using it for the residents of Tamarac. Mr. Landman added that another item was the budget of the City Attorney. He questioned how much of that budget was for consultant fees. Laura Stuurmans informed him that $59,600 was used for consultant fees. Mr. Landman said that we now have a full time City Attorney, who is receiving an adequate salary, and he wanted to know why they had to have so much money for a consultant. Mayor Falck said there were a number of cases where a consultant was needed. He added that there are many kinds of cases that are very difficult and in need of specialized attorneys. Mr. Landman asked if it were the same with Consultant City Engineers. Mayor Falck said yes they were very necessary as well. The City Manager informed Mr. Landman that same of the fees to the Engineering Dept. are recouped as the developers are charged for the engineering services. Jack Stelzer, a retired CPA, said he was not going to comment on any particular budget :item,..he wished to. .talk in general on the budget practices. He has been privy to all information on the budget and has seen the audit of Alexander Grant & Co. He has made culprehensive studies of all of these documents, and for the benefit of the public he wished to explain how the City is run financially. He added that the City is in the business of providing municipality services to the residents of Tamarac. He said -3- 9/13/82 /nrr a budget is prepared of what it would cost to give adequate services to the residents. He added that now the City has to come up with enough money to pay for these services. He said the City has to guess on engineering fees, building permits, interest income, franchise taxes, revenue sharing, etc., because there is no way a figure can be accurately anticipated. He said that the cost of total estimated income is far short of the cost of operating the City properly, so the citizens of Tamarac are required to contribute funds in the form of an ad valorem tax to make up the difference. Mr. Stelzer explained to the public that the City maintained a yearly profit of almost one half million dollars. He added that if this was business they would give a dividend, but they cannot. He said that the City says they will apply a portion of this profit against the following year's ad valorem tax. He said they show a figure in the budget which shows appropriated surplus and reduces the ad valorem tax. The City, since its inception, has never had to use any of the appropriated surplus that is shown in the budget. He said that the income from ad valorem taxes and other sources, always, every year, the income has exceeded the expenditures and his complaint has been that each year the City is building up a stockpile of the taxpayer's money. He added that this has been discussed at every final budget hearing. He stated that each member of Council has a different opinion of what the City Charter requires to be held in surplus to provide sufficient reserve for the City. Mr. Stelzer continued that after much heated controversy, in October, 1979, Alexander Grant and Co., accountants, along with the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, agreed that a maximum of 10% unappropriated fund balance should provide sufficient financial reserve for the City. This is 10% of the total budgeted expenses, less reserve settlement. He added that an ordinance was written, Ordinance #80--2, providing that a proposed amendment be placed on a ballot on March 11, 1980 to affect such a change. Mr. Stelzer stated that the ballot that was submitted to the voters read, Question 3, "shall Section 7.03 of the Tamarac City Charter be amended to limit the unapprop- riated surplus which the City may maintain. To limit the amount of money that may be maintained in General Fund Contingency Accounts and to modify the City Budget requirements". The voters approved this change and the Charter was amended to read, "City may maintain an unappropriated surplus of no more than 10% of the total proposed expenditures of the General Fund Budget". He added that this was what everyone agreed to and was voted for by the voters of Tamarac, but what the voters did not know about, and what was added to the Charter was the following, "the City may maintain an unappropriated surplus in excess of 10% of the General Fund Budget when it receives unanticipated revenue during the fiscal year". City Council must feel that all revenues derived that are in excess of their guesses at budget time, are unanticipated revenue; this is not per se, all the revenues that come in are anticipated, but the amounts are higher than anticipated. This does not make this unanticipated. As an example, if President Reagan were to present the city with $1 million dollars to keep the Russians out, that is unanticipated revenue. Mr. Stelzer stated that this unauthorized sentence in the Charter has been discussed with the Charter Board and with the former City Attorney, Arthur Birken. The City Attorney said if the voters wanted to know exactly what they were voting on, they should have cane to City Hall and read the ordinance. Mr. Stelzer added that for years the City has been piling up a huge surplus. The records show that as of 7/31/82, total surplus is close to $3 million dollars. If Council does not transfer any of those funds, they expect the figure to remain the same 9/30/82. He continued that several years ago there was a transfer of $600,000 frm General Fund Account to the Drainage Improvement Fund and he has never been able to determine who authorized this transfer. Last week excess funds remaining in the Department of Public Works Budget was transferred to the Drainage Fund. Mr. Stelzer also stated that the City had too much surplus; there will be an un- appropriated surplus of $1.25 million, which is $400,000 more than the charter allows. The City is receiving $2,400,000 in ad valorem taxes, and the excess of $400,000 could be used to reduce the ad valorem tax by 20%. He continued pointing out that the drainage improvement funds were being used for Westwood Sections 21, 22, 23, and 24. These deficiencies were the fault of Leadership and now the City is helping to pay for these improvements, out of general fund monies. Every section had to install proper electrical wiring which was also the fault of Leadership and yet the City did not help to pay for it. East of 4 41 water meters were needed, the City did not help pay for that. Mr. Stelzer wanted to know why these residents that did not get any assistance had to pay for the drainage in Westwood. -4- 9/13/82 Mr. Stelzer stated that with regard to the West Utilities, they are also running surplus larger than necessary with $2 million dollars in the General Fund Reserve. Mr. Stelzer reiterated that there were four items to think about; changing the City Code to show what the voters wanted and eliminate the excess verbiage, the excess surplus that should be properly applied to reduce ad valorem taxes, get the City to levy assessments for local improvements in Westwood, and watch the water rates, they are making money and have excess surplus. Judy Kamel said she felt there was a great need for a teen center in Tamarac. She said she could not understand how the Council as grandparents did not see the need. Mrs. Kamel added that the money was there and what better way was there to spend the money than on the youth of Tamarac. Melanie Reynolds inquired as to the $400,000 interest and Mr. Wood had stated that it had cane from the General Fund. Mrs. Reynolds asked if it was possible to find out where that money comes from and in what financial institutions it was invested. The City Manager informed Mrs. Reynolds that there was a monthly report and it was public record if she wished to see it. Moni Avidon said he would like to know from the City Manager, if the millage rate was going to be presented to Mr. Markham at the basis of 4.325. He said he did not understand the reason for it being submitted at the higher figures when she knew that the figure was going to came in lower. Laura Stuurmans said there was reference made to that and it was merely being conservative and precautionary. She added that this had been discussed in July and at the time, there were a lot of projections coming in, both in expenditures and on the revenue side of the budget. Mr. Avidon asked if the Police Departments had asked for $109,000 for a commmication system that had been turned down. Laura Stuurmans said that was a portion of the Finance Department Budget that contained $109,000 for various computer systems for a number of departments. She added that the Police Department did have a package and Captain Mortimer and Chief McIntosh said they were not quite ready, perhaps in the next fiscal year. She said they had provided in the Federal Revenue Sharing Budget for Public Works inventory control system, and the Fire Department is getting a system and a couple of other software packages in-house that will be developing at a lesser cost. Mr. Avidon asked about the Building Department, where it is anticipated the present rate of slow building that is going on, due to the present rate of building permits, would they do away with the three positions. The City Manager answered that they would, within the first quarter of this fiscal year, observe the activity within the department and the potential of an increase in the area of inspection requirements and at that time, determine whether there was a need for these three positions. Mr. Avidon mentioned that he would present to the Charter Board for review, the question of the ordinance that had been placed on the ballot without the public's knowledge of what that ordinance had contained. Doug Christy said he wished to point out the bottom line of the budget. He stated that it only varied from last year 4% which spoke very well of this City, especially in comparison with surrounding communities. He added that there had been some items brought up which he had not been aware of, but he felt that in total, the City was being very fair with the :residents by using 100% of the Sales and Use Tax for the ad valorem taxes. He also pointed out that the ad valorem tax rate had gone down and the residents would benefit by that. He added that other cities were giving only what they were required to give and using the rest for other areas. Mr. Christy said he wanted to counter any negative reactions that he had heard tonight. He said he felt Council should be applauded for keeping the budget at an increase of only 40 as they were very much aware of people on a fixed income that could not afford any increases. Mayor Falck closed the Public Hearing on the proposed millage and the tentative budget for FY 1982/83. C/M Kravitz said that in reference to the Teen Center that had been discussed, this was not a budget item, as they had reserves for that and he added that Council was considering this item. He said he wished to have the Welcoming Committee Budget raised to the $700.00 that was needed for the fiscal year. Laura Stuurmans said that they had $200.00 to start out and at a later time, they could review and see where they would take the additional $500.00. -5- 9/13/82 /nrr C/M Kravitz said he wished to straighten out the Building Department Budget. He said he had received a memo which stated that Al Miller could not live with this budget. He added that this was a department that brought in revenues and before he could vote on this budget, he had to know whether this figure was livable. Laura Stuurmans explained that the reason there was a decrease in the Building Department budget was that three positions had already been vacated, by resignation and retirement, and they would not be filling these positions for the 1982/83 fiscal year. She added that in addition to those three positions, she had initially proposed three additional cuts, but had decided to leave those positions until the first of the year and at that time, review the need for keeping these positions. Mayor Falck said if C/M Kravitz had a problem with this, when it comes time to vote, he could vote against it. C/M Kravitz said he wished to vote intelligently. C/M Disraelly said there had been budget workshops and at each meeting the department head of the department being scutinized was before Council. He added that when the Building Department was being considered, the number of persons that will be retained as of October ls.t, will be the number of people discussed at the time of the budget hearings. C/M Disraelly pointed out that at the time of the hearing, they knew that two had resigned and the budget had been prepared for the number of people on the board. Laura Stuurmans said that the figures showed a decrease of six total inspectors and now they were talking of the three that had left and would not be renewed. Mr. Miller was satisfied not replacing the three positions, it was the three inspectors that were to be dropped now that he could not live with. C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso. #2446 adopting the final millage rate for the City of Tamarac for Fiscal Year 1982/83 as 3.303 mils or $3.30 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, to be effective October 1, 1982. C/M Krantz SECONDED the MOTION. Laura Stuurmans pointed out that in Section 3 on Page 2 of the Resolution, it does provide for the announcement of the final hearing date and that should be filled in. She added that Council had indicated September 22nd at 5:30 P.M. C/M Disraelly said that the final Public Hearing will be held for adoption of the fina.laggreg cted:millage rate and budget on September 22, 1982 at 5:30 P.M. VOTE: ALL V0=1 AYE 2. TEMPORARY ORDINANCE #1000 - An Ordinance establishing the Tentative General Fund Budget not to exceed $8,625,639.83 for Fiscal Year 1982/83. first Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED as Amended on First Reading. Jon Henning read the Ordinance by title. C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Ord. #1000 adopting the General Fund Budget in the amount of $8,625,639.83 for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 1982. C/M Krantz SECONDED the MOTION. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. MAYOR P ASSISTANT CITY CLERK The public document was promulgated at a cost of $� or $ per copy, to inform the general public and public officers and emp oyees about recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of Tamarac. 9/13/82 /nrr APPROVED Y CITY COUNCIL ON ATTACB= # 1 CITY OF TAMAMC Grnm7rC]ND - SVM�"Y OF ZSTIMATED 2X'pERDiZViMS FI5Cl►L YEAR - 3.982 - W ZVA7&A =/A=V:rTT _ A 2992-22 DL9a17Cll3LtCT C2w f0XMM WDGLT AFTER REVISIDHS sm RECD2 mms ?I mcz 3m =C 11DRF5 CITY IIaGIl02wR 2L;Z;Tzrlch=ox DDMs 17= 2VIANsmG 20M 20= 0!' ADJDSr ma 3�Eii5MMEL-3NSMMCZ ?ERS�F.r. VM=CF . • A . . 070 i. .. ..I 1 • .�1 air �11 98,150.00 108,661.00 110,157.00 153*699,00 160,062.00 160,79D.OD 65,215.00 72,274.00 72,057.00 88,261.00 94,486.00 94,392.00 299,477.06 238,616.00 237,708.00 266,405.00 454,326.52 333,907.05 2,090,989.25 S,S12,832.12 1498,572.04 231,033.00 148#200.06 244,625.06 •350.00 350.00 3SD.00 2*200.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 2,370.00 1,335.00 1,335.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 .5,650.00 S,630.00 3,650.00 70,210.00 165,863.00 165,863.00 98,250.00 1156000.00 115,000.00 92,350.35 U7e693.70 U2,338.70 4990100.00 520,620.00 $20,620.00 4R,455,998.40 3,OD5,633.29 2,712,546.78 1445,529.00 2,169,976.22 1,133,500.22 354,169.00 391,212.39 301,729.46 200.00 200.00 200.OD 650.00 6SO.00 650.00 9900000.00 800,000.00 725,000.00 6#400.00 97,984.00 6#400.00 240*608.42 9,400.00 200,D00.00 135,400.00 52 200,000.00 312,983.90 312,883.90 150,0OO.OD 236,620.00 8,293,934.96 9,582*669.61 9,625,639.83 A"fAL:flmrri It 2, CITY OF TAMARAC GENERAL FUND - SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVE7MES FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 AD VfiLOREM INTEREST ON TAX DISTRIBUTION PRIOR TEAR -PERSONAL PROPERTY COUNTY HELD TAX CERTIFICATE GOOD FAITH COUNTY SALES & USE TA5MS 'FRANCHISE TAX - ELECTRIC FRANCHISE TAX - TELEPHONE FRANCHISE TAX - CATV FRANCHISE TAX - SOLID TO►STE REWSPAPER COLVEcTIOW BURGLAR ALARM PERMITS & FEES OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES EI =Xnc PERMITS AQUATIC W COmppL CIGARETTE TAX -- STATE RI,7MZE =ARING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE HOMESTEAD ZXDVTION GAS REBATE CITY VEHICLE COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE TAX COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE VARYING LOT - CITY PARKS & REC. PRO(;. AM. FEES SUMMER RECREATION =TER7M SERVICE FEES ENGINEERING FEES UNRESTRICTED PLANNING FEES AND REVENUES LOT ENO PARKING VIOLATIONS ?INES & P'ORFEITVRES (COUNTY) POLICE GEIQv & MISC. SALES OF CONFISCATED ITEMS MISCELLANEOUS pEVENUE )tECYCLE OIL SALES COLLECTION dN CITY DISP. TELEPHONE COMMISSIONS PROCEEDS FROM INS.CI,A= 7rQTEREST INCOME M-FROM SALES OF SURPLUS EQUiP. APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE AEC -TRANS -IN D.P./t7TILITy taw REC.TRANS. IN VEHICLE MAINT./U.WEST REC.TRANS. iN AD=. SEKVICES/ V.WWT REC-TUMS. IN LIEU OF TAXES/il.FAST RSC.TRANS. IN D.P./U.WEST P=-TRANS. IN LIEU OF TAXES U.WST REC.TRANS. IN PSC (10-1-81) Millage Rate 1981/82 4.7808 1981-82 BUDGETED ESTIMATED REVENUES 3,300,000 -0- 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 - 780, ODD 35,OOD 22,0o0 29,000 4,400 112,000 132,000 370,0o0 21,000 85,000. 710,00o 9,900 - O - 6,000 120,000 37,000 3,800 2, ODO 14,o00 110,000 135,000 - 0 - "- 0 - w 0 - 85,ODO 9,000 .. 0 - 50,000 -0- --0- - 0 - - 0 - 450,000 - 0 - 1,425,734 2,100 31,0o0 25,000 6,000 30,000 130,D00 12,000 $8 293 934 (7-22-82) Preliminary 1982/83 Millage Rate Reflected in the August Ibtice F3rcrn County 4.3255 ESTIMATED 1982-83 2,441,000 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 715,647 950,000 37,p0D 25,000 32,000 2,200 65,000 170,OD0 240,OD0 21,DDO 75,DD0 900, D00 13,500 0 7,o00. 34,500 50, D00 3,5o0 2,000 10,000 70,0o0 100,000 30,OD0 - 0 - 7.500 100,000 12,DOo w. 0 - so,000 .. 0 - - 0 - 0- 0 - 400,00D - 0 2,759,893 2.300 58,500 27,500 6,600 50,000 157,000 L. 0 - $8,525,6g0~` w. (9-13-82 ) Revised/? ec ed 1982/83 Millage Rate 3.303 -g_ 9/13/82 /nrr