Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-25 - City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 a TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 February 21, 1980 CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the. City of Tamarac, will hold the .following meetings on Monday, February 25, 1980, in Council Chambers: 10:30 A.M. Workshop Meeting Discussion of the Six Elements of the Tamarac Comprehensive Plan: Traffic Circulation Open Space/Recreation Housing Conservation Public Utilities Intergovernmental Coordination 1:30 P.M. Special Council Meeting Bid Award or a Fire Dept. pumper truck. Temp. Reso. #1508. Discussion and possible action. 2:00 P.M. WorkshopMeetin Comprehensive Regulations -Utilities West. Temp. Ord. #726 relating to rates, service, new development, etc. Discussion and possible action. Council may consider such other business as may come be- fore it. All interested citizens are invited to attend. MB/tz MARILYN BERTHOLFj7 City Clerk ; 4 I"N-VtImpy.,14F.-I 7«ag;im CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP IEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1980. WORKSHOP MEETING Discussion of the Six Elements of the Tamarac Comprehensive Plan: Traffic Circulation Open Space/Recreation Housing Conservation Public Utilities Intergovernmental Coordination. WOMMiOKI)S1OIX Mayor Falck called the meeting to order at 10:30 A.M., on Monday, February 25, 1980, in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor W. Falck V/M H. Massaro C/W M. Kelch C/M I. Disraelly Absent and Excused: C/M H. Wiener Also Present: City Planner, E. Cross For City Clerk, T. Zipper Mayor Falck said this was a Workshop Meeting to discuss the six elements of the Tamarac Comprehensive Plan. He asked that Ivan Cross, the City Planner, give his input. Mr. Cross said that under Chapter 163 of Florida State Statutes, the City is required to pass and adopt a certain number of required elements. He said the Land Use Plan which has already been adopted is one of the elements. Mr. Cross said that the Planning Commission, which had been ap- pointed in 1976 as the local planning agency under the State Statute, had a Public Hearing on February 20th, in the evening, and received input from the public. He said that Mid -South Engineering had been hired by the City to do the housing element and the transportation element, and Williams, Hatfield & Stoner (Mr. Wohlfarth) the utility element. Mr. Cross said he did the other three elements. Mr. Wohlfarth was then introduced. Mr. Wohlfarth said under the utility element there were five distinct areas and he went on to name them, saying he would answer questions. C/M Disraelly asked about Shaker Village which is serviced by Broadview and is not in- corporated in the element discussion nor on the map. Mr. Wohlfarth said that would be corrected. C/M Disraelly asked about the Broward County Utility (p. 16). Mr. Wohlfarth said they had not correctly stated that and he is going to check into it further, including who does the billing for the businesses that are using that Utility, etc. A discussion took place as to whether the entire district east of 441 was serviced by Broward County Utility and if there were some areas where there are septic tanks. C/M Disraelly asked that Mr. Wohlfarth check out Broadview Utilities and Broward Countv Utilities as it rp1atAr1 tn this element. C/M Disraelly questioned the density of 2.5 on p. 6. they had used 2.5 to be conservative, but that he had on this matter. C/M Disraelly said he is concerned a; between 2.2 and 2.5. A discussion followed regarding said he would give it mere thought. Mr. Wohlfarth said that been doing some thinking there is a vast difference this and Mr. Wohlfarth After discussion, Mr. Wohlfarth said he would look into the wording as it related to "four story" buildings in Tamarac.(p. 7) as it was pointed out to him that the maximum permitted height of buildings is three stories but it can be four stories if there is parking underneath. Questioned by C/M Disraelly as to the meaning of "T D H", Mr. Wohlfarth said it was "total dynamic head". He also said he would check into p. 7, as C/M Disraelly pointed out to him that in one place he uses "2.6" persons and in another "2 3'. C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Wohlfarth about p. 26 where the tonnage of garbage per day is mentioned. Mr. Wohlfarth said they have projected that people produce more garbage in the future than they do today. C/W Kelch said regarding the comments on potable water, it is her personal reaction that she would rather have an estimate on a conservative basis as the use of water and sewage is predicated on individuals rather than on housing units and she would rather see preparation for a large number of people, rather than being caught short. -1- 2/25/80 tz Mr. Wohlfarth said that what should be kept in mind is that these elements are guidelines and that they would be looking for indications of change. They are starting off as a base and hopefully improve on it as the years go by. He added that he had not written this entire report and would be looking at it again, as he believes there is an omission of some commercial flow and would be making adjustments to total flow on both water and sewer. Mr. Cross said that the Vice Mayor, himself and Tony Nolan would be meeting on the C-13 and C-14 canal drainage and that latest information would also be added to the report. C/M Disraelly questioned the billing regarding Broadview Utilities and Mr. Wohlfarth said he was not aware of the unique billing situations. He said he would recommend and put in the report that it is not a good idea to have water and sewer billing by two different agencies, as if someone does not pay their bills it is easy to cut off water but they cannot cut off the sewer. Mr. Wohlfarth said he would address this regarding both Broadview Utility and Broward County Utility and would also check regarding franchise fees and large users'agreement file. V/M Massaro questioned the drainage going to the Borrow Canal. Mr. Wohlfarth said that is included in the permit application, but that they had not gone into it thoroughly. V/M Massaro said it is important that a study be done for all of Section 7 that goes all the way to the -Borrow Canal. Mr.Cross said they have a time frame they must meet, but that study is being done and what they can do is later amend this element and make the study a part of it. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the South Florida Water Management District meeting that V/M Massaro had attended and during which certain canal reservations had been released. Mr. Wolhfarth said he would try to get a copy of the Minutes of that meeting and what the conclusion had been. He said that in any event, they would try to answer as many questions as they Cape 42 could relating to Section 7 and the questions.thatV/M Massaro had relating to this section. Questioned by V/M Massaro about the measurements relating to crown of the road, (p. 29), Mr. Cross said he would have Mr. Wohlfazth look into it. Open Space/Recreation Mr. Cross said that this element -basically gives an inventory of the existing recreation parcels in the City, whether they are private or public, golf course set-up, etc. He said that Tamarac meets the requirements of the Broward County Land Use Plan. Mr. Cross said that with the strict requirements that Tamarac has regarding beautification,. they are helping to xaaintain needs of open space and recreation. Mr. Cross said that the City meets the athletic requirements of the State, except for fields such as baseball diamonds, etc. However, with the average age of Tamarac residents, a field such as a football field, would not be necessary. Mr. Cross said that he had also found that at 87. the density of 14 to 15 units per acre, does not meet the Broward County requirement of three acres of land for 1000 residents. He felt that it might require an increase of percentage dedication of maybe 9% to 107. and that he would look into it. He said he is not talking of a Citywide basis, but looking at this on a parcel to parcel basis. V/M Massaro said that would be important when they think of the Lennar Corp. She added that at a recent Planning Commission meeting, she had recommended that the ordinance on recreation be rewritten immediately as there are some things there detrimental to the City. Mr. Cross said that is why he is recommending a look at Sec. 20-42 of the Code. He said he is also recommending a study of the way in which Broward County receives cash in lieu of dedication of land for local parks. That is based on the sale price of the land, as opposed to Tamarac's ordinance which specifies the dollar per acre figure based on the acreage and with the price of land going up, these figures should be looked at. Mr. Cross said that he would also state that under Code 20-42, it technically says that dedication of land is required only at the time of platting and says nothing about Site Plans. V/M Massaro agreed saying that had been discussed many times and felt that perhaps they should have a joint meeting as quickly as possible to amend it. Further, she added, perhaps they should not be accepting those recreation par- cels that are private as no one else can use them. The County gives just 15% credit on that but units cannot be built without recreation areas. -2- 2/25/80 tz Conservation Element Mr. Cross said basically this just reviews some of the environmental factors in the City. He went on to discuss from what sources he had obtained informa- tion, adding that it is almost like a geography lesson, and that it also indi- cates that everything would be done to prevent decay of the natural ecological systems and pollution of water, etc. He said on p. 2 there is a short dis- cussion on hydrology. V/M Massaro said there is a paragraph that indicates as to where the water drains, but nothing, is shun relating to the Borrow Canal. She asked that Mr. Cross make a note of this. Mr. Cross said he would include that as the Borrow. Canal is the main retention area for Land Section 7. Intergovernmental Mr. Cross said this is 4 pages and he had addressed all items required under the State Statute. In relation to this element, Mr. Cross said that as much as possible they are to coordinate their activities with various adjacent municipalities, governmental agencies, Federal and State agencies, etc. He said taxing agencies, intergoveru ental relationships with Broward County Regional and State organizations, implementation policies, etc. are also discussed. Traffic Circulation Mr. Cross said that the consultant is not here. However, he.would be present Wednesday. Mr. Cross said he had significant changes to be made in this element. There being no further business, the meting ADJOURNED at 12:00 noon. wwl "':mti r1► �__ IyY Bertlidlf City Clerk This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ 0,(V or $ 3.3 D per copy, to inform the general public and public ofi� and e�o eey s about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. -3- 2/25/80 tz 5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 February 21, 1980 CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Tamarac, will hold the following meetings on Monday, February 25, 1980, in Council Chambers: 10:30 A.M. Workshop Meetin Discussion o the Elements of the Tamarac Comprehensive Plan: Traffic Circulation Open Space/Recreation Housing Conservation Public Utilities Intergovernmental Coordination 1:30 P.M. Special Council. Meeting Bid Award for a Fire Dept, pumper truck. Temp. Reso. #1508. Discussion and possible action. 2:00 P.M. Workshop Meetin Comprehensive Regulations -Utilities West. Temp. Ord. #725 relating to rates, service, new development, etc. Discussion and possible action. Council may consider such other business as may come be- fore it. All interested citizens are invited to attend. MB/tz MARILYN BERTHOLFA_/g ` City Clerk CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1980 COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS TEMP. ORD. NO. 726 Tape CALL TO ORDER: The Workshop on Comprehensive Regulations, Temporary Side Ordinance Number 726 was called to order at 2 P.M. on Monday, February 1 25, 1980 by Mayor Falck. The meeting was held in Council Chambers. The Mayor explained the meeting was for the purpose of discussing Comprehensive Regulations relating to Temporary Ordinance No. 726. relating to rates. service, new development etc, ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck V/M Helen Massaro C/W Marjorie Kelch C/M Disraelly ABSENT: C/M Wiener ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Arthur Birken Finance Director, Robert Hoyt The City Attorney stated that this was an opportunity for the Council to go through the proposed water and sewer regulations, which are comprehensive regulations dealing not only with the individual customer but also dealing in separate articles with regulations pertaining to discharge which are basically mandated by the 201 Agreement, and also regulations pertaining to developers who will be coming in, assuming that the moratorium is lifted soon, being able to move forward with construc- tion and putting lines in the ground and that this Ordinance would set out the ground rules and what would be expected from a developer coming into the City. He also advised that though Larry Keating had a great deal to do with the regulation and preparation of the regulations.he was not able to be present; that the City Attorney hoped that he would be able to answer all questions except some that might possibly have to be deferred to the City Engineer. C/M Disraelly discussed some thoughts that he wished to have clarified with.respect to the delinquent bills, referring to Wage 5 starting with Line 33. He wanted clarification as to when a bill was rendered and when it was received since the bills state "14 calendar days from the date bills are rendered". He wanted to know if "Date of Billing" referred to the date of#service toy If the billing date is December 31st what is the billing date? He was advised that he would have 14 days from December 31st. He suggested that at the bottom of the bills, there should be a note "Payment must be made prior to --" so that there would be no misunderstanding as to the due date. City Attorney said that he didn't think it necessary to include that in the ordinance, since it was an administrative matter which would be handled by the City Manager or Finance Department, but that the City Council could direct the City Manager to put that information, on the bill but that the question was whether it was to be one of the items to be included in the ordinance, and if you insert that, what other information would be mandated to be shown on the bill. Finance Director Hoyt stated that it would cause addi- tional time consumption in the printing of the bills as when the bills were being printed, time would have to be taken to figure out the 14 days for the due date of each particular bill being rendered. C/W Kelch said that trP r,Pt,Pr relocation_ program should re mentioned in the ordinance. She also questioned whether it was necessary to include the rate structure in the ordinance or whether to allow rates to be changed by resolution. C/M Disraelly again called attention to Page 9, Line 16 2/25/80 ecs written notice was required to be given not less than 3 days prior to a change and wanted to know if that was to be 3 working days. City Attorney said that it generally means working days, and suggested that the change could be included in the Definition Section, that "days" means "working days unless specified otherwise". Also on Page 13, Line 11 referring to the adjustment of bills, he suggested that a change should be made that bills should be paid prior to an adjustment. After discussion, and after the City Attorney explained that that does provide that the only portion which does not have to be paid is the specific portion that is in dispute. C/M Disraelly then said that he wanted to discuss the same item that C/W Ketch had brought up, that the rates and charges applicable to the utility shall be established by Resolution, and in order that there be no conflict, that this be re -worded to say "shall be established by Resolution only after a public hearing." He thought that this would preclude a Resolution being passed, and it would also mean that rates would be available and referred to by Resolution. He stated that in Utilities Fast, a public hearing is held before rates are established there, though the rates are established by ordinance, and that this ordinance would change that because rates for both utilities are then established under this ordinance. C/MDisrae.11y said that everything referring to schedules and fees are by Resolution and he thought that we should be consistent throughout. Carl Alper of the Code Advisory Board said that whatever the City Council wishes to do, it can do by ordinance but the question is whether the City Council wishes to go to the burden of passing ordinances and all the com- plexities entailed in ordinances. He contended that if the City wishes to change utility rates or fix rates or charges for installation, it can be done by simple Resolution. He also stated that the Florida State Legis- lature permits a City Council to determine whether it wants to get into the public utility business, and after determining that it is in that busi- ness, it can even build a public utility, and that decision is made by ordinance or Resolution, but that once it is in the utility business, the administration of the !.utility and fixing of rates can be done by simple Resolution. C/W Kelch again brought up the meter replacement program, that there be something in the Regulation about it. She said that if there were a new meter it would seem to indicate that people would be liable for new meter charges and she wanted it carefully defined that if a replacement were made the people would not be charged a new meter replacement charge. According to the regulation, if no mention is made of the program .and it is done, there should be an establishment of program with respect to it. V/M Massaro said that regardless of where the meter is placed, the responsibility for it should be established within the ordinance, that the City's responsi- bility ends at the property line and anything happens, withinthe person's property is their responsibility. C/W Kelch said what she wants clarified is if at the discretion or desire of the utility or City that it be advan- tageous to replace a present meter with a meter of a different type, that this will not incur a new meter charge to the consumer. C/M Disraelly wanted to know if he had a meter at the side of his house replaced with a new one at the curbline, would he be required to pay a new deposit, would the old deposit cover this. C/W Ketch said that that was exactly the protection she was seeking.The utility wanted to make this change since it would be easier to read at the street. V/M Massaro that the utility had told her that they had established a policy and assumed a liability at a time when the community was first formed, but that now the City had to decide what responsibilities it was going to take over for the utility realized that there would be a tremendous expense in replacing all the meters when there was no need to. C/M Disraelly asked where the meters were being placed in single family new developments and City Attorney Birken said that they were supposed to be placed at the property line. V/M Massaro also said that with the new developments, these meters were being placed right in the front, on the property line.C/W Kelch said that future meters should be at the property line and that this should be defined. Irene Adams of the City Planning Department was asked by C/M Disraelly where, on a new development coming into the City, was the water meter located, and she stated that the lacation on the site plans would not show, but it would show on the engineering drawings. V/M Massaro said that Mr. Keating said that the meters for single family homes are now being placed at the property line, but that for multiple family installations, they locate them wherever it is most appropriate, but he said that the general rule of responsibility is at the property line. V/M Massaro also said that Mr. Keating said that it is customary and generally understandable .for multiple family installation, it varies depending on the conditions for the particular project, and he further said that it'should be reflected in the City ordinances, because the responsibility begins and ends at the property line as far as the City is concerned. He further said that in some cases it is at an easement line, but the property line is generally recognized as the point of responsibility. C/M Disraelly said that he thought the meter should also be at the property line for multiple family so that there would be no problem there either and that you cover it under -2- 2/25/80 ecs this definition, that all meters are placed at the property line, and it makes no difference whether it is a condo or a single family home. Mayor Falck asked how many meters went into a condo and was advised one per building, but Mr. Hoyt said that it depends upon the requirement of the amount of water necessary for that building. Mr. Hoyt also said that in a commercial property,each commercial establishment has its own meter and is charged accordingly. V/M Massaro said that Mr. Keating said there was nothing wrong requiring all meters at the property line, and C/M Disraelly then said that it should be written in. Mr. Keating also had said that this would apply to commercial,, and with the set back requirements of the City, V/M Massaro said that she saw no reason why they could not be set in at the property line. Alan Bernstein suggested that the meters be located in a position satisfac- tory to the . department,,leaving total flexibility to put it at the property line or move it as the City sees fit according to the requirements of the Building Department or the utility. V/M Massaro said that it is customary for a person to be responsible for anything on their property._ The" City is only responsible for what occurs within the street and up to the property line. Alsq if the City for one reason or another has to renew the meter because it doesn't work right that is the responsibility of the utility and they have to pay for it. C/W Kelch also said that if the replacement of a meter in a different style or different position is done at the discretion of the utility, there should be no charge, to the consumer. The old deposit should stand. V/M Massaro then said that there should be firmly established within the ordinance, that the City's responsibility begins and ends at the property line, that the City would not assume any responsibility for any repairs beyond the property line on the person's property. C/M Disraelly stated that this was in the ordinance. ape Mr.O. Tucker said there is no doubt that every end is accomplished to protect ide the City but it can be done under our rule making powers which are set 2 forth in the State Statute. Alan Bernstein said that with respect to the penalty period and the penalty to be imposed by late payment, he thinks it is an unreasonably short time to pay the bill and that the penalties are unreasonably severe. -He understands the technical reason why it is defined as a misdemeanor but he thinks the whole approach so harsh it will be difficult to enforcc. The net result being that a policy will have to be adopted that would be more lenient than the one in the ordinance. In his opinion, it is better to have a more reasonable policy to give a bigger grace period, and then be in a position to enforce it. Mr. Birken said that there was no reference to misdemeanor, and Mr. Bernstein then said that he was in error, he read two ordinances and apologized. V/M Massaro said that the original require- ment was 15 days, and you are getting much more than before, where you had 15 days and that was all, now you have something like 30 days. Mr. Hoyt said Mr. Bernstein had said that after 15 days the meter would be disconnected, and that this was very definitely a misconception. Section 17 addresses itself only to the 10% penalty, and no place does it say that there will be a turnoff whatsoever. Alan Bernstein then discussed inequities in the rates and particularly as regards those people who have two meters, one of which is used for household water and sewer, and the other for irrigation, citing as a comparison bills for a whole year for both, and bills during a period when the irrigation was cut off for a number of months. Mr.Hoyt then said that the rate structure of the City utility facility is based on the size of the meter at the current time. The comment that we must charge more money for a larger meter is obviously a fact because the larger meter can draw more water; that is the reason for the meter charges. If the customer can change his interior requirements to reduce the neces- sity to reduce the size of the meter, it would be advisable for the con- sumer to do that, and the rate structure, based upon this type of rate structure, would not be applicable. Therefore the rate structure must be maintained. V/M Massaro suggested that possibly it might be equitable as far as the rate structure is concerned, if the meters and the system are not used in the summer, what if the meter was disconnected, and they then paid only for 2/25/80 -3- disconnecting and reconnecting the meters again, and paid a certain flat fee for that service, which they always have paid. Mr. Bernstein then suggested a new class of summer disconnect, the difference would be that it would not be necessary for the City to send out a man to do the physical disconnect and a physical reconnect, and the meter reading at the beginning or end of the period would be ample evidence of any use of the water. This would apply to irrigation only where the sewer is not involved. Mr. Hoyt observed that any position that would be taken in connection with the reduction of income to the total utility operation based on the fact the amount of income might be changed and reduced must be recognized that the entire rate system is based on total income. If we are looking at a major reduction of income from this specific ,rea, the entire rate structure would have to be studied to see if other areas would have to be increased to give sufficient income to the utility. rape Side Mr. Bernstein then said that he wanted to discuss the difference in the 3 rate structure between east and west of 441. He did not propose that any rate structure east of 441 be basically changed for any reason other than a change of circumstances which would have necessitated it in any way. But he would propose there is no inherent fairness in treating a new customer who moves into the area, giving him a reduced rate east of 441. C/M Disraelly said that we have two utilities, and the cost of maintaining the east utility or the rate structure of the east utility, is based on the cost of maintaining and running the east utility and has no relation- ship to the rates in the west utility because we buy our water from Ft. Lauderdale on a wholesale basis, We charge sufficient funds for the water to be serviced to them and charge for the sewer. Mr. Bernstein said that he would not recommend that any change be made in the structure for those people who are current residents, but those who move in should be paying the same rates wherever they live in the city. Mayor Falck said that since they are on water restriction there, he would suggest to arrange to take the people the extra supply of water that they are denied,yet the people west of 441 are not denied. V/M Massaro said that she thinks it is good to bring the rates together in the city and have all people paying the same rates. Mr. Tucker said thatit would be desirable if a meeting could be arranged.. with -the Finance Director and be aware of the fact that the rate structure has to be such that the total number of dollars has to pay all expenses plus the bonds.We have to take in that much money. He believes that the reference in the ordinances to the developer's agreements are unnecessary and restrictive because the City should be able to work into any developer's agreement any provision that the City thinks desirable in the interest of the City and not to restrict the City as to what it has to;xio. The language of the powers of the City should be extremely broad. He thinks that there should be a real analysis of the figures because he thinks it an inequitable situation that has been created. He also said that as of the rresent time rates for electricity for commercial property is exactly twitt- what it is for residential. in the case of clubhouses that belong to communities of single family homes, they are treated like commercial property, whereas recreational facilities in condos are treated like residential and the difference of rates is double. Mr. Hoyt on direct question by C/M Disraelly said that the pools at clubhouses are under multi -family rates. Mr. Tucker wanted to know the effect of the appeal on the water validation and was advised that the matter was still pending in Florida Supreme Court. He also wanted to know the situation with respect to the clarification before the NBIA. City Attorney Birken said that there had been no response as yet even though there was knowledge of the appeal pending. V/M Massaro stated that the Court had ruled the bonds can be sold despite the appeal. Mr. Tucker then said that if we could get the insurance despite the appeal, we could probably sell the bonds and also that if someone wants an extension or improvement in connection with a system, there is adequate provision under the Statute that we could provide in a developer's agreement that he buy some of those bonds if they can be sold at 7-1/2%, as a provision of such request. Steve Wood, Assistant Finance . Director reported that on the residential 5/8 inch meter per PSC analysis of 1978, average consumption of water was 5.2700, and sewer 4.606; these are in thousands of gallons. Some people were not hooked up to the sewer and some were still on septic tanks in 1978 -4- 2/25/80 and also areas where they billed sewer and no water, and this would include people on irrigation -meters, and swimming pool meters. V/M Massaro said that if anybody is on a septic tank west of 441 the City can demand that they come on the sewer, there isnot supposed to be any such thing west of 441. Mr. Wood said that TUI billed some people on the fringe area who are not in the City limits. V/M Massaro said that within a certain distance of any sewer line they have to connect. Mr. Wood said there may be some people with a surcharge not within City limits, and that the majority of these statistics were from 1978 and things are probably different now. He said that the monthly minimum water charge for 3 months minimum is 4.65; the average consumption charge would be 9.49 for water based on 5.2700 gallons average, which would be 9.67 for sewer and 6.20 minimum, average dollar consumption in gallons. Mr. Hoyt said that C/M Disraelly requsted statistical information so this is for a recommendation for a City increase to the security deposit scale. Mr. Hoyt said that he has a dif- ferent set of figures that Mr. Wood worked up; Mr. Wood then presented a scale of workshop figures that had been forwarded to City Manager in connec- tion with a study for security deposits. V/M Massaro read figures which said that ch.aYges of 5:.27..per month x 60-� is 3 16, and 4.65 is 7.81 x 3 or a total of 23.43 x 2 for water or sewer comes to a total of 46.86 rather than the $40 deposit reflected. Mr. Wood said that he recommended a fee of $55 for the 5/8 inch meter. C/W Kelch said that Mr. Tucker and others have suggested that there was no hurry to enact this ordinance. City Attorney Birken said it was his recommendation that the moratorium not be lifted until this regulation was enacted, especially Article 3 which discussed how to treat a new develop- ment and what is to be expected from developers and the provision pertain- ing to guaranteed revenues and also that Article 2 is not in ordinance form. V/M Massaro said it was important to get this ordinance passed, and based on discussions and if the ordinance is not corrected and put into proper form, that the item be tabled because it is important to lift the moratorium. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M.. C T'k CLFJK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ , or $ per copy, to inform the general public and--p--uElic Officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. -5- 2/25/80