Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-26 - City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutesti of TA4, FZOW P 7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321.2401 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 September 22, 1988 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING There will be a workshop Meeting of the City Council on Monday, September 26, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #1 (Room 103), City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The subject of this meeting is the sale of City property. All meetings are open to the public. Carol A. Evans City Clerk CAE/nr AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS TAPE 1 CALL TO Monday, Clerk's PRESENTt ORDER: Mayor September 26, Office). ALSO PRESENT: CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on 1988 at 3:00 P.M. in Conference Room #1 (City Mayor Norman Abramowitz Vice Mayor Jack Stelzer Councilman Dr. H. Larry Bender Councilman Bruce Hoffman Councilman Henry Rohr John P. Kelly, City Manager Richard Doody, City Attorney Thelma Brown -Porter, City Planner Janet Lander, Ruf & Carsky Pauline Walaszek, Special Services Secretary City Manager Kelly said the purpose of the meeting was to go over the proposed sale agreement and Janet Lander has been working with the City Attorney in the negotiations with Jeff Berkowitz. He said Mr. Berkowitz was not asked to attend this meeting; however, Mr. Freedman was present representing the Firm handling this matter for Mr. Berkowitz, Janet Lander said there were new Items to be considered since the last time she spoke with the City Council. She said after talking to Steve Goodman, Mr. Berkowitz's representing Attorney, she was advised that since planning was not required, the Developer wanted to treat easements as dedications, meaning that the easements would be subtracted from the net acreage of 10.43. She said in order for her to inform the City Council of the effect on the matter, she would need information from the County regarding their roadway easement requirements. Ms. Lander said the earliest this information could be received was Friday, September 30, 1988. She said this Item was on the Wednesday, September 28, 1988 City Council meeting; however, it may have to be considered for removal. Ms. Lander said this matter was significant because if the net acreage increased or decreased the purchase price would do the same proportionately. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the easement could be used and Ms. Lander said the Developer stated that he could not build on a roadway easement; therefore, he did not want to pay for it. City Attorney Doody said the County could enter into an Irrevocable License Agreement for parking on an easement and, if parking was needed, the license could be revoked. He said the County had to be contacted regarding the outstanding easements. i Page 1 �/ 9/26/88 C/M Hoffman asked if this matter would be an issue if anyone other than the City was involved and V/M Stelzer said he never heard of a developer not paying for an easement. C/M Hoffman said it seemed as though the developer was taking advantage of the matter. City Attorney Doody said this issue was unusual but an agreement could be made to do this. C/M Hoffman asked if this issue was highly unusual and Ms. Lander said from a development standpoint, it was not highly unusual; however, with a standard purchase and sale agreement and based on the small parcel, it was unusual. Mayor Abramowitz said this matter was brought to the City Council for consideration; therefore, it was not mandated and Ms. Lander said if the City Council decided not to subtract the estimates and other deductions from the net acreage, she would convey this to the developer. Mayor Abramowitz suggested the City Council review the contract before making a decision. Ms. Lander said this was only additional issue; however, there were questions raised by the City Council to which she would like to respond. She said there were two existing surveys on the property, one survey was taken in 1987 covering Lots 8-15 and the other survey was done in 1988 covering undeveloped Lots 2-7. She said several meetings ago, Mr. Berkowitz expressed his desire to have one survey. She said this was the purpose of the survey clause in the Agreement. Mayor Abramowitz asked who was to pay for the survey and Ms. Lander said according to the contract, the seller would be responsible for the cost. V/M Stelzer said the property has two different phases and the City was selling it as such. He had concerns with the developer deciding not the purchase Phase II. Ms. Lander said the developer would be legally obligated to purchase Phase II at the time the contract was signed and V/M Stelzer said the developer could always breech on an undeveloped lot. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the property was listed under one legal description and Ms. Lander replied yes. Mayor Abramowitz said unless the legal description was changed to two the property was considered as one. Ms. Lander said she would like the City Council's permission to conform the legal descriptions for Phase I and II, which actually reflects what the building was on because it was not in the lease and the City would have to pay real property tax on that portion. She said the City should not pay on more lots than they have to. She said the undeveloped Lots are 2-7 rather than 2-5 and she would like this corrected in the contract. Mayor Abramowitz asked why there were two surveys and how much it would cost the City for the survey. Ms. Lander said she did not know; however, she would get the information for the City Council. Page 2 9/26/88 V/M Stelzer had concerns with the developer receiving a survey for both parcels as one and then deciding not to buy the undeveloped parcels. He said there were surveys available at this time for Phase I and II. Ms. Lander said what the developer did ultimately could not be determined; however, technically the developer would legally be obligated to purchase Phase II at the signing of the contract. V/M Stelzer said if the developer defected in the purchase of Phase II, the contract did not provide penalties. He said the developer was not obligated to pay anything for Phase II during the signing of the contract. Mayor Abramowitz asked if there was a Title Policy and Ms. Lander said there was an existing Title Policy with Lawyers Title Guarantee that would be carried over and updated. Mayor Abramowitz said since there was a Title Policy, Mr. Berkowitz should pay for his own survey if he wanted one. Ms. Lander said she would propose this if the City Council wished and C/M Bender said the City should not be spending unnecessary funds to satisfy the purchaser. City Attorney Doody said he was informed that certified copies of the surveys were not available and Thelma Brown --Porter, City Planner, said her office had the certified copies. The City Council agreed that Mr. Berkowitz be informed that the City would submit the present surveys; however, the City would not spend the additional funds to combine the' surveys. C/M Rohr had concerns with the developer taking advantage of the City because the developer knew that the City did not have another person interested in buying the property. He suggested the entire contract be reviewed so that Mr. Berkowitz could be informed of the City's concerns. City Attorney Doody said the status of the easements was not known. He said it may be that all of the easements were taken when Commercial Boulevard was widened. C/M Bender said this matter did not pertain to the money factor; however, it was a matter of precedence. He said he has never heard of a developer buying property without purchasing the easements. Mayor Abramowitz asked Ms. Lander and the City Attorney if they heard of this and Ms. Lander replied, no. City Attorney Doody said he was not trying to agree with the developer's position; however, he has not heard of this. He said this matter may be moot; however, this would be determined when the County information was available. C/M Hoffman said the City Council had to decide how anxious they were to sell the property and if the developer decided not to go along with the City Council and cancelled the agreement would the City be hurt. Page 3 `� 9/26/88 City Manager Kelly said if Mr. Berkowitz was not satisfied with the terms of the City there were other people who expressed interest in purchasing the property. Mayor Abramowitz suggested the City Council review the contract and inform Ms. Lander of their concerns so she could inform Mr. Berkowitz. C/M Hoffman said he was being asked to Vote on this matter at the September 28, 1988 City Council meeting and he has not had sufficient time to review the contract appropriately. He said he did not want to be rushed on his decision without knowing the contents of the contract and the ramifications of Mr. Berkowitz cancelling the agreement. C/M Hoffman said he heard that Mr. Berkowitz stated that if this matter was not resolved by September 28, 1988, he would not continue the agreement. He said this could not be resolved by then because of the information needed from the County. Mayor Abramowitz said he would not Vote on the matter if he did not understand or agree with the contract. C/M Hoffman said the information from Broward County would not be received until September 30, 1988; therefore, the City Council could not Vote on this matter at the September 28, 1988 City Council meeting. He said it would be useless for the City Council to review the contract at this time if Mr. Berkowitz was going to cancel. the agreement. City Manager Kelly said the Attorneys have worked very hard to close this matter out before the end of the Fiscal Year and begin the new Fiscal Year on a positive note. He recommended that this matter be heard and Voted on at the October 12, 1988 City Council meeting; therefore, the contract should be reviewed so the appropriate negotiations could take place before that meeting. Mayor Abramowitz said if Mr. Berkowitz was going to cancel the agreement because the City Council could not Vote on the matter at the September 28, 1988 City Council meeting, it was unnecessary for the City Council to review the contract. V/M Stelzer said the City Council had the contract over the weekend and they should have reviewed it so that this matter could be expedited. He said the new issues submitted after the contract was submitted to the City did not have to be considered. City Attorney Doody suggested that the City Council recess the meeting and he would contact Mr. Berkowitz regarding the approval of the contract by September 28, 1988. At 3:35 P.M., Mayor Abramowitz RECESSED this meeting and RECONVENED at 3:50 P.M. with ALL PRESENT. City Attorney Doody said Mr. Berkowitz said he would be happy to wait until the October 12, 1988 City Council meeting for the contract. He said Mr. Berkowitz wanted the City Council to know that he would be flexible and work with the City on this matter. 1 1 1 Page 4 ,/ 9/26/88 Mayor Abramowitz asked if City Attorney Doody mentioned the matters regarding the easements and surveys and City Attorney Doody said he informed Mr. Berkowitz of the easements and the matter would be discussed further after the information was received; however, Mr. Berkowitz stated that he would be concerned about buying the easements if the County was ready to take them. He said if the City Council did not approve of the easements being eliminated from the contract, Mr. Berkowitz did not feel it would be a factor to cause the agreement to be broken. Ms. Lander asked Mrs. Brown -Porter to report on the status of the inclusion map changes. Mrs. Brown -Porter said in 1987, this property was rezoned along with the City Hall. She said a request was filed with the County to amend the future Land Use Map and a Resolution was approved by the City Council rezoning the property from Community Facilities to Commercial Properties. She said the County's Planning Council had the map from February, 1988, and did not indicate a problem with the map until September 22, 1988. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the County asked the County Commission to approve the map for future and further study. She said on September 24, 1988, she spent several hours with the County's Planning Council questioning why this matter was not recommended for approval until September 22, 1988. She said the County's Planning Commission stated that they were concerned with a strip center being constructed on the property; therefore, she submitted a copy of the proposed site plan which did not indicate a strip but a change in the Lot sizes only. Mrs. Brown -Porter said after debating the matter, the County's Planning Council indicated that they did not review the site plan and they were willing to send the site plan to the State recommending approval; however, the approval would not come back until December, 1988, and finalized until February, 1989. She said the County's Planning Council asked that the two City Consulting Planners submit support documentation with the site plan. Mrs. Brown -Porter said she discussed this matter with the County's Department of Community Affairs who stated that they reviewed the City's Land Use change and Map and found no concerns; however, they were not in the position to recommend approval until the Planning Council reviewed it again. Mrs. Brown -Porter said the County's Planning Council agreed to study this matter immediately rather than wait the normal 30 to 45 days. She said the Planning Council would submit the documents to the State in approximately 7 working days. V/M Stelzer asked if the City would receive approval from the County before October 12, 1988 and Mrs. Brown -Porter said the City should receive the approval by October 12, 1988. Ms. Lander said Mr. Berkowitz could not do anything on the property until the Public Works building was demolished; however, if the City entered into an agreement, the property would be warranted B-w2 with the Page 5 9/26/88 implication that Mr. Berkowitz could pull a permit for commercial development when he was ready to develop. She said if everything worked out as planned there would be no problems. Mayor Abramowitz said a presentation was made that could not be backed up and Ms. Lander replied, potentially. City Attorney Doody said the State could refuse the site plan and Broward County may not include it in their Plans which would cause the City to process a Land Use Plan Amendment, which would take several months. Mayor Abramowitz asked if a contingency clause could be placed in the contract regarding the regulatory agencies approval so the City could avoid litigation in the future and Ms. Lander said a specific condition precedent to closing would have to be added making the entire contract contingent upon the approval of the State and County. At 4:05 P.M., Thelma Brown -Porter WITHDREW from the meeting. At this time, the City Council began to review the contract. PAGE 1 V/M Stelzer said this page indicated all of the property being sold with all of the improvements located thereon; however, another page stated that the improvements were to be leveled by the seller. Ms. Lander said until the property was leveled, Mr. Berkowitz would be owning what the City would be leasing. V/M Stelzer had concerns with the City needing permission from Mr. Berkowitz for leveling and Ms. Lander said the contract indicated that leveling would be required. V/M Stelzer asked if the City would be able to salvage the improvements and City Attorney Doody said the contract did not prohibit the City from recouping the salvage. Ms. Lander said the City would be selling the improvements to Mr. Berkowitz and V/M Stelzer said Page 1 indicated that Mr. Berkowitz would own the improvements; however, further in the contract it stated that the City would clear and demolish the improvements. Ms. Lander said she was aware that this was in the contract. City Manager Kelly said during the discussions with Mr. Berkowitz it was agreed that the property would be sold; however, the City would be responsible for demolishing and clearing the improvements unless Mr. Berkowitz wanted to buy them. PAGE 2 C/M Hoffman said he understood that the City would be selling the Title property; however, the contract indicated that the property would be sold in two phases. He said the money received from the sale of the property was to go for the construction of the new Public Works Building; therefore, Capital Improvements would not be covered. �1 Page 6 9/26/88 Referring to Page 4, C/M Hoffman said Mr. Berkowitz had a year to consider the purchase of Phase II after purchasing Phase I and could decide not to purchase Phase II without consequences. He said the money for Capital Improvements would come from the sale of Phase II; therefore, the City was at least 2 years away from enjoying the money for Capital Improvements. TAPE 2 C/M Hoffman said the public was informed that the new Public Works Complex money would come from the sale of the old property; therefore, the money had to be used for that purpose only. He said the City did not have assurance that the Phase II property would be purchased. Mayor Abramowitz said 1.9 million dollars from the sale of the old property would be used for the new Complex and C/M Hoffman said the City would have to wait for two years before purchasing Capital Equipment. C/M Hoffman suggested Mr. Berkowitz purchase the entire property or place a deposit for the purchase of Phase II during the purchase of Phase I. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City was obligated to use the money on the new Public Works Complex and City Manager Kelly said the City was not obligated; however, it was presented to the public that way. Mayor Abramowitz said if the City was not benefiting from selling the property, it should not be sold. C/M Hoffman said he objected to the property being sold by pieces with the option that Mr. Berkowitz could decide not to purchase Phase II. He said he would like Mr. Berkowitz to place a deposit on Phase II during the purchase of Phase I. V/M Stelzer asked if the money from the sale of Phase I would be sufficient for the construction of the new Public Works Building and City Manager Kelly replied, yes. C/M Hoffman said the Referendum stated that the money from the sale of this property would be used for the new Building. City Manager Kelly said the new Complex consisted of two projects because it involved the Utilities Department as well as the Public Works Department. He said the Utilities Department had their money in place but the project could not begin without the money needed for the Public Works Department. Ms. Lander suggested that she be directed to ask Mr. Berkowitz to place a deposit of $150,000.00 for Phase II at the closing of Phase I. She said the contract was drafted as Phase I and II, not because the developer was having second thoughts in purchasing the entire property, but because the developer did not want to pay the property taxes on the entire property for the two years that he was waiting for the City to vacate the property. Ms. Lander said the deposit for Phase II would have to stay in escrow until the closing of Phase II. She said she would ask Mr. Berkowitz to place a provision in the contract stating that a deposit for Phase II would be required at the time of the closing for Phase I; however, this may not take place for 6 months. Page 7 � 9/26/88 The City Council agreed to this provision. PAGE 3 and 4 The City Council agreed to these Pages. PAGE 5 Ms. Lander said paragraph D "If available" should be eliminated from the contract because the Phase II property would be available and the City Council agreed. C/M Hoffman asked Ms. Lander to explain what paragraph B meant and Ms. Lander said, "All of the conditions setforth under the Title conditions proceeding", meant that if they did not occur or exist at the time of closing, the developer did not have to close unless the developer waived the failed conditions. PAGE 6 Ms. Lander said the middle of the Page "Obtain affirmative insurance" would be changed to indicate, "Obtain Title Insurance". Mayor Abramowitz said he would like a recognized carrier of the City's choice inserted in the contract and Ms. Lander said this would be done. PAGE 7 V/M Stelzer asked if the survey indicated everything listed in Section 7 and Ms. Lander said an Engineer would have to inform her of these matters. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the survey indicated Meets and Bounds or Lots and Blocks and Ms. Lander replied, Lots and Blocks. PAGE 8 V/M Stelzer asked if the zoning classification would be changed and Ms. Lander replied, no. Ms. Lander said this Section indicated that if the City should impose a moratorium or restriction or, if another Government Agency affected the intended development, the developer had the right to back out of the closing. She said the condition precedent would not service closing. Ms. Lander said the Director of Public Works informed her that an Environmental Audit for Phase I was completed and a written report would be available next week. Mayor Abramowitz asked how the report was and Ms. Lander said it looked clean preliminarily. PAGE 9 V/M Stelzer asked if $100,000.00 was agreed upon and Ms. Lander said the limitation on the City's obligation to finance corrective action was $100.00 and the developer had the right to pay any excess; however, if the developer did not agree to pay the excess, the deposit would be returned to the developer. Page 8/,. 1 J 9/26/88 V/M Stelzer asked if the curb cuts were being eliminated on 57th Street and Ms. Lander said the curb cuts and medians were set forth in the Conceptual Site Plan. Ms. Lander said these matters were being reviewed by Broward County. V/M Stelzer asked if the City could restrict the curb cuts on 57th Street and Ms. Lander said the matter would be within the County's jurisdiction. V/M Stelzer suggested Ms. Lander inform Mr. Berkowitz that the City was not in favor of curb cuts on 57th Street. PAGE 10 Referring to the Drainage Section, Mayor Abramowitz asked if the language "reasonably acceptable to the purchaser.", indicated what was reasonably acceptable would be determined by the developer. Ms. Lander said this language did not matter because the following sentence stated that if the developer was obligated to pay fees and if the developer did not pay the fees, the seller could apply them to the price of closing. C/M Hoffman asked if this type of procedure was used often and Ms. Lander said this procedure was unique to the City because only the City could impose Drainage Retention Fees. C/M Hoffman asked why Mr. Berkowitz should be any different than any other developer in the City. He said he was opposed to this clause. The City Council asked Ms. Lander to address this matter with Mr. Berkowitz. V/M Stelzer said the second line of the Tenant Signage indicated a sign could be placed for each tenant. He said he did not want signs placed on Phase II if it was not owned by the developer. Ms. Lander said this was a good point. She said this language was in the contract before the Phase I and II plan. She said she would bring this matter to the developer's attention. V/M Stelzer said the fourth line from the bottom "Mortgagees" should be eliminated and Ms. Lander said she would insert "Leasee" in that sentence. Referring to Section L, second line from the bottom, "No additional Governmental restrictions or requirements shall be contemplated or imposed which would adversely affect purchases....", C/M Bender asked if the City would know what constituted "adversely affect". Ms. Lander said the developer modified this pursuant to the Conceptual Plan and he was limited to the Plan. Mayor Abramowitz said he would like to see "Governmental" changed to "Municipal" and Ms. Lander said this matter was addressed in Item K. Page 9 �_.._ 9/26/88 V/M Stelzer said Item K indicated that the City could not change the plans and Mayor Abramowitz asked Ms. Lander to discuss this with Mr. Berkowitz because he would like to see it changed. V/M Stelzer asked if the access could be restricted to Phase I only and Ms. Lander replied, yes. Ms. Lander said this could be restricted because the language proceeded the switch over of the Phases. Ms. Lander said this clause may not be needed in the contract because Phase I contained the Public Works site and the City may not agree to direct uninterrupted and continuous ingress/egress of public and vehicular traffic for the reality to Commercial Boulevard and Pine Island Road. She said she would discuss this matter with Mr. Berkowitz. PAGE 13 Mayor Abramowitz asked if the correct fee was indicated by the City Planner for the story and height on the property. Ms. Lander said she discussed this matter with the Attorney and he agreed to soften the language to read, "It is the understanding of the parties that the impact fees should not exceed $49,000.00". She said it would not be guaranteed to the developer that the impact fees would be frozen. C/M Hoffman had concerns with the developer being able to mandate the City's new sign ordinance and he asked if this matter could be implicated in the contract. City Attorney Doody said each department would be asked to review the contract and comment on those sections which pertain to them; therefore, the Building Department would review the sign language. Ms. Lander said a clause should be placed in the contract such as, "which seller represents currently does not prohibit such signage". She said language would require compliance to any changes. City Attorney Doody said this matter would be discussed with the developer. PAGE 14 V/M Stelzer said the City should not concern themselves with the interest. He distributed a chart of rates for rentals. He said he would like, "The seller shall pay the purchase of monthly rent in advance of..." and "said sum shall be due on the first day of each month" eliminated. He said the City may not be permitted to be involved in the interest. Ms. Lander said the developer was actually taking out a mortgage for Phase I which was considered a Land Loan. She said the purpose of the recalculation of every month was because it would vary from month to month and the City's interest rate would fluctuate. V/M Stelzer said he did not want this in the contract because the City may be accused of lending money. Page 10 9/26/88 TAPE 3 At 4:55 P.M., City Manager Kelly WITHDREW from the meeting. C/M Bender said he did not agree with the variable rate. He said the rate should be boxed in at 1% above the prime rate. Ms. Lander said the City would pay whatever the interest rate was. She said this would allow the City to pay 1% over prime even though the developer would be paying the prime. Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council was concerned with what the prime rate would be and Ms. Lander said she would discuss this matter with the developer. V/M Stelzer asked if the mention of the rates being tied into the interest rates would present a problems and City Attorney Doody replied, no. V/M Stelzer suggested that a clause be added stating that the matter would be determined at the time of the signing of the lease. Ms. Lander said this matter may be determined at the signing of the lease and V/M Stelzer said the rental had to be set at the signing of the lease. C/M Bender felt that the rules should be set at this time. Ms. Lander said the lease would be negotiated 30 days after the agreement was signed and City Attorney Doody said if an agreement could not be reached at the signing of the lease, the City had the option to walk away. Ms. Lander asked if the City Council wanted all of this deleted and the City Council replied, yes. At 5:05 P.M., Mayor Abramowitz WITHDREW from the meeting and relinquished the chair to V/M Stelzer. PAGE 15 V/M Stelzer asked who the insurance would be payable to and Ms. Lander said the owner of the property would buy and insurance premium and charge the City payable to the developer. V/M Stelzer said the improvements would not belong to the developer and City Attorney Doody said this matter would have to be addressed with the developer. Ms. Lander said the liability would be insured and the developer was addressing comprehensive general liability. V/M Stelzer said this would be the City's concern and Ms. Lander said the concern would be the City's and the developer's because the City would be using the property; however, the owner would be the responsible party. C/M Bender said the paragraph was not clear regarding who would be the recipient of the proceeds from the insurance based upon who would be paying it. He asked that this matter be reviewed by the Attorneys. Page 11 `/ 9/26/88 PAGE 16 Ms. Lander said she would be proposing that item "ii" be deleted. She said she wanted the developer to clarify what "obtainable" meant. C/M Bender had concerns with the City being tied down at the mercy of the purchaser and Ms. Lander said the City would not accept this type of purchase. C/M Rohr asked if this matter could be set up to determine if a gas station would be placed on the property before the signing of the contract. Ms. Lander said once the developer owned the property, he could apply for a special exception. C/M Hoffman said if the City denied the matter, the City may never be able to get out of the lease. Ms. Lander suggested this matter be made a condition of the precedent and City Attorney Doody said the existing contract referred to the zoning and the developer was contemplating that a special exception be given before the closing. C/M Hoffman asked how this could be given before closing when the developer did not own the land and Ms. Lander said the City would be signing with the developer as owner and the developer would be the contract lender. C/M Hoffman said he did not want the City being held as a renter because the developer was not receiving what he wanted. He said he would go along with the developer getting a special exception before closing; however, he did not want the City held responsible for the matter. Ms. Lander said she would be asking the developer to move the obtaining of a special exception as a condition precedent. She said the matter regarding the gas station building permit would not be addressed because the permit could not be pulled until the developer was ready to build. She said this matter could be deleted. Ms. Lander said it looked like the lots that the building was on were Lots 8--15 and the undeveloped lots were Lots 2-17. She said she would ask the developer to have Phase I as exhibit "A" to conform with what was developed and undeveloped. She said Phase I would convey Lots 8--15 as opposed to Lots 6-15 and the undeveloped Lots would be 2-7. The City Council agreed that the undeveloped Lots be bought on a contingent basis starting at Lot 7. PAGES 18 and 19 Ms. Lander said Paragraph 15, "Gas Station Building Permit" would be deleted. With no further business, V/M Stelzer ADJOURNED this meeting at 5:10 P.M. Page 12 1 1 1 9/26/88 1 1 u CAROL A. EVANS, CITY CLERK "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $153.90 or $4.28 per copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of Tamarac. Page 13 —