Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-05 - City Commission Workshop Meeting MinutesMAIL REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 25010 _fAMARAC, F LORIDA 33320 T E`,? 4' ., R -V VV E S _ 1- iJ K' H A V E N I.-i E _r A !VI A R A G , F i_ 0 R i 3332 -FE L-EIIHONE (30E-5) 722-5000 November 3, 1982 NOTICE OF WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COUNCIL Please be advised that the City Council will hold a Workshop Meeting on Friday, November 5, 1982, at 4:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 NW 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is for revised Water and Sewer Agreement review. The City Council may discuss such other items as may come before it. The public is invited to attend. Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk pursuant to Chapter 80405 of Florida law, Senate Bill No. 368: If 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. CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1982 WATER AND SEWER AGREEMENT REVIEW CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Friday, November 5, 1982, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter Falck Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Irving Disraelly Councilman David Krantz ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Councilman Philip Kravitz ALSO PRESENT City Manager Laura StuurmanL City Attorney Jon Henning City Engineer Larry Keating Mayor Falck read the official call of the Meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a revised Water and Sewer Agreement. Councilman Disraelly asked the City Attorney if the copy that was given to Council during the last day or two had any changes. The City Attorney explained that the one Council received had been circulated previously, and there are no changes. Mr. Henning said that there will be some sug- gestions made; however there are no changes in the agreement which Council- man Disraelly had received. The City Attorney said the bottom of the page should have the Code 51A-102-682. Mayor Falck said that a communication is being typed. He commented that the City Engineer and he had just returned from a meeting on the 201 program, Alan Ruf was also in attendance. Briefly, the Mayor said that a motion was made to request the County to prevent any large user from withdrawing from the plan, which would have adversely affected the City. Mayor Falck said that as soon as the motion was seconded, he exercised his prerogative of requesting that the Counsel, Linton Lovett, read a position paper. It was read and made a part of the proceedings and it will be distributed to the County Commission on the following Monday, at 10:00 A.M. Mayor Falck indicated that he had a copy of the position paper for Council, and some comments which include a press release he had made. The press release states the City's position on the matter, and will bring the Council up-to-date on where the City stands. Mayor Falck said there will be a meeting the following Monday at the County Commission to update the new County Commissioner on the 201 program, and on Thursday, November 18 there will be the final public hearing on the 201 program which was passed by the Commission in August. Mayor Falck told Council that he will keep them informed of details and after they receive his memorandum, he hoped they would raise any questions with him or with the City Attorney, or the City Engineer. City Attorney Jon Henning explained that a proposed water and sewer agreement has been put together and there are areas that need revisions. Those who have had input feel that it is far enough along to have Council input, and discussion, and hopefully approval or suggestions. Mr. Henning said the agreement before Council is the agreement that was on the word processor which would have been the agreement for Council to consider in its final form. He explained that the agreement replaces two agreements, a residential and a commercial agreement which are combined. The City Attorney explained that at the last meeting of the City Council there was consideration of adjustment of the rates which had been advertised for the following Monday. He said the change in rates reflect that it is being considered to have multi -family units at a rating of 2/3rds of an ERC instead of 1 ERC, approximately. Mr. Henning said it was his feeling that primarily because of that change, there were some semantics along with some typographical and minor changes that have been added to the water and sewer agreement. Mr. Henning indicated that he has made notes on the agreement before Council. Vice Mayor Massaro suggested if anyone me 11/5/82 /lc had input, that it be taken up as each page is discussed. Mayor Falck said they will go over the agreement page by page. Mr. Henning discussed the first page of the agreement. He said there are lines for general location that should help in-house, so they will know when looking back on the agreements just what they are. He said the effective date is the date they will be talking about and that will be the date of the Resolution that Council will be passing. The last para- graph on page 1 includes the development order, which depends on the water and sewer agreement. Mr. Henning said he did not think that necessarily benefits the water and sewer agreement, however it benefits the development order. Mr. Henning explained it makes all of the condi- tions of the development order part of the agreement. He said it adds the revenues and sanctions section of the agreement as an assist to enforcing the conditions of the development order. Further, it keeps it all in one package. Mr. Henning said the City Engineer has recommended it be cut out, however it is left in for the Council's consideration. Councilman Disraelly said it would tie everything together; the develop- ment order which refers to the fact that water and sewer are two of the requirements of the development order, and it ties the Resolution together. Councilman Disraelly suggested that it be left in. City Engineer Larry Keating commented that he recommended the paragraph come out because of the fact the agreements are also entered into for developments which are outside the City limits, which do not have City development orders. Secondly, Mr. Keating said that it is his opinion many problems that Staff has had with the present agreements is because of the fact so many inter -twining requirements are combined in one docu- ment. Mr. Keating said when the group who tried to write the document got together, one of the first things they tried to decide was what they were going to do with this, and he thought it was agreed they would try to make it a contract for water and sewer services and not a reiteration of City Code requirements, which by law should be sufficient to stand by themselves. Therefore, Mr. Keating said, to try to eliminate the confusion with people who may have to deal with it but are not cognizant with the Code requirements, it was his recommendation that they not be intertwined. The City Engineer said that there may some legal value, but he could not see any value to it. Councilman Disraelly asked if anyone outside the City limits needs water within the City District, what is required. Mr. Keating replied that a developer agreement is required. A development order would be obtained from Broward County. Vice Mayor Massaro said that she had argued the same point with Mr. Henning earlier, that she thought that paragraph would involve people who did not belong in the issue and it would cause confusion in the various departments. Mr. Henning explained that the agreement will only be between the City and the Developers. It is not an ordinance, and the concensus appears to be that the last paragraph on page 1 should be omitted. _ The City Attorney then discussed page 2 of the Agreement. He said that originally the definitions were in part 1, and they were taken out of "developers obligations" and gave them a separate section. He said the definitions will cover every part of the agreement. Mr. Henning pointed out that he has added as "e" and "f". The definitions are the same as 1,2,3, and 4 on page 2. Mr. Henning said one general philosophy of the agreement that will have to be determined is whether the owner of the property should be bound by the agreement. He questioned if the City_can reasonabl.y.expect__the owner of the property to agree to be bound by this agreement. Mr. Henning said obviously the language would change at the end of paragraph "A" if they want the owner, when dealing with contract vendees, to be bound to the agreement. The City Attorney said it had been considered requiring a letter of credit from the Contract Vendee to enforce guaranteed revenues and it was discussed at the meeting that it was not the appropriate tack to take, but it is still an alternative. Mr. Henning noted it is a tighter agreement if the owner will sign - whether it is the bank or the property owner. He said he thought Council might want to put it into the developers order. -2- 11/5/82 /lc Vice Mayor Massaro commented that there is a section later on in the agreement which says that the agreement runs with the land, and if the owner has not signed it she said she could not see how the City could require responsibility from him. She also noted that when the City had a problem with a developer recently and was trying to enter into a new agreement with them, one of the first things that the new owner said was that the City had said the agreement held the owner responsible and he could not be held responsible because he had not signed the agreement. Mr. Henning stated if the City puts a foreclosure clause or lien on the agreement, and the owner agrees to it, that is one alternative. Councilman Disraelly commented if they have to have the owner of the land to make the agreement binding, then he has to be included inthe agreement. He said that would have to be worked out and included in the agreement. Councilman Krantz inquired if the property reverts back to the owner, what would happen. Mr. Henning replied that it is always his until he sells it to the purchaser. Once he sells the land, the Agreement becomes part of the property. Councilman Disraelly pointed out when a developer comes in with a Site Plan, etc., he has not purchased the property until the Site Plan is approved, he can say that he did not sign the agreement, therefore the land owner should be included somewhere in the agreement, if it going to be viable. Alan Ruf said when discussing the philosophy of the land -owners, it might be the other side of the coin. The City could be equally harmed by an agreement that would run with the land as by an agreement that did not run with the land. Mr. Ruf said he can understand the concern to be able to collect fees if they are due and owing, but they will avoid the problem they have had collecting fees because the City will have CIAO up front. Therefore, he said, they are only talking about guaranteed revenues. Consultant City Attorney Ruf said that, in his opinion, the City would,'prefer to have the developer agreement die, if the developer is no longer involved, and work the agreement out in subsequent agreements with subsequent developers when the property is developed. Mr. Ruf said that would be better than holding the owner in perpetuity. Vice Mayor Massaro there is language somewhere in the agreement to the effect that it runs with the land, so that is in conflict with the other statement. She said the City does not want it just to run with the land, they want to require the developers to pay the amount. Vice Mayor Massaro said that Mr. Henning had indicated to her that whoever takes over accepts the responsibility, and she had said unless the owner signs__the agreement, that dies when that one person who signed the agreement dies, and if it is tied in that it runs with the land, it can be an indefinite thing before the City can require payment. Mr. Henning explained that the day the owner makes a contract with the contract vendee before the agreement is filed, the contract vendee does not own the property yet. The agreement is filed after it is signed, approved and resolved, and sent to the Court House and it is filed in the title of the land and becomes binding._ It runs with the land from the time it is filed. If the contract goes through, and the property is purchased, it is purchased after the contract is filed and recorded, and then the contract is binding upon the contract vendee or the new owner and on all subsequent owners. Mr. Henning said if something happens that the agreement falls through before the property is purchased, then the land reverts to the owner.,and the land is not bound by the agreement, unless the agreement runs with the Land. Mr. Henning said that the effective date of the agreement would be the date that the Site Plan is approved, but it is not enforceable until the agreement is filed. Mr. Henning stated that it is up to the City to file the agreement. Councilman Disraelly asked what would happen if the contract is not filed for six months, and during that period the contract vendee withdraws who would pay the guaranteed revenues. Mr. Henning replied that the City still has the agreement between the developer and the City, and that is enforceable. If the owner signs it, which is the more restrictive alternative, then the owner would have to pay the guaranteed revenues. In that event, if the development doesn't go through, the owner still has the ERC's and can come in with a different development. -3- 11/5/82 lc Mr. Henning said that the only benefit of recording the agreement is for the benefit of future owners. He said whoever signs the agreement is bound to the City, regardless of whether it is recorded. Vice Mayor Massaro said that she did not agree with that; she explained that would benefit them only to the extent they had paid for the ERC's, but the City could not claim anything from them if they default. She noted that the ERC's go with the property, but the City can not claim guaranteed revenues if they are in arrears. On page 8 it states the agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefits of successors entitled to the project. The Vice Mayor asked how that could be if the owner never signed the agreement. The City Attorney explained it inures to the land and runs with the land and future owners and successors, after it is recorded. That is without the owner's signature, anyone who buys the property after the agreement is recorded, buys it subject to the agreement. He explained that it is a deed restriction. Mr. Henning said that the owner can restrict his own behavior, his own use of the land, by signing the agreement. ---.That meanB.—___ the contract vendee promises if he buys the property, he will buy it with those conditions. Vice Mayor Massaro said the owner isn't saying that unless he signs the agreement. Therefore, she said the owner should sign it. Mr. Henning pointed out that if the sale does not go through the owner has an asset on his property, in that he has ERC's that he can sell with the property. Alan Ruf explained that if the Council wants to bind the owner, they are binding themselves. Mr. Henning explained if the developer fails to pay, under the sanctions section the ERC's can be cancelled, if they have not been built on. Alan Ruf commented that he did not think the Council wanted to bind the City in perpetuity to a developer agreement on a particular piece of property. U/M-Massaro said that she could see the point with regards to ERC's, but she questioned the point of guaranteed revenue. Mr. Ruf said there are other opportunities to collect guaranteed revenues when a building permit is requested or a final inspection or certificate of occupancy is requested. He suggested the City would be better off if it is not bound in perpetuity. Mr. Henning read the section of the proposed agreement pertaining to Sanctions. He said if the developer should be in default of the agreement, it is agreed the City shall have the right to exercise the following penalties, and the section goes on to discuss permits and certificates of occupancies, etc. Number 5 says the City shall be entitled to declare the CIAO and the capacity fore- feited, null and void; and return to square one.. Councilman Disraelly questioned if the money would be refunded, Mr. Henning said it is a penalty. Councilman Disraelly noted if 50 ERC's were paid for, and the developer defaulted, then the City can keep the money and sell the same ERC's again. Mr. Henning said the theory is if 25 were built and needed, and people are living there, they stay. If he has not pulled a permit, then those are forefeited. Vice Mayor Massaro commented that all the City is interested in is receiving the money they are supposed to have, the City is not looking for double payment on anything. She noted that extreme penalties are not exercised by the City when someone goes into default; an agreement is worked out where they will save what they have paid in impact fees, and then go on from there with an agreement. Vice Mayor Massaro stated that she would like to protect the City for all the City is entitled to and let the developer have what he is entitled to. Alan Ruf, Consultant City Attorney, commented if it is of value to the City to keep an agreement, it is also of value to the Land Owner to keep it. Councilman Disraelly suggested writing it in that way, and have the owner sign it. The City Engineer said if the City is going to consider making the owner bound by the agreement, why not have the contract between the City and the owner and dispense with developers and contract vendees, and let the developer make his deal with the owner. Vice Mayor Massaro said she would like to see both sign it and mayor Falck agreed.' Jon Henning discussed the definitions on page 2. He explained a single family residence is any home that has a water meter all to itself. It can be a townhouse, if individually metered. Multi family residence -4- 11/5/82 /lc is any building or residences, non-commercial residences, where several families share one water meter. A building could have forty units and have one or two water meters, but less than one water meter per unit. City Engineer Larry Keating indicated concern with part 1, paragraph B, the last sentence, which says "all other residential units, multi -family, shall be considered 2/3rds of an ERCs. Vice Mayor Massaro explained that had been taken out of the paragraph. Councilman Disraelly said it would have to be included somewhere that a multi family is 2/3rds of an ERC. The City Engineer said it would be clear in the rate schedule that multi -family would be 2/3rds of an ERC. Vice Mayor Massaro said that it is by meter, and the meter size is indicated in the rate schedule. She said the 350 gallons a day of community water was taken out because it was indicated by the City Engineer that it is not always true. Mr. Keating explained he was referring to the fact some muliple-family construction should be considered as one ERC, rather than r s of an ERC. Mr. Keating said that 350 gallons per day is accepted throughout the United States. Councilman Disraelly questioned if a single family residence with its own meter is one ERC. If it is a multiple -family residence with one meter for more than a single unit it is without reference to 350 gallons. Mr. Keating explained that is not necessarily so. Vice Mayor Massaro said it is not necessarily so that a one -family home is one ERC, because that will depend upon the meter size - it could be three or five ERC's. Mr. Keating agreed. The City Engineer said the typical home is one ERC, however estate homes in the Woodlands are more than one ERC because they have a larger meter. Vice Mayor Massaro said the wording could refer to a single-family home with a 5/8" meter is one ERC. Mr. Keating agreed. Mr. Keating explained that a guide is provided for Staff to tell Council what the unit is, and Staff will have to look at every development that comes in to determine if the units are 2/3rds of an ERC each, or one ERC, or more than one ERC. Mr. Keating said the only thing that has to be defined is the ERC's, and everything flows from that. Mr. Henning said that page 9, at the bottom of the page, (f) says that each single-family home is a 5/8" meter. Zf someone wished to put in a larger meter, they would have to pay for a larger meter. He said the City is losing guaranteed revenues if they do not put the meter in for a couple of years, but at the same time the City is getting the increased minimum service charge when they do hook up to service. Mr. Henning proposed it may be simpler to treat every single family home, in the planning stages, as one ERC, 5/8" meter. I£ a plan comes in for larger than that, then it can be made more than one ERC per house. That will be paid when they come in for water service. Vice Mayor Massaro said that can be identified in the agreement, that it is assumed it is a 5/8" meter unless the City Engineer determined that it is more. Daniel Carnahan, Carnahan Engineers, said that-the-350 gallons is basic national standard. He said if a deed restriction is written that will run with the land, it should be as general as possible. Mr. Carnahan said he would recommend not to be too concerned with meter size. Mr. Henning said he felt the guaranteed revenues are inherent on meter sizes, the way the rate schedule is set up. Mr. Carnahan said the ERC concept is based upon how much water is used per dwelling unit. If there is one meter for 25 units, those units will not affect how much water is used, whether it is one meter per unit or ten units. He said there should not be too much concern about one meter serving four, or one meter serving one. The_basic water rates will not be changed by the number of units. Mr. Carnahan said that on page 2, top of the page, refers to where City has received proof of payment by a developer of any portion of a contri- bution made, he questioned when the charges had to be paid. Mr. Henning explained that referred to the 8600 ERC's which had been called the Marmon portion of the contribution. Those payments have to be made either by the time the agreement is signed or the site plan approved; or by a release from them and it can be left to work out with them whether or not it will be paid up front. Mr. Carnahan said basically that payment would. -come prior to having site plan approval by Council, and prior to having an approval from the County, which could take place months later. Mr. Henning said that could happen. He explained the contract for sale of the utility specifies that the City can not give service to any of the customers in those particular land sections unless that portion is paid. -5- 11/5/82 /lc Mr. Carnahan said it is his understand they can not start development on the site until they have County approval, and they are being asked to lay out a sum of money, and commit to guaranteed revenues prior to their even knowing they can develop the community the way it is planned, even if the City has approved the Site Plan. Mr. Henning said Mr. Carnahan is suggesting there should be a deadline after the effective date of the agreement, Mr. Carnahan said he is asking that the agreement be effective after the date of County approval. Vice Mayor Massaro said the City agreement in the past has been that the developer has to pay the interest at the time that they get approval, and the City has said that the City is to be paid in full, and the developer can pay interest to the bank. She noted that the City is not a lending institution. Mr. Carnahan pointed out that there is a chance the County can reject the plan or postpone approving the plan, and the developer is in effect paying for services on a site that they can not develop. Councilman Disraelly told Mr. Carnahan that if the County rejects the Plan the City would refund the money to the developer. Mr. Carnahan said that is not set forth in the agreement. Councilman Disraelly asked the City Attorney if it should be in the agreement .regarding the - possibility of the County rejecting the plat. The City Attorney did not think that should be included, V/Mayor agreed with him. Mr -Carnahan said that the developer obtains no benefits from the use of the sewer connec- tions or guaranteed revenues until such time as there is a County approval. He said Council should consider the possibility of an adjustment. Vice Mayor Massaro pointed out when the agreement is signed, the City has to have the service available when they are ready. They can not have that service if the City does not have the money and time with which to work. She said the City should not be placed under an obligation to provide capacity for them with no money up front. Mr. Carnahan said he would have no problem in not having the commitment for the hook-ups until such time as the County approved the plan. Mr. Carnahan said that a comma should be inserted after the word engineer on.Page 3, item 2, fourthone own... Mayor Falck indicated there are too many things that staff is not in agreement on and he indicated it was difficult to accomplish anvthing. Mr. Henning said he would like to explain the overall effect of the agreement and the intermediate decisions could be readily worked out. Mr. Henning said that basically the agreement that was discussed earlier was difficult to follow, and he thought the one presently before Council was easier. He said he had divided the agreement into separate parts. There will be a table of contents that goes with it, and every paragraph will have a subject matter so when the agreement is received, it can be known what the paragraph will address. There is a section on definitions, a section on what the developers obligations are, a separate section concerning the City's obligations, and a separate part as to mutual agreements or covenants. There is a section on page 8 called "additional mutual covenants", particularly for consumers and assignees as well as developer. There are certain items such as prohibition of wells, fire hydrants and exclusive rights of the City to give service. The City Attorney explained those are things that will survive the agreement after the average homeowner moves in. Mr. Henning said there is a notice provision which requires the developer to put his name, address and mailing address, so the City knows who to contact if there is a breach, or change of address, or assignment. He noted that on page 11, part 7 (a), there is a list of the exhibits to be included. There is a check list included, so it can be determined if something is missing. Mr. Henning explained that the first major difference in the agreement is that in residential development all CIAC, all contribution charges are payable at the time of final site plan approval, which is the same time as the contract is agreed on. The CIAC is paid up front. Previously there was interest which was acceptable in lieu pf that, anrl. - there was trouble with the collection of that interest. Mr. Henning said it is the feeling that if they were to get financing, they should -6- 11/5/82 /lc get financing at a bank. Vice Mayor Massaro pointed out when the City was financing, the developer did not pay interest on the portion that was Leadership's and Leadership's agreement reads that the City agrees to withhold service until seller shall have - certified to the City that seller's portion of the contribution has been received, and the number of dwelling units corresponding thereto has been allocated is released. The Vice Mayor said up until the time a meter is needed, they do not have to pay the Leadership people; a meter could be withheld if the City does not have certification from Leadership that they have been paid. The City Attorney said that is a policy decision which can be discussed. Councilman Disraelly asked whose responsibility it is to see that they are paid, Mr Henning said it is the City's responsibility, to have proof that Marmon was paid, and can deny a meter if they have not been paid. Mr. Henning said all that the City contract states is that the City can not give them service until the seller is paid. Mr. Henning said the City has fulfilled its responsibility by not turning the water on until they have proof that the seller has been paid. Mr. Henning said the City can go further with the sanctions and not give a Certificate of Occupancy. The City Engineer said the agreement has had changes since the last time staff went through it, and the meeting seems to duplicate previous discussions. He pointed out that possibly forty hours have been spent working on the agreement and debating certain issues, and he felt that Council would do the same thing without having concurrence from Staff as to what is contained in the documents. Mr. Keating said he did not feel that was productive. Mr. Keating said it would be more worthwhile for each Councilperson to study the document thoroughly, and give their comments, and let Staff look at the comments and prepare responses. Councilman Disraelly said on page 6, item 4, Sanctions: there should be an interest penalty as established by Resolution of the City Council. They can not use the maximum allowed by law, which is 20 or 23% in Florida, and no one will pay it. The interest penalties should be established by Resolutions. Page 8, Item (b), Repeal of Prior Agreements: Councilman Disraelly inquired as to the legal status of those;does the City just throw them out? He said there has to be some agreement. City Manager Stuurmans said that one section just in- dicates -that the agreement, when signed, supersedes any pre- existing agreements on that property. Vice Mayor Massaro said before the Attorney would allow any one to sign the agreement he would have prepared other agreements that would nullify the previous agreement or site plan. Mayor Falck expressed concern that on the day of the meeting he received a new communication telling him to discard all others. Another was delivered to him at the Meeting, at 4 PM. He said that -_it is difficult attempting to comprehend that type of thing, he did not feel he had accomplished anything. ThE City Attorney said he did not think they should sit like a Committee and go through every line and paragraph, he said that as the City Attorney he would like to be able to write an agreement that provides what they want to say and he stated he is more concerned with policy decisions such as the interest rates, when the Marmon portion should be paid; and he did not know that it is necessary for Council to go through these things line by line. Mr. Henning explained he had told the Council about the CIAC being paid up front. He said that is a policy change that is written into the agreement. Another change is the effective dates, there are many problems when the agreements are not signed, and they can't be signed by everyone the same day - when is it executed and when is it signed. Now there is an effective date and it will be known when the effective date is, regard- less of when it is signed they know the effective date. There are sanctions added, because it incorporates the policy they feel is allowed by the Building Code already, Mr. Henning said. He pointed out there was question inthe past whether building permits could be withheld. It is written in the agreement, so there can be no secrets or surprises in the future. Mr. Henning said the first three sanctions as to withholding building permits, inspections, or certificates of occupancy is a procedure that was worked out with Finance, the City Manager and the Mayor and it is now incorporated into a City Agreement. Mr. Henning said there were -7- 11/5/82 lc J W five previous agreements and he has put a special section on page 11, after the exhibits, which will include any special exceptions. Vice Mayor Massaro said no one is happy with changes, but when changes are needed the problem has been Staff can't meet at the same time and there are so many meetings it is almost impossible to get these things done. The Vice Mayor said the developers are running into trouble, and the City is trying to get them on base so they are current, and perhaps the City is pushing too hard and making it difficult for themselves. Mayor Falck suggested the agreement be drafted up so Council will have an opportunity to look at it. Councilman Krantz suggested they start a little earlier in the day when they meet next time, the City Attorney suggested he submit a list of questions that need to be resolved. The Meeting was Adjourned at 5:30 P.M. ASSISTANT CIT-Y CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ , or $gig / per copy, to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. -8- 11/5/82 /lc