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