HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-21 - City Commission Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 21, 1980
(Reconvened from 5/14/80 & 5/19/80)
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the reconvened meeting to order on
Wednesday, May 21, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. in Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck
Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro
C/M Irving M. Disraelly
C/M Irving Zemel
C/W Marjorie Ketch
ALSO PRESENT: Asst. City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans
City Attorney, Arthur M. Birken
Asst. City Clerk, Carol A. Evans
70. Lewin Lot Purchase
gVMnP_qTC nP ArTTnM- AaVMMT7.7n RV rnNTg7NTT
C/M Disraelly MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, requesting a check
for the Lewin Lot purchase, for the purpose of creating a bud-
get position for this money. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
71. Cypress Creek Commons - Bid Authorization
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT
C/M Disraelly MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT, the City Tanager's
office be authorized to go to bid for the asphalt paving of
the Parking lot in Cypress Creek Commons so it can be done be-
fore the middle of June. C/M Zemel SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
16. Consent Agenda
k) Bid Authorization - Parking lot lights for City facilities -
Approval recommended by City Manager
1) Bid Authorization - City Hall roof repairs - Approval re-
commended by City Manager
m) Bid Authorization - Roadway Resurfacing -- Approval recom-
mended by City Manager
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
VOTE:
Item K tabled to meeting of 5/28/80. Items
1 and m approved.
ALL VOTED AYE.
The Assistant City Manager stated that Council was given backup
concerning items 1 and m with a date of May 16th be inserted.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that that 16th day of May be approved for
1 and m dates. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
LEGAL AFFAIRS
41. Broward County - McNab Road Project -- Temp. Reso. #1618 -
Discussion and possible action to approve an agreement with
the County for a utility relocation on McNab Road from Uni-
versity Drive east to 70th Avenue.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled to meeting of 5/28/80.
Mr. Birken, City Attorney stated that he hasn't received the
agreement for this nor for Commercial Boulevard. However,
since there seems to be an emergency concerning this, Council
may wish to indicated their agreeement to go along with the
County. Mrs. Stuurmans, Asst. City Manager stated that the
-1- 5/21/80
by
County Engineering Department indicated these documents
would be available in time for the May 28th Council meeting.
C/W Kelch MOVED to table the item to the May 28th meeting.
V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL
24. Budget Transfer - Recreation Department - Discussion and
possible action to approve a transfer from the Contin-
gency Account to the Recreation Department for a drink-
ing fountain at the park.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Transfer approved from Contingency to Recreation
Department for drinking fountain at Park in amount of $600.
Mrs. Stuurmans stated that on May 19th, Council requested a
description of the drinking fountain and a cost estimate.
She sent Council a memo May 20th with this information from
the Public Works Director, who indicated $20.00 for the cost
of materials to install.
C/M Disraelly said the drinking fountain would accommodate a
person in a wheelchair and children. He MOVED approval of
budget transfer of $600 be taken from account 1-272-581-901
and be transferred to account 1-761-572-47. C/W Kelch SEC011DED
the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
LEGAL AFFAIRS
43. South Florida Water Management District - Assignment of
Canal Reservation to City - Report by City Attorney.
Discussion and possible action concerning Council authori-
zations to further research this matter.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled
The City Attorney stated that he had given Council his memo-
randum and letters from the South Florida Water Management
District which state that it is possible that certain rights
which various state agencies have concerning drainage and
canal construction, could be transferred to the City if cer-
tain things were done. It would appear that the only area
of the City where this would be of value or could be of value
would be Land Section 7.
Stipulation #2, signed with Mountwood in 1979, essentially
stated that drainage requirements in Section 4, 5 and 6
were satisfactory and had been met. Section 7, however, is
different. The City would need to proceed with a drainage
plan and to try to determine where to construct canals and
then Council would have to determine whether to proceed.
It would have to be determined whether the interest the State
still had was a valid interest in the land. It would have to
be determined there were no intervening tax deeds that would
nullify the State's interest in the land owned. This would
not be a simple procedure. It is very likely or possible that
there are other means which may or may not be more desirable
to the City to assure that there is satisfactory drainage at
the time of development of property within Section 7.
The City Attorney concluded by saying that this is a possible
way to get a lot of property to dig canals, and that is all
the land can be used for. It might be necessary to have the
consulting engineers prepare a Master Plan for Section 7.
This might involve legal proceedings by the owners from whom
we would be taking land and which was reserved and which we
took with notice of canal reservations.
V/M Massaro stated that the ownership in Land Section 7 is
fragmented thereby requiring costly research. The one pro-
ject in Section 7 is tying into the C-14 canal, and as long
as it is a temporary situation the South Florida Water 11anage-
ment District may not object. Several things have to be taken
--2-
5/21/CO
by
into consideration. Bonding may have to be required such as
required of Commercial Plaza and Sambos, so that they would
tie in to the Borrow Canal. In addition a study would have
to be made to determine how much land surface is required to
provide adequate retention - such as was done in Land Section
4, 5 and 6. V/M Massaro suggested that she discuss this with
both the City Engineer and the Consulting Engineer and come
back to Council with a report.
Both C/M Disraelly and C/W Kel.ch agreed something affirmative
will have -to be done and they prefer it be under the City's
control. C/W Kelch MOVED that Item 43 concerning canal re-
servations in land Section 7 be tabled to the next regular
meeting. C/M Disraelly ,SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
LEGAL AFFAIRS
50. Sprin; Lake I - Discussion and possible action concerning
Certificates of Occupancy for this project.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Release of remainder of CO's approved subject to Agreement
approved by Council and subject to bond endorsement for culvert crossing and canal excava-
tion. Before bond reduced, must furnish as-builts, fees and water and sewer deed.
Discussion was held concerning charges to be made to the
agreement with H.L.R., Inc.. V/M Massaro inquired as to
whether the present bond will cover the canal excavation and
the 60 inch aluminum pipe culvert crossing or will that bond
require an endorsement.
V/M Massaro stated the bond is supposed to cover the excava-
tion of the canal plus the culvert crossing and the only
reason the culvert crossing is separated at one point in time
is if there is a reduction of that first bond, then the cul-
vert crossing has to be added after the 25% is determined.
That's the reason it is separated, but right now the culvert
crossing as well as the canal has to be covered in the bond.
She questioned whether the bond will cover both without an
endorsement because most often the bonds are specific as to
what they cover. If we are requiring bonds, we want to be
sure that the bond covers it, and does the Spring Lake I
bond cover the culvert crossing and the excavation of the
canal, or will an endorement . be required in order to cover
them, because this bond as it exists is supposed to cover this
additional work.
Mr. Rubin stated that normally an endorsement would be required,
because bonds usually cover specific work. He agreed to ac-
quire the required endorsement. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Rubin
if the as -built surveys for Spring Lake had been submitted to
the City. Neither Mr. Rubin nor his planner Mr. Bryan could
answer with certainty. Mr. Bryan added that submittal of the
as-builts accompanies a request for release of the bond which
request has not been made as yet. V/M Massaro confirmed this
but said the City is releasing all CO's pending certain things
being done.
Lon Rubin stated that there is a provision in the agreement
whereby he could ask for a reduction in the bond at a certain
point in time. He suggested that at the time that he asks for
the first reduction in the bond would be the time to comply
with all the provisions for release of the bond.
V/M Massaro said the fact that these things are not in the
agreement they need to be part of whatever motions are made.
The estimated costs have to be adjusted as well because this
was based on 48 inch, and the developer is supplying a 60 inch
culvert crossing and the 2 rip rap headwalls are going to re-
main rip rap,the other two are going to be concrete so there
is an adjustment necessary. But whatever adjustments are
necessary the proper estimated cost sheet should be furnished.
V/M Massaro indicated that the next thing needed is the deed
for the water and sewer lines on that project which has not
been furnished yet.
-3-
5/21/80
I___
Julian Bryan said that normally comes with the as-builts
at the time of the reduction in the bond down to the 250
warranty bond.
V/M Massaro MOVED the release of the remainder of the Certi-
ficates of Occupancy for Spring Lake I subject to the agree-
ment which has already been approved by Council and subject
to the developer providing a proper endorsement to the bond
to cover the culvert crossing and the excavation of the canal.
Before the bond is reduced to a maintenance fee of 250 of the
cost as indicated in the agreement, as-builts for Spring Lake I
will have to be furnished together with the final certified
cost estimate and applicable fees for this project and deeds
for the water and sewer lines to be provided and approved by
the City Attorney. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
50. Spring Lake I - b) Temp. Reso. #1628 - Warranty Deed from
LHI for 50' Canal Row c) Temp. Reso 1629 - Acceptance of
20' Wide Canal Maintenance Easement from LHI
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT RESOLUTION NO.R-VP-Zj PASSED
B & C ADOPTED
C/W Kelch MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT in connection with
Item 50, Temp. Reso. #1628 and #1629. V/M Massaro SEC0;IDED
the motion.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE.
The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1628 by title only.
V/M Massaro MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #1628. C/W Relch
SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
The City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1629 by title only.
V/M Massaro MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #1629. C/W Kelch
SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
LEGAL AFFAIRS
46. Site Plan Review Fees - Temp. Reso. #1619 - Establishing fees
for extensions of previously approved site plans. Discussion
and possible action.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved as amended. RESOLUTION PTO, R-dD/,VZPASSED
The City Attorney read Temp. Reso.#1619 by title only.
V/M Massaro stated that this Resolution is establishing a
fee of $125 for site plan extensions or any type of reconsidera-
tion.
C/M Disraelly said that Section 2 line 13 should be amended to
read all "Resolutions" (plural). City Attorney said it should
be adopted today and clarified that this Resolution would not
affect any items on the agenda of May 14th or items tabled
from May 14th. C/M Disraelly MOVED to adopt Temp. Reso. #1619
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
53. Riverside Memorial Chapel - Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan
b) Landscape Plan
c) Plat - Temp. Reso. #1615
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: a, b, c,tabled to 5/28/80 meeting.
V/M Massaro MOVED to table this item to the next regular meeting.
C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion.
-4-
5/21/80
by
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
V/M Massaro stated that, with respect to the Riverside item,
the Asst. City Manager should bring to the attention of the
appropriate individual, the fact that Riverside has to pay
for updating of the drainage system at the rate of $130 per
acre. This matter was overlooked.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
55. Summit Bank West - Discussion and possible action on request
for six-month extension of the approved site plan.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Six-month.extension of site plan approval
granted subject to conditions enumerated on attached copy of ver-
batim transcript.
V/M Massaro stated that she would be in favor of extending the.
site plan approval with certain conditions, such as:
1. Show the parking lot lighting
2. Provide the two extra parking spaces
3. The dumpster walk-in door
4. Comply with all drainage retention requirements
5. Subject to re-examination of the Engineering Plans by our
present City Engineer.
6. Fees be adjusted
7. Estimated cost be adjusted to today's rates on the fees
8. Check the costs, because certainly a year ago and today, there may
be a difference in the estimated cost.
9. The revised site plan is to indicate the location of the street
section that had to be added to help straighten out 61st Street,
because of the irregular lines there. The County and the DOT are
involved in that, and has to meet the approval of the City, County
and the Florida DOT, and has to be indicated.
10. The applicant is to be responsible to construct this section of
street within a certain period of time.
11. The time period should be that no final inspection is to be made
or requested before this street is completed.
12. Developer is to enter into a current Developers Utility Agreement,
primarily to determine the accuracy of the necessary ERC's.
13. The Agreement itself that exists now, in all probability, will be
recognized, other than we must determine the accuracy of the ERC's.
14. Tree size, which was spoken of before, but has to be included again,
that it shows on the landscaping plan that they were to be an eight
(8) foot minimum, and should have been shown as a ten (10) foot
minimum.
15. It may need an amendment to the plat to show the accurate lines of
the street which is being changed, and should show whatever the
County and the DOT require, as well as the City. I am sure that
all three will agree on one thing, but the plat should indicate this
change.
16. The plat should show the changes as required, or a dedication by
separate instrument. (as recommended by the City Attorney)
17. The plan is also to indicate any drainage improvements required for
University Drive at 61st Street, that the revised plan show this.
18. If all items are complied with, I would agree to an extension of
time, and if these items are not complied with, then the extension
be denied.
-5w 5j 21; �0
1,7-
V/M Massaro made this in form of a motion.
Mr. Bryan was confident that he could have the site plan in
with the revisions in a week, but he didn't anticipate being
very successful on the matter of 61st Street. Mr. }Bryan
also stated that the conveyance of the -extra right of way,
by separate instrument, will, be submitted correctly;that it
would be in the bank's best interest.
V/M Massaro remembered that in the first approval they were
to furnish a deed and Mr. Birken was going to hold it in
escrow until such time as it was resolved. The Vice-IZayor
clarified that if these conditions are not accepted then the
petition is denied, because there is a provision that pro-
vides for an extension of the site plan even after the site
plan has lapsed. Mr. Goldberg may not be happy with the re-
tention item, but the dollar amount is small and everyone has
to do his share. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion and requested
a verbatim of the motion.
V/M Massaro said the motion is for a six (6) months extension
because they do have to get the approval of the County and
the approval of DOT.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
58. Emergency Ordinance - Temp. Ord. #764 - Discussion and possible
action to enact an emergency ordinance amending Ordinance
No. 80--35 - Comprehensive Utility Regulations - to modify the
provisions pertaining to payment of contribution charges and
guaranteed revenues. (Agendized by V/M Massaro)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved on first reading as amended.
The City Attorney said the ordinance was requested by the
Vice -Mayor, the emergency is stated in Section 1 of the ordin-
ance. The City Attorney pointed out certain changes being
requested - page 3 on line 8. "Any work covered by this para-
graph shall be guaranteed for a period of 1 year from the time
a bill of sale for" remove the words "construction of" and in-
sert the word "the" - for the water, or sewer or both facili-
ties - remove the word "are" and insert "constructed by the
developer is accepted by the City Council". The next line, after
the first word "City" put a comma. Mr. Birken explained this
change is in case of a project that has an impact on the system
to an extent it is not necessary to put in a new pumping station
but to upgrade or modify the existing pumping station, then the
developer would be required to do that.
V/M Massaro added
sale being for the
structed, they are
as well.
that another need is in the case of a bill of
item itself, and if a new one has to be con -
not just paying for the labor, but the item
Mr. Birken continued with the provisions for contribution
charges being modified and explained that under certain condi-
tions when a residential project is built and permits are issued
over a period of time, a developer would be permitted to pay
interest on the contribution charge at a rate of $10.50 a month.
The monthly interest payment would allow the developer a ma;;i-
mum of 2 years from the date the first building permit is issued
to put off payment of the contribution charge. During the 2
years, the developer would pay the contribution charges for in-
dividual buildings as permits were requested. Mr. Birken exc-
plained that if there was an increase in the contribution charge,
the developer would have to pay the increased amount on build-
ings for which permits had not been pulled. In addition per-
mits would have to be pulled on at least 25% of the units dur-
ing the first year.
The next provision inserted is #6 on page 4 which provides that
building permits shall be applied for in multiples of no less
than 10 ERC's. The problem wit.-i this is in single family homes,
the developer has to pull 10 permits and he may not knov7 which
-6- 5/21/80
by
10 buildings he is going to be putting up next it would not
be economically feasible to require the developer to wait
until he has 10 sales to come in and pull permits because
he wants to be building on a continuing basis. Mr. Birken
suggested the requirement for the 25% of ERC's within the
first year and the 2 year outset requirement from the time
the first building permit is pulled. The provisions for con-
tribution charges that have been written did not contemplate
large projects which may require further refinement to accomo-
date very large projects. One concept was that the developer
would forego the right to a certain number of units. He would
enter into a developer's agreement but when it came time for
him to have the ERC's,if we were, at capacity whereby we couldn't furnish
it to him there would be provisions so that we would not be
obligated to furnish the capacity at that time, even though
there was an approved site plan.
V/M Massaro included that it might be prudent for Council to
exclude extremely large projects such as 800 units, because
they would notbecompleted in 2 years. The large projects per-
haps should be done by separate negotiation. If Council feels
that they do not wish to make such exception, the developers
of the large projects who will be coming in soon will want to
talk on this matter.
Mr. Birken cautioned Council that if they approve a site plan
with 900 units at one time with the multi -unit build --out and
the regulations change concerning drainage or parking, etc.,
there may be some problems if the developers are compelled to
comply with the new regulations.
V/M Massaro pointed out that the benefit to the developer is
that he has an approved site plan with no changes being allowed.
They may not want to phase it, but would prefer to pay the in-
terest.
In response to a question from C/W Kelch, V/M Massaro said
that the considerations on the very large projects are too
complicated to be able to address them within the ordinance.
They would have to be by separate agreement. V/M Massaro
asked for an expression from Council as to whether they would
have any objection in considering another ordinance for de-
velopers with projects of a very large size. C/W Kelch in-
dicated that she felt this was necessary. However, she did
state that there should be some reference to both situations
in the first ordinance.
C/M Disraelly said that normally when an ordinance is written
it applies to everybody involved with the City. It appeared
to him that this ordinance was prepared to cover all situa-
tions. He suggested that in order to avoid making changes
depending on the developer, that a minimun number of units be
used. If one comes in that is above that number, Council can
handle that as a separate entity. But, then Council would
not be writing separate ordinances for specific individuals.
V/M Massaro suggested using 500 units as a figure for the ordin-
ance. Mr. Birken stated that Council can consider this as a
regular ordinance with a Public Hearing on second reading,
rather than as an emergency. Or, if Council wishes a special
meeting for second reading it could Le held so that it could
be considered at the earliest possible date. He would alter
the language between first and second readingto accomodate
large projects. The title is sufficiently broad so that there
is no problem in modifying the title other than taking out the
word "emergency" to allow insertion at second reading if
Council wished.
Mr. Birken pointed out that these modifications had been dis-
cussed with certain developers and it was generally acceptable
to them. If the concept that the City would not be reserving
units for developers of large projects and they would be pro-
ceeding at their own risk is considered reasonable by Council,
then he would prepare language for the second reading. We want
to be consistent in the application of our regulations, so
we shouldn't write in the maximum number of units that would
be considered under this ordinance.
-7- 5/21/80
by
C/M Disraelly felt that the regulations for large projects
such as 800 or 900 units could be included in this ordinance,
so a new one wouldn't have to be written every time a large
project was proposed.
Lon Rubin, President of HLR said that there is only a pro-
blem with the 2 year period, in cases of a large project.
All the other provisions in the developer's agreement would
be applicable to a large scale development or a small scale
development. He suggested an amendment that would provide
some discretion on the extension of the maximum 2 year period
and it doesn't have to be with great specificity in the agree-
ment itself. It can state that it is for the maximum 2 year
period. However, Council may use its discretion so that it
is not a mandatory 2 year period.
The City Attorney stated that the City should try to achieve
consistency in its regulations. A new developer would want to
know what is expected of him. You would need to set standards
in order to provide for a waiver.
Lon Rubin said it will apply to 25% standards and for a devel-
oper of 501 units it would have to apply to a lesser standard,
that is being treated unfairly. The only thing that relates
to the term of fairness in large scale transactions is the
length of time that it would take for completion before other
things happen:you will in effect be paying twice for the same
thing. Mr. Rubin said whatever is done, it should be applied
on a uniform basis in terms of the standards that are set for
stretching out the time. He reiterated that providing for a
waiver without stating a specific number of units shouldn't
be difficult and would take care of the extraordinary situa-
tions, without departing from the set standards.
Mr. Rissman, of Rissman Development Corporation introduced
himself as the developer of Woodmont Tracts 74 and 75 con-
taining 867 units. He said that he anticipates that the sales
and build out period for the project will be about 6 or 7
years and that the time factor, as stated previously, would be
a burden as well as the interest carrying charge on units
that wouldn't be built for 5 or 6 years. Mr. Rissman stated
that he is not trying to negotiate each term but would like
to continue working out the overall scheme with the City,Attor-
ney that would be applicable.
In response to inquiry of C/W Kelch concerning the ordinance
being considered as an emergency, Lon Rubin responded that
the necessity for this ordinance being passed now is important
to certain developers. There are site plans and plans which
are and have been pending since Council approval because they
are unable to proceed beyond the stage they are in and require
tabling at every meeting of Council because the approval of the
site plan requires the approval of the developers' agreement,
the approval of the developers' agreement requires the approval
of the ordinances which govern the developers' agreement, so
the developers are sitting here with site plans waiting for an
ordinance to be passed to facilitate the City executing new
developers' agreements on all future projects. He then encour-
aged Council to adopt the ordinance, based on emergency as
stated.
Mr. Rubin proceeded to discuss the contents of the ordinance
referring to page 3 where the Citly requires the developer to
modify and rehabilitate existing water and sewer sy.ster,ls is
part of a paragraph that refers to Section 50, its extension
policy where a developer may be required to construct oversize
offsite facilities. However, it is not clear and seems con-
tradictory at one point - where it says that the City may re-
quire developers at developers' sole cost and expense to modify.
He recommended that if a developer is required to modify an
existing facility and that existing facility serves other areas
in the City, which are undeveloped, it's the same principle as
a developer constructing oversized or on site facilities, and
therefore if he is required to do that, he should be able to
avail himself of the same cost -sharing and recoupment from
other tracts to come in at a later time.
-8- 5/21/80
by
F
Larry Keating, City Engineer, suggested that the wording
say that the developer will ,front the cost rather than bear
the sole cost for those improvements, and that a funding
agreement could be entered into. That probably is the type
of wording that Mr. Rubin wants. If we want to consider
having him get a fee reimbursed, we want him to pay for the
initial improvements.
Lon Rubin suggested that the procedure for modification of
existing systems be the same as the procedure for construc-
tion of oversized facilities.
The City Engineer referenced language concerning a time limit
for completion of improvements before Certificates of Occu-
pancy can be issued. It was suggested that such language be
included in the developers agreement.
Mr. Birken, in returning to the content of the ordinance,
pointed out that there wouldn't be any net loss to the City
under the contribution charge modifications -)lie City would
get at least the same net amount of money and with interest
rates going down, we may end up with. mArein the lang run with the 10-15
months than if they paid this amount up front. V/M T'Iassaro
added that is because previously they would pay contribution
charges at site plan approval but their interest begins at
site plan approval.
Mr. Birken continued with the next item on page 5 - Guaranteed
Revenues. At the present time guaranteed revenues commence
6 months after execution of the developer's agreement.. The
proposed ordinance would allow the guaranteed revenues to
begin on each building 6 months after the building permit is
issued but no later than 18 months from the date of the execu-
tion of developer's agreement for all the units. He commented
that TUT required 2 years from the time of the execution of the
developer's agreement, which may have contributed to the fin-
ancial problems Tamarac Utilities had; and the City wouldn't
want to be more flexible than TUI was.
Mr. Birken presented several points of view for Council con-
sideration. 1) If there is no development, and the regula-
tions are so onerous that there is no development then the
rates are going to go up. 2) If it is deferred, then the
amount deferred is that period of time when you don't get cer-
tain revenues. 3) The project can be phased and then the City
wouldn't get it that way. It was a growth factor considered
by the Consulting Engineer, when they made great projections,
and if our regulations are so onerous that development
cannot take place, the only people who know the answer to that
are the developers. There is a possibility that there will
be a shortfall that will have to be made up by the existing
customers. If development takes place along the lines it was
projected, guaranteed revenue payments according to Mr. Nolan
were not factored in to the rate projections and there should
not be any real significant impact if we modify the guaranteed
revenue payment regulations.
Mr. Birken then addressed the phasing concept. One method
is that used by Gardens of Sabal Palm - where only one por-
tion of the site plan was approved with the risk that the City
may not have the capacity available when they come in for the
rest of the project. The other method phasing, is to get the
entire site plan approved, but build in stages rather than
phases without getting subsequent approval by the City Council.
In the first method there is no guaranteed revenues for what
hasn't been approved. In another type of situation, under the
regulations as they exist today, there is one site plan that's
been approved and they have to pay on the entire site plan
regardless of what their plans are.
C/W Kelch suggested that the following language be added on
line 24, page 5, "Rate Schedule of the City as the same may
be amended from time to time". She also suggested on page 5,
line 31 and 32 add "Upon failure to pay, the City..."
Mr. Birken continued on page 6, Section 58, with the last change
which deals with setting the fee by resolution of the City
Council for projects with ten or more ERC's. Per. Nolan
Q'Z
5/21/80
by
L.... _1
would review the project to see if any necessary improvements
or modifications would be needed. Mr. Nolan has provided
the City with a letter stating he felt $500 would be suffi-
cient which would be set by separate resolution. Council was
also given a blank developer's agreement which will also need
discussion and modification. Mr. Birken suggested that Council
might want to take action on the ordinance now and hold off
discussion on the developer's agreement.
Lon Rubin wished to suggest a change to Section 50 on page 2
concerning extension policy definition, that the extension
policy recognizes in which a developer may be required to (a)
construct or (b) to modify and rehabilitate existing water
or sewer facilities to accomodate the impact that the demand
created by the project is projected to have upon the system.
During discussion of whether the ordinance should be treated
as an emergency, the City Attorney stated that the findings
of fact are set forth very clearly would give the basis for
the City Council to find that there is emergency and in most
instances are accepted by a court.
C/M Disraelly pointed out those questions which have not been
resolved - namely, the maximum number of units to be addressed
in the ordinance and the question of whether it's 18 months or
2 years have not been resolved.
Mr. Rissman asked for a point of clarification concerning his
project as to whether the $10.50 per month is based on 14° of
$900. They're purchasing part of that from Woodmont ($542.00)
which is another instance where this ordinance wouldn't be
applicable. Mr. Birken responded negatively that the City set
the fees. Out of the $900, $542 would be paid to Tamarac Utili-
ties, Inc. and the balance would be paid to Tamarac. rIr. Riss-
man pointed out that he already paying interest on that. V/11
Massaro said the 14% doesn't apply to that, it only applies to
the balance of the money. The City could not charge the in-
terest on money it does not collect.
Julian Bryan said it appears we have a situation where we have
the Montwood agreement for 3500 connections and the Leadership
agreement for 2400 connections that provides for $358 to be
paid directly to the City with the balance to go to the parent
company for the utility as partial payment under the City's
acquisition. The language in the agreements states that the
money is theirs, so it would seem improper that the $10.50
interest would apply on any one's property who was purchasing.
This appears to have been an oversight by everyone. It would
not seem proper that it would be 14% interest on $900 for those
people, but 14% on $352 because they have an attached exhibit
in the back of the purchase agreements with a sliding scale
that increases either monthly or quarterly.
V/M Massaro stated that the question of the payment is address-
ed and they would only be subject to the payment of $358, that's
what they would be paying interest on. However, the City fail-
ed to make a separate paragraph in the ordinance to address
that.
C/M Disraelly felt that there should be a statement in the
ordinance to the effect that if theERC's are purchased directly
from the City, the charge should be $10.50 a month. If the
ERC's are purchased by an agreement previously executed the
fee to the City will be X dollars per month. The percentage
figure has to be handled in that manner, 2 sets of numbers so
there's only one agreement for the total City, and have sepa-
rate agreements with the developers.
Mr. Birken indicated that this is a very important ordinance
and Council should pass it on first reading on this day giving
the time between first and second reading to address the
questions raised this day.
Mr. Rissman suggested that a language change be made to correct
the $10.50 or 14%. If this ordinance is passed for the smaller
projects, a new ordinance could be presented to cover the
larger projects, and it would be a very simple thing for the
Council to approve.
-10 5/21/80
by
C/M Disraelly responded by saying there are others who
are also paying that lesser amount. He is suggesting that
the ordinance has to be all encompassing and so all that has to be
done is add a phrase to provide for an agreement with Tamarac
Utilities for payment in whatever amount is decided. C/W
Kelch suggested the inclusion of a waiver provision to provide
for the larger projects.
Following discussion on C/M Disraelly suggestion, V/M Massaro
MOVED that Temp. Ord. 764, be approved on first reading as
amended.
Mr. Birken read the corrections into the motion - as being
Page 3, line 8, the line would read "of one year from the
time of bill of sale for the water or sewer then or" Page 3
line 9 "both facilities constructed by the developer is ac-
cepted by the City Council and shall be performed." Line 10
a comma after the first "City"; Page 4 delete paragraph 6 and
renumber former paragraph 7 to paragraph 6, etc., Page 5
line 24, after the word "City" add "as the same may be amended
from time to time." Line 31, should read "upon failure" and
line 33 after the word "due" there would be a comma.
Mr. Birken indicated that he would review the other changes
during lunch and present them in the afternoon.
V/M Massaro reworded her MOTION to adopt on first reading the
emergency Ordinance Temp. 764 as amended with the amendments
as were indicated by the City Attorney. C/W Kelch SECONDED
the motion.
06,20a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ALL VOTED AYE.
59. Woodview- Tract 33- Discussion and possible action to approve
a water and sewer developers agreement. (Agendized by V/M Massaro)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled ( See Page 14)
Due to doubt as to wheter or not Mr. Birken has an agreement
drawn up, this item was tabled.
Mayor Falck requested a report from C/M Disraelly, toward the
end of the meeting with regard to Item ��51, Tamarac Directory
Sign. The Mayor requested the Council proceed with Item ��71.
71. Bid Authorization -Cypress Creek Commons-3,000 Sq. Yds. Asphalt for
Parking Lot.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved
Councilman Disraelly indicated the Assistant City Manager
requested this item be placed on the agenda because the work
that is being done, under the Water Management Grant has been
completed. He further said that the estimated.cott is $6,000
and the bid is for 3030 yards of asphalt for the parking lot.
They are requesting the City give out the bid and agendize by
consent in order to save time.
Mrs. Stuurmans indicated that she had sent a memo explaining this
is a portion of several projects that will need to be done.
This is the only project that must be done on the outside.
The other work will be completed by Public Works Department
and that includes seeding, fertilizing, the installation of
pumps for sprinkler system to the grassed area and the purchasing
of picnic tables. She said these items will be discussed in
full at the next regular Council Meeting, when the City asks
for the appropriations from the Park and Recreation Funds.
C/M Disraelly said irrigation has been put in and the trees
have been nurtured. The fishing pier is being used and people
are parking on the gravel.
-11-
5/21/80
by
C/M Disraelly then Moved the request for putting out the
bid be approved, and V/M Massaro SECON DEDthe motion.
Vice Mayor Massaro auestioned if the money comes thru for
Caporella Park, does that, in its entirety, have to be used
there or can any part of it be used anywhere else. Mayor
Falck felt it could not.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
70. STANLFY L71,7IN, TRUSTEE-,�54,672.65- Acct. 1-876-581-912
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION : Check request approved.
C/M Disraelly said this item was discussed at budget meetings and
Council's decision was to approve this purchase and buy it. He
further said the funding was not taken care of and Council
directed Alan Ruf to proceed with the closing. In order to
close, the City will need a check in the amount of �)54,672.65.
V/M Massaro nuestioned whether or not a budget adjustment would
have to be made.
The City Attorney said it was budgeted.
C/M Disraelly indicated the money will be taken out of the
Capital Reserve Fund but there will be no change in the total
budget of the City. He further noted there is a balance of
�427,000 in the Capital Reserve Fund.
The City Attorney said the fact that it was in last year's
Capital Improvement Program would indicate that that's where
the money should be coming from.
C/M Disraelly MOVED that a check be drawn
�54,672.65 from the Capital Reserve Account
which currently is in excess of fi427,000,(
Councilwoman Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
in the amount of
#1-876-581-912,
Stanley Lewin, Trustee).
68. Financial Federal Plaza Discussion and possible action on
a) Site Plan
b) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement
SyNoPSIS nF ACTION - a) Site Plan Approved- C/M Disraelly to adjust
-�� beautification plan with Financial Plaza representative with
report at next meeting. b) Approved.
Mr. Birken indicated Financial Federal has everything approved
by Council. It was subject to their getting the developer
to be within a certain time. Mr. Birken explained
the developers agreement was not received on time because the
City Engineer wanted some changes to be made. He further said
now the money is in and everthing is in order, therefore, Mr
Birken requested the developers agreement be approved and action
taken on the Site Plan.
Councilman Disraelly said there was an error in the landscape
plan and felt that action may have to bemeacinded and reviewed.
lie said there was no chart on the side of the plan indicating
what types of plantings and how many plants were going to be
used. The City's Ordinance readsthat no more than 257, of
trees in any landscape can be Sabal Palms. They are up to 31P!.
Vice Mayor Massaro advised that one additional tree has to be
planted between each 10 parking spaces and that is part of their
approval. She requested C/M Disraelly meet with tke representatives
from Financial Federal and bring a report back to Council with
specific landscaping data at the next regular Council meeting.
Vice Mayor reaffirmed the approval of the site plan excluding
-12-
5/21/80
F __J
the beautification plan and moved that C/M Disraelly be authorized
to meet with the representatives of Financial Federal and have
them correct the site plan to conform to the City's ordinance
and bring back a report on the site plan at the next regular
meeting.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
b) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement
Vice Mayor Massaro explained the developers agreement has to
do with business project, and commercial project. Due to the
fact it was no fault of the developer that it was not received
on time; the Vice Mayor MOVED the approval of the developers
agreement on the date Council executes it. C/M Disraelly
SECONDED the Motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
The City Attorney reiterated on previous discussions at meetings,
items in the developers agreement. He then added on line 7,
page 3 at the end of the sentence, after the words sewer system
"when City determines that no other undeveloped property will
benefit significantly from the modification and rehabilitation."
Section 51, page 3 an addition to #1 on line 34 to read:
"those projects which are subject to a developer's agreement
with Tamarac Utilities Inc. executed on July 31,1979 and which
make a portion of their contribution charge payments to
Tamarac Utilities Inc. shall be required to pay interest to
the City in the amount of 14% per month of that portion of the
charge directly payable to the City per year in monthly payments"
Councilman Disraelly suggested that since the City uses a
dollar amount to do so in the agreement so there will be no
question as to what the dollar amount is. The City Attorney
continued, line 7, page 4, after line 21 will read; " A written
agreement wherein developer agrees that (1) at least blank ERC's
are paid for at the time of execution of the developer's
agreement. (The number is left blank.) (2) No ERC's in excess
of the numbers actually paid for in advance or for which interest
charges are regularly paid shall be reserved by the City for
the project. In the event the City cannot furnish service for
ERC's not paid for in advance or for which monthly interest
payments are not paid when requested, the City shall have no
obligation to provide same and City shall have no liability
for consequences of its failure to provide ERC's. C/M Disraelly
MOVED that Council not handle this as an emergency but attempt
to have this in proper perspective at a meeting one week from
this date, at which time all of the developer's agreements and
site plans that are before Council now will be handled. The City
Attorney can have this properly typed no later than tommorrow.
Council will then have the opportunity to review it and
everyone will understand the explanation.
The Vice Mayor stated it is an important factor to get this
emergency ordinance passed. This can apply to anything up to
and including 600 units. She said the City should have a
special developer's agreement.
Councilwoman Kelch said for the record she would prefer a
statement to the effect it would not necessarily apply in
the case of developers coming in with 600 or more units. She
wished to see this enacted and felt this is important. She
would prefer to have it enacted as an emergency on second
reading with the items added.
-13-
5/21/80
Councilman Zemel SECONDED the motion.
After further discussion among the Council as to whether this
should be handled as an emergency motion or as a regular motion
C/M Disraelly withdrew his motion and MOVED the adoption on
first reading of an ordinance amending all of those sections
as were in Temporary Ordinance #764.
The City Attorney read Temporary Ordinance #764 by title.
Mr. Birken then said Section 1 would have the words "declaration
of emergency" on line 14 deleted, and other than that there
would be no other changes.
Councilman Zemel SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: Councilman Kelch- Nay
Councilman Zemel- Aye
Councilman Disraelly- Aye
Vice Mayor Massaro- Nay
Mayor Falck- Aye
In response to a question raised by Julian Bryan, Mayor Falck
replied that there cannot be an emergency second reading, but
this could conceivably be heard the Tuesday following the meeting
on next Wednesday.
59. WOODVIEW TRACT 38 Discussion and possible action to approve a
Water & Sewer Developers Agreement. ( Agendized by Vice Mayor Massaro)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled
The City Attorney said he intends to propose revisions to the
ordinance, to modify the developer's agreement to be in conformance
with those revisions so that the developers will have those as
quickly as possible unless Council tells him otherwise.
Mayor Falck said the Chair will entertain a motion for tabling
Item #59.
Councilman Zemel MOVED to table.
In response to C/M Disraelly the City Attorney replied if Council
feels that there's an emergency, they can take action on another
ordinance on an emergency basis. It can still be advertised and
enacted as an emergency prior to the advertised date.
Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
VOTE-: Councilwoman Kelch-Aye
Councilman Zemel -Aye
Councilman Disraelly-Aye
Vice Mayor Massaro -Nay
Mayor -Aye
60. CONCORD VILLAGE I - Discussion and possible action to approve an
addendum to the water & sewer developers agreement (Agendized by
Vice Mayor Massaro.)
SYNOSIS OF ACTION: Tabled
Councilman Zemel MOVED to table ITEM #60
Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE.
61. SOUTHGATE GARDENS - East Discussion and possible action on
a) Site Plan
b) Landscape Plan
c) Vacation of Drainage Easement -Temp. Reso #1582
d) Grant of Utility Easement -Temp. Reso # 1583
e) Grant of Canal Maintenance Easement- Temp. Reso #1584
f) Agreement to COnstruct N.W. 71st Avenue
g) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement ( Agendized by V/M Massaro)
-14-
5/21/80
L
61. SOUTHGATE GARDENS -CONTINUED
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION.
Councilman Zemel Moved to table.
Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: C/W Kelch --Aye
C/M Zemel - Aye
C/M Disraelly-Aye
V/M Massaro -Nay
Mayor -- Aye
62. TAMARAC GARDENS- Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan
b) Plat- Temp. Reso #1595
c) Water & Sewer Developers Agreement ( Agendized by V/M)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled.
Councilman Zemel moved to table
Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: C/W Kelch--Aye
C/M Zemel Aye
C/M Disraelly-Aye
V/M Massaro Nay
Mayor-- Aye
63. CONCORD VILLAGE II- Discussion and possible action on:
a) Site Plan
b) Water & Sewer Developers Agreemnent
c) Agreement on Park and Recreation Dedications ( Agendized
by V/M Massaro)
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled
Councilman Zemel MOVED to table
Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion
VOTE: COUNCILWOMAN KELCH - AYE
Councilman Zemel - Aye
Councilman Disraelly-Aye
V/M Massaro --Nay
Mayor - Aye
67. WATER & SEWER PLAN REVIEW FEE-- Discussion and possible action
to adopt Plan Review Fees- Temp Reso # 1627
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION Tabled
__ Councilwoman Kelch said since this is an augmentation that the
regulations which Council has now tabled, she then MOVED
to table Temp. Resolution #1627.
Councilman Disraelly SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE except Vice Mayor Massaro.
51. COMMERCIAL PLAZA - Sign WaiverTemp. Reso # 1594 -Discussion
and possible action on request to install one additional
sign for this shopping center.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION- RESOLUTION NO. R-- Q — ,2,PASSED
Approved with conditions
-15-
5/21/80
51: Commercial Plaza Continued
Councilman Disraelly requested for the record, a review
should be granted. The existing ground sign is approximately
identical in size to the present directory sign at the south
end of the proprty and they can use that same sign duplicating
it at the north end but permitting the words "Commercial Plaza"
which are at the top of that sign to remain so that it would
be both a ground and a directory sign. He said he spoke with
Mr. Klein and he has basically agreed that if Council would
permit it, he would agree that both directory signs be identical
in color, size of panels, size and style of letters and
conform to the criteria. The only difference is that the south
sign is an illuminated sign at night with neon tubes in back
of the plexiglass. The north sign would be a painted sign with
lights directed down on it from above in order to give some
illumination. C/M Disraelly further indicated to Mr. Klein
that the south directory sign should have a curb around it in
order to protect it from the vehicles that park in that area.
Mr. Klein said he verbally agrees with these conditions.
Councilman Disraelly then MOVED to recommend the waiver be
granted to Commercial Plaza for the installation of a second
directory sign which would be part of the present ground sign
locaied at that center.
Councilwoman Kelch SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Disraelly MOVED to adopt Temp.
with the condition that the present ground
have Commercial Plaza at the top and that
this sign be identical and conform with th
present directory sign at the south end of
and that it conforms with the criteria of
south sign have a curbing constructed arou
against vehicles.
Councilwoman Kelch SECONDED the motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
Resolution #1594
sign is permitted to
the lettering of
e Lettering of the
her than its illumination,
the center and that the
nd it as a precaution
Councilwoman Kelch respectfully requested that consideration be
given to the emergency ordinance which was passed on first remain q,
and that another meeting be established.
The Mayor requested all necessary data and said he would have
n quorum for a meeting.
MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK =
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ /-°, 3 0 ,
or $ 6,DO 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.
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL ON a2
16 - mac."` �r • c
5/21/80