Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-02 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesCITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JULY 2, 1984 Tape 1 Mayor Kravitz: Please all find seats. This is a special meeting of the City Council Monday, July 2nd, 1984, 1:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 5811 Northwest 88th Avenue, Tamarac. The purpose of this meeting is in reference to Utility Grants; continuing discussion and possible action regarding City Manager, City Engineer and Consulting Engineer. The Council may consider and act upon such other business as may come before it. When the last meeting that was held was over I was interviewed by the paper and asked for comments. In quoting the newspaper I stated I'm not satisfied at all. It was a lot of double talk. We didn't get true answers as to whose fault it was. Upon stating that, our Vice Mayor wrote an Inter -office Memorandum to me on June 22nd, and when he read that in the morning paper in the Sun Sentinel, he felt that based on that he recommended that I call a Special Meeting for this afternoon for that purpose. And so we are all gathered here today at the request and for the Council to meet and go further on this particular item. The public will be given every privilege to speak. No one from the public will be ignored. The Council will be given the privilege of speaking and if Council will wish they can make any motion they wish. If no action is taken then nothing will be taken at that time. We have with us our City Attorney for any interpretations if legal questions should come up; and of course, we have our City Manager here to explain anything if it needs explanation. Usually I call upon Council first. I think I'm going to reverse that procedure since at the last meeting we had the Council speak first and then we got input from the public. And since this is more or less a continuation, I'm going to suggest to Council that we hear from the public first this time and then get back to Council. If that's agreeable with the Council, I'll proceed in that fashion. Is there any objection from Council? Hearing none, I'll proceed then with the public. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to ask questions, make statements, or anything at all, I'll recognize them at this time. Mr. Newman? Harold H. Newman: Harold H. Newman, President of the Concerned Citizens of Tamarac, Inc. The Board of Directors of the Concerned Citizens of Tamarac, Inc., at a meeting on Tuesday evening, June 26th, 1984, passed the following resolu- tion: Whereas the City of Tamarac was deprived of a grant for the waste- water disposal system due to the negligence of the City Manager, the City Engineer and the firm of Consulting Engineers, the Board of Directors of the Concerned Citizens, Inc., recommend that the services of all of the above be terminated. Thank you. C/M Stelzer: Can we get copies of that, Harold? Would you submit copies to us? Mr. Newman• Surely. Mayor Kravitz: Anyone else from public that wishes to be heard? Any questions? Anyone want to speak at this time before we open it up.... C/M Munitz: Mr. Mayor, if I may. I believe Carl Warshaw is here, isn't he? I saw him. Member of Audience: Yes, he's here. C/M Munitz: He had asked for an.... Mayor Kravitz: I don't see him.... -- I- 7/2/84 /cmt L7 E-� C/M Munitz: ...an opportunity to speak. Mayor Kravitz: I'd be glad to give an opportunity if he wants to. C/M Munitz: Carl, didn't you want to.... Carl Warshaw: Not at this time. C/M Munitz: Not at this time? Oh, O.K. I just thought that.... or Kravitz: I'd be glad to recognize anyone who wishes to speak. But if you don't ask to be heard naturally I can't recognize you. Anyone from public? I'm going to open it up then, to the Council. V/M_Stein: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Kravitz: Vice Mayor? V/M Stein: As you noted, I requested the continuation and a special meeting. Going back to our original meeting, when the meeting opened I proposed to the Council that there were three courses of action which we should follow and not just have a debating society. One was to keep the present staff and continue on; to reprimand the staff for their action; or to fire the staff. But that some action should be taken at that meeting. When that meeting was terminated without any action, I was quite disturbed. I didn't think that the purpose of holding these meetings was just to hear ourselves talk. And that's why I requested this meeting to take place so that this Council finally faces its obligation, one way or the other. We were elected and we have the faith of voters in Tamarac in our hands and for us to just sit by and let this end up in a debate with no conclusion, I think is ill advised. Therefore, I reserve some time after the rest of the Council speaks to express my feelings in this manner. Mayor Kravitz: Alright, the Chair will recognize that request and call on you after Council speaks. Anyone else from Council that wants to be heard at this time? C/M Munitz: A few questions Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mayor Kravitz: Yes, Councilman. C/M Munitz: At the last meeting, there were one, two, three, four, five recommended courses of action proposed by Tony Nolan. Uh, I'd like to take each one and see what, if anything, has been done. So far as the Item Number One, it was the retaining an independent consultant, and if I remember correctly we had authorized our City Manager to do the legwork bringing down the three consultants that we were to try to contact. Has anything been done on that, Laura? City Manager Yes, Councilman Munitz. On Friday of last week there was a meeting in the Stuurmans:T West Conference Room of a screening committee that I had convened, made up of Bud Calhoun from City of Hollywood, Mr. Milan Nor from City of Miramar, and Doctor George Fitzpatrick, who is a member of the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board. They have reduced that list to a group of three. I will be meeting with those three engineering firms this week. You have a memo that's coming to you today that sets forth the basis of the screening committee's selection and their recommended action. I'm also, if I am correct in the interpretation of Council's memo, going to have a recommendation for the firm that would do the relook. Because the retook was viewed separately from the solids project and the rate consultant work. And there were actually two directions given to my office at the Special Meeting of .tune 21st. C/M Munitz: This Fitzpatrick that you mentioned, isn't he the one that had some input on some of the slide presentations? -2- 7/2/84 /cmt City__Manager_ Stuurmans: That's right. He's very, he's very active as an ecologist and environ- mentalist in solids de -watering, and compost. C/M Munitz: I just wanted to get the name. As far as Item Number Two is concerned, it was to write the State Florida Department of Environmental Regulations advising of,,.the intent to seek a temporary operating permit and that (cough) and have the time scheduled for the submittal upon the time needed for independent consult to complete number one above. What has been done on that? Citv Manager Stuurmans: Contact has been made with DER and they are aware that we are going through a process of relook, and that they will be receiving a formal letter for the renewal, or for the continuation of our operating permit in the interim. C/M Munitz: Does that also.... Mayor Kravitz: Can the people in the back hear everything? Audience: No. Mayor Kravitz: I don't think you can hear. May I suggest we talk into the microphone. C/M Munitz: If I sound weak, I apologize. Audience: No it's not you. Mayor Kravitz: No I think it's our City Manager. City Manager Stuurmans: Is this better? Audience: No. City Manager Stuurmans: .Ion, would you check I don't know which number this is. C/M Munitz: Lift it up, Laura. Citv Manager Stuurmans: Seven? V/M Stein: You're on. Mayor_ Kravitz: If at anytime the public can't hear just raise your hands and I'll know so we can get the speaker to speak into the microphone. C/M Stelzer: Test it, Laura. City Manager Stuurmans: Testing. Is that better? Audience: Yeh. Mayor Kravitz: Alright. O.K. Councilman Munitz? C/M Munitz: Uh, you were giving the answer to Item Number two I believe, Laura. City Manager Stuurmans: I think I had concluded with that. We are in process of following through that uh, that need for action. C/M Munitz: Alright. Would that then cover Item Number Three as well as a... -3- 7/2/84 /cmt a M IN City Manager Stuurmans: No, Item... C/M Munitz: ....a further corollary? Citv Manager Stuurmans: Item Number Three, which is a request for variance from the RQCB on the lining of the effluent uh ponds for the spray irrigation project had been initiated some time ago. We are presently awaiting a decision by EQCB at a subsequent meeting. C/M Munitz: And Item Number four about utility rate study? City Manager Stuurmans: That would be in line with my answer to Item Number one. C/M Munitz: One. Right. And fifth, the DER to anticipated FY86 funding levels and possible priority ranking changes. City Manager Stuurmans: We had already done that before the June 21st meeting and they were not in a position to answer that question as of yet. Funding levels won't be known until February of 85. C/M Munitz: Thank you. At this time of course we have heard the presentation by Tony Nolan. I'm rather disappointed he's not here again today indicating that what he said is, and that he has nothing more that he would care to add. I had asked Mitch Ceasar to appear here for several questions that I had to ask. Evidently he too is not here. And of course our complete cast of characters is not complete unless somehow or other we go into the input of two former members of Council. Would that we were able to dig up some information from them because basically since, other than Councilman,J ack Stelzer and our now Mayor, they were on that Council, we have had their input. And if I had my druthers, believe me, plenty of questions come into my mind that I would like to add that I believe would only be answer- able by these other two individuals. One of which basically, as far as I'm concerned relationship between the firm Williams, Hatfield & Stoner and the old former Council, let me just not say old because none of us are too young, that the former Council is suspect. Do I have anything to go by for an out and out legal accusation? No. Unfortunately. Would that I did. This is a question that would have to be answered. They were the only engineer who did any work whatsoever with the exception that was brought to my attention of oh a few small jobs. And insofar as the biggie is concerned, there was never any bidding. No other consultant firm was ever asked to give any input. As a result of which the plan that they came up with, there was $180,000 fee given, I believe $180-$183, I hear a lot of numbers. Not that that's to $110 is what they finally, I think actually he said he was paid under $90,000.... V/M Stein: 183.. C/M Munitz: ...Something like that. Yeh, that was the maximum. So that here we have the basic question that is not answered and possibly, maybe I can throw that in your lap, Mr. City Attorney. Does that in itself indicate any quote, and I'm making this in the form of a question, possible wrong -doing on the part of the former members of Council, by not having any bid for this kind of work, by going strictly with a consultant and in spite of what we may have heard, the bond issue does not stipulate that the engin- eering consultants must be Williams, Hatfield, and Stoner. It says that a consultant engineer must be maintained but it does not specifically indicate Williams, Hatfield and Stoner. This is a fact that has been verified. So we're back to a question, Mr. City Attorney, was there any possible wrong- doing because there was no bidding put out by the former Council for this particular work? -4- 7/2/84 /cmt 7­7 City Attorney Henning: I think we need to uh frame our questions and then frankly I am not in a position, at this moment to give you an answer yes or no to that question. I think we need to establish what the facts are and then if you want me to uh research and report to you as to what uh the public bidding law is under like circumstances then I will get back to you. There are a lot of facts that we are assuming which I think at some point in time, whether it be at this meeting today, at a future meeting, or in a written report from some official of Tamarac, whether it be staff or elected, we need to start on a plateau, on a certain basis of facts. Uh, I don't know if there has been a public report to Council or at least to the public of the meeting as to what the status is with the Grants, the fact that we at a certain uh level on the uh list, which obviously is lower than the level we would like to be. Uh, we are on a list as I understand it, we're just not as high as we hoped to be. Uh, and of course, there's a fundable line and I believe we're below the fundable line. But, uh, in regards to your question, uh should there be public bidding for a capital project uh, involving the utility company, uh, I, you know I need to uh add a little bit more to the statement and then I could research it. Now, whether or not there are uh one project which was the implementation of the plant expansion and whether or not there are two or three projects, we have separately identified the de - watering, uh and the uh sludge removal or the composting project versus the spray irrigation project versus some other project, if there's a third aspect to it I don't recall. Uh, whether these should be looked at separately uh I'll be happy to work with you, whoever you delegate to work with me to try to put the question together. Because I don't know that we have asked the complete question yet and I can't give you an answer until we get the right, not the right question, but the complete question. C/M Munitz: As a follow-up would that not then be the responsibility of the Charter Board uh which at the request of this City Council, should we so desire to follow up whatever investigation they may decide to pursue? Mr. -Henning: Well, as you know, I am the Counsel for the Charter Board and they have _ raised this question to me also. Uh, on one hand, I don't, I cannot speak for the Charter Board, I don't know if they are anxious or prepared or whatever to step right in today with the Council recommendation to move forward and prepare some type of investigation.... C/M Munitz: Well, Mr. City Attorney, excuse me. I'm not the least bit concerned whether the Charter Board is prepared or not. They have a responsibility under the Charter to fulfill and if we so desire.... Mr. Henning: Well, let me.... C/M Munitz: ...if we wish them to conduct this quote investigation unquote, no matter which way it might go, they are under the Charter, if I understand it correctly, obligated to do so. And what their feelings on the matter might be are of no consequence. Mr. Henning: Well, the, what I'm leading up to is I don't know if Council's received a report from the City Manager's Office as to what has happened and what is going on, you know, what steps are being taken in the future. From what was said today, uh I think we have to establish a factual basis. There has to be a uh a page written or a report given as to what has happened up till today. We know that the Mayor and the Vice Mayor went to Tallahassee, we know that the City Manager and the City Engineer on other meetings or and consultants went to Tallahassee to meet, we know that a Grant list came out, we've heard accusations, very vague accusa- tions, as to why uh why we were not higher on the list. I think that there should be a report from the uh City Manager as to what happened. And before we uh before you can determine what we should do in the future, you need to know what has happened. Now, here's two aspects as to what action to take in the future. You've got your engineering aspect. -5- 7/2/84 /cmt F 7 Mr. Henning: What do you do to get this plan going? And you all are talking about at least from the uh, uh statement that was given by the President of the Concerned Citizens and the uh resolution that was passed by their Board of Directors was that uh you had accusations regarding Staff or personnel. And, uh, I think that you need to know, uh, first if there was any finding of any wrong -doing and if there was any, what action should be taken. You have to first know.... C/M Munitz: Mr. City Attorney, you were not, you were not at this meeting. There were presentations made by Tony Nolan giving his part of the situation. There were presentations made by Larry Keating giving his input. There were presentations made by Laura. Uh, I feel that we here on the Council and uh I feel safe in speaking for everyone, know pretty well what happened. And the only question is where does the fault really lie? Is it a contributory factor, where everybody had their part? But we do have sufficient back-up information to enable us, I believe, to come to some conclusion today, which is basically the reason for this meeting. So, what you're saying we need, we already have. There's nothing, unless there's anything new to be added and I intend to pursue in another minute, uh we do have sufficient input to enable us to come to a conclusion. Mr. Henning: The Council has asked the City Manager to move forward from the engineering standpoint:)and she reported to you about C/M Munitz: Right, Mr. Henning: ...uh review of the plans. C/M Munitz: Correct. Mr. Henning: That's one .... C/M Munitz: That was the list of things that Tony Nolan gave when uh that says what, what do we do now and it was recommended course of action, taking us from where we find ourselves now, for whatever reason we are there. Mr. Henning: Has the City Manager, since I was not at that other meeting, been asked to make a determination as to whether there was anything uh whether anyone was at fault and if proper action should be taken, if there was such a finding? Mayor Kravitz: Uh, may I just interject. We don't want to make a debate.... C/M Dunne: That's right. Mayor__Kravitz: ...between the City Attorney and the Councilman. If you are asked a question, City Attorney, we appreciate an answer, not a debate. And so I'm going to ask, I see Vice Mayor.... V/M Stein: I want to answer the City Attorney. I uh I'm amazed by your using the word the. Tony Nolan stated here, if you've read the minutes, and our City Manager stated unequivocally that she had spoken that morning, the morning of the meeting, to Tallahassee; and unequivocally she stated that had the correct uh papers been filed, the correct documentation, what happened would not have happened. That was the statement which is in the record. Now I don't know what more direct statement you could expect somebody to state. I don't say that we have to believe that but you asked me has the statement been made, absolutely and unequivocally, both by Tony Nolan and by our City Manager. Mr. Henning: Have the proper papers been submitted? V/M Stein: Correct. Mr. Henning: Then, or months or years down.... -6- 7/2/84 /cmt �. J V/M Stein: No, no, no. Not in past, then, when we filed. Uh, Jon, I resent what's doing, and as a matter of fact, I asked the Mayor to bring this thing up. I resent this whole thing. Let me let the public know what's going on here. It's part of what's, why I asked for this meeting. You mentioned about the Charter Board, and once again, you did not answer Councilman Munitz, because I asked the same question. You were asked to allow the Charter Board to hire outside counsel because they felt there was a conflict of interest; as I see would be here because one of the charges made was that you, as the City Attorney at that time, in answer to a question that I asked you, said that we had to use Williams, Hatfield, and Stoner, because the previous purchase of the utilities west. Well, if your part of the statement and someone was going to investigate why that statement was made, I can't see how you cannot be in conflict of interest. Then you said yes you would agree to that, if we would allow the City Manager to pick the attorney. Now that's like allowing the prisoners to pick the warden. How nonsensical, if there's nothing wrong here, why are you people so afraid to allow the Charter Board to hire an attorney to see if there's something, one way or the other. Give a clean bill of health or tell us what happened. I am worried more about what's happened in the past week than I am in the whole time, because there's a continuous cover-up here. Everytime I say the Charter Board would like to have an attorney, and you go and read me the Charter. I don't have to be read the Charter. I know what's in the Charter. But I would think that in the sense of fair play that both you and the City Manager would not have anything to do with picking the attorney for the Charter Board, and allow them to pick. Yes, it does say in the Charter within budgetary expenditures, naturally they cannot hire an attorney for $100,000 without the City Manager approving it. But outside of the budgetary amount, I surely think that they should have the right to pick an outside attorney to do this investigation. Mayor Kravitz: Councilman Dunne? C/M Dunne: I think a lot of this is because of this item right here. The City of Tamarac proposed Spray Irrigation operation proven to be safe and success- ful. I think when this was shown to the public, both here and at the various clubhouses, they're looking at the item in the bottom here that says Consumer's Cost. The State of Florida offers Grants funds at 55% of the project cost for disposal and treatment of waste -water. The Federal Government offers Grant funding.... V/M Stein: Speak in the mike, John. C/M Dunne: I'm sorry. The Federal Government offers Grant funding at 55% and also provides bonus points in special treatment categories. The Federal Government also allows a 10% bonus point if an initial application is accompanied by the approval of the bond referendum. Initial application must be received by March the 15th. I think that's what all the rush was for. Over here I have another correspondence, I believe it was from Laura. It says it is unfortunate through administrative mix-up, that the City did not keep to the plan of notification of overflows. That seemingly is why we missed the Grant money. Now, what I would like to know is how the public took this, whether they took it as a 55% Grant for sure; I know that's what people I talk to seem to think. Member of Audience: At least. C/M Dunne: I'd like to hear from the public to know just exactly how they felt about this when they seen it and heard it; and how they did when they read this. Thank you. C/M Munitz: Mr. Mayor, before, I didn't finish my questions, if I may. -7- 7/2/84 /cmt 7- _7 L 7. .-1 L . --j Mavor Kravitz: C/M Munitz: Mayor Kravitz: C/M Munitz: Ma or Kravitz: If you would, Councilman Munitz, just yield at this time to Councilman Stelzer.... If you wish. ...Then we'll come back to you. Very good. Is that alright? C/M Stelzer_: Yeh, I have prepared a statement that I'd like to read. But first, I uh I must say I resent Councilman Munitz's statement that the actions of the prior Council were suspect with respect to Williams, Hatfield and Stoner. We've been using them for twelve years and you get into a, sort of a situation where you've been using the same fellow, he knows all about your City and just automatically you go into it.... C/M Munitz: You just answered my question. C/M Stelzer: I can't see anything that's suspect about our actions. We had no kind of a deal with Tony, or with Williams, Hatfield & Stoner. I resent the implica- tion that there was anything wrong. I'd like to read a statement I uh I've prepared here. Losing the Grant for our waste -water treatment is a let- down for all of us. The Charter Board is embarrassed because they can't pay for the passage of the referendum of the funds. Their prior chairman, now on our Council, is outraged. Tamarac Presidents' Council is also embarrassed for recommending the bond issue and their prior president is now on the Council, and he too is outraged. The Concerned Citizens who's well represented in the City Council and the Presidents Council, is also embarrassed. And many of their Board members have been very vocal, vocal about their feelings. When I was invited to discuss the waste -water treatment and Grant by the Board of Directors of the Concerned Citizens, some of the members kept asking me if I would guarantee the receipt of the Grant. I said I could not guarantee receiving the Grant, and if they wanted a guarantee, I suggested they appear before the Council and ask them for a guarantee. If there was the slightest suspicion by Council that Tamarac would not receive a Grant, it was not evident. No one even considered that we would not get a Grant. If ,the Council had ever had any doubts, I'm sure that with the connections the Council has, a guarantee could have been assured. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and say we should have done this or that. It's always simple to correct an error after you see how it could have been avoided. The fact remains we did not get the Grant. So what do we do now? Who is to blame? And I think everyone is to blame. We've already started to prepare for next year. We intend to get outside opinions and estimates for alternate methods of waste -water treatment. We have already by our prior discussion,, indicate, indicated that our confidence in Williams, Hatfield and Stoner has been shaken; even though I'm certain there wasn't the slightest doubt in their minds but that we'd get the Grant. Everyone felt fully confident we would get the Grant. So why don't we go on from now? Do you want your pound of flesh? We have people working with us now who have had years of experience in solving our day-to-day problems. What good would be done to start chopping heads? We have no guarantee that any replacements would do a better job in our usual course of business nor would we have any assurance that a replacement could guarantee a Grant next year. I'm not in favor of any changes in our Staff. We have already started with new outside consultants and I think there should be no further changes. Mayor Kravitz: Thank you. Councilman Munitz? 7/2/84 /cmt Member of Audience: C/M Munitz: V/M Stein: C/M Stelzer: (Applause). Who was that --,.:who was that lonesome voice in the woods? He brought his own clap -man. See. One person likes it. Mayor Kravitz: Alright. Councilman Munitz, you have the floor. C/M Munitz: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Continuing -- Larry, would you be good enough? I just have one question I'd like to ask you. Would you come forward please? City Engineer Keating: Certainly. C/M Munitz: And it will probably be the most pointed question you'll ever have asked in your young life or in your many years ahead. We have been bandying around a certain letter that was supposed to have been written which was not written and there's a difference of opinion between you and Tony Nolan as to what was the actual effect of the fact that this letter did not go -- there's no dispute that it wasn't written, that we know -- no one is arguing that point. You feel that, if I'm quoting you incorrectly, correct me, that while the letter was not written, that in itself was not the end-all of the why not. As far as Tony Nolan is concerned, he says exactly the opposite. That the cause of the fact that that letter was not written, this is it period. Now I know we can get ten accountants and have fourteen opinions; we can get twenty lawyers and get thirty opinions; and I know we can also get two professional engineers and get more than a diversification of opinions. Please tell us, to the best of your professional knowledge, what was the actual effect in the overall fiasco, and a fiasco it was, because of the fact that the letter -- and we all know what letter we're referring to -- was not written? I can't be any more pointed than that. Mr. Keating: Yes. The actual effect as I've indicated before I think can only be speculated upon. It's been indicated in prior meetings by myself and I believe by Tony Nolan, that although the failure of report was easy to vocalize and easy to understand by people who are not really familiar with the Grants process, that that in itself is not the total -- most likely is not the total reason why the Grant priority was not as high as we would have liked it to be. I can't say what the effects were, I really can't. When we had discussions in Tallahassee and in Palm Beach, there were other items mentioned beyond the fact of the reporting of the overflow.... C/M Munitz: Yeh, but Tony says that the shock of finding out that this letter was not written was, to him, a tremendous effect in the actual Grant; that he didn't include in this presentation and this leads to Carl Warshaw's presentation before the Charter Board and I'm sorry Carl, that you didn't want to repeat it here. I think it was a fabulous piece of work. We're at the point where there's even a question as to the manner in which the Grant application was made. That there was some questions as to the professional status, or the professional ability that went behind the Grant application. So where -- we're in a situation that's so easy to point a finger, believe me; that's the easiest thing in the world to do. But it's got to be a meaningful figure --- finger, or else it doesn't make any sense.... Mr. Keating: Well, I.... C/M Munitz: So, do you still contend that while not the only reason and that you do are other -- nothing else other than to our application? the letter was not written, that was not agree with Tony Nolan that there that letter would have done damage 7/2/84 /cmt 7-_�JL __ Mr. Keating: I'm not convinced. No. For several reasons, beyond even those that have been discussed here. Personally I think that if you read the rule, and I think an attorney should read the rule because the wording of it leaves a lot of decisions open to subjective opinions; and had there been a desire on behalf of DER or whoever, to do whatever they wanted to do they, perhaps, could have justified it based on the wording of the priority rule. Tamarac is unique in Broward County. It does not fall in the same category as Sunrise, as Plantation, or any other City; and, therefore, in applying the rule they could have a lot of latitude to either grant or deny us the high priority that we were looking for. C/M Munitz: Laura, a couple for you if you please. _City Manager Stuurmans: Um, humor. C/M Munitz: Insofar as the presentation that you made in promoting the public to vote for the bond, what was the input of the other members of Council, the former Council, in the preparation of that slide commentary or what have you? Ms. Stuurmans: The slide show and the bond brochure which Councilman Dunne has displayed in the course of today's meeting were products of the Staff, formulated from printed material from the architectural firm as it related to the facilities, and the engineering firm as it related to the bond projects. They were prepared in a draft format which was presented to Council for a final nod before the printed material was run. The City Council had the benefit of a preview screening of the bond presentation and slide show at the same time civic leaders of the community did, which I seem to recall, was the date of February the 22nd, it was the Tuesday after the Presidents' Day Holiday, at which time they were supposed to input any comments or criticisms they had to the substance. The preparation of that slide show, again, came from printed literature and was done with the help of volunteer services within the community. C/M Munitz: follow-up with the question to Larry Keating where you have expressed an opinion so far as the letter. When was the first time that you learned of the fact that a letter that was not written should have been written? Ms. Stuurmans: That followed a trip that was made to Tallahassee close to the Memorial Day Holiday in May. It was the Thursday before Memorial Day. C/M Munitz: And finally, as far as Mitch Ceasar is concerned. I understand that he was told, in no uncertain terms, not to participate in any manner, shape or form with regard to this Grant application. Is that correct? Ms. Stuurmans: I'm unaware of any such conversation. C/M Stelzer: Who said that, Ray? C/M Munitz: This is what was said -- that he was told to keep his hands off, more or less. Mayor_Kravitz: Stay with the question. C/M Munitz: O.K. For the moment, I'll.... Mayor Kravitz: Are you finished? C/M Munitz: For the moment. I'll have more to say later. Mayor Kravitz: Council, anyone else from Council? -10- 7/2/84 /cmt L A 71 V/M Stein: Do you want to speak? Are you going to speak? Mayor Kravitz: Well, I.... V/M Stein: I prefer to defer to all of you, so if you want to speak, I'll wait. Mayor Kravitz: Alright. I just want to add this. We have, when I say we Council, dated September 12, 1983, and revised on September 14th, '83, an overview of 201 activities; and on page 10 which was submitted by Tony Nolan and his firm, this places the City in an enviable position from several viewpoints. And number two in that viewpoint, although EPA funding levels have fallen from 75% to 55%, and even this is essentially allocated to treatment works, spray irrigation methods of effluent disposal are funded at higher levels. Every indication, every time I attended a clubhouse meeting, it was my understanding there was no problem in obtaining at least that 55%. And so when it went out to the voters on referendum on this, I supported it, I asked our voters to support it; and, of course, it passed. And I believe the voters expected, and had a right to expect, that we would receive the Grant of 55%. Naturally, I as just an individual, not in the capacity of a Councilman at that time or Mayor at this time, was very disappointed. And every time I hear the same thing. One shifts to the other. We didn't get it. We did not get that Grant. And so, we took it upon our- selves and the Vice Mayor and myself took the time out to go up to Tallahassee. Let's find out what's going on. And we were told at that time up there, by Mitch Ceasar, that he was told to keep hands off. I still don't understand why, if we have a Grantsman, why he didn't do his job and why he was told to keep hands off, if that was the case. We were told that our City Engineer did not file the proper papers. Why he never filed it, I never got a straight answer. And then it came to the City Manager and the City Manager said she wasn't privied to that information. Well who was privied? And who gave out those orders? I am concerned and I'm not happy with the answers I'm getting. And that's why originally I called for a Council meeting and this is a follow-up. And until we get that, I want to know what's being done, not to correct it for the future, but to put the blame where the blame should lie. At this time, I would like to call upon our Vice Mayor who asked for the floor, and then any- body else. V/M Stein: Mr. Mayor. I waited because I wanted to hear from my colleagues here as to their feeling. I think Jack Stelzer's right. I'm not angry, I'm enraged. I've been had. Not only have I been had but the entire City has been had. Let's go back a little. Williams, Hatfield, and Stoner; let's take them first. They were the engineers when we purchased the waterworks. You heard that to and behold, after we purchased the water- works they found out we had a pipe which connected the pond in Colony West to the canal, illegally. Pretty interesting, isn't it? Before we purchased it, we hired the engineers to tell us whether we should purchase it. A blind man, and I'm not an engineer, would know -- we're not talking a little half -inch pipe, we're talking about a culvert pipe which goes underneath the ground and in order to support that you have to have some sort of support. I asked Tony Nolan; he said they never even went out to look at the pond. As a matter of fact, to my knowledge, they didn't go this time either, after the dam was put up. So I'm really suspect about the entire purchase of the water company and how much they wanted the people to know then. I'm also suspect that no member of this Council, including my colleague Mr. Stelzer, is not amazed that in an item that took two years to culminate, involving $12,000,000.00, there isn't a single memorandum in the Councilman's files. No memorandums, inter- office, City Manager, City Engineer, City Attorney -- nothing. I've hunted through all the old files. The Charter Board asked me did I take over the previous Vice Mayor's files; I said no I did not. There in, I didn't even know that, but Councilman Munitz volunteered they're in his office. Everybody has searched; we can't find any. -11- 7/2/84 /cmt V/M Stein: In other words, is it logical that for two and a -half years this went on and nobody sent a memorandum as to what was going on? How did they arrive at spray irrigation? Not this September 12th for the first time, you can't make me believe that. Also, I also was informed that our City Engineer was aghast when it was recommended that we hire Williams, Hatfield and Stoner, at a fee of $183,000.00; he was never Tape 2 consulted by his own personnel; never asked anything. He's the City Engineer. By the way, he did write memorandums as to the comparative value of deep well and spray irrigation, which were never presented to the public; never at all. Not only that, he had dollar valuations in those things. At the very least, since we have a City Engineer shouldn't we have not asked our expert what do you think of Williams, Hatfield, and Stoner? Is it worth $183,000.00? Nothing. Not a single piece of paper showing any such thing. I could go on and on, and as it is said, it time culminated in the fact that the most absurd proposition was made that our City Attorney would disqualify himself if our City Manager would be the person to pick the attorney. I think that's the thing that broke my back. At this time, if it's in order, Mr. Mayor, since the public has spoken, I'd like to MOVE that we terminate all relationships with Williams, Hatfield and Stoner except those that are required on a continuing basis; and when they end, that we terminate those too. C/M Munitz: I'll SECOND that motion. Mayor Kravitz: Is that the complete motion? V/M Stein: Yeh, that's the motion for the.... C/M Munitz: Referring only to Williams, Hatfield and Stoner? V/M Stein: Williams, Hatfield and Stoner, right. Mayor_ K_r_avitz: Williams, Hatfield and Stoner. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion by Council? C/M Munitz: Yes, I would like to have some discussion on this to explain why I was so quick to second this motion. I'd like to go back with you to December 1974, and our Vice Mayor opened the door and I thank him for it. I feel that there was one other occasion that the people were quote taken unquote. And that was in the manner in which the utilities was purchased -- not the fact that it was purchased; it had to be purchased --- but the way it was purchased was, I believe, an insult to the people's intelligence. Now, how can I say that in the face of an eight -to -one vote in favor of the purchase? You say, Oh that guy's crazy, what's he talking about? The people voted eight to one; how could the people be wrong? Very simple. They were sold a sell -- a bill of goods. They were told the only way they're going to get their refund back is if we buy it. The castrated refund, the $4,000,000.00 -- I say castrated because the then City Council voluntarily gave up a million and a -half dollars in interest on the refund which was due to the people -- gave it up voluntarily, at the request of Howard Osterman when he appeared before the Council and he says, please join with us in our plea to the Public Service Commission that you would be willing to forfeit the interest on the refund that was given by the PSC, confirmed by the Florida Supreme Court, money to which the people was entitled. And what did you get, people? You got $313.00 that's costing $742.00. And this is the basis on which this purchase was shoved down the throat of the people. And I defy anybody to prove other- wise. Lomelo was used as the shill. He came in with a figure of $18,000,000.00 and he was ready to buy it if -- and oh boy, the ogre of Lomelo was worth at least 50 of the votes in favor, at least if not more -- maybe 90%, I don't know. So we have a situation that goes back to December '74, which is when the old TUI filed its application for an increase which was fought by the Presidents' Council at a cost to the Presidents' Council backers, constituents, over $20,000.00, it cost us at that time, if my memory serves me right. And we fought and we won, and we won, and we won; and we ended up losing because of the manner in which we purchased the utility. -12- 7/2/84 /cmt C/M Munitz: Back in January 1976, I was the Chairman of the Feasibility Study Committee investigating the purchase of the utility -- the feasibility of the purchase. And the Council then declared a moratorium - no, no, no, it was a no -no that was not politically expedient. In other words, Lomelo was not on the scene yet; it was not politically expedient. Then we go to August '79, when we had former members of Council running around from clubhouse to clubhouse, telling you terrible stories of what will happen to you if you don't buy it. And what happened? The people voted eight to one. So how can I say it was wrong in the face of an eight -to -one vote? I still say the people were sold a bill of goods. And then we continue from there to a question, and I repeated it to Tony Nolan, and I'm going to repeat it here because I think it's a very, very important question. At a meeting and Ray Munitz was a lone- some world; no one else dared to speak out against it; I was standing all alone there to the best of whatever strength I had with our position to the purchase as it was planned. A contract which elicited a 42-page criticism on the part of Oscar Tucker who then was asked to come down; and all of a sudden, it became the greatest contract in the world. I don't know. So we have a situation where we're going along because of the purchase, and I asked Tony Nolan this question -- what do you envision will happen to our rates if and when, down the road -- you remember this was 1979 and the target dates on the EPA 201 kept being pushed back and back and back -- I said what do you envision if down the road a piece, the 201 study was implemented by the Federal EPA, insofar as a rate increase; and his answer was -- and he said it right here when the Mayor called the meeting -- none. The presentation that was made by our City Manager said a dollar eighty a month. Anybody want to bet on 7, 8, or 9 dollars a month? So this is the situation that we're faced with. There were errors of omission and errors of commission. I think the point is very, very clear insofar as the finger pointing to Tony Nolan -- and when I say Tony Nolan, I of course mean his firm, Williams, Hatfield, and Stoner. And I thank you, Councilman Stelzer, for answering my question when I asked that -- when I stated that the relationship between the former Council and Williams, Hatfield and Stoner is suspect; and in your comments, you answered me beautifully. Whether you realized it or not, you agreed with me. So I seconded the motion that our Vice Mayor made with regard to Williams, Hatfield and Stoner; and I think that must be step number one in resolving the fiasco that occurred. Mayor Kravitz: Thank you, Councilman. Anybody else from Council? C/M Stelzer: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Kravitz: Yes? C/M Stelzer: I would like to say we've already taken a step forward in the direction of this motion by getting outside consultants to stop working on the waste -water treatment, either deep well or the spray irrigation. And, from the feeling that I had with the Council, Williams, Hatfield and Stoner is going to get less and less work. So we've already, as I mentioned in my presentation, our confidence has been shaken in Williams, Hatfield and Stoner; and I doubt very much whether they're going to get any new business. And I -- then when I have to vote, I will go along with the motion. But we've already taken the first step.... C/M Munitz: Mr. Mayor, there's one point -- one point where he says they will be getting less and less. This motion says very clearly they get nothing. Mayor Kravitz: You're right. C/M Stelzer: No, no. They have a lot of commitments right now with ongoing jobs. I said they're going to get less and less, which means that as they finish this.... -13- 7/2/84 /cmt r Mayor Kravitz: Alright. We do have a motion and we do have a second. Councilman Dunne, did you want to be heard? C/M Dunne: Yeh, I haven't heard nothing from the public on this item yet. Mayor Kravitz: No, we had that, John. I'm going to ask to call the question. Assistant City Clerk Evans: Councilman Dunne? C/M Dunne: Aye. Ms. Evans: Councilman Munitz? C/M Munitz: Aye. Ms. Evans: Councilman Stelzer? C/M Stelzer: Aye. Ms. Evans: Vice Mayor Stein? V/M Stein: Aye. Ms. Evans: Mayor Kravitz? Mayor Kravitz: Aye. V/M Stein: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Kravitz: Vice Mayor? V/M Stein: I said at the outset of this meeting that this Council has a job to do and if they don't do it, they are betraying the trust of the City. With that in mind, I'm going to make a motion which is probably not going to be the most popular motion I will make in my life; and I have soul searched for the past week. And I come to this conclusion and I will stand by this conclusion therefore I want to make this motion. I hereby MOVE that we terminate the employment of the City Manager and the City Engineer effec- tive August one, due to an existence of a real and non -productive difference in management philosophy which currently exists between the incumbent City Manager and City Engineer and what I believe to be a majority of this City Council. I do not believe that it is in the best interests of this City, that the present situation continue in the future. C/M Munitz: Mr. Mayor, a legal question if I may? The motion made.... Mayor Kravitz: Councilman Munitz, I would prefer that we either have a motion on the floor, or.... C/M Munitz: But I'm questioning the legality of the motion, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Kravitz: We will take that up after we have a motion. C/M Stelzer: He made the motion. Mayor Kravitz: We have a motion. Do we have a Second? C/M Dunne: I'll SECOND it. Mayor Kravitz: We have a Second. C/M Dunne: I'd like to get this thing off a dead center.... -14- 7/2/84 /cmt V/ Mayor Kravitz: Now I would prefer that Councilman Munitz ask his question. C/M Munitz: This motion covers more than one item, Mr. City Attorney; and if my memory on parliamentary procedure is correct a motion may cover only one item. And I would prefer that the motion be split and we refer to only one.... V/M Stein: Without further discussion, for -- to expedite the thing, I will split the motion, O.K.? I will first MOVE that we terminate -- the same motion that I made, Carol, except that it only apply at this time to the City Manager. C/M Dunne: O.K., I'll SECOND it. Let's get this thing off the road. C/M Munitz: I would prefer, if it meets with your approval, Mr. Vice Mayor, that we deal with the City Engineer first. V/M Stein: I'm sorry I don't accept that. It doesn't make any difference. We're playing here and I don't want to play. If you want to play, that's O.K. It doesn't make any difference. C/M Munitz: I don't want to play; but I kinda feel there's a method to my madness. Mayor Kravitz: We do have a motion for both and the maker of the motion agrees to take up just the City Manager? V/M Stein: Right. Mayor Kravitz: Does the Seconder agree? C/M Dunne: Yes. Sure. Go ahead. Mayor Kravitz: The Seconder agrees. Then the motion will be just in reference to the City Manager at this time. Any discussion? Citv Attorne Henning: Yes. I would just like to advise the Council that before you take any action -- personnel action against a Department Head or the City Manager, that either one of them be confronted with a written statement of the accusations and reasons.... V/M Stein: A point of order, Mr. Mayor. I did not make any accusations. Would you like to read that back to me, Carol? Ms. Evans: I don't have it all. V/M Stein: I'll read it back. Mr. City Attorney, I resent your reading into the thing something which doesn't exist because legally, you're going to put this City on a spot; and T refuse to let you do it. I will read my statement again. I MOVE that we terminate the appointment of the City Manager, effectively August one, due to the existence of a real, non- productive difference in management philosophy -- did you hear that? --- management philosophy -- I'm not making any charges against her; I'm just saying there's a difference in management philosophy, O.K.? -- which currently exists between the incumbent City Manager and what I believe to be a majority of the City Council. I do not believe that it is in the best interests of the City if this present situation continues in the future. Now you may object to that and I will accept your objection, as you have a right to. And I say that this motion is proper, I have a memo that it is proper; and I'm making it from the memo. Mr. Henning_:_ I don't understand what you're saying. V/M Stein: I wrote the motion; I have judicial review that it's proper. O.K.? Mr. Henning: Mr. Mayor? -15- 7/2/84 /cmt V/M Stein: You can have your opinion; I have mine. I made a motion and you can do what you want. Mayor Kravitz: Alright. We have a motion.... Mr. Henning: Mr, Mayor? I.... Mayor Kravitz: City Attorney, you have the floor. Mr. Henning: Thank you. All I'm suggesting to the Council, since I am trying to defend the Council's and the City in any action that may be taken on this agenda. The item that you took earlier was a consulting action -- consultant City Engineer -- it was a completely different action -- when you have a consultant on a job basis and you wish to terminate that contractual relationship, that prerogative you have under certain circumstances and you've exercised it. I'm just suggesting that before any action is taken regarding your full-time City employees, that further due process is afforded to them than has been afforded to them thus far. I will work with you to reach your ends and to defend you in the actions that you desire to take, once the entire Council has stated what actions they wish to take. But, I'm just suggesting because as Mr. Stein has already said it's only my opinion; and my opinion is that you not take any personnel actions against full-time City employees today. I'm not saying you shouldn't have some direction; I'm not saying that I shouldn't be directed to do something; or the Mayor; or the City Manager; or anybody. But I'm saying that on this agenda, with this notice, with this motion, today, it's my opinion that you not take any negative personnel action against your full-time employees. I will defend you to the best of my ability. C/M Munitz: Mr. Mayor? If I understand you correctly, Mr. City Attorney; what you're asking is for direction from the Council to enable you to make certain that all of the legal knots are tied up real tight before the action becomes final. Is that what you're saying? Mr. Henning: If the Council votes today, that they want me to move forward or research or respond to you as to the method or propriety of termination of full- time City personnel, I will respond to your inquiry as the method and propriety and legality of termination of full-time City personnel. I haven't got all those answers at this moment. But, on this agenda, the way it is worded today, the way -- and I'm not resting completely on the agenda -- but in light of the agenda, in light of the comments, in light of the specificity or lack of specificity of accusations or discussions or comments or commendations and lauding that may have occurred, I -- my advice --- my opinion is that you should not take negative personnel action today with full-time City employees. V/M Stein: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Kravitz: I'm going to call again on our Vice Mayor who wishes to speak. V/M Stein: Mr. Mayor. I made a motion. It's been seconded. It does not call for immediate termination. It calls for termination as of August one. Our City Attorney has all the powers to suggest to us in which manner this termination should take place -- he has a month for us to go through this thing. I honestly state in due deference, that he is not an impartial person at this moment in making this comment and, therefore, I do not wish it to interfere with the operation of this Council. He also stated that all the Council; to my knowledge, I don't think it requires unanimous consent to terminate anybody.... Mr. Henning: I wasn't implying unanimous; I was considering the majority. -16- 7/2/84 /cmt V/M Stein: Oh, Q.K. If this motion fails, then it fails. If it passes, then our City Attorney has the obligation to protect us in further steps as to what --- which way this should be terminated. I couched especially that we do not terminate today, immediately, but August one. If certain steps have to be taken; so be it, take them. I think our City Attorney should understand that the position now, once we have already done what we have done, it would not be to the best interests of this City to continue on, because I cannot expect any cooperation once somebody knows that we intend to terminate. So I think it would be ridiculous for the good of this City, not to make a firm, decisive step. If the Council feels I am wrong; so be it, I will accept their judgment to go along. But I think it should be decided that those people who were put here by the voters of the City, and they should make the determination. Thank you. C/M Munitz: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Kravitz: Alright, Councilman Munitz. C/M Munitz: May I ask the maker of the motion, would you be willing to amend your motion to incorporate some of the comments of the City Attorney? Which ultimately ends up with the same .... Various Members of Audience: No. V/M Stein: I have just said, Mr. Councilman Munitz that I will accept -- well I think I have to accept, and every member -- and of -- the legal steps that our City Attorney determines is necessary to carry out the termina- tion. I am a bit amazed; our City Attorney has been here quite some time. I would think that the process of terminating any department head should be on his fingertips. If I ask him how do we terminate, he'd be able to tell me. Now he says he has to research it.... .................. Mr. Henning: Generally, the City Manager makes the recommendation to Council. Mayor Kravitz: No cross discussion please. V/M Stein: That's O.K. Alright. Mayor Kravitz: Vice Mayor, you have the floor. V/M Stein: Obvious that in this case that it could not happen. The City Manager cannot make the recommendation so I think the City Council is within their province to do it without her recommendation. I'd like to call the question, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Kravitz: Any other discussion before we call the question? C/M Munitz: I've got to add one more thing. In the second paragraph of this call for the meeting; and I think that this is something that the City Attorney is referring to. The purpose of this meeting is in reference to Utility Grants; continuing discussion and possible action regarding City Manager, City Engineer, and Consulting Engineer. Would the insertion of the words possible action regarding the future employment of the City Manager, City Engineer, and Consulting Engineer; would that be more specific than what you said? Various Members of Audience: No. C/M Munitz: I'm asking for an opinion from the City Attorney. Mayor Kravitz: Let the City Attorney answer the Councilman. Mr. Henning: Frankly, at this point I don't think it makes any difference. -17- 7/2/84 /cmt Mayor Kravitz: Is that you answer - makes no difference? Mr. Henning: It makes no difference. Mayor Kravitz: Alright. We accept that. I'm going to -- before I call the question ^ which was asked by Council, I saw several hands in the audience and since this is a new motion, anyone who wishes to be heard, I'll recog- nize. Moni? Moni Avidon: Moni Avidon, Chairman of the Charter Board. I can't speak for the Charter Board because we haven't had a meeting and I haven't polled the Charter Board on this particular motion made by the Vice Mayor. However, I do want to assure the Council that the Charter Board is willing and able to fulfill its Charter duties in all of the matters taken up here today. Mr. Munitz brought out the fact that he thought the Charter Board should bhcome involved. The Charter Board has had a preliminary hearing on 201.... Mayor Kravitz: Moni, on the motion please. Moni Avidon: On the motion. I feel that on the motion that I can only speak for myself. I haven't polled the Charter Board. I believe that we should delay and not make the motion to suspend or do away with the City Manager. Mayor Kravitz: Thank you, Moni. C/M Dunne: We don't want to do away with her.... Mani Avidon: Alright, forgive me, I change.... Mayor Kravitz: We know --- I think we all know what he means. Yes sir, Mr. Warshaw. Carl Warshaw: Gentlemen. Mayor Kravitz: Would you identify yourself? Carl Warshaw: Carl Warshaw, a resident of Section 14 of City of Tamarac. Member of Audience: Bring the mike down. Carl Warshaw: I have just been given a copy of the City Charter. Article 5 relating to the City Manager. Section -- bear with me for a moment while I get my glasses -- Section 502b Suspension or Removal. The Council may suspend or remove the Manager by a majority vote of all Council members. Upon demand by the Manager, a public hearing shall be held prior to suspension or removal. It's my opinion that the motion is in order and that there is sufficient time for the City Manager to request any hearing should she so desire. Thank you. Mayor Kravitz: Thank you. Anyone else from public? Call the question please. Ms. Evans: Councilman Dunne? C/M Dunne: Aye. Ms. Evans: Councilman Munitz? C/M Munitz: Aye. Ms. Evans: Councilman Stelzer? Wz9 7/2/84 /cmt E C/M Stelzer: Mr. Mayor, before I vote I'd like to say this. I've been told by an unimpeachable reliable source that several resumes have already been submitted. I don't know to whom but I'm told that these resumes have been guaranteed accepted by at least three affirmative Council votes. And I vote Nay on this motion. C/M Dunne: He's up to something. V/M Stein: Mr. Stelzer, Mr. Stelzer, I resent what you just did. C/M Stelzer: Well, how do you know I'm talking about you? V/M Stein: But you said three affirmative votes. ?• What people? V/M Stein: I would like you --- that's what I'm going to come to. I do not like your constant inuendoes; if you know the three people, state their names. If you have an unimpeachable source -- you cannot detract from any member of this Council by doing things like that. It's detestable. C/M Stelzer: Mr. Stein.... V/M Stein: The newspapers are here and you.... C/M Stelzer: Mr. Stein. Who's passing rumors that I'm making up a new organization to fight the Concerned Citizens.... Mayor Kravitz: Let's stay with the motion. C/M Stelzer: I'll give you no names. Let's see what happens later. V/M Stein: It's a lie. I say it's a lie. You're lying. Mayor Kravitz: Mr. -- City Clerk, will you continue with the roll call please? Ms. Evans: Vice Mayor Stein? V/M Stein: Aye. Ms. Evans: Mayor Kravitz? Mayor Kravitz: Aye. V/M Stein: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to then add the last part which Councilman Munitz asked me to split. I hereby MOVE we terminate the employment of our City Engineer effective August one, due to the existence of a real and non -productive difference in management philosophy which currently exists between the incumbent City Engineer and what I believe to be the majority of this Council. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the City for this situation to continue. C/M Dunne: I'll SECOND that. Mayor Kravitz: We have a motion and a second. C/M Stelzer: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Kravitz: Yes. C/M Stelzer: I don't believe under the Charter that the Council has the right to file any -- fire any department head, am I wrong? Mayor -Kravitz: City Attorney, can you answer that question? Mr. Henning: Yes. C/M Stelzer: I think the only one we can fire is the City Council and the Chief Building Official. -19- 7/2/84 /cmt C/M Munitz: City Council? You're right the first time. C/M Dunne: Yeh. Let's fire them all. C/M Stelzer: We can fire the City Manager r.nd we can fire the Chief Building Official. But I think thatfs all. Mayor Kravitz: We have a legal question here, and I'm sure the City Attorney went out to check it.... C/M Munitz: Syd, would you be aware of who actually employed Larry Keating? Was it the City Manager or the Council who employed him? C/M Stelzer: The Charter.... C/M Munitz: No, no. I'm asking the question. V/M Stein: To my -- to my knowledge, Ray, the procedure here whether it's in the Charter or not, has always been that the City Manager recommends to the Council and Council approves it. C/M Munitz: With the approval of the Council? V/M Stein: Right. C/M Stelzer: But who hires him? V/M Stein: I think if the Council approves, that means that the Council actually hires; now I don't know that that's in the Charter. I'm telling you the procedure; we had the same thing when we hired a new Public Works and a new Building Official. We had the recommendation of the City Manager for the approval of the Council. Mr. -Henning: I think probably the best thing is just to read to you from the Charter. I'm reading -- it's Article 5, Section 5.04b and c. The Powers and Duties of the City Manager; and d) Direction of Supervision of Departments, Agencies -- Offices and Agencies. He shall direct the supervising administration of all departments -- let me go on to c) Suspension and Removal of Department Heads and Administrators. He shall suspend or remove any employee or appointed administrative officer except as other- wise provided by law or rules adoated___pursuant to this Charter, when he deems it necessary for the good of the City. He may authorize any administrative officer who is subject to his direction and supervision to exercise such powers vested in that office. Insofar as the Council is concerned, no reference to this particular action in Chapter 4 as far as the Council's concerned; however the reference that you're referring to is all found in Chapter 5, which would be the chapter regarding the City Manager, part of which I just read to you. It says in 5.01 the City__ Manager shall be the chief administrative officer and shall be responsible to the Council for the administration of all City affairs placed in his charge or under this Charter. The City Council shall appoint a fully qualified City Manager for an indefinite term by a majority vote of all the Council Members. 5.02b Suspension or Removal. The Council may suspend or remove the Manager by a majority vote of all the Council Members --- by a majority vote of all the Council Members. Upon demand by the Manager, a public hearing may be held prior to the suspension or removal. At this point, I'm not -- it appears that the -- you know -- you can direct the Manager to take certain actions, that it is to be initiated by the City Manager as relates to Department Heads. V/M Stein: Mr. City Attorney. Would you like the motion -- I don't mean personality wise; I'm talking a legal wise.... Mr. Henning: I'm always -- I'm talking legal wise. -20- 7/2/84 /cmt L.. V/M Stein: Well, would you like this to direct the City Manager to terminate employment as of August one, of our City Engineer? Would you prefer that? Mr. Henning: Well, let me first of all, just echo for this minutes, to incorporate all the statements I said earlier regarding taking final action for full-time personnel at today's meeting. I recommend against that action. If you wish to direct the City Manager to terminate, or prepare the proper papers for termination of the City Engineer's position -- fire the present City Engineer; then I would be professionally more comfortable with that direction. You could also direct her to report back to you why he should not be fired. V/M Stein: I'm sorry. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that at all. Mr. Henning: The audience may find that comical; but legally, as you know, there's a big difference. V/M Stein: Alright. Also, I also might say you keep on using the word Fired. I don't know if you intentionally do it. I don't care if she accepts his resigna- tion. I don't -- I said terminate; now he may desire to resign. I didn't say fire; You're saying fire. I asked that his services be terminated and I will amend my motion to read that the City Manager be so directed. Mayor Kravitz: Alright, do we have a Second on that motion? C/M Dunne: I'll SECOND. Let's get this thing off the dead center. Mayor Kravitz: We have a Second to accept the way that it's been amended. We have a motion and a second; at this time I'll open it up to the public. Did I see hands back there? C/M Dunne: No, he's just scratching his head. Mayor Kravitz: I thought I saw somebody waving. Carl Warshaw: Mr. Mayor. Gentlemen. I'm Carl Warshaw. Under Section 4.01, Article 4 of the Charter, the City Council shall -- wait, just a moment please -- yes; the City Council hereinafter referred to as the Council shall have vested therein all the legislative powers of the City and all other powers and duties specifically vested in a municipal governing body by law. -- Now, under this the City Council would have the right to direct, employ, and to terminate its employees. There isn't where there -- there isn't a specific relation to a termination in any other part of the Charter. This should be the prevailing part and this takes precedence over every- thing else. Mayor Kravitz: I believe the motion is directing the City Manager to do this. Carl Warshaw: Thank you. Mayor Kravitz: Anybody else from public? Yes, Mr. Hart? Bernie Hart: Bernie Hart, Section 16. I just want to ask one question that seems to be a confusion in my mind as I've heard two viewpoints. At the last meeting of Council, I heard that the City Manager did not receive any information from the City Engineer that we were in violation and -- and had to report weekly. Listening to Carl Warshaw's report the other night, I found that he stated in there after interviewing, that Larry Keating had received a letter on April 22, 1983, from the, I believe, the Department of Environ- mental Regulation stating that we were in violation and why; and I believe he had stated to Carl Warshaw that on the 23rd, which was the following day, he sent a memo with copies of that letter to both Tony Nolan and the City Manager. I'd like to find out if that was correct or not? -21- 7/2/84 /cmt C/M Munitz: That's not on the motion. Mr. Hart: It's not on the motion, but it's regarding the Engineer. Mayor Kravitz: Well it's not on the motion; however, we'll ask the City Engineer if he can answer that question at this time. Mr. Keating: I don't know what letter he's talking about. Mayor Kravitz: Alright, he can't answer you at this time, Mr. Hart. Anybody else? I'll open it back to Council. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Call the question. Ms. Evans: Councilman Dunne? C/M Dunne: Aye. Ms. Evans: Councilman Munitz? C/M Munitz: Aye. Ms. Evans: Councilman Stelzer? C/M Stelzer: Nay. Ms. Evans: Vice Mayor Stein? V/M Stein: Aye. Ms. Evans: Mayor Kravitz? Mayor Kravitz: Aye. That, I believe, terminates the purpose of this meeting as what it was called for and the meeting is hereby adjourned. C/M Munitz: Before you adjourn the meeting, Mr. City Attorney, what is the procedure from this point on? Mr. Henning: As to which employee? C/M Munitz: Well, take them all; or one at a time. Mr. Henning: Well, do you want me to comment on Tony Nolan or should we just.... C/M Munitz: Well, Tony Nolan I think is simplest of all. Mr. Henning: I think that the City Manager should meet with the City Engineer and see if they can negotiate a termination by August one; and when I say by August one, I mean it to be effective by August one. If that cannot be accomplished, then she should advise the Mayor for many reasons; number one because he's the Mayor and number two because I believe he's liaison to her office. I'm available to meet with any of you to follow up on this if a settlement or negotiation cannot be consummated. As to the City Manager, you have terminated her services as of August 1; she has a right under the Charter, to request a hearing. If she does so, then I would suggest any request be made in writing for future records. As liaison to my office, I'll meet with the Mayor and anybody else he designates to prepare for a hearing, if it's requested. Also, -- well I think that'll be enough for now. Bruce Hoffman: Question. Point of Order. My name is Bruce Hoffman, resident of Section 23. The City Attorney mentioned that the City Manager should negotiate a termination with the City Engineer. Supposing she negotiates with him on a year's severance pay, what happens then? Mayor Kravitz: Subject to approval of the Council. -22- 7/2/84 /cmt V/M Stein: Mr. City Attorney, may I suggest that since the same cannot go for the City Manager because she can't negotiate for herself; that since the Mayor is liaison, that the same procedure be designated to our Mayor. Mr. Henning: I see no -- nothing illegal with that. V/M Stein: O.K.? Mayor Kravitz: Alright. Meeting is hereby adjourned. Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 2:55 F.M. ATTEST: ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This document was promulgated at a cost of $/5Y,® or $ 4 39 per copy to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the Council of the City of Tamarac. -23- CITY OF TAMARAC APPFPVED AT MEEttNG O / City Clerk 7/2/84 /cmt L A