Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-22 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722.5900 July 20, 1982 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL TAMARAC, FLORIDA There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council on Thursday, July 22, 1982, at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 N.W. 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida 33321. The purpose of this meeting is to consider and take action on the follow- ing items: 1) Ad Valorem Tax Millage - Temp. Reso-. #2371 - Discussion and possible action to establish a proposed millage rate and to designate a public hearing date to consider this proposed millage rate and the tentative budget for Fiscal Year 1982/83. 2) International Association of Firefighters - Local 2600 - Temp. Reso. #2372 - Discussion and passible action to approve a three- year contract with this bargaining unit. 3 Indepennt_de Auditor - Discussion and possible action to approve the ------ services of an auditor for Fiscal Year 1981/82 financial records (.tabled from 7/16/82). 4) GRG Fitness Centers, Inc. - Clarification of action concerning Special Exception Petition #15-Z-82, Temp. Reso. #,2248, a request for a figure salon 1n a B-2 zoning district at McNab Plaza North, 7160 N. University Drive. 5) Zoning Regulations - Temp._ Ord. #982 - Discussion and possible action to amend Chapter 28 of the Code pertaining to height, plot size, density, floor area, length of structures and setbacks of residential building or structures in all zoning districts by providing a com- posite table of setback lines and miscellaneous zoning district re- quirements. First Reading. 6. Park and Recreation Land Dedication - Temp. Ord. #990 - Discussion and possible action to amend Section 20-42 of the Code to provide for alternative methods of cash payment in lieu of land dedication. First Reading. Council may consider such other items as may come before it. The public is invited to attend. Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk Pursuant to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368: if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 22, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Walter W. Falck called the meeting to order on Thursday, July 22, 1982, at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Irving M. Disraelly Councilman Philip B. Kravitz Councilman David E. Krantz ALSO PRESENT: Laura Z. Stuurmans, City Manager Jon M. Henning, City Attorney Carol A. Evans, Assistant City Clerk Patricia Marcurio, Secretary 1. Ad Valorem Tax Millage - Tem2. Reso. #237.1 - Discussion and pos- sible action to establish a proposed millage rate and to designate a public hearing date to consider this proposed millage rate and the tentative budget for Fiscal Year 1982/83. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R_:jj - o� PASSED. Tem . Reso. #2371 establishing proposed aggregate millage rate of 4.3255 per $1,000 assessed valuation and establish future public hearing to be held 9/8/82 at 7:00 P.M. Jon Henning read the Resolution by title. The City Manager said that members of Council have received from her a recommendation that the proposed millage rate to be certified to Mr. Markham today for purposes of notice to the City's taxpayers in the month of August be established at 4.3255 to yield $3,196,490.00 in tax revenues. She said while this amount is somewhat higher than that previously discussed, from an administrative standpoint, since this number cannot be increased at the first hearing in September, this is the highest millage that they will be able to discuss. C/M Disraelly suggested discussing possible dates for having these public hearings and the City Manager said the first hearing must take place before September 13; it cannot fall on the dates of September 2 or September 9 which are the School Board and County dates respectively. C/M Disraelly MOVED that the City hold its public hearing to consider the proposed millage rate and the tentative budget on Wednesday, September 8, 1982 at or after 7:00 P.M. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE The City Manager said that Section 1 of the Resolution read into the record by the City Attorney should reflect on Line 13 a millage rate of 4.3255 per 1,000 for the Fiscal Year. C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso. #2371 directing the City Manager to advise the Broward County Property Appraiser of theproposedtentative budget,of the roll back rate and the proposed aggregate millage of 4.3255 per 1,000 Fiscal Year beginning 10/1/82 and also, advising that the proposed millage rate and budget meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 8 at 7:00 P.M., SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE - 1 7/22/82 /pm _ _ f Firefighters - Local 2600 - Temp. 2 Reso. #2372a1 Discussionandpossible action to approve a three- year contract with this bargaining unit. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R PASSED. Temp. Reso. #2372 Jon Henning read the Resolution by title. C/M Disraelly said Council has a report from the City Manager . The negotiating team worked eight meetings with the firefighters and her report is most comprehensive. Laura Stuurmans said in general some satisfactory conclusions have been drawn that are reflected in the proposed contract and she recommended Council's approval. C/M Disraelly noted some of the changes: the probationary period has been extended from 6 months to 1 year, the setting up of the wage scale and for the first time there is longevity included. C/M Disraelly MOVED Temp. Reso. #2372 accepting the agreement with IAF, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: C/M Krantz Aye V/M Massaro Nay C/M Kravitz Aye Mayor Falck Aye C/M Disraelly Aye 3. Independent Auditor - Discussion and possible action to approve the services of an auditor for Fiscal Year 1981/82 financial records (tabled from 7/16/82). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED hiring of Alexander Grant & Co. for F.Y. ending 9/30/82.. at a fee not to exceed $28,000. Mayor Falck said Council advertised for interested parties to perform the 1982 audit which stated "selection will be as provided in the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act". He said they received over one dozen proposals and Council interviewed seven of these and four Council members selected.their top candidates, three selected Alexander Grant and as far as he can determine, Council has two choices. First, they can throw out everything and start over,advertising, etc., second, they can vote and negotiate. He said he has checked this with the City Attorney and this is correct. C/M Disraelly said in order to properly put this item on the Agenda for discussion, he MOVED that Alexander Grant & Company be hired for dis- cussion also pertaining to negotiations, that they be the company with whom the City initiates negotiations for a contract for our audit for the fiscal year 1981/82. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. Jon Henning said in reading Chapter 473.317 of the Florida Statutes, he wondered whether they should indicate more than just the first preference. He said he understood that they should set a ranking of the first three and set up a.negotiation order. He said listing only one would still comply with the Statutes. V/M Massaro said they have limited this to one firm that has not done their work, in her opinion. She said she has indicated this to the representative of the firm on several occasions and it has not improved and conditions are worse. C/M Kravitz said he finds that there is a very poor internal control and he feels they should get the legal opinion from the City Attorney about getting more information from other auditing firms. He said in checking the report he found many inconsistencies and there were certain things in the report that Council was not even aware of due to the auditor's report. He said he is opposed to the present MOTION on the floor. C/M Krantz asked what was improper about meeting with seven auditing firms, interviewing them at length and arriving at individual decisions and he asked what would be accomplished by starting this over again. C/M Kravitz said he does not feel Council was aware, at that time, of what was in the report and since this new evidence has come up he felt - 2 - 7/22/82 /pm Council might want to reconsider and review all the facts involved. V/M Massaro said from the time the Utilities were acquired and the auditors were hired to take care of this separately, there has been no control. She said every day they are finding many thousands of dollars that are owed the City because there was no control. Mr. Henning said Council has made a Resolution to negotiate with their first choice and they are moving at this time to do so. C/M Disraelly said in the memos sent out in May by the various Council people, C/M Kravitz indicated that he recommended one firm and his criteria was based on the firm's reputation and experience and there was no comment about these other things. He.said, unfortunately, Council did not get a report from the Vice Mayor as to her feelings since the May meeting with the various auditors. V/M Massaro said there is an overwhelming amount of work involved in checking what is owed to the City is paid properly and this is the work of the auditors. She said there are several thousands of dollars owed to the City because of monies overlooked or delinquent because there were not proper internal controls. Mayor Falck said he does not feel that it is the job of auditors to set up the controls for the City. V/M Massaro said an auditor is supposed to sit down and determine controls with the client and when they audit the books they should find any irregularity that is there. Mayor Falck said that auditors are supposed to audit what is on the books. C/M Kravitz said he still feels he has more experience than anyone on Council and he feels that it is an auditor's job to check internal control, that is one of the main facets of any audit. He said even in Alexander Grant's report they speak about internal procedures and control but they did not go into it fully. Mayor Falck suggested Council vote on the MOTION and then Council can raise any questions with Mr. Emmer who is present. VOTE: C/M Krantz Aye C/M Kravitz Nay C/M Disraelly Aye V/M Massaro Nay Mayor Falck Aye Jon Henning read Subsection 4 "Licensee, being an Accountant, may respond to any request from a person or entity from a proposal giving qualifications and other factual infor- mation, excluding any quotation on the basis of fee". He said this addresses itself to the alternatives of competitive bid, he said this does not address itself to a, negotiation session. In other words, he said, these firms are not ranked based on the fee basis but once they are ranked it would be appropriate to give an indication of their fee schedule. Mr. Emmer said he has given the City Manager their standard engagement letter ending September 30, 1982. He said the fee they are proposing is $28,000 which is the same fee that they charged the City for,F.Y.1981. He said this is a reasonable fee which is comparable to those charged to other cities of equal size within Broward County. C/M Kravitz said a short time ago he spoke with Mr. Emmer and the question of fees came up and C/M Kravitz requested a letter stating that their fee would be up to a certain amount rather than saying that the fee would be $28,000 and Mr. Emmer agreed to this. Mr. Emmer said the letter states that the fee will not exceed $28,000. C/M Kravitz said Mr. Emmer also stated at that time if the City gave him the work papers he would reduce that fee to $25,000. Mr. Emmer said they said if the City chose to draft the financial statements, type them and print them, they would reduce the fee by $3,000. C/M Kravitz said he has a copy of the May 5, 1982 supplemental report based on September 30, 1981 audit, whereby this is in accordance with the Management Letter that they have reviewed all the recommendations and certain items were brought up and the firm submitted their work papers to him. C/M Kravitz said the errors were minor; however, the amount collected for the County was - 3 - 7/22/82 /pm reported under "Other Liabilities". C/M Kravitz said this was going on, at that time, approximately three years and no one seemed to know about it. He said as an auditor it would have been proper to have a footnote explanation, something to the effect that the City was collecting escrow money and not remitting it to that channel. Mr. Emmer said they have from time to time told staff that there are certain items that should be resolved. Mr. Emmer said an item is relatively immaterial and an auditor does not examine every account and does not examine every transaction. Mr. Emmer said it is done on a test basis and certain material judgments are made and on the basis of that they zero in on the testing. Tape C/M Kravitz said as a C.P.A. himself, he would have checked into this 2 item and not put it under "Other Liabilities". He said the Council has a right to know what is going on and if the audit were done correctly, this item would have been picked up by the auditors. C/M Kravitz said on the internal controls, Alexander Grant has never made specific recommendations to the City and in checking through the report issued on May 2, there was nothing mentioned. He said he finds exception to using a firm, whether they are paid $25,000 or $28,000, that does not serve the City's purpose and there is something lax in their audit procedure. C/M Kravitz said approximately eight or nine months ago he personally asked Mr. Emmer and his staff to change the type of report they give because he did not feel it was fulfilling what the City would like to receive and this has not been done. He said he is not as concerned with the fee as he is with the type of service that the auditors have given. C/M Krantz asked if the figure of $28,000 is all inclusive and Mr. Emmer said it is and includes all the operations of the City including the reporting that is required under the bond agreement. V/M Massaro said if it includes the auditing under the bond agreement, how is it that when there were guaranteed revenues that were not paid, the auditing firm did not pick it up?. Mr. Emmer said they have discussed this and he indicated that they were taking steps to look into that area and they have looked into it. He said he, personally, has been in the Finance Department to see what they are doing in the area of billing and record keeping. Mr. Emmer said they are not the City's Accounting Department. V/M Massaro said she is the one that brought it to the attention of the City, not the auditors and this is wrong. V/M Massaro said this situation has not been rectified but they are in the process of rectifying it and it will be a long process. Mr. Emmer said there is a great deal of legal interpretation in the Agreements also and V/M Massaro said this is all the more reason why they should have been involved in setting up a procedure so that it would be handled properly. She said they were responsible for certain work under that bond issue and under the auditing procedures now as it refers to that bond issue. She said the auditing did not reflect that the guaranteed revenues were not being collected but they were not until she brought it to the City's attention. C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Emmer if this is what he referred to in his letter of May 5 when he spoke about CIAC, and Mr. Emmer said yes. V/M Massaro said CIAC are contributions and has nothing to do with guaranteed revenues. Mr. Emmer said the records are in the process of being established and what has to be done is that many of these agreements are very complex and require a great deal of interpretation. V/M Massaro said that the City has had the utility since 1979 and this is only being established now? Mayor Falck asked if it is not true that they are trying to establish a new Developers Agreement procedure? He said the problem has been that they are trying to run an operation on the basis of handling everything on an individual basis and this cannot be done. He said a larger amount ought to be set up on the basis of a routine. C/M Disraelly said the Finance Director has agreed that this should be uniform because this cannot be put on the computer because of all the different agreements that are not standardized. - 4 - 7/22/82 /pm V/M Massaro said from the beginning it was the responsibility of the auditor to set up these uniform procedures, in the beginning there was only one contract. Mr. Emmer said they were originally hired in connection with the official statement that was issued so that the City could float their revenue bonds. He said at that time they did not look at Tamarac Utilities and had nothing to do with them. He said they were not hired to establish procedures, and, in his judgment, it is not their responsiblity to set up the City's records and procedures. Mayor Falck asked if, outside of the computer work, they have ever been hired to develop procedures for the City and Mr. Emmer said no. V/M Massaro asked if they ever suggested that the need was there and Mr. Emmer said they have on numerous occasions. C/M Kravitz said he knows Alexander Grant and Company does the auditing for several cities in the area; including Lauderhill, Plantation, Lighthouse Point, Coconut Creek and Sunrise and he asked Mr. Emmer what the other cities are paying for their audits.. He asked if any are paying less than $28,000 and Mr. Emmer said Lauderhill is paying $27,500. C/M Kravitz questioned Mr. Emmer on the audit that they do for the Port Everglades Authority and the Broward League of Cities for a minimal fee of $150 and Mr. Emmer explained that this is done as a public service for non-profit organizations. C/M Kravitz said he would like to state publicly that he feels that one of the -reasons why Alexander Grant is being maintained as an auditor might be a tie in to this and Mayor Falck and C/M Disraelly took exception to this statement. C/M Disraelly said many cities have been audited by Alexander Grant for twelve to fifteen years with no tie in involved and Mr. Emmer said the arrangement with the Broward League of Cities was done by one of his partners several years ago before Tamarac was ever one of their clients. C/M Disraelly said in their discussions, if there are other areas that Council people want work done for a clear cut arrangement for establishing criteria for the handling of certain programs, it should be called to Mr. Emmer's attention now and if those things can be handled they will be. Mr. Emmer said he would appreciate that since his understanding is that he is engaged by Council and not any one individual member and this is the way all clients are handled. Mr. Emmer said if the procedures of the area are of such a nature that they could discuss it informally with the financial staff, they could work this out; however, he pointed out, it might take a considerable amount of time and they would come back to Council and indicate that. C/M Disraelly asked if the problems mentioned by V/M Massaro and C/M Kravitz can be handled under the fee structure that has been given and Mr. Emmer said yes. C/M Krantz asked if it would be possible to correct everything to Council's satisfaction? Mr. Emmer said one of the things that has to be done is to correct the perception of what an auditor's responsibility is with the City. C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Emmer if he feels they could establish the procedure or assist the Finance Department to establish the procedure for the handling of the CIAC's and the interest and the guaranteed revenues and the interest in a reasonable time frame to the satisfaction of all. Mr. Emmer said yes, they will select more agreements in the terms of testing to see whether the agreements are being complied with; this procedure will be expanded in this area. V/M Massaro commented that the question should be what has he done not what will he do. She said she has pointed out these problems months ago and nothing has been done by Mr. Emmer. C/M Kravitz said Council is asking Alexander Grant and Company to do several more procedures than agreed to and on Page 2 of the July 22 proposal it reads it is not to exceed $28,000. He said this also says"this engagement does not include any services not specifically included in this letter such as representa- tion before government organizations, regulatory bodies, which will be billed to you separately and additional services which you may request will be subject to arrangements made at the time requested". - 5 - 7/22/82 /pm C/M Kravitz said if this fee is fair how can Council ask an auditor to include things that were not done before this at no additional fee when the agreement specifically says if there are any additional services there would be additional fees bases upon the arrangements made at that time. Mr. Emmer said there will be no additional charges. Mr. Emmer said C/M Kravitz reviewed the auditor programs at his request in January and he had no comments at that time. C/M Kravitz said he is not finding fault with Mr. Emmer's firm but rather with the fact that it does not fit the needs of the City of Tamarac. V/M Massaro said she does not understand the part of the paragraph referred to by C/M Kravitz stating "our agreement with you calls for a specific fee not to exceed $28,000", she questioned how there can be a specific fee when it is not to exceed a certain amount of money. She said the way this reads is just not a reasonable statement. C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Emmer if he would add internal control regarding CIAC, interest payments, guaranteed revenues to help establish controls. Mr. Emmer said he would. Steve Wood, Finance Director, said it would be helpful to also get some interpretation of the documents since this is the biggest problem. C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Wood if he worked with Mr. Emmer if this would help and he said he could not comment on that because that is an agreement between the developer and the Council. Jon Henning asked if in past years there has been a contract with the auditor or has this letter been treated as the list of services and Mr. Emmer said the Engagement Letter has been the agreement between the City and the firm. Mr. Henning said the Council has approximately three alternatives at this point; they can accept the negotiations, reject the negotiations and go on to a second choice which is yet to be determined or if they accept the negotiations of this -firm, Council can accept the Letter of Proposal by a Resolution or Council can pass a Resolution authorizing the City to negotiate a contract of the specific terms to be determined. C/M Disraelly MOVED that Alexander Grant and Company be hired as the auditor for services for Fiscal Year ending September 30, 1982 based on Mr. Emmer's letter of 7/22/82 establishing a fee not to exceed $28,000 including assistance in the establishment of internal controls regarding CIAC, guaranteed revenue, interest payments, etc. to be worked in con- junction with the Finance officer. C/M Krantz suggested an amendment stating this would not preclude other items which may come up besides CIAC. C/M Disraelly said this would include the entire contents of those developer agreements. C/M Krantz SECONDED the MOTION. VOTE: C/M Krantz Aye C/M Kravitz Nay C/M Disraelly Aye V/M Massaro Nay Mayor Falck Aye 4. GRG Fitness Centers, Inc. - Clarification of action conerning Special Exception Petition #15-Z-82, Temp. Reso. #2376, a request for a figure salon in a B-2 zoning district at McNab Plaza North, 7160 N. University Drive. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R- . op PASSED. Temp. Reso. #2376 with conditions. Jon Henning read the Resolution by title. Ed Weiner said Richard Rubin suggested he submit to Council a revised concept plan for GRG Fitness Centers and he has submitted two alternates to the one Council has received up to this date. He said at this time they still find it difficult to determine specifics of locations of roads and sizes only because they are not taking the time. He said Council has received,on all three of those concepts submitted, verification of the fact that there will not be a juice bar, a diet bar, a swimming pool or a massage parlor. - 6 - 7/22/82 /pm Mr. Weiner said one of the reasons he was appearing before Council was that there were not specific hours of operation, who was to be serviced by this center, etc. Mr. Weiner said there are, at this time, plans to operate this center between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., 6 days a week excluding Sunday. He said the center is being operated exclusively for women and concerning the item of transferability, it is not the intention of his client to receive a Special Exception from Council and move away. He said the location is Buildinq B in McNab Plaza North. V/M Massaro said Council would object if they took this anywhere else in the City. Jon Henning said there was a similar Resolution to this which was rescinded or reconsidered at the last meeting and this should have a new Resolution number. 'ape V/M Massaro MOVED that the Resolution granting a Special Exception to 3 permit a figure salon to GRG Fitness Centers, Inc. in a B2 zoning district, Petition #15-Z-82, Temporary number to be established later, would be subject to being for women only and not permitted to become co-ed, the Special Exception is not assignable or transferable and not movable to another location in the City. Subject to all Tamarac City Code require- ments, subject to State Law requiring a $25,000 surety bond,. and verification is required before an Occupational License may be obtained from the City. Jon Henning said there is a Chapter 501.012, Contracts for Health Studio Services,(6) ,"every health studio which sells contracts for health studio services shall, during any period prior to opening and for a period three years after commencement of business,maintain a bond issued by a surety company, etc. in the amount of $25,000 and this shall be established prior to the Occupational License being issued". Mr. Henning said the bond is in the name of the State of Florida and this is basically an insurance against their closing early. V/M Massaro said various persons that were here representing the applicant had been involved in this type of business whereby within one year they were out of business and she was concerned about those people who take memberships for several years. She said there are other methods besides a surety bond that the law does allow to show that they are financially sound. She said she was mostly concerned for the peoples' protection. C/M Disraelly asked to have the MOTION AMENDED to include the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 10 P.M. daily except Sundays, there will be no massage facilities and there will be no food service. V/M Massaro said she has no objection to including this. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 5. Zoninq Regulations - Tem Ord. #982 - Discussion and possible action to amend Chapter 28 of the Code pertaining to height, plot size, density, floor area, length of structures and setbacks of residential building or structures in all zoning districts by providing a composite table of setback lines and miscellaneous zoning district requirements. First Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Temp. Ord. #982 on first reading. Jon Henning read the Ordinance by title. C/M Disraelly said certain changes have been made based on prior discussions and based on the Planning Commission; for example, under minimum net floor area in RM10 and above,they have indicated the size of efficiency, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom, etc.,which were not in there before. He said they have also indicated on building site area non-residential square footage required. He said in this revision they have not only the one sheet table, but they have also provided larger type for people who find it difficult to read the small type. - 7 - 7/22/82 /pm C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Ord. #982 on first reading. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 6. Park and Recreation Land Dedication - Temp. Ord. #990 - Discussion and possible action to amend Section 20-42 of the Code to provide for alternative methods of cash payment in lieu of land dedication. First Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED Temp. Ord. #990 on first reading as amended. Jon Henning read the Ordinance by title and said on Page 2, Line 17 and 18 include, the proposed /amendment at the Broward County bank regarding the Lettex of Credit and ., he assumed at the next meeting they will have a Resolution. He said the rate is left open and the rate will be set by Resolution or then can leave the rate open to be set by Resolution on a case -by -case or contract -by -contract method. C/M Disraelly.suggested that a Resolution will be needed but; hopefully, not on a case -by -case basis because it would be difficult to put on a computer with a variable for each. Jon Henning said he would write the Resolution that Council desires and C/M Disraelly recommended that a Resolution be prepared with the interest put in at the time that the Resolution is considered. V/M Massaro said she does not like the wording "a minimum of 50% of the total payment shall be paid in cash at time of site plan approval, whichever is first". She asked if this is subject to alternative method since it says it shall be' paid? Jon Henning said 100% is presently due, they are now suggesting they enter into an agreement with the developer. He said the first condition of the agreement would be at one of these two times, whichever is sooner, 50% cash will be paid. V/M Massaro questioned what appeared above this, "the conditions of the alternative method of payment which shall include but not be limited to the following conditions...". Jon Henning said they shall include the following conditions and there could be additional conditions; in other words, these are three conditions which Council appeared to want on all contracts. Additional conditional can be included if Council desires. Mr. Henning said on Line 12 it should. read "not be limited to the following minimum required conditions:". C/M Disraelly said they discussed at the last meeting a possibility that it should be $50,000 instead of $75,000; if they go back to the zoning regulations that were discussed on Tem Ord. #982, the average payment for this would be $500 per unit and if someone is building 100 units, that would be $50,000. He said they would have to come up with a minimum of $25,000 and it might be a better means for the developers at this time. V/M Massaro said she does not want this to apply to those units that are under court order and only pay $95 per unit. C/M Disraelly suggested using the language "in the areas of the City other than Land Sections 4, 5 and 6" and he MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Ord. #990 as amended on first reading. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE A The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 A.M. PiSAYOR SISTANT CITY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ /t?.j or $ % 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. 7/22/82 /Pm APPROVED J3Y CITY COUNCIL ON