HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-29 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTIONS/DISCUSSIONS
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
A Special Meeting of the City Council will be held on
Wednesday, November 29, 1989 at 10:00 a.m. in Conference Room
#2 (City Clerk's Office), City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue,
Tamarac, Florida.
The purpose of this meeting is discussion and possible action
concerning the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) contract.
FINAL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. R-89-299 PASSED.
APPROVED amending Resolution R-89--288 by removing
Section 4, which read, "The approval and ratification of
this attached agreement is contingent upon ratification
by the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) no later
than 5:00 P.M. November 30, 1989. If ratification by
the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) is not received
by 5:00 P.M. November 30, 1989, Paragraphs 11.6 and 11.7
of Article 11 (Wages) are null and void.".
All meetings are open to the public.
Carol A. Evans
City Clerk
CAE/nr
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
;.;wring, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such
'rose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
4 t..; testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be basad
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1989
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on
Wednesday, November 29, 1989 at 10:00 A.M. in Conference Room #2 (City
Clerk's Office.
PRESENT:
Mayor Norman Abramowitz
Vice Mayor Dr. H. Larry Bender
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
Councilman Jack Stelzer
Councilman Henry Rohr
ALSO PRESENT:
John P. Kelly, City Manager
Richard Doody, City Attorney
Steven Oxenhandler, Director
of Development Services
Mike Couzzo, Director of Public
Works
Pauline Walaszek, Special Services
Secretary
The purpose of this meeting was discussion and possible action
concerning the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) contract.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. R-89-299 - PASSED
APPROVED am ne drug Resolution R-89-288
by removing Section 4.
Mayor Abramowitz said there has been communication
problems regarding this matter. He said Steven
Oxenhandler stated during the Budget process that the
City's most important product went home every night. He
asked City Manager Kelly to address the Federation of
Public Employees (FPE) contract.
City Manager Kelly said at the end of the negotiating
session between the City and the FPE, the ratification
sent to the employees was a package which included an
offer of insurance to be provided by Cigna and Humana as
well as raise increases. He said prior to the
ratification, the City was advised that Cigna was
withdrawing and, when the Union met to ratify, they were
aware that Cigna withdrew but continued to ratify the
original contract including Cigna.
City Manager Kelly said the Union's letter to the City
indicated that they ratified the original contract. He
said when the Union was advised that Cigna was not
available, all of the employees enrolled with Humana. He
said the City has been served a suit by the Union
indicating that the City did not offer the two choices.
He said when the Resolution was presented to the City
Council for action, it provided that the FPE employees
would receive a 4.7% pay increase retro-active to October
1, 1989 and Humana Health Insurance. He said the
Resolution also provided that if the Union did not ratify
the agreement by November 30, 1989, without Cigna, the
raise provision would be null and void.
Page l
11/29/89-pw
City Manager Kelly said the Union has not acted on this
provision and Management's concern was that the rank and
file would be penalized. He said staff would like to
readdress the matter and provide the 4.7% wage increase.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if City Manager Kelly was
recommending that the City Council take action to provide
the rank and file with an increase and City Manager Kelly
said his recommendation was to provide an increase to
everyone in the FPE Union.
C/M Hoffman asked if City Manager Kelly was recommending
that the City Council bypass the Union. He said the FPE
Union submitted a letter to the City indicating that they
would accept the package in its entirety or not at all.
He said the City Manager was suggesting that the City
Council ignore the Union and deal directly with the
employees.
City Manager Kelly said he suggested that there be a
readdress provided by the City Council to allow the
employees to receive their 4.7% increases.
C/M Hoffman asked if the employees should be receiving
the increase even though a contract was not ratified. He
asked if the FPE Union ratified the contract and City
Manager Kelly said this was his position.
C/M Hoffman asked City Manager Kelly if he was asking
that the City Council grant the FPE employees a 4.7% wage
increase despite the fact that the contract was not
ratified.
City Manager Kelly said staff was asking the City Council
to readdress the matter to allow the 4.7% wage increase.
C/M Rohr said he understood that all of the employees in
the City signed up for health insurance with Humana. He
said this seemed to be a form of ratification because the
employees agreed with the insurance available. He said
there was no disagreement between the City and employees
affected by the contract. He said if this was true, he
did not see why the employees should be penalized. He
said the Union would have to allow the employees to
continue with their selection.
Mayor Abramowitz said he did not agree with C/M Hoffman's
interpretation of the City Manager's recommendation. He
said no one would bypass the Union and go to the rank and
file. He said this matter was misunderstood during Union
negotiations and both sides made strong statements.
Mayor Abramowitz asked why the City should deny the rank
and file for something that they had nothing to do with.
He said he was advised by the Labor Counsel that he did
not see a Judge ruling against the City on this matter;
however, this issue did not apply to the employees. He
said if the case was the City offering one thing but the
employees wanting another, it would be a different story.
Mayor Abramowitz said he felt confident that the matter
would be resolved and he understood the anxiety in
getting the problem resolved in a clean and legal manner;
however, he would not vote to take away what the rank and
file was offered and entitled to because of a
misunderstanding.
Page 2
1
1
1
11/29/89-pw
C/M Hoffman asked if the rank and file had the power to
request the Union to call for a ratification vote and C/M
Rohr replied, yes. C/M Hoffman said the City would not
be penalizing the employees.
C/M Hoffman said the bargaining agency for the FPE
employees was the FPE and to make a settlement around the
Union seemed to be Union busting. He said he did not
want to be involved in Union busting. He said the
employees could contact their Union regarding ratifying
or rejecting the contract. He said the last written word
submitted to the City by the Union was rejection. He
said if the Union was willing to change the rejection to
acceptance, he would vote to provide the increase. He
said the City should not sign an open end agreement
allowing the Union to delay the ratification and receive
a 4.7% increase retroactive to October 1, 1989.
C/M Hoffman said the City provided the Union a fair offer
and they had the right to act on the offer. He said he
was willing to provide an extension to the Union in
making their decision. He suggested that the Union be
given a two week extension to call a meeting and ratify
the agreement so that the wage increases could be
provided retroactive to October 1, 1989. He said he
could not vote on an open end agreement where the City
provided all of the benefits and allow the Union to take
their time to ratify the contract.
C/M Rohr said he agreed with C/M Hoffman by extending the
ratification time. He said there was a misunderstanding;
however, the employees accepted the insurance and the
City should give the Union time to receive a ratification
vote. He suggested that an extension be given to the
Union to ratify the contract.
Mayor Abramowitz asked what the City would do if the
Union did not ratify the contract at the end of the two
week extension.
C/M Rohr said this was not the City Council's concern;
however, he felt that the Union would ratify the
contract. He said he did not want to answer this
question because he could not answer something that may
not happen.
C/M Hoffman said if the Union did not ratify the contract
at the end of the extension, the City's offer should be
null and void and negotiations should continue.
C/M Hoffman said a Resolution regarding health insurance
was approved and the City would not take the coverage
away from the employees. He said a two week extension
was enough time for the Union to call a ratification
meeting or for the rank and file to force the Union to
ratify. He said if this was not done within two weeks,
the City's offer should be null and void and negotiations
should begin again.
C/M Stelzer asked if the Bargaining Unit ratified the
contract or reported to the rank and file for an action
on ratification.
C/M Rohr said the negotiating unit was offered a contract
and, when an agreement was arrived at, the unit reported
to the rank and file for acceptance for ratification.
Page 3
11/29/89-pw
C/M Stelzer said if the rank and file signed up for
Humana insurance, they actually ratified a contract and
C/M Rohr said legally, the contract was not ratified
until there was a ratification vote.
City Attorney Doody said there could not be a contract
until there was a meeting of the minds. He said the City
Council was trying to figure out the intent of the Union;
however, the only persons that could inform the City of
the Union's intent was the Union. He said until the
intent was submitted by the Union, the City Council could
not have a meeting of the minds.
City Attorney Doody said it was obvious that a contract
was ratified with two insurance carriers and the City had
to understand the intent of this ratification before
anyone could determine if there was a contract between
the City and the Union.
City Manager Kelly asked if the intent was stated when
the Union filed a lawsuit against the City for not
offering the two insurance carriers.
City Attorney Doody said this was an indication but not
the intent. He suggested that the City Council not draw
intent from the lawsuit. He said the City Council seemed
to be anticipating someone else's intent when they should
be finding their own intent.
C/M Rohr said he did not know how the Union could expect
the City to provide something that was being refused to
the City. He said the Union ratified a contract with
Cigna and Humana and this was what they wanted. He said
the City could not provide this and the Union should
accept this. He said the employees saw the reality and
signed up with Humana. He said the Union may be in a
serious situation with the employees if a contract was
not ratified and the employees lost their benefits. He
said the City was willing to give the employees
everything but Cigna and he did not feel that the Union
would turn the matter around providing the City gave the
Union a chance to ratify the contract with the rank and
file. He said if the City gave the Union two weeks to
ratify, a contract would be provided.
V/M Bender said negotiations took place with the
bargaining units and a contract was ratified as per a
letter dated October 31, 1989. He said due to mitigating
circumstances, one of the insurance carriers withdrew at
the last minute which made the ratification letter
incomplete. He said the Union may want the opportunity
to correct a sentence in the contract which stated that
the employees would have the right to choose between the
two health carriers.
V/M Bender said because the employees chose the Humana
insurance, this was an indication that this was their
intent in the first place. He said the letter accepted
the 4.7% increase, etc., and the City Council should
provide the increase retroactive to October 1, 1989.
C/M Hoffman said the City Council did not have this
authority because a ratified contract was not available.
Mayor Abramowitz asked what would happen if the City
Council provided what was offered. He said he did not
want to penalize the employees because of a
Page 4
11/29/89-pw
F--
I
misunderstanding between the two parties. He said he
understood that the negotiating team felt that they did
not want to deny the rank and file what was offered.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City Council could approve
a Resolution allowing the increase with ratification from
the Union.
City Attorney Doody said it would be the Union's decision
to inform the City of their intent. He said the Union
could state that they originally agreed with the City;
therefore, there was a contract or decide that another
vote was needed regarding the language in the contract
concerning the two insurance carriers. He said this was
the Union's call and not the City's.
C/M Hoffman asked if the Union should make their
determination before the City upheld their contract.
City Attorney Doody said he did not know the Union's
original intent when they approved the contract
containing two insurance carriers knowing that there
would only be one insurance carrier available. He said
to have a contract, both sides have to agree, regardless
of what order the contract was approved. He said if the
City Council submitted a ratified contract to the Union,
they could accept it or amend it and resubmit it back to
the City Council.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City was vulnerable in any
way and City Attorney Doody said the City was no more
vulnerable than it already was. He said the City
recently had an Unfair Labor Practice filed against it.
C/M Hoffman asked if the City Council should approve the
contract and provide a specified period of time to the
Union to approve the contract or provide an open ended
agreement that would allow the Union to continue without
ratification.
City Attorney Doody said this was a policy decision and
he could not answer it. He said the City Council should
decide what they wanted to do and give direction to the
City Attorney's Office.
C/M Rohr said when the Union ratified the contract, they
knew that Cigna was no longer a carrier and City Attorney
Doody said this was trying to decide the intent of the
Union.
City Manager Kelly said the Union was aware of this when
they ratified the contract and Mayor Abramowitz said
until the two letters from Cigna were received, the City
was being accused of forcing Cigna out.
C/M Rohr asked if the Union knew that there was no second
company when they voted to ratify the contract and City
Manager Kelly said the Union was aware of Cigna
withdrawing; however, they did not believe it.
Mayor Abramowitz said the Union did not believe that
Cigna withdrew because they were told that the City
forced Cigna out.
C/M Hoffman said the Union acted on an untruth;
therefore, they should correct the problem.
Page 5
11/29/89-pw
C/M Rohr said the City had a contract which should be
ratified by changing the November 30, 1989, deadline to
an additional two weeks.
C/M Hoffman said the employees were advised that the
tentative agreement was a complete package and would be
accepted in total or not at all. He said the Union did
not ratify a contract that the City could provide. He
said the Union ratified a contract that could not be
provided.
Mayor Abramowitz asked C/M Hoffman what he recommended
and C/M Hoffman said the Union should ratify what the
City could provide.
C/M Rohr said he was saying the same thing except he
wanted the Union to ratify the contract within 2 weeks.
C/M Hoffman said he agreed with this.
C/M Stelzer asked how long the City had before the
lawsuit went to trial and City Attorney Doody said there
was no deadline and the process could continue for a few
months. He said the Union filed the action and the City
was responding to it.
C/M Stelzer said it seemed that the Union and employees
did not have a meeting of the mind. He said the City was
offering a wage increase and health insurance and the
City Council should approve legislation indicating that
because the Union and the rank and file could not agree,
an extension for ratification would be granted, which
would be to December 15, 1989. He said if the Union did
not ratify the contract by that date, the City would be
accepting the employees ratification.
C/M Hoffman said the employees did not ratify the
contract and C/M Stelzer said the employees ratified the
contract by accepting the health insurance.
Mayor Abramowitz said there seemed to be two different
opinions being discussed. He said one opinion was to
delete the compliance clause in the Resolution and
provide an additional two weeks for the Union to ratify
the contract.
C/M Stelzer asked what would occur if the Union did not
comply within two weeks and Mayor Abramowitz said C/M
Hoffman suggested that the contract become null and void
if this was to occur. C/M Stelzer said he did not agree
with this.
Mayor Abramowitz said the other opinion was to accept
that there was a contract ratification and, because there
was a misunderstanding, the employees should receive the
wage increases with a request that the Union, employees
and City meet and clear the problems.
Mayor Abramowitz said Alan Ruf, Consulting Attorney, said
this was being done with the Union Attorney.
C/M Rohr asked if the City would agree to a new contract
providing for the elimination of Cigna, which was, in
effect, another offer to the Union. He said as per the
Resolution, the contract would be null and void at 5:00
P.M.
Page 6
1
1
1
11/29/89-pw
City Attorney Doody said the Union sent the City a
purposely vague and ambiguous statement. He said this
was why the City Council was having a hard time making a
decision. He said the City Council needed to decide what
they wanted to do.
C/M Rohr suggested the City make a final offer to the
Union by providing the same contract with the deletion of
Cigna. He said the Union would be forced to go to the
rank and file for a ratification vote. He said if the
City provided a final offer, the Union would have to go
for ratification.
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Attorney was correct in
stating that the Union deliberately sent an ambiguous and
vague statement to the City. He asked if the City
Council could rescind the existing Resolution and adopt
another Resolution with the elimination of Cigna only.
C/M Rohr said the Union would have to meet with the rank
and file for another vote and C/M Hoffman asked what
would occur if the Union did not go for another vote.
Mayor Abramowitz said the law indicated that the Union
had to go back to the rank and file for a vote if there
was another contract submitted.
C/M Rohr said whether the Union wanted to or not, they
had to take a final offer back to the rank and file for a
vote.
City Attorney Doody said the City Council already did
this. He said the City Council approved a Resolution
which did not include Cigna and requested the Union to
ratify the contract by November 30, 1989 at 5:00 P.M.
V/M Bender said the City Council had to make a policy
decision and the legal concerns should be handled by the
City Attorney's Office. He said the City Council had to
give the City Attorney direction and he felt that the
wage increase of 4.7% retroactive to October 1, 1989
should be granted. He asked the City Attorney how he
would handle this matter legally.
City Attorney Doody said if the City Council wanted to
provide the wage increase of 4.7%, he would suggest that
Section 4 of the existing Resolution be deleted and the
City Council take the position that they ratified the
contract. He said the Union would have to make their
own interpretation from their own legal standpoint as to
whether or not their original vote should remain.
C/M Stelzer said the City Council should not admit a
mistake by stating that the City would be changing their
original offer of having Cigna. He said the City
notified the Union that there would be one insurance
company available, which was ratified by the employees
and the Union did not approve of the contract because two
insurance carriers were not available.
City Attorney Doody said the City Council could control
their destiny; however, the Union's destiny could not be
controlled by the City Council.
C/M Stelzer said the City Council had to give a contract
to the Union indicating that the wage increases and one
Page 7
11/29/89-pw
insurance carrier would be provided to the employees. He
said the Union should be given until. December 15, 1989,
to ratify the contract.
C/M Hoffman said the City already informed the Union of
this and City Attorney Doody said this was done except by
tomorrow, the City would be rescinding the contract.
City Attorney Doody read Section 4 of Resolution R-89-288
into the record as follows:
"SECTION 4:
The approval and ratification of this detached
agreement is contingent upon ratification by the
Federation of Public Employees (FPE) no later than
5:00 P.M., November 30, 1989. If ratification by the
FPE is not received by 5:00 P.M., November 30, 1989,
Paragraphs 11.6 and 11.7 of Article XI, Wages, are
null and void."
* C/M Hoffman MOVED to AMEND the Resolution to read, "No
* later than 5:00 P.M., December 15, 1989."
City Attorney Doody said Temp Reso. #5623 would amend
Resolution R-89-288 by changing thedatefrom November
30, 1989, to December 15, 1989 at 5:00 P.M.
* C/M Rohr SECONDED C/M Hoffman's Motion.
C/M Hoffman said his Motion would allow the Union an
additional two weeks to ratify the contract.
City Attorney Doody said the Motion on the floor was to
extend the period in which the Union had to ratify the
contract and, if the contract was not ratified, the
Article would be null and void. He said the contract
would provide one health insurance carrier and a 4.7%
increase retroactive to October 1, 1989. He said if the
Union did not do this by December 15, 1989 at 5:00 P.M.,
the wage increase would be null and void.
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Attorney indicated that if
the City Council approved the contract, the Union would
have to make a decision on the contract by accepting it
or calling for another vote.
TAPE 2
C/M Hoffman said his Motion placed the responsibility on
the Unions by requiring them a period of time to act on
the contract. He said he did not approve of an open end
contract that would allow the Unions to take as much time
as they wanted to ratify the contract and continue
receiving the benefits the City agreed to.
C/M Hoffman said obviously the rank and file approved of
what the City did and wanted an agreement; therefore, the
rank and file should force the Union to ratify or call a
vote on the contract within the next two weeks. He said
if the City Council passed the Resolution, they were
making the Union responsible for the final ratification.
He said if the City Council did not approve the
Resolution, no one would be responsible.
C/M Rohr said precedence was set every time the City
Council acted and, if a Union felt that they did not have
to ratify contracts on a deadline set by the City
1
1
Page 8
11/29/89-pw
Council, it would set a bad principal on negotiations.
He said all negotiations were based on the fact of a
meeting of the minds at which point ratification must
take effect.
Mayor Abramowitz said he has dealt with Unions for 30
years and almost all of the contracts provided for a date
certain on ratification.
C/M Hoffman said this was not a usual negotiating
situation and he felt that the Union was not acting with
the agreement of the rank and file. He said he would
like the rank and file to force the Union to take some
action within a reasonable period of time.
C/M Stelzer said the Motion was only extending the
ratification time by two weeks. He said if the Unions
did not ratify the contract within 15 days, the contract
would be null and void.
C/M Hoffman said the voiding of the contract should not
be based on the fact that the wage raises would not be
reached.
Mayor Abramowitz said he was trying to be fair and
equitable and come to a meeting of the minds.
C/M Rohr asked if the City Council wanted to extend the
ratification compliance to one month.
Mayor Abramowitz said he understood the City Attorney's
suggestion and he felt that it was feasible.
City Attorney Doody said V/M Bender asked how the City
Council could grant the 4.7% increase and he answered
that this could be done by deleting Section 4 of the
Resolution so that the two Articles would be approved.
He said the City Council would be taking the position
that the contract was being ratified. He said the City
Council could not control how the Union would view this
action. He said it was possible that the Union would
view their prior vote with the two carriers as good or
the Union could have another vote to ratify the contract
for one insurance carrier.
City Attorney Doody said the City Council was trying to
find a way to force the Union to take a course of action;
however, there was no way to do this because the Union
always had the option to view the matter differently. He
said the Union would at some time have to make a decision
about the contract.
V/M Bender said he made an administrative decision and
the City Attorney advised the City Council how to handle
the decision. He said he agreed with the City Attorney's
suggestion.
C/M Hoffman asked when the increases would be granted if
the City Council acted on the City Attorney's suggestion
and City Attorney Doody said the increases would be
retroactive to October 1, 1989.
C/M Hoffman asked if the City could be paying the
increases for 6 months without having the Union ratifying
the contract. He said the City and Union could continue
negotiating while the increases were being granted.
Page 9
11/29/89-pw
City Attorney Doody asked what the negotiations would be
about and C/M Hoffman said another carrier for the
insurance. C/M Hoffman said at this time, the contract
has not been accepted by the Union.
City Attorney Doody said if the Union did not accept the
City's contract, nothing more could be done because the
Union already filed an Unfair Labor Practice suit. He
said if the Union went forward with the suit, the City
would have to respond; however, the Union may decide to
agree with the contract and withdraw the suit.
Mayor Abramowitz said he wanted the City Council to make
a decision that put the City and Union on the right path.
He said he felt this matter was a misunderstanding and
would be straightened out. He said if there was any
vulnerability on the City's part, he would not be
interested in a solution.
C/M Hoffman asked if Mayor Abramowitz felt that the
matter could be corrected in two weeks and Mayor
Abramowitz said he did not know.
C/M Hoffman asked how Mayor Abramowitz believed that the
matter could be corrected in the future.
C/M Rohr said he agreed with City Attorney Doody's
suggestion.
* C/M Rohr WITHDREW his Second on C/M Hoffman's Motion.
City Attorney Doody suggested that the City Council adopt
Temp. Reso. #5623 which would amend Resolution R-89-288
to delete Section 4 in its entirety.
C/M Rohr suggested that the record reflect that the City
Council would be making the change because they agreed
that the employees accepted the offer.
C/M Stelzer asked if a deadline for ratification by the
Union would be set and Mayor Abramowitz replied, no.
C/M Hoffman said the City Council was stating that the
Union was correct and the City was wrong.
Mayor Abramowitz disagreed with C/M Hoffman and C/M
Stelzer asked if the employees would immediately be
receiving an increase. Mayor Abramowitz replied, yes.
* V/M Bender MOVED to APPROVE Temp. Reso. #5623 which would
* amend Resolution R-89-288 by delete g Sec on 4 in its
* entirety, SECONDED by C/M Rohr.
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council felt that there
was a contract accepted by the rank and file and he would
like the contract ratified as soon as possible to bring
peace and harmony to the City.
VOTE: Mayor Abramowitz - Aye
V/M Bender - Aye
C/M Hoffman - Nay
C/M Rohr - Aye
C/M Stelzer - Aye
1
1
Page 10
11/29/ 89--pw
1.1
C/M Hoffman asked the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance
prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles on private home
lawns.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if C/M Hoffman was referring to
single-family homes only.
City Attorney Doody suggested that he investigate this
matter because there may be a problem in trying to
distinguish between a condominium and single --family home.
V/M Bender suggested that the City Council express their
interest for the City Attorney to investigate the matter
before an Ordinance was drafted.
City Attorney Doody asked if C/M Hoffman was referring to
swales and C/M Hoffman said he was referring to lawns in
front of private homes.
** The following Vote is for an expression of interest by the City
Council for the City Attorney to investigate the legality of an
Ordinance prohibiting motor vehicles from parking on lawns.
]VOTE: Mayor Abramowitz - Aye
V/M Bender - Aye
C/M Hoffman -- Aye
C/M Rohr -- Aye
C/M Stelzer - Nay
With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this
meeting at 11:10 A.M.
N AN ABRA OWITZ, MAYOR
rzz
CAROL A. VANS, CITY CLERK
"This public document was promulgated at a cost of $88.80 or $11.10 per
copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of
recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of
Tamarac."
L1'1' Y OF TAMARAC
APPROVED AT MEETING OF l o JD
Clty Cterk
Page 11