The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-12-19 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutesr L_ 10 r4 u n R1vP MAIL REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320 5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 December 17, 1985 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA The Special City Council meeting originally noticed for Tuesday, December 17, 1985 at 10:00 A.M. has been B . S_ C_ H_ R D U_ L_ _F D for Thursday, December 19, 1985, at 2:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac. The purpose of this meeting is: 1. Issuance a c Utilities West Revenue Bp_n_d_g- TemR, Reso. #3945 - Discussion and possible action. 2. Bid Award -- PersonneiZInsurancg - Temp. Rgso= 43919 - Discussion and possible action to award a bid for long-term disability insurance (tabled from 12/11/85). The City Council may consider and act upon such other bus- iness as may come before it. The public is invited to attend. 9A"A� 0.2 Carol E. Sarbuto Assistant City Clerk 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 hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose, he may reed to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS 0 5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 MAIL REPLY TO: December 18, 1985 -- REVISED P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA The Special City Council meeting originally noticed for Tuesday, December 17, 1985 at 10:00 A.M. has been R E a C H E D_U_L__ED for Thursday, December 19, 1985, at 2:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac. The purpose of this meeting is: 1. Issuance of Tamarac Utilities West Revenue Bonds - Temp• Reso. #3945 - Discussion and possible action. 2. Bid Award - Pe sonnel Insu ance - Temp. Reso. #3 19 - Discussion and possible action to award a bid for long-term disability insurance (tabled from 12/11/85) . 3. Continuation of the Public Hea-ring requested by Thomas S. Watkins pursuant to Section 44.02 of the Personnel Manual to appeal his grievance due to his layoff from City employment (Continued from 12/4/85 and 12/17/85). The City Council may consider and act upon such other bus- iness as may come before it. The public is invited to attend. Carol E. Barbuto Assistant City Clerk 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 hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim rec^rd includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA I 1 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 19, 1985 Tape CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz called the meeting to 1 order on Thursday, December 19, 1985 at 2:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. ROLL CALL: PRES ENT : Mayor Philip B. Kravitz Vice Mayor Helen Massaro C/M Arthur H. Gottesman C/M Raymond J. Munitz C/M Sydney M. Stein (arrived 2:10) ALSO -PRESENT: Larry Perretti, Acting City Manager Jon M. Henning, City Attorney Patricia Marcurio, Secretary 4. 201 Examination - Feasibility ,Study by Williams. Hatfield & Stoner, Inc -- Discussion and possible action SYNQPSIS QF ACTION: Agendized by consent (See Pages 10 thru 16) V/M Massaro.MOVED to agendize by consent the authorization to engage Williams, Hatfield & Stoner for engineering services to evaluate the financial feasibility of Tamarac rejoining the Broward County Regional Wastewater System known as the "201 Program". SECONDED by C/M Gottesman. VOTE: C/M Stein Absent C/M Munitz Aye C/M Gottesman Aye V/M Massaro Aye Mayor Kravitz Aye 1. Issuance of Tamarac Utilitiest_Rgyenue Bonds - ,, Wes_ Temp._Reso. #3945 - Discussion and possible action SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to a Special Council meeting on Monday, 12/23/85 at 1:00 P.M. Mr. Henning read letup. Resv,. 13945 by title. Mr. Gerald Heffernan, Bond Counsel, stated there were certain changes required by AMBAC and indicated that he had distributed a worksheet on Tuesday, December 17, 1985, identifying the pro- posed changes. He said most of the changes were ministerial in terms of providing. the definition of insurer, and adding the insurer where definitions of bonds were indicated. The Bond Counsel stated there were two major issues raised at the last meeting one of which was the question of what were pledged impact fees. Mr. Heffernan said he DELETED the words "pledged and "unpledged' and substituted "available" and "unavailable". He said the changes meant that any impact fees which have not been appropriated for any use would be placed into a fund and the interest earnings would go into the revenue fund, which will help the rate covenant, and the City would appropriate the impact fees as needed. 1 12/19/85 /vdw In addition, Mr. Heffernan said the additional bonds test, which provided for 120 per cent coverage in the resolution, would now be only 110 per cent coverage of net revenues. The Bond Counsel said AMBAC required the City to change the definition of Pegm tled Investments which is the policy the City already follows. (C/N Stein arrived at meeting.) The Vice Mayor asked why the term "insurer" was eliminated in the revised copy but had been included on page 6 under defi- nitions in a previous copy. The City Attorney clarified that the document the Vice Mayor had was Resolution 85-436 which was passed on December 10, and the resolution under discussion today is to amend that resolution. He said Mr. Heffernan dis- tributed a worksheet in order that Council could place the changes in context. Mr. Henning said page 6 of the worksheet indicated the inclusion of the term "insurer". Mr. Heffernan stated that it was done this way at AMBAC's request because they preferred the insertion of the revisions as opposed to an entire restated resolution. V/M Massaro stated there was no way she would act on an issue as important as this and not know what she was doing. Mr. Heffernan suggested that before a decision is reached or whether or not Council wanted to act on it, that Council first determine how much time they wanted to devote to this subject today in order for Mr. Heffernan to review and to explain the revisions. Mayor Kravitz asked if time was of the essence. Mr. Heffernan said it was because the bonds have already been ordered and AMBAC would like to get assurances that it has been acted on by the City and that the changes requested by them were now law. The Vice Mayor said the information she has received referred to many capital improvement projects; she said she was under the impression that this was a refunding bond and asked why there was mention of capital improvement projects. Mr. Heffernan stated that they had not done that and was purely a refunding. The Bond Counsel said there were references of capital improvement projects for the future. V/M Massaro asked why were they talking about future projects. The Bond Counsel answered that in a bond ordinance the City would need the ability to issue, in the future, additional series of bonds. The Vice Mayor inquired if it would tie the City to the same people. The Bond Counsel replied that it does not tie the City to anyone but states that the City is refunding the outstanding bonds with this series of bonds; however, he said it further stated that in the event in the future, if the City, six months from now, wanted to issue additional bonds, it could do so under the Master Resolution. V/M Massaro asked the City Attorney why the City could not simply pass a new resolution when the City is ready to issue additional bonds. The City Attorney stated that Council would have to pass another resolution; he said, in fact, to obtain the "new money" in a few months there will need to be another resolution. The Bond Counsel concurred stating that this pro- vides that Council pass a new resolution at the time Council determines it wants to issue new bonds for capital improvements. 2 12/19/85 r /vdw J Mr. Heffernan explained that all this was saying is, first of all, that they were amending the two previous resolutions, which they did: one passed January 23, 1985 and its intent, upon passage, was to do refunding and new improvements. Then, he said the resolution was amended and restated to provide only for refunding bonds, which they are doing today. The Bond Counsel said the documents allow flexibility in the future to issue additional bonds and this would be accomplished under the same underlying document; however, it requires a new resolution, six months from now, which determines the terms and details of the new bonds including the people to be hired, and the manner in which Council would like to issue those bonds. The Vice Mayor asked what would the City gain by including all the information now. Mr. Heffernan said they were not including all the information now but stated, under the law, if the City were to issue a parity bond in the future with these refunding bonds, the City has to have a Master Resolution which gives the City the flexibility, in the future, to do all the things necessary. He assured Council that they have the flexibility in the future to take out anything within that resolution and pass a new resolution. Mr. Heffernan said if Council does not do that now and limits their resolution only to this bond issue, the City could not do parity bonds later but would only be able to issue subordinate bonds. V/M Massaro asked him to explain the difference between parity and subordinate. The Bond Counsel explained that parity bonds would allow the City to market at a much better interest rate as opposed to subordinate. He said if the City were to market subordinate bonds, purchasers would not be as eager to buy them because they know that the revenues would go to the other bonds which were outstanding first. The Bond Counsel said parity bonds meant that those bonds outstanding previously, and the new ones, will have the same lien on the City's revenues; therefore, the buyers would feel very comfortable and the City could sell them at a very good interest rate. V/M Massaro asked if they would not have the same protection under a subordinate bond. Mr. Heffernan said they would not because a subordinate bond was viewed as a second mortgage. C/M Stein said the lien may not be the same. V/M Massaro asked if the Finance Director had full responsibi- lity of these investments. Mr. Heffernan answered that he does. She asked if it was contrary to the struggle he had with the Investment Committee. Mr. Heffernan said the Finance Director has full responsibility or as the City directs. V/M Massaro asked to see the phrase "or as the City directs". The Bond Counsel said plus the fact that there were limitations on what the investments could be. The Vice Mayor reiterated her request to the Bond Counsel to see the phrase "or as the City directs". Mr. Heffernan referenced page 29, line 31, section 602, which indicated it was structured so that the Finance Director has the responsibility to invest but his responsibility is limited. The Vice Mayor said it was contrary to a resolution passed which stated that the Finance Director does not have the authority to make investments by himself. The Bond Counsel said the Finance Director was limited to the definition called INVESTMENT OBLIGATIONS; however, if Council wished, he could amend it to read "either as the Finance Director or as the City may direct". V/M Massaro said she did not like the language at all because it was not what Council has been trying to accomplish. 3 12/19/85 / /vdw J Mr. Heffernan said the Finance Director could only invest as outlined under the term, Investment Qbl1SAtipns. V/M Massaro said the City had that language in their Charter and lost $7.5 million last year. The Bond Counsel said the City could indicate whatever they wanted. The City Attorney suggested, if the words "Finance Director" remained, that the City insert the phrase "invested and reinvested by the Finance Director pursuant to City Code". Mr. Etheredge suggested that "Finance Director" BE DELETED and "City" INSERTED. The City Attorney amended the phrase to read "invested and reinvested by the City". V/M Massaro said that could be a terrible exposure to the Finance Director. The Bond Counsel explained that in a bond transaction it was less of an exposure because the Finance Director was limited to investments as defined under INVESTMENT QpLIGATIONS. The Vice Mayor said that it does not indicate any type of pro- tection but simply referenced that it had to mature within a certain length of time. Mr. Heffernan said INVESTMENT_QBLI- GATIONS is a defined term which meant that the Finance Director could only invest in those specified things including the City. The City Attorney suggested that "Finance Director" BE REMOVED" and "City" BE INSERTED. The City Attorney said they have to keep in mind that the City can always be more re- strictive but should not rewrite the resolution to the extent that it would affect either AMBAC, interest rates, etc.; he directed Council's attention to page 6 which included the de- finition of INVESTMENT OBLIGATIONS. Mr. Heffernan said the way it was structured the City could not invest in repurchase agreements unless it is for cash or overnight and the City took collateral and had a perfected security interest. The City Attorney said under the City Charter there is a dis- tinction between deposits and investments and asked the Bond Counsel if the City were to use overnight repurchase agreements of City deposits, would the City have to take custody. The Bond Counsel said his statement does not apply to the City's or the Utilities' monies; it only pertained to those accounts that are putting money in to pay principal and interest on, namely, the bonds. The Vice Mayor referenced page 17 and asked why section c) concerning the consulting engineer certificate was deleted. Mr. Heffernan said the deleted section c) stated that if additional bonds will be issued for improvements for the utility, the City would need a certificate from the engineer which set forth the amount the City anticipated collecting in the three years following the improvements. He said this certi- ficate would be prepared in advance of the bond transactions indicating that for the next three years following the improve- ments, the estimated net revenues would be a certain amount. Mr. Heffernan said this would help determine the City's additional bonds test. He said AMBAC would rather have the City consider 110 per cent of revenues for a previous year as opposed to using something projected in the future which may be in error, and if there was an error, the rates may have to be increased. 4 12/19/85 /vdw 11 1 LI The Bond Counsel said it was a protection to the City so that when additional bond transactions are done, the City would only be relying on its historical net revenues. Mr. Heffernan said this certificate allowed the City to incorporate in its formula future projections over three years, and AMBAC was concerned that if those were wrong, the City may end up issuing more bonds and having to raise rates. Mr. Heffernan stated that they were asking Council to pass the resolution which is an amendment to the original. He said the resolution identifies the pages, changes and insertions. The Vice Mayor MOVED that the item be TABLED to a recessed meeting on Monday, December 23, 1985 and the time will be announced by Mayor Kravitz. SECONDED by C/M Stein. VOTE: -ALL VOTED AYE 2. Bid Award - Personnel/Insurance - Temp. geso, #3919 -- Discussion and possible action to award a bid for long-term disability insurance (tabled from 12/11/85) OYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED at the request of the Acting City Manager for further discussions. Mr. Henning read Temp, Reso. 13219 by title. Acting City Manager Perretti asked that this item be tabled since it was learned this morning that there is some resistance from the Police Department concerning this item. Mr. Henning said in the past there was some disability coverage in the Pension Plan which the employees have stated was an inadequate coverage. He said this was tabled previously in order to have staff explain to Council which line items the premiums would come from. C/M Gottesman MOVED to TABLE this item, SECONDED by C/M Munitz. T E : ALL VOTEDAYE, 3. nt nu t'on of the Public -Hearing requested by Thomas S. Watkins pursuant to Section 44.02 of the Personnel Manual to appeal his grievance due to his layoff from City mployment (Continued from 12/4/85 and 12/17/85) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: The Council supported the actions of the Acting City Manager in the case of Captain Watkins layoff from City employment. The following is a Verbatim Transcript as requested by the City Attorney: Mayor Kravitz: Mr. Henning, do you want to start this off? CityAtt-Orney enninci: Well, Council, you will recall that for two meetings you heard an appeal of a grievance by Captain Watkins of the Fire Department. At the last meeting, which I guess, was this past Tuesday, the evidence was concluded and the arguments were given to you from Mr. Perretti, on behalf of the management side, and from Mr. Haagenson, Mr. Watkin's Attorney. 5 12/19/85 /pm Henning: You have 3 days from Tuesday, this past Tuesday, to reach a decision which comes to around 5 o'clock tomorrow, pursuant to the Personnel Manual. And, since you all were present today, I believe it was your intention to discuss amongst yourselves openly, meeting here in the sunshine, your impressions and concerns as a result of the hearing and to render a decision whether to support the decision of management. Or, if you wish to overturn the decision of management, you need...I would suggest ... or advise you ... that you should include certain conditions of either changing the line items to balance the budget or to indicate that you would be prepared to increase the budget to provide for the return of Captain Watkins to work. C/M Munitz: Have we addressed ourselves to his Attorney's fees as well? Henning: I do not think there is discussion of attorney's fees at this point. Mayor Kravitz: No. The question is if we are going along with management or reject management's opinion. C/M Muni.tg: Yes, but the question of attorney's fees is going to come up so why don't we just... Mayor Kravitz: Not if we go along with the management at this point. We are assuming there will be actually a law case. C M u t : Then we are automatically denying attorney's fees for Mr. Watkins if we go along management, is that what you are saying? Mr. Henning: There has been no formal request, to my knowledge for attorney's fees for the grievance procedure. Acting rity-Manager Pe re t': Mr. Mayor, may I make a comment on it? Mayor Krayitz: Sure. Mr. Perretti: if you recall, when there was an objection at the hearing, I had stated that Mr. Haagenson had submitted a letter to me when we were in negotiations. At that particular time, there was the question of attorney's fees. I addressed that in a letter. If you recall, at the second hearing, he did not accept the letter. So, as far as I am concerned, there is no question of attorney's fees. mr. Henning: There is no question of negotiation at this point. Mayor Kravitz: Right. The Chair will entertain any discussion or motion and then discussion on the item. V M ssa • Mr. Mayor. flavor Kravitz: Vice Mayor. s ro: I would MOVE that the Council support the action of our Acting City Manager, Larry Perretti in the case of Mr. Watkins. C/M Muni : I will SECOND that. M t an: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to say something. 1 1 r__. 6 12/19/85 /pm Mayor Kravitz: Go ahead. We have a SECOND first of all by C/M Munitz. Now, C/M Gottesman. C/M o t sman: I would like to make just a brief remark. I have listened very carefully and very patiently to the testimony that was given by the former Captain Watkins and given by the City of Tamarac. And, it'is my conclusion that in as much as our Fire Chief Briant has been in our employ for ten years and he is in command of the Fire Department to insure the safety and welfare of the residents and property of the City and also of the people that he is commanding, that we have to pay ... or at least I have to pay strict attention to his experience of ten years. I, therefore, do go along with the Motion that was made to not overturn Tape 2 the present conditions that were set by our Acting City Manager. Mayor a i z: Any other discussion by Council? 9/M M nni_'tz: Mr. Mayor, I, too, have listened very, very carefully to all of the testimony and made some very copious notes, have discussed it with our City Attorney and I am very comfortable in upholding the actions of management in this entire matter. And, I intend to vote, as I Seconded the Motion, in favor of the Motion to uphold managment's actions. Mayor av' : Any others, Council? Call the question. Mr. Henning: I think just for clarification on the record, Ray Briant, as you know, is the Assistant Fire Chief and Bernie Simon is the Fire Chief. Gottesman: Right, well, I was referring to... Mayor Krayitz: O.K. Call the question. Secretary: C/M Stein Aye C/M Munitz Aye C/M Gottesman Aye V/M Massaro Aye Mayor Kravitz Aye Mr. gennina: Mayor, if I could suggest ... Mr. Watkins, if you want to wait a minute. I would ask that the Council direct the City Clerk to prepare a Verbatim of today's session to serve as notice to Captain Watkins and that we will furnish him with a copy of it. The following is a Verbatim Transcript of this item as requested by C/M Stein: 4. 0 Examinat ,on - Feasibility ud Williams, Hatfield _& Stgner,_Inc_ - Discussion and possible action. Y QPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent on Page 1. Authorization was given for an order to be placed with Williams, Hatfield & Stoner to examine the feasibility of Tamarac rejoining the 201 Program. ayQr,_.ra;yitz: This was put on by Consent this afternoon in reference to authorizing Williams, Hatfield & Stoner in reference to 201. Vice Mayor, I believe you asked that be put on. 7 12/19/85 /pm y/M Massaro: There is some backup. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor and Council, for several months I have been concerned about the entire area of wastewater treatment in the City of Tamarac. Our residents serviced by Tamarac Utilities West have been deeply concerned and that is understandable. Those living near the Utility expected it to be eliminated under the 201 Program. Last year, a new determination was made to build a new plant farther west, much to the consternation of the people in those areas. In no way would I deliberately hurt any one person in our City. With this in mind, I have been seeking an honest solution to this problem. This has been troubling so many of our residents over these past few months. I have worked quietly, not wanting to give false hopes to anyone. With this in mind, I have constantly reached out to those who were in a position to help us to find a viable solution. I believe we are close to finding that solution. We now need further informa- tion that will assure us that what is being contemplated is in the best interests of all our users at Tamarac Utilities West. I have had extensive discussions with Mr. William Greenwood, our Director of Utilities, and with several other responsible persons with expertise in this area. Our Utilities Director, Mr. Greenwood, is convinced that any treatment facility with less than ten million gallons of treatment each day, is not cost effective. I am convinced after much discussion with responsible people that there may be an opportunity to expand the treatment capacity under our Large User Agreement with Broward County. I believe that it may very well be that the best approach for now and the future would be for the treatment of our wastewater at the Broward County facility on Copans Road in Pompano Beach. If we can determine that it is cost effective, that is our last hurdle. In order to transmit untreated wastewater, a system will have to be constructed from our existing plant location to the lines which run to the County plant. Two alternatives are possible. One would require a connection at Sample Road in Coral Springs. A possible alternative is a connec- tion at Southgate Boulevard and State Road 7. In order to make any kind of final decision, cost projections must be developed. It is not possible for these to be prepared by our in --house staff. Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, Consulting Engineers, have an on- going contract for the providing of engineering services for the City of Tamarac. That firm has been extensively and continuously involved in our wastewater treatment alternatives for many years. And, I would MOVE that Williams, Hatfield & Stoner be engaged to prepare appropriate studies at an expense not to exceed $5,500.00, which will enable us to make a final decision. And, I have submitted to you copies of the proposal by Williams, Hatfield & Stoner and they have outlined everything within that proposal: 1. To calculate the capital expenditures required for the City to phase out the existing treatment plant and participate fully in the County Regional Program. 2. To calculate the operation and maintenance costs for the regional option. 8 J 12/19/$5 /pm 3. Review and utilize the CH2M Hill Treatment Plant Option Report, the Montgomery Rate Study and the proposed bond Resolution for their fiscal recommendations and conclusion. 4. Compare the user costs on a unit basis of dollars per thousand gallons per month between the current treatment disposal plan and the regional option. 5. Conduct meetings with City engineering and financial staff to assure congruent use and source of information. 6. Draft a report clearly outlining the project costs and compar- ing the unit user costs. Also, state the advantages and disadvantages of the current plan and the regional option. And, they are prepared to begin work on this project immediately upon authorization and have the report submitted within 30 days. Now, I must say, that from everything that I have learned up to now, it looks very favorable and it appears that we will be able to accomplish everything within the amount of money that we expected to expend and that, hopefully, our user costs will remain about equal with what we have now. But, this is exactly why I am asking for this survey by Williams, Hatfield & Stoner so that you will have absolute information on everything. And that is my Motion. Mayor Kravitz: Vice Mayor, the Chair would like to ask you ... you said an amount not to exceed $5,500.00. V/M Massar_g: Yes, sir, it is an upset price. Mayor Kravitz: Right. But, would you like to include that it goes to Account numbers which you have in the original memo. V/M Massaro: Oh, yes. It's in Mr. Foy's recommendation. Mayor Kravitz: Right. Would you like that included in your Motion? yfM Massaro: Yes, sir, I will do that as long as you want me to. And it would be charged to Account #434-506-598-324 and this account does have a balance of $5,463,915.00 and is titled "Deep Injection Well". Mayor Kravitz: All right, we have a Motion on that. Do we have a SECOND? C/M Gottesman. C/M Gottesman: Mr. Mayor, I will SECOND that. Mayor Kravitz: All right. We have a SECOND. Discussion by Council. C/M Stein. C/M Munitz: As we all know, we originally were in this program some years ago. I am just curious to know ... and I do not know who is in a position to give us the information...what has changed in the 201 Plan makeup between the time that we were in and then elected to go out and now we are considering the possibility and feasibility of going in again. What has happened to the study to make it something that we should even consider at this time when it was -obvious that our going out of it was the right thing to do then? That is a very important factor. s fig: You know that I was not here at the conclusion of this or when the actual... 9 12/19/85 /pm C/M Munitz: Helen, I am sorry, I must disagree with you. The vote to get out of the 201 study was made while you were still on Council. V/M'Massaro: I am not talking about that. I do not believe that I was here when the amount of excess capacity was returned to them. I was not here at that time. In fact, I was very much surprised when I learned that that had been accomplished because otherwise we were in a perfect position to do anything that we wanted. But, Mr .... you are shaking your head no...I had nothing to do... C/M Stein: Our Attorney is here, he can verify what I am saying. I don't... Mayor Kravitz: Why don't we do it orderly? C/M Stein: I don't know why Helen...I should have the floor. I was ... you recognized me. Ray has had it and the Vice Mayor and I am sitting here... Mayor Kravitz: O.K. I'll let you speak as soon as she finishes. V/M Massaro: C/M Munitz asked if there was someone here to give that information and we have Mr. Ruf here who has been with this program from the beginning. M_ay4_rXravitz: All right. C/M Stein. C/M Stein: Just for the record, the only thing that was done when the Vice Mayor was not here was the execution of the papers. The amount the City who was going to buy our capacity and all had been pre -determined. All they did was submit the final papers. The plan to get out of the system and retain approximately two million gallons was done by the previous ... but that is neither here nor there...I don't know why... it's been done. What I am a bit amazed at is ... I realize we do have a Sunshine Act so we cannot talk to each other but I have been in touch...and as a matter of fact ... just not to long ago I spoke to the Vice Mayor and asked her why we sold out. What was the underlying reason? Was there a real reason and I have been in touch ... she asked me to speak to Tony Nolan, which I did, and I have been in communica- tion ... because the absurdity of the whole thing has struck me from the day I met Bill Greenwood and was discussing all the problems we had. whether we keep the plant here, there, up and back. Let me answer C/M Munitz. Maybe I can answer him. You have to understand that when the proposition came up we fully expected the grants that we were going to get for spray irrigation. The amount of money that it would cost us to do our own with these grants was either less or at least the same and we would be in control. And, Mayor Falck, at that time, preferred that we be in control, not the County be in control. He was not very happy that they might set rates that might go up and down and be played around with. And, so we went along. The question I did ask Jon Henning and Tony Nolan is, when we realized that we were not going to get the grants, why was it not brought back to this Council that we had an alternative not to go ahead and float the bond issue. Not to go to deep well but to go right back. 10 12/19/85 /pm C/M Stein: We still had 6.8 million gallons which we had not at that time given away. 6.8 million gallons is the total gallonage needed for full buildout of this City unless something very unexpected happens. Now, if we have 6.8 million gallons we would not need any sewer plants in this City. At worse, if something very dramatic happen- ed, as you said, Vice Mayor, we might need a small package plant way out west, if ever. And, nobody but nobody explored this thing. Nobody discussed it, we went right along, we are anxious to float this 15 million dollars in bonds. We are fighting as to where we want a sewer plant to rehabilitate ... and I called Williams, Hatfield & Stoner ... I spoke to our Attorney and I just was a voice in the wilderness. And, now, I am surprised that all of a sudden I get here and we have a Resolution all ready to go. I am not opposing it. I don't care who does it. I don't care who did it and who does it. But it is just amazing that all of a sudden ... we are talking bond issues here now ... we now have the realization that we do have another option. We have always had the option. As a matter of fact, we sold that option away without ever really exploring it. Thank you. V/M Mgssaro: Mr. Mayor. MaYgr Krgvitz: Vice Mayor. By the way, we do have a MOTION on this and a SECOND so we are speaking on the MOTION. V/M_Massaro: On the MOTION, that's right. In replying to some of the things that was said here. Mr. Ruf will be in a position to give you the actual facts of what took place at that time because many things came into the picture at that time and the cost effectiveness was the most important one that was being considered by the City. But, I did not have part in giving away the 6.8 million gallons but, nevertheless, that is not what is important here today. And, as you said, you reached out in many ways and was not able to get anywhere. Well, I had made up my mind when I saw the consternation of the various people ... the people on the eastern part of TUW and people on the western part. I knew exactly how they felt but I was not in a position to say anything because I did not know definitely if there was anything that I could do that would be of help to these people. I was not going to give them any false hopes because I did not know how the whole picture was going to end up. So, that I did, though, start working on it. I tried to reach the people that I thought could and would be helpful to us. I feel very strongly that I have accomplished just that. Now, in order to be absolutely sure, because dollars and cents is what is going to be the final answer. What it is going to cost all of the people who are users of the 201... of the TUW system. And, I would like Mr. Ruf to speak on this and give you a picture of why you went out of it, why we are talking about going back into it and see if he can answer the questions that you have before you. But, I will say that I have worked on this. I have done exactly what you said you were trying to do, C/M Stein, and were not able to and I think that I have got the thing worked out pretty good. Mr. Ruf, if you would please. Mr. Mayor... Mayor Kray, j„ tz : Mr. Ruff would you want to address the Council? 11 � 12/19/85 / /pm V A u : I thought Mr. Stein ... Alan Ruf, Consulting Attorney for the City of Tamarac. I think Mr. Stein pretty well summed up the picture as far as the decision of the former Council to extricate itself from a large portion of the commitment to the Large User Agreement. My recollection was that the cost of the spray irrigation system and the cost of participating entirely in the County system was about equal. But there was a great concern, as C/M Stein said, by Mayor Falck, with the rating process that the County had at its disposal and the inability of large user partners to participate in the setting of those rates or even to get the information necessary to know how the County was setting rates. There was another concern that as long as we were able, at the same cost, to treat and dispose of our wastewater, we would be independent of the whims or the problems of anyone else. He and the Council thought that that was very important. There is a thread that goes throughout this and I may be missing one strand of that thread and, that is, it seems to me that soon after Mayor Falck left office, this entire area was reevaluated by Montgomery Engineers. And, I do not think I recall what Montgomery Engineers concluded but I can only assume that they concluded that the deep well injection system was the way to go after they relooked at the entire situation. Bill, perhaps, can better fill us in on that. I, of course, have been an observer of what has been happening...a rather close observer of the petition that has been filed to force the City to site a wastewater treatment plant in a location other than its existing location. It has become obvious that there are factions in the community...some wanting the plant located one place... some wanting it someplace else ... and I am certainly familiar with all of the effort that has been made by members of this Council and by members of the staff in order to get the grants and funds in place which included applications for and competition for State and Federal grants. And, of course, your bonding program ... all of this up in the air but, of course, coming to finality very quickly. Once that commitment was made to the deep well and once that commitment was made to the upgrading of the plant, it was evident that there would be ... that we would lose any flexibility that might be available. That has not happened yet, although we are moving in the direction to put those things in place. At the request of the Vice Mayor, I attended some meetings with large users who indicated that they would be willing to make capacity... their excess capacity... available to us on a lease basis at no additional cost. Just pick up the carrying costs that they are now responsible for and they would extend our right to lease that until the next buildout or the increase in the capacity of the Copans Road plant, which is scheduled for 1992. Once that information became available the next step before we finalize and commit to a self -sustained system, which apparently has caused turmoil, would be to see whether or not once more we could look at the cost of the construction of the transmission system to see whether or not that transmission system could be constructed at a cost which would not exceed the commitment to increase in plant capacity, upgrading the plant and the deep well. 12 l2/19/85 /pm Mr. Ruf: Also, just as important, whether or'not we could continue to provide service at the same rates or without dramatic increase in rates to the consumers. That is basically an overview and I would be happy to answer any questions. C/M Munitz: To the best of your knowledge ... or maybe you, Bill, might be able to answer this. Was there any difference between the regional option plan at the time that we withdrew from it and what it is today? Alan Ruf: It's the same plan. C/M Munjtz: There have been absolutely no changes since the time that we withdrew? Alan-Ruf: None at all. No, I think they are better able to handle the sludge treatment than they were some months ago. It is still the same plan. C/M Stein: Alan, am I correct ... if we decided to go with the County then there would be no need for the sludge farm. We would be pumping raw sewerage into the... Alan Ruf: Correct. C/M Stein: So, in other words, that 45 acres ... the amount we expended there would be recoverable whether we sold it or we gave it back... Alan -Rut: I can assure you that the landowner would be very happy... C/M Stein: No...I understand that. That is not what I am saying. That would free up approximately $900,000.00. 1 realize that...I just want to make one comment. I think that we are overlooking...I think the Vice Mayor mentioned it and I want to repeat it. Tagged onto the cost should be one item, the happiness of the people of this City. In that way we would not have the civil war we are having as to whether to put it in the west or the east. There would not be a sewer plant and nobody would be able to point fingers and say, "You are shoving it in my back yard." That is a paramount issue here, otherwise, we would not be sitting and discussing it. I think that is an overriding issue that is more important that we do not have this type of situation in Tamarac if we can help it. Alan Ruf: I would say that that was the main factor of relooking at this again. Y_Z Massaro: Of course, I have just got through reading that into the record that this was exactly why I have been working so diligently on this for the past couple of months and I did mention that the... last year the determination was made to build a new plant farther west, much to the consternation of the people in those areas. We had the people practically crying that surround the Utility and the people very, very disturbed when you talked about putting the Utility out there. And, I can certainly under- stand that. We could not hang it from a sky hook so I just determined that I was going to do the very best I could to elimin- ate this problem if it was at all possible. And, that is what I have been trying to accomplish and, hopefully, that is what we have accomplished. 13 12/19/85 /pm C/M Stein: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the record. Bill, in the Montgomery and CH2M Hill report, I do not remember going back to the County as an alternate in any of their figures. Am I correct? Bill GKggnkQod: Bill Greenwood, Director of Utilities. The study being referred to, to the best of my recollection, was what we classify as a relook and it compared the cost of the spray irrigation and the deep injection well. C/M Stein: O.K. That's what I wanted to bring out. He mention- ed the fact that they compared all three ... they did not. Just spray and deep well. fty_or_ Kravitz: Councilman. C/ Qgtte,sman: In view of the multi -million dollars that are involved whether we rehabilitate and build our own system or go to the 201 County system, I feel $5,500.00 is a low price to investi- gate and get the feasibility study that Williams, Hatfield & Stoner are proposing. We will have, as C/M Stein, perhaps the solution to the civil war, quote, unquote. Mayor Kravitz: O.K. Vice Mayor. V/M Massaro: Mr. Mayor, I must comment about what C/M Stein said about freeing up the $900,000.00 for that land. That is such a bargain that to even think about freeing that up is out of the question. In the first place, we do intend to put our Public Works out there at some point in time and we need large acreage in order to put Public Works anywhere because it is going to be an entirely different building and so forth. But, it needs a great deal of beautification and berms and what have you and a great deal more space than we have today. We have a $900,000.00 investment we have on Commercial Boulevard it is ... acres of land is easily think that we better think twice worry you. Mayor rg1Xitz: All right. Would Mr -.-Henning: Council. out there and the investment that right now in that 10-1/2...I think worth 5 million dollars. So, I before you let that $900,000.00 you call the question, please. Mayor Kravitz: Did you want to say something? Mg. kenning: Just a couple of quick comments. My understanding is that the deep well injection and the spray irrigation were approximately the same price. The spray may have been a little bit cheaper but that it was not that much cheaper than the deep well injection. Mg, Rgpninq: I would like maybe if Bill can explain to us if some of the grants that we thought that we were going to get for deep well ... we have been receiving some grants for the sludge and there are ... the Northwest Force Main, I think has grant money involved, so there are some grants that we are receiving to offset some of these prices that would have applied to either of the projects. C/M Stein: The Force Main has nothing to do with this. Mayor Kravitz: That has nothing to do with this Motion. Mr. Henning: Well, we would need the Force Main. [i 1 14 12/19/85 /pm C/M Stein: We need the Force Main no matter what happens. Mg. Henning: Right, I think, my recollection is ... my recollection of the facts is that the Council never made a determination to move the plant to Land Section 7. It was something that was openly stated by City Manager Elly Johnson as to a preference of his but I do not think that the Council ever took action to move forward in placing the plant there. It was an unanswered ques- tion. Of course, when the Deed Restriction was placed on the land, it tended to answer that unanswered question but...I do not think that there was ever a decision made to place the plant on Land Section 7. It was just an option that was left open that was sealed with the Deed Restriction. Anyway... that's... C/M Stein: I think that is academic. y/M Massaro: It is academic, is right. I do not know what you are talki-ng about. -CC St n: There are indications that the previous Council indirat-i_-d that it would be out west. mrL nina: All right, there is a... C/M Stein: What difference does that make? We are now talking about.... V/M Massaro; Forget it, Jon, you are sticking your neck in deeper than you intended. Mayor Kray-itz: It has nothing to do with this. Mr. HenniW: All right, there is, in Paragraph 3 of the Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, there is mention made of the Montgomery Rate Study. In recent discussions in the last month or two with staff, especially when we did our rate revision recently... September or October of this year ... there was some question as to whether there were some minor adjustments that needed to be done to the Montgomery Study... if those numbers were firm. If that is the same Study we are talking about and I would just like, if possible, to have Mr. Greenwood and his staff to have input that if there are numbers there that are not perfect and that if you are able to improve on those numbers, those corrections should be sent on to Williams, Hatfield & Stoner also. Mayor Kravitz: Go ahead, Bill. Bill n d: Bill Greenwood, Director of Utilities. In reference to the Montgomery Rate Study, which was the basis for the rate increase as of October 1st, their data was based upon information received by the City. Mr. Greenwood: Scrutinizing the report, my staff and I discovered that there was discrepancies in City data pertaining to meter sizes; therefore, we requested Montgomery to revise their reports. They have made those revisions. The main tables have all been revised and everything that was requested has been revised in the appropriate document and that is what your existing rate increase has been based on. r' 15 {{/ 12/19/85 /pm Mg. Henning: So, good data will be going to Williams, Hatfield & Stoner. Thank you. Mayor Kravitz: All right, let's call the question. S-Qgxe#Ary C/M Stein Aye C/M Munitz Aye C/M Gottesman Aye V/M Massaro Aye Mayor Kravitz Aye End of Verbatim Transcript. Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 3:20 P.M. MAYOR TEST: C TY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $126.70 or $3.51 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. CITY OF TAMARAC ARPROVED 9 MEETING OF City C rk 11 16 12/19/85 /pm