HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-03-08 - City Commission Regular Meeting Minutes5200 ROCK ISLAND ROAD TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33313
TELEPHONE (305) 73 1 -5900
N 0 T I C E.
There will be a regular meeting of the City Council held on Wednesday,
8th March 1972 at 10 am in the City Hall Annex.
Items to be considered are:
Item #1: PRESENTATION OF MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF
FEBRUARY 9, 16 and
Item #2. AMENDMENT TO ORDIN�TCE #1-64: by adding section 10.41
Item #3. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #1-64: by adding section 18.12.
C,31J- -- 6s. j'1 L
Item #4. ORDINANCE covering ax>4nexation of certain territories.
pia;-S. ?1, R3
Item #5. ORDINANCE cov ing floor to door solicitation.
--rc. er3�) T
Item #6. ORDINANCE #71-23. Discussion on possible increase of fines.
Item #7. RESOLUTION PERTAINING O RELEASE O,, CANAL RESEgATION.
Item #8. PENDING LEGIS TION ABOLISHING MUNICIPAL COURTS: Mr. Ford
Item #9. MAINTENANCE STRICTIONS• Review of procedures.
(0c, - /1. 9-/-Fk�
Item #10. INTERCOUNTY SPRAY SUIT: Report by Mr. Castenholz
Item #11. CANAL CLEANII)TG
Item #12. MAINTENANCE OF SIRE S AND OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTIES: Mr. Nolan
We- c 90
Item #13. BUDGET TRANSFER FOR CAPITAL PURCHASE OF TYPEWRITERS ETC.
AIR CONDITIONERS. Mr. Castenholz .
Item #14. STATUS OF CI ATTORNEY
Item #15. STATUS OF CITY PROSECUTOR
Item #16. LITIGATION: Report by Mr. Ford
3/j, - 7. 91, 9-2)
Item #17. REPORTS BY MAYOR AMD COUNCIL.
Item #18. REPORT BY MR. CASTE�. tHOLZ.
(3 4 -- Acw•9�Z-
Peggy M. Twi.chell, City Clerk
I
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TAMARAC.
March 8 1972.
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Oscar W. Seltman called the meeting to order at 10 am in
the City Hall Annex on March 8, 1972.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mayor 0 W. Seltman
Vice Mayor Evelyn M. Lange
Councilman Dwight Johnson
Councilwoman Helen Massaro
Councilman Eugene Shultz
Also present: Mr. R.D. Castenholz, City Manager
Mr. Harvey Ford, City Attorney
Peggy M. Twichell, City Clerk
PRAYER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
The Mayor asked all to stand for a moment of silent prayer, to be
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Item #1: PRESENTATION OF MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF
FEBRUARY 9, 16 and 23rd.
Councilman Shultz moved and Vice Mayor Lange seconded that the
minutes be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Item #2: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #1-64: by adding section 10.41
Mr. Ford read the ordinance, which was prepared at the recommendation
of the Zoning Commission.
Councilman Shultz moved, and Councilwoman Massaro seconded, that
the item be tabled for further study.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Item 01: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #1-64: by_ addin8 section 18.12
Mr. Ford read the ordinance. Councilwoman Massaro moved and Vice
Mayor Lange seconded that the ordinance be approved.
Regular Council Meeting, March 8 1972.
Vote taken: Councilman Shultz, Councilwoman Massaro,
Vice Mayor Lange and Mayor Seltman voted aye.
Councilman Johnson voted nay.
Item #4: ORDINANCE COVERING ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES
Mr. Ford explained there were in fact nine separate ordinances
which had been drawn up on the legal descriptions provided by the
City Engineers, Williams Hatfield and Stoner. Each is a separate
ordinance and identical excepting for the phrase in section one
describing the parcel. Titles are identical. He read one in full
(in effect reading them all).
He explained that the blank left in section 2 should be filled in.
Vice Mayor Lange moved and Councilman Shultz seconded that the
words "twelve months" should be inserted in the blank.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Ordinance describing API. Councilman Johnson moved and Councilman
Shultz seconded that the Ordinance describing Parcel API be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Ordinance describing parcel AP2. Vice Mayor Lange moved and
Councilman Shultz seconded that this be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Ordinance describing Parcel AP3. Councilman Shultz moved and Vice
Mayor Lange seconded that this be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Ordinance describing parcel AP4. Councilman Shultz moved and
Councilwoman Massaro seconded that this be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Ordinance describing Parcel AP5. Vice Mayor Lange moved and
Councilwoman Massaro seconded that this be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Ordinance describing parcel #AP6. Councilman Johnson moved and
Vice Mayor Lange seconded that this be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
r
Regular Council Meeting March 8 1972.
J
1
1
Ordinance describing Parcel AP7. Vice Mayor Lange moved and
Councilman Johnson seconded that this be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Ordinance ^describing parcel AP8. Councilman Johnson moved and
Vice Mayor Lange seconded that this be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Ordinance describing Parcel AP9. Councilman Shultz moved and
Councilman Johnson seconded that this be approved.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
ALL ORDINANCES COVERING PARCELS I thru 9 PASSED FIRST READING.
Item #5: ORDINANCE COVERING DOOR TO DOOR SOLICITATION.
Mr. Ford stated this ordinance had been prepared at the request
of the City Manager prohibiting peddlars, solicitors, canvassers
etc. from door to door solicitations; however, there are serious
Constitutional questions involved and he would prefer to research
further before Council acts.
It was moved by Councilman Shultz and seconded by Councilwoman
Massaro that the item be tabled until the next meeting. The
ordinance was not read.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Item #6: ORDINANCE #71-23. Discussion on possible increase of
fines. Mr. Ford read Section 5 of the ordinance, which pertains
to subdivision improvement regulations:
"It shall be the duty of the engineering department
strictly to enforce all the provisions of this
chapter. The general agent, architect, builder,
contractor, owner or tenant, or any other person
who commits, takes part in or assists in any
violation of this chapter, one who maintains any
premises in which any violation of this chapter
shall exist, shall for each and every violation,
upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding
One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or by imprisonment
not exceeding thirty (34? days, or by both such fine
and imprisonment in the discretion of the municipal
judge. Each day a violation is permitted to exist
shall constitute a separate offense."
Councilman Shultz, at whose suggestion this item was placed on
...... 1,
-19
.�
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
the agenda, said that his reason for the suggested change is
because we have people working digging canals, laying sewer lines
etc. without proper authority from the City to do so. In order to
deter such future action he would propose an increase in penalties
so that the fine should be moved up to $500 for each offense and
the term of imprisonment should be 90 days.
Councilman Johnson moved that the City Attorney be instructed to
draw up an amendment to the ordinance incorporating the changes
suggested by ,Councilman Shultz. Vice Mayor Lange seconded.
Councilwoman Massaro asked if the guilty party would have to be
served a warrant each day and the answer was that they would have
to be charged for each offense.
Mr. Castenholz stated that if the ordinance were changed in the
manner suggested the administration would have the power if it
feels it should be used.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Item #7: RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO RELEASE OF CANAL RESERVATION.
Mr. Ford read the resolution which pertains to Woodlands Villas.
Councilman Shultz moved, and Vice Mayor Lange seconded, that this
should be adopted.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Item #8: PENDING LEGISLATION ABOLISHING MUNICIPAL COURTS: Mr.
Ford requested that this be delayed for a short time as Judge
Johnson had requested and been given permission to speak on this
subject also and he was not yet in attendance.
Item #9. MAINTENANCE RESTRICTIONS: Review of procedures.
Mr. Ford said that, pursuant to action of the City Council in
November 1971, in adopting recommendations of the city's auditors,
Planes and Burkett, he prepared ;uide lines for suits to release
maintenance restrictions, which were to be used by those who at
that time it was intended should be helping to work on this.
However, there was some argument and confusion and he felt that
Council might want to review the matter to see if there is any
further clarification needed or change in procedure.
Mr. Ford then read the guidelines and Mr. Castenholz read the
enjoinder in suit and the disclaimer and release of restrictions.
Then a form was developed for bookkeeping so that it could be
r
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
determined at a glance who did and who did not sign.
After establishing plaintiffs and defendants then we would
attempt to get a Court decision as to the validity of the
restrictions. He would base his attack on the theory of
frustration of contractual object .... the object for which it was
intended cannot be attained. The Court could determine the
restrictions are no longer in force or effect. This would not
attack the original validity of restrictions so that, if a
particular section wanted to retain or use them, that would
be their business. As to the sections in which a decree was
ordered by the Court they would be of no further force or
effect and would be as if they had never existed. The attack
would be only in relation to the lien for maintenance. it
would have no bearing on age, fences etc. Each homeowner has
an obligation to keep his lawn in order etc., but, as recommended
by Planes and Burkett, this could be done on a voluntary basis,
within a section.
A separate suit would be filed for each section, as each section
has its own set of restrictions. The Chief Judge would be asked
to consolidate all the suits for purposes of trial.
Mr. Midgely, section 6, spoke and said his section would prefer a
referendum.
Mr. Fink, Tamarac Lakes South, said he spoke for his section who
wanted no part of any of this. They like things the way they are.
Dr. Flack, section 4, spoke and said his section is predominently
opposed to liquidating the restrictions.
He would, however, like that part of the restrictions dealing with
liens to be reversed so that pre-eminence would be given to the
mortgage lien and then the liens for maintenance, but he feels it
is necessary for the latter provision to remain in as some power
is essential to enforce payments.
Mr. Anthony lodged an objection to the method of disposing of deed
restrictions.
Mr. Zwerin of section 14 wondered if the beautification ordinance
could not be extended from commercial properties to individual
homes.
Mr. Fineberg felt there should be a vote taken from each home
owner as to who wants the restrictions removed and who does not.
Mr. Lischner, Mainlands 1 & 2, felt an option for selective service
would be the answer.
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
Mr. Sweet, section 11, wondered if the suit would include those
sections that have already accepted maintenance.
Mr. Ford said the intention was to include only those sections of
the city where the city holds the assignment. Tf any other section
wished to join in a suit they could institute their own suit and
request for it to be joined with the city.
Mr. Higgins, of section 5, said their section has optional maintenance
but he would suggest giving the restrictions back to Behring.
Mr. Ford said that the developer has no greater legal interest in
this than does any single property owner. He said he had previously
discussed a number of alternative methods of achieving this but it
must be done by a Court order of which everybody has been notified.
He would not suggest to Council that they should proceed with a suit
for any section where less than 507. are plaintiffs.
An enquiry was made from a section west of 9 asking how many people
they would require in order to become party to a suit and they were
told at least a majority in any section.
Marian Wollenweber, Boulevards, remarked they have not accepted the
assignment but have allowed each one to take care of their own lawns.
However, their problem is that they have 18 delinquents and feel the'
city should, as they have the deed restrictions, step in and help to
collect from these people the amount owing for lawn sprinklers.
Mr. Ford's reaction was that the sprinkler systems should be voluntarily
paid for, or if that proves unfeasible, they would have to be abandoned.
Mr. Sall enquired if, under the proposals, people would be subpoenaed.
He was told they would be served by a summons which binds them to the
suit. Their appearance is optional.
Mr. Yarnell spoke and brought out the fact that they are having
difficulties with their water charges.
Mr. Foris, section 4, brought out the point that in his section he
felt it had been represented to some residents that if you do not
have deed restrictions you do not have maintenance which he felt was
not a true statement. He felt people should be given the option of
deciding what they want.
Mr. Blank, section 7, explained that in his section they have the
responsibility of maintaining lawns etc. which they do very smoothly
with the help of a paid manager and the work is regularly supervised.
He feels that if there are areas where this voluntary program is not
PF
M
r
Regular Council Meeting 801 March 1972.
working it is the fault of that section.
Mr. Glickman, section 12. He also said their section is being
voluntarily run ... 40 families declined to join in the program
but they have shown pride in their homes and the result is that
their homes are just as well kept as any others. He has no
objection to a referendum in order to know how we stand in regard
to a law suit but he is afraid of the methods which may cause
controversy.
Mr. Campbell, Tamarac Lakes North, asked why not a referendum.
Councilman Johnson said he did not feel a referendum would be
understood without an educational program.
Miss Lange felt every homeowner has the right to vote and to have
a complete explanation without anyone pressuring them. She would
be willing to go out to Clubs.
Councilwoman Massaro felt Club meetings would not be acceptable
in view of their size to enable a clear picture unless more than
one were held in each Club.
Mr. Klika suggested in order to make a wise choice there should be
a list prepared of questions and answers arising from those which
have come up today which should be circulated to residents prior
to any Clubhouse meetings.
Mr. Curran raised another point where a meeting in a section had
resulted in a large majority show of approval until people were
asked how many of them understood what they had voted on and only
about six people said they did understand.
Mr. Shultz summarized the city's position and Mr. Planes'
recommendation.
Councilwoman Massaro fel.t after a list of questions were circulated
and meetings held in a Club there could be a determination made
as to any residents who had NOT attended and a concerted effort
made to contact each of these.
Mr. Fineberg said there are many people in his section who are
against the restrictions. If his section is not included in this,
and their tax money is being used for it, then they are going to
have to stop you from taking the matter to Court.
The question was raised there will have to be a time limit on all
of this or else it could stretch out indefinitely.
A suggestion was made that a group of say three people should
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
represent a section, get thoroughly briefed by, say, the City Attorney
and the City Manager, and then in turn go back and explain it to
the people.
Mrs. Massaro did not go along with this because she felt there
was too much pressure put on those who opposed the ideas of the'
Club leaders.
Mr. Ford felt this must be taken out of the hands of pressure groups
and done by Council and he suggested that they put out say 500/1000
words giving the pros and cons which should be distributed to home
owners, and if there are further questions then seminars should be
held.
Councilman Johnson made a motion that a Memorandum of Facts About
the Removal of Deed Restrictions should be compiled by the City
Attorney which would tell the story; after that there should be
seminars scheduled; and after that then a house to house canvass.
Vice Mayor Lange made a motion that such a Memorandum should be
prepared by the City Attorney which would tell the story; then
there should be seminars scheduled; and finally visits house to
house. Mrs. Massaro seconded the motion.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
The meeting was recessed until 2 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 2 pm.
Item #8: PENDING LEGISLATION ABOLISHING MUNICIPAL COURTS:
Judge Johnson did not appear.
Mr. Ford gave a comprehensive report on Article 5 which is the judicial
article of the State Constitution. He explained that this will be
a two-tier system of Courts: Circuit and County Courts and others
will be abolished including all Municipal Courts, Courts of Small
Claims and Juvenile Courts. Supposedly the reason is to speed up
justice but in most Counties there is no problem, including Broward,
other than in the Appellate Courts. Dade County has had a problem
with their criminal courts primarily because there are not enough
criminal judges.
What this will mean to Tamarac is a loss of revenue from Municipal
courts, which are at present run on a low budget, and a greatly
Ll
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
increased share of the costs of expensive full time Judges, full
time Prosecutors, full time public defenders. In addition to
which many of our police force will be required to spend long
hours at the beck and call of the Courts before they learn possibly
they are not being called as witnesses. There are many "driving
under the influence" cases which have been transferred to the
County for jury trial. It is a simple matter for a petition to
be presented to the judge and he has to grant it. Fort Lauderdale
recently made a study and found that in excess of 400 cases were
transferred but only 12 went to jury trial. Only 33 went to trial
at all and the rest were dismissed without prosecution and the
balance permitted to take pleas to lesser charges. Fort Lauderdale
lost a great deal of money to say nothing of the people who walked
out without prosecution, and the many hours of municipal officers
which went into preparing the cases. He does not believe the cities
of this County can afford to have their police officers' time
wasted in this way.
Item #10: INTERCOUNTY SPRAY SUIT: Report by Mr. Castenholz.
Mr. Castenholz reported that this suit has been settled at 60%
of the outstanding bill by virtue of the efforts of Mr. Ford and
himself. ($3,341.07 was the settlement price).
Vot_in& Places for 14th.March election were announced by Mr. Cook,
Chairman of the Election Board.
Item #11: CANAL CLEANING: Vice Mayor Lange spoke strongly
against those citizens who are putting garbage into the canals.
Not only are they littering but also polluting and oil and grease
are going in too. She read the following letter from City Manager:
Please be advised that the enclosed ordinance will
be stringently enforced by the City of Tamarac and fines
will be charged violators at the maximum provided by
law.
Please note that the ordinance includes provisions
not only against littering, but also against polluting.
In recent months there have been many incidents when
grass clippings were thrown into our canals, and in
the past weeks oil or grease has been dumped into the
canals or swales of homes, which lead into the canals,
creating an unsightly and practically impossible situ-
ation to correct. The Catty of Tamarac will: not tolerate
such careless or deliberate action by any individual or
firm which jeopardizes the beauty and/or cleanliness of
our canals.
Please review the enclosed fully. Your co-operation
in following the dictates of this ordinance will be ap-
preciated.
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
sent to lawn cutting contractors and those involved in landscaping.
Mr. Castenholz reported he has been working on the canals at
Woodlands and west with the help of Mr. Dispenza. Rather than use a
boat (because we do not have ready access to all canals) we have arranged
to borrow a 4 wheeled golf cart type of vehicle. Chemicals have been
ordered and we are hopeful that within a week we will be ready to
start spraying.
In reply to questions he said that the 3-M company has not yet
finished its job and will be back.
Item #12: MAINTENANCE OF STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTIES:
A letter was read from Mr. Nolan to the effect that the physical
inspection of these items has not begun as of March 7th. They are
presently in the process of securing the various construction plans
and hope to start field work early next week.
A question was asked re Commercial Boulevard east of #441. Can the
city give some idea as to what is going to happen around 31st Avenue
and 30th Terrace where it looks as tho they are going to continue
from C-13 to Commercial Boulevard.
Mr. Castenholz said he would check it out and report back.
There was further discussion regarding Commercial at #441 and also
at Rock Island and it was explained that studies are being made and
will be reported as soon as finalized.
The question will be reintroduced at next meeting.
Item #13: BUDGET TRANSFER FOR CAPITAL PURCHASE OF TYPEWRITERS ETC.
AIR CONDITIONERS.
Mr. Castenholz reported that under a previous administration a contract
had been entered into for the lease purchase of 5 typewriters and also
a radar unit and it is possible he did not have authority to enter into
such agreements. He feels it is worth attempting to negotiate a better
purchase option clause and then exercise the purchase rights. Out of
what we have paid in a year's time only 30% of the rental payment has
accrued against the total purchase price. He requested a budget
transfer from the contingency reserve to the capital outlay of$5000
which would cover both the typewriters and the radar unit as well as
some other small miscellaneous items. He was actually requesting two
things: approval of the recommended budget transfer and authority for
the city attorney and himself to negotiate a higher purchase option
clause and then exercise the purchase rights.
Councilman Johnson moved and Vice Mayor Lange seconded that the approval
and authority be given.
r
H.1
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
In reply to a point raised by Mr. Foris, Mr. Ford stated that
anything that would be done would be done in compliance with the
requirements of the charter.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Item #16: LITIGATION.
Inter County Spray suit: A report has already been given.
Paul Zarcone vs. the City. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a rehear-
ing. Their motions were denied and they were given until March 9th
to file an amended complaint.
Al. Schechter vs. City. No change.
Broward Countyvs. City. (suit for water and sewer). We have
replied to the County's interrogatories. Case appears to be
about ready for trial.
Tuthill vs. City and Fox vs. City. Previously reported I had
filed to dismiss their second amended complaints. Tuthill case
was heard and our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
was granted and they were again granted leave to amend and that
has to be in within 10 days. The Fox hearing on the second
amended complaint will be this month.
Tamarac Homeowners' Association vs_ City. Special Counsel
informs me that a conference has been held among the attorneys
and the case is scheduled for trial May 12th.
House and Garden. Special Counsel has informed me a motion has
been filed to dismiss the amended complaint.
Shackman et alvs.City. Class suit involving restrictions on
Woodlands Section 2 phase 1. We have filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. Not set for hearing yet.
Shackman_vs. City in the Federal district court involves similar
questions. Federal judge has dismissed that suit without leave
to amend and the time to make an appeal is now lapsing: I believe
April 15th.
Altramura vs. City, Appears to be moot. No change.
Tallia vs. City. Suit for an injunction and for damages arising
out of our building moratorium. A hearing was held on our motion
to dismiss and their petition for a temporary injunction. No
ruling yet.
Regular Council Meeting Sth March 1972.
Yostvs. City. Our motion to dismiss is still pending. Not been
set for hearing.
Danischefsky vs. City. Filed in small claims court for about $240
claim for non performance by the city pertaining to deed restriction
house painting etc. We filed a counter claim foreclosing on our
lien for about $112 with a motion to transfer to the Circuit Court.
Judge indicated if the city's claim were not paid within ten days
the transfer would be granted and I assume it will be transferred
to the Circuit Court.
I am told that Mr. Schechter is going to file a rather large suit
against the city for clubhouse rents. Not filed yet.
Item #14: STATUS OF CITY ATTORNEY: Mr. Ford stated he had written
a letter requesting that his position as city attorney be reviewed
at this time. He has personal commitments to make such as office
space, associates etc., and in view of the fact that this is a new
Council he feels that Council should have the right to decide
whether they wish to retain his services or to replace him.
Councilman Shultz moved and Councilman Johnson seconded that Mr.
Ford should be retained in his present capacity as city attorney.
Vote taken: all voted aye. (Applause).
Item #15: STATUS OF CITY PROSECUTOR.
There was some discussion over the fact that there was no letter
from Mr. Parnell.
Councilman Shultz moved in opposition to the retention of Mr. Parnell
in his capacity as city prosecutor. Vice Mayor Lange seconded.
Mr. Ford stated that he had sent a copy of his letter to Mr. Parnell
and that in effect both he and Mr. Parnell had tendered their
resignations, which he felt should be done when a new Council was
in office.
At the suggestion of Mr. Castenholz Councilman Shultz amended his
motion to read that Mr. Parnell be replaced as city prosecutor. Miss
Lange agreed.
Vote taken:- all voted aye.
Item #17: REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
Councilman Shultz outlined some of the background work which he has
r
0
-3
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
been doing regarding transportation in general: the bus service,
attempting to get alleviation of traffic problems on #441, trying
to get University Drive completed and so on. Tn regard to the
latter he mentioned that when all work on this had been completed
by Commissioner Whalen the agreement was voided on the grounds
that he had not "obtained a good enough deal" on the land acquisition.
So now the work has to be started again.
Councilwoman Massaro spoke in strong favor of the Beautification
Ordinance which she felt was most important, particularly to see
that its implementation is carried out, and then she asked Mr. Klika
to elaborate on this.
Mr. Klika felt that the formation of a Beautification Committee
would alleviate the load placed on the Building Department and the
Zoning Commission, particularly if that committee consisted of
volunteers who were able and willing to devote their skills and
time to it.
There was discussion as to the procedure to be followed and finally
agreed that a group consisting of Councilman Shultz (who agreed to
stand in for the Mayor while the latter was out of town) Mr. Zimmer,
Mr. Klika and Mr. Castenholz get together and formulate a method
of procedure to be brought before a special meeting of council
next week.
Councilman Johnson spoke advocating the establishment of a park
along the south side of Commercial Boulevard to the overpass which
he had been informed might cost a million dollars if it were
purchased. He said Mr. Higgins will show a plan to his people and
he asked the audience to find out the wishes of the people in their
sections. He said a public hearing will shortly be held to
consider rezoning the land from B-1 (which it presently is) to B-2,
but in the meantime if an applicant applies for a permit under B-1
there is nothing to stop it from being granted.
Marian Wollenweber said she felt if there were a million dollars
around it should go toward the purchase of clubhouses.
Mr. Higgins spoke in favor of Councilman Johnson's plan.
Vice__Mayor Lange spoke on the sewers east of #441, about which she
is very worried. She asked for a temporary moratorium until a
report from Mr. Nolan of Williams, Hatfield and Stoner can be
thoroughly studied. Mr. Nolan said that while the plant was in
generally good condition one of the most important pieces of
equipment was inoperable - the recording flow meter. She asked
for a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to draw up legislation
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
1
providing for a moratorium of six months until we know where we are
going. Councilman Shultz seconded the motion.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Mr. Foris spoke and referred to a letter the Tamarac Homeowners'
Association wrote in July asking what steps Council would recommend
the Tamarac Homeowners' Association should take in order to get a
special assistant attorney general appointed to look into the
findings of the State audit and the City audit in pursuit of criminal
or civil suits. Still waiting for Council action.
Item #18: REPORT BY MR. CASTENHOLZ:
He advised the city is now down to one police car plus the van having
unfortunately lost one car in an accident at Commercial and #441, an
investigation of which was conducted by the Florida Highway Patrol.
The other driver was cited: ours was not. We are covered by insurance.
However, he would like to go for a bid for one additional unit and is
asking for authority to advertise for bids.
Moved by Councilman Shultz and seconded by Councilwoman Massaro that
Mr. Castenholz be authorized to advertise for bids.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
He also said the _fire agreement expires 14th April and negotiations
should begin immediately. He requested City Council authorize the
Mayor, the City Attorney and himself to negotiate fire contracts for
an additional year.
Motion by Councilman Shultz, seconded by Vice Mayor Lange, that this
be authorized.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Tamarac Utilities. Mr.'Castemholz has reviewed their current franchise
and considers it not to the best interests of the city. Tt calls for
specified percentages of their gross revenue to be paid to the City
but it allows them to take a credit for all taxes, fees, permits etc.
they pay to the city from the franchise so they deduct amounts of the
ad valorem tax plus all permits that are charged to them. The franchise
fees are added to the bills as a separate and distinct item. Mr.
Castenholz feels the City Attorney should be instructed to make known
our wishes to Tamarac Utilities and see if he can negotiate a better
water and sewage franchise.
Councilman Shultz moved and Vice Mayor Lange seconded that the city
1
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
1
attorney be authorized to confer with Tamarac Utilities.
Mr. Foris asked if there could be included the question of
certain sections west of the turnpike being charged for metered
water for their sprinklers.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
Financial Statement. Mr. Castenholz commented he had recently
given a statement of revenue and expenses for the four months
ending February 29th to members of Council and he realized they
had not yet had time to study it. Although we are one third of
the way thru the year (November/February) we had expended 27%
of our estimated budget and received 54% of our estimated revenue.
Of the highlights our budgeted revenue was $743,905 and our actual
$403,554. We have exceeded our budget in several areas:
occupational licence fees received to date are $8000 more than
the year's budget and we anticipate ending the year considerably
less than our budget provided for in spending.
Mr. Reid requested information from Council as to what the city
intends to do regarding the amount of $736.37 which he feels the
city should have collected for Clubhouse taxes of his section.
They have the money to pay three quarters but not the fourth and
he considers it the city's job.
Mr. Castenholz stated, and this was confirmed by Mr. Ford, that
the city has not collected nor does it have any plans to collect,
and it feels that the matter will have to be decided between
that section and the Clubhouse owner.
_Ad Valorem Tax exemption. Mr.
extract from a letter from Mr.
Broward County:
Castenholz read the following
William Markham, Tax Assessor,
"Re: 1972 Exemption Application.
As you know, the exemption laws of Florida were
materially changed by the 1971 Legislature in
Tallahassee, and these changes can possibly affect
the status of your property's exemption in 1972.
The Legislature has directed that you must use your
property "predominantly" for exempt purposes for it
to receive any exemption. This means use of the
property for exempt purposes in excess of 50%. Exempt
uses are defined as educational, literary, scientific
religious, charitable or governmental. "Charitable
purpose" is a function or service which is of such a
community service that its discontinuance could result
in the allocation of public funds for the continuation
of the function or service."
R10
Regular Council Meeting 8th March 1972.
He had contacted Mr. Ford to see if he agreed with him that possibly
the Clubhouses might qualify. He did agree and he requested that
Council give authority to Mr. Ford to work with the sections to
develop the necessary information for the sections to make application
for exemption.
Councilman Shultz moved and Vice Mayor Lange seconded that this
authority be given.
Vote taken: all voted aye.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 4.30 p.m.
Attest:
City Clerk
1