HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-13 - City Commission Special Budget Meeting MinutesMAIL. REPLY TO:
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320
5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE w TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
September 13, 1982
NOTICE OF BUDGET HEARING
FISCAL YEAR 1982/83
The following will be considered for discussion and possible action by the City
Council on Monday, September 13, 1982 at 7:00 PM in the Council. Chambers of City
Hall, 5811 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida.
ITEM#1 - Temporary.Resolution 2446 - A Resolution adopting an aggregate proposed
miage rate for Fiscal —Year 1982/83 at 3.303 per thousand dollars
($1000.00) assessed valuation.
ITEM #2 -Temporary Ordinance #1000 - An Ordinance establishing the Tentative
General Fund Budget not to exceed $8,625,639.83 for fiscal year
1982/83. First Reading.
ITEM #3 - Final Public Hearing - Announcement of the Time and Place for the
final Public Hearing on the Ad Valorem Millage Rate and General Fund
Budget - Fiscal Year 1982/83.
The City Council may consider such other business as may come before it.
The Public is invited to attend.
Pursuant to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368:
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City
'ouncil with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED TENTATIVE SAL FUND BUDGET -- FISCAL YEAR 1982/83
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON
MONDAY, SEER 13, 1982 at 7:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 5811
N. W. 88TH AVENUE, TAMA.RAC, FLORIDA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING PUBLIC INPUT,
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FISCAL
YEAR 1982/83.
A summary of the Proposed Tentative General Fund Budget 1982/83 follows:
ACCOUNT
1981-82 BUDGETED
ACTUAL RECEIPTS
ESTIMATED
NAME
ESTIMATED
'THROUGH
1982-83
REVENUES
REVENUES
8/82
REVENUES
AD VALOREM
3,300,000.
3,004,856.
3,196,490.
INTEREST ON TAX DISTRIBUTION
-0-
21,508.
-0-
PRIOR YEAR - PERSONAL PROPERTY
-0-
8,134
-0-
COUNTY HELD TAX CERTIFICATE
-0-
4,166.
-0-
GOOD FAITH COUNTY
-0-
60,394.
-0-
SALES & USE TAXES
-0-
-0-
715,647.
FRANCHISE TAX - ELECTRIC
780,000.
853,129.
890,000.
FRANCHISE TAX - TELEPHONE
35,000,
-0-
37,000.
FRANCHISE TAX - CATV
22,000.
-0-
25,000.
FRANCHISE TAX - SOLID WASTE
29,000.
29,025,
30,000.
NEWSPAPER COLLECTION
4,400.,
2,040.
2,000.
BURGLAR ALARM PERMITS & FEES
112,000.
60,915.
65,000.
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES
132,000.
168,125.
165,000.
BUILDING PERMITS
370,000.
236,518.
240,000
AQUATIC WEED CONTROL
21,000.
936.
21,000.
CIGARETTE TAX
85,000.
50,342.
65,000.
STATE REVENUE SHARING
710,000.
670,083.
869,000.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE
9,900.
5,112.
9,000.
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
-0-
17,909.
-0-
GAS REBATE CITY VEHICLE
6,000,
6,990.
7,000.
COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE TAX
120,000.
99,648.
34,500.
COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE
37,000.
41,581.
50,000.
PARKING LOT - CITY
3,800.
3,155.
3,500.
PARKS & REC. PROG. ACT. FEES
2,000.
1,965.
1,000.
SUMMER RECREATION
14,000.
8,199.
10,000.
INTERIM SERVICE FEES
110,000'..
78,874.
70,000.
ENGINEERING FEES UNRESTRICTED
135,000.
220,612.
100,000.
PLANNING FEES AND REVENUES
-0-
40,377.
30,000.
LOT CLEARING
-0-
-0-
PARKING VIOLATIONS
-0-
12,740.
5,000.
FINES & FORFEITURES (COUNTY)
85,000.
92,596.
100,000.
POLICE GENERAL & MISC.
9,000.
10,769.
12,000.
SALE OF CONFISCATED ITEMS
-0-
165.
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
50,000.
39,034.1
50,000.
RECYCLE OIL SALES
-0-
23.
-0-
COLLECTION ON CITY DISP.
-0-
23.
-0-
TELEPHONE COMMISSIONS
-0-
184.
-0-
PROCEEDS FROM INS. CLAIM
-0-
321.
-0-
INTEREST INCOME
450,000.
407,824.
470,000,
REV. FROM SALE OF SURPLUS EQUIP.
-0-
1,500.
-0-
APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE
1,425,734.
-0-
1,306,348.
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN DATA PRO-
CESSING /UTILITY EAST
2,100.
1,400.
2,300.
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE/UTILITIES WEST
31;000.
25,833.
58,500.
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN ADMIN.
SERVICES/ UTILITY WEST
25,000.
20,833.
27,500.
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN LIEU
OF TAXES/UTILITY EAST
6,000.
5,500.
6,600.
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN DATA
PROCESSING/UTILITY WEST
30,000.
25,000.
50,000.
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN LIEU
OF TAXES UTILITY WEST
130,000.
-0-
157,000.
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN
PSC
12,000.
12,000.
-0-
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
8,2939934.
6,350,351.
8,881,385.
I 001)"ORNOR
:
DEPARTMENT/
ACT IVTI'Y
1981/82 BUDGET
AFTER REVISIONS
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDS
LEGISLATIVE
98,150.
110,261.
CITY ATTORNEY
153,699.
160,902.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
65,215.
72,124.
CITY MANAGER
88,261.
94,486.
CITY CLERK
199,477.
238,016.
FINANCE
266,405.
443,302.
PUBLIC WOWS
1,080,989.
1,120,567.
CITY ENGINEER
131,033.
148,200.
BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE
350.
350.
PLANNING BOARD
1,200.
1,200.
CHARTER.BOARD
2,370.
1,335.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
400.
400.
PUBLIC INFORMATION BOARD
5,650.
5,650.
DEBT SERVICE
70,210.
165,863.
PERSONNEL -INSURANCE
98,250.
115,000.
PERSONNEL
92,350.
112,443.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
499,100.
520,620.
POLICE
2,455,998.
2,813,522.
FIRE
1,045,529.
1,158,026.
BUILDING
354,169.
307,191.
WELCOMING COMMITTEE
200.
200.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS BOARD
650.
650.
SANITATION SERVICES
890,000.
725,000.
SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD
6,400.
7,400.
RECREATION
97,884.
133,675.
OONTINGENCY
277,111.
200,000.
CAPITAL RESERVE
312,883.
225,000.
TOTAL
8,291, 3
8,88 ,3 5.
The figures reflected within this ad may be subject to certain minor administrative
changes between the dates of this ad and the date of hearing. Printed hand-outs
of the budget to be reviewed in the course of the hearing will be available to
the public an the hearing date.
Pursuant to Chapter 80405 of Florida Law, Senate bill No: 368.
J a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
t�;;:
• - 4
PUBLISH: Broward Section - Friday,.August 27 , 1982
Miami Herald Monday, September 6, 1982
Broward Neighbors - Thursday, September 2, 1982
North Zone
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
PUBLIC HEARING
GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND TAX MILLAGE
SEPTEMBER 13, 1982
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the Public Hearing to order on Monday, September 13,
1982 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck
Councilman Irving M. Disraelly
Councilman Philip B. Kravitz
Councilman David E. Krantz
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro
ALSO PRESENT:
Laura Z. .Stuurmans, City Manager
Jon M. Henning, City Attorney
Steve Wood, Finance Director
Carol A. Evans, Assistant City Clerk
MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Falck called for a moment of silent
meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Falck informed the Public that this was a budget meeting for the General Fund
Budget and Tax Millage for the City of Tamarac. He added that if members of the
Public had any complaints about their property assessments, they go to the Property
Appraiser. If there was a complaint_abaut_the County Tax, they could contact
the County Commissioners. Any complaints about the school taxes should be taken
to the Board of Education as that was riot the city's responsibility nor the city's
jurisdiction.
Mayor Falck, read the official Notice of Public Hearing .
1. TEMPORARY RESOLUTION #2446 - A Resolution adopting an aggregate proposed millage
rate for Fiscal Year 1982.83 at 3.303 per thousand dollars ($1000.00) assessed
valuation.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. R -$ 2 -1 -PASSED .
Laura Stuurmans informed Council and the public that the Florida Statutes require that
the first order of business be the setting of the millage rate, prior to the approval
of a tentative budget before final and second reading, the later part of this month.
She added that to proceed in that order, she suggested that the City Attorney read
into the record by title Temp. Reso. #2446, the resolution on the aggregate proposed
millage rate for Fiscal Year 1982/83.
Jon Henning read the Resolution by title only.
Laura Stuurmans reviewed the Summary of Estimated Expenditures, which had been revised
since publication date, (see attachment #1). She also reviewed the Summary of Estimated
Revenues (see attachment #2).
Mrs. Stuurmans added that the millage rate for 1981/82 was 4.7808 . mills, which would
equate to $4.78 per $1,000.00. As she had indicated earlier, the amount that was
reflected in the notice received in August was 4.3255 mills. She explained that the
amount that would be required to fund the budget that was just reviewed, would be
3.303 mills. She added that this is a decrease in the millage rate of 30.91% from last
year.
C/M Kravitz questioned the remark that the budget had gone up 4%. He added that in
checking the figures under Estimated Revenues, a figure of $715,000 in Sales and Use
Tax, that was not included last year, added to the budget would bring the figure up
to over $1 million dollars. He asked for an explanation -
The City Manager answered that the Sales and Use Tax monies are being used to offset
what would have otherwise been required from ad valorem proceeds. She added that
the requirement to operate the City in the next fiscal year as has been projected by
the administration at this time, is an increase of 4%.
C/M Disraelly remarked that the ad valorem tax has been reduced by approximately
$900,000 and because of the 1� sales tax that is instituted beginning next year, the
City share will be $715,000. He added that the State says that the City must use a
percentage of that, but they do not have to use all of it. He said that most of the
-1- 9/13/82
surrounding cities were using approximately 40% of the 1G sales tax, and using the
other 60% for other purposes. He added that Tamarac is using the entire 100% of
that sales tax in order to reduce the ad valorem tax.
C/M Disraelly said if C/M Kravitz would add together the ad valorem tax that will
be charged, plus the sales and use tax, that adds up to $3,150,000, which is still
less than what the ad valorem tax would have been a year ago.
C/M Kravitz questioned Burglar Alarm Permits and Fees having been reduced from last year's
figure of $112,000 to this year's figure of $65,000. Laura Stuurmans answered that
at the time that last year's budget was being drawn, at the same time the Burglar
Alarm Committee was considering an Ordinance which would have impacted the fee side
of the Burglar Alarm functions more critically. She added that the Ordinance in
that form was not passed, therefore the amount of revenues derived from burglar
alarm function never netted the $11�,000 that had been projected. She said that
$65,000 that is shown in the budget for next year, more closely aligns itself to
what can be anticipated in terms of fees and fines in this category.
C/M Kravitz questioned Building Permits; last year the estimated figure was $370,000
and this year the estimated figure is $240,000. He said there is an increase in
building in this area and with the interest rates going dawn, he did not understand
why they were dropping this figure so drastically. The City Manager said she felt
that this figure was based on this year's experience, coupled with the trends that
they have seen within the last few months.
Steve Wood, Finance Director added to this that the average collection for building
permits for the last several months has been under $23,000 per month. He added that
that was one of the reasons that the revenue projection was down; the other instance
is that the City has c nnitted a lot less to developer agreements during the later
months this fiscal year than they had in Prior later months in prior fiscal years.
C/M Kravitz questioned Parking Violations, a new item with $7,500 for the coming year.
He said he had understood that the figure was going to be much higher than that for
the cities.
Steve Wood said that the parking violations are those given out by the City of Tamarac,
those are not coming back fram, the court system if he was thinking about the $2.00
that would be caning back; that was a different thing. Steve Wood said that the $2.00
that would be coming back would provide for police education and training which is
a separate fund other than the general fund.
C/M Kravitz asked what was included in miscellaneous revenue, $50,000. Steve Wood
said that this figure was a composite of a lot of small items; for example,
duplicating cost, miscellaneous sales that take place, items that are closed out.
C/M Kravitz questioned if they had used $50,000 last year? Steve Wood said that they
had.
C/M Kravitz raised the question of the Welcoming Committee during the first hearings
on this, that it was the feeling of the Council that the Welcoming Committee should
not get outside income from other sources. He added that they would run it strictly
on what the budget is, and he had pointed out to Council that if that were the case
since they raised $500 during the year, it would have to be increased to $700. He
said he noticed that nothing was done in this budget. The City Manager pointed out
that C/M Kravitz was supposed to get input back to them. She said she had reviewed
the budget workshop minutes and that was one of the open areas that did remain. C/M
Kravitz said he had given the number of meetings and the cost of each meeting and the
total was between $600 and $700.
Mayor Falck said this should not be debated now. Mayor Falck suggested they get a
copy of the minutes of the meeting at which this matter was discussed, and then they
can do one of two things, Council can determine if they want to increase and will so
instruct the City Manager, and if they do not, they will tell them what they want as
far as fund raising activities on behalf of the committee.
C/M Kravitz questioned the. Building Department Budget which he noted was. practically
the only item that has gore down in the recommendation for the current estimated
expenditures. He added that he would prefer to have some input on that, but would
like to reserve that until after the Public Hearing. He said that the reason he
raised these questions was that he feels that the contingency and the reserve that
canes up is a big factor.
-2-- 9/13/82
/nrr
Mayor Falck opened the Public Hearing on both the proposed millage and the tentative
budget for FX 1982/83.
Don Perlman asked for an explanation of the category, Debt Service. The City Manager
informed him that this was the building, the fire trucks. He asked then what was the
estimated $100,000 raised from last year to this year? Steve Wood said that last year
the majority of the debt service cost was funded out of Federal Revenue Sharing Fund,
and this year it was not being delegated to Federal Revenue Sharing, and is coming
back into the General Fund.
Mr. Perlman said that there was. a great need in the City of Tamarac for a teen center,
and year after year goes by with nothing being done. He said he thought it was very
important. He mentioned that the juvenile specialists, Judy Kitograd and Dave Harris
only had opportunities to get to the middle school age children. When they did get in
touch with teen agers, it was already after they had done something wrong. There is
nowhere in the City for teenagers to go, unless they hang out around bowling alleys._.
He added that out of boredom canes mischief and mischief imposes a burden
upon all— He said it has been 7 years since they have been trying to get some-
thing like this and the time was coming that they would,have to and he was asking for
Council's support to somehow get a program like this on the ground.
Morris Landman said he noticed a 50% drop in newspaper collections. He said in his
area alone, the homeowners constantly put out the newspapers and they have to plead
with sanitation to take those away and they refuse and no one comes around to pick
the newspapers up. It has gotten to the point now where people were putting it in
the garbage just to get rid of it. He asked whether or not the City has a contract
with an organization. If the City does, they are losing revenue.
C/M Disraelly said that the City did have a collector and was getting good collection,
and then one time he was ill, another time his truck broke down and the City is right
now in the throes of rearranging and hope that he did pick up this week. The City
Manager said he also had to cut down some areas because he had scene financial losses.
She added that the newspaper value apparently is not what is was when the City initially
contemplated the program, so this is not a livelihood for the individual. She said
the papers were not being picked up by BFI as they were helping with the program as the
City had told them not to pick up newspaper. She said that she had now informea the
regular garbage collector that if the papers were there to pick them up.
Mr. Landman asked if Police General and Miscellaneous would take in .
Code Enforcement? Steve Wood said that that account was the sale of I.D, cards,
accident reports. He added that Code Enforcement would come under Fines & Forfeitures
(County). He also questioned the Interest Income. Steve Wood said that that was funds
available in the General Fund.
Mr. Landman agreed with Mr. Perlman that the City of Tamarac was in dire need of a
recreational center. He added there are teenager's and youngsters in this City that
need a place they can go to aside from the regular clubhouses. He said that not
everyone has a clubhouse. He said that the City sends Senior Citizens to Margate.
He said that the money was there and they were not using it for the residents of
Tamarac.
Mr. Landman added that another item was the budget of the City Attorney. He questioned
how much of that budget was for consultant fees. Laura Stuurmans informed him that
$59,600 was used for consultant fees. Mr. Landman said that we now have a full time
City Attorney, who is receiving an adequate salary, and he wanted to know why they had
to have so much money for a consultant.
Mayor Falck said there were a number of cases where a consultant was needed. He added
that there are many kinds of cases that are very difficult and in need of specialized
attorneys. Mr. Landman asked if it were the same with Consultant City Engineers.
Mayor Falck said yes they were very necessary as well.
The City Manager informed Mr. Landman that same of the fees to the Engineering Dept.
are recouped as the developers are charged for the engineering services.
Jack Stelzer, a retired CPA, said he was not going to comment on any particular budget
:item,..he wished to. .talk in general on the budget practices. He has been privy to all
information on the budget and has seen the audit of Alexander Grant & Co. He has made
culprehensive studies of all of these documents, and for the benefit of the public he
wished to explain how the City is run financially. He added that the City is in the
business of providing municipality services to the residents of Tamarac. He said
-3- 9/13/82
/nrr
a budget is prepared of what it would cost to give adequate services to the
residents. He added that now the City has to come up with enough money to pay
for these services. He said the City has to guess on engineering fees, building
permits, interest income, franchise taxes, revenue sharing, etc., because there
is no way a figure can be accurately anticipated. He said that the cost of total
estimated income is far short of the cost of operating the City properly, so the
citizens of Tamarac are required to contribute funds in the form of an ad valorem
tax to make up the difference.
Mr. Stelzer explained to the public that the City maintained a yearly profit of
almost one half million dollars. He added that if this was business they would
give a dividend, but they cannot. He said that the City says they will apply a
portion of this profit against the following year's ad valorem tax. He said they
show a figure in the budget which shows appropriated surplus and reduces the ad
valorem tax. The City, since its inception, has never had to use any of the
appropriated surplus that is shown in the budget.
He said that the income from ad valorem taxes and other sources, always, every
year, the income has exceeded the expenditures and his complaint has been that
each year the City is building up a stockpile of the taxpayer's money. He added
that this has been discussed at every final budget hearing. He stated that each
member of Council has a different opinion of what the City Charter requires to
be held in surplus to provide sufficient reserve for the City.
Mr. Stelzer continued that after much heated controversy, in October, 1979, Alexander
Grant and Co., accountants, along with the City Council, the City Manager, and the
City Attorney, agreed that a maximum of 10% unappropriated fund balance should
provide sufficient financial reserve for the City. This is 10% of the total budgeted
expenses, less reserve settlement. He added that an ordinance was written, Ordinance
#80--2, providing that a proposed amendment be placed on a ballot on March 11, 1980
to affect such a change.
Mr. Stelzer stated that the ballot that was submitted to the voters read, Question 3,
"shall Section 7.03 of the Tamarac City Charter be amended to limit the unapprop-
riated surplus which the City may maintain. To limit the amount of money that may
be maintained in General Fund Contingency Accounts and to modify the City Budget
requirements". The voters approved this change and the Charter was amended to
read, "City may maintain an unappropriated surplus of no more than 10% of the total
proposed expenditures of the General Fund Budget". He added that this was what
everyone agreed to and was voted for by the voters of Tamarac, but what the voters
did not know about, and what was added to the Charter was the following, "the City
may maintain an unappropriated surplus in excess of 10% of the General Fund Budget
when it receives unanticipated revenue during the fiscal year". City Council must
feel that all revenues derived that are in excess of their guesses at budget time,
are unanticipated revenue; this is not per se, all the revenues that come in are
anticipated, but the amounts are higher than anticipated. This does not make this
unanticipated. As an example, if President Reagan were to present the city with
$1 million dollars to keep the Russians out, that is unanticipated revenue.
Mr. Stelzer stated that this unauthorized sentence in the Charter has been discussed
with the Charter Board and with the former City Attorney, Arthur Birken. The City
Attorney said if the voters wanted to know exactly what they were voting on, they
should have cane to City Hall and read the ordinance.
Mr. Stelzer added that for years the City has been piling up a huge surplus. The
records show that as of 7/31/82, total surplus is close to $3 million dollars. If
Council does not transfer any of those funds, they expect the figure to remain the
same 9/30/82.
He continued that several years ago there was a transfer of $600,000 frm General
Fund Account to the Drainage Improvement Fund and he has never been able to
determine who authorized this transfer. Last week excess funds remaining in the
Department of Public Works Budget was transferred to the Drainage Fund.
Mr. Stelzer also stated that the City had too much surplus; there will be an un-
appropriated surplus of $1.25 million, which is $400,000 more than the charter
allows. The City is receiving $2,400,000 in ad valorem taxes, and the excess of
$400,000 could be used to reduce the ad valorem tax by 20%.
He continued pointing out that the drainage improvement funds were being used for
Westwood Sections 21, 22, 23, and 24. These deficiencies were the fault of
Leadership and now the City is helping to pay for these improvements, out of
general fund monies. Every section had to install proper electrical wiring which
was also the fault of Leadership and yet the City did not help to pay for it.
East of 4 41 water meters were needed, the City did not help pay for that. Mr. Stelzer
wanted to know why these residents that did not get any assistance had to pay for
the drainage in Westwood.
-4- 9/13/82
Mr. Stelzer stated that with regard to the West Utilities, they are also running
surplus larger than necessary with $2 million dollars in the General Fund Reserve.
Mr. Stelzer reiterated that there were four items to think about; changing the City
Code to show what the voters wanted and eliminate the excess verbiage, the excess
surplus that should be properly applied to reduce ad valorem taxes, get the City to
levy assessments for local improvements in Westwood, and watch the water rates, they
are making money and have excess surplus.
Judy Kamel said she felt there was a great need for a teen center in Tamarac. She
said she could not understand how the Council as grandparents did not see the need.
Mrs. Kamel added that the money was there and what better way was there to spend
the money than on the youth of Tamarac.
Melanie Reynolds inquired as to the $400,000 interest and Mr. Wood had stated that
it had cane from the General Fund. Mrs. Reynolds asked if it was possible to find
out where that money comes from and in what financial institutions it was invested.
The City Manager informed Mrs. Reynolds that there was a monthly report and it was
public record if she wished to see it.
Moni Avidon said he would like to know from the City Manager, if the millage rate
was going to be presented to Mr. Markham at the basis of 4.325. He said he did not
understand the reason for it being submitted at the higher figures when she knew
that the figure was going to came in lower.
Laura Stuurmans said there was reference made to that and it was merely being
conservative and precautionary. She added that this had been discussed in July and
at the time, there were a lot of projections coming in, both in expenditures and
on the revenue side of the budget.
Mr. Avidon asked if the Police Departments had asked for $109,000 for a commmication
system that had been turned down. Laura Stuurmans said that was a portion of the
Finance Department Budget that contained $109,000 for various computer systems for a
number of departments. She added that the Police Department did have a package and
Captain Mortimer and Chief McIntosh said they were not quite ready, perhaps in the
next fiscal year. She said they had provided in the Federal Revenue Sharing Budget
for Public Works inventory control system, and the Fire Department is getting a
system and a couple of other software packages in-house that will be developing at
a lesser cost.
Mr. Avidon asked about the Building Department, where it is anticipated the present
rate of slow building that is going on, due to the present rate of building permits,
would they do away with the three positions. The City Manager answered that they
would, within the first quarter of this fiscal year, observe the activity within the
department and the potential of an increase in the area of inspection requirements
and at that time, determine whether there was a need for these three positions.
Mr. Avidon mentioned that he would present to the Charter Board for review, the
question of the ordinance that had been placed on the ballot without the public's
knowledge of what that ordinance had contained.
Doug Christy said he wished to point out the bottom line of the budget. He stated
that it only varied from last year 4% which spoke very well of this City, especially
in comparison with surrounding communities. He added that there had been some items
brought up which he had not been aware of, but he felt that in total, the City was
being very fair with the :residents by using 100% of the Sales and Use Tax for the
ad valorem taxes. He also pointed out that the ad valorem tax rate had gone down
and the residents would benefit by that. He added that other cities were giving
only what they were required to give and using the rest for other areas. Mr. Christy
said he wanted to counter any negative reactions that he had heard tonight. He said
he felt Council should be applauded for keeping the budget at an increase of only 40
as they were very much aware of people on a fixed income that could not afford any
increases.
Mayor Falck closed the Public Hearing on the proposed millage and the tentative
budget for FY 1982/83.
C/M Kravitz said that in reference to the Teen Center that had been discussed, this
was not a budget item, as they had reserves for that and he added that Council was
considering this item. He said he wished to have the Welcoming Committee Budget
raised to the $700.00 that was needed for the fiscal year. Laura Stuurmans said that
they had $200.00 to start out and at a later time, they could review and see where
they would take the additional $500.00.
-5- 9/13/82
/nrr
C/M Kravitz said he wished to straighten out the Building Department Budget. He
said he had received a memo which stated that Al Miller could not live with this
budget. He added that this was a department that brought in revenues and before
he could vote on this budget, he had to know whether this figure was livable.
Laura Stuurmans explained that the reason there was a decrease in the Building
Department budget was that three positions had already been vacated, by resignation
and retirement, and they would not be filling these positions for the 1982/83 fiscal
year. She added that in addition to those three positions, she had initially
proposed three additional cuts, but had decided to leave those positions until the
first of the year and at that time, review the need for keeping these positions.
Mayor Falck said if C/M Kravitz had a problem with this, when it comes time to vote,
he could vote against it. C/M Kravitz said he wished to vote intelligently.
C/M Disraelly said there had been budget workshops and at each meeting the
department head of the department being scutinized was before Council. He added
that when the Building Department was being considered, the number of persons
that will be retained as of October ls.t, will be the number of people discussed
at the time of the budget hearings. C/M Disraelly pointed out that at the time
of the hearing, they knew that two had resigned and the budget had been prepared
for the number of people on the board.
Laura Stuurmans said that the figures showed a decrease of six total inspectors
and now they were talking of the three that had left and would not be renewed.
Mr. Miller was satisfied not replacing the three positions, it was the three
inspectors that were to be dropped now that he could not live with.
C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp. Reso. #2446 adopting the final millage
rate for the City of Tamarac for Fiscal Year 1982/83 as 3.303 mils or $3.30 per
$1,000 of assessed valuation, to be effective October 1, 1982.
C/M Krantz SECONDED the MOTION.
Laura Stuurmans pointed out that in Section 3 on Page 2 of the Resolution, it does
provide for the announcement of the final hearing date and that should be filled in.
She added that Council had indicated September 22nd at 5:30 P.M.
C/M Disraelly said that the final Public Hearing will be held for adoption of the
fina.laggreg cted:millage rate and budget on September 22, 1982 at 5:30 P.M.
VOTE: ALL V0=1 AYE
2. TEMPORARY ORDINANCE #1000 - An Ordinance establishing the Tentative General Fund
Budget not to exceed $8,625,639.83 for Fiscal Year 1982/83. first Reading.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION:
APPROVED as Amended on
First Reading.
Jon Henning read the Ordinance by title. C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Temp.
Ord. #1000 adopting the General Fund Budget in the amount of $8,625,639.83 for the
Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 1982. C/M Krantz SECONDED the MOTION.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
MAYOR
P
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
The public document was promulgated at a cost of $� or $ per copy,
to inform the general public and public officers and emp oyees about recent opinions
and considerations of the City Council of the City of Tamarac.
9/13/82
/nrr
APPROVED Y
CITY COUNCIL ON
ATTACB= # 1
CITY OF TAMAMC
Grnm7rC]ND - SVM�"Y OF ZSTIMATED 2X'pERDiZViMS
FI5Cl►L YEAR - 3.982 - W
ZVA7&A =/A=V:rTT _ A 2992-22 DL9a17Cll3LtCT C2w f0XMM
WDGLT AFTER REVISIDHS sm RECD2 mms
?I mcz
3m =C 11DRF5
CITY IIaGIl02wR
2L;Z;Tzrlch=ox DDMs 17=
2VIANsmG 20M
20= 0!' ADJDSr ma
3�Eii5MMEL-3NSMMCZ
?ERS�F.r.
VM=CF
. • A . .
070 i. .. ..I 1 • .�1
air
�11
98,150.00
108,661.00
110,157.00
153*699,00
160,062.00
160,79D.OD
65,215.00
72,274.00
72,057.00
88,261.00
94,486.00
94,392.00
299,477.06
238,616.00
237,708.00
266,405.00
454,326.52
333,907.05
2,090,989.25
S,S12,832.12
1498,572.04
231,033.00
148#200.06
244,625.06
•350.00
350.00
3SD.00
2*200.00
1,200.00
1,200.00
2,370.00
1,335.00
1,335.00
400.00
400.00
400.00
.5,650.00
S,630.00
3,650.00
70,210.00
165,863.00
165,863.00
98,250.00
1156000.00
115,000.00
92,350.35
U7e693.70
U2,338.70
4990100.00
520,620.00
$20,620.00
4R,455,998.40
3,OD5,633.29
2,712,546.78
1445,529.00
2,169,976.22
1,133,500.22
354,169.00
391,212.39
301,729.46
200.00
200.00
200.OD
650.00
6SO.00
650.00
9900000.00
800,000.00
725,000.00
6#400.00
97,984.00
6#400.00
240*608.42
9,400.00
200,D00.00
135,400.00
52
200,000.00
312,983.90
312,883.90
150,0OO.OD
236,620.00
8,293,934.96 9,582*669.61 9,625,639.83
A"fAL:flmrri It 2,
CITY OF TAMARAC
GENERAL FUND - SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVE7MES
FISCAL YEAR 1982-83
AD VfiLOREM
INTEREST ON TAX DISTRIBUTION
PRIOR TEAR -PERSONAL PROPERTY
COUNTY HELD TAX CERTIFICATE
GOOD FAITH COUNTY
SALES & USE TA5MS
'FRANCHISE TAX - ELECTRIC
FRANCHISE TAX - TELEPHONE
FRANCHISE TAX - CATV
FRANCHISE TAX - SOLID TO►STE
REWSPAPER COLVEcTIOW
BURGLAR ALARM PERMITS & FEES
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES
EI =Xnc PERMITS
AQUATIC W COmppL
CIGARETTE TAX --
STATE RI,7MZE =ARING
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE
HOMESTEAD ZXDVTION
GAS REBATE CITY VEHICLE
COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE TAX
COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE
VARYING LOT - CITY
PARKS & REC. PRO(;. AM. FEES
SUMMER RECREATION
=TER7M SERVICE FEES
ENGINEERING FEES UNRESTRICTED
PLANNING FEES AND REVENUES
LOT ENO
PARKING VIOLATIONS
?INES & P'ORFEITVRES (COUNTY)
POLICE GEIQv & MISC.
SALES OF CONFISCATED ITEMS
MISCELLANEOUS pEVENUE
)tECYCLE OIL SALES
COLLECTION dN CITY DISP.
TELEPHONE COMMISSIONS
PROCEEDS FROM INS.CI,A=
7rQTEREST INCOME
M-FROM SALES OF SURPLUS EQUiP.
APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE
AEC -TRANS -IN D.P./t7TILITy taw
REC.TRANS. IN VEHICLE MAINT./U.WEST
REC.TRANS. iN AD=. SEKVICES/ V.WWT
REC-TUMS. IN LIEU OF TAXES/il.FAST
RSC.TRANS. IN D.P./U.WEST
P=-TRANS. IN LIEU OF TAXES U.WST
REC.TRANS. IN PSC
(10-1-81)
Millage Rate
1981/82
4.7808
1981-82 BUDGETED
ESTIMATED REVENUES
3,300,000
-0-
0 -
0 -
- 0 -
0 -
780, ODD
35,OOD
22,0o0
29,000
4,400
112,000
132,000
370,0o0
21,000
85,000.
710,00o
9,900
- O -
6,000
120,000
37,000
3,800
2, ODO
14,o00
110,000
135,000
- 0 -
"- 0 - w
0 -
85,ODO
9,000
.. 0 -
50,000
-0-
--0-
- 0 -
- 0 -
450,000
- 0 -
1,425,734
2,100
31,0o0
25,000
6,000
30,000
130,D00
12,000
$8 293 934
(7-22-82)
Preliminary 1982/83
Millage Rate Reflected
in the August Ibtice
F3rcrn County
4.3255
ESTIMATED
1982-83
2,441,000
- 0 -
0
- 0 -
0 -
715,647
950,000
37,p0D
25,000
32,000
2,200
65,000
170,OD0
240,OD0
21,DDO
75,DD0
900, D00
13,500
0
7,o00.
34,500
50, D00
3,5o0
2,000
10,000
70,0o0
100,000
30,OD0
- 0 -
7.500
100,000
12,DOo
w. 0 -
so,000
.. 0 -
- 0 -
0-
0 -
400,00D
- 0
2,759,893
2.300
58,500
27,500
6,600
50,000
157,000
L. 0 -
$8,525,6g0~`
w.
(9-13-82 )
Revised/? ec ed
1982/83
Millage Rate
3.303
-g_ 9/13/82
/nrr