HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-16 - City Commission Reconvened Regular Meeting MinutesMAIL REPLY TO:
P.o. sox 25010
TAMARAC, F LORIDA 33320
5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE & TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722.5900
January 11, 1985
NOTICE OF
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
There will be a Reconvened City Council Meeting on Wednesday,
January 16, 1985 at 9:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida.
The items remaining from the Council Agenda of January 9, 1985
to be considered are as follows:.
25. Woodmont Tracts 74/75 - Discussion and possible
action on Site Plans 1 and 3 -- Renewal of model
sales permit.
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
29. City Council Salaries - Temp. Ord. #1153 - Dis-
cussion and possible action on a proposed amend-
ment to Charter Section 4.04 regarding Council
salaries. Second Reading.
30. Lease Purchase Agreements - Temp. Ord. #1164 -
Discussion and possible action on a proposed
amendment to Charter Section 7.13 to exclude
these agreements from requiring voter approval..
Second Reading.
31. Redistricting - Temp. Ord. #1165 - Discussion
and possible action to amend Section 2-10 of the
Code to remove the requirement that the report by the
Redistricting Committee be adopted by the City
Council by ordinance. Second Reading.
35. Cinnamon Tree Professional Plaza - Discussion and
possible action on:
a) Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #3388
b) Landscape Plan
c) Water Retention Agreement
d) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
e) Sidewalk Easement - Temp. Reso. 43389
f) Utility Easement Temp. Reso. #3390
(to be located at the northwest corner of NW 88
Avenue and NW 57 Street)(tabled from 11/14/84)
The City Council may consider and act upon such other
business as may come before it.
The public is invited to attend.
Marilyn gertholf, CMC
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 record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 16, 1985
TAPE CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz called the meeting to
1 order on Wednesday, January 16, 1985, at 9:30 A.M. in the
Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz
Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein
C/M Allan C. Bernstein
C/M Raymond J. Munitz
C/M Jack Stelzer
ALSO PRESENT:
City Manager Elly F. Johnson
City Attorney Jon M. Henning
Asst. City Clerk Carol E. Barbuto
Secretary Joann Colwell
MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kravitz called for
a Moment of Silent Meditation followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL
8c. Bid Award - Public Works Department - Temp. Reso. #3460 -
c Automatic Engine Controls 8 for $40,466.00
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Reagendized
and APPROVED with correction in
the amount of bid, corrected
amount is $40,466.00
RESOLUTION NO. R-85-5 PASSED
Mayor Kravitz said he had a memo from Marilyn Holbrook, Purchasing
Department, to Marilyn Bertholf, City Clerk, asking to agendize
by consent Item 8c, Temp. Reso. #3460.
C/M Bernstein MOVED to agendize Temp. Reso. #3460; C/M Munitz
SECONDED.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
City Manager Johnson said the original figures were wrong in the
amount of $16.00.
City Attorney Henning said this item has already been agendized,
now another vote for approval, as amended, due to typographical
error, was necessary.
C/M Stelzer MOVED to approve Temp. Reso. #3460, Item 8c,as
amended. C/M Bernstein SECONDED.
VOTE:
PUBLIC HEARING
ALL VOTED AYE
29. Cif Council Salaries - Temp. Reso. #1153 - Discussion and
possible action on a^proposed amendment to Charter Section
4.04 regarding Council Salaries. Second Reading.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: REMOVEDfrom the agenda.
Public Hearing Cancelled.
Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to remove Item 29 from the agenda. He said
that he did not think that the public has had enough time to be
informed and it would be ill advised to_put this before the people
at this time. He asked the consent of C/M Stelzer as the maker_
of the MOTION.
C/M Stelzer gave his consent and SECONDED the MOTION.
me
1/16/85
/jc
City Attorney Henning
from the agenda and to
tised for today.
VOTE:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
said that the Motion is to remove Item 29
cancel the public hearing that was adver-
ALL VOTED AYE
25a. Woodmont Tracts 74/75 - Discussion and possible action on
Site Plans 1 and 3 - Renewal of model sales permit.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED
renewal of model sales permit
for a six month period from
1/12/85 and to expire 7/12/85
City Attorney Henning said that a check for $150.00 was received
for the renewal of the model sales permit which expired January
12, 1985. He said this would be an extension from January 12,
1985 to July 12, 1985.
Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to approve renewal of model sales permit.
SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ALL VOTED AYE
30. Lease Purchase Agreements - Temp. Ord. #1164 - Discussion
and possible action on a proposed amendment to Charter
Section 7.13 to exclude these agreements from requiring
voter approval. Second Reading.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 0-85-1 PASSED
as amended on Second and Final
Reading.
City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1164 by title.
City Attorney Henning said this amendment involves Section 7.13
in the Charter which is the section regarding referendum require-
ments for certain items that either require borrowing or are for
capital improvements in excess of 1-1/2% of the current budget of
the City. The City Attorney said that this had been amended last
year by referendum and the 2-1/2% was reduced to 1-1/2%. He said
the Charter Board addressed this question in part on January 11,
1985 and approved an amendment to the Charter to be placed on
the ballot which is about 80% of this question. He said the
Charter Board talks about matching funds and the actual cost to
the City. He said the question for Council to determine is if
the Council wants to take the additional step and place the ques-
tion about lease purchase items and borrowing on the ballot. He
said the City, technically, can not borrow $100.00 without voter
approval. City Attorney Henning said that this would allow, if
there was a benefit in the market place for lease purchase agree-
ments or lease agreements, customarily for office equipment, etc.
the City could, in fact, lease items in excess of the budget year.
He said it would be possible to have a lease purchase agreement,
which is basically a loan or could borrow funds. He said the ceiling
that was placed in here is the same 1 1/2 for the principal and
interest, which is approximately $150,000, which would cover other
expenditures. He said if Council is in favor of this concept,
he prepared an abbreviated portion to avoid conflicting questions
on the ballot.
C M Bernstein asked what would happen if the electorate defeated
the Charter Board amendment and passed Council's abbreviated
amendment.
City Attorney Henning said that the matching funds and the cost
to the City would not be in the Charter, but the sentence or two
regarding lease purchases would be in the Charter.
-2- 1/16/85
/j c
L/
C/M Bernstein asked if that would be contrary to what the Council
is trying to achieve since the whole thing should be included.
City Attorney Henning said he would recommend that all the language
not be in the amendment.
C/M Bernstein asked if it is possible to state on the ballot only
vote in favor of this, if you voted in favor of the other?
City Attorney Henning said no, it would have no effect.
C/M Bernstein said it would have some effect on the electorate
since at least they would know what they are doing.
City Attorney said it is not done that way.
Vice Mayor Stein said it is very important that Council have the
item about the grants in there, on the chance that the people
might vote against the Charter Board Amendment and vote for this
amendment. -He said he would suggest that even though it_ might
be confusing, the full Council amendment be left as is and the
electorate may vote on the Council Amendment which does
include the lease purchase if they want it and vote for the
Charter Board amendment if they do not want the lease purchase
agreement.
City Attorney Henning said he thought it would be less confusing
to not have two questions on the grants.
Mayor Kravitz opened the public hearing.
Vickie Beech, resident, asked for an explanation of what restric-
tions the Council would like to :remove this particular
amendment.
City Attorney Henning said the Charter states that the City can
not borrow without voter approval. He said the City has not
taken advantage of various lease purchase agreements in the past
due to this.
Mrs. Beech asked if there is a cap of any amount on certain
things for lease and City Attorney Henning said no.
Mrs. Beech asked what capital improvements going to referendum
the City wants to avoid. City Attorney Henning said the Council
is not addressing that. He said the Council is going to have
.......... . .
a status report on the ballot and the electorate will
have eleven questions for approval but there are no changes.
Steve Wood, Finance Director, said the reason the City needs to
avail itself of lease purchase options is that in a lot of cases
the City has to rent copy machines without getting any equity
ownership in that machine at all. He said it is possible to
lease a machine for what is being paid for rental and at the
end of the year buy it on a lease purchase plan for $1.00.
Mr. Wood said the City is not able to do this because lease
purchase is defined as borrowing and the City Charter requires
that any borrowing would require a referendum. He said the City
would like to get away from that problem. He said the City would
like to use the possibility of bank borrowing for limited amounts
of money under the Charter requirement, to enable the City to
investigate buying with a borrowing in order to bring the interest
rate down or at least to have that option available.
Mrs. Beech asked why a small amount of money would have to be
borrowed from the bank? Mr. Wood said sometimes the City may
be able to borrow at 5% and could invest those funds at 10%
so that the difference between the 5% and the 10% could be
realized. He said the City can earn enough interest to pay for
the interest that would be paid the bank.
Jim Godin, Charter Board member, said one amendment will not
conflict in any way. He said if the Charter Board's amendment
is voted down and they vote the Council amendment in, it will
_
go into Section 7.13 and give the lease agreement that is
needed. He said if they vote the Charter Board's amendment in,
the next time the City can go to referendum for the lease
purchase agreement.
-3- 1/16/85
/jc
V +
City Attorney Henning said that Council has two alternatives;
the Charter Board question will be on the ballot and the Charter
Board question is about matching funds and the cost to the City.
He said if the City Council wants to put something on the ballot
they can put the lease purchase question on by itself in a
separate question or they can put on a combination lease purchase
and matching funds question which will duplicate some of what the
Charter Board amendment says and add additional language.
Mr. Godin said if the Council puts on just the lease portion it
will not interfere with the Charter Board amendment in any way
regardless of how the vote goes. City Attorney Henning said he
agreed with Mr. Godin. He said he has been trying to determine
language that would separate it. He said it is a strategy
question and either one is legal.
C/M Stelzer asked if the amendment of the Charter Board concerns
grants, net cost to the City and the lease purchase agreement
and City Attorney Henning said no.
City Attorney Henning referred to the unrevised amendment that
was in Council's backup, which contained underlined language
which is added language. He said the Charter Board amendment
is everything up to line 13 on page 2 and the underlined language
is a duplication of the Charter Board amendment. He said the
revision was to take those sentences out and add one or two
sentences to Section 7.13.
Mr. Godin said he would like to see the Council follow the City
Attorney's suggestions.
C/M Bernstein asked if the long form and the Charter amendment,
........ . .... .
as proposed by the Charter Board, are on the ballot and both
pass, would they not automatically be combined and the City
Attorney _said yes
Melanie Reynolds, Charter Board member, said last year Jack
Stelzer suggested this to the Charter Board and then withdrew it.
She asked C/M Stelzer if he changed his mind in order to put this
in this year. C/M Stelzer said he suggested it and it was turned
down. He said he gave a lot of examples as to what happens with
funds if the City gets a $500,000 grant to build a $500,000 plant.
He said the City has to go to referendum even if it does not cost
the City any money and Charter Board and Council would not listen.
He said he wanted that put in last year as well as net cost to
the City. He said this year the Charter Board is putting it in.
Mayor Kravitz closed the public hearing.
C/M Munitz said in answer to Mrs. Beech's question when equipment
is rented, the manufacturer of that piece of equipment in giving
a purchase rental agreement, adds on to the actual cost of the
equipment a certain percentage called an "add -on clause". He
said the net actual annual interest clause ends up quite high.
He said if the City can go to a bank and borrow money in order
to pay for the equipment in full at the time of purchase, the
actual interest cost to the purchaser would be much less. He
said this would be the advantage to the City.
C/M Stelzer MOVED to adopt Temp. Ord.. #1164 as revised January
16, 1985. C/M Munitz SECONDED.
City Attorney Henning read Temp Ord. #1164 by title and then
read the revised title of January 16, 1985.
City Attorney Henning read the proposed ballot question so Council
would be aware of what is on the ballot.
C/M Stelzer requested that "on Second Reading" be added to his
MOTION.
C/M Munitz said that on Page 1, Lines 27 and 28 of the Temporary
Ordinance the expression "principal and interest" does not cover
the times there are other costs in the lease purchase agreement.
He suggested the wording "total cost does not exceed 1�1/2%".
-4-- 1/16/85
/Jc
� r �
City Attorney Henning said that would be no problem. He said
strike the words "principal and interest" and on page 2, line
6, strike "principal and interest" and insert "total cost".
VOTE:
C/M Bernstein
NAY
C/M Munitz
AYE
C/M Stelzer
AYE
Vice Mayor Stein
AYE
Mayor Kravitz
AYE
31. Redistricting - Temp. Ord. #1165 - Discussion and possible
action to amend Section 2-10 of the Code to remove the
requirement that the report by the Redistricting Committee
be adopted by the City Council by ordinance. Second Reading.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED
on Second and Final Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 0-85-2 PASSED
City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. 41165 by title.
City Attorney Henning said that in the Title "2.10" should read
"2-10".
Mayor Kravitz opened and closed the Public Hearing with no response.
Vice Mayor Stein MOVED for the approval of Temp. Ord. #1165 on
Second and Final Reading and C/M Munitz SECONDED.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3 Cinnamon Tree rofessional Plaza - Discussion and possible
action on:
a) Site Plan - Temp. Reso. #33.88
b) Landscape Plan
c) Water Retention Agreement
d) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement
e) Sidewalk Easement - Temp. Reso. #3389
Utility Easement Temla. Reso. #3390 (to be located at
the northwest corner of NW 88 Avenue and NW 57 Street)
(tabled from 11/14/84)
SYNOPSIS
OF ACTION: a) and b)
RESOLUTIONS NO.
R-85-15 PASSED
APPROVED
with conditions.
RESOLUTIONS NO.
R--85--16 PASSED
APPROVED
c), d), e) and f)
RESOLUTIONS NO.
R--85-17 PASSED
a)
City Attorney Henning
read Temp. Reso. #3388 by
title.
Richard Rubin, Consultant City Planner, said the project is zoned
B-6, 3 acres in size. He said the applicant wished to build a
two-story office building above a parking area, thereby, making
it three stories in height. Mr. Rubin said it does comply with
the Code and on Page--4 of the Development
Review Status Sheet there is a note that on number 5 the appli-
cant should be aware that the parking of 195 spaces is adequate
for offices, but it would not be enough for medical; therefore,
they must be very careful in leasing the building for only
professional office uses. He said with that condition staff
recommends approving the site plan subject to payment of fees
and signing all agreements.
Mayor Kravitz asked if the City has received all fees and the
Assistant City Clerk said all fees were paid.
City Attorney Henning said that on the resolution, page 2, line 3,
is the condition that Mr. Rubin is referring to. He said it states
here that the site plan is approved subject to the one space per
200 square foot uses. He asked if Council wants that as a con-
dition of the site plan or if they want to state that any other
uses will require a waiver of parking by Council..
City Attorney Henning said that ordinarily if an office bu-ild ng
wants to bring in a doctor's office they wouldcome to Council
for a parking waiver. This building, he said, _ is coming -to Counci-l----
for a revised site plan, not for a parking waiver.
5�
1/16/85
/jc
Mr. Rubin said he wants the applicant to know that parking is
adequate for general offices and the City does not expect to see
any hardship or any future application for parking waivers.
City Attorney Henning said Mr. Rubin is referring to the portion
of the resolution which states, "will be permitted pursuant to
the Code, as may be amended from time to time." Mr. Rubin said
that is correct.
Vice Mayor Stein MOVED the approval of Temp. Reso. #3388 and
C/M Stelzer SECONDED.
C/M Bernstein asked City Attorney Henning if as this is worded
now, it is clear that unless the Code is amended, the applicant
can come back for a parking waiver.
City Attorney Henning said he can come back for a revised develop-
ment order and he suggested Council state "no greater than one
space per 200 square feet".
C/M Munitz asked Mr. Rubin if the City is in any way sacrificing
any of our rights or any control we might have over the develop-
ment by this particular change. Mr. Rubin said it was just the
reverse. He said_t.he City is putting it on record
that their parking meets general office usage and that the City
does not expect them to come in with a hardship in the future.
Day Oyler of Craven & Thompson, representing the petitioner said
at the last meeting he suggested an alternative that he would
like to discuss before Council votes. He said it concerned the
wall that was required by Code on the north side of the property
line. He said it is required there because the property to the
north of the applicant is zoned residential. He said in
his opinion as a planner, he does not think that property will
ultimately develop that way. He said he would like to propose
an amendment to the approval today that his client be allowed,
prior to building permit issuance; to post a bond for
the construction of that wall guaranteeing it be built if the
property to the north does actually go residential. He said he
would like Council to grant a five-foot wall easement to allow
the City, if the applicant defaults, to build a wall.
Mayor Kravitz said that the Council is working on Temp. Reso.
#3388 and it appeared to him that that had nothing to do with
this resolution.
City Attorney Henning said the Council is approving the site
plan by this resolution and the question is whether the site
plan indicates this at this time. He said Council could bond
it at a later date.
Mr. Oyler said the site plan now indicates it is being installed
at this time and he is requesting a waiver of that if the property
does not build residential. He said he will then landscape that
wall area instead of building it now.
City Attorney Henning said the Council might be interested in
knowing the approximate cost of the wall. Mr. Oyler said it
was priced at about $25 per foot.
Vice Mayor Stein said he thought this entire discussion is out of
order since Council is voting on a site plan as submitted. He
said if the petitioner wants to amend the site plan before he
continues and does any construction it should go back to staff,
who will then come back to Council with recommendations. Vice
Mayor Stein said Council has had no time to study this.
Mr. Oyler said he agrees with that and they will come back later
requesting this.
VOTE:
Q:5
ALL VOTED AYE
1/16/85
/jc
b) Mr. Rubin referred Council to the Valle's Restaurant on Oakland
Park Blvd. west of I-95, where he had noticed there is a three-
story building almost identical to the design of this building.
He said it is very contemporary, attractive building.
Mr. Rubin said the landscape plan was reviewed by the Beautifi-
cation Committee on September 20, 1984, they recommended approval
with the conditions of the City Planner's memo dated September
20, 1984, which he would like to have included in the Motion.
Vice Mayor Stein MOVED to approve subject to the conditions in
the September 20, 1985 memo of the City Planner; C/M Munitz
SECONDED.
c) City Attorney Henning said fees have been submitted for the water
retention agreement and he recommended approval.
Vice Mayor Stein MOVED approval of the Water Retention Agreement
and C/M Munitz SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
d) City Attorney Henning said fees have been paid. He said a seal
was needed on Exhibit D and Mr-:- Oyler --said he-wbuld have -Edbne.
City Attorney Henning said he recommended approval.
Vice Mayor Stein MOVED approval of the water and sewer development
agreement and C/M Munitz SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
e) City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3389 by title.
Mr. Rubin recommended approval and V/M Stein MOVED APPROVAL
of Temp. Reso. #3389, SECONDED by C/M Munitz.
VOTE:
ALL VOTED AYE
f) City Attorney Henning read Temp. Reso. #3390 by title.
City Attorney Henning asked why the sidewalk easement is from
Devel.opex Equity and the utilities easement is from Equities, Ltd?
Mr. Oyler said the sidewalk easement has to be signed by the land-
owner and the Developers Agreement has to be signed by the
developer.
City Attorney Henning said he recommends approval.
Vice Mayor Stein MOVED approval of Temp. Reso. #3390 and
C/M Munitz SECONDED.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 10:17 P.M.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY OFT R C
APPROVED AT MEETING OF �
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
City Clerk
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ So? -so or $ /•yG. 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.
iC
1/16/85
/jc