Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-27 - City Commission Reconvened Regular Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 NOTICE OF RECONVENED MEETING CITY COUNCIL TAMARAC, FLORIDA Please be advised of a Reconvened Meeting of the City Council on Monday, October 27, 1980 at 8:30 AM in the Council Chambers, 5811 N. W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac. Council may consider such other business as may come before it. The Public is encouraged to attend. Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk 10/22/80 /lc CITY OF TAMARC, FLORIDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1980 (Reconvened from 10/22/80) CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the reconvened meeting to order on Monday, October 27, 1980, at 8:30 A.M., in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro C/M Irving M. Disraelly C/W Marjorie Ketch ABSENT AND EXCUSED: C/M Irving Zemel ALSO PRESENT: CU14 NITY DEVELOPMENT_ City Manager, Edward A. Gross City Attorney, Arthur M. Birken Ass't. City Clerk, Carol Evans 30. Woodlands Section 2 -- Landscaping - Discussion and possible action on request to 'install a hedge between Commercial Boulevard and the service road. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by majority consent. Tabled to meeting of 11/12/80. (See minutes 10/22/80 regarding prior discussion on Item #30) Mayor Falck indicated that Mr. Monahan had called him about discussing Item #30 and the City Attorney Arthur Birken said that Council had directed him to get in touch with Mr. Rubin and Mr. Rubin had asked if he could appear before Council. V/M mentioned that there was an understanding that this item would be dis- cussed today as Council had asked for an indemnification with an insurance policy and then V/M Massaro MOVED that this item be agendized by majority consent. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. Mr.Dick Rubin presented Exhibit A, a plant hedge, and discussed the fact that Woodlands wanted to put up a hedge for safety purposes and for a visual noise buffer along Commercial Boulevard, and advised that the County Engineering Department had given permission and agreed to place a hedge along this service road providing that the City agreed. However, after calling his insurance broker, he found that it is not possible to pick up insurance on a public right-of-way and asked if the City Council would be agreeable to place this hedge further back from the inter -section so it won't be a visability problem. Areca Palms can go up as high as 16' after a few years, but are easy to main- tain and he is mentioning this just as a landscape hedge. V/M Massaro said she was concerned as to where the ingress and egress areas are inbetween and that this hedge stay back far enough to assure excellent vision of incoming traffic, and felt this wasn't much different than a tree. C/M Disraelly said he would like to see sea grapes or something that would be maintained at a 4' or 5' height, rather than something that would grow to a height of 16', as people that might be caning into that area would have trouble finding it because it wouldn't be visable except at both ends. Mr. Rubin said that homeowners have asked him to prepare a rendering for signs to identify the two roads going into Woodlands. He further stated that last me October 27, 1980 /pe week Council had approved a cocoa plum hedge which grows to about 4' or 5' high and is easily maintained and the County has agreed to plant that already. However, he indicated that it was difficult to find this hedge higher than 15" and a real hedge won't develop for 2 or 3 years, making it unsafe for children for those 2 years and giving them easy access onto Commercial Blvd. V/M Massaro asked when he needed this and Mr. Rubin indicated that the County has agreed to plant right around. Christmas time, but the County has agreed to plant any material that the City approves of. He then asked if Council would approve the concept of the hedge and then the material used could be decided at a later date. V/M Massaro stated that she is more concerned with what kind of a hedge goes in and feels they should provide a maintenance agreement in writing saying that if they failed to ccaTply with what it suggests that he is going to do, that the City can then remove this hedge. Mr. Birken indicated that the vegetation has to remain under the contract with the County and the City is assuming an obligation that is not for a final period. V/M Massaro felt that this can ride until the next regular meeting in order to be fair to the family section of Woodlands and that Mr. Birken can call Mr., erren's office and they will work with the City on this. V/M Massaro MOVED that this item be tabled until the next regular meeting so that we can make a proper decision on it. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. 3. Springy Lake - Water and Sewer Agreement - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Motion of 7/23/80 clarified to indicate a misunderstanding. (See Page 19) V/M Massaro expressed her concern about the amount and interest under the agreement with the Marmon Group that Spring Lake pays so much to them. Mr. Birken stated that this was approved and then it came back to Council, but if there was a question, it could be taken up later. V/M Massaro felt that it could be corrected now and approve it sub- ject to that correction. C/M Disraelly asked if the agreement specified that it comes under the agreement whereby so many units had to go to the Marmon Group, and Mr. Birken replied that they are under the Marmon Group. The City Attorney said he thought it came back to Council and that the matter of the amounts had been resolved and V/M Massaro said that this had not been resolved. C/M Disraelly mentioned it was his understanding that at the meeting when Concord Village 1 was discussed Mr. Rubin had indicated that these would be under the $1000.00 agreement. C/M Disraelly then asked if under the original item on the agenda, wasn't that to d.iscu�s- -the minutes.. wherehv it was suhjec.t to the language adfle'l-- and approved and that Council was not discussing the dollars at that time? He then indicated that we are bringing up a new subject. V/M Massaro said the language that was referred to had nothing to do with the Developers Agreement, as it referred to the water and sewage agreement. Mr. Birken suggested that Council either rescind the approval or correct the minutes on that and then he will report back to Council if there is still a question concerning the amounts on the amend- ment. Mayor Falck said he thinks it should be rescinded and then enter into a new one. -2- October 27, 1980 /pe r■w r C•/M Disraelly indicated that the action that was taken was the wrong amount and that Mr. Rubin at this moment is paying us at the rate of $1000.00, so apparently there are two errors; on July 18th Larry Keating said the agreement reserves capacity for 222 units and the contribution charge should be $79,476.00 assuming the rate is $3.58 and we asked them for $222,000.00 instead of $79,476.00 which was in error. Mr. Birken said there were two projects, Spring Lake II and Northwood II and the amendments as originally drafted were.in error; they were redone, and the question in his mind is whether Council has the first draft of the amendment or the second draft of the amendment, both of them having been signed. Mr. Birken then suggested to Council that we have all the facts before any action is taken and that he will have his office pull out the drafts and hopefully can report back this morning. PUBLIC fl�TC7S 17. on �nc'Requirements - _Temp. Ord. #811 -- Discussion and possible action to amend Code Section 24 by requiring public improvement bonds and warranty bonds be for off -site improve- ments only in the public right-of-way. Second Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled until next regular meeting. Mayor Falck read the item and said Council did hold a Public Hearing on this item and it is now up for consideration. V/M Massaro stated that she and. the City Attorney were going over this item together and changes as to language for substantiation of certified costs were being discussed; however there hasn't been time enough for it and she then MOVED to table this item until the next regular meeting. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 22. University Community Hospital - Discussion and possible action on request for a one --year extension of the permit for a modular building at the rear of the hospital. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved with under- standing this will not remain a permanent structure. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Frank Basile, representing University Com- munity Hospital if he really is intending to build back there or is he trying to make this into a permanent building. Mr. Basile answered'ho"and that a Certificate of Need has been submitted to the Broward County Health Planning and Development Council, also they had an on -site visit last Friday and they expect to have final approval January 16th at which time they will begin con- struction. Mr. Gross said that the different operations of the government which require investigation take a long time and that he had been at one of the meetings of the Health Planning Group at which he learned that there are still other groups that have to do their investigation reports, but it is hoped that they will have the opportunity to move along very fast on this project. He further indicated that this is a necessity to them as there is no kitchen and frozen and outside packaged foods have to be brought in. V/M Massaro MOVED that this request be granted for the one year extension with the firm understanding in no way are we consider- ing that this can or should remain as a permanent structure. C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. -3- October 27, 1980 /Pe 7 F .1 44. Tamarac Town Square Limi ted ited Parking Waiver - Temp. � Reso. #1649 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by consent. Petition withdrawn by applicant. Mr. Wayne Zufelt of Craven Thompson & Associates indicated that he was requesting a limited waiver to permit a percentage of this site to be used for 900 parking. V/M Massaro asked if he had the amended plans and Mr. Zufelt presented the site plan which had been forwarded to Council previously which had a minor change; on the south perimeter as well as the east perimeter and on the north perimeter and to the rear they had 900 parking stalls. Mr. Zufelt said Council has a copy, of a letter from Williams, Hatfield & Stoner stating that they had critqued the entire site area. Mr. Zufelt said he had met with Mr. Newman. and Mr. Alper to discuss the shopping center configurations and Council had noted at the last meeting that there was no Proof of Hardship and that was an item to be addressed also. He further indicated that approximately 6 months ago when they made a request for 900 parking they did not have to address the limited waiver, but the City has since encompassed this into the limited waiver. He feels that this creates a peculiar situation on behalf of the petitioner as he doesn't think it is humanly possible to state a hardship that is not self-imposed. He further stated that in the letter to the Board from Craven Thompson & Associates, the reason and necessity in creating these 900 parking stalls was an advantage to the site in that it dispersed traffic to and from any given point and that it helped the on -site cirOulation. Since that time, they have made several revisions to the site plan regarding the locations of the 900 parking areas which they had and have changed them to angular with one exception, that is the area to the rear, which is to be utilized for employee parking and service vehicles. Mayor Falck asked Mr. Zufelt if he was asking for a waiver and Mr. Zufelt answered that a waiver is in the site plan before Council and that they would like to retain those specific stalls in 900 parking or if there is some modification as such. Mr. Carl Alper brought up a point of order; if Council intends to vote for granting of this petition, he feels it is an illegal action. He said this was postponed to this date so that petitioner could prove a hardship which is required by law and the petition doesn't even mention the word hardship. He also mentioned that there is a substantial difference in the new plan, and that it wasn't submitted to the Planning Commission. There was a discussion between Council and the City Attorney as to the legality of approving this petition as to whether or not any changes that are proposed to this plan have to go back to the Planning Commission. (tapes V/M Massaro stated that Mr. Zufelt is trying to please a few side #2) People in this section and in discussions with them, they have come up with some suggested changes that if acceptable to Council, Mr. Zufelt would have them all in angular parking. She feels this is not a reasonable thing to do as in many instances, people will not be able to get into the parking lot if they are all angular. Mr. Alper said if they were to sit down with a person who has authority in the matter, this could be worked out in 15 minutes. V/M Massaro said that perhaps they were going to have to remain -with a waiver provision. There was then a discussion on the Traffic Engineer having looked at the plans and C/M Disraelly suggested that the Traffic Engineer should sign it. -4- October 27, 1980 Mr. Alper said they are not opposed to a shopping center, but they wanted some changes, a) that there be a fence between the berm and the commercial area itself, as high school kids will be riding over that berm on their motorcycles as they have been doing, b) they would like the back of the building to have a little mansard appearance, at least the roof part. Mr. Alper further stated that he could work out the parking with the owner in a few minutes. C/W Kelch said they were here to dicuss a limited waiver and Mr. Alper said it is against the law to give,a limited waiver. Mayor Falck asked the City Attorney if Council is in a position to consider this now or not. Mr. Sirken replied that if the petition does not set forth the basis of the hardship, he thinks that this is the problem that Council is faced with and that Council hps the ability to handle all the questions that were raised by Mr. Alper today but perhaps Council may want to send it back to the Planning Commission and get it straightened out. Mr. Zufelt stated that he did not think going back to the Planning Commission is going to achieve anything as the Planning Commission doesn't want any 900 parking whatsover and he also feels that angular parking would be detrimental to this city. V/M Massaro asked if it is Mr. Zufelt's choice to comply with the code for angular parking and eliminate the waiver or if he would rather start over again by going through the Planning Commission and seeking a waiver and have the determination made as to the changes that are going to be made? Mr. Zufelt said he has been delayed on a continuous basis; he can meet the code in total angular parking, but doesn't feel that anyone on the Council is going to be in complete agreement with what the end product is. He feels that when the City placed this parking situation into the limited waiver in recent months, the City created its own hardship. C/M Disraelly said Council has a letter from Tony Nolan in which he makes four recommendations which means if we grant this waiver today, a revised site plan must be submitted if we adhere to Mr. Nolan's suggestions. C/M Disraelly MOVED that this item be tabled so that we can sit down with Mr. Zufelt and discuss whether we have to incorporate these changes as proposed by Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, one of which is the traffic separator that it refersto behind the fast food restaurant so that if we approve this waiver and then he has to come in and he says certain things have to be done because of what Mr. Nolan said, and therefore MOVED that we table this until the items that are proposed by Mr. Nolan are also given consideration rather than come back with a revised site plan. V/M Massaro disagreed with the interpretation C/M Disraelly had of Mr. Nolan's letter and feels the whole site plan has to go back to the Planning Commission. C/M Disraelly said it could have an effect and that is why he is suggesting that we put it altogether and combine his remarks with the revised site plan and then a judgement will be arrived at. C/W Kelch stated that she will not agree with a delay for Mr. Zufelt and V/M Massaro agreed with her. Mr. Alper said his community does not want entirely angular park- ing, but is willing to cooperate and wants to work out this plan with Mr. Higier and C/M Disraelly told him this is a separate thing and Council is only considering the parking, and he feels he should have the opportunity to review Mr. Nolan's letter, as he is the one that asked for a review by a Traffic Engineer. -5-- October 27, 1980 /Pe Mr. Harold Newman, President of Westwood Community 5 Association, presented his views on angular parking which adhered to what was said by Mr. Alper. V/M Massaro stated that Mr. Zufelt had done everything he could to bring to this community a good project that everybody could live with, and felt that their being delayed is a tremendous loss. She suggested that when this is brought back for consideration, that it be a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council, so that this is delayed no further. Mr. Zufelt said he feels that he has physically stepped backwards and that he would like to withdraw the petition and will place the entire site in angular parking. C/M Disraelly suggested to Mr. Zufelt that he might reconsider withdrawing the petition, as it might be quicker to leave it as it is. Mr. Birken suggested to Mr. Zufelt that if he wanted to withdraw, this should be in writing and perhaps in the interim Mr. Zufelt will reconsider his withdrawal. Mr. Harold Newman said that Mr. Zufelt and the developer will get their fullest cooperation and that he spoke to Mr. Higier the other day and Mr. Higier said he wished to cooperate with them;he further indicated that he is referring to the parking right now as it relates to the waiver, but doesn't want everyone to think that they are making it difficult, but they are only doing what is required by the law according to the Ordinance. V/M Massaro stated that this work should have been handled at the Planning Commission level to determine whether it was good for the community or not before this came to Council for their review. There was a further discussion between Mr. Alper and V/M Massaro concerning enforcement of the Ordinance. Mayor Falck handed the gavel to V/M Massaro and SECONDED the motion. VOTE: C/W Kelch Nay C/M Disraelly Aye V/M Massaro Nay Mayor Falck Aye Due to a tie vote, the motion was not carried. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Zufelt if he intended to withdraw his petition for a waiver right now and wanted to know what he was asking for. Mr. Wayne Zufelt indicated that the waiver would be null and void and he would come back to the City to Staff with a revised site plan that all parking would be angular to conform to the code with no waiver. V/M Massaro questioned Mr. Birken as to whether there is anything to preclude Mr. Zufelt from coming in to the Planning Commission with a site plan with angular parking now. Mr. Birken replied that there is nothing that would prevent Mr. Zufelt from meeting the regulations that we have established in writing. C/W Kelch MOVED that the item under discussion which is Agenda Ttem #44 be removed from the Agenda with the understanding that a with- drawal request will come from the petitioner, and Mayor Falck SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. --6- October 27, 1980 V/M Massaro returned the gavel to Mayor Falck. 25. Commercial Garden Mall - Sign Waiver - Temp_. Reso. #1668 - Discussion and possible action on request for waiver of the sign ordinance. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted, subject RESOLUTION NO.R_ LQ -_1_PASSED to conditions. Mayor Falck read the item and mentioned that this item was up for dicussion previously. Mr. Richard Ahl, President of A & M Builde_es and developer of Commercial Garden Mall presented drawings to Council and said he had met with C/M Disraelly previously to discuss the criteria situation and he submitted the criteria form to him filled out with an attachment, and then proceeded to read the attachment to Council. He then described what the signs would look like accord- ing to the drawings. C/M Disraelly indicated to Mr. Ahl that a tree is required in the spot where the proposed Carlone's sign is going to be, which is between the parking spots, and advised further that this tree should be placed so that it doesn't become an_ obstruction. Mr. Ahl stated that the tree would be in back of the sign, because according to code, they have to have a 4' area -way around the sign to protect it. C/M Disraelly said the sign would be 6'4" in width and that the space will be only 12' deep, but Mr. Ahl thought that space was about 18'. C/D said that in reference to the conversation he had with Mr. Ahl the other day and so far as the ground sign is concerned at Commercial Garden Mall, 102 sq. ft. is permitted, 12' above the crown of the road is permitted and MOVED the acceptance of that sign. C/M Disraelly mentioned that there is a waiver in for one sign and there is no problem with the ground sign. V/M Massaro asked if the signs should be handled separately. Mr. Birken indicated that all signs must be approved by the Beauti- fication Committee. C/D said he recalls that the Beautification Committee had to deny these signs, but that it could go to Council. Arthur Birken said the Beautification Committee had seen a combina- tion Directory/Ground sign which they denied, but Council could approve the ground sign today and send the other sign back through the Beautification Committee. C/W Kelch SECONDED C/M Disraelly's MOTION. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/M Disraelly discussed the second sign at Carlone's Cuisine Restaurant Lounge mentioning that the size is in conformity, but that there were two items that are not in conformity; 8" lineage size is permitted on directory signs and they also normally only carry the name of the stores that are involved. C/M Disraelly then asked Mr. Ahl if the 6' space below Carlone's will be listing those stores that are in the interior. Mr. Ahl answered no, they do not intend to have any other names on the sign at all. C/M Disraelly then inquired if he is asking for a waiver for the directory sign to permit Carlone the 3 names on it. -7- October 27, 1980 /pe Mr. Ahl indicated that the one letter size is 10" rather than 8". V/M Massaro said she would like to know if they are waiving their right for any directory sign and Mr. Ahl replied,"yes they are." There was a discussion by Council as to adding additional names on directory signs. C/M Disraelly indicated that the City permits names to be added and deleted on directory signs without going to the Beautification Committee as store owners change. V/M Massaro said that they would have the right to add names if they chose to do it, but wants them to understand that they can't come in with another directory sign and asked if he is waiving his right to any further directory sign. Mr. Ahl replied"yes"and then asked if they could mount anything below this according to code. V/M Massaro replied that he can't because he said he is not going to do it and she further said that the City wants a firm under- standing that they are waiving their right to add anything on this sign or to have another directory sign. Mr. Ahl said he would give the City a letter to this effect. C/M Disraelly MOVED to approve the waiver for Carlone's Directory Sign with a letter to come from the owners that no additional names will be added to this particular directory sign and that no other directory sign will be presented to Council for this shopping center. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. (tape side #3) V/M Massaro said that time was spent for the waiver here and it went into discussions and back on this floor and Mr. Ahl does need another application. C/M Disraelly asked that an application be obtained so that Mr. Ahl can sign it and give us a check for $25.00, thereby clearing this up. C/W Kelch asked if we could rescind our other arrangement and apply this to the sign that needs a waiver. V/M Massaro indicated that this is a separate waiver and has nothing to do with it. Mr. Ahl said he had hoped that Council would approve these signs and if it had to go back to the Beautification Committee, then it would not have to come back to Council and asked if it could be handled that way. Mr. Birken indicated that Council was not sending it back to the Beautification Committee. C/M Disraelly indicated to Mr. Ahl that if he used the same letter- ing and uses it on the type of board that he mentioned and it is the same type of letter, it conforms with the ordinance and he doesn't have to come back to Council. C/M Disraelly read Temp. _R.es_Q-lixt-ko.ri_. #1668 and reiterated his motion that 'Commercial Gardens Mall has requested a waiver from sign ordinance #80_-.34governing a directory sign pertaining to Carlone's Restaurant and MOVED that the waiver for the sign ordinance requested by Commercial Gardens Mall located at 7151 West Commerical Boulevard be approved _ subject to no other business names shall be permitted on the sign and that no other directory sign will be applied for in Commercial Garden's Mall and that this resolution shall be effective upon its adoption and the sign is for Carlone's Restaurant only. October 27, 1980 /pe I r r V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. 0101161 DE LEGAL AFFAIRS ALL VOTED AYE. 34. Employee Retirement _ � Plan - Temp. Ord. #814 - Discussion and _ possible action to amend the retirement plan with respect to procedures for administering the plan. First Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved on first reading. Mayor Falck introduced the item and the City Attorney read Temp. Ordinance #814 in its entirety, and informed Council that these changes are to conform with state law. C/W Kelch MOVED Temporary Ordinance #814 be approved on first reading. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 35. Illegal Parking - Temp. Ord. #821 - Discussion and possible action to prohibit parking vehicles in certain places not included in the Uniform Traffic Code. First Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved on first reading. City Attorney Arthur Birken read Temporary Ordinance #821 in its entirety. C/W Kelch MOVED that proposed parking Temorary Ordinance #821 be approved on first reading. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 36. Right--of-Way Maintenance Responsibility - Temp. Ord. #822 - Discussion and possible action to require property owners to maintain the unpaved right-of-way abutting their property. First Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved on first reading as amended. City Attorney Arthur Birken read Temporary Ordinance #821 in its entirety. C/W Kelch MOVED that we rescind the action taken on October 8th approving this ordinance on first reading. C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. C/M Disraelly indicated Council has also added a new section 7 and 8 is out and there is now a brand new section 7. C/M Disraelly MOVED the adoption of Temporary Ordinance #822 on line 11 showing 6" and the revision of section 7 on first reading. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. �L October 27, 1980 /pe I E J 37• Raxking Lot Tl-lumination - Discussion and possible action to amend Ordinance No. 0-79-32 by extending the required time of compliance from December 1980 to June 1981. Temp. Ord. #826 - First Reading. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Rejected on first reading. City Attorney, Arthur Birken read Temp. Ordinance #826 in its entirety. V/M Massaro asked why would we give them 24 months, as there are several that were ready to go ahead and do this. C/M Disraelly asked why didn't we see to it during those 18 months that the various shopping centers installed them and Mr. Gross replied that we had to tell the shopping centers first and the City never got the equipment until just recently. C/M Disraelly mentioned that it wasn't up to us to test and why are we giving them six months more. Mr. Gross answered that it takes that long to get the lights put in. C/M Disraelly indicated that they had 18 months to put them in and if they are told they have six more months, they will wait until next May to put them in and he feels that we don't have to increase the time limit; he then asked Mr. Gross when the shopping centers were advised. Mr. Gross replied that a letter went out to them stating that because the ordinance had to be changed, they had additional time. V/M Massaro stated that she thought it should come out and that this should be effective immediately; it would require our inspect- ing and sending t-iiem a notice that they are in violation and she wondered if that is all that is required. V/M Massaro MOVED to reject this ordinance and C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. C/M Disraelly advised the City Manager that he notify the shopping centers that the previous letter was sent out in error and that we expect all the parking lots to be completed by December 27, as the ordinance gave them 18 months for the installation. 38. General Revenue Sharing - Temp. Reso. #1663 - Discussion and possible action to urge the U.S. Congress to adopt the general revenue sharing reauthorization bill. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted as amended. RESOLUTION NO.R_%o_a�j/ PASSED City Manager Arthur Birken read the resolution in its entirety. C/W Kelch MOVED to approve Temporary Resolution #1663, and C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion. C/M Disraelly indicated that the memorandum that we received on July 7th stated that we will receive $3000.00 less than the amount estimated for the current entitlement period. He said that when he was at a seminar for the Florida League, he discussed this and the proper entitlement this year would be in exess of $153,000.00 if the full figure is given as compared to $19,000 last year based on our population and our average income in the City of Tamarac of $8200.00 and on our tax base and the City is missing almost $35,000 at the present time. The City Attorney indicated that the Council might direct the City Clerk as to who the City wants copies sent to. -10- October 27, 1980 /Pe Mayor Falck directed the City Clerk to send copies to the members of the Congress, members of the Florida Delegation, member of the Appropriation Committee -involving this, the Broward League of Cities and the Florida League of Cities. 39. Legal Department Authorities - Discussion and possible action to give the City Attorney litigation authority to act on the City's behalf to seek injunctive relief as deemed necessary without prior Council approval. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: City Attorney to seek injunctive relief and consult with the Mayor before he does so. Mayor Falck read the item and then asked the City Attorney for his comments. Mr. Birken said he doesn't want to go beyond the scope of the authority Council wishes him to have and then indicated a case where an individual contacted him; he then sent copies of the letter he had written in reply to the individual to Council and action is obviously needed. He further indicated that when these types of situations arise, does Council want him to proceed and notice Council, or does Council want him to wait until there is a Council Meeting and get some specific authoriza- tion in each instance, as he cannot call Council due to the Sunshine Law. Mayor Falck indicated that the City Attorney should have authority to proceed in matters of this kind, but that he should consult with him first. C/M Disraelly asked if there is a violation of a city ordinance or a regulation, isn't it incumbent upon the City Attorney if an individual is in violation, to take action without going to Council? Mr. Birken said he doesn't want to spend city funds to file a suit and to have people served if Council decides to rewrite the ordinance to resolve the problem; his only request is for a civil violation - if criminal violations occur, they will be prosecuted and no specific authorization is needed for that as the Police have that authority to issue a notice to appear. V/M Massaro addressed Mayor Falck and said that in the various assessments that are given to members of the Council and himself, his responsibility was the City Attorney and the City Manager and therefore MOVED that the City Attorney be authorized to act on the City's behalf to seek injunctive relief as necessary and that he consult with the Mayor first before doing so. C/M Disraelly SECONDED the motion. Melanie --Reynolds asked if it was possible to have a monthly J� g a ari -r-epo-r-t . Mayor Falck stated that the City has litigation reports that are issued periodically by the City Attorney's office and he thinks they are sufficient and can be seen here. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 46. Supporting Constitutional Amendment #4 - Water Facilities - Temp. Reso. #1761 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by consent. RESOLUTION N0. R-�,p-,2 PASSED Adopted. Arthur Birken, City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1761 by title. C/M Disraelly said this is a resolution based on a request by a local gaup w4io are p-ropo"ncj tit two --of --the Bevis on the State Constitutional Amendment :oe permitted. He indicated that this particular one refers to the fact that in 1972 this is to permit state bonds to be used since they are triple A to be used for cities to improve water facilities instead of using city bond financin- and C/M nisraellu MnIURD its adoption. -11- October 27, 1980 /pe J C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 47. Su2j2ortin_q Constitutional Amendment #5 - 40 Year Road Bonds - Temp. Reso. #1762 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by consent. Adopted. RESOLUTION NO.R- p- PASSED Arthur Birken, City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #1762 by title. C/M Disraelly indicated that when this was originally written, it established a funding period of 40 years in 1968 for any road bonds, which means that today if road bonds were sold, they would only have a 28 year period left and the purpose of this is to say that the limitation of 40 years shall be changed to 40 years from the issuance of the bond and C/M Disraelly so MOVED. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 50. Sartori Plat - Temp. Reso. #1653 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Temp. Reso. #1653 adopted as amended. Plat approved with conditions. RESOLUTION NO.R- ga-Z OPASSED City Attorney Arthur Birken read Temp. Resolution #1653 by title. V/M Massaro stated that the City has been reluctant to approve any plats unless accompanied by a site plan, but when dealing with a commercial plat it does make a difference. She feels the only judgement Council has to make at this point is whether to consider the plat individually and whether Council wants any of the other fees at this time which normally come with the site plan, C/M Disraelly asked if we did get the fees for retention and for drainage paid at the time of application for plats without a site plan. V/M Massaro indicated that we received the $130.00 per acre, but is not sure that we received the retention fee as they were expecting to build lakes or canals. In this instance, she doesn't think Mr. Sartori is planning to build lakes or canals, so she thinks it would be proper to request both fees at this time. Mr. Dan Oyler, Vice President of Craven & Thompson stated that they will agree to pay the 5% or the $130.00 per acre at this time which would be about $1300 for a 10 acre plat. He said that on the other monies for retention, they are going to have to put in some retention for South Florida and the extra 5% for the City; he is not sure how they will handle the extra 5% but thinks possibly in the design after tennants have been selected and they know what their requirements are, they possibly will put that extra acreage on the water in lieu of the money aspect on that. Mr. Oyler mentioned that in the Development Review Agreement it speaks to the City's chapter in the Land Use Plan which talks about water and sewer and there is a portion in there about drainage. He said they agree that at the time site plans are approved, if they do not provide that 5% additional retention fee, they will pay the money at that time before the City approves the site plans as this agreement allows them to do; he can't see why Mr. Sartori is required to put up another $17,000.00 at this -12- October 27, 1980 (Tapeside #4) time when later in the future he might put in that retention out there and then they have to come back to Council and request that $17,000.00 back because they meet it another way. He indicated that they would pay the City the per acreage fee at this time, but would object to paying the $17,000.00 until they have development plans available. V/M Massaro said she believes the City should wait for site plan approval and that the fee should be paid and City would be changing a very strict rule; if City would go into an ordinance form to allow this, it would be months before this would go through. She then indicated that if they decide to have retention, the money would be refunded, but the fee should be required at this time and it is up to Council. Mr. Ogler said he feels that Mr. Sartori could use that $17,000 for other development, but agrees to pay the fee or provide the retention at the time that site plan and engineer- ing drawings are approved by the City. C/W Kelch asked if they would pay the $130.00 per acre at this time and Mr. Oyler stated that they would pay the $130.00 per acre. C/W Kelch indicated that as long as there is not an ordinance with such provisions outlined, she would go along with this request. C/M Disraelly said that since the City has established a precedent with the last one, it seems to him that once a condition is established for one developer, that the conditions should prevail for all succeeding developers. C/W Kelch mentioned that she believe the entire amount was received on the Cummings Group. Mr. Oyler said as he understood it on the Cummings Group; the City collected just the $130.00 per acre and did not collect the 5% additional because the City did not know what they were going to do. V/M Massaro stated that before continuing the discussion, Council should know whether Mr. Sartori agrees to pay these things. Mr. Ernest Sartori said he feels that the City is protected when they present the site plans and the $17,000.00 would be a sacrifice as the money could be used in a more agressive way. V/M Massaro asked Mx. Sartori if he agrees to pay the reten- tion and the 5% of the tract times $35,000.00 and Mr. Sartori answered yes. C/M Disraelly MOVED the approval of the plat as Temporary #1653 which states that the plat is approved;Section 2, the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute said plat subject to the payment of $130.00 per acre for the drainage and subject to the payment of retention based on $35,000.00 an acre, the drainage fee is permanent, but if a lake is built to cover the required retention or that portion is built, that a refund will be made for any retention provided; and Section 4 that they execute and to be handled by Council action. C/M Disraelly indicated that the City Attorney is suggesting for Council's information that if the drainage requirements are increased before the site plan is approved, the developer Will b sub ' ect tY� new rldegnu�r aenti C/M Disraelly also i ica- , howbver, t is wou o inc used in his motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. -13- October 27, 1980 /pe LEGAL AFFAIRS 33. Woodmont - Tracts 74 and 75 - Private Streets - Temp. Reso. #1661 - Discussion and possible action to approve Stipulation #4 to Case #72-11731 and authorizing the City Attorney to execute same on behalf of the City. (Tabled from 10/8/80) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted, guardhouse subject to Beautification Committee approval - Stipulation #4, as amended. RESOLUTION NO. R- $O--p;?�39 PASSED Mayor Falck read Temp. Reso. #1661 by title. City Attorney Arthur Birken indicated that he had received a letter late Friday from Mr. Rissman which was distributed to Council this morning and there is a problem that this project is having at the County level, specifically the density of the two tracts together which are within the court orders, but Mr. Birken believes that on Tract 74 there are 30 too many and it was brought to Mr. Rissman's and our attention by the County. Mr. Birken said that Mr. Rissman suggested this matter be handled by a stipulation, and if Council wants to include it in this stipulation or another stipulation, that would be up to Council. The City Attorney cautioned Council about what is happening with HLR concerning any stipulations effecting density. Vice Mayor Massaro stated that she had received a telephone call from Mr. Rissman this morning at 8:30 and feels that she does not want to consider a subject as serious as this at a moment's notice. She further feels that this item should be carried over to the next regular meeting so that Council can consider this properly and Mayor Falck agreed with V/M Massaro. V/M Massaro said that maybe Mr. Rissman would rather not have that stipulation approved at this time until Council has had an opportunity to review this. Mr. Rissman said he would like this to be handled as a separate item and to proceed with stipulation 4. Mr. Birken discussed the guardhouse question that was raised because the site plan approved by Council had a guardhouse shown and the regulations do not necessarily permit guardhouses and it should be totally clear in the stipulation and there was a question about language in paragraph 4. C/M Disraelly asked if Stipulation 4 applies only to the out - parcel and Mr. Birken replied that it applied to the development of the out -parcel and to private streets. C/M Disraelly asked why this was being handled as a separate entity and Mr. Birken replied that the City Council specifically voted to have him prepare and sign a stipulation containing what is in Stipulation #4 and that is what he has done. V/M Massaro MOVED the adoption of Stipulation #4 and as further provided for in Temporary #1661. Beautification of the guard- house is subject to approval by the Beautification Committee and that the third from the bottom line on Page 1 delete the words "guardhouses." C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. Mr. Rissman discussed the density question that came up at the County level and he asked Council if this should be handled as in stipulations in January, 1980 where precedent was set for this in Stipulation 43 on Tracts 47, 48 and 50, paragraph 8 or 9 and exactly the same thing was done, that is transfer the density amongst these tracts as long as it didn't exceed the --14- October 27, 1980 /pe total number of units that were in the original 1976 court order or that no one unit would have a density per acre higher than the greatest density allowable on any one tract, which was 12. He feelsthis is exactly the same situation that they are asking for and the County has indicated to them that they would accept a stipulation through the City. He also feels that they are a little different than the HLR case because they are under one common site plan that has been approved and that their tracts are contiguous; they would like to draw up a stipulation along these lines. 32. Private Streets -_Temp. Ord. #809 - Discussion and possible action to amend Code Section 20 by permitting private streets in all residential zoning districts. First reading. (Tabled from 10/8/80) SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled. City Attorney Arthur Birken read Temp. Ord. #809 in its entirety. C/W Kelch MOVED that Temporary Ordinance #809 be approved on first reading and V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. C/M Disraelly discussed private streets and feels that it is not a proper form of streets within the city even though we save money on maintenance. He indicated this would make us too fragmented as a city. V/M Massaro withdrew her second to C/W Kelch's motion. C/W Kelch withdrew her motion. V/M Massaro MOVED to table Temp. Ord. #809 and to look at this very carefully to make sure that we have every protection that is needed. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. Melanie Reynolds said she was shocked when the City took back the streets at Spyglass. She indicated that they used to have a contract that said that they may not shift their private streets to the City of Tamarac and they had them forever, especially after streets are 8 or 9 years old and feels they should have some proper protection. V/M Massaro said the ordinance was written so that the City could take the streets back under certain conditions and Spyglass was supposed to fix those streets before the City took them back. C/W Kelch said she felt that the City is protecting their residents since the streets had to be repaired before the City took them back. 28. Mainlands - Section 7 - Assignment of Lease - Temp Reso. #1.669 - Discussion and possible action to assign the Recreation Lease from the City to the Mainlands Section Seven. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Adopted. RESOLUTION NO. R - J'O-o2_5r PASSED Mr. Birken read Temp. Reso. #1669 by title, and mentioned that he spoke to Mr. Ruf early this morning and Mr. Fitzsimmons was not able to convince Mr. Ruf that there was any reason why the resolution should not be enacted and Mr. Ruf recommended that Council pass the resolution. V/M Massaro MOVED that Temporary Resolution #1669 be approved, and C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. -15- October 27, 1980 /Pe Mr. Joseph A. Fitzsimmons stated that he was representing a deceased party, Mr. Raymond O'Brien and his living spouse, Veronica Woodall and John Dunn. He said that when the judge ruled in the Carratt case, he denied declaratory relief to the City because the City had relieved itself of that burden before it ever went to court in 1972; the Appellate Court has asked that oral arguments be had on the Carratt Case and it has now been set for December 2 of this year. Mr. Fitz- simmons suggested that the Council not take any action on this Assignment of Lease. V/M Massaro asked what our legal position is as she doesn't want to pay out thousands of dollars as Section 7 and the City has been doing because of some of the decisions Mr. Fitzsimmons has made. Mr. Birken replied that Mr. Fitzsimmons has challenged dismissal of the Carratt Case and that will be considered in the Court of Appeals and he has instructed Mr. Ruf to give Council a written up -date on this matter; according to Mr. Ruf t his is a separate thing from the Assignment of the Lease. (tape side VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. #5) 52. Survey for Ca orella Park - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by consent. City Mgr, authorized to hire Darby & Way for wo.r.k on lake. Mayor Falck read this item b title. Mr. Ed Gross, City Manager by that this item is under the grant which the City has approved and a survey is needed to be able to go out for bid on the complete work on the property; we had three quotes, one of which is under $2000.00, so therefore do not have to go out for formal bidding and ask that the City Council approve the agreement with Darby & Way for preparation of the boundary survey, topographical survey, lake location in cross section Northerly and Easterly Shore of lake for dock pilings for a total fee of $1500.00. C/M Disraelly MOVED that the City Manager be authorized to hire Darby & Way for the preparation of the boundan7 survey, topo- graphical survey, lake location in cross section Northerly and Easterly Shore of lake for dock pilings and to include the cost of any government agency submittal tees other than these other costs, total price not to exceed $1500.00. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 51. M & H Services -- $8, 830. 00 m For payMent. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Tabled until Mr. Birken is ready. V/M Massaro MOVED to table this item until Mr. Birken is ready and C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL 12. Code Enforcement - Responsibility -- Report by City Manager - Discussion and possible action to transfer Code Enforcement responsibilities from the Building Department to the Police Department. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Transfer approved. Mayor Falck read this item by title. -16- October 27, 1980 /pe I Mr. Gross stated that under the present law it is difficult to enforce any code violations within a reasonable period of time and because of this and even after we give a code viola- tion, the only way to give an actual notice to appear in court is for a policeman to be involved; therefore time is lost in the process. It is also found that a policeman in uniform gets things done much faster and he is therefore asking that two part-time positions which are now in the Building Depart- ment as Code Enforcement Officers be abolished and that the monies be transferred to the Police Department to hire one additional policeman; the Police Department taking over the code enforcement duties of the City. He also indicated that no additional monies are needed. C/M Disraelly said he feels that this is a viable alternative which is proposed by the City Manager and that the Police Chi.ef's recommendation should be followed through. C/M Disraelly MOVED that $11,250.00 from Line Account #1--227- 524-120 of the budget named Building Department Salaries be transferred to Line Account #1-218-521-120 named Police Depart- ment Salaries, the balance in the account was $286,200.00 before the transfer and will be $274,950.00 subsequent to the transfer, the amount of money in the account to which the money has to be trans- ferred was $1,366,860.00 prior to the transfer and $1,378,110.00 subsequent to the transfer. V/M Massaro questioned paying one man to supervise another and Mayor Falck explained that they are hiring one man in the police department to replace the two part-time people. Mr. Gross said the reason for this is the fact that a lot of calls which go into the Police Department at the present time are non -emergency calls; we are trying to reorganize the depart- ment so that the men who are on duty for the major problems in the City will have its load reduced by this organization of two men who will be doing the code enforcement and handling the non -police emergency calls and it will be an inexpensive way of taking care of the problems. The City Manager indicated there also has to be someone in charge of what they are doing and who can make the decisions; the union requires certain pay requirements for additional work and the individual handling it will get a small additional amount, about $1000.00. Mr. Gross further said that for the amount of money we are going to spend on this, we should have a specifically better increase in the amount of code enforcement work than is being done now. He explained that one of our major problems is the fact that once a violation is noted, it takes months, sometimes years to get the individuals to court and when we get them to court we need somebody who can testify correctly so that the case doesn't get thrown out. V/M Massaro asked how much of a problem there is to get individuals to comply and Mr. Gross replied that there are many and the amount of time involved is unbelievable. C/W Kelch indicated that the pollution and parking violations are a tremendous problem and if there is a possibility that we can get more affirmative action, than she is 100% for it. C/W Belch SECONDED the motion made by C/M Disraelly. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 54. Executive Airport - Adding Skytel Inns of America to Lawsuit. Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT. Approved. (See Page 18) -17- October 27, 1980 /pe Mr. Birken said he wants the authority to add Skytel as a defendant. V/M Massaro asked if there would be additional costs or specialists as a result of this, and Mr. Birken said there wouldn't be any additional work. C/W Kelch MOVED that we agendize the item concerning the addition of Skytel Inns of America to the Executive Airport suit. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 55. ASIKAS vs. CITY OF TAMARAC. Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT. C/W Kelch MOVED to Agendize by Consent an item concerning ASIKAS vs. CITY OF TAMARAC. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 56. Letter from Nat Cohen -- Softball League - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: AGENDIZED BY CONSENT. C/M Disraelly MOVED to Agendize by Consent a letter from Nat Cohen regarding the Soft Ball League. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion for further discussion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 54. Executive Airport - Addi -Lng Skytel Inns of America to Lawsuit. - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Authorized City Attorney to include Skytel" Inns as a defendant. (See Page 17) V/M Massaro MOVED to authorize the City Attorney to include the Skytel Inns of America in our suit as a defendant. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. 55. ASIKAS vs. CITY OF TAMARAC - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: City Attorney authorized to handle $5,000.00 reimbursement. (see above) Mayor Falck read the item. C/M Disraelly MOVED that the City Attorney be authorized to handle the $5000.00 reimbursement in the ASKIKAS case. C/M Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. Mayor Falck said he had already commended the City Attorney on the fine manner in which this particular case was handled and he again wants to do it publicly and we came up with a $5000.00 contribution that we wouldn't otherwise have had. 56. Letter from Nat Cohen - Softball Game - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Team must live within guidelines for use of park. (See above) -18- October 27, 1980 /pe r C/M Disraelly indicated that he received a letter from Nat Cohen whereby the managerial group of the Leag,(B wants to play three seasons during the next year at the park and want to reimburse the City $500.00 for each season, which would be $1500.00 to defray maintenance of the ball field and also want to sponsor a Mayor's Cup Tournament; the League starts November loth and this is why they are asking for approval of the Council now. Mayor Falck said they have overlooked the intent and seem to think the City is emphasizing the money and that is not what we are emphasizing at all; we do not feel that our facilities should be made available to include outsiders. Their philosophy is that they can't play ball unless they get outsiders, as this contributes to their winning, so we have gone from recreation to competition. He feels we have already taken our stand and should reiterate our stand, and they should live by the guide- lines. V/M Massaro agreed with Mayor Falck and indicated that they should live within the guidelines established and said -there is no reason why we should be spending the taxpayers' money to accomodate people that do not contribute to that tax base. V/M Massaro MOVED that the League be told that they have to live within the guidelines that have already been established. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. C/M Disraelly said the guidelines as presently constituted indicate that only 100 of the number of players cannot be residents of the City; he had proposed 25% of the teams rather than 10s be allowed in order that sufficient teams be made available and feels that 10% is a very tight restriction. VOTE: C/W Kelch - Ave C/M Disraelly - Nay V/M Massaro - Aye Mayor Falck - Aye 3. Sprin2 Lake Water & Sewer Develo ers Agreement - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Item 49(d) at 7/23/80 meeting clarified. (See Page 2) Mr. Birken said Council discussed Spring Lake II and Northwood IT amendments on October 10 and he suggested to Council that the proper figures will be in the amendments and no additional action is needed on them; the documents that he has do show $11.67 and regulations require in Ordinance 80--84 that the proper figure would be $5.34. The documents will be in proper form before they are recorded. The only action that does need to be taken is on the language in the motion which was unclear on Spring Lake II. C/M Disraelly MOVED that the item pertaining to Spring Lake II on the meeting of July 23, 1980 Item 49 - Sub -Section D, a motion by the Vice Mayor should be clarified to indicate that there is a misunderstanding and that the words subject to the language "added and approved" under Item 11 be removed from that motion. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. -19- October 27, 1980 /Pe 40. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS C/W Kelch - None C/M Zemel - Absent C/M Disraelly mentioned what a good job the City Attorney has done during the year and then asked Mr. Gross if we have received the contract from the Fire Department yet. Mr. Gross answered that as soon as the City Attorney has some free time, he will be able to work on it. Mr. Birken said the Fire Membership voted to approve a two year contract 10% and 10%, last year's contract language with the exception of the article pertaining to working out of classification and that language has been modified by him over the week -end; it will be typed for everybody's review and if in order, the contract will be finalized, signed by the Union and presented to Council for action. C/M Disraelly MOVED to AGENDIZE BY CONSENT a salary review of the City Attorney to be effective as of October 1, 1980 and he would like to indicate at this time that on October 19, 1978 the City Attorney was given a raise which was promised to him at that time and he received a 7% increase in October 1979 and he would seek consent as to discussion for salary of the City Attorney. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion, but did not want finaliza- tion of this until the next regular meeting. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. C/M Disraelly MOVED that effective as of October 1, 1980, his salary of $39,996.00 be increased to $44,000.00. This motion died for lack of a second. V/M Massaro said she would rather see a motion that we consider Mr. Birken's salary at the next regular meeting and that regardless of what decision is made on the amount of the increase that he is entitled to, that it be retro- active to October 1, 1980. V/M Massaro MOVED that the City Attorney's salary be con- sidered at the next regular meeting and whatever the decision is, if it is an increase, which hopefully it will be, that it be retroactive to October 1, 1980. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. C/M Disraelly called attention to the fact that we are dedicating Cypress Creek Commons later this week and feels badly that the City did not pave the parking lot, people are using the park and ramp and it has been beautified, but we need 250 tons of asphalt -- we can rent a grader at a cost not to exceed $300.00 and that plus the manpower and the 250 tons of asphalt would be a gross cost of not over $5000.00. He said we have fundsavailable and feels we should pave the parking lot. Mayor Falck suggested that the City Council be given this information in a memorandum along with the quotes and also asked that Council hear from C/M Zemel since he indicated his oppostion mainly because of the fact that his checking showed that these were outside people and not the citizens of Tamarac using these facilities. C/M Disraelly stated that when we got the grants from the State, it specified that any charges that were made to out- siders would have to apply to members of the City and he -20- October 27, 1980 /pe I F_� thinks if we have this situation, that we can't ask people where they live and feels the work should be completed. V/M Massaro said it is her understanding that every year the Water Management District have funds for grant for various improvements along the canals and why not try to find out whether or not there is a grant available to complete this work inasmuch as we are providing something for people other than just in our own city. Mr. Gross indicated that it looks well without paving the parking lot and he would like to have the City Council look at it. V/M Massaro indicated that she would like to see the area in front of Public Works maintained a little nicer and and asked Mr. Gross to take action on it. Mr. Gross said he sat down with Buddy Himber and although they planted seagrapes, they do not grow fast and oleanders were suggested instead of seagrapes. V/M Massaro said it required a general manicuring and looks terrible at present. She said further that things inside could be done such as parking the vehicles more neatly. Arthur Birken - None Ed Gross indicated that on the antennas upstairs, the Federal Government has not yet given them permission to move the antennas; however we have sent a letter to them giving them only until the next Council meeting to either take them out or get permission to leave them from the City Council. Mayor Falck said that at the meeting held in Miami of the Florida League of Cities that the program left a lot to be desired; however he did benefit from the sessions he attended on the Pension Plan which indicated to him con- clusively that the things that we thought about and incorporated in our plan some years ago, these things are now being considered, especially by the new Board that is administering and supervising, and he doesn't think we will have any serious problem with that. He indicated that in the areaof. Self -Insurance Programs, those funds are growing; they had a tremendous year on the Workmens' Compensation with an overall ratio of about 35%-- ours was even better, about 34% and unless we have a lot of claims that will take considerably more to pay out than what is anticipated, our overall cost for the year ending September 30, 1980 when it is time to consider the dividend.. next summer, we should be in for a considerable amount of money. This should be in his opinion as much as 20% and 20% of $120,000.00 means somewhere in the neighborhood of about $25,000.00. He said we have had a very good year here, mainly because of some of the work that was done on the safety programs that have been talked about for such a long time. The Mayor mentioned that -Bo Donnelly from Dania was elected First Vice President and Ben Geiger has been elected to the Board of Directors. The Mayor said he was very disappointed in the business session program, particularly the one that was scheduled to give an up -date of the office that is provided by the State of Florida in Washington. They had the office manager there and all he did was talk about was what Congress did or did -21- October 27, 1980 /pe r do, and we already have this information. The Mayor said he would like to know what that office is costing, how many people visit and what it does up there. He further indicated that the program in total was sub -standard this year in his opinion. C/M Disraelly mentioned that at last year's convention, he attended six different meetings and got some input, but not enough. The Mayor said the exhibits were very poor with the exception of one relating to the gas pumps which the City Manager said he would have a recommendation for Council at the next meeting. Arthur Birken the City Attorney sessions were held at one time and none were scheduled for the afternoon. He said the session was broken down into three parts, one being Home Rule -- a waste, the second had to do with solar energy and he thought that there may be some interesting things that could come of that if Council wants to explore incentives and the third was on Code Enforcement Boards. He said the speaker was good and represented Jim Watt of West Palm Beach who sponsored the bill; he said this works well in West Palm County, but none of the other counties seem to be interested in creating them. He said perhaps Council might want to think about it and there may be some amendments that may make it more desirable; he intends to correspond with Representative Watt and provide his input. Mr. Gross commented to the Mayor that the Council regrets the fact that he did not win the award. Mayor Falck stated that the Council's nomination was more important than winning. V/M Massaro asked Mr. Gross to have the lights in the parking lot at Tamarac Shopping Center inspected first as they are very eager for the letter to go to the owner since he is ready to go ahead. Mr. Gross replied that he will have the letter out before the end of the week. MAYOR FALCK ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 12:30. ATTEST: ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $103.60, or $6.50 per copy, to inform the general pub tic and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. APPROVEA BY CITY COUNCIL ON /° �9gD -22- October 27, 1980 /pe