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