Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-01 - City Commission Reconvened Regular Meeting MinutesMAIL. REPLY T(): r 0. R OX 2FK)10 5 8 'x I I',I 0 R ..i. H VV E 5 `i" 881 { NJ 1 J E ,r, iVi A i i A R._ , FL. 0 R-'. i D A 722-5900 NOTICE OF RECONVENED COUNCIL MEETING November 30, 1982 There will be a reconvened City Council meeting on Wednesday, December 1, 1982, at 2:00 P.M., in the West Conference Room at City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida 33321. The items remaining from the Council Agenda of November 24, 1982, to be con- sidered are as follows; 2. Bid Award - Tem . Reso. #2524 - Discussion and possible action to award. a bid for the replacement of the roof at the Administration Building. 3. Water & Sewer Imelopprs Agreement - Discussion and possible action on a revised form of agreement. 5. Bid Award Tamarac Par- Temp. #2525 - Discussion and possible action to award a bid for the installation of two tennis courts. -------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARING 27. Water and Sewer Rates - Tamarac Utilities West - Temp. Reso. #2537 - Discussion and possible action to establish and modify "contribution -in - aid -of -construction" charges for new commercial and residential construc- tion which have not yet contracted for service (rates of those customers already receiving service, or who have contracted for service, will not be affected). 28. Woodmont Tracts 74175 - Discussion and possible action on: a Revision to Site Plan No. 1 - Temp. Reso. #2534 b) Site Plan No. 2 - Temp. Reso. #2535 c) Amendment to the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement for Site Plan No. 1 d) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement for Site Plan No. 2 e) Developers Agreement 33. Restructuring Procedures of HOW Program Agendized by Consent - Dis- cussion and possible action. The City Council may consider such other business as may come before it. Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk Pursuant to Chapter 80-105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368: if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED COUNCIL MEETING December 1, 1982 (from November 24, 1982) CALL TO ORDER: Vice: -Mayor Massaro called the meeting to order at 2:15 P.M., Wednesday, December 1, 1982 in the West Conference Room. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Irving M. Disraelly Councilman David E. Krantz ALSO PRESENT: Laura Z. Stuurmans, City Manager Jon M. Henning, City Attorney Carol A. Evans, Assistant City Clerk Patricia Marcurio, Secretary ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Mayor Walter W. Falck Councilman Philip B. Kravitz 35. Mainlands Section 3 Clubhouse - Revised Site Plan for Porch Enclosure at Clubhouse - Temp. Reso. #2540 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent. (See Page 7). C/M Disraelly MOVED to Agendize by Consent a revised site plan for a porch enclosure at Mainlands Section 3. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 28. Woodmont Tracts 74/75 - Discussion and possible action on: a) Revision to Site Plan No. 1 - Temp. Reso. #2534 b) Site Plan No. 2 - Tem Reso. #2535 c) Amendment to the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement for Site Plan No. 1 d) Water and Sewer Developers Agreement for Site Plan No. 2 e) Developers Agreement SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED Jon Henning reviewed the Water and Sewer Developers Agreement and he said there is no e) Developers Agreement but the provisions of e) are included in the first agreement, which is c) on the agenda. V/M Massaro said it should be clarified that Council does not have Site Plan No. 2, it has not been presented as yet and there are some questions and she asked Council not to take action and it will be agendized for the next regular meeting. Jon Henning said there was an original site plan that was phased over 800 units with Bonaire and it was located on Tracts 74/75. He said, because of many changes with the market and development, etc.,Mr. Rissman has asked the City to amend the Water and Sewer Agreement and to amend the circumstances of his development. Mr. Henning said he believes the best way to handle this complicated matter would be to take Mr. Rissman's original site plan and for him to take those 35 units and call this first group "the revised site plan No. 1". He said this group is what this amended Water and Sewer Agreement refers to: approximately 35 units plus some recreational units plus one guardhouse for 38-1/2 ERCs. He said there is some question as to whether those figures are exact but Mr. Rissman has agreed that this is not material. Mr. Henning said that basically, the WHEREAS clauses on the first page are standard and they are amending the old agreement. He referred to what is called the amended Water and Sewer Developers Agreement for Bonaire 1 - 12/1/82 /pm Revised Site Plan No. 1. Mr. Henning said, under the old agreement, because of the phasing arrangement, there had been 150 ERCs purchased and now that Bonaire has 150 ERCs they are trying to use them in the next stages of their development. He said approximately 38-1/2 would be used in this site plan and the remainder of the site plan would be voided and there would be a new application for more portions of that site plan. Mr. Henning said in the new agreement, the CIAO charges must be paid up front with the contract and if there is a delinquency in the guaranteed revenues, the City will stop issuing new building permits and stop giving final approvals for certificates of occupancy. a Mr. Henning said Mr. Rissman has asked that the City include some of the language that was in the old eater and Sewer Agreement as to guaranteeing the quality and the availability of the water and there should be no problem with that. He said the main question in this agreement will be when the guaranteed revenues are going to commence and he is suggesting this contract be retroactive to 9/8/82 which is approximately the date that the guaranteed revenues would have started in the old agreement. Mr. Henning referred to Page 13 of the agreement which is a section he reserved in the Water and Sewer Agreement for special circumstances for each developer. He said the original agreement was for 851 ERCs and 701 of those are being forfeited and reverting back to the City and the City agrees not to charge any money for fees for those 701 ERCs and the developer is agreeing to waive any claim to any fees he has already paid for those. He said -of the remaining 150 ERCs, the first 38-1/2 will be used in this Site Plan No. 1 and the next amount of 61-1/2 will come up in Site Plan No. 2. V/M Massaro said they should clarify that Bonaire is not forfeiting the money they paid for the CIACs, they are forfeiting any costs that were paid:resultinq from having Purchased them, the interest, etc. She said they still own 150 ERCs and are forfeiting 701 that they had a commitment to buy. C/M Disraelly asked if they are making any claim on the interest and Mr. Henning said the agreement is that they will waive any claim to any money that they paid pursuant to the original agreement and they no longer will have any claim to those ERCs. Mr. Henning said referring to the 150 ERCs, the first 38-1/2 will be used in this agreement and the 62-1/2 of the next group will be in Site Plan No. 2 and the remainder is 50 which are not tied down to any particular site plan but the City agrees they will be used somewhere in Tract 74/75 original development. He said that, if there is some adjustment to be done by Engineering affecting the 38-1/2 and the 61-1/2, then the 50 may become 45. He said the question is whether or not the Recreation facilities are actually 2-1/2 or 5 ERCs. He said, once again there is the question as to when the guaranteed revenues will be paid on these 150 ERCs. Mr. Henning said when the new agreement is completed, the owner will be bound by the agreement although this form does not state that. He said on Page 10, Paragraph E, refers to the effective date which should be 9/8/82. He said the guaranteed revenues start at some agreed time after the effective date of this agreement and this is to be determined by Council and it has been recommended by Bonaire that, after this agree- ment, guaranteed revenues would start 6 months after the effective date which is 9/8/82. V/M Massaro said Council should bear in mind that this is only a recommendation of Bonaire and it is in conflict with the recommendation that has already been made. Mr. Henning said the old agreement states that guaranteed revenues for ERCs start 9/8/82 and 100 start 9/4/83 and Mr. Rissman's suggestion is that 150 will start 6 months after September instead of starting in September. - 2 - 12/1/82 /pm Mr. Henning said now that those dates are known, it should be made clear for the record that Bonaire does not agree to pay 50 ERCs of guaranteed revenues 9/82 and paying 100 more guaranteed revenues in 9/83. He said the closest they have come in negotiations is that they want 6 more months on the first 50 on 3/83 and Mr. Rissman said the compromise suggestion was the 50 in 3/83 and the other site plan would be 12 months from its effective date. Mr. Henning said the first contract would be in 6 months with 38-1/2 ERCs in 3/83 and 61-1/2 one year from approval and the balance 50 6 months after approval or a maximum of 18 months. V/M Massaro said it should be remembered that Council is trying to help the developers because of the economic conditions and they are allowed to cut these,:projects apart and they do not have -to site plan anything until they are ready,but once they site plan with the reduction in the number of units that they have, they should be prepared to move forward with that project. She said this is why, in the discussions she has had with the City Attorney, she suggested that 6 months was enough time. She said whatever they do for the Bonaire project they must do the same for everyone else and the economic effect on the City must be weighed. She said if the developer does not want to pay guaranteed revenues within 6 months,all they have to do is refrain from bringing in their site plans until they are.ready to move forward. Mr. Rissman said the Ordinance on the developers agreements called for and allowed up to 2 years from the effective date or 6 months after the date of permit. He said he agrees with the Vice Mayor and they are prepared to move forward but it is unrealistic to think that any site plan could be completed sooner than 6 months. He said they would go along with 6 months for a building permit and their proposal is sub- stantially less time than the Ordinance calls for. V/M Massaro said the City Engineer insists that the Council should not allow 6 months and he thinks that the City should follow the plan that has been adopted in Palm Beach which calls for guaranteed revenues immediately upon signing the agreement and this is payable one year in advance. She said the Council is trying to help the developers and not be too harsh. C/M Disraelly said he does not feel this is the approach the City of Tamarac should take since it is so harsh and C/M Krantz concurred. C/M Disraelly said Bonaire was one of the first developers that the City tried to work with by phasing•` Julian Bryan said there is a slight difference in Palm Beach County which makes it consistent with 6 months from permit, there the applicant simply gets a letter of commitment from the utility, they do not simultaneously,with approval of a site plan, sign a Water and Sewer Agreement. The applicant must supply that information prior to a building permit so, in effect, after payment of fees for the Water and Sewer Agreement, the next day application can be made for a permit. He said, as a practical matter, it is 6 months from the time of a permit so it would be consistent with what is being suggested as proper. He said in some parts of the County it is required that they pay a year ahead and other areas are more liberal. Jon Henning said the contract for Site Plan No. 2 is virtually the same as the contract for Site Plan No. 1 with two exceptions; all special conditions on the second to last page are not needed and the effective date for the second Water and Sewer Agreement will be the date of Council approval not retroactive to 9/8/82. Mr. Rissman said both site plans were submitted and Julian Bryan said they were submitted with Site Plan No. 1 and an hour ago Mr. Rubin advised him that they had not been hung for 3 days in the hall because there was not a Water and Sewer Agreement. Mr. Bryansaid they have been in-house and have gone through the reviews and have been approved by Planning and Zoning. - 3 - 12/1/82 /Pm V/M Massaro said this may be so but Council has not seen them. Mr. Bryan said the site plans appeared before the Planning Commission about 8 weeks ago and Site Plan No. 2 was about 2 weeks ago. Mr. Rissman said they have been negotiating this about 5 months and now they are ready and it is very important to have this model office up. Mr. Henning said one point of confusion was that Engineering was not aware that these ERCs had already been purchased and there was a question about the fee for that. V/M Massaro said there was another question concerning landscaping fees and there are more questions every day. She said until such time as they can agree, the City will sign nothing. a Mr. Rissman said they were forced by economic conditions to change their project from an 850 unit project of all one product to 2 or 3 separate projects of townhouses, etc. He said after they did that they came to the City in July and they must have this approved without any further delay so that they can build their model building. V/M Massaro suggested this will be put on the agenda for the next regular meeting, but unless these items are all resolved and they can agree she was doubtful that Council would act favorably. V/M Massaro said if everything is worked out on this it could be put on the Agenda by consent. Mr. Henning said he would see to it that Council gets copies of Site Plan No. 2 today. Mr. Rissman said he would like to go on record as stating that they have worked diligently with the parties that they thought were the ones to negotiate with. He asked with whom they should settle matters and V/M Massaro said they were negotiating with Mr. Henning and her and she refused to discuss matters just prior to today's meeting. C/M Disraelly MOVED to TABLE Item 28, Woodmont Tracts 74/75, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 2. Bid Award - Temp. Reso. #2524 -- Discussion and possible action to award a bid for the replacement of the roof at the Administration SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Award to Embick Brothers Roofing in the amount of $11,990. RESOLUTION NO. R -- 4y--3PASSED. Jon Henning read the Resolution by title and the City Manager said the Finance Director, who is responsible for the administrative activities over at Utilities West, asked the Engineering Department to lend their expertise in formulating his recommendation and they jointly recommend the bid be awarded to Embick Brothers Roofing in the amount of $11,990. of Embick Di sraelly Y es o.#2524 read, "the bid g 1,990 less the number of square feet of wood deck be placed at $1.75/square foot, less the re- inforcement of existing rafters at $3.00/linear foot, less square foot and linear foot are used then in the estimate that was presented". Tape SECONDED by C/M Krantz. 2 VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 3. Water & Sewer Developers Agreement - Discussion and possible action on a revised form of agreement. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Basic Agreement APPROVED. Jon Henning said this is a general form and these contracts will be approved individually when they come before Council with developers. V/M Massaro said there is no approval needed and the City Attorney is presenting this to Council for input and suggestions. C/M Disraelly referred to Page 4, under I 2, "the payment of guaranteed revenues - 4 - 12/1/82 /pm required by this agreement shall commence", and he said this is what should be determined now. Jon Henning said it has been the feeling in recent months that it might be best if there were a date contained in the contract and not inter -related to a building permit or something that involved a different department. Mr. Henning said, since this is used primarily by the Finance Department, it would be better if it were a date that could be taken from a contract as opposed to some flexible date that would tie into a building permit. V/M Massaro said the reason this portion _._.._._.. __. was suggested, "the payment of guaranteed revenues required by this agreement shall commence after the effective date of this agreement", was because Council cannot control building permits particularly when they involve the unincorporated areas. She said whenever a third entity becomes involved there is a problem because Council must be certain that they have followed through with what they are doing. C/M Disraelly suggested this read, on Page 4, "Payment of guaranteed revenues required by this agreement shall commence , which is 6 months after the effective date of this agreement". Jon Henning said this anticipates a new development. If it is used for a revised agreement or an amended agreement where there is a previous agreement, as in the case with Bonaire, where the substance of this agreement is being used to amend an old agreement, this would open up a new area of discussion. V/M Massaro said Council has approved at one time, an agreement to be written by Mr. Henning which is similar to what she is saying, that the commencement of guaranteed revenues is 6 months from the original date of the agreement. C/M Disraelly asked Mr. Henning to compose a paragraph that would refer to amended site plans and Mr. Henning said he could either put it in there or on the second to last page where the special exceptions are_ Jon Henning said then for new developments, it is 6 months after the effective date of the agreement. Julian Bryan requested this should be 12 months because it takes at least 6 months to get the plats approved and processed by the County. V/M Massaro agreed that Council should consider this. Joel Kommer said he agreed with Julian Bryan. C/M Disraelly MOVED the APPROVAL of the basic Water & Sewer Developers Agreement prepared by the City Attorney but that Council give him some input concerning the "6 months after the effective date" and the para- graph ref_er�..._ta-amended agreements.. there should be. consider- ation of a paragraph on Page 4, under 12, "the payment of guaranteed revenues required by this agreement shall commence, whatever date, which is 6 months after the date of this agreement". C/M Disraelly suggested that a new paragraph be added that will have reference to an amended agreement and also suggesting that a paragraph be inserted if the residential property is not platted, there be some consideration to a new time element. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. Mr. Rissman asked what the City's rationale is changing the guaranteed revenues and V/M Massaro said it is because of the size of the project and the developer does not need to come in with their site plan until they are ready to proceed with it and the City does not want to have several ERCs reserved unless the developer is ready for them because it will cost the City money. She said when the City commits itself to a certain number of ERCs, they must have the capacity. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE - 5 - 12/1/82 /pm L- 1 5. Bid Award - Tamarac Park - Temp Reso. #2525 - Discussion and pos- sible action to award a bid for the installation of two tennis courts. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: APPROVED awarding the bid to Everglades Co. for the amount of $22,842 and sod will be installed by Public Works. RESOLUTION NO. R — i>- _3 �f/PASSED . Paving Jon Henning read the Resolution by title and Laura Stuurmans said there is a memo from the City Engineer setting forth the bids received and recommending the low bidder Everglades Paving Co., Inc. She said the bid is reasonable but, in her review of the bid package she found that, after checking with the Public Works Department, the sod could be done by them at an approximate saving of $800. She, therefore, suggested awarding the bid to Everglades Paving for the -installation of the tennis courts but the sod work would be done by Public Works. She said the sod work that they quoted was approximately $1,800. C/M Disraelly MOVED the ADOPTION of Tem .. Reso. #2525, Section 1 to read, "the bid of Everglades Paving Co., Inc. in the amount of $22,842 is hereby approved"and no sod to be installed by them. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 27. Water and Sewer Rates - Tamarac Utilities West - Temp. Reso. #2537 - Discussion and possible action to establish and modify"_contribution- in-aid-of-construction" charges for new commercial and residential construction which have not yet contracted for service (rates of those customers already receiving service, or who have contracted for service, will not be affected). SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: The public hearing was held and will be continued to 1.2/8/82. V/M Massaro opened the public hearing and Jon Henning read the Resolution by title. Mr. Henning said the Resolution before Council is the old one with the exception that on Page 2, Sections K and L are the amend- ments. Mr. Henning said basically, in the discussion of developing and Water and Sewer Agreements and rates, they developed a theory regarding the single meter and the multi meter. He said they went to the engineers and had a study by the City Engineer and Williams, Hatfield & Stoner, and consulted-_ the South Florida Building Code. He said what evolved has more integrity as to how to determine how much service will be alotted to a multi -family home or a single family home. Mr. Henning said, what they have done, is that now single family homes are still a minimum of 1 ERC. The multi family homes, whether they are single metered or share a common meter, will be divided into two different groups, large or small multi family homes. He said there is a formula, called the K formula, which involves this factor of K based on the chart in the South Florida Building Code which gives certain fixtured units attached to a bathtub, sink, etc. and the factor in the bedrooms, and they come up with a number based on the use in that particular living unit. He said the engineers have said if that K factor is less than 25 it should be treated as 2/3 of an ERC. He said if that K factor is 25 or greater than it should be treated as a single family home or an entire ERC. Mr. Henning said the Engineers have come up with figures for building expansion which total $1,500 per ERC as opposed to the $1,000 but that most of the new multi -family complexes being developed in Tamarac would fall under the 2/3 of an ERC category and would still come out to $1,000 per unit. He said this will affect the commercial development, _the. single family homes and the large multi family homes but the average multi family homes will remain the same. -- 6 -- 12/1/82 /Pm L J Daniel Carnahan, of Carnahan Engineers, said he represents several developers in the City and he.felt this was very complicated and it was unfair of Council to take any action until he and other engineers have reviewed this further. V/M Massaro said this has been an advertised item and she asked Mr. Carnahan if he tried to get a copy for study and he said no. V/M Massaro said the figures have been available for a few weeks and the formula was available also. She said when these things are publicized, it is up to the public to come in and review the Resolution or Ordinance. Mr. Rissman said he would lik6 to know why the rates were raised from $1,000 to $1,500 and he questioned if studies were done on this. Mr. Henning said yes, there were studies done with the City Engineer as well as Williams, Hatfield & Stoner and they tried to put this in conformance with what is being done in other cities in the area. He said there was an attempt to keep the average single family home or apartment without a change, and this will have more of an impact on commercial than it will on residential. He said they have been told by the engineers in the study that there are additional costs with the County and the 201 problems and there were new rates in other cities in the area. He said it was based on the cost of construction and plant capacity. Jon Henning suggested that Council continue the public hearing to the next meeting. C/M Disraelly MOVED to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 12/8/82, SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 33. Restructuring Procedures of the HOW Program Discussion and pos- sible action. Agendized by Consent. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: No action required. V/M Massaro said this item was Agendized by Consent at the regular meeting of 11/24/82 and this is only for Council's comments. She said HOW has changed their procedures and will.not give the warranty until such time as the closing occurs and the City will not give a CO until they have produced a certificate that a warranty is available. She said Council has made recommendation that they either come in with a letter from HOW warranting the fact that a warranty is available and the fees have been paid or pay the $1,500 cash for each unit that they wish to CO. C/M Disraelly said if they go to HOW afterwards, the City will reimburse them the $1,500 at the next regular meeting after they have asked to have the item agendized. V/M Massaro said no action is required on this. 35. Mainlands Section 3 Clubhouse - Revised Site Plan for Porch Enclosure at Clubhouse - Temp. Reso. #2540 - Discussion and possible action. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Agendized by Consent. RESOLUTION NO. R e�{ PASSED. (See Page 1). APPROVED. � Jon Henning read a Resolution by title and C/M Disraelly said this site plan came in and was approved prior to 11/9/82 by staff and is just to enclose the existing screened porch. He said there will be no structural changes and he MOVED the ADOPTION of the Tamp_._ Reso. #2540 approving a revised site plan for porch enclosure at Mainlands 3. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE 7 12/1/82 /pm Jon Henning said he sent a recap of the Charter Board Amendments that have been discussed at earlier meetings. He requested Council review these and make suggestions and,perhaps, consider them at the Pre -Agenda meeting scheduled tomorrow. V/M Massaro adjourned this meeting at 4:00 P.M. r MA OR ATTEST: ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ 141 7 --- 6 or $ 3,_ per copy, to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. - 8 - 12/1/82 /PM APPROVED BY art COUNCIL ON 613"a4