HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-01 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesP.O. Box 25010
Tamarac, Florida 33320
s;
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The following will be considered for discussion and action by the City
Council on Thursday, October 1, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers
of City Hall, 5811 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida 33321.
'ITEM #1 - Temporary Resolution #2057 - A Resolution adopting a tentative
proposed Millage rate for Fiscal Year 1981/82 at 4.644 per thousand
dollars ($1,000) assessed valuation.
Item #2 - Temporary Ordinance#924 - An ordinance establishing the Tentative General
Fund Budget not to exceed $8,103,444 for Fiscal Year 1981/82.
First Reading.
Item #3 - Final Public Hearing_- Announcement of the Time and Place for the
final Public Hearing on the Ad Valorem Millage Rate and General
Fund Budget - Fiscal Year 1981/82.
The City Council may consider such other business as may come before it.
The public is encouraged to attend.
Pursuant to Chapter 80.105 of Florida Law, Senate Bill No. 368!
if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City
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 recordliwdudes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, ,—/ J /f
Marilyn YerthoTf, City Cl er
9/28/81
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
SPECIAL MEETING, PUBLIC HEARING
BUDGET - FY 1981/82
OCTOBER 1, 1981
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the Special Meeting,Public Hearing
to order on Thursday, October 1, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council
Chambers.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck
Vice -Mayor Irving M. Disr.aelly
Councilman Irving Zemel
Councilman Philip B. Kravitz
Councilwoman Helen Massaro
ALSO PRESENT:
City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans
City Attorney, Arthur M. Birken
Finance Director, Steve Wood
Asst. City Clerk, Carol A. Evans
Mayor Falck welcomed the public, staff and Council. The Mayor pointed
out specifically that at this meeting the Council would talk about the
City of Tamarac budget and nothing else. The people were under the
misunderstanding that there would be a discussion of the County Budget
and the Mayor made it definitely clear that this would not be discussed
at this public hearing.
Mayor Falck read the Notice of Public Hearing. The purpose of this
Special Public Hearing Meeting is to consider and take action on
Item #1 - Temporary Resolution #2057, Item 42 - Temporary Ordinance
#924, and Item #3 - Final Public Hearing.
1. Temporary Resolution #2057 A Resolution adopting a tentative
proposed Millage rate for Fiscal Year 1981/82 at 4.644 per
thousand dollars ($1,000) assessed valuation.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved RESOLUTION NO. R- 81-218 PASSED
City Attorney read Temp. Reso. #2057 in its entirety. He
proceeded to read his memo to Council dated October 1, 1981
(see Attachmentl),In addition, Mr. Birken stated other questions
have been raised concerning the fact that the City of Tamarac
and the County are both considering the same item this evening.
He said the State Law provides that the hearing..d4tes:be.,.schdduled
by the County Commission and School Board shall not be utilized
by any other taxing authority within the County's first public
hearing. Mr. Birken pointed out that the scheduled meeting of
the County Commission was held last evening and the fact that
that meeting was not held has no affect in his opinion on the
City's ability to move forward this evening. A number of other
jurisdictions in the County are doing exactly the same thing
as the City of Tamarac, e.g. Margate and Mirimar. In light
of the notices that were sent out to the members of the public
stating that the meeting would be held this evening, he felt
it would be more of a hardship on the people to defer the
meeting to another time and would create problems for scheduling
and getting the required tax information to the Property
Appraiser's Office so the tax bills could be sent out in a
reasonable manner.
Mr. Birken mentioned that before he reads the millage reso-
lution he indicated the City Administration is not proposing
to increase taxes this year, however, the public and council
is well aware of some difficulties that the property appraiser
has had in getting the millage rate certified. This has created
a predicament for the City of Tamarac because the law requires
that the certification of value be su bnitted to the City in
the month of August and on the basis of that certification
the City, under the State Law, is required to advise the
property appraiser of what the roll back rate would be. Mr,
Birken stated the roll back rate is essentially the millage
rate that would generate the same amount of monies that were
generated by Ad Valorem taxes last year. The City in following
the State Law used the certification that was submitted by the
Property Appraiser's office and sent the proper information
back to the Property Appraiser. Subsequently, last Friday
to be exact, the City received a letter, not a certifica-
tion but nothing more than a letter signed by the Property
Appraiser's Deputy advising the City that a different
figure would be appropriate. He said the City was advised
yesterday that the new roll may not be certified by the
State Department of Revenue. Mr. Birken indicated that
the City has two numbers that might be able to be used and
a third number which may be the proper number which the
City has no idea of what it is.
The resolution as staff recommended to council, recommends
the adoption of a roll back rate equal to the roll back
rate determined in the month of August or such other rate
that will equal the roll back rate as set forth in the
Statute and generate the amount of money that was generated
last year. In other words, the resolution is an attempt
to collect the same amount of revenues that were collected
last year and the figure in the proposed resolution is
different than the figure that was read in the call of the
meeting.
City Attorney, Mr. Birken, read Temp. Reso. #2057 in its
entirety.
City Manager, L. Stuurmans, stated in August of this year
the City received from Mr. Markham office,a grossed assessed
evaluation for the City of Tamarac of $701,516,188. At
that time, immediately following, Council was to call a
meeting to establish a roll back rate; roll back meaning
that rate that would generate an equivalent amount of
revenues for the next fiscal year. The City established
a roll back rate of 4.9594 which for the 81/82 FY would
produce $3,300,000 of revenue which is an increase of
$217,040 next year. She stated that increase reflects
only the additional properties that have been added to the
tax roll. Ms. Stuurmans said staff does recommend at this
time, based in particular the peculiar nature of this tax
year and tre problems that all cities are experiencing,
that the City adopt the roll back and proposed millage
that staff established in August. She concluded by
saying the City needs the rate that will generate $3,300,000
and does not know what the final assessed roll will be.
Mayor Falck opened the Public Hearing.
Arnold Kaplan asked how did the figure 4.9594 originate
when the resolution states 4.644?
The City Attorney stated the 4.644 figure is the figure
that was provided to the City last week from the property
appraiser's office. He said if that is the proper figure,
then that is what the roll back rate would be and stipulated
that the City does not know at this time.
Ms. Stuurmans stated that the tax notice that residents
received in the mail recently reflects a taxation level
at the 4.9594 amount not at the 4.644 amount.
Mayor Falck explained that the first figure 4.9594 was
what the tax bill was calculated at but should the second
figure of 4.644 be correct, than the tax bill will be
reduced.
Irma Reese, resident of Vanguard Village, asked why if
the millage rate is rolled back how come the taxes are
higher and pointed out certain figures on her tax bill.
Steve Wood, Finance Director, explained that the taxable
value multiplied by 6.4803 would indicate Mrs. Reese
paying considerably more taxes than last year.
C/W Massaro pointed out it is the assessment which the
County is only responsible for, the City does not set
that assessment. She said the City could do nothing
about this.
-2- 10/1/81
cb/
Grace Platz asked who does the assessing?
Mayor Falck said the Property Appraiser which is the County.
Phil Bernstock said the appraisals vary greatly in his
development and the discrepancies are so great as to make
this a farce. He requested as a citizen of the City of
Tamarac, that the present appraisal be null and void. He
asked the City Attorney if there was any way that he could
assist him.
The City Attorney stated that the City was adopting a rate
that would generate only a certain amount of money.
Mr. Bernstock asked the council members that the property
appraiser be made aware of the unequal taxation problem
and to discard the cOntire new tax roll which doesn't make
sense.
C/W Massaro pointed out that the state has not accepted
Mr. Markham's appraisals.
V/M Disraelly stated that he was personally at the County
Assessor's office today and there were a number of people
challenging the assessments put on their property.
Mr. Bernstock further stated that he did not want neighbor
to be fighting neighbor. It seems evident that the appraiser
would take every 50th or 100th citizen and appraise it at
fair market value; all others he gave across the board 5 or 10%
increase, many cases decreases. He strongly urged Council
not to accept these new appraisals because of the inequities
and a resolution be prepared to that effect.
Mayor Falck stated that the City Attorney can draft a
resolution that will be acceptable to Council.
Ray Munitz, resident, asked what the net taxable value on
all properties in Tamarac.
Steve Wood said it would be 95% of gross under trim. For
example, 95% of $701,516,188 times 95% times the millage
will generate the $3,300,000.
Arnold Kaplan asked about clarification of assessments for
individual homes.
Matt Kaplan, resident of Woodlands, expressed the dissatis-
faction in the differences of appraisals to the degree where
taxes are raised 200 - 300% at one time.
C/W Massaro urged the people at the hearing and every person
they could get to go to the school board meeting to be held
the following night.
V/M Disraelly indicated that last year the City taxes were
6.4803 and this year they are 4.9594. School board taxes
last year were 3.7 mils and this year are 5.9 mils and the
County taxes were 6.26 last year and are now 7.24 mils.
He pointed out the City of Tamarac is holding down its
millage, both of these others on top of the assessments
will be charging the residents higher millage based on
the higher assessments which compounds the figure dramatically.
David Moss, resident of Tamarac, disagreed with C/W Massaro's
statement about representation by the public at meetings.
He stated that Council and officials in Tamarac are elected
to represent the people and they should attend the School
and County Board meetings.
C/W Massaro asked Mr. Moss and the public which is better
5 voices or 5,000.
Ann Zimmerman stated that unless the public appears in
numbers our voices will not be very effective.
Tape Bernie Hart stated that Council deserves a great deal of
#2 credit in keeping the millage rate down this year in
comparison with other cities.
`3- 10/1/81
cb/
Mayor Falck officially closed the Public Hearing.
V/M Disraelly MOVED Temp. Resolution #2057 adopting the
proposed millage rate 4.9594 be approved or such other
rate that will equal the roll back rate in accordance
with Section 200.65 Florida Statutes. C/W Massaro
SECONDED the Motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
2. Temporary Ordinance #924 - An ordinance establishing
the Tentative General Fund Budget not to exceed $8,103,444
for Fiscal Year 1981/82. First Reading.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Approved
on First Reading.
City Attorney read Temp. Ordinance #924 in its entirety.
Ms. Stuurmans reviewed the tentative general fund budget
(see Attachment #2). She stated this year staff is re-
questing Council's approval of an amount of expenditures
and revenues the equivalent of $8,103,444.
Mayor Falck opened the Public Hearing.
Melvin Schwartz asked why is the City of Tamarac millage
rate the second highest in West Broward; the second to
Sunrise.
Mayor Falck explained that the City of Tamarac charges
only Ad Valorem tax. The City does not have a utility
tax and we do not charge extra, for garbage, that is
included in the Ad Valorem tax.
Mr. Schwartz questioned the amount of taxes the City of
Tamarac requires for a $100,000 home in comparison with
the City of Plantation.
V/M Disraelly clarified the figures for Mr. Schwartz and
also stated that his tax in the City of Tamarac is totally
tax deductible. In the other cities when he pays his
garbage fee, it is not tax deductible and he will also
notice that almost everyone of the other cities (with
the exception of Tamarac, Coconut Creek, Lauderdale Lakes
and Plantation) all charge utility taxes. V/M Disraelly
further stated that if Mr. Schwartz were to pay 10% of his
electric, 10% of his telephone and 10% of his water bill
he would have a tax about three times as much as you are
paying and none of which is tax deductible.
Henry Tohlback, resident of Tamarac, said he could not
understand that if the City of Tamarac could keep their
millage rate down, why couldn't the County.
Rupert Mattick questioned why if the Electric Company pays
City of Tamarac a franchise tax then why does he pay a
franchise tax.
C/W Massaro explained the Public Service Commission allows
it to be paid that way and the public is paying the franchise
tax.
V/M Disraelly stated that the franchise tax is paid in every
city in the State.
Don Perlman, resident of Tamarac, asked when the streets and
drainage billing is going to stop.
Ms. Stuurmans explained that this item in the budget falls
under the Public Works Department and covers routine things
done such as paving holes in the asphalt, catch basins that
may have been damaged, maintenance of the median strips and
shrubs and our contract for lawn service.
Mr. Perlman questioned Council about the two budgets the
City works on, utility and City, at what point in time
would it be beneficial to turn them into one so when tax
-4- 10/1/81
cb/
time comes the people in the City can actually know what
is income and outgo of the utilities and 2) when it could
eventually be applied to the Tamarac Utilities to the
actual operation of the budget.
Mr. Birken explained you cannot legally combine an enterprise
fund with a general fund of the City. They are two totally
separate independent autonomous entities and cannot legally
be combined in any way, shape or form.
Sidney Goldstein, resident, inquired about a 12% increase
according to last years estimate and this years estimate.
Ms. Stuurmans stated it is 8% over the amended budget rate.
Mr. Goldstein said that his portion of the Tamarac bill
is a 33% increase. *Is the millage correct or wrong?
Ms. Stuurmans said that is the effect of the assessment in
the millage levy.
Steve Wood said the actual millage has been decreased
23.47%.
Mr. Goldstein asked then what is the difference between
12% and the 23.47%?
V/M Disraelly explained that the City is not taking individual
homes but taking $700 million dollars and dividing that to
get $3 million dollars.
Mr. Goldstein asked the City what are we getting from the
Police Department for the $500,000 more?
The City Manager stated that'one of the major -impact of the
Police Department is the fact that they have a labor contract
that provides for an increase this year. There is no pro-
lection for an increase in personnel for road patrol staff
there is, however, an increase of three (3) additional service
aides and those are the individuals who respond primarily to
minor accidents,to calls from -homes.
Mr. Goldstein asked the City why they didn't hire more
police officers than community service aides.
C/M Zemel said it takes five (5) new hired police officers
to supply one (1) police officers shift. In other words,
the City gets one (1) extra cop for every 24 hours; to get
one (1) we have to hire five (5). He indicated that to
increase our force by having (3) additional police officers
throughout the day for every day, we would have to hire
15 police officers.
Morris Glicksman, resident of Tamarac, questioned the
reduction of $40,000 under the City Manager's Department.
Ms. Stuurmans said she has reduced the staff; one (1) less
full time secretary and minus an assistant city manager.
She said that it is a practical approach and if it does
become cumbersome and the city manager's office suffers
for it, then she will get help. Steven Wood, Finance
Director will be acting City Manager in Ms. Stuurmans
absence.
Mayor Falck closed the Public Hearing.
V/M Disraelly MOVED to adopt Temp. Ordinance #924 establishing
the Tentative General Fund Budget not to exceed $8,103,444,
and C/M Zemel SECONDED the Motion.
VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE
-5- 10/1/81
cb
3. Final Public Hearing - Announcement of the Time and Place
for the Final Public Hearing on the Ad Valorem Millage
Rate and General fund Budget -- Fiscal Year 1981/82.
SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: Final Public
Hearing will be Friday, October 9
at 7:00 P.M. in City Council Chambers.
Mayor Falck adjourned the meeting at 8:15 P.M.
r
VF
OR
ATTEST:
4aSST-ACITYCLDRK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ or
$ _5 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.
APPROVED BY
-6- 10/1/81
cb/
9
CITY OF TAIIARAC, FLORIDA
SPECIAL MEETING - PUBLIC IIEARI14G
BUDGET - FY 1981/82
OCTOBER 1, 1981
ATTACHMENT 1
MomoTo: Mayor and Council
From: Arthur M. Birken, City Attorney
Date: October 1, 1981
Subject Budget and Millage
Reference: 81-10- 9
In order to expedite Council proceedings, the purpose of this
memorandum is to outline actions which Council is required to
take by law during the course of its consideration of the pro-
posed budget and the proposed millage. The legislation requiring
these procedures is called the TRIM Bill which was enacted in
1980. No amendments to TRIM were made by the State Legislature
during the first year of its implementation.
The first item to be considered by Council is taxes. The law
requires that the millage resolution be read in full and that the millage be considered and voted on prior to the enactment
of the budget. Last year we discussed the lunacy of this,
requirement and our City endeavored to have the TRIM Bill
changed to permit consideration of the budget first. Since
no change was made in the law the requirement still exists.
After the millage rate is set, Council may consider the budget.
While the TRIM Bill does not require reading in full since the
ordinance is only two pages, I would .suggest that the document
also be read in full. After the budget is adopted on the
first reading the City may expend monies in accordance with
that budget until such time as second reading when the final
budget is adopted.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
AMB:ks
cc: Laura Z. Stuurmans, City Manager
Marilyn Bertholf, City Clerk ✓
Steve Wood, Director of Finance
10/1/81
cb
ACCOUNT
NAME
CITY OF TAPIARAC, FLORIDA
SPECIAL MEETING - PUBLIC HEARING
BUDGET - FY 1981/82
OCTOBER 1., 1981
Tmmar' MFTTT it 2t1 PAGE 1 of 2
CITY OF TAMARAC
GENERAL FUND - SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR - 1981-82
1980-81 BUDGETED CITY MANAGER CITY COUNCIL
ESTIMATED REVENUES RECOMMENDED APPROVED
AD VALOREM 3,082,960 3,300,000 3,300,000
FRANCHISE TAX - ELECTRIC
725,000
780,000
780,000
FRANCHISE -TAX TELEPHONE
33,000
35,000
35,000
FRANCHISE TAX CATV
20,000
22,000
22,000
FRANCHISE TAX - SOLID WASTE
30,000
29,000
29,000
NEWSPAPER COLLECTION
- 0 -
4,400
4,400
LICENSES & PERMITS -BURGLAR ALARM
40,000
112,000
112,000
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES
139,000
132,000
132,000
BUILDING PERMITS
435,000
370,000
370,000
AQUATIC WEED CONTROL
23,000
21,000
21,000
CIGARETTE TAX
70,000
85,000
85,000
STATE REVENUE SHARING
695,000
710,000
710,000
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE
9,000
9,900
9,900
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
130,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
GAS REBATE -CITY VEHICLE
7,000
6,000
6,000
COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE TAX
110,000
120,000
120,000
COUNTY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE
33,000
37,000
37,000
PARKING LOT - CITY
3,000
3,800
3,600
SUMMER RECREATION
14,000
14,000
14,000
PARKS & RECREATION PROG.ACT.FEES
3,000
2,000
2,000
INTERIM SERVICE FEES
110,000
110,000
110,000
ENGINEERING FEES (UNRES)
135,000
135,000
135,000
LOT CLEARING
10,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
FINES
80,000
85,000
85,000
P.D.GENERAL
- 0 -
91000 -
91000
COURT COST FEES
3,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
25,000
50,000
50,000
INTEREST INCOME GENERAL ESCROW
50,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
INTEREST INCOME OTHER
190,000
- 0 -
- 0 -
INTEREST INCOME
- 0 -
450,000
450,000
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN PSC
- 0 -
12,000
12,000
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN IN LIEU
OF TAXES/UTILITY WEST
130,000
130,000
130,000
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN IN LIEU OF
TAXES UTILITY EAST
6,000
6,000
6,000
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN DATA
PROCESSING UTILITY WEST
- 0 -
30,000
30,000
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN DATA
PROCESSING UTILITY EAST
- 0 -
2,100
2,100
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE UTILITY WEST
- 0 -.
31,000
31,000
RECEIPTS TRANSFERRED IN ADMINIS-
TRATIVE SERVICES PROVIDED TO UTILITY
WEST
- 0 -
25,000
25,000
APPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE
900,000
1,235,244
1,235,244
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 7,240,960
8,103,444
8,103,444
10/1/81
cb
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORZDA
SPECIAL MEETING -- PUBLIC HEARING
BUDGET - FY 1981/82
OCTOBER 1, 1981
If " PAGE 2 of 2
ATTAC FiMRNm 2
CITY OF TA*4ARAC
t GENERAL FUND - SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEAR 1981-82
DEPARTMENT/ACTIVITY 1980-81 DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER
BUDGET I REOUESTED RECOMMENDED
LEGISLATIVE
CITY ATTORNEY
SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY MANAGER
CITY CLERK
FINANCE
POLICE
FIRE
BUILDING
PUBLIC WORKS
CITY ENGINEER
RECREATION
PERSONNEL
INSURANCE
BEAUTIFICATION
PLANNING
CHARTER BOARD
ADnSTMENT BOARD
UNSAFE STRUCTURE
PUBLIC INFORMATION
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
CONTINGENCY
SANITATION SERVICES
DEBT SERVICES
CAPITAL RESERVE
INDEPENDENT AUDIT
GENERAL AND ADMINIST.
WELCOMING COMMITTEE
74,000
126,180
5,500
67,070
126,100
213,070
201,260
1,927,800
731,895
363,020
941,860
164,840
70,840
62,810
330,200
350
1,200
3,950
400
200
5,650
650
257,785
666,400
169,880
300,000
14,000
414,050
- 0 -
94,588
154,424
6,400
64,299
84,079
195,430
235,483
2,677,580
1,276,190
385,459
1,187,937
186,939
98,246
76,810
103,250
350
1,200
2,370
400
0 -
5,650
650
312,807
890,000
217,390
150,000
- 0 -
461,900
200
TOTAL 17,240,960 18,882,031
- 9 -
94,588
150,604
6,400
63,048
84,079
195,430
248,302
2,441,604
988,508
350,898
1,042,031
121,720
94,446
76,810
103,250
350
1,200
2,370
400
0 -
5,650
650
405,170
890,000
70,206
166,430
- 0 -
499,100
200
1 8,103,444
10/1/81
cb
COUNCIL
APPROVED
94,600
150,610
6,400
63,050
84,090
195,440
248,320
2,441,610
988,520
350,910
1,042,040
121,730
94,460
76,810
103,250
350
1,200
2,370
400
0 -
5,650
650
405,170
890,000
70,210
166,304
- 0 -
499,100
200
8,103,444