Loading...
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