Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Council 090392'POT.T. f'AT.T. ANNOUNCEMENTS '"KESENTATION CALL FOR BIDS Aerial Platform CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS SEPTEMBER 31 1992 The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Mayor Martino in the Assembly Room of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The City Clerk called the roll and present were Mayor Martino, Vice Mayor Russo, Councilwoman Monroe and Councilman Kiselewski. The Mayor stated the announcements were as posted on the Bulletin Boards. Mayor Martino presented Dick Aldred with a Plaque of Appreciation for serving as a member of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, from March, 1978 - July, 1992. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Monroe, to approve the recommendation of the City Manager to award the bid for the Aerial Platform for the Fire Department to Pierce Manufacturing, representing 10 -8 Fire Equipment, in the amount of $471,982.00 and authorizing the City Manager to use the present equipment as a trade -in and to negotiate for the lowest lease - purchase option. The City Manager stated $61,000.00 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE - available in this year's budget will be used for the down payment with the remaining monies coming from account number 01- 44.20. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. Towing Contract The City Manager opened and read the following bids for a Towing Contract for the City of Palm Beach Gardens, as advertised 8/19/92: Lyon's Towing, Inc., Lake Park, individually bid the list of services required. All Time Towing, Inc., Lake Park, stated they could not bid on this contract as they cannot comply with the requirements. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Russo, to remand the bids to the City Manager for 2 evaluation and recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. ITEMS BY THE CITY MANAGER CHIEF OF POLICE The City Manager stated, after interviewing the list of candidates for the Chief of Police position, he is recommending the following candidates, in order of preference: 1) James O. Fitzgerald, Chief of Police, Riviera Beach, Florida; 2) Donald W. Berke, Chief of Police, DeKalb, Illinois; and, 3) Donald L. Carey, Chief of Police, Blacksburg, Virginia. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Russo, authorizing the City Manager to offer the CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 3 -- position of Chief of Police of the City of Palm Beach Gardens to James O. Fitzgerald and, should Chief Fitzgerald decline the offer, then negotiate with Donald W. Berke as first alternative. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. ORDINANCE 25, 1971- The City Manager recommended the City Council continue the implementation of ordinance 25, 1991, increasing the annual salary of the members of the City Council, including the Mayor, pursuant to Section 8 -2 of Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, to be effective October 1, 1991, consistent with the adopted budget. George Baldwin, City Attorney, stated since Ordinance 25, 1991, has been on the books for a year and bears signatures and the figures are filled in, he did not feel it would be an appropriate procedure to reconfirm the Ordinance. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Russo, that the City Council agree that Ordinance 25, 1991, is in fact the Ordinance that was passed and signed on September 5, 1991. Councilwoman Monroe stated she did not know if she could answer with a yes or a no, as she does not know if she signed Ordinance 25, 1991 with that figure in there or not. -� Councilwoman Monroe made a substitute motion that it is CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 4 the consensus of the City Council this was the figure in the Ordinance, seconded by Vice Mayor Russo. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. TENNIS COURTS Bobbie Herakovich, Park and Recreation Director, addressed the City Council stating staff is working with the school district officials to have the tennis courts at the High School available to the public. Ms. Herakovich stated she will continue working with the school board and report back to Council. After discussion regarding the proposed fee schedule for the tennis courts and memberships, Ms. Herakovich recommended an increase of 15% for residents and 25% for non - residents in the membership rates, with the court _. rental to be $1.00 per person, per hour for resident and $8.00 per person, per hour for non - residents. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion to approve Ms. Herakovich's recommendation, seconded by Councilwoman Monroe. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. This item will be placed on the Consent Agenda for consideration of approval at the next City Council meeting. ITEMS BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL MAYOR MARTINO Mayor Martino congratulated the winners in the September 1, 1992 primary. Mayor Martino introduced Tom Vaughan and Eric Jablin, candidates for the City of Palm Beach Gardens Group 3 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 5 Council Seat vacated by Dick Aldred. The election will be held Thursday, October 1, 1992. In response to Vice Mayor Russo, Mayor Martino stated a decision would be made re: cancelling the Regular City Council Meeting of October 1, 1992, due to lack of a quorum as well as that being Election Day. Mayor Martino reported he had written a letter, as directed by the City Council, to the County Commissioners re: Jog Road alternate proposed by Chair Marcus. Mayor Martino stated the only response received to date was from the County Administrator. Mayor Martino stated there has been a lot of outpouring of care and concern from Palm Beach County for the South Florida residents suffering from Hurricane Andrew. Mayor Martino reported the Municipal League held a meeting August 26, 1992, and the League decided it would embrace the Palm Beach County disaster effort already in place. Mayor Martino stated that would lessen the confusion already taking place in the effort to respond to the needs in South Florida. Mayor Martino stated the League is considering a relief fund, with monies collected going to the affected municipalities. COMPREHENSIVE LAND U6E PLAN f92-1 Kahart Pinder, Transportation Planner with David Plummer & Associates, addressed the City Council reviewing the traffic analysis and findings and the draft report re: CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 6 proposed land use amendment known as University Village. Mr. Pinder indicated at build -out, 17 roadway links have been identified which will need to either be built or widened. Mr. Pinder indicated their analysis did not show a great deal of difference between the roadway improvements that are required for the current land uses on the site and the proposed land uses. Mr. Pinder stated, using the County's Transportation Model, there would be approximately 1,300 trips per day that would have an origin or destination in PGA National, which would not travel through PGA National to Northlake Boulevard. In response to Councilman Kiselewski, Mr. Pinder stated the effect of Tri -Rail being extended through Pratt- Whitney has not been evaluated. Vice Mayor Russo expressed concern that the County's 2010 Transportation Model was used as it includes Jog Road proceeding north through PGA National. Vice Mayor Russo felt there was a consensus of the Council to not use Jog Road in this survey, because it was the position of the City Council the road is not needed. Mr. Pinder stated they are under certain constraints as to what they can and cannot provide. Mr. Pinder stated the County's 2010 Transportation Model does include that segment of Jog Road (known as Ryder Cup Boulevard) through PGA National, however the model is not assigning any traffic through PGA National northward on that particular CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 7 �- piece of roadway. If the model is run without showing that as a continuous roadway, but showing a roadway does exist, it will not change the results of the analysis. Mayor Martino stated they must respect the process and are forced to respond to the statutes, conditions and rules and regulations, and explained that if a thoroughfare is listed on a system, it has to be included in the analysis. However, Mr. Pinder also has stated if the thoroughfare wasn't there, the 91 -2 amendment would not cause any need for a thru- traffic thoroughfare to be in PGA National. Mayor Martino stated there is a meeting scheduled September 9, 1992, at 7:00 P.M. at Howell Watkins Middle School for public input on Amendment 91 -2. COUNCILWOMAN MUNNUE Councilwoman Monroe requested an update from staff on the Military Trail landscaping. Mark Hendrickson, City Forester, reported he has a request for a variance to landscaping by Palm Beach Federal which will come before the Committee of Adjustments at the Council Meeting of 9/17/92. CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Monroe, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of 7/23/92 Council Workshop Meeting. 2. Approval of 8/20/92 Council Regular Meeting. 3. Resolution 69, 1992 - Approval of Amendment to Ballenlsles Parcel 4 PUD, approved by Resolution 61, 1989, re: Entry Feature. 4. Resolution 73, 1992 - Authorizing the Mayor and City �- Clerk to execute an agreement between the City and CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 8 -- SEIU for the 1992/1993 & 1993/1994 Fiscal Years. 5. Approval of Amendments to Resolutions 64 and 72, 1992, as amended and adopted at /20/92 City Council meeting. 6. Proclaiming 9/17 -23/92 as "Constitution Week ". The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCE 20, 1997- Bristol Ellington, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the City Council re: Lake Catherine gate system, reviewing Council's concerns from the last meeting. Mr. Ellington stated an additional condition has been added re: installation of box for access by the Fire Department. Mr. Ellington stated David Getz, City Engineer, recommended moving the gate system 30' east of the right- of -way instead of the proposed 501, provide for a T turnaround on the inside of the development, and limited access sign to be installed immediately adjacent to the swinging gate. Mr. Ellington stated the Petitioner has complied with all Mr. Getz's recommendations. Bill Shannon, representing Lake Catherine Property Owners Association, addressed the City Council stating the Petitioner agreed with the conditions contained in Ordinance 20, 1992. Mr. Shannon stated several residents are present this evening to address the City Council regarding locking the pedestrian gates. Mayor Martino declared the Public Hearing open, which was duly advertised 8/19/92 and held on the intent of ~� Ordinance 201 1992, amending Ordinance 30, 1989, which CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 9 created "Lake Catherine" a Planned Unit Development, by approving an electronically operated gate system immediately east of the intersection of Lake Catherine Drive and Silverthorne Road in accordance with the plans and conditions herein set forth; and, providing for the repeal of all Ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and, providing for an effective date hereof, and duly advertised 8/19/92. The following people addressed the City Council requesting they approve the locked pedestrian gates: Louis Kirchner, 302 SunTerrace Court, Bob Finnie, 4704 Lakemont Court, Kathleen Davis, 2303 Lakemont Court, Andrew Surdovel, 3302 Lakemont Court, Mary Finnie, 4704 Lakemont Court, and V James Genter, 3704 Ridgewood Drive. Mayor Martino recognized receiving speaker cards from Harry Perkins, 2702 Lakemont Court, Melissa Weibert, 4301 Ridgewood Court, G. Edward Kritz, 4303 Ridgewood Court, and Duke Kornsuway, 4301 Ridgewood Court. The residents did not speak, however, indicated they were in favor of the pedestrian gates being locked. In response to the City Manager, Mr. Shannon stated they will put a sign on the gates stating it is private property and there is no trespassing. Per a consensus of the City Council, the City Clerk read, on second and final reading, Ordinance 20, 1992. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Vice CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 10 Mayor Russo, to adopt Ordinance 20, 1992. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. RESOLUTION 58, 1992 Mayor Martino stated Resolution 58, 1992, approving the Site Plan for the "Palm Beach Gardens Business Park" was before Council for reconsideration of Conditions 14 and 18. Bristol Ellington, Planning and Zoning Department, addressed the City Council stating the Petitioner raised the question if Condition 118 was to replace Condition #14. Mr. Ellington stated staff met with the Petitioner and the Petitioner expressed no concern with keeping both conditions. Mr. Ellington stated both conditions are required and are not in conflict with each other. Mr. Ellington stated staff recommended amending Condition 14 to read as follows: "All proposed landscaping not affected by development of Phase 2 shall be installed at the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in Phase 1 ", and Condition 18 to read: "Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the construction of Phase 1, the major plantings along Burns Road shall be installed ". Steve Mathison, representing Petitioner, addressed the City Council stating he brought this issue to staff's attention due to the lack of clarity of the 2 conditions and felt the proposed language resolves the issue. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Vice CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 11 .-- Mayor Russo, to incorporate the recommendation of staff into Resolution 58, 1992. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Monroe, to adopt Resolution 58, 1992, as amended. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. RESOLUTION 992 Mark Hendrickson, City Forester, addressed the City Council re: approval of NorthCorp PCD Streetscape /Buffer Plan, stating all required language has been incorporated onto the Master Plan, including time frames for installation. In response to Councilman Kiselewski, Mr. Lioce stated there is a provision on the Master Plan to allow the Site Plan to be modified by staff and /or Planning and Zoning to allow any changes. Per a consensus of the City Council, Section 3 was amended to add the following language at the end of the sentence: "as to the particular parcel." Councilman Kiselewski made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Monroe, to adopt Resolution 65, 1992, Approval of NorthCorp PCD Streetscape /Buffer Plan, as amended. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 12 r,,m<DINANCES ORDINANCE 21' 19977- Per a consensus of the City Council, the City Clerk read, on first reading, by title only, Ordinance 21, 1992, Levying a tax on real and personal property located within the City of Palm Beach Gardens for year ending 12/31/92; affixing a total valuation thereon for said year; adopting a Fiscal Budget for the Fiscal Year beginning 10/1/92 and ending 9/30/93, inclusive; appropriating funds for expenditures. ORDINANCE Per a consensus of the City Council, the City Clerk read, on first reading, by title only, Ordinance 22, 1992, Approval of Time Extension for Golf Estate Villas, approved by Ordinance, 5, 1989. ITEMS FOR DISCUSMN PALM BEACH COMMUNITY'CHURCH Mr. Ellington stated Don Hearing, agent for Petitioner, is requesting an amendment the NorthCorp PCD to allow for additional uses on Lots 9 and 12 of South Park Center Plan. Mr. Ellington stated staff is concerned with amending the PCD for a site specific use and is requesting clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Ellington stated the Petitioner is aware that a church is not a permitted use in the M--1 zoning district, nor under Condition 21 of Section 4 of the adopting Ordinance. Mr. Ellington stated the Petitioner is requesting to amend the CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 13 --- PCD to allow for a church use on Lot 9 within South Park Center Plat. Mr. Ellington stated the Petitioner is not seeking concurrent PUD approval with this amendment, however, they have indicated they will be requesting the construction of a 79,000 square foot church facility on Lot 9, comprising of 2,500 seats and 30,000 square feet of education and administrative space. Mr. Ellington stated Lot 12 will be used for associated parking for the church facility. Mr. Ellington stated the adopting Ordinance allows for the development of Lot 12, only if determined by City Council that it is compatible with uses on parcels 8, 9 and 10 of South Park Center. Mr. Ellington stated the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to I— the City Council by a 4 to 1 vote, with no conditions. In response to Councilman Kiselewski, Mr. Ellington stated at this time there is no requirement for a Unity of Title between Lots 9 and 12. The City Manager stated the Council is considering an amendment to the PCD for a church use, and should not look at a specific project at this time. Councilman Kiselewski expressed concern with separating a church use on 2 lots with a street in between. There was a consensus of the City Council that they had no objection to adding to the PCD the opportunity for church use. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion directing the City CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 14 Attorney to prepare the provisions in the PCD to amend Ordinance 1, 1990, to allow for addition of religious use on any site in this particular development, seconded by Vice Mayor Russo. Vice Mayor Russo questioned if this should be done by a comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Ellington stated churches are not required to have a land use designation, but are allowed within residential and commercial land use designations. Vice Mayor Russo stated he did not have a problem looking at this, but would like more information. Councilwoman Monroe stated she didn't think she had a problem allowing this petition to go forward to look at the amendment, however, that did not mean she was in favor of it. Mayor Martino stated Attorney Brant and Attorney Baldwin would research this issue, as to whether this needed to go through a comprehensive plan amendment. If the opinion is that it is not necessary for a comprehensive plan amendment, the motion includes for this process to begin. Councilman Kiselewski amended his motion to provide if it was determined by the City Attorney this does not require a comprehensive plan amendment, the City Attorney was authorized to prepare the necessary provisions in the PCD to amend Ordinance 1, 1990. Councilman Kiselewski withdrew his motion and Vice Mayor CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 15 Russo withdrew his second of the motion. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documentation to consider amending PCD #92 -02 provided there was no provision that the City Attorney determine it is necessary to have a comprehensive land use plan amendment on this particular site. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilwoman Monroe stated she is looking for the City Attorney to consider the 2 requests regarding the PCD being identical in terms of whether or not they need a comprehensive land use plan amendment. Councilwoman Monroe requested a determination re: whether there was significant differences for a church use that could eliminate the need for a comprehensive land use plan amendment. Councilwoman Monroe stated if she was told that there was a significant difference, she may be willing to go forward, however, if there is not a significant difference she would not be willing to go forward. Councilwoman Monroe requested the City Attorney make the decision whether there is any significant difference in the land use between changing the use to allow medical offices in the PCD, which does not fit under the list of uses in Condition 21, verses a church which would be in the list of items of Condition 21 publicly and then make the determination at the City Council meeting. Mayor Martino stated he did not think the Council intends CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 16 --- to mix this petition's request with another. He pointed out we are discussing the religious question on its merits alone and it has nothing to do with any other petition that may or may not be in the process. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion requesting the City Attorney render an opinion as to whether it is necessary to have a comprehensive land use plan amendment to consider a religious use for any particular site covered under PCD 92 -02, seconded by Vice Mayor Russo. The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council. MR. BUBBLES Mr. Ellington addressed the City Council reviewing the request by the Petitioner, Jim Fullwood. Mr. Ellington stated at the 4/92 meeting, it was the consensus of the Council to allow for the ground sign to be increased in height by 2' without changeable copy and to remain at its present location. Mr. Ellington stated some councilmembers were not in favor of the additional roof - mounted sign and some expressed no concerns with the awnings as long as they were permitted by Code. The Council had requested this petition come back for another workshop once the plans had been reviewed by staff. Mr. Ellington stated the Petitioner reduced the size of the canvas awning, however, the awning is still proposed 5' from the north property line. Building Official, Jack Hanson, indicated that the CG -1 zoning district required a 15' side yard setback for structures. The Fire Department CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 17 --- indicated the height of the awning interfered with fire access to the western side of the building when entering the site from the northeastern entrance. The Fire Department noted access to the western side of the building could be achieved by accessing the southwestern exit, driving against traffic and crossing over a curb and landscaping. Mr. Ellington stated the Petitioner is requested the conversion of a wash bay into a 320 square foot waiting room and sales area for car care items and accessories. Jim Fullwood, Petitioner, addressed the City Council stating the Fire Marshal revisited the site and verbally indicated he had no problem where the canopy would be located. Mr. Fullwood stated revised plans show a 40% reduction in the canvas area. Mr. Fullwood stated he had agreed to not request the changeable copy on the ground sign, but has requested to raise it 21. Mr. Fullwood stated the ground sign is 916" from the crown of the road. Mr. Fullwood stated if he could not raise the sign, he would request to relocate some of the palms for more visibility. There was a consensus of the City Council to modify the landscaping acceptable to staff in lieu of raising the sign. Mayor Martino suggested allowing the Petitioner to raise the ground sign to 11' and rearrange the landscaping. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE is Councilwoman Monroe stated she would consider the Mayor's suggestion, however, requested staff look at what recommendations they would make regarding the landscaping. Mayor Martino requested clarification from the Fire Department on accessibility to the site. Vice Mayor Russo expressed concern with the large awning. There was a consensus of the City Council to authorize staff to prepare the necessary resolution based on the following Council conditions: 1) the Petitioners satisfies staff re: ground sign and refurbishment of landscaping, and 2) clarification of Fire Department letter. There was a consensus of the City Council to not allow the roof sign. NIORTHCORP PCD MEDICAL USE AMENDMENT Mr. Ellington addressed the City Council stating the petitioner requested an amendment to the NorthCorp PCD to allow for additional uses on Lot 1 of West Park Center Plat. Mr. Ellington reviewed the previous items discussed concerning this petition. The City Manager pointed out the Council must first determine if the medical use should be added to the PCD. In response to the City Manager, Kahart Pinder stated he had not received the information recently requested. Kahart Pinder reviewed the traffic impact should the medical use for the PCD be approved. In response to Mayor Martino, Attorney Baldwin stated his CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 19 office had ruled medical is not a use within this PCD and in order to do anything, the Council must first include medical use within Condition 21 of the PCD. Hank Skokowski, representing Petitioner, addressed the City Council stating the Petitioner was willing to separate the petitions and have the Council resolve the amendment to the PCD first. Mr. Skokowski stated they would provide the requested analysis to staff on 9/8/92. Mr. Skokowski requested Council authorize the advertising of the public hearing for the 10/1/92 City Council meeting. In response to Councilman Kiselewski, Mr. Skokowski stated the request for medical use was site specific to Lot 1. Nick Lioce, representative of owner, stated they objected to Condition 6 at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Councilman Kiselewski made a motion instructing the City Attorney, based upon the good faith effort promised by Mr. Skokowski to supply the additional information required by staff, to prepare the necessary modification to Ordinance 1, 1990, to include the medical office, diagnostic /clinical facilities, and surgical or dental supplies store use aspects of the memo outlined, stopping above staff recommendations. The motion died for lack of a second. Steve Mathison, representing Catalfumo Companies along CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 20 -- with Hank Skokowski, addressed the City Council stating there are 2 points he must make. The first point is their right to be heard. Mr. Mathison stated the petition has been filed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Palm Beach Gardens Ordinances. It was accepted by staff and has been processed up to this point in the manner other petitions are normally processed and reviewed. Mr. Mathison stated the Petitioner must take the position, at this point, that their due process rights are being violated and the due process rights under the Constitution require that this petition move forward in its process such that a final determination may be made by this City Council. Mr. Mathison stated the second point is that there is a possible conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict, with Councilwoman Monroe, as she is on the Board of Directors of the Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center. Mr. Mathison stated because there is an appearance of a conflict of interest between the Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center and one of the major tenants of this proposed use, Councilwoman Monroe must abstain from voting on this matter. Mayor Martino stated there has been an attempt to give the Petitioner due process, however, as the result of a motion, a tie was defeated. Mayor Martino stated the Council has continued to have dialogue and discussion on this petition. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 9/3/92 PAGE 21 Councilwoman Monroe stated several weeks ago she spoke ADJOURNMENT APPROVAL with members of staff, Mr. Walton and Mr. Brant. They reviewed the files in the City at that time and Mr. Brant indicated he did not feel there was a conflict of interest. Councilwoman Monroe stated if Mr. Mathison had additional information regarding this matter to provide it to Mr. Brant. Vice Mayor Russo requested the City Attorney to look into Mr. Mathison's first point, and if due process has been violated, the Council needed to proceed in the proper manner. Councilman Kiselewski requested the City Attorney review the citings made by Mr. Mathison this evening and render a legal opinion. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:54 A.M. MAYOR TINA i '' 1 /J 1�USSO I, 111 .A V. KOSIER, CITY CLERK 5 COUNCILWOMAN MONROE COUNCI KISELEWSKI • EXCERPT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 1992 Re: Ordinance 25, 1991 City Manager John Orr: The second item I have is, we talked about and you mentioned that... before about the ordinance that we had back a year ago that had to do with the salary situation, and what I'm doing, recommending tonight, is that the City Council continue the implementation of Ordinance 25, 1991, consistent with the adopted budget. And the reason I'm recommending this because I do not believe that the ordinance was wrong, and I think it was consistent with the adopted budget, and I believe it was consistent with what the intent of the Council was at that time; and the question that I'm asking right now is that if we have a problem, if anyone has a problem with it, then we would have to go back then and take whatever action is necessary otherwise I've got to put this one to bed. Councilwoman Monroe: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Martino: Linda. Councilwoman Monroe: When I made that request at the last meeting to bring this to us, my intent wasn't as it came out tonight. My intent was to have a new ordinance. I don't see how you can go back and say let's continue an old ordinance. An old ordinance, an adopted ordinance, is good until it's, is good. You don't reaffirm it 12 months later. My intention was to put it to rest by doing a new ordinance henceforth. So I'm kind of concerned with the way you put that, and when you said consistent with the adopted budget, the budget can only reflect the ordinance that you have in effect at the time. I had asked a couple of weeks for the verbatim on the two meetings where we had a first and second reading. I got the first verbatim, but I didn't get the second; and I did not see anyplace in there where it said to change that amount. I didn't see where it directed staff to go do anything else. It just simply said let's put it on first reading. So I'm, I have no problem with considering a new ordinance, and I don't think there's any action we can take tonight. • • Excerpt - City Council Regular Meeting September 3, 1992 Page 2 Mr. Orr: I would, they'd have to refer that to our City Attorney. Councilman Russo: Excuse me, my only question would be on that if we went and did a new ordinance it would never pass because this ordinance deals with all the salaries. Councilwoman Monroe: Say that again. Councilman Russo: If you did a new ordinance based upon this, it would never pass. Councilwoman Monroe: Why not? Councilman Russo: Because both of us voted against this ordinance. Councilwoman Monroe: I'm talking about for the future. I'm not talking about this year. In others words, we have a new budget year coming up. If one of us changed our mind, then it could possibly pass three or four to zero. Every single year we can look at a new ordinance and talk about increasing salaries if we so choose. Councilman Kiselewski: Mr. Mayor, I think for clarification, I don't understand what we're doing here, we've got an ordinance on the book, it's been budgeted in the book, it's in the budget for this year; and if you want to change it for next year, that's what you were talking about. So I think we've got a totally different issue here. Not to go back and reconfirm anything that was already done. But I think what Linda is trying to say is let's look at it for this coming year. Correct? Councilwoman Monroe: That's what I was saying. Well, see, alright, I had a concern with the way it was done the last time. I don't, you know, I didn't feel comfortable with the piece of paper that's before us that had a whited -out figure bothered me because it looks to • • Excerpt - City Council Regular Meeting September 3, 1992 Page 3 me like some kind of sloppiness. If our signatures are on something that had a whited -out amount, and it didn't have an amendment date at the top, I had a problem with that. If it's just sloppiness, well we were sloppy. 'But then the records never showed, at least what's been provided to me by staff, that we ever changed that amount. You know, your comment and the verbatim, whatever I did with them, I had it here, you agreed that, twice in here you said it was $50. Councilman Russo: This ordinance is here all signed based upon this. I mean that's, I guess that's what I... Councilman Kiselewski: I don't understand what we're trying to get to. Mayor Martino: George, I think what we have established here is that Ordinance 25, 1991, as presented and signed, I guess, September 15, 1991, is an ordinance that is recognized to be passed by this body. Beyond that we have a request from City Councilwoman Linda Monroe to present a new ordinance in conjunction, I would assume, with our new budget which we're in the process of adopting. I see no problem with that in a legal way, do you? Atty. George Baldwin: No, the Ordinance 25, 1991, that you have on the books has been on the books for a year. It, my copy of it bears signatures and the figures are filled in. I think at this juncture barring something unusual in the way of a factual case that the ordinance ... on the books that I don't know of any reason that it should be reconfirmed. I don't think that would be an appropriate procedure, and the Council always has the right to change the ordinance or to consider a new budget and a new ordinance in the future. Mayor Martino: If that's what the Council's pleasure is, we'll instruct the attorney, as long as it's consistent with the Charter, I don't remember, I don't think we're going to be changing any figures, so I can't see how it wouldn't be consistent with the Charter. Excerpt - City Council Regular Meeting September 3, 1992 Page 4 But there is some language in there that says we can only do something in a particular way when it affects our salaries. So as long as there is no conflict, and that's what we pay these guys for, we then would ask for an ordinance, a new, if that's what you all want, to reaffirm the salary figures as we have them in Ordinance 1991, with the upcoming fiscal year. Councilman Russo: I don't want to do that. Mayor Martino: Okay, I tried. Councilman Russo: I mean my feeling is I don't, I mean we already have this ordinance... Mayor Martino: Yes. Councilman Russo: Okay, and as far as I'm concerned, I mean, this is the ordinance as I understood it. Now, I don't know what these numbers were. When I signed this ordinance, this is the way I understood these numbers. Now, I don't know the question of whether the numbers are there or aren't there, but again I don't want to get into, I mean, my own feeling is this was done. Are we going to change the salaries or are we going to reaffirm these. If we're going to reaffirm these, is this what we thought we voted on? I thought this is what we voted on. Now I don't know how everybody feels. If we're going to change this, then fine. I don't mind bringing it up and going through all that legal procedure, an ordinance, and so forth. That would be my only question. I mean, if we're going to change this, then let's change it. If not, then, if that's what we thought we did, you know. Councilman Kiselewski: Mr. Baldwin, would it be appropriate to have a voice vote at this point in time of the members here present to accept the validity of this ordinance as being factual? That's all I'm talking about... 0 • Excerpt - City Council Regular Meeting September 3, 1992 Page 5 Attorney Baldwin: That would be more of a consensus type thing as to whether any action should be considered... Councilman Kiselewski: Well that's all I'm saying... Attorney Baldwin: There's nothing improper about that. Councilman Kiselewski: Then I would so move that this City Council agree that Ordinance 25, 1991, is in fact the ordinance that we passed and signed on the 5th day of September, 1991. Councilman Russo: Second. Mayor Martino: Discussion? Councilwoman Monroe: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I can answer a yes or a no. I can tell you what I thought. I'm accustomed to staff when there's an amendment to an ordinance, putting a date at the top saying there is an amendment. I'm accustomed to the fact that when there is an amendment it's usually discussed either at first or second reading. I don't have any information that says it was discussed. When looking at all of our backup materials, I don't reread every single piece of paper between first and second reading unless there is a change, so I can't tell you whether I signed that with that figure in there or I did not because my understanding was that the number was never changed, and that was why I suggested having a new ordinance that would be my comfort level saying that I knew what I voted for. Now, you could say well, gee, didn't she know what she voted for, and I can say based on the way this City operates I assumed that that number was a different number. Councilman Kiselewski: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Martino: Don? • Excerpt - City Council Regular Meeting September 3, 1992 Page 6 Councilman Kiselewski: Based upon Ms. Monroe, if she doesn't feel that this is the ordinance we voted on she can simply vote no; or all I'm saying, as far as I'm concerned this is what we agreed to, you thought we agreed to, and... Councilman Russo: The only question really is what the Mayor's salary is. I mean I was under the impression that it was going to be $100 more a month, and that's what I thought we voted on. Councilman Kiselewski: That's what this reflects. Councilman Russo: Now, if we don't have, if we think that we didn't vote for that, then we should be voting no for this. But I thought that we were... Of course, I voted against the ordinance, but I was always under the impression that in all the discussions that his salary was being raised for all the expenses. I know we discussed it in the budget hearing with all the meetings he goes to and all the different things and so forth, and that's why we were going to give him another extra $50. That was always the, I don't know how it happened or what had happened and so forth, but as far as I was concerned, now I don't know whether this is the exact document that I signed, but I was always under the impression that that's the way the ordinance read. Councilman Kiselewski: I have no reason to challenge that, that's the reason I made the motion. Mayor Martino: ...suggest a couple of things. I think the record needs to reflect that first of all when we set the salaries we're setting the salaries for a position and not an individual. It could have been Mayor Russo very easily, so that's the first thing the record needs to reflect. Secondly, there is no Council member that I know of that would influence this staff to make a change of this significance. That's the second thing I'd like to say for the record. Thirdly, I would like to point out that Excerpt - City Council Regular Meeting September 3, 1992 Page 7 staff did do some homework regarding these figures. Holly Vath, our comptroller, has given us two memorandums and found some old notes of hers that verify the point Mr. Russo made. And also, Mr. Brant did give us a memorandum on the same subject, and his conclusion was that the numbers in the ordinance reflect what best he could find in the records. So I think the ordinance itself reflects accurately what the consensus of the majority of the City Council was, so that would be my statement. Anybody that wants to say otherwise or make an innuendo otherwise is certainly welcome to that opportunity anytime, but the facts remain that's the ordinance and those are the figures we discussed and that's what we've decided this evening. So all those in favor of the motion... Councilwoman Monroe: Mr. Chairman? Mayor Martino: Yes. Councilwoman Monroe: I would like to make a substitute motion to this that ... the City Council that it is the consensus that this was the figure in the ordinance because I'm hearing that answer tonight, and I can vote on that motion. The other one I would have to have an "I don't know" which puts me in, you know, I've never been in a position in twelve years where I have to say "I don't know." Councilman Russo: What you're saying is that it's the consensus of the Council that this was the number? Councilman Kiselewski: I think you're playing with semantics. Councilwoman Monroe: I know ... how do you say you voted against something, .and you're asking me to say what did I think it was, did we think that was the number? Councilman Russo: I don't have a problem with doing what you want to do. It's the same. Excerpt - City Council Regular Meeting September 3, 1992 Page 8 Councilwoman Monroe: Okay. Okay. Then we need a second. (overlapping conversation) Councilman Kiselewski: She's got to get a second for her substitute motion. Councilman Russo: Okay, I'll second that. Mayor Martino: Okay, we have a motion that has been made and seconded. Make sure I do this parliamentary correct, sir. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. All Council - Members• Aye. Mayor Martino: All those opposed? Now, we're back... Councilman Kiselewski: No, it's dead. It was a substitute motion. You're over with it. Mayor Martino: The substitute motion killed the first one, right? So the record is clear then on Ordinance 191? Ordinance 25, 1991, excuse me. We won't have to talk about that anymore. Alright, Mr. Orr, do you have anything else... jh 9/28/92