HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Council 120392V
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
DECEMBER 3, 1992
The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Martino at 8:00
P.M., 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.
ROLL CALL The City Clerk called the roll and present were Mayor Martino,
Vice Mayor Russo, Councilwoman Monroe, and Councilman Jablin.
ANNOUNCEMENTS The Mayor stated the announcements were as posted on the City's
bulletin boards.
RESOLUTION 109,
1992 Mayor Martino offered the City's and his personal congratulations
to newly - elected Councilwoman Lauren W. Furtado. Councilwoman
Monroe made a motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Russo, to approve
Resolution 109, 1992, "Declaring the Results of the Special
Election Held on December 1, 1992." The motion was unanimously
approved by the City Council.
ADMINISTRATION
OF OATH The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Lauren W.
Furtado, who was elected in the December 1, 1992, Special
Election to fill the unexpired term for Group 5 seat, which term
expires March 9, 1993.
Councilwoman Furtado expressed her appreciation to the citizens
of Palm Beach Gardens and to her family.
PRESENTATIONS Mayor Martino acknowledged the following employees and presented
them with service awards: Bob Clary of the Public Works
Department for 10 years service to the City and Barbara Byerly
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 2
of the Building Department for 10 years service to the City.
He then presented a plaque to Nory Roggen of the Palm Beach Post
for 5 years service to the City.
ITEMS BY CITY
MANAGER
TEQUESTA FIRE
SERVICE Regarding a proposal to the Village of Tequesta to provide
management for fire service, Mr. John Orr, City Manager, stated,
because of Tequesta's distance from Palm Beach Gardens, there
could be future problems with such an arrangement. He stated
such a proposal should be studied further, and Palm Beach Gardens
should solve its own problems prior to entering into such an
agreement. Councilwoman Monroe and Councilman Jablin stated they
did not believe a proposal should be sent to Tequesta.
Y Councilwoman Monroe made the motion, seconded by Vice Mayor
Russo, for the City to cease discussions on the proposal to
provide fire service to the Village of Tequesta. The City
Manager was instructed by City Council, as part of the motion,
to write a letter to Tequesta stating, because of distance
problems, such an arrangement would be inappropriate at this
time; but perhaps in the future something could be arranged.
The motion was unanimously approved by the City Council.
LaRETT CASE At the request of City Manager Orr, a motion was made by
Councilwoman Monroe and seconded by Vice Mayor Russo, to approve
an expenditure of $15,000 from the Council Contingency Fund as
settlement of the LaRett case. The motion was unanimously
approved by City Council.
CITY COUNCIL., REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 3
.JOG ROAD City Manager Orr stated the City had been given traffic
information from the County relative to Jog Road and the North
County Transportation Study, and asked Mr. Rich Walton and Mr.
Lennart Lindahl to give an overview of potential traffic problems
should Jog Road be closed through PGA National.
Mr. Walton pointed out that City Council had received copies of
the final report which was transmitted to L.P.A. and would be
presented to the County Commission for their public hearing for
transmittal of the Comp Plan Amendment relative to Jog Road.
He stated the City's position was to remove Jog Road while
agreeing toward reducing densities in the surrounding area. He
also stated that comments made the previous day by the County
Engineer pertaining to the City's lack of cooperation and failure
to meet with County staff were incorrect. He stated that Dan
Weisburg, an engineer with the County, and the MPO staff had
communicated with City staff quite extensively; however, each
time there was any discussion with them, they always prefaced
the meetings with the statement they were only creating numbers,
that they did not have anything to do with recommendations or
final discussion. He also stated they said the City would have
the opportunity for discussions before a recommendation was made.
Mr. Lennart Lindahl reinforced Mr. Walton's statements concerning
communications with the County and the City's willingness to
meet with the County. Mr. Lindahl reviewed for City Council a
package of materials which included a letter to the Board of
County Commissioners from Mayor Martino expressing the City
CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING, 12%3/92 Page 4
Council's willingness to work with Palm Beach County and
neighboring communities with regard to density or other issues
which might afford a closure on this issue and allow Jog Road
to be removed from the Thoroughfare Plan within P.G.A. National
community. Mr. Lindahl also reviewed with City Council a report
entitled "Jog Road Analysis" prepared by Yvonne Ziel Traffic
Consultants. In addition, he gave an explanation of the computer
models which were run to replicate the County's data and to
examine several alternative scenarios. He also reviewed the
other traffic analysis exhibits and discussed the repercussions
should Jog Road be eliminated.
Mr. Walton mentioned concerns and considerations regarding the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment and his belief that the
" Plan could be jeopardized if the land uses were lowered.
Mr. Walton and Mr. Lindahl responded to comments from
Councilwoman Monroe in which she expressed her desire that
Military Trail should "work" first and then Jog Road would be
dealt with. Mr. Lindahl stated that additional work needed to
be done within the model to attempt a rigorous diagnostic to see
whether it portrayed properly the capacities being considered.
He stated they looked at existing conditions with Jog Road on
the Thoroughfare Plan using the County's information, took out
Jog Road, noted the changes that occurred, and saw what the City
could do to normalize those changes. He indicated there was no
solution to Military Trail problems at present since it had far
reaching effects which continued into Riviera Beach and Jupiter,
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 5
and Palm Beach Gardens was not able to solve these problems
alone.
Vice Mayor Russo commented the County needed to be included in
the study for Military Trail. The process should continue so
that the problem would be eliminated in the north County.
In response to Councilwoman Monroe asking if there wa's any hope
or optimism for Military Trail, Mr. Lindahl stated he was not
able to respond until they had an opportunity to meet with the
County and look at the TAZ's that border Military Trail and see
how they are being portrayed in the model.
Councilwoman Furtado asked if it would be beneficial to hold a
workshop with representatives from the County the following week
to which Mr. Lindahl responded that the County Commission would
meet on Monday, December 14, 1992, and a meeting would be
dependent on City Council's instructions to staff. Mr. Lindahl
said he would be pleased to come back for a workshop or go
straight to the County Commission with the subject scenario.
Regarding the County Commission meeting on the 14th, Vice Mayor
Russo said the County did not need to know exactly how it would
happen; but they needed to know there was a way to make it work,
and that the City was going to cooperate. He expressed his
concern that there were only five days left.
Councilman Jablin stated he would like to schedule a working
meeting with the County on Thursday, December 10th, and would
also like to get something on the City's books to his proposed
resolution.
CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING, 1213192 Page b
Councilwoman Monroe stated the two governmental staffs needed
to meet one more time prior to meeting with City Council, and
requested an additional run be made with all roads being two
lanes along with the reduction in TAZ 848.
Councilwoman Monroe made the motion, seconded by Vice Mayor
Russo, that staff be authorized to schedule a regular meeting
for December 10, 1992, at 8:00 p.m., to cover traffic issues
within the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Councilwoman Monroe
stated her goal of the meeting was to not look strictly at Jog
Road but also look at Military Trail and Central Boulevard south
of Hood Road.
Mayor Martino commented he believed Palm Beach Gardens' staff
recommendation was the best scenario he had seen so far to remove
Jog Road from the Thoroughfare Plan thereby eliminating the
residents' concern who live in PGA National. Regarding Military
Trail, the Mayor stated these problems could not be solved by
Palm Beach Gardens since the traffic to be dealt was in a
"regional mode ". The Mayor congratulated staff for their work
in this endeavor. He also stated that five votes were needed
by the County Commissioners on this issue.
Vice Mayor Russo stated the City Council's goal at the present
time was Jog Road although he would be willing to discuss
Military Trail the following week if Council so desired.
Councilwoman Monroe asked why PGA National should be Council's
first priority rather than a joint priority. By focusing on one
item, she believed an option was lost.
CITY COUNCII, REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 7
Mayor Martino stated the current policy of the City Council was
to remove Jog Road from the Thoroughfare Plan and the right of
way system of Palm Beach County; and in the context of that, the
issue of Military Trail was raised. He also stated he would work
just as hard on the Military Trail situation, although it was
something the City of Palm Beach Gardens could not control
outside its boundaries.
Councilman Jablin stated he believed the City Council should
consider sponsoring a charette for the entire north County area,
including the incorporated areas and all the towns and cities
which bordered Palm Beach Gardens, to attempt to solve Military
Trail problems. He also stated Palm Beach Gardens should be the
leader in this area and should ask the Treasure Coast Planning
Council to sponsor a charette to deal with these problems. He
further stated he wanted to deal with the Jog Road issue on the
14th of December and after that begin dealing with all of north
County.
Councilwoman Monroe repeated her motion to direct City of Palm
Beach Gardens staff to fax all information concerning Jog Road
to County staff; to meet with them before next Thursday to
discuss any possible perceptions of errors and to discuss the
alternatives; for the City Council to meet with both staffs on
Thursday night, December loth, to discuss alternatives and any
discrepancies which had not been resolved; for Council to take
action on the matter at the December 10th regular meeting; and
to invite the County Commissioners to the December 10th City
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92
ITEMS BY MAYOR
AND CITY IL
PENDING LIST
Page 8
Council meeting. Vice Mayor Russo seconded the motion with the
stipulation that a resolution be prepared similar to the one
submitted by Councilman Jablin.
approved.
The motion was unanimously
The Mayor asked that Council prioritize the 13 items on their
workshop list in order to place them on the agenda.
Councilwoman Monroe questioned the status of several items on
the Workshop Pending List and suggested that staff bring to
Council next week information on the following items: 1. LDR's,
2. Facilities Plans /Space Allocations /Referendum, 7. Amendment
to Environmentally Sensitive Lands.
Vice Mayor Russo suggested that the new Councilmembers be brought
up to date on all the items.
In order to expedite several items of the Workshop Pending List,
Councilwoman Monroe suggested staff give Council information at
the December 17th Council meeting on the following items: Curfew
for Council Meetings, Emergency Medical Task Force, and Criteria
for Evaluation of City Manager, Draft Policy for Reviewing the
Current Planning and Zoning Time Frame for Minor Amendments.
Council agreed to place the Facilities Plans /Space
Allocations /Referendum on the December 10 meeting for discussion,
time permitting. Councilwoman Monroe also suggested that staff
contact other cities to see what format they use or what they
have done concerning these items.
CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 9
r,GM14ENTS FROM
THE PUBLIC
DR. MILTON STERN He congratulated Councilwoman Furtado on her election to City
Council and stated the newcomers to the Council would have to
work hard to do better than their predecessors. He said they
would need to have a concept in mind and a vision of what this
city should be like in order for their decisions to be easier.
He also expressed hope they would play a leadership role in
cementing the surrounding communities and they would all attend
the December 14 meeting concerning Jog Road.
MR. ROY WATSON Mr. Watson expressed his concern about the status of the City
Manager and the recent comments made in the newspaper. Vice
Mayor Russo said his name would be kept on file, and he would
be notified whenever the item concerning criteria for evaluating
the City Manager was scheduled for a future agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA Councilwoman Monroe made a motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Russo,
to approve the Consent Agenda with the amendment to the Minutes
(November 5, 1992), as she had requested. The motion was
unanimously approved.
RESOLUTION 100,
Vice Mayor Russo stated he was unable to vote on Resolution 1001
1992, since he had a financial interest in Hidden Hollow PUD.
Mr. Walton gave an explanation of the minor amendment to "Hidden
Follow" PUD which provided for an extension of time for the
completion of the infrastructure.
Councilwoman Monroe stated she believed a five -year extension
was excessive and believed two -year increments would be better
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 1213/92 Page 10
with re- evaluation each time.
RESOLUTION 108,
1992
Mt. Rich Walton stated the petitioner had originally requested
a one -year time extension; however, the Planning and Zoning
Commission had said they would support a much longer extension
because of the economy.
Mr. Carl Sabatello explained it was not known when North Lake
Boulevard would be widened, that it could be from one to five
years before this occurred; and it would probably be one to one
and one -half years before the community was started.
Following further comments by Councilwoman Monroe and Councilman
Jablin, Councilwoman Monroe made the motion, seconded by
Councilwoman Furtado, for approval of Resolution 100, 1992, as
amended, with the date in Section 1.1. being changed from "June
30, 1997" to "June 30, 1996 ".
approved.
The motion was unanimously
Mr. Walton gave background information concerning the amendment
to Preston PUD providing for a wall on the south line, and he
explained the petitioner had revised the plans which included
more landscaping and modification to the height of the wall.
Mr. Hank Skokowski stated they had made a substantial upgrade
to the overall character of the wall and the streetscape of North
Lake Boulevard, and he gave a detailed description of the
revisions to the wail and landscaping.
Mayor Martino asked why the wall was not continued to include
Preston Courts, and Mr. Skokowski responded there was an existing
six -foot wall there which the new wall would abut and join, and
CITY COUNCI� REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 11
he gave a detailed explanation of the wall configuration and
design and the vegetation to be used.
Mr. Bill Bryan, 201 Windsor Court in Preston Courts, expressed
concerns re: his community. He stated they were not opposed to
the wall and did not want to prevent the construction or delay
of the wall; but he believed the different colors and different
textures of the walls would not be compatible where they joined.
He noted, too, although the Australian pines were quite thick
in some areas, there were other areas where they were several
feet apart allowing visibility of the wall. He also expressed
concern that the corner of Preston Courts would not be improved
in any way, they would only have Australian pines, there would
be no sound barrier to reduce the noise at the intersection, and
-� the housing structures in Preston Courts were five feet closer
to the highway than in the Preston Community. Councilwoman
Furtado asked how the construction of the two walls differed,
and Councilman Jablin responded with a description of the walls.
Mr. Bryan suggested the differences in the walls could be
camouflaged with berming and landscaping.
Responding to a question from Councilwoman Monroe, staff
responded that the current approved plan for Preston Courts has
not been accomplished to date. Councilwoman Monroe made several
suggestions concerning the appearance of the wall, including a
graduated effect which would diminish the contrast between the
different wall heights.
Mr. Skokowski responded to a question from Vice Mayor Russo
CITY COUNCI$ REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 12
pertaining to the color of the wall, and he stated a grey tone
would not be appropriate. He stated there would be a transition
from one wall to the other which would be screened.
Mayor Martino had several questions concerning the landscaping
scheme along the Preston Court existing wall, and Mr. Skokowski
and staff responded that the existing dense hedge of Australian
pines in that area was very thick which provided low and high
level screening and would not be affected by the road
construction.
Councilman Jablin stated there is a traffic noise problem with
Preston Courts since the bedrooms of the homes back up to the
wall along Northlake Boulevard which will be widened. He also
stated that was the southern entrance to PGA National, and he
1-1 believed that area would be landscaped or upgraded in the future
and wondered if Preston Courts could be upgraded at the same
time.
Mr. George DeGuardiola, PGA Ventures, developers of PGA National,
stated they were planning to improving the entrance so it would
be comparable to the northern entrance to PGA National. He
stated they were waiting until the road was finished sometime
in September to ensure they will have the proper geometry at the
corner prior to enlisting Mr. Skokowski to draw up the plans.
He also stated entrance walls are planned for construction along
with elegant and elaborate foliage that typified PGA National.
Councilwoman Monroe stated she did not want any gaps in the
landscaping at the easterly end of the wall, and therefore,
CITY COUNCII, REGULAR MEETING, 12/3192 Page 13
suggested a fourth condition be added to the resolution stating
prior to September 1, 1993, an approval for the balance of the
property east of the wall to Ryder Cup Boulevard would come back
to Council, with installation being accomplished by January,
1994.
Mayor Martino asked Mr. Brant if Resolution 108, 1992, obligated
the developer to install the old landscaping plan in any areas
that he is not revising with the new landscaping plan. Mr. Brant
responded, "No, we're dealing strictly with the area that we're
looking at tonight. It's the amendment."
Mayor Martino suggested waiting until they come back to decide
which plan is better.
Mr. Walton contradicted they were proposing to change the
existing area in front of the PUD, and they are proposing to
change the plan from what was approved to what exists.
Mr. Skokowski stated staff was concerned they would have been
left with a non - conforming condition, so it was agreed to change
the plan to reflect the existing condition as opposed to the
existing non - conforming condition.
Following further discussion, Council decided the additional
condition would read as follows:
114. The petitioner shall submit to the City by September
1, 1993, a plan pertaining to improvements of the wall
and landscaping of the remaining frontage from the east
line as approved above to Ryder Cup Boulevard with
construction of such approval to be completed by
CITY COUNCII REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 14
January 1, 1994."
Vice Mayor Russo made
the
motion,
seconded
by
Councilwoman
Monroe, that Resolution
108,
1992, be
adopted
as
amended. The
motion was unanimously approved.
RESOLUTION 111,
1992 Vice Mayor Russo stated, although he had no financial interest
in the project, he did have some involvement in the corporation
at one time and, therefore, abstained from any discussion of the
item.
Mr. Walton described the resolution as being an amendment to
Emerald Key, a PUD located on Parcel 5A of Ballenlsles, and he
read a letter from the Fire Department dated December 3 which
stated all concerns could be satisfied by having a door on the
front side of the enclosure. Mr. Walton suggested this
v
stipulation be added as a condition to the resolution.
Councilwoman Monroe made the motion, seconded by Councilman
Jablin, for approval of Resolution 111, 1992, modifying setback
requirements for screen enclosures and pools and spas in Emerald
Key. The motion was unanimously approved.
ITEMS FOR
DISCUS=
C. R. CHICKS Mr. Walton gave a description of the petition to allow for a 2COP
alcoholic beverage license and a variance to the distance
restriction of 750 feet between alcoholic beverage vendors for
C. R. Chicks, located within Garden Towne Square.
Following discussion, Council directed a resolution be prepared
to approve this item.
CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 15
.T,,P' S GOLF
RANGE Mr. Walton addressed the Council and explained the request was
for approval of a temporary access drive at the existing curb -
cut just east of the C -17 canal off Northlake Boulevard as well
as approval of a sign. He further explained, although the golf
practice facility was located within the City Limits of Lake
P &rk, the drive was within the City Limits of Palm Beach Gardens.
Also, he said the City of Lake Park had approved the facility
subject to the City of Palm Beach Gardens' concurrence of the
roadway.
Mr. George Gentile explained the access was to be only temporary
until Congress Avenue is completed, and then access would be
a6hieved from that street. He also gave a detailed description
of the area and the proposed signage.
Rbgarding the signage, Attorney Brant stated the sign would be
placed in use in Lake Park and technically it would be an off -
site sign.
Councilwoman Monroe said she would like to see the sign in Palm
Beach Gardens' jurisdiction with appropriate landscaping at the
entrance.
Attorney Brant stated that as part of the lease of the driving
range, the Foundation entered into a lease with the developer
all the way to Northlake Boulevard and tied it in under the
master lease and added a piece of land which does not affect
the use of the existing tin building, making it a point of
purchase sign.
_, Councilwoman Monroe stated she believed if this was the case,
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92
Page 16
tie City would end up with a sign in accordance with Lake Park's
Sign Code.
Mr. Timothy Hanlon stated they would be willing to work with
Council on whatever they feel comfortable with, but indicated
the golf range would need a sign for identification and safety
purposes. Responding to a concern voiced by Mr. Brant, Mr.
Hanlon stated everyone is working under the County's Performance
Standards and meets those requirements. He also stated there
is a 10 -year lease on the property, but the approval in Lake Park
is for a five -year interim lease with a three -year extension
period.
Cpuncilwoman Monroe stated she would like Council to direct the
City Attorney to work with the applicant to somehow identify the
`_� property as all one parcel, have only one sign installed under
the regulations of Palm Beach Gardens, and there be appropriate
landscaping along with the sign at the entrance.
Atttorney Brant said a resolution could be prepared for the
December 17 Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING, 12/3/92 Page 17
°6JOURNMENT T$iere being no further business to discuss, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:11 P.M.
APPROVAL
MAYOR MICHAEL MARTINO COUNCTTMO N LINDA MONROE
,r z
,V� 1�IAYbR JOE RUSSO C U I IC BLTN
COUNCILWOMAN LAUREN FURTADO
L';IIIA V. KOSIER, CITY CLERK
jh
9 •.
EXCERPT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 3, 1992
RE: JOG ROAD
Councilwoman
Monroe:
"I would like to see sort of a two -part thing. I
think the staf f s of the two governments need to meet
one more time because I think you've said the County
wasn't aware -- there's still some things I want to
see that you have a chance one on one or with staff
-- rather than wait until you get before us on a
Thursday night and each of you explaining the
differences to each other; and they're saying,
"Well, wait a minute. I haven't had a chance to
review this." That's - -you know, I want to be sure
that everybody's got their ducks in a row and then
have both groups of people in the room at the same
time. If you still have any disagreements, we get
to hear those disagreements; and I would hope that
their staff would be available both in the day time
for you to meet and at night time for us to meet.
Councilwoman
Monroe:
How long does it take to do a run for the various...
Mr. Lindahl: Several hours.
Councilwoman
Monroe: Several hours. Is there a cost to the County other
than just the time. Is it just their time or do
they actually have a dollar and cents amount that
they are billed by somebody?
Mr. Walton: They do it themselves...
Councilwoman
Monroe: Speaking only for myself, since I'm saying I think
we have two main issues there rather than one, I
would just love to see that third column run with,
in other words, using the reduction in 848 but run
with all of those as two lanes, all of them - -none
removed but all two lanes. The reason I say that
is (1) the County's LPA yesterday recommended
leaving Jog Road as two lanes. We know that the
other roads are not likely to be six lanes - -maybe
they get to four, but I doubt it. I still want to
say, "Does that take Military Trail down ?"
Councilman
Jablin: I can't see how it possibly can.
councilwoman
Monroe:
I don't know. But ;they keep saying that sometimes
the things they thought might happen didn't happen
so I'm saying, "Would it ?" Because the minute you
close Jog Road up every one of the scenarios...
•
•
Excerpts from tape recording of City Council Regular Meeting,
12/3/92 re: discussion regarding Ordinance 25, 1991.
Mr. Orr. Yes sir. The second item I have is, we talked
about, and you mentioned that, I know, in levity
before about the ordinance we had back a year ago
that was, that had to do with the salary situation.
And, what I'm doing is recommending tonight is that
the City Council continue the implementation of
Ordinance 25, 1991 consistent with the adopted
budget. And the reason I am recommending this is
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,
that we would have to go back then and take whatever
action is necessary, otherwise, I would rather put
this one to bed.
Linda Mr. Chairman.
Mayor Linda.
Linda When I made that request last meeting to bring this
to us, my intent wasn't the way 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, you know, 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 am kind of concerned with the way you put
that. When you said consistent with the adopted
budget, the budget can only reflect the ordinance
that you have in, in effect at the time. I had
asked a couple of weeks ago for the verbatim on the
2 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 any place 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 is any action we can take
tonight.
Mr. Orr They would have to refer that to our City Attorney.
1
Joe 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.
Linda Say that again.
Joe If you did a new ordinance based upon this, it would
never pass.
Linda Why not?
Joe Because. Well, both of us voted against this
ordinance.
Linda I'm talking about for the future. I'm not talking
about this year. In other words, we have a new
budget year coming up. If one of us changed our
mind, then it could possibly pass 3 to, 3 or 4 to
0. Every single year we can look at a new ordinance
and talk about increasing salaries, if we so choose.
Don Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Yes.
Don 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 it for this coming year.
Correct?
Linda That's what I was saying. Well see, alright. I had
a concern with the way it was done last time. I
didn't feel comfortable with the piece of paper that
is before us that had a whited out figure bothered
me because it looked to 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. Now, if it's just sloppiness, well, we were
sloppy. But the records never showed, at least
what's been provided to me by staff, that we never
changed that amount. Your comment in the verbatim,
whatever I did with them, I had them here. You
agreed that twice in here you said that it was
$50.00.
2
• •
Joe This ordinance is here all signed based upon this.
Now that's. I guess that's what I
Don I don't understand what we're trying to get to.
Joe Yea.
Mayor 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 are
in the process of adopting. I see no problem with
that in a legal way. Do you?
George 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 has been on the books, 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, of course, has the right to change
the ordinance or to consider a new budget and a new
ordinance in the future.
Mayor So if that's what the Council's pleasure is, we'll
instruct the attorney, as along as it is consistent
with the Charter, because I don't remember, I don't
think we are going to be changing any figures, so
I can't see how it wouldn't be consistent with the
Charter, but there is some language in there that
says we can only do something in a particular way
and 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 had then in Ordinance 1991 for the
upcoming fiscal year.
Joe I don't want to do that.
Mayor Okay. I try.
Joe I mean. My feeling is is I don't. I mean, we
already have this ordinance.
Mayor Yes.
3.
• •
Joe Okay and as far as. I am concerned I, I mean, this
is the ordinance as I understood it. Now, I don't
know if these numbers were. When I signed this
Ordinance, this is the way I understood it. These
numbers. Now, I don't the question of whether the
numbers are there are aren't there, but, again, I
don't want to get into, I mean, my own feeling is
this is done. I mean, are we going to change the
salaries, or are we going to reaffirm these? If we
are 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 else 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.
Don 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?
George Um.
Don That's all I'm talking about..
George Well, that would be more of a consensus type thing
as to whether any action should be considered
Don Well, that's all I'm saying.
George in regards to it and there's nothing improper about
that.
Don 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.
Joe Second.
Mayor Discussion
Linda 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 is 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 is usually discussed,
4
LJ
either at first or second reading. I don't have any
information that says it was discussed. When, you
know, looking at all of our back up 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, I, 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 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.
Don Mr. Chairman.
Mayor Don
Don Based upon Ms. Monroe, if she doesn't feel that this
is the ordinance we voted on, she can simply
Linda I don't know.
Don she can simply vote no, or, but all I'm saying is,
is that as far as I am concerned this is what we
agreed to. You thought we agreed to. and
Joe The only question really is is what the Mayor's
salary is. I mean, I was under the impression that
it was going to be a 100 more a month.
Don uh huh.
Joe And that's what it reflects now. Now, if we don't
have a, if we think that we didn't vote for that,
and that's, then we should be voting no to this.
But I thought that we were, of course I voted
against the ordinance, but I was always under the
impression that in all of 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 the that extra $50.00. 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.
5
• •
Don I have no reason to challenge it. That's the reason
I made the motion.
Mayor Just a couple of things I think the record needs to
reflect that uh, 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. O.K. 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 would like
to say for the record. Thirdly, I would like to
point out that staff did do some homework regarding
these figures. Holly Vath our comptroller has given
us 2 memorandums and found some old notes of her's
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, those are the figures we discussed
and that's what we've decided this evening. So, all
those in favor of the motion
Linda Mr. Chairman
Mayor Yes
Linda I would like to make a substitute motion then. I,
that to the best of the belief of the City Council
that it is the consensus that this was the figure
in the ordinance, because I'm hearing, 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 12 years where I have to say I don't
know.
Joe What you're saying is that it is the consensus of
the Council that this was the numbers. I think it's
almost the same thing.
Don I think we're playing with semantics.
Linda I know. How do you say something, you voted against
something and you're asking me to say what did I
6
•
think, did we think that was the number. And I
Joe
I don't have a problem with doing what you want to
do. It's the same.
Linda
Okay.
Mayor
You were the second...
inaudible
Don
She's got to get a second for her substitute motion.
Joe
Okay. I'll second that.
Mayor
Okay, we have a motion that's been made and
seconded. Make sure I do this parliamentary correct
sir. All those in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Council
All said aye.
Mayor
All those opposed.
Silence
Mayor
Now, we're back that
Don
No, it's dead. It was a substitute motion.
Mayor
Substitute motion kills the first one, right
So the record is clear now on Ordinance 91.
Ordinance 25, 1992, excuse me. We won't have to
talk about that anymore.
7
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF- VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I.AS] NAM1 IIRSI NAMI MIDDIPNAME NAMEOFBOARD.('OUNCII- COM MISSION. AU'IHORII'Y,ORCOMMITTEE
Russo, Joseph City Council
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNII OF:
18 Sheldrake Lane XM CITY O COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY COUNTY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
Palm Beach Gardens Palm Beach City.of Palm Beach Gardens
DATE ON WHICH VOI E OCCURRED
MY POSITION IS:
December 3, 1992 )Q ELECTIVE O APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 86
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
CE FORM lib - TAI
PAGE 1
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the min
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1, Joseph R. Russo , hereby disclose that on
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
xinured to my special private gain, or
inured to the special gain of
December 3
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
I have ownership interest in corporation.
December 3, 1992
Date Filed
, 19 92
by whom I am retained.
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING.
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM 88 - 1.91 PAGE 2
r
FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
1 .AS1 NAME I IRS 1 NAMI MIDDLE NAM[
NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AU I IIORITY.OR COMMIITEE
Russo, Joseph
MAILING ADDRFSS
THF. BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUl HORIIY OR COMMIITEE ON
18 Sheldrake Lane
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNll "OF:
IK CIIY O COUNTY O OTHER LOCAL. AGENCY
CI I*Y C'OUN11'
NAME OF POLITICAL. SUBDIVISION:
Palm Beach Gardens Palm Beach
City of Palm Beach Gardens
DATE ON WHICH VOLE OCCURRED
MY POSITION 1S:
December 3, 1992
tk )ELECTIVE O APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 86
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting, and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
CE FORM KB- 1.91 PACE I
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the min
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1, jnseph R- Russn , hereby disclose that on peremhpr 3 , 19 () Z:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
XXinured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
I have ownership interest in corporation.
December 3, 1992
Date Filed
u re
by whom I am retained.
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING'
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM 8B - 1-91 PAGE 2