HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Council 060281CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
JUNE 2, 1981
FORWARD At the March 26, 198L Special Regular Meeting, the Council scheduled
for their April 16, 1981 Regular Meeting discussion ie: the communica-
tion Attorney Jack Scarola submitted March 26, 1981 on behalf cr
"numerous concerned residents of the City ", alleging Mayor Kiedis'
violation of Section 2- 103(a) of Article VI of Chapter 2, the City's
Code of Ethics.
At their Requinr Meetinq of April 16, 1981, a motion was adopted by a
vote of three ayes and two nay, that the Council "instruct Mr. Brant
Cthe City Attorney) to take whatever iegal action he deems necessary
to determine the constitcitionslity and 1, 'ity of the particular
Ordinance in question ".
AM At the May 7, 1981 Regular hieetinq, the City Manager acknowledged receipt
qw of a communication dated Aprii 27, 19P1 and given to harp by Mayor Kiedis
on May `o, 1981 from "A Concerned fiti;,cns Group" alleging violations of
Section 2-- 103(a) of the City's Code of Ethics by Councilman Aldred and
Councilwoman Monroe; and a communication dated fi,,v 1, j9Tl1. and h,ind-
delivered to his office on May 5, 1981 from ALtornry Jack Scarola
alleging violations of Section 2- 106�g) of the City',: Code of Ethics by
tlayor Kiedis, Uicc Mayor Martino, and Councilman Kiselewski.
At this meeting, the other members of the Council did not express
objection to thr Mayor's ,,ucigestion that the agenda for their Workshop
Meeting cf May 14, 1981 znrl,_ide discussion re: the March 24, 1981 and
May 1, 1981 communications of Attorney Jack Scarola and the April 27,
1981 cornmunication of "A Concerned Citizens Group ".
At the llotkshop Meeting of May 14, 1981, the Council dLscussed the City
Attornev'; memorandur, dated May 13, I981 re: the subject letters of
complaint. At this meeting, the City Attorney sought clarification on
Aft his authority to proceed with a request for a Declaratory Judgment (The
t. !)- p,,rtment of Legal. Affairs referred the City's April 2, 1991
request for an Attorney General's opinior re: possible conflict bet�,een
the State Election Code and Article VI of the City's Code to the State
Division of Elections.). Mayor Kiedis, Vice Mayor Martino, and
City Council Special Regular Meeting, 6/2/81 Page 2
FORWARD Councilman Kiselewski did not alter the direction they gave the City
(Contd) Attorney at the larch 16, 1981 Regular Meeting, which would now apply
to the Plarch 24, 19SI letter of Attorney Jack Scarola and the April 27,
1931 communication of "A Concerned Citizens Group ".
Members of the Council did determine that the M.iy 1, 1931 letter of
complaint frog Attorney See rola Would he ) quired to be amender] to con-
tain more specifics before they would consider proc"ding to an investi-
gation stage.
At the Regular Meeting of May 21, 1981, (lice Mayor Martino reported
that subsequent to the ,joint meeting of the Council sod the Recreation
Advisor\, Board with Fir. Otto DiVosta on flay 19, 1981, the Council, along
with the City Attorney, had a brief meeting; and, at that meeting "it
was determined unanimously by the five of us that we should proceed
,with administrative hearings in order to clear up all of the accusations
as quickly as possible and move on with the business of running the
City. We asked the City Attorney to give us an outline of how the
administrative hearings should be held. ".
At thi: meeting of May 21, 1981, the Council unanimously adopted a motion
teat "'the City Attorney be authorized to hold in abeyance until further
notice any directions regarding the Declaratory Judgment concerning the
anonymous letter ,iccusatio�s, etcetera, and so forth that surrounds
:rime "; and srheduled admiriirtrative heaarings on the three letters of
complaint (i.e., the March 24, 1981 and t °lay 1, 1981 communications, from
Attorney Jack Scarola and the April 27, 1981 communication of
Concerned Citizen., Group ") to take place on Wr_dnesday, June S. 1931,
at 8:UO P.M.. f'lember, of the Council that had any objections to the
City Attorney's "Suggested Procedure For Administrative Wearings..."
uere to submit them to the Mayor.
At the Workshop Meeting of May 28, 1988, Councilman Aldred reviewed his
Mav 26, 1981 memorandum mrakinq several observations and raislnq certain
objections to the "Suggested Procedure For Administrative Hearings..."
L,- nresen+ed to the Council b) the City Attorney on May 21, 19811. His
objer•tions were, in e : >entc, (]; the Council proceeding on the April 27,
1981 complaint(s) Cited by "A Concerned Citizens Group" without at least
certainty that the author or a representative /witness will step forward
to rtspord to; and (2) proceeding on the May 1, 1981 complaint(s) filed
by Attorney Jack Scarola without it being amended to contain more
specifics.
City Council Special Regular Meeting, 612181
Page 3
rORi -ARU At this meeting, the City Attorney was requested to prepare a notice
(Contd) addressing Attorney Jack Scoroln and "A Concernod Citizens Group"
requirinq that the names of the "accusers" in the subject letters of
complaint and the spectifics to supplement Attorney Scarola's letter or
May 1, 1981 be provided, in writing, to the Lity Clerk's office by
`>:OO P.M. on Fri,fay, May 29, 1981. (Per the determination made at the
llorl<shoo MeeCinq or Miy !4, 1981, the City Attorney advised Attorney
Scarola via tettei•s dated clay i9 & t5, 1981 speciticity would be
required.; This notice was to be postco on the bulletln boards of the
Citv arid hand delivered tui Attorney Sceroi,'s office by the city
Administration, upon receipt from the City Attorney May 29, 1981 A.M..
On ;Monday, June 1, 19B1, the City Clerk's office, per the direction of
the City Admir,strator, contacted all members of the Council re: the
scheduling of a Special Regular Meeting to take place at 5:00 P.M., on
Tuesday, ,June 2, 1981, for Lhe purpose of the Council's consideration of
(1) cancelling the Administrative Hearings they scheduled at their
Pecular fleeting of May 21, 1981 to take place on Wednesday, June 3,
1981: and (2) allocating func;c for an additional lane on the east side
of Military Trail. between Johnson Darcy Road and the northern perimeter
of Tanglewood Shopping Center, soutn of PL,A Boulevard. Tne Justifica-
tion for this "emergency" meeting was (1) to irnplemcnt the above -
referenced "Nof_ire to furnish Information In UUitlog" pravcdnd by the
Cit.v Attorney to the Crf.y Adminlstrntlon at approximatcdy li.Ou A,11.,
Friday, May 29, 19x31; rind (2) to zeali?p :,� co;.t- advanl.age in the event
the Council wao in favor of allocating funds toward the addition of the
fourth Mine to ^111ItarV Frail.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DISCUSSIONS RE: The Special Regular Meeting of the City Council of Pairs Beach Gardens
CONSIDERATION OF was called to order by Mayor Kiedis et 5:05 P.M. in the Assembly Room
1981 at the fiun1C_rpal Lompirk, 10,500 North "tilitary Trail, Palm Oeacn Gardens,
M5ffT=A1IUE Florica.
H _ I 5�G
6he attendance was taken oy the City clerk a d present very: Nay or
Kiedis, Councilman Aldred, Councilwoman Monroe, and Councilman Kiselewski.
Citv Manager John Orr and City Attorney William Brant were also in
itendance, U1ce Mayor Martino was not in attendance due to other
commatments.
The foliowing is a ver batir:i transcript of the discussions on the
Council's consideration of cancelling the Administrative Hearings
scheduled for July 3, 19tl.
City Council )pecaal Meeting, u!2,81
Page 4
Mayor Kzedis You might as well kick it off. This meeting was called yesterday, I
believe initially, to determine whether or not we would cancel the
meeting of Veonesdey, whim would be the administrative hearing as I
understand it.
City Mzinng( -r Ah, that's true. Uhat the Louncil authorized Mr. Brant to do on
John tar Thursday - Thursday night's Council meeting vas to notlty the authors
of the letters that were submitted - the - from a concerned citizens
++d also from Mr. - Atrorncy Scarola. And. that. thrrr- uouln be delivered
to the Cjt,, Hall by - the Clerk s Orfict- _ uv 5:00 r.M. on Friday
afterrccn. Ali, this was dune to accordance with the touncai's instruc-
tton :and nv 5:00 on Friday arternoon we hao not received anything in
writinn From nr. Scarola or iron a concerned citizen. ,Anti, at that time,
the mer t ng Lhat uas established to hear the complaints rrom the letters
.hat were to ne received by >:OU has alreaay been set. In order to
cancel the meeting ve had to have anntne, ^ ^et n, to gcL the louncil's
opinion or get the uouncil's concurrence that the Ueonesday night's
meeting wound be cancellea. wnlch was originally established to hear
evxoence and the submission by Attorney Scarola and `_ne cuncerned
rltzzens pertaining to the three Iette:a Uh,L had been rcceivec przcr
to that date. 1 th3nk)IJI c -.an tell you a little hit mute of what
he did - if you want To and
Attctnev Brant 8a;icelay, t think to clarify thr' record. rursuant to Lhc Council's
directivr it the meeting of May 16th 1 prepared a notice. whicl, vas
pnstcu on the bulletin ooaids Lhat morning by Lhe City Clerk'^ office
and personally tierved to r1r. �)carola's office about lc o'clock on May
29th. about 4:10 rx . i had a telephone call from Mr. Scarola in my
oft ce pursuant to the notice and he wantea to note two things with me.
One is that it only tit his desk about -�:3u in the arternoon. Seconaly,
my JetLei . . . s`iowed telling him about rho meeting stamped in his
office Thursday morning wnxcn was May 28th. 1 said I woulc duly note
L in the record, then r:e proceeded and requested teat 1 take . . .
dat-o by Ic•je_plione. I attuned to dc, so statcng teat under rho directit,e
of the Lounci? I had no sucho;rly to start usang the telephone as a
meFFPngrr nerv.ce. ;hat uas my understanoinq - my directive and I carrie
AMM it out. hen . . . the afternoon of June 1 about 3:25 a courier brought
MW o letter to r,v otftce addressed to me which you nc,u have copies of. ffr.
5caroi:, has uratten c,, letter Lo tor: ano . . . setting rorih on the first
Nwye var,ou- objerr_ inns on proct�dures, etcetera, of which you have all
read. And also, then .. proceeded to set rorth specifics. In addition
City Council Special
Meetiny, 6/2/t31 Page 5
to that he began to .. decline to identify has clients claiming under
the attorney /client pri.va]ege. The point being attorney /client privilege
is not... it means that we shouldn't watch ........ but that isn't
material. That is the record down to date .......
Mayor Kiedis
You say that is the record up to date
Attorney Brant
Yes, Sir. ... it's my input on behalf of the City Administration
Hayor Kiedic
[dell, Bill, the instructions that I understand were quite specifically
would have Lo have an answer by 5 o'clock , -day
Attornev Brant
that is correct Sir, uhich T reminded P1r. Scarola of
flavor Kiedis
Consequently neu lie has delayed this until June I and tie has named some
names but, however, this was not given some of the other people the
opportunity who migU have - well things to he said about some of the
other letters to do the same thins, in other words, on Friday everybody
was equal. fir. Scarola chose not Lo or r• '-I not or whatever to respond
by 5:00 o'clock but by the same token none of the other -individuals
;n the community who might vant to respond had an Opportunity to do so
®
uniesr; they had Occasion to exanrne the '>ulletan boards an the community.
So, in essence, the two €etters -- threF letters - were all on the same
level at that time
Al I Ur•ne� M-Nnt
Thal 10 corTOCt Sir.
t9ay r Vler3 -i;
SO, Vrhr -, has hep,pened nou. You've riot a latter Here thrit has r;oL a few
mole I pecif-ics but it, T Mink in dtl7 erence to the re :i,bers gF the CouncxI
that do h9ye, you know, thcree's some dhi-ect accusatlan`3 m,`jde :in-' .•-1ating
both trl COnf l lct Of nod relating to election;, - alleged
v:olafion:i that - they alsra k ouid now have an opportunity to respond
or gather the-,r own facts and figures together to respond to these.
In ocher words, I feel that - by 2114 hour notice, which could be the
reeting of tomorrow night is Vic-11 too soon - apparently it was too quick
for Mr. Scarola to respond by ',:Of) Friday so I sec no reason Why the
i Cty Council should new change their Inst-ructions to the Cite Attorney
and ve should be ready tri respond by 5:00 or 6-OD or 7 :00 on Qednesday
whir. }, is approxlmately 24 hou, s.
Attorney ufant Fir. Cho]T'Maa may 1 add one thing
Movor Ki -a; s 10s ;ir
Ciuy Council Speciai Meeting, 0,2/81
rage 6
Attorney Brant In the notice that was published on the bulletin boards and also
delivered to Mr. Scarola in bold print and underlined for one material
reason. Failure to comply with this requirement - in other words the
requirement abovethe deadline established - shall result in dismissal
of all charges contained in letters of complaint described above -
and I put on in bold print and underlined it
K Ledas . . . . . Any comments?
Councilman Ao 1 see it Mr. Mayor - What Mr. Brant sal- is we established the
K)3elew'kr criteria unoer which we would have this hearing tomorrow. That's all
we're here to do right now. The criteria wasn't met by the people
who were making the charges. So, I don't see whereas we have any other
chance - choice - other than to cancel the hearing tomorrow. If more
charger are brought forward at a later datee we can schedule a new hearing.
But as far as tomrnorov's hearing is concerned, those charges are - wera
handled - and no - and as far as respon_' .y by tomorrow night - I don't
See .as wheze we should have a meeting
Att;rrey Grant flay 1 make a point for the record, 11r. Chairman'
Ahk
Mayor Viedis Sure
Attoznv� Bryant In addition to thst - since thr notico read in this manner and then the
Council should also consider fornially dismi >sinq all charges. T think
tl :e rec old sho .ld - in oi:hcr ,orris •- th? tr,tc procedures are
st�ll open, I nit-an, to anybody, O.K., Ind t'ut's the point - vuu'rn net
barring anybody, oer se, you're barring them tinder the current procedures
of your Code, And the point too, Mr. Chairman, if i may - I believe
it uas my understands g - the hour was late - but I was suppose to
revise thr- uertian - the ethic; sorLion of Chapter 2 under our Adminis-
trative F•ocie with the thought in n;ind any future violations, any
complaints, be filed before the State's Attorney's Office
Mayor Kirdis Yes
Attorney Rr;,nt That wno-: my understondinq
Flavor vleoin Which it ie�,lly the proper way to do it, I believe
Attorney Ri: nt Right. So, if go, thon any future complaints shc,ild not be occeptcd by
}hi;, Council but referred to the SiaFp ugenry involved. If that's the
:;uncil's - 1 sc/ "if" - i mean, I'm looking For direction here and 1naL'a
,141at ? :.nderstora.
City Lounc_il Special Meeting, 6 /z /8i
Page 7
Mayor Krrdis
These are essentially, Bill, the same - what you're saying is essentially
what I've been told by an Attorney representing myself that is the
Proper way to conduct this particular type of investigatioo if you want
to call it that. Linda - do you have any..
Councilwoman
I hove two questions. One, dust on this last subject. It takes a certain
rlonroe
amount of tiff to change this Ordinance, so we can't just automatically
tell someone to use tht- State prerhdure right at this moment can we?
ALLorney Prant
There was a recent Supreme Court case tha! �s nob in this field of law
but it's in the zoning ... Where up to deciding in this rase about 30
days ago - the example - I'll be brief and to the point - If' a developer
lot
had been gczng in and out of vour building d;- partment and has /sa of
money in plans, time, effort, etcertera, there was a question whether
quclrfy for e:.uitable estoppel theory - in other words if the public
wasn't going to he seriouslti harmed - therefor -, the man was entitled to
his permit even though the Council was ;:o ^.ess of changing the zoniny
orf:in:3nce. The CourL sand "no" th;it theory is going to be limited and
T'm just ipplyrnq, I mean, °rom or,e thrary of Lhe law to the other - but
Ah
tnc thenty of -1 &w ,till applies ht-rc. fhe Court there basically held
if the Council direcks that ran or-finanee he prepared for first readinq
then the Council teas the right, O.K., at that point in Lime, for every- -
thing to atop hosicolly dyad in its truck, for 'lack of a hatter ward.
it's a new theory of law developed. UP to Lhot point reri:_iin
cqui L re's flowed, ct,rt o iri rights f l owed. Thr Cnurl ,ay_, .. .
And, thar-,3 thr latest cage or, the point. So then, I'm applying that
particiilar case to theory here. If the Council is consider ng changing
the Ordinance and I unrlerstood my directive to prepare an Ordinance
for first reodinq and then anything flowanq in as a result of the old -
the pTest'ot code - r1.K. would he stopped if the Council does not adopt
the Ordinance, then, of course, the Code ... O.K., that's the
theory T'm husrnq it on, Sir,
CourreIVoman
Alright. second question. How do you feel regarding [ho protection of
riunrne
us as far as his stal.emerts of the Lime limit imposed bf�inq unreasonable?
,, , Ve safe there?
At c,roey €lrorit
Lot m, explain it the best I - I .inticipated the question from somebody
Ak
qu
l.v
, number one - Whot is� reasonable - of course, reasonable is based
ou facts involved. Number une. lie was aware by his own admi:3sion as of
early lrursday mnrn-Lnq there was a r,earinq scheauleo for tarn ,-sday
City Council Special meeting, 6 /2 /cs;
Page 8
evening. My notice read forthwith. As of 5:00 the following day he
still was not prepared to file any specifics. Forget the fact that he
declined again to disclose his clients for the record going into the
hearing. So you have that time frame there. So based under the circum-
stances - this would be my argument if and when it goes to court - I
say "ir" - woi:ld be - you have to define reasonableness under the time
frame _. O.V. those who are named in these various letters - it was obviou
he was not prepared to file by 5:0U o'clock Friday even though .iis office
received it stamped in early Thursday morns -1. Which means then it
,palled over to Monday. And then, the particutar persons named m
has letters - then, deFendinq upon when he filed it officially on
Monday would have up to that time prior to 8:00 to make a determination
whatever what going to present ... etcetera. So, it's my opinion, under
the tuna frame involved, and the sequence from the very beginning down
into this past ue�k - that it sounds li:.e short notice but by the same
token under what should have been prera— . looking ahead to the following
Wednesday- it's not that short of a notice - I think it could be deter -
mined reasonabld an answer L your question
N;Ji or H;aedi, LIL11, in addition to that, Mr. Starch, wrote his initial letter on
(larch 24th, at vhich time he said teat he was not - it wasn't necessary
for him to divulge the names or his concerned cir.izens. So, in essence,
is - his hrief, IoLter, or whatever it is could hc,ve heen prepared
tvo and n 11,1Jf mor3rh <; ago rother th<;n to postpone it and sav that he
didn't have sc,ffjci"nL time as of Friday to divulge all these statistics
and facts that he hn, accumulated. so, I really don't have any sympathv
for him nt all. Ile'; had 2`; months to have these fac *s in front of ham
and of uould have about 15 minutes to run off a letter and have
them in f.he officr of the City Hall here by 5 o'clock in the afterncon
Attorney Brant Iii} I make on:�, more point For the record
fLii or V.ircit; Yef,
Attorney Brant even rf he would have filed brasics be_fnre 5 o'clock Friday afternoon
acid ,till refueed to di <:clone has clients Doti I would say dismissal would
not be to order. 7hr,t si'Quld be a question tc be argued. That would be
determined on the serond factor of the Council. He didn't see fit to
file anything and that', the pnint in 'the notice. . . . . writes of the
;anun"mnus 1eEt.ers
CIO Council ,)peciai
Meeting, a %2/81 raged
Councilvomt,n
5o the action we're contemplated tonight as cancelling this. Is that
Monroe
your best legal opinion that this as the correct way to go
Attorney 8ranL
I %'could =aay this. From the legal aspect, yes. There's a point of
stopping any procedure, tuhether it be a court action or administrative
hue)rinL!. I can't make Me policy decasion for you - T can only render
an opinion, O.K., the persons sitting here at the podium have that
power, O.K., but from the legal aspect at what point in time do you
benin and r,t whnt point in time do you end - we're talkinq about due
process - what's fair across the board. Su, you have to weigh, and the
... in my opinion thone people named in Lhese various letters. As I
saiy, I was served by hand, 3:25 - I rnaik the dates and times very
carefully - Monday afternoon, which was: yesterday. 5o, I can only
speculate - thas is co'-1,lecture - 1 mean why - I mean, of I was bypassing
the 5 o'clock deadline .... court action - I'd race the other lavyer to
the courthouse and have . . . . doors tlonrl -v morning. ;hat was nit the
cast- here. The lonq and the short is you have to bring -- if you lay
;!own an - let me put it another way, - which you did, O.K., and
determine a time frame was not ,area <;onahlE'. Secondly, chat point in
Aft
time do you bring things to an en,i. Jtherrvasr, matters like this go
and on - otherwise T had to dr�,i an analogy to the :ourts - otherwise
the docleets are forever ... I thank in answer to your question, yes.
rlavr c di
I)ornL'i
Councilman
!Ir. Nayor here - roloyLng - relving back on my memory r,ila; occurred
Kiseleuskc
last lhursday night was r1r. niched was concerned about trying to prepare
if you will, a prPsentataon for this Wednesday and not wanting to go
forward vith that some specifics and some people to give him
come actual charges came forward. Is that correct, Richard'?
Councilman
That's correct. That's what I was going_ to say crhen it was, my turn.
Aldred
Councj.lman
lh:,t's what brought about the basis and we sti11 at wouldn't be Fair
LO anynne tO try t0 prcparc, if yDa V111, :! Counter f01' ar1V Charges made
•again :r them if je dJ. -;n't Set somt• kind of deadline. Nov, for example,
iicre it; a piece of Miler that wad drooped on nay deole 30 minutes ago with
aomP kind of .,tatem -nt of a charge. Now, 1 don's believr it voula be
f,3ar to me to of anyone else menLicned in this particular docurnert to
try to eoTWl up with anythtnq by tomorrow niyhL. So, 7 see no rr>acon
to rver consid ^r anything other than stopping the hearirg ar causing the
City
Council Special
Meeting, 6 1z;8L page 10
hearing that was set; tomorrow, the 3rd, yes - tomorrow is the 3rd - not.
to have a hearing for tomorrow night. If Fir. Scarola wants to come
forward with brand new charges and we'll consider them with people
vho are going to charge us, the offences, then we can set a hraring
and go through the provisions that are made _ender the act.
Councilman
You summed up what I was going to say very well.
Aldred
Councjlmanttnkc
a motion
Klselewski
Councilman
It seems to me that it is impossible to prepare an adequate defense
Aldred
unless you have time to prepare and to rieliver a letter which has
chnrge3 which we have only dust now received is unfair - it is unfair
to hold a hparina tomorrow night and attempt to give everyone their
rights to due process - this can't be done. T do not, however, rule
out, the filing by Mr. Scarola or the anonymous group if they would
wish to refile and be specific and at c,at point that's the separate
issue once another ruling as to whether or not we have a hearing has
to he considered. Put at this particular point, I cannot see going
Am
qW
ahead w]th a hearing tomorrow because I believe that thri rights of all
would not have beer, given fair we�yit.
Cnunc.lmen
is a motion necessary?
Ki „cletiski
H1 )yor leiprj.-;
I halleve no, `-es.
Councilman
T move [hat we cancel Fhe hearing senedulpd For March - March? - June
Kiseleu�,ki
the 3rd it 8:00 to hear tt» r_omplaints of various citizens groups within
the City-
Councilman
Second
Alcrpc
M• ,vor ;ie_clis
Any further oiscussion?
Attornev
Point of information, Mr. Chairman. Under the notice provisions, the
Dr[Int
charges would be dismissed permanently. The Council would decide .
Councilman
T'11 amend my motion to so state.
1C1seleue1:1
Councilmant
t!uestion. he dismissal of the charges - the dismissal of the charges
a,ir'rPd
;oc- nut in ony way 3eopradize anyone - either it would be Mr. Scarola's
grout, or the other group of concerned citizens - it does not prohibit
them from refiling does it?
Lity Council Special Meeting, 6/2/ol Page 11
Attorney Fechnicelly. it would, yes. Keeping in mint] that the two state agencies
B.•• are still available.
11
Mayor Kiedis
Yes, that's what Ball referred to earlier, Dick, was a method of
approaching it from an administrative standpoint as far as the City's
concerned which is ieally still rather vague, is it not Bill - Lhe u.'ay
the hearing would be conducted within the City Council?
,atornev
. . . . has not been adopted in Ac full procedure. Bugg °sLior,
flr�rnt
Mayor Kiedis
That is correct
Att-or-,ev Rrant
Can I make one further u,-)?nt. 'Why I put this in the notice in bold
print. Because, otherwise. there's no teetn in it. in other words,
all you do is canceil the hearing ana yuu set another hearing and
you yo on ano on and on and on like anything else something has to come
to an end timewise. That's why, I mean, this is Lhe only way courts
J'ro not trying to steer the uou,,, i one way or another - this was
the object - either put up or shut up in everyoay layman's language.
Utherwise, there's no teeth i:, this normal notice and you can go on
to efin3ty with it
Counc, mar,
AU much as that was the notice, I see no choice but to go along with it.
4Idr e':
H avor Krcd :.
Do you second the amendment as
i ouric-Ar -ppri
YC,
,lldred
r1avor Kiedis
OJ .. if There's no other comments, then all those in favor say aye.
A11 members ave
preoent
!savor viedi_; All opposed. Unanimous. O.K.
CONS11)ERAT1Uti OF The City Manager reported that pursuant to the discussions at the
ALLOCATING I-UNID' 'Jorkshop Meeting of May 28, 1981, the cost for adding the fourth lane.
FOR IHE AUDITION
11 LANL to the east side of Military Irail from Just south of Johnson Hairy Road
T771i1I1ARY IRA[orttr to the nort ;Tern perimeter of the Tanglewood Shopping Plaza would
he $.)8,uOO, including the required drainage improvements. this cost is
contingent upon the County's /City's approval of the change order, while
the contractor is on -site adding The third lane previously approved.
City Council Special Meeting, 6/2/81 Page 12
A firm commitment has been received from the County that $23,000 of this
cost could be taken from the "Road Impact Fees" the City collects for
is them from the "PGA National" project; and a tentative approval has been
received that they will match the difference (i.e., $15,000 : 2 _
$7,500).
LA
ADJOURNMENT:
El
In response to Councilman Kiselevski, the Citv Manager advised that the
State Department of Transportation is in favor of this proposal; however,
they are unable to monetarily participate.
A motion wes unanimously adopted by the Cc._.tcil that the City Manager be
authorized to take :23,000 from the "Road Impact Fse" account and $7,500
from the Council Contingency Account - hopefully, to match the $7,500
from the County; and authurized to proceed vith whotetier necessary
documentation to w den Military Trail to four lanes from Johnson Dairy
Road, north to the northern perimeter of the Tanglemood Shopping Plaza.
In response to the concern of Mr. Samuel ^-rsallo, a member of the
audience, Councilman Kiselewski invited him to review the plans for these
roadway improvements in the City Manager's office - the "dog -leg" in
the pavement between the Admirnlity Ou,lding and the Tang.lewood Shopping
Plaza will he eliminated.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:32 P.M..
VICE MAYOR MARTINO
_E1 CLERK
COUNCILMAN ALDRED
r
l,`ir
COUNCILWOMAN MONROE
/ � r
~ COUNCILMAN KISLLEWSKI
MAYOR KIEDIS
/rte-
VICE MAYOR MARTINO
_E1 CLERK
COUNCILMAN ALDRED
r
l,`ir
COUNCILWOMAN MONROE
/ � r
~ COUNCILMAN KISLLEWSKI
:.:�
`.,� <u
.:
ti,�.
.: r °: : s .
- � -:�+
. ._� � r_
. > -.
--