Loading...
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_ . > -. --