regular meeting of the city council … bendekovic indicated that there is a synopsis from erich’s...

14933 City Council, July 23, 2014 Plantation, Florida

The meeting was called to order by Councilmember Lynn Stoner, President of the City Council. 1. Roll Call by City Clerk:

Councilmember: Jerry Fadgen Robert A. Levy

Lynn Stoner Chris P. Zimmerman

Mayor: Diane Veltri Bendekovic City Attorney: Donald J. Lunny, Jr. Absent: Ron Jacobs * * * * * 2. The invocation was offered by Mayor Bendekovic. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. 3. Approval of Minutes of Meeting – June 25, 2014. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 25, 2014 were approved as presented. * * * * * ITEMS SUBMITTED BY THE MAYOR Mayor Bendekovic indicated that there is a synopsis from Erich’s Consultants as well as a review of everything that happened during the session on the dias this evening. * * * * *

Resolution No. 11906

3. RESOLUTION of Appreciation to Patricia Ortega for 12 years of dedicated service to the City of Plantation.

Motion by Councilmember Fadgen, seconded by Councilmember Levy, to approve Resolution No. 11906 as presented. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Levy, Zimmerman, Fadgen, Stoner Nays: None * * * * *

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

PLANTATION, FLORIDA

July 23, 2014


Mayor Bendekovic presented Service Awards to the following Employees: *Ronald Camp, Jr. Police 25 years *Officer Thomas Diemer Police 25 years *D.C. Dominick Ranieri Police 25 years Sgt. James Dourvetakis Police 20 years *Brett Finkel Fire/Rescue 15 years *Officer Christopher King Police 15 years *Maritza Grajales Building 10 years *Daniel Tringali Fire/Rescue 10 years *Unable to attend. Congratulations were offered. * * * * * Sharon Kent, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, made the following announcements:

• The Plantation Preserve will be hosting the South Florida PGA Jr. Tournament on Wednesday and Thursday, July 23 and 24, 2014. The Plantation Preserve will also be hosting the South Florida PGA Teen Tournament.

• Kid’s Camp will begin on Monday, August 4, 2014 through Friday, August 15, 2014 at Central Park.

• The Mother Son Hoe Down will be held on Friday, August 8, 2014 at Deicke Auditorium between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

* * * * * Mayor Bendekovic made the following announcements:

• The model train and exhibit will be at the Plantation Historical Museum through October 25, 2014.

• The back to school roundup will be presented by Kids in Science Club and Support on Saturday, August 16, 2014 between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. at the Jim Ward Community Center.

• The Plantation Farmer’s Market is every Saturday at Volunteer Park between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. * * * * * Mayor Bendekovic introduced State Representative Hazelle Rogers. She stated that even though we did not get the $100,000 for the generator, Representative Rogers was there for us and we truly appreciate her efforts. Representative Rogers recognized the Legislative lobbyists, Candace and Lauren. She also recognized Patricia Amel Young (sic), who travels to Tallahassee with her. She provided the following updates:

• She believes she was the only one who served on an Appropriation Sub-Committee. She voted for the budget in the first committee because she wanted to be sure to leave all of their options open so she could get more dollars into the budget for the Cities she represents.

• They brought home $3.5 million for Broward College for renovations to their building.


• For the first time the Urban League got $2 million for an entrepreneurship program and building small business space.

• The flood insurance program was modified; there are four categories that residents need to understand. There is a standard policy for people who cannot afford flood insurance; there is a preferred policy and it gradually goes up to customized ala carte and supplemental insurance.

• This year we received $88 million into our Housing Trust Fund.

• There is over $100 million in tax holidays. Back to school is August 1, 2014 through August 3, 2014. There is a list of things that give tax breaks.

• She requested that the Broward League of Cities and the Florida League of Cities be made a part of the Legislative items to be addressed, which has to do with Community Association. She calls it the Neighborhood Improvement Districts.

* * * * * CONSENT AGENDA As a Commissioner of the CRA, Mayor Bendekovic has a voting privilege on Item No. 22. Item No’s. 7, 10, and 13 were pulled for discussion and voted on separately. Mr. Lunny read the Consent Agenda by title. 4. Permission for Westside Regional Medical Center to have a Summer Safety Community Event on their

property Saturday, August 9, 2014 from 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. 5. Permission for Temporary Road Closing for Annual Holiday Parade at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday,

November 22, 2014. 6. Request to approve purchase of 17 Automated External Defibrillators (AED) in the amount of $19,839.

(Budgeted – Fire) 8. Request to award bid for the Flooring Project at Volunteer Park and the Jim Ward Community Center to

ABC Flooring, Inc., in the amount of $51,567.40. (Budgeted – P&R) 9. Request to approve funds to lease needed laptops for the Police Department’s mobile units. (Budgeted –

IT) Ordinance No. 2509 11. ORDINANCE Second and Final Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Plantation, Florida, pertaining

to the subject of Comprehensive Planning; adopting the annual amendment to the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Plantation; approving transmittal of the amendment to the Department of Economic Opportunity and the related agencies for the purposes of sufficiency review in accordance with Florida Statutes; providing a savings clause; and providing for an effective date therefor.


Ordinance No. 2510 12. ORDINANCE Second and Final Reading of an ordinance of the City of Plantation, Florida, pertaining

to the subject of Zoning; comprehensively rezoning a portion of the city to the SPI-3, Subdivision D. Plantation Midtown Zoning District classification; the legal description of the rezoned property to SPI-3 (Plantation Midtown) includes the following parcels; Office Villas of Plantation, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Broward County Plat Book 99, at 9; Plantation Community Plaza, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Broward County Plat Book 80, at Page 26; Plantation Executive Building, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Broward County Plat Book 100, at Page 19; providing a savings clause; and providing an effective date therefor.

Ordinance No. 2511 14. ORDINANCE Second and Final Reading of an ordinance of the City of Plantation, Florida, pertaining

to the General Employees and Police Retirement Systems by amending Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Plantation to update mechanisms for transferring from the General Employees Retirement System to the Police Officer’s Retirement System; providing a savings clause and providing an effective date therefor.

Ordinance No. 2512 15. ORDINANCE Second and Final Reading of an ordinance to the City of Plantation, Florida pertaining

to the General Employees Retirement System providing for clarification of compensation; updating Disability Retirement Annual Report Policy; providing a savings clause; and providing an effective date.

Resolution No. 11907 16. RESOLUTION approving FY 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. Resolution No. 11908 17. RESOLUTION assessing a lien on certain property for the cost to the City of Plantation of its mowing

and clearing said property located at 7781 West Sunrise Boulevard. (BF 10 LLC) Resolution No. 11909 18. RESOLUTION assessing a lien on certain property for the cost to the City of Plantation of its mowing

and clearing said property located at 20 Jasmine Court. (MONTIJO) Resolution No. 11910 19. RESOLUTION approving the Expenditures and Appropriations reflected in the weekly Expenditure

Report for the period July 3, 2014 through July 16, 2014 for the Plantation Gateway Development District.

Resolution No. 11911 20. RESOLUTION approving the Expenditures and Appropriations reflected in the weekly Expenditure

Report for the period July 3, 2014 through July 16, 2014 for the Plantation Midtown Development District.


Report for the period July 3, 2014 through July 16, 2014.



Report of the period July 3, 2014 through July 16, 2014 for the City of Plantation’s Community Redevelopment Agency.

Motion by Councilmember Fadgen, seconded by Councilmember Levy, to approve tonight’s Consent Agenda as printed. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Levy, Zimmerman, Fadgen, Stoner Nays: None Mayor Bendekovic voted affirmatively on Item No. 22. * * * * * Mr. Lunny read Item No. 7. 7. Continued request for approval to issue a work authorization to Hazen & Sawyer, P.C. in an amount not

to exceed $299,800 for design, permitting and bidding services of the generator upgrades project at the City’s East and Central Water Treatment Plants and Central Wellfield. (Budgeted – Utilities)

An Interoffice Memorandum dated July 17, 2014, to Mayor Bendekovic and the Members of City Council, from Steve Urich, Assistant Director of Utilities, follows: The City of Plantation is presently in violation of the EPA’s Tier IV emission regulations for the four generators at the Central and East Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) that are participating in Florida Power and Light’s (FP&L) Commercial/Industrial Load Control Program (CILC). The City saves thousands of dollars per year in electrical costs participating in the CILC program. Compliance with the EPA Tier IV emission regulations is a mandatory requirement for remaining in the CILC Program. The City desires to achieve compliance with the EPA’s Tier IV emissions regulations and continues to realize electrical cost savings through FP&L’s CILC program at both WTPs. Furthermore, as part of our green initiative, the City desires to reduce carbon monoxide emissions by complying with EPA’s Tier IV emission requirements. Since the existing generator engine exhaust emissions carbon monoxide levels were not originally designed to be below these more stringent emissions limitation parameters, compliance can only be achieved through the addition of an appropriately selected diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) type converter ore replacement of the generator with a newer unit designed to function with lower emission standards. The converter can be used with an existing engine in order to reduce the engine’s exhaust carbon monoxide (CO) content to meet EPA requirements (limit concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) in the stationary RICE exhaust to 23 parts per million volumetric dry (ppmvd) at 15 percent O2 or reduce CO by 70% or more). The cost to replace the generators identified in this project with new generators that would be Tier IV compliant was estimated to be in excess of $5,000,000. As there is still substantial usable life remaining in the existing generators and they can be fitted with the appropriate DOCs to achieve Tier IV compliance for an estimated $1,800,000, the Utilities Department has decided that is the best option and is proceeding forward on that basis, further realizing cost savings for the City. Hazen and Sawyer prepared a technical memorandum (TM) summarizing the issues of concern. Based on this TM, the City requested a proposal for the design of the required improvements. The attached scope was


prepared by Hazen and Sawyer, PC to address the EPA compliance issues along with other necessary generator improvements, including the following:

• Design for the installation of the DOC units for environmental compliance purposes on the four generators at the Central and East WTPs;

• Design for the conversion from water cooled heat exchangers to air cooled radiators for three of the generators, to minimize water usage requirements onsite at both WTPs;

• Design for the relocation and replacement of the Central wellfield generator to be constructed outside of the wellfield protection zones as required by the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Division.

Combining these projects into one upgrade project will minimize contractual requirements and the general overhead/mobilization costs. Please note that time is of the essence and the City should begin this project immediately to avoid any potential fines for noncompliance with EPA emission standards and the loss of preferential FPL rates under the CILC program. Hazen and Sawyer has provided the proposal to design the referenced generator improvements to include civil, mechanical, structural, electrical I, electrical II, and instrumentation design requirements as well as permitting and bidding services. The cost for Construction Management Services for this project (estimated at $126,000) has been included in the documentation to show the cost savings represented through negotiations with our consultant, but will not be submitted at this time. It will be submitted for approval when the contract for construction is brought before Council following the normal bidding process. This information is provided for your review and approval to issue a work authorization to Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. in an amount not to exceed $299,800 for the above-referenced generator upgrades at the water treatment plants and central wellfield. W.A. #1314-009 H&S Funding: 405- Utilities System Revenue Note – Series 2013

__________ Councilmember Zimmerman received backup from Utilities. He cannot support this item at 21% and because of the fees and the way it is negotiated. Steve Urich, Assistant Director of Utilities, was present. He reviewed this and provided additional backup to how negotiations were made and the additional concessions that were granted. He also provided an explanation as to why this is a higher percentage for the job than it normally would have been for an overall design. He presented additional documentation that was not available at the time the packet was submitted. Their decision was made based on a technical memorandum to go with a retrofit of the system opposed to a complete new design. Some concessions were made with the retrofit and that is where the additional percentage as a cost of the job comes in. Had they gone with the original way they looked at it, which was to buy all new tier 4 generators, it came out to $5.5 million with $600,000 in design. They looked at retrofitting as another option, which came out at $1.8 million with a design cost of $256,000; a savings of $344,000 in design alone over the full design for new generators versus the retrofit and a total savings of $4.4 million. Going with a full design, the cost of the design as a percentage of the job comes out to 10.8%. Because they went with the retrofit it is a higher cost to design because there is a much larger savings in the overall cost of the project; however, the design amount is roughly half of what would be necessary. Even with that, they were able to negotiate a 20% reduction in the number of sheets of design through duplication of sites and other savings in that manner, but


not able to get too much more of that because the sits are so unique. There are five different generators, two of which are the same model. Even those two are located in different structures with different motor control centers, different electrical and different instrumentation. They were not able to see the duplication of design in those areas as hoped because each generator had to be designed as a unique project within the overall scope. That is why they ended up with such a large percentage of the project. Councilmember Stoner questioned how much they anticipate for surveying and she mentioned the location of underground utilities. Mr. Urich indicated that he did not anticipate any additional costs for surveying over what they already have because they are being done inside of buildings. He stated that those things would be coming in under the design sheets. There are five different disciplines involved, one of which is civil. Councilmember Stoner commented that it says, “Field locates of existing underground utilities will be provided by City”. Mr. Urich advised that they have those on as builts. These are located on structures that we already have. Councilmember Stoner questioned whether someone has already signed the as builts and whether that information will be provided. Mr. Urich advised that is where some of the cost savings took place because they are going to take our as builts and scan in what is possible instead of redesigning from scratch. Councilmember Stoner commented that what is possible does not necessarily mean that they accept it. She did not see that as part of their scope; that they accept the City’s as builts and if additional are needed that it comes out of their dollar. Mr. Urich stated that if it costs additional money that is on them; this is a lump sum cost that will be in total. He clarified that it says, “Not to exceed amount”; that is what it will cost for this design. Councilmember Stoner emphasized that “Not to exceed” is for their particular scope. She questioned where it says that they will accept the information we are providing and if they need additional that it comes out of their pocket. Mr. Urich stated that he cannot speak for the company; there is a representative present. Councilmember Stoner indicated that an oral communication is not enforceable; that is why there is a contract with a scope. Janine Wicker, with Hazen and Sawyer, was present. She advised that they do not expect any problems on any underground utilities on this project; it is not a pipeline project, it is primarily an upgrade project. They have that in all of their scopes because typically the City has a cost savings by doing exploratory procedures themselves. They do not add on any costs because it is not appropriate to include any kind of services to locate utilities that the City is already aware of. These are standard assumptions that are put into the contracts. She did not see any that would cause an issue in the design. Historically they have put together design fees and have come in either at or below the design fee. They have never come back for amendments on the projects.


Councilmember Stoner commented that Council is being asked to compare a 2013 contract with what is currently being done. Ms. Wicker advised that there is a 2013 General Consulting Agreement that was negotiated at great length with the City; quite a bit of concessions were made on that contract. They were willing to do so because the City has historically been very straight forward to work. They have been able to offer their best rates by working on these projects directly with staff. During negotiations they were very willing to make some concessions because of the way the review process is facilitated. This project is not a civil engineering linear project; it is not a pipeline project. There is not going to be a very low fee on this project because there are multiple engineers coordinating and working together. When estimating, they look at the total number of drawings it will take to put the project together. Engineers on their staff put it together and said there were 78 drawings. They took it again and said that two generators are the same; perhaps they can be put on one drawing for a cost savings. Maybe they can look at the wellfield and get the City surveyor to do the survey, which they did and condensed the list, reducing the number of drawings. They then look at the engineers who are going to work on the project. Only one type of stock system can be put on the units to get them fully compliant and City staff agreed. In moving forward, they realized they could get the price per sheet down quite a bit. They are able to offer a significant savings by looking at no interim reviews. If this were a $4 million project their design fee would be 7%; it if were a $1 million project their percent of construction costs would be even higher. They cannot prepare their design fee estimates based on the percentage of construction. This project is being done so the City can stay on the CILC with FP&L, which is extremely important to realize continued savings on electrical costs with FP&L. Councilmember Zimmerman mentioned that we are doing design at $256,000 and putting off the construction administration, which is $126,000, to a later date. The total package is $382,000 for this project between design and construction. The continuing contract has an item that limits it to $325,000. It cannot be broken apart; it is one project. He does not know why Council is being presented with just the design contract and coming back later, which will then put them over the amount in the continuing contract. Mr. Lunny indicated that there was a discussion about the competitive consultants negotiation with continuing contracts and it was decided to take a more conservative view so you are allowed, under items of a specified nature, to go with design services for projects that do not exceed $2 million. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he was not talking about CCNA; he is talking about their contract. He referenced 4, Item O. Mr. Lunny advised that this can be awarded under Item B or C. Mr. Urich pointed out that this is a design of a specified nature so Item O is not applicable. In response to Councilmember Zimmerman, Mr. Lunny does not think the contract is being broken. Councilmember Zimmerman mentioned that he would like to understand the entire contract. He understands the nature of the job and has a background in what he is talking about; however, 21% at a just basing it off of a negotiated dollars per sheet, does not set well with him. Ms. Wicker stated that for Utilities engineering, where there are multiple disciplines, this is usually 8% to 12% for design. This one is higher for reasons that have been discussed. CMS fees are anywhere from 10% to 14%, depending on the nature of the project. That is typical for Utilities engineering in this field.


In response to Councilmember Zimmerman, Ms. Wicker advised that all of the engineers working on this project are in their Hollywood office. Councilmember Zimmerman noted that it is a single office doing the work; it is multiple disciplinary but not multiple consultants. Councilmember Fadgen questioned if this is a matter of looking at that dollar amount and making it smaller or are we saying the project should not go forward. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that the project should go forward. He totally understands going with the retrofit; that is 100% the way to go. Mr. Urich referenced the second page of his presentation. We are on the load control program with FP&L; therefore, we get substantial rate savings in the neighborhood of 20% to 30% of our electrical costs. In order to stay in that program we must be compliant with the EPA Tier 4 requirements before the end of 2014. We cannot do that even if we start today; however, we can get a waiver from them to remain in the program while we are under construction. He mentioned that as an executive decision from the EPA, they are not enforcing Tier 4 violations by fines for municipalities; this is an executive decision which they are subject to revoke without notice at any time. We are subject to $30,000 per day for that violation if they choose to do this. This is not a project that can wait for further discussion; we need to get this moving in order to stay in this program. We will be subject to ejection from the CILC from FP&L if we are not moving forward with this project in a timely manner. Councilmember Stoner indicated that this Council is sometimes presented with threats similar to what was just voiced as coming from the EPA. The email came to Utilities on March 28, 2014 and almost four months later it is being handed to us because of liability costs for failing to comply, which falls back on Utilities for not bringing it to us sooner. It does not fall on Council to jump through hoops and make sure that it all goes away just because it is last minute. Mr. Urich stated that this was not last minute; they started this project by doing the technical paper almost immediately. The date on the technical paper provided was started almost immediately. They then looked at the most cost effective way to do this project. Councilmember Stoner advised that no one is disputing the fact that they believe the project needs to be done; at least two of the Council members are not happy with the dollars. Mr. Urich commented that Council says it is too high of a percentage and it is too expensive. He questioned what percentage and what dollar figure would be satisfactory. Councilmember Stoner indicated that last time she specifically asked what kind of a multiplier this firm had and was offering. She stated that 22% was way over the top and we specifically directed those comments to you at that time. Basically the same thing was brought back with supposedly paperwork that says 22% is all right and that Council has to believe it and we do not. Mr. Urich advised that what was communicated to him was that this was too high of a percent. He does not think it should be negotiated by hours per sheet. Backup was provided for how the negotiations were taking place. There was a 20% reduction in the actual design, which he believes addresses one of the concerns. This is the best price this consultant can provide. If we go out we are not going to get better, it is going to get worse.


Councilmember Fadgen questioned if there is a solution. Mr. Urich asked a couple of questions in terms of percentage and dollars. It is an important project and he questioned if there is a number or percentage. Councilmember Stoner commented that Councilmember Fadgen constantly tells everyone to cut their contracts by 10%; that has to be their goal. There are two people with expertise in this field on this Council that are saying 22% is excessive; however, they do want the project. They need to go back and either re-advertise or redo the bid. Just because we have this general service contract with them does not mean that we can’t put this out on a general bid. Mr. Urich understands and he emphasized that in his professional opinion having worked in this utility field, if they go out for bid it will come back more expensive from a qualified bidder. If we get kicked out of the CILC program from FP&L, which is a negotiated rate, there is no guarantee that we will get back in. FP&L benefits from having us in the CILC because they are able to defer the building of new power plants. If they kick us out they get a benefit because they get to charge us higher rates. We only benefit from remaining in the CILC. Councilmember Zimmerman indicated that he did not want to see backup that says the sheets were reduced by 20%. He looks at the hourly breakdown. Ms. Wicker advised that these are prepared on specifications. They do the cost based on a number of drawings. There is quite a bit of engineering that goes into those front end documents. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that the information did not come back the way he requested. Ms. Wicker explained that there is a large point here that they have done a poor job in presenting to Council. There is a lot of air permitting required in this project. Although there is a permitting task that is typical for them, there is a lot of design work, a lot of air calculations above and beyond that typical permitting. They charge a fairly low rate for permitting because the City of Plantation is so easy to deal with. The air calculations needed for the generators are extensive and those hours per sheet include that engineer doing the air calculations, documenting it correctly and going to the agencies to get it permitted. All of that is included in this work authorization. It might have been better if that were separated. If you had seen the design fee without the air permitting requirements you might have been more comfortable with the percent of construction cost. Construction costs are rising and falling as competition gets more competitive. Councilmember Levy commented that we are not in compliance and are subject to a fine that fortunately we have not had to deal with by executive order that can be rescinded at any time. We are also in a group where we are getting the most sort of nation status and that can also go away. There are four members present and he knows from the discussion that at least two are not happy with the percentage fee. He questioned if any decision on this can be postponed while we look at other ways of cost cutting that can be done to make it more palatable. In his opinion, pending a vote, he does not think anything will be passed. In order to save time and not to go to a full bid process, he questioned if we could negotiate further and see what we can come up with that would be acceptable to this Council. He would feel more comfortable coming in with a better figure. Mr. Urich stated that what he has been told up to this point is that this is the best price. If we cannot approve this price they will not do the work. There was no motion.


In response to Councilmember Levy, Councilmember Stoner indicated that Utilities put it together and it is up to Utilities to figure it out and bring it back. * * * * * Mr. Lunny read Item No. 10. 10. Approve Irrevocable Letter of Credit for proposed Rick Case Bullpen Expansion. An Interoffice Memorandum No. 2014-025, dated July 17, 2014, to Mayor and Members of City Council, from Brett Butler, City Engineer, follows: Pursuant to Section 20-158, the City Code and a Development Agreement for the subject, Rick Case Acura Bullpen Expansion development, the Owner/Developer is requesting to tender to the City financial assurances for the project in the form of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (LOC). An LOC is not a default form of financial assurance listed by the City Code and will require City Council approval. The City has worked with the private development community to accept LOCs in the past. Attached for this purpose is a draft Irrevocable Letter of Credit prepared by Comercia Bank, which has been revised and approved by City staff. The yellow highlighted dates will be inserted by the bank and the final LOC executed and issued to the City subject to city Council approval. This matter is now ready for City Council consideration. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

__________ Councilmember Fadgen mentioned that this Letter of Credit is $548,000.31. Mr. Butler advised that it is based upon the value of the infrastructure work. Councilmember Fadgen mentioned that the Letter of Credit for the Fashion Mall was a Code Enforcement effort. Mr. Butler explained that was being triggered for different reasons. This mechanism is in our Code for the purpose of securing construction type work. The Code is explicit and is based upon a percentage of the construction cost and there are various forms of security that a developer can post; this happens to be one that was never memorialized in writing in the Code. In the event that a developer chooses to use this as their preference, we need to go through the formality of bringing it before Council and requesting approval because it is not in the letter of the law. This has been done several times in the past; it has been a formality. There is going to be a security one way or another; it is going to be the same value. In response to Councilmember Fadgen, Mr. Butler advised that we have been doing this for years; Section 20-158 of the Code. He indicated that he has done two of these within the last three years. He stated that the ordinance precedes him and his tenure with the City but generally speaking, this ordinance has been there to give the City to give assurance that the developer is going to follow through on his commitments to build a project. Councilmember Fadgen commented that he still does not understand why; therefore, he is not going to vote in favor of this.


Motion by Councilmember Levy, seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman, to approve Item No. 10. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Levy, Zimmerman, Stoner Nays: Fadgen * * * * * Mr. Lunny read Item No. 13. 13. Second and Final Reading of ordinance of the City of Plantation pertaining to the subject of Retirement;

amending the definition of Police Officer to correct the statutory referenced; affording the Chief of Police an option of whether to join the Police Officer’s Retirement System consistent with statutory provisions; allowing conditional in service distributions to the Chief of Police; providing findings; providing a savings clause; and providing a retroactive effective date of July 1, 2014 therefor.

Mr. Lunny advised that there is a letter on the bench by separate delivery from Jeffrey Amrose to the Benefits Coordinator for the Plantation Pension Office. This letter was dated July 22, 2014. He was informed by Human Resources that the Trustees of the Police Officer’s Retirement System have not met to review this letter and it is a requirement before this ordinance becomes effective that the Trustees meet and determine that there is in fact no actuarial impact, which is what Mr. Amrose has stated. This ordinance is designed to provide for a very limited in service distribution and it is necessary for the Police Officer’s Retirement Systems Board of Trustees to consider it before it is adopted. He requested that the hearing be opened and that the matter be deferred to August 13, 2014 so we do not have to re-advertise but it will allow the Board to do its work. Motion by Councilmember Fadgen, seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman, to DEFER Item No. 13 until August 13, 2014. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Levy, Zimmerman, Fadgen, Stoner Nays: None * * * * * ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Mr. Lunny read Item No. 23. Resolution No. 11914 23. RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE SUBJECT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT; AUTHORIZING A

REDUCTION OF THE $250,000 CASH BOND POSTED BY US CAPITAL/FASHION MALL, LLC TO THE MAINTENANCE SUM OF $25,000 PURSUANT TO THE AFORESAID CASH BOND’S TERMS SO AS TO ASSURE COMPLETION OF ONGOING MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS AS PROVIDED THEREIN AND IN THAT CERTAIN FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT REGARDING CODE CITATIONS DATED OCTOBER 18, 2013 AS AMENDED; PROVIDING RECITALS; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREFOR.


A Memorandum dated May 5, 2014, to Mayor and Members of the City Council, from Donald J. Lunny, Jr., City Attorney, follows:

Summary US Capital Fashion Mall, LLC and Plantation entered into a Forbearance Agreement regarding Certain Code Citations which were designed to allow the Mall owner to conduct interim improvements for community appearance purposes to the development while the overall project was seeking approval. The interim cosmetic improvements had to be completed to the City’s satisfaction by April 30, 2014. The Council required a $250,000 Cash Bond to assure the completion of the improvements to the City’s satisfaction. Once the improvements are completed to the City’s satisfaction, the Bond may be reduced to a maintenance sum of $25,000 for any additional pressure cleaning maintenance requirements required by the Council through September 30, 2016. The Council is being asked to accept the work as sufficient and authorize the Bond Reduction.

1. The Documents Attached as Composite Exhibit “1”, please find:

A. A Forbearance Agreement regarding Certain Code Citations. B. A First Amendment to Forbearance Agreement regarding Certain Code Citations; and C. A $250,000 Cash Bond.

2. The Work

Documents 1A and 1B above require certain work to be completed within certain timeframes. The work is generally described as:

1. Pressure cleaning and painting for interim community appearance purposes of:

a. The garage; b. The former Lord and Taylor building; c. Macys (pressure cleaning only).

2. Installation of landscaping. 3. Re-doing paving markings in certain portions of the parking and drive areas.

The above work was required to be fully completed by April 30, 2014 (except for pavement markings which was completed under a January 31, 2014 deadline). Attached as Composite Exhibit “2”, please find various e-mail to the Mayor from various City personnel which evidence Staff’s apparent satisfaction with the performance of the work called for in the Composite Exhibit 1 “A” documents.


3. The Cash Bond Pursuant to the City Council’s instruction, the Cash Bond may be reduced once the City determines that the improvement items and work have been satisfactorily performed. Normally, this would be a Staff determination and item. However, given the fact that the Building’s maintenance has been an issue for years, that the Building is of significant public interest and that the City Council required a Bond significantly higher than the amount recommended by he Administration, Staff desires the Council to have an opportunity to determine for the City whether the corrective work is acceptable and whether the exterior of the buildings are sufficiently cleaned and painted (or sufficiently cleaned as applicable for Macy’s).

4. Recommendation Accordingly, Staff is recommending that the entire principal amount of the Cash Bond be released except for $25,000 which shall be held for ongoing pressure cleaning and maintenance as may be required through September 30, 2016. If the Council is satisfied, attached is a Resolution authorizing the reduction of the Bond to the maintenance sum. If the Council is not satisfied with any item in particular in the Contract, Staff will notify the Mall owner and allow the Mall owner time to correct the deficiency. If not corrected, the City will draw on the Bond in an amount needed to complete such work and shall return the item to the City Council in the future for direction. This item is now ready to be considered as a Consent Agenda Item.

__________ Mr. Lunny advised that staff recommends that it believes the Fashion Mall met the measure of the agreement. Administration was reluctant to reduce the Bond given the fact that the Council increased the Bond beyond what Administration was initially recommending. It was also felt that because of the signature aspect of the project in our community, that the Council should decide whether it feels that the maintenance work and community appearance work that has taken place is satisfactory. While City staff believes that they have complied, Administration wanted to have the Council’s review. Mayor Bendekovic commented that when it was brought forward Council designated a certain amount. She stated that the only thing there is the construction; dumpsters, etc. She mentioned that the painting of the garage and everything is such an improvement; it does not look like a derelict area. She appreciates their efforts and giving it an aesthetically pleasing shopping area. She believes they are in compliance. Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman, seconded by Councilmember Levy, to approve Resolution No. 11914 as presented. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Levy, Zimmerman, Fadgen, Stoner Nays: None * * * * *


Mr. Lunny read Item No. 24. 24. DESIGN PRESENTATION FOR THE PLANTATION COMMUNITY CENTER. A Memorandum dated July 17, 2014, to Diane Veltri Bendekovic, Mayor, and the Members of City Council, from Danny Ezzeddine, AIA, Director of Design, Landscape & Construction Management, follows: Pursuant to direction from Council in its meeting on March 12, 2014, I am requesting to place the design presentation for the Plantation Community Center to Council by Synalovski, Romanik, Saye, architects, as an administrative item. Should you have any questions, please contact me.

__________ Danny Ezzeddine, Director of Design, Landscape and Construction Management, was present. About a month and a half ago they came to Council with a presentation for the Community Center and received some feedback. The architect was directed to go ahead and work on the redesign to comply with the comments from Council. Merrill Romanik, with Synalovski, Romanik, Saye, was present. Ms. Romanik provided a brief presentation and made the following comments:

• The library and the Historical Museum are at the end of the site. They are residential in nature because of the brick.

• The surrounding area is the playground area.

• They purposefully did not place the building running east/west; they are embracing the park so that it is facing the parking elements so it is not a separate structure and can engage the community amenity.

• The meeting spaces and the spaces when the children are in camp will face the park so there will be a constant reminder of the setting instead of looking at the property line to the north.

• The original design was positioned to the northwest and engaging the existing park structures. There are also plans for a future outdoor fitness station.

• The original floor plan still has a porte-cochere, restroom facilities, office personnel, storage area, a game room, an aerobics and cardio room similar to what is at the Jim Ward Community Center, and three meeting spaces. The meeting spaces and the cardio room have folding walls so when there is a larger event they can be opened and used as large rooms or broken down into smaller rooms. In addition, there is a catering kitchen; however, there will be no cooking on site.

• The building was positioned so it continually embraces the building and the shape has been reformatted in the shape of a more traditional layout.

• Overall it is still the same; all the pieces are there; it is a little more of a linear form and more straight forward and clear in diagram.

• There is a covered porte-cochere; there is a lobby; there is a receptionist that meets customers; there is administrative presence; restroom facilities; three meeting spaces and a cardio vascular room, which can be opened into a large space if needed; there is a game room and the catering kitchen along with storage and utility type spaces.

• They introduced more woodwork to the facility, which was requested. They also introduced a little more natural light on the front side.


• The original facility had a playful roofline. The meeting rooms will be all glass so visitors can see out and engage the park at any given time. More brick was brought in and there is some stucco; all of the materials will be easily maintainable.

• The building is a little smaller than the building previously presented due to conversations about budget at the last meeting.

• A few more windows were introduced. Mayor Bendekovic feels this is very compatible with the ambiance of the entire corridor. She likes the fact that brick was added. She questioned if the roof is tile or shingle and if there is some way to add another peak in the front where the flags are. Ms. Romanik advised that the roof is tile. She stated that another peak can be added in the front. In response to Mayor Bendekovic, Ms. Romanik indicated that the kitchen doors open to the front instead of to the main hall was because sometimes when kitchen doors are opened there are a lot of noises and things going on. By positioning the doors this way it would give a little buffer so the sounds of the kitchen will not spill into the hallway. Mayor Bendekovic questioned if there is another door next to the men’s room. Ms. Romanik stated that is another door so deliveries can be brought in without blocking an entrance. The thought was to create an open lawn space so if there is an outdoor service for events, etc. Mayor Bendekovic noticed that brick was put on the sign where it says “Plantation Community Center”. She questioned if there was some way to put brick at the top. If there are plants and foliage on the bottom it will hide some of the brick. Ms. Romanik advised that would be possible. Mayor Bendekovic indicated that the Plantation Women’s Club already stated that they are going to put in a fountain. She noted that this plan brings in a lot more brick and she appreciates the fact that there are a lot of windows. Councilmember Stoner stated that she would prefer to see the front and back flipped; the back is more welcoming. She does not find that there are enough dimensions on the front. When you say let in sun she hears heat, air conditioner and dollars. She would like to see the design of the rear roof similarly in the front as well. Ms. Romanik advised that there is a ten-foot dimension in the rear so there is quite a big overhang but that is also due to its location. Councilmember Stoner did not know if the back could remain the same and still give it that roof dimension in the front. She questioned if it is going to be a flat tile or an S tile. She also questioned if it will be stucco or a scored stucco. Ms. Romanik stated that it would be concrete and a scored stucco. Councilmember Zimmerman commented that it is better maintenance.


Councilmember Stoner reiterated that she would prefer the back as the front. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that the dormers might help; it will help break it up. Ms. Romanik stated that one side has windows where the other side may not but perhaps they can find something that gestures that a window would be there. Councilmember Stoner questioned that since this park has a little rustic feel whether they would go for more of a Chicago type brick. Ms. Romanik replied that they would go for more a Chicago type brick. Councilmember Fadgen questioned the height of the roof. Ms. Romanik advised that the top of the column is 14 feet and then it tapers from there up to about 25 or 26 feet. It is a little softer along the back because those are smaller in form. She would like to lower the porte-cochere but they have to fit a fire truck through there. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he liked the other building but this is comfortable. He believes that the other building gave a little more architectural style. He mentioned the floor plan and suggested that we consider making the meeting rooms longer and rectangular instead of square so when they are opened up there might be a better room. Currently we have square rooms and if they are opened up it is a very long space to get someone to sit at a stage or platform. Councilmember Stoner questioned the parking. Ms. Romanik indicated that they will use as much of the parking field that is currently there. Some of the parking will be reconfigured to add the porte-cochere; therefore, a few spaces will be lost. The walkway that goes into the roundabout will also be repaired. Their goal is to work with the parking that is there. Councilmember Stoner questioned if the parking is sufficient. Mr. Ezzeddine advised that there was enough parking with the original building and if there is an overflow visitors can park in the green space area. The occupant load of the building was not changed too much; therefore, there is enough parking. There will be compacted grass; he does not want to put asphalt. It will be like what was done at the Jim Ward Community Center; that grass has not had to be replaced in ten years. Councilmember Zimmerman agrees with more brick on the front sign but he cautioned capping it with brick. He likes the massing of what is being done. The fountain and the Women’s Club were mentioned and he encouraged Ms. Romanik to work with those ladies. Rather than just a purchase piece that sticks in the ground maybe there is an architectural element or something. Mayor Bendekovic stated that from what she understands, it will be the same as the one at Deicke Auditorium. Councilmember Zimmerman does not want it to look like something that is just stuck there. His last concern is the requirement for green design in our buildings. We are mandated to do something and he questioned what is being done and how we are complying with that.


Ms. Romanik advised that they double checked the code and the Florida State Statue says, “We need to comply with ratings; not necessarily register or get certified”. They already have several certified gold and silver buildings so they are familiar with the process. All of those concepts and ideas will make their way to this building. When there is an opportunity to make a decision it will be done. They will enter as many LEED strategies into this as possible. Councilmember Zimmerman agreed and stated that there is no reason to go LEED. They provide three different ways to meet those criteria, whether it is green globes or something else, and you do not have to get it certified. He just wants something on file in case someone questions if the City of Plantation is complying with the Statute. Councilmember Stoner suggested providing us with a letter. Councilmember Fadgen commented that as a result of more windows there is a conflict of heat coming in. Whenever the rooms are occupied the lights are on. He questioned if there is a way to meter it in some way in order to balance the natural light. Councilmember Stoner indicated that there are switches; once you leave the room the lights go off. Ms. Romanik stated that the Building code requires occupancy sensors so when no one is in the room the lights are off. By introducing the windows, the lights will not get turned on as much during the day. Sensors can also be introduced for the air conditioning. Councilmember Stoner noted that glazing is going to be a big issue. Ms. Romanik advised that glass is not just glass anymore; it is not like a tinted car. These windows all have built in shade co-efficients. Drastic improvements have been made in how the windows are designed to make sure they are not bigger than what is needed. In response to Mayor Bendekovic, Ms. Romanik indicated that they will move the drawings along very quickly and it should take about four months to complete the plans. By the year end their plan is to have drawings completed and bidding starting to go. They are going to attempt to start construction in January. Mr. Ezzeddine stated that he is planning to finish the construction document by November if we start immediately. He usually puts it into the Building Department for permitting and then bids it out. The Building Department, Fire and other departments will take about 30 days max and then another 30 days by regulation he has to bid it. Councilmember Stoner commented that is not what we discussed. We talked about getting specific estimates based on their plans before putting it out to bid. Mr. Ezzeddine advised that architects do not give the detail estimates of construction. Councilmember Stoner reiterated that is what Council requested before we proceed. Once the plans are finished she thinks Council needs to see another round before it goes out. Mr. Ezzeddine stated that once the construction document is finished an updated estimate will be provided.


Shannon Estenoz, resident, was present. If the City is going to replace the Kennedy Recreational Center it must not upsize this facility in the process because compatibility with the neighborhood needs to be the number one criteria in the decision making process. She expressed concern with noise, traffic, speeding and security. Councilmember Stoner questioned the square footage of the demolished building and the proposed building. She also mentioned a line item for security. Mr. Ezzeddine indicated that it was approximately 10,800 square feet and this one is 10,588 square feet. He noted that security cameras will be installed. Police Chief Harrison advised then when the water park opened there was an increase of traffic and vehicle burglaries. Signs were posted that said, “Please do not leave valuables in your car”. As a result of the burglaries a camera was installed, which solved the problem. Mayor Bendekovic commented that we had a charrette, which received very good attendance. This is a combination of the charrette; they wanted the game rooms but the one thing they did not want was the basketball courts, which are not being put in. We were listening to the neighborhood and she still has all of that information, which is prioritized. This building reflects what that charrette and the neighbors wanted. Councilmember Stoner questioned what the hours were and what the projected hours are. Ms. Kent indicated that the standard time is 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., six days a week, just like Plantation Central Park, Jim Ward Community Center, and Volunteer Park; however, Volunteer Park opens for rentals when necessary. In response to Councilmember Stoner, Ms. Kent stated that the tennis courts are supposed to go off by 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Stoner mentioned that 9:00 p.m. is all right in the summer when it is light longer but perhaps we should reconsider the hours when the time changes. She stated that the tram is no longer going to go by there so no one will be dropped off in that area later in the evening. She mentioned the speed bumps and questioned how feasible they are for emergency vehicles. Deputy Chief Don Todd, Plantation Fire Department, was present. He stated that speed bumps are not allowed in the City of Plantation because of the emergency vehicles. He believes West Tropical Way is doing an experiment; they have had one on East Tropical Way and West Tropical Way for the last couple of years. Mr. Butler explained that bumps are the very abrupt narrowly constructed higher elevation devices, which have recently been put in at Plantation Woods. The devices used in the program are actually called speed cushions. They were selected after some actual testing with the Fire Department years ago to find something that would be less intrusive on their needs but still provide a mechanism we could use if we needed to on a local road that was not a primary response route. The speed cushions were selected; we do not do bumps, humps, or tables. Councilmember Stoner questioned if speed cushions could be done along Palm. Mr. Butler requested that Council carefully understand that it is a public road. We have a program that a neighborhood is supposed to go through to qualify for this.


Councilmember Stoner stated that this is not an organized HOA community. She thinks there is some validity to their concerns. Mr. Butler indicated that part of the program requires the Department to collect some data to validate the perceptions heard; sometimes they are validated and sometimes they are not. That is one way to reaffirm what we are hearing. Councilmember Stoner noted that we feasibly need to reaffirm that after it is built to include the traffic that is generated by the new building versus doing it before when there might not be as much traffic. Mr. Butler overheard residents stating that there is a concern today regarding speeding. If that is something you would like to recognize then staff can talk with this resident and others about this program and perhaps we can collect this data now. He would like an opportunity to educate the residents on the program that might be a better way to approach this. Daniella Conner, resident, was present. She agrees with her neighbor. They are concerned with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The speed cushions were one of the items they wanted to address. They would like to see the community involved in the speeding issue as well as in the Community Center issue. She disagrees with Councilmember Zimmerman and Mayor Bendekovic; the plan does not look consistent to the design of the library or Deicke Auditorium; they are completely covered in brick. She would like to see some changes made She thinks there should be more transparency about what is happening within the community. Councilmember Stoner advised that there was a charrette and all of the people were very specific with their input. There was a facilitator working with the groups from wifi to no basketball to how they wanted the meeting rooms and exercise room and the type of lighting at the last charrette. From day one the City was very emphatic about involving the community in the process. Mayor Bendekovic stated that notices were sent out on the charrette and everyone was invited; there were close to ten tables. In response to Mayor Bendekovic, Ms. Conner commented that she moved in happily without a Community Center and would live there more happily without it. Councilmember Levy stated that two years ago the Council Chambers was filled with members of the community at which time they gave their input. The previous Council made a promise to the residents that if the old Community Center got torn down that we would start building a new the next day because that is what they wanted. This is the same footprint as the old one, just a little more compact. The architecture of the old one had a fluted roof. We are trying to meet the demands of the people and the community that used that facility, primarily organizations and youth and others and older people that want exercise rooms, etc., while keeping the tranquility for the neighborhood. Everything said is extremely valid; he did not realize about the traffic control. We should look at that as well as the ramifications of this. Jennifer Rosinsky (sic), resident, was present. When she looks at this proposed design it does not look like the old Community Center; it does not look like our historic neighborhood. If you look at the library and the museum it is brick; it is historic and it fits; this does not. There are four long roads going onto Cypress Road and those are the roads where traffic is going to come in off of Broward Boulevard. Those roads are very similar to the roads in Plantation Acres, which have speed humps. Her concern is traffic and she believes that some sort of traffic study needs to be done. She also expressed concern with events and questioned where all of


the cars would park. This new Community Center is going to be marketed and people are going to be encouraged to use it a lot more. She requested that another forum be held now that there is more specific information. There are new people who have moved in that have not been involved in this process and the people who moved in did so without a Community Center. Councilmember Stoner questioned what Ms. Rosinsky expects us to change at this stage. The community was included in every way. Unfortunately, you are new to that area and did not participate. Community input was received community and we proceeded with the architecture and the design. We cannot back track now to incorporate new ideas. In response to Councilmember Levy’s comment, Councilmember Stoner indicated that this Council did not promise the Community Center; he promised. She indicated that she did not approve it and neither did Councilmember Moody. She stated that Councilmember Levy made a verbal promise to the community; there was no motion; no formality. Councilmember Levy clarified that he said it was a previous Council he was on. He though everyone voted to do this. Councilmember Stoner advised that we did not all vote to take it down; we voted to proceed. Councilmember Levy emphasized that his motion was because his colleagues would not go for any other kind of motion and it was to at least to correct it and get something there for the community. Mayor Bendekovic suggested that we move forward. She disagreed with Ms. Rosinsky because of the fact that Volunteer Park, Deicke Auditorium, the North Acres Park, and the Multicultural Park are in the middle of neighborhoods. She understands the traffic concerns but as far as us being transparent, this Council and Administration have been very transparent. Richard Grosso, resident, was present. He questioned whether the data and analysis demonstrates the need for a Community Center; Deicke Auditorium is down the street. He thinks we are either going to spend a lot of money that does not need to be spent or we are proposing to put in a major facility that is out of scale with this particular neighborhood. This is the oldest neighborhood in the City; it is a historic neighborhood. At the last meeting he heard that this was needed to be a catalyst for investment in this neighborhood. We are not asking you to go back to the drawing board; we are asking you to meet the responsibility to protect this neighborhood and not make a recreation facility for all of East Plantation on the backs of this neighborhood and particularly this street. We are not so far along that tweaks cannot be made; downscaling cannot be done; architecture and aesthetics cannot be done so that it looks like the library and the museum; not kind of like it. When he hears overflow parking and all of the plans it does not sound at all consistent with this neighborhood. We also have the experience with Plantation Woods and what that did to foot traffic and vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. That is a real experience that gives us very great concerns for the scale of the activity and the size that is planned. He requested to at least be able to meet with staff and consultants as this moves to a final design. There is a responsibility to be a very good neighbor and that is what they are asking. Councilmember Stoner reiterated that the proposed new facility is 300 square feet less than the prior one. With regard to grand events, there was a Halloween festival every year and there was some overflow parking that went into the grass; it is not a weekend event every single week. She thinks that the Parks and Recreation Department and City Administration try to have different events at different parks for obvious reasons. There is nothing that says the big events are going to go to the Community Center versus anywhere else. People like new buildings and like to see what is available. Prior to the Community Center being taken down, even though there is Deicke Auditorium, both buildings were utilized on a regular basis by a multitude of people.


Mayor Bendekovic advised that quite a few people had to be relocated. Some of the individuals were very upset; there were daily classes and some of the Homeowner’s Associations met there on a monthly basis. These individuals would like to return to that because it is centrally located. She believes that weddings will take place at Deicke Auditorium because there is a kitchen and the ambiance is completely different than the Community Center. Councilmember Stoner mentioned that we lost the Kid’s Summer Camp program at the Community Center. Mayor Bendekovic stated that the Halloween event has been moved to Volunteer Park because it became such a well received event. She believes that will be the permanent home for that event. Councilmember Stoner indicated that these residents may possibly wish to speak with Mr. Butler regarding the speed cushions. Mayor Bendekovic suggested that they should also speak with the Police regarding traffic, which would also go with the safety issue. She stated that they would also have the stats for burglaries in that area. She mentioned the Crime Watch meeting held by Officer Wilkins at Deicke Auditorium. Even though they do not have an organized Homeowner’s Association, notices were sent out and everyone showed up. Another one of those can be held by the Police Department. Mr. Grosso stated that he would be happy to be point person for their group so staff does not have to deal with a lot of other people. When the plan is approved is the incentive to maximize its use. Things to be done for our protection such as traffic calming, signage, etc., and whether there is a budget to take care of this, puts the residents in a difficult position. Councilmember Stoner believes that the community has shown itself on an overall basis to be very concerned with residents’ safety. She would imagine that signs could be found somewhere; perhaps that should be added as part of the construction budget. Mayor Bendekovic mentioned that there are always signs; that is minimal because Public Works does that for us in-house. She requested that Mr. Grosso leave his name with our City Clerk so the Police Department can meet with him. She reiterated that another Crime Watch meeting could be held at Deicke Auditorium if that is desired. Mr. Grosso requested that the residents not be lead to the process of having to organize a Crime Watch. He also requested that the residents not be put in a position where they have to rely on the maybe of getting a traffic calming device approved in the future. If this project moves forward they would ask that traffic calming devices absolutely be installed. Councilmember Fadgen believes the comments made by the community members are valuable. He thinks the building is the right size. It was utilized very heavily previously and he thinks it will be again. Hopefully that utilization will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. With regard to the bricks, the face is very heavy on bricks. Once the plant material grows the bottom will not be seen. He suggested that there be an architectural change on the wood looking panels but that the pillars are left as is. He would prefer brick or stucco brick. Perhaps it does not fit quite right and more brick would be better at a higher level. Mr. Ezzeddine advised that he would like to proceed with the design development because that is how the contract is structured.


Councilmember Levy questioned why more brick was not added and why there was not more of a design compatible with the other buildings as the community members requested. Ms. Romanik indicated that much more brick was introduced than previously. Not as much was added in the front because she wanted to add a few more windows to add natural light to the space; however, that can be readdressed. Councilmember Zimmerman commented that there is a balance between brick and cost. Councilmember Levy stated that certain choices were made. He questioned why the face was the way it was and why it was not incorporated closer to the other buildings and the feel of the neighborhood. This is nice but it did not go far enough. He is not saying colonial but he is suggesting that we have a colonial look to some of our brick buildings including this one, which is more Plantation style. The brick entranceways to our communities also give that impression. He thought this was communicated at the last meeting. He requested that we revisit this and see if something a little more appropriate can be done for the neighborhood. Ms. Romanik commented that they did take to heart the comments that were previously made. The building is going to be a substantial structure and that is why they introduced some stucco because from a maintenance standpoint this building will be maintained and attractive to the City for a long time. Brick will do that but it is more expensive and they are trying to strike a balance. They tried to soften the building so it is more respectful to the residential community and to the neighborhood quality both in height and scale. Mr. Ezzeddine indicated that they will bring the brick all the way up. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that in looking at it as a design, he thinks it will be too much brick for the entire building; he thinks it will overwhelm the building. Mr. Ezzeddine agreed with Councilmember Zimmerman. If you look at the balance and articulation of the element of the building there is a soft vocabulary between the roof slate, similar to the library and the museum. The stucco below it softens it a little and then the brick is introduced. If we do what we did at the Jim Ward Community Center and bring the brick all the way to the roof line it will be a complete different image. You will not see the same building, the same articulation and the same vocabulary being used. The vocabulary used in this building will disappear when you introduce the brick. Councilmember Zimmerman mentioned that Councilmember Stoner said something about considering brick on the columns. He is not saying that there cannot be more brick; he is saying he does not think the whole thing as a complete brick box is giving a feel to the building. These are higher walls; they are not huge but they are higher than the standard single story home. There are two-story homes in Plantation Acres that are all stucco; a lot of the homes in the community are tall brick. He thinks this and the arches and some of the dormers are being brought back. The Kennedy Center had zero brick on it. There are some elements that do reflect the Kennedy Center. Councilmember Stoner reiterated that she really likes the back with a little more of an overhang. They are two different looks. She questioned whether a little more of the back could be incorporated to the front bringing in the more traditional elements. Councilmember Levy commented that they are saying they would like something a little more compatible with the community and with the other buildings in the area; give us what is classic and classy.


Councilmember Stoner agreed but because of Plantation Woods she almost wants a little cabin in the woods. If you go all brick it is all formal and there is no casual feel to the woods. Ms. Romanik indicated that by creating the colonnade in the back, which she thinks was a connection piece to what was there, allowed them to bring the scale down so it feels more familiar and softer. If everything became brick it would not be perceivable as an element because you need a certain amount of contrast to be able to see that on the building. Perhaps they have done a better job in striking the balance in the back than in the front. Councilmember Zimmerman mentioned the design and stated that with Councilmember Stoner’s comment about the back to the front, if we took that in front of some of these windows and brought it down to a residential level of a porch in the front it would give more shading on the windows and it might be more eight-foot nine-foot residential scale porch. There still has to be a drop off and the front entry will still be a little larger but maybe the sides would come down more. Councilmember Stoner suggested bringing the overhang out about four feet instead of ten feet. She noted that the design will be brought back. * * * * * LEGISLATIVE ITEMS Mr. Lunny read Item No. 25. 25. REQUEST TO DEFER TO AUGUST 13, 2014 THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PLANTATION, FLORIDA PERTAINING TO THE SUBJECT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT; AMENDING THE CITY’S CODE OF ORDINANCES AS SAME PERTAINS TO COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS; UPDATING THE CITY’S REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF FEDERAL AND STATE PRE-EMPTIVE LAW; ESTABLISHING SUBSTANTIATIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE LOCATION, HEIGHT, AND PLACEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY; ESTABLISHING AESTHETIC AND SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS TO INSTALL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; ESTABLISHING SUBSTANTIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE LOCATION, HEIGHT AND PLACEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS ON TOWERS AND BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND OTHER FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY; ESTABLISHING AESTHETIC AND SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR SUCH COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS TO INSTALL COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS; CREATING EXPEDITED REVIEW PROCEDURES THAT ENCOURAGE COLLOCATION CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW; ESTABLISHING SUBSTANTIVE REGULATIONS GOVERNING INSTALLATION OF ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT POLES (I.E. STRUCTURES) IN MUNICIPAL AND NON MUNICIPAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVIEW CRITERIA FOR APPLICATIONS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE; REPEALING MISCELLANEOUS CODE REGULATIONS IN CONFLICT WITH THE FOREGOING; ESTABLISHING OTHER MISCELLANEOUS IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS THEREFOR; REVISING REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO ROD AND SPIKE AND DISH ANTENNAS; ESTABLISHING “ZONING IN PROGRESS” TO THAT ANY APPLICATIONS RECEIVED WHILE THE CITY IS EVALUATING THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL BE SUBJECT TO SAME;


PROVIDING FINDINGS; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREFOR.

A Memorandum dated July 17, 2014, to Mayor and Members of the City Council, from Donald J. Lunny, Jr., City Attorney, follows: RE: Staff request to defer First Reading of Telecommunications Ordinance to August 13, 2014. As the Council may recall, the Telecommunication Ordinance’s consideration at First Reading during the Council meeting of June 11, 2014 was deferred until the Council meeting of July 23, 2014, with the thought that Staff would be able to conduct an Industry Group session during the week of June 16, 2014. However, the majority of the participants were not available during that week and unfortunately, the Industry Group session was not able to be held until June 24, 2014. Even on such date, not all previously participating members could attend. Some continuing comments are being considered by Staff for revisions. Other comments; however, (especially those that relate to the City Council’s previous policy determinations), are not being considered for potential revisions. Staff would request that the First Reading of this Ordinance be deferred to August 13, 2014. The Moratorium was extended to September 30, 2014.

__________ Mr. Lunny stated that the Industry Group meeting could not occur when it was originally thought it would occur and when it did occur, not everyone attended. Staff has continued to make some revisions and has requested this deferral not the Industry. Motion by Councilmember Levy, seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman, to DEFER Item No. 25 to August 13, 2014. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Levy, Zimmerman, Fadgen, Stoner Nays: None Mayor Bendekovic requested that when we do the First Reading lets not defer this again. She feels that all of those entities will never agree. What we have here is a group of individuals who are there to protect our City and not accommodate a certain entity. * * * * * QUASI-JUDICIAL CONSENT AGENDA - None. * * * * * ‘


QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEMS Mr. Lunny read Item No. 26. 26. CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN, ELEVATIONS, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN (PP13-0032) –

PLANTATION COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (FAMILY DOLLAR) LOCATED AT 700 SOUTH STATE ROAD 7.

REQUEST: Consideration of a site plan, elevations and landscape plan for two commercial buildings. WAIVER REQUESTS: 1. From: Section 13-41(a)(b)(c), which requires landscape pedestrian zones to extend the full width of

each façade which abuts a parking or vehicular use area; the minimum width of such landscape zone shall relate to the adjacent structure’s wall height.

To: General Retail Building A (8,320 square feet); 10’ required along the eastern façade – 0’ provided. General Auto Parts Sale Building B (7,200 square feet); 10’ required along the western façade – 0’ provided. From: One tree shall be installed in this zone for each 30 lineal feet, or fraction thereof, or façade width. To: General Retail Building A (8,320 square feet); Four trees required along the western lpz – two provided. Four trees required along the eastern façade - three provided. To: General Auto Parks Sale Building B (7,200 square feet); Three trees required along the western lpz – two provided. Three trees required along the eastern façade – zero provided. EXHIBITS TO BE INCLUDED: Planning and Zoning Division report; subject site map; site plan application; Planning and Zoning board meeting draft minutes June 3, 2014, Landscape minutes of January 28, 2014 and October 22, 2013. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED subject to staff comments (5/0; June 3, 2014). LANDSCAPE PLANNING REVIEW BOARD: APPROVED subject to staff comments (5/0; April 1, 2014). REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: NO OBJECTIONS to the project moving forward for further review (January 28, 2014). REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Reschedule for consideration at a future meeting (October 22, 2013). ANALYSIS: The subject site is approximately 1.98 acres in area, zoned SPI-2 (Hybrid Commercial), and currently developed with a one-story, 12,125-square-foot commercial building. The site is bound by office uses to the


north, motel use to the south, single family residential uses in the City of Fort Lauderdale to the east, and commercial uses across State Road 7 to the west. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct two buildings encompassing 8,320 square feet (Building A) and 7,200 square feet (Building B), respectively. The proposed use for Building A is general retail (possibly Family Dollar) and the proposed use for Building B is retail auto part sales (possibly O’Reilly Auto Parts). Separate ownership of the two parcels is being considered and will be subject to a unified control document. The proposed building architecture meets the Plantation Tropical design guidelines with beige tone wall finishes, terra-cotta colored brick veneer, and dark green metal seam roofing material and awnings. Fifty-two (52) parking spaces are required for the retail use and 54 parking spaces are provided. STAFF COMMENTS: PLANNING AND ZONING: Planning: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the Local Activity Center land use designation on the adopted

Future Land Use Map. Zoning: In General: 1. The proposed site plan separates the lot into two parcels. Neither property meets the standards for

stand-alone development. Each parcel must stand-alone and meet all acceptable code requirements for the district unless a unified control document is executed to review the parcel as a whole. The applicant was provided comments to correct the unified control document by the City Attorney in May 2014. The applicant has not responded to these comments as of July 15. The applicant is advised to address the unified control document as soon as possible so as not to cause a delay in permitting. If approved, the unified control document must be approved as to form by the City Attorney and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit.

2. The applicant has not indicated if both parcels will be developed at the same time. If the applicant chooses to phase the project at building permit submission, the applicant is required to submit a phasing plan for review and approval prior to Zoning approval of any permit on either site. The applicant is encouraged to meet with the Zoning staff now if phasing is desired.

3. Additional Trust Account (Cost Recovery) fees may be required for legal review. 4. Note: a. Retail sales of used auto parts are prohibited. b. No repair, maintenance, or servicing of any kind of any motor vehicle, whether such activity is

considered to be minor or otherwise, is permitted unless wholly confined within a building or structure designed for such activities.

Site Plan: 5. Update the Site Area Calculations for impervious and pervious area/open space to include removal of

the driveway connection. Elevations: 6. Indicate the color of the spandrel glass on the front elevations as light grey on the Key Notes. 7. The applicant shall indicate on the building plans where transparent glazing is provided on both

buildings.


8. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view by a parapet, masonry wall or other architectural feature of the building. Such enclosure shall be as high as or higher than the highest portion of the equipment or apparatus being screened. Based on the current submittal, the building parapet provides insufficient height to screen the rooftop equipment. Revise the parapet height or reduce the roof or equipment height. Revise all elevations for both buildings accordingly.

Lighting: 9. Delete the WME Series wall scone detail from the lighting plan. Indicate the size of the small and large

gooseneck fixture detail on the Key Notes. 10. The light fixtures shown on the building elevations are inconsistent with the fixture locations shown on

the lighting plan. Provide three light fixtures on the south side of Building B and three fixtures on the north side of Building A. A minimum of one footcandle is required for all vehicular access areas. A pole fixture may be needed between the buildings.

11. Note: Building up-lighting designed to flood the building elevations in light area not permitted by the sign code.

Details: 12. Bollards are shown on the site plan. Staff recommends the bollard type in the front of the building be a

pedestrian friendly pedestal, possibly with a light fixture. Signage: 13. Signage is not part of this review. Revise Sheet C1 to delete proposed ground sign. Note: Wall signage

for both buildings will be limited to one sign with a maximum sign area of 60 square feet. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT: 1. The planting location of the coco plum hedge as shown in the submitted landscape plans fronting South

State Road 7 is inconsistent with the Gateway 7 landscape regulations. The proposed landscape plan (plantings) along State Road 7 must be consistent with Gateway 7, which requires all new landscaping to be located within the ten-foot landscape easement or right-of-way landscape buffer. Revise landscape plan accordingly.

2. The existing irrigation system owned and maintained by the City is to remain in place to enable the City to maintain and irrigate the future landscaped buffer zone within the easement. The applicant shall not alter or modify the landscaping or irrigation system in the Gateway 7 easement area. Note this comment on the irrigation plan.

TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: No objection. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 1. The truck wash and construction fence (if used) must be a minimum of 25 feet back from the edge of

pavement of State Road 7. 01-15-14: The truck wash is not 25 feet from the edge of pavement, please revise. 03-19-14: Comment not addressed. Please address the comment as requested or call Engineering to discuss. 05-08014: The response states that the “contractor” may put in a fence. The truck wash will need to be a minimum of 25 feet from the edge of pavement, contained within the property lines. Please revise both sheets. 07-09-14: Sheet ES1A shows the truck wash in the FDOT

ROW. Please relocate it to within the property line. 2. Please show the ADA ramp in line with the crosswalk, not at an angle. 01-15-14: The ramp at State

Road 7 is still at an angle, please revise. 03-19-14: This is located in FDOT ROW. Please provide FDOT approval of the ramp/crosswalk design. 05-08-14: Waiting for a copy of the approved FDOP


permit. 07-09-14: Applicant provided the FDOT permit number. A copy of the FDOT permit will

be required for City permit approval. 3. Please provide FDOT approval for proposed site plan. 01-15-14: Please provide specific approval from

FDOT for the proposed striping on State Road 7 as well as the driveway permit. The bike lane, as requested by FDOT is not shown on the plan. 03-19-14: Please provide with the City Council submission. 05-08-14: Waiting for a copy of the approved FDOT permit. 07-09-14: Applicant provided the FDOT permit number. A copy of the FDOT permit will be required for City permit approval.

Permit Comments

Note: A detailed review of civil drawings has not been performed at this time. If the site plan applicant is approved by City Council, a thorough engineering review will be performed at the time of application for construction permits.

1. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required and reviewed at time of permitting. An NOI

will be required. 2. A Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plan will be required. Please meet with Engineering to discuss. 3. Drainage calculations will need to be submitted, signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered

in the State of Florida. 4. Surface water management permit(s) through Broward County and/or SFWMD may be required and a

copy(s) provided to the Engineering Department at the time of permit review. 5. The applicant will be required to execute a developer agreement and post security for all engineering

and landscape related improvements at the time of permitting. DESIGN, LANDSCAPE & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT:

• All site plan and planting plan comments from the Department of Design, Landscape and Construction Management must be responded to in writing at time of permitting. When responding to staff comments, please bubble plan changes and specify the page number corrected in the written responses.

• The applicant will be required to execute a developer agreement and post security for all engineering and landscape related improvements at time of permitting.

• At time of permitting the irrigation plans along State Road 7 must be submitted to Public Works for verification of work to be done in the City easement.

• Tree/palm removal and relocation permits as well as mitigation fees must be obtained directly through the Design, Landscape & Construction Management Department at the time of permitting. Please contact Diana at 954-797-2248 directly to obtain required permits.

Site Plan: 1. Code requires landscape pedestrian zones (lpz) to extend the full width of each façade abutting a parking

or vehicular use area; the minimum width shall be half the height of the proposed or ten feet (paved areas in the lpz may not constitute more than five feet of the required lpz);

8,320ft2 Building: a. 10’ lpz is required along the eastern façade – 0’ has been provided. 7,200ft2 Building: a. 10’ lpz is required along the eastern façade – 0’ has been provided. Waivers required.


Planting Plan: 2. All proposed trees to be removed or relocated require ISA appraisals based on the Checked Trunk

Formula Method, Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000. All proposed trees and palms to be removed must be mitigated for as per City codes; tree mitigation will be above and beyond code required trees on the property. City staff will verify all trees and palms proposed “to be removed or relocated”. Staff is working with the applicant on this matter.

3. Performance bonds are required on all trees to be relocated as per City codes. This will be required at time of permitting.

4. A minimum of one tree is required every 30 lineal foot, or fraction thereof, of façade width (3 palms = 1 tree): (Code required trees in planting islands do not count towards required trees throughout the landscape pedestrian zones)

8,320ft2 Building: a. Four trees required along the eastern lpz – three trees have been provided. b. Four trees required along the western lpz – three trees have been provided. 7,200ft2 Building: c. Four trees required along the eastern lpz – 0 trees have been provided. d. Four trees required along the western lpz – three trees have been provided. Staff has no objections to this waiver request. Waivers required; staff requests mitigation for code required trees that have been granted waivers. 5. Landscape plans must be signed and sealed by a FL certified Landscape Architect; plans submitted for

City Council have not been signed nor sealed as per City codes. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: No objection. FIRE DEPARTMENT: No objection with respect to the submitted site plan only. 1. The applicant is aware that conditions may arise upon review of all required permitting plans. POLICE DEPARTMENT: No further comments. UTILITIES: No objection. 1. Not supplied by Plantation Utilities. Contact Broward County for any Utility requirements. O.P.W.C.D: No comments. WASTE MANAGEMENT: No comments.

__________ Mr. Leeds explained that this is a site plan for two new buildings; one is proposed as a Dollar Store, which is considered retail; the other is an automobile parts store, which is also considered retail and permitted in the District. Both buildings proposed are currently occupied by the Christian Book Store, located on the east side of State Road 7, which is closed. Eric Juliano, civil engineer with Baumann Consulting, was present. He noted that Damien Leslie was supposed to be here on behalf of the applicant; he was the engineer of record on the project; however, he abruptly left their firm last week. Mr. Juliano is taking over this property as engineer of record. He stated that he has not had time to review this project and requested that this hearing be tabled until the August 13, 2014 meeting.


Mayor Bendekovic advised that we will not have a full Council at that meeting. This could go tonight, it depends on the Council. There is very little there and it is really an improvement to the area. Mr. Leeds indicated that they are in the process of updating their calendar; he does not know what is going to be on that date. Councilmember Zimmerman mentioned that he has a few concerns and would not mind the item being deferred. He has a business in that District; therefore, he is concerned about the corridor and the improvements that are being done. There have been some good improvements in that area that goes with a lot of the design guidelines and there is a property across the street that has office retail. There are porches, dormers, architectural elements that really help the building. He mentioned the Walgreens down the street. These two buildings are square boxes and it does not lead to what he believes the corridor is trying to develop. His concern is to get something a little more in flavor with the rest of the corridor. The Cross Access Agreement has not been agreed to yet; he does not know what has happened there but it is still pending. The Landscape Planning and Review Board had a lot of comments and based on this report he does not know if those comments have all been addressed in the revised site plan and if they are willing to meet all of the Landscape Planning and Review Board comments. It seems that there is no guarantee that we will get the second building. We could get one building and then be left with an open site on the other side or a vacant parcel. He has concerns about leaving something vacant. He wants some type of assurance or something that tells Council they are going to do this. Mr. Juliano thinks they may have addressed the first three things mentioned but in looking at the presentation he did not feel they were presenting it well enough. Councilmember Zimmerman reviewed the package and looked at the elevations and building design. There is brick and glass but it does not give the front façade and the look on the street side to what is starting to be developed along the corridor. Mr. Juliano stated that if this could be tabled they will come back with a better presentation. Councilmember Zimmerman commented that a little redesign would also be good. Councilmember Stoner mentioned the August 27, 2014 meeting. Mayor Bendekovic advised that the Pension Funds Actuary and Mr. Kaufman will be present at the August 27, 2014 meeting. Mr. Leeds indicated that there are a couple of items on the August 13, 2014 agenda. He noted that the large item is the Telecommunications, which will probably take most of the time. Mayor Bendekovic stated that they will put the Telecommunications at the end because the others will go much faster. Mr. Leeds indicated that they may be coming back to Council on August 13, 2014 because if there is going to be substantial changes to this plan it is going to be rerouted to all of the departments for staff review and that takes a month. Mr. Juliano questioned whether staff can facilitate the rescheduling of the meeting if they have to make a resubmittal or if they would have to come back.


Mr. Leeds advised that Mr. Juliano can send an email to him or to Ms. Slattery requesting another continuance. Councilmember Levy commented that if they come back with some architectural changes to the front, which gives the building a greater dimension with the nature of the entire neighborhood, and if it is not that much of a significant change he would like to facilitate our bureaucracy and paperwork in order to get it done within the two week period if it can be done; if not we will defer to August 27, 2014. Councilmember Stoner noted that it depends on when it is submitted. Mr. Leeds indicated that they will probably want to talk to him first and then they have to revise the plans. If they change the building footprint it may affect Engineering because Engineering has issues. It will certainly affect landscaping. He can send it to other departments and request an answer in 24 hours but he cannot guarantee it will be a week before August 13, 2014. Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman, seconded by Councilmember Levy, to DEFER to August 13, 2014 and if it is going to be continued again the applicant can send a request for additional deferral to a date certain to the Clerk. Motion carried on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Levy, Zimmerman, Fadgen, Stoner Nays: None * * * * * COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS Councilmember Fadgen mentioned that when the City Attorney was away he requested that a status of the legal cases and legal costs be provided. Mayor Bendekovic clarified that Councilmember Fadgen asked for the litigations. They listened to the tape and are getting Risk Management and Human Resources, which will be provided prior to the budget hearing. The information is being consolidated because they are going to provide the litigation, the result and the cost. * * * * * Councilmember Levy apologized to the public and to Councilmember Stoner for his outburst; it was not professional and not normally the way he does things. * * * * * Mayor Bendekovic indicated that Eugenie Bouchard in the Finals at Wimbledon trains with Nick Saviano in the City of Plantation and we were on National TV and received International coverage. We have asked that she attend a meeting so that a Proclamation can be presented to her. * * * * * PUBLIC REQUESTS OF THE COUNCIL CONCERING MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS – None. * * * * *


SEALED COMPETITIVE SOLICITATIONS – None. * * * * * WORKSHOPS – None. * * * * * Meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. * * * * * _________________________________ Councilmember Lynn Stoner, President City Council ATTEST: _____________________________________ Susan Slattery City Clerk RECORD ENTRY: I HEREBY CERTIFY that the Original of the foregoing signed Minutes was received by the Office of the City Clerk and entered into the Public Record this ______ day of ___________________, 2014.

________________________ Susan Slattery, City Clerk