Loading...
1985.12.18_TC_Minutes_SpecialTOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA Minutes of Meeting of Town Commission SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, December 18, 1985 1:0fD P.M. A Special Meeting of the Town Commission was called to order by Mayor Edward J. Sullivan in the Town Commission Chambers at Town Hall. Also present were Vice Mayor Mary Louise G. Blosser, and Commissioners John J. Basso, William A. Grier and Betty Jean Stewart. Also present were Town Attorney Thomas E. Sliney; Town Manager Hugh D. Williams; Town Building Official Bruce Sutherland; Town Clerk Mary Ann Mariano and various members of the general public. After the meeting was called to order, Mayor Sullivan noted the three items on the agenda being discussion of the Royal Highlands proposed Settlement Stipulation, discussion of the preliminary audit report, and a verbal report from the Town Manager regarding the provision of fire/rescue services in view of the upcoming public hearings by the Legislative Delegation to gain input into the next legislative session. Prior to the Royal Highlands discussion, Commissioner Stewart cited, for the information of the Town Commission, an article appearing in today's newspaper entitled "Pipe Break Sends Sewage into Ocean" noting that the pipe in question was one of Delray Beach's. Commissioner Stewart noted that this article would be placed on the Town's Bulletin Board for information. Commissioner Stewart also noted that she had received information that there was sand present in the Town's water pumps shich could be very destructive. Mayor Sullivan noted that a report had been distributed by Jack Lee, Utilities Director, this date, alluding to the fact that pumps 1 and 2 on the west side of Federal Highway should be dismantled for purpose of examination. Mayor Sullivan advised of the death of Robert Meyers, Vice Chairman of the Code Enforcement Board occurring earlier this day. The Town Commission directed that a letter of condolence be sent to his family. Mr. Lorenz Schmidt, Vice President of Teron International, then appeared before the Town Commission, distributing a compilation of the current Settlement Stipulations as drawn by Attorney Sliney and Attorney Moss, with no additional changes made. Mayor Sullivan noted that there were substantial differences in the Stipulation as originally submitted by Attorney Moss and the Stipula- tion as amended by Attorney Sliney. Attorney Sliney suggested that the meeting today be used to identify the points of disagreement be- tween the parties with a view toward resolving same in order to proceed with the drafting of a final document agreeable to both sides. . ~ :, Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Grier noted that prior to getting into the discussion re- garding the Stipulation itself, clarification was needed on the Planning Board's action of December 11, 1985, in which the Planning Board rescinded their previous approval of the project based upon an encroachment which was not shown on the site plan. Attorney Sliney noted that he was not at the Planning Board meeting in question, however, it was his understanding that a 15',~racroachment had been revealed since the time of the plans and the Planning Board felt that due to the encroachment they wanted to rescind their action. Attorney Sliney further noted that Attorney Moss, in submitting his first Stipulation, mentioned that there was a 15' encroachment at the south end of the property. It was noted that the drawings show a 15' easement. Attorney Sliney noted that the question arises as to whether this in fact is an easement or an encroachment, because it cannot be both, noting that a copy of the easements as recorded had been copied and distributed to the Town Commission. Attorney Sliney cited a 1975 easement at the south end of the property noting that the document was an Easement Rights Agreement with Ambassadors South. The Easement Rights Agreement does not specify the easement being 15', but seems to indicate an overlap with the adjoin- • ing property (Royal Highlands). It was noted that the easement in question was recorded and numbered ORB 2391 on Page 1417 in the County Clerk's Office, which represents a parking garage, which in fact sits 15' onto the Royal Highlands property. It was further noted that the easement was not in fact a permanent easement according to the Ease- ment Rights Agreement. Commissioner Basso noted that the 15' encroachment was included in the dimensions submitted and used by Tenon in the Royal Highlands plans, including a 2P!' seawall. Commissioner Grier noted that the residents of Ambassadors South have been aware of this encroachment for some time and were in the process of determining a course of action on this matter, which might be a claim of adverse possession on the property. Commissioner Stewart cited a 198 plan drawn by Mark Weiner of Peabody and Chiles which shows the south building moved to allow for a 50 foot right of way in view of the 15' encroachment. Commissioner Stewart further noted that if the buildings were constructed as planned, there would only be 5' between the buildings. Mr. Sutherland, Building Official, noted that the Planning Board approved what was represented on the plans submitted by Tenon, which did not show the 15' encroachment and felt that the plans were not representative of th actual site and therefore rescinded their prior approval. Mayor Sullivan noted that he had spoken with several Planning Board members who indicated that they might not have made the same determination that they had if they had known of the 15' encroachment. Mr. Schmidt contended that this 15' encroachment had been shown on earlier plans and surveys in the possession of the Town and the Planning Board should have known of it, also that the Planning Board's recommendation came after concerns Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 3 of 12 involving the aperture, dimensions and framework of the actual struc- ture and not set backs and therefore would have come to the same con- clusion if the 15' were shown on the final set of drawings submitted. Mr. Schmidt noted that his architects had drawn the plans on a parametrical dimension in which the 15' encroachment had not been marked off and the building had been drawn according to code which only talkes about set backs from property lines and not encroachments. Mr. Schmidt suggested that the south building be moved by 15' to the north decreasing the center aperture from 267' to 252'. Attorney Sliney noted that there was a valid contention that Ambassadors South might have acquired the 15' through adverse possession and therefore, the set backs should be measured from the point at the end of the en- croachment. With regard to the aperture, Vice Mayor Blosser noted that the "aperture" was in fact a two story parking facility, including a lobby and recreation deck. Commissioner Basso questioned whether the rights to the center ease- ment had been resolved. It was noted by Mr. Schmidt that regarding th suit brought by the Roys' , the court had determined that even though an easement through the center of th property existed, that such easement was a passage easement and that as long as Teron provided an access, the rights of the easement holder was not being taken away. Mr. Schmidt noted that the present plans call for an access through the center of the property to the right of the lobby. Problems of security of providing access through the center of the Teron property were discussed but not resolved. The Town Commission suggested that Teron provide an additional 8' easment at the north end of the property across from Bel Lido and have those involved in the center easement abandon their rights to same. It was the consensus of all parties that although presently the court had ruled in the Roy easement, no litigation could ever be considered final. Mr. Schmidt noted that the easement in question only affecteed approximately 6 families, but problems exited in locating all the parties in interest, noting that a quit claim deed was to have been executed to Drexel and never was. Mr. Schmidt further noted that he would provide security by way of computerized cards to be used for access through a gate. Mr. Schmidt did request that the 8' provided for such an easement at the north end of the property be provided from the already existing set back. Commissioner Grier expressed a concern regarding the identifi- cation of all those who might have a right to the easement in order to alleviate this problem. Commissioner Basso stated that in his opinion anyone who would try to bring a cause of action regarding such relocation would be unsuccessful inasmuch as a Judge would consider that access was being provided as well as a security measure for the residents of the buildings. Commissioner Stewart asked whether the Bel Lido access controlled by the Homeowners Association extended to those residents of Highland Beach Drive who pay dues into the Bel Lido Homeowners Association. Mr. Schmidt noted that the easement was U Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 • Page 4 of 12 specifically defined to the island. Commissioner Stewart noted that the fourplexes along AlA would be residents who would have to walk either north if such access was provided, or sough to gain access to the beach. Attorney Sliney noted that the problem of the easement arose when several of the property owners i.e. The Roys, did not sign off to tender a quit claim deed and now it may be that such owners were waiting to see whethr they could get a deal worked out monetarily with the new owners to extinguish the existing easement. Commissioner Stewart noted that in the Peabody and Chiles Agreement of 1980, there waas no center easement shown, this being the plan that the 1980 Stip- ulation was based on. Commissioner Basso then inquired as to whether there was a method by which Teron could acquire the rights to the easement should all the owners not be located. Attorney Sliney noted that a lawsuit could be instituted to acquire title requiring anyone with an interest in the easement to come forward for the prupose of eliminating such interest. Commissioner Basso noted that he was trying to avoid the possibility of anyone wuing the developer while under construction, which migh lead to the delay in construction as had occured in the past in Town. Answering Commissioner Stewart's question, Attorney Sliney stated that he did not think the easement would be recorded on the individual • deeds at Ambassadors South. Commissioner Stewart questioned who would be liable for any occurrences at the garage area of Ambassadors South. Attorney Sliney noted tha technically, both would, due to the fact that it would be Teron's property, with Ambassadors South holding an easement over it. Mr. Sutherland noted that the setback on the south property line would remain the same measuring from the encroachment if Teron moved the south building by 15' to the north, thereby reducing the aperture to 252'. The set back now would be 55' with the moving of the building. Commissioner Stewart stated that she would like to see the parking garage abandoned by Teron and given to Ambassadors South so that thee property line would not be an area of contention. Mr. Schmidt stated that he would persue the resolution of this matter, and would in fact be agreeable to making the deeding of the 15' to the Ambassadors South Homeowners Association a part of the final Stipulation, if there was not a problem with the underlying mortgage. Mr. Schmidt further clarified his remark by stating that this matter could be handled at th point of issueance of a Certificate of Occupany to the buildings. Attorney Sliney noted that Teron could have lost rights to the garage property through adverse possession anyway. In answering the Town Manager's question, Mr. Sutherland noted that with the movement of the building by 15', the set back requirements of the Town's code would be met under the angular formula provided • Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 5 of 12 • therein. The Vice Mayor noted that the high rise set back formula was confusing to her and suggested that it be reviewed for clarity. Mr. Schmidt then again reiterated his agreement to provide the 15' en- croachment to Ambassadors South at the time the buildings were C/0'd, and further, to provide an 8' passage easement at the north end of the site for Bel Lido residents hoping they would not utilize the center easement, while investigating any legal course necessary to extinguish the center easement. Mr. Schmidt requested the Town Commission to make a formal Motion to have Teron move the south building north by 15' with the effect of changing the aperture from 267' to 252', and allowing the passage easement on the north of the property line to be made a part of the set back. Mr. Schmidt noted that moving the south building will cause the loss of 8 parking spaces under cover and moved the north building would cause the los of an additional 4 spaces. Commissioner Stewart asked whethr th Planning Commission should again review the matter due to their recent action of withdrawing their approval of the project. It was the opinion of the Town Attorney that the matter was rightfully in the hands of the Town Commission and should not again be reviewed excetp for matters of information. It was further noted that the Planning Board was an adviwory Board and the final decision was in the hands of the Town Commission. Mr. Sutherland noted that the original plan had already been signed by the Planning Board and was a point of contention by them and needed clari- fication. Attorney Sliney noted that th dates used in the Stipulation which indicated approval by the Planning Board were dates at which time the plans had been approved by the Planning Board and should not cause any problem in wording. Attorney Sliney furthr noted that the final Stipulation would list all changes made subsequent to the Planning Board's approval which would also clarify the matter. Mr. Schmidt noted that the site plans would be drawn up to date based on all the final decisions and made a part of the final Stipulation for clarification. It was noted that the Planning Board had indicated their interest in reviewing the screening of the garage, however, as Commissioner Stewart pointed out, this would be a matter of aesthetics and in the purview of the Community Appearance Board rather than the Planning Board. Again, Mr. Schmidt requested that it might be appropriate procedurally for a Motion to be made on th site plan change of moving the building by 15'. It was the opinion of the Town Attorney and the consensus of the Town Commission that all the changes be taken up as a package with any Motions at this point being premature. Mr. Schmidt noted that the document he had presented at the beginning Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 6 of 12 of the meeting was just a compilation of the paragraphs which had been changed by the Town. The consensus was to allow Mr. Schmit to go through the areas where he felt problems existed using his format as a guide. Mr. Schmidt began by citing changes to Paragraph 6, noting that the Town had included the Community Appearance Board as being another decision point. Mr. Schmidt felt that the Town Commission was the only approval which was needed. Mr. Schmidt indicated that during the discussions, it was felt that Teron would go back to the CAB for information only to discuss the landscaping, colors, etc. Commissioner Stewart noted that the plans had changed subsequent to November 11, 1985 and did in fact have to be reviewed again by the CAB for their approval and signature. Mr. Schmidt stated that he did not have a problem going through the CAB, but only wanted clarification as to the mechanism to be used for the plan to be approved. Commissioner Grier stated that he did not remember there being any substantial changes in the landscaping. Commissioner Stewart pointed out the changes in the setbacks, the decorative grill, the garage closing, trees, entranceways and othr matters which needed review by the CAB, noting that Teron should have submitted this to the CAB by now. Mr. Schmidt contended that the way the document was written, it appeared to say that the CAB was the final approving body. This language will be reviewed. Also, Mr. Schmidt noted that further in the Stipulation there was a reference to the Planning Board with regard to approval of the screening of th garage which should be removed due to the discussions of earlier in this meeting. Attorney Sliney noted that he had put that particular provision in the Stipulation due to the fact that Mrs. Rome, Vice Chairman of the Planning Board indicated they they wanted an opportun- ity to review the matter on an informational basis, which Mr. Schmidt had earlier agreed with. It was noted that the return trip to the Planning Board would be a courtesy rather than a requirement. Paragraph 7A was then discussed, regarding the wording "vut for parapets and hip roofs not to exceed 141 feet". Mr. Schmidt asked for clarification of this phrase. Mr. Sutherland recommended that the entire phrase in question be eliminated. Commissioner Stewartfelt that the matter of the roof line should not be left open and should have a cap on it. Mr. Sutherland noted that an appropriate figure might be 158 or 159', allowing 20' to put up th elevator and hip roofs. Mr. Schmidt stated that he would accept a cap at the leval of the highest peak, whatever height that would be. Commissioner Stewart noted that the height of the hip roofs should not exceed the height of the elevator shafts, however, there are plans to place a hip roof on top of the elevator shaft. An exact dimension will be obtained from the architect and inserted into. the Stipulation. It was noted that the drawings were not specific enough and should be further clarified. Depending on what figure is given by the architect, this matter was Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 7 of 12 open for further discussion. Mr. Schmidt then cited Paragraph 8, specifically the sentence reading "The seawall shall have concrete facing with rocks at the base of the seawall sized and approved by the DNR". Mr. Schmidt noted that the objective of both the Town and Teron was than an attractive wall be built, even after the dune might be washed away, not creating a rusty wall. Mr. Schmidt agreed that when the dune washes away, there will not be a rusty sheet showing, however, he felt there were a number of other alternatives to be considered without using concrete facing. Mr. Schmidt stated that he was being forced to concrete cap the seawall with 3-4' of concrete on the face of the seawall, when in fact there were other alternatives that would make for an attractive sea- wall and provide protection against seeing a rusty wall. Mr. Schmidt contended that the Town was giving him no alternatives to alleviate a cosmetic problem, when he was agreeable to providing alternative methods to the Town to eliminate the problem. Also, Mr. Schmidt contended that rocks were only necessary when the sheet piling was not driven far enough into the cap rock to alleviate scouring action. Mr. Schmidt further stated that he has obtained coastal experts to draw the critria for a 100 year seawall, wherein the provision of rocks at the base would be unnecessary. Commissioner Stewart noted that she • had talked to Red Taylor of the DNR and a representative of Coastal Technologies who suggested the language, inasmuch as there was no criteria given for the construction of a 100 year seawall. It was noted that the criteria for a 100 year seawall does not exist at this time. Mr. Schmidt noted that his coastal expert would be designing and defining a 100 year seawall which will be presented to the Town's Building Department. The Building Official can then take whatever action necessary to achieve the Town's approval of the design of the seawall. Commissioner Stewart requested that the DNR also be requested to approve the design submitted. Vice Mayor Blosser noted the requirements under Section 35.13 of the Code, providing the necessary steps for approval of seawalls. Commissioner Stewart noted that this did not apply, inasmuch as this particular seawall was 1" west of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Mr. Schmidt noted that if the Town asks the DNR to approve the design of the 100 year seawall it will delay the matter, inasmuch as the state is in the process of promulgating legislation to define the construction criteria for a 100 year seawall, which might take the state up to two years to do under the new coastal act. Commissioner Grier noted that he did not feel the DNR's approval would be of any value, due to the fact that they did not have any regulations to follow in the approval at this time. Commissioner Grier stated that he would be more comfortable with the certification by an expert in the field. Mr. Schmidt noted that the engineers he had retained would first determine what the migration of the sand on the beach has been in the last 10 years and to do a forecast on potential erosion over the next period of time. Then a r~ U Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 8 of 12 mathmatical model of the seashore will be created into which 140 mph winds will be considered to which newly required wave crests in this area will be added. That force will be given to a structural engineer who will then design a seawall which will resist such force, both in terms of impact of the wave action and suction at the front of the seawall. Commissioner Stewart noted her concern that the engineers retained be in fact "experts" in the field. Mr. Schmidt noted that this entire matter was one of trust and stated that inasmuch as he had the long term liability of such matters, the experts retained would be well qualified. Commissioner Stewart noted that the County is in the process of hiring a coastal expert to assist the Palm Beach Countywide Beaches and Shores Council who will be reviewing matters such as this one, which will give the Town a second opinion on any proposal submitted by Teron on the proposed seawall. The verbage of this issue will be drawn by the Town Attorney. Mr. Schmidt then addressed Paragraph 9 of the Town's proposed Stipula- tion in relation to Teron's Paragraph 8, noting that the Town Attorney had removed all inference to the approvals governing over any physical changes in the site. Mr. Schmidt noted that Teron did not want the Agreement to change due to any changes in the site i.e. a storm creating further erosion, etc. Attorney Sliney noted that should a strom come through and change the physical nature of the property, . that does in fact make a difference in the plans as approved and should require re-submission to the Town. It was the full consensus of the Town Commissin that as long as Teron proceeded in a timely manner, particularly with regard to the seawall, this matter should not come up and the Town would not give up any of its rights should the physical status of the site change. Commissioner Stewart noted that due to the time of the year, this matter should not be a major concern and the provision should not be included in the Stipulation. The next area addressed by Mr. Schmidt was the time frames as noted in Paragraph 10. Mr. Schmidt stated that should the Town want to define a "no later than" date with regard to the securing of his permits as well as the substantial completion of construction, he had no problem as long as the Town was mindful of the fact that there may be delays not due to Teron. Commissioner Stewart noted that this could be expe- dited already by Teron's submission of plans to the CAB for review promptly. Mr. Schmidt was concerned about delays which could not be attributed to Teron, but to municipal or state agencies, and then being tied down to a specific date in the Stipulation. Commissioner Stewart pointed out that Mr. Schmidt had chosen the dates on this. Mr. Schmidt suggested that wording be added to the Stipulation that if there were to be a fixed calendar date, there should be a provision for potential delays beyond the control of Teron. Commissioner Stewart recommended a caveat that would protect both parties and re- quire Teron to appeal to the Town Commission as soon as any delay Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 9 of 12 which might change the time frame arises. Attorney Sliney noted that the Town was presently involved in litigation due to a circumstance such as this, but would work out very specific language to submit to the Town Commission for their further consideration. With regard to Paragraph 1~ also, Mr. Schmidt was concerned with the provision which reads "Teron shall also post a performance and completion bond in the amount of dollars". It was the consensus of the Town Commission that this could be handled by way of providing for penalties rather than a bond requirement. Vice Mayor Blosser noted that the Town had experienced difficulties between con- tractors and developers wherein the Town was caught in the middle with time frames not being met and some assurances were needed along these lines. Attorney Sliney will draft language for review by the Town Commission. Finally in Paragraph 10, Mr. Schmidt took exception to the last sentence which reads "Failure of Teron's performance will cause the subject property to be rezoned to an appropriate zoning classifica- tion". Mr. Schmidt requested clarification as to which "failure" the Town was talking about with regard to the project, and at what particular point in time. Attorney Sliney stated that it was his opinion that this particular language referred to performance under this particular paragraph, and in no way diminished the rights of • Teron. At the request of Commissiner Stewart, the Town Clerk read a portion of the transcript of the meeting of November 15, 1985, in which fixed dates had been cited. Mr. Schmidt was advised of the present problem with the Drexel property, noting that the Town needs assurances of performance and time frames. Commissioner Stewart noted that a mechanism can be povided that in cases of extraordinary circum- stances causing delay, Teron would be able to come to the Town at that time for relief, rather than waiting until the time has almost elapsed on the entire project to seek relief. Mr. Schmidt then addressed Paragraph 11 of the proposed Stipulation, as drawn by Attorney Sliney. Mr. Schmidt noted his concerns about the same date question and flexibility of the date, noting that the concrete facing question on the seawall also is addressed in this paragraph. Mr. Schmidt suggested that both permits be issued no later than 21 days after Teron submits its seawall and partial foundation plans, however, has no problem with whatever dates the Town chooses to use within a reasonable time so as not to effect the building permit process. U Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 10 of 12 ~J With regard to Paragraph 12 of the Sliney Stipulation, Mr. Schmidt noted that the phrase removed was the same as was included in the original court order calling for relief for any delays caused by other agencies or natural forces beyond Teron's actual control. It was noted that Attorney Sliney had removed this language from the Stipulation. It was the consensus of the Town Commission that more restrictive language was called for regarding this issue due to another pending problem the Town has faced with another developer. Mr. Schmidt felt that this was unfair due to uncontrollable delays which may occur with outside agencies, noting that it was his intention to walk into the Building Department within 6 months with all the necessary approvals from outside agencies and the final working drawings for the project in order to secure the building permit. The Town Attorney will work toward the drafting of restric- tive language in the Paragraph along with Mr. Schmidt for further review by the Town Commission. Mr. Schmidt then addressed Paragraph 14, noting that Teron would not agree to control the access to the beach easement. Mr. Schmidt noted that they would be agreeable to provide the keys to the gate at the easement to the Town who can distribute same. It was the consensus of the Town Commission that the wording agreed to was for the provision and maintenance of the easement. This wording will be reviewed again. The Town contended that because this access was Teron's, they would want to have some control over it's useage without the"Town being the middle party between the residents and Teron. Mr. Schmidt noted that he could not accept an arrangement whereby Teron would be operating the easement by handing out keys and policing the access. Mr. Schmidt then deferred any comments on Paragraphs 15 and 16 until such time as he could confer again with Mr. Moss, attorney for Teron. The matter of how to proceed with the Stipulation was then discussed. Mr. Schmidt noted that the principals should be involved and not just the attorneys, recommending a meeting be held with all to sit down and try to come up with a final document which could be agreed to and executed. Commissioner Basso recommended that Mr. Schmidt meet with Mr. Moss and submit a proposed final document for consideration by the Town Commission. Mr. Schmidt recommended a "sub-committee" approach which was rejected by the Town Commission. Commissioner Grier stated that he felt the two attorneys should get together and try again to come up with a draft taking into account the matters which have come up today. Commissioner Stewart noted that this had been tried already and was unsuccessful due to the differences of opinion. Attorney Sliney felt that there was some merit in him meeting with Mr. Moss in order to try to narrow the areas of contention in the Stipulation prior to the • Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 • Page 11 of 12 submission of any new document to the Town Commission, preferably at the January 7, 1986 Regular Meeting. Commissioner Stewart then pointed out that the Town Commissin had not met with the Town Attorney to discuss the Town Commission's concerns regarding the proposed Stipulation as drafted by Attorney Sliney. Mr. Schmidt noted that he was under the impression that Attorney Sliney's drafted Stipulation had been agreed to by the Town Commission. Attorney Sliney noted that his draft Stipulation incorporated some of the thoughts of various Commissioners, however, was not necessarity in a form which met the approval of the Town Commission. It was then determined that the Town Attorny would have to meet with the Town Commission to gain their views and input into the proposed draft of the Stipulation prior to any meetings being held between the respec- tive attorneys. It was then agreed that Friday morning, December 20, 1985, at 10:80 a.m. would be an appropriate time for the Town Comm- ission to meet with the Town Attorney to review the Stipulation. A five minute recess was then taken. ~/ Upon re-convening the meeting, the Town Manager noted that he had attended several municipal/county task force meetings with regard to the fire/rescue services provided by the Palm Beach County Fire/Rescue • Department and submitted their draft of a document which will be pro- ~ ~ ' vided to the County Legislative Delegation examining methods to take ~ ~ ~ the fire/rescue service charges out of municipal budgets and included Y r in county budgets and further to research alternate methods of ~'' funding. Several alternative funding mechanisms cited were to provide for an independent taxing district, a dependent taxing district, and fire/rescue service fees within municipalities. One of the alternate funding methods included examining the tax structure to the special service taxing districts by way of optional fire assessment fees, in- stitution of mobile home fire/rescue protection fees and optional payment schedules for municipalities. There were several other alternate funding options cited in the report as well, including a method to override the TRIM bill with regard to fire/rescue service costs. The Town Manager also cited the Florida State Statute which calls for the provision of taxing units to provide service to all the unincorporated areas, noting that this matter needed attention by the legislature with a view toward amendment to eliminate "unincorporated area" from the statute. Mr. Williams noted that several cities were in the process of forming a group to address the legislature rather than going individually. Mr. Williams will attempt to get the ACIR to review this issue also. The group will attempt to address the legis- lature at at least three of the upcoming hearings to gain input into the next legislative session. Vice Mayor Blosser noted that Broward County had undergone some similar situation about a year ago, which Mr. Williams will investigate. r~ 1~J i• Town Commission Special Meeting December 18, 1985 Page 12 of 12 It was noted that the audit report, which was listed on the agenda today, would be addressed at the meeting on Friday morning. Mr. Williams then requested that the Town Commission consider the possibility of closing Town Hall at noon on Tuesday, December 24, 1985 for the Christmas holiday. This matter will be further discussed at the Friday morning meeting. At 4:35 p.m., this meeting was recessed until Friday, December 20, 1985 at 1PJ:00 a.m. APPROVED: Mar uise .'Blosser,Vice Mayor lciL't'~ Jo n J „Basso, C missioner ~~~~~ . willlam H. ~rigr,° commissioner Beery Jean Stewart, Commissioner T T: T N C RK DATE: - ~~ •