01-04-77SpMtg JANUARY 4, 1977
A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Delray Beach, Florida, was held in the Council Chambers at 11:30 A.M.,
Tuesday, January 4, 1977, with Mayor James H. Scheifley presiding, and
City Manager J. Eldon Mariott, City Attorney Roger Saberson, and Council
members David E. Randolph, Leon M. Weekes, and Aaron I. Sanson, IV,
present. ' Council member John E. Gomery, Jr., was absent.
Mayor Scheifley stated that the Special Meeting was called
for the purpose of discussing the setting of date for Special Master's
Hearing and for a report on the Stewart case.
1. City Attorney Saberson stated it was necessary to set a Public
.~earing date for the PBA Special Master's Report as is required by City
Drdinance that a hearing must be held by Council forthwith after the
rendition of the report..
Mr. Slesnick, of the PBA, has informed the City that he will
take some action that may prohibit the holding of the public hearing.
The City has given him more than adequate time to do so, but nothing has
been filed that~would invoke such an order from the City's PERC. It is
incumbent upon the City to comply with the ordinance and set a hearing
date.
Council discussed the time and date for holding the public
hearing and the amount of time that should be allowed for each side to
make-their presentation. Mr. Sanson suggested allowing 45 minutes for
the City, 45 minutes for the Union, and 45 minutes for the public.
Mr. Weekes moved that Council convene in a Special Meeting
in Council Chambers at 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday,. January 11, 1977, for a
public hearing on the Special Master's findings, that the Union be
allowed 45 minutes to present its side; the City 45 minutes, and the
~public 45 minutes; thereafter Council will close the public hearing,
seconded by Mr. Sanson, said motion passing unanimously.
Mr. Randolph arrived; the time being 11:50 A.M,
2. City Attorney Saberson reported to Council concerning the Stewart
case, and stated the case was filed several months ago, at which time
the plantiff filed it as a class action, and.is requesting that the
interim service fee ordinance be declared unconstitutional, and seeking
a refund of all money that has been collected under the ordinance, which
is in the neighborhood of $260,000. Some time ago, ke had recommended
that the City try and establish a class of all ad valorem taxpayers to
oppose the class of those seeking the refund; Mr. Skrandel.was retained
for that purpose, but was not able to establish that status. The judge
denied the motion to intervene on behalf of all the ad valorem taxpayers.
The Plantiff filed motions for summary judgement. There is no issue
of fact--it is only a question of law. The Ordinance is unconstitutional
on its face and the judge denied that motion. The City filed motions to
dismiss based on many things including inappropriateness of the class
and some of the allegations made in the complaints; those were denied.
The City has since filed an answer, and it is now set for a trial April
11, 1977.
City Attorney Saberson further stated that the letter he gave
Council regarding the proposed settlement is that, as Attorney Moore
stated in his letter, assuming that there is a four-year statute of
limitations and that the suit was filed on jUly 1, 1972, then that would
carry forward any fees paid after that date. Based on the figures through
August 21, 1976, there has been collected $255,000 , excluding what would
-be excluded under the four-year statute, a balance of $213,272 would
remain and Attorney Moore prgposes a settlement of one half of the remain-
ing figure, which would be a total of $106,636. The Court would have to
approve it in any event. This offer must be acted upon by January .[4,
1977. Attorney Moore's fees wo~'ld come out of this amount, and he (Moore)
feels he is entitled to one third. Even though the Ordinance may be
found unconstitutional, there is some authority for ~he idea that a refund
may be limited to certain people who pay under protest or who paid under
what constituted a legal compulsion of avoiding a cloud on their title.
City Attorney Saberson advised one of the reasons he brought
this up ~t the present time, is to see if Council would like to have him
get a consulting opinion from someone else or just to have Council think
abo'ut 'it [or awhile.
Mr. Sanson reviewed the discussion as follows: The City
must refund $106,000. The Ordinance would then go off the books and never
would the City have that source of revenue. If the settlement is agreed
to, Mr. Sanson questioned Attorney Saberson as to what guarantees the City
has that other citizens would not sue. Attorney Saberson replied that
this binds all members of the class, if approved. This would mean all
people who have ever paid an interim service fee.
Upon question by Mr. Sanson, City Manager Mariott advised
this action will reduce the amount of revenue in the budget by $75,000
or so per year.
After discussion, Council agreed that City Attorney Saberson
should c6ntact Attorney Moore to determine if he ~would give the City until
January 17th for an answer. It was also agreed that a consulting opinion
was not necessary. ~
Mr. Sanson moved for the adjournment of the meetinG, seconded
by Mr. Randolph~ said motion passed unanimously. .The meeting was adjourned
at 12:00 noon.
City Clerk
~ MAyO~ ' v
-2- 1/4/77