Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-23 Workshop Meeting City Commission Meeting Agenda Packet AGENDA DANIA BEACH CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2004 - 6:00 P.M. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING OR HEARING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. LOBBYIST REGISTRATION REQUIRED - REGISTRATION AS A LOBBYIST IN THE CITY OF DANIA BEACH IS REQUIRED IF ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION IS BEING PAID TO LOBBY THE COMMISSION ON ANY PETITION OR ISSUE PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 01-93.REGISTRATION FORMS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IN THE ADMINISTRATION CENTER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, PERSONS NEEDING ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTACT LOUISE STILSON,CITY CLERK, 100 W. DANIA BEACH BLVD,DANIA BEACH,FL 33004,(954)924-3622,AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 1. Call to order 2. Roll Call: 3. Discussion on Pier Restaurant. (City Manager Pato) 4. Adj ournment. WORKSHOP MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2004 AGENDA 1 t i • • FLORIDA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor C.K. "Mac" McElyea Vice-Mayor Robert Mikes Commissioner Pat FluV- nn Commissioner Robert Commissioner Robert Anton From: Ivan Pato City Manage Date: August 16, 2004 Subject: Pier Restaurant I am attaching a copy of the August 13, 2004 memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the Pier Restaurant. As you can see from the attached, the City Attorney has correctly pointed out significant facts about what is included in the lease that the City Commission approved on May 28, 2003. Also of significant interest is Paragraph 6 of the City Attorney's memo concerning the City's obligation "to complete the premises". The City Attorney goes on to comment that "if the City elects not to proceed there is a likelihood of a claim of default by the tenant." As your City Manager, I must share with you my concerns regarding our commitment to this project. Accordingly I will be asking the Commission for clarification and perhaps reconsideration of this matter at our next Commission meeting. As always, if you have questions or I can be of assistance please let me know. P.S. I have also attached a copy of the verbatim minutes of the August I OthCommission meeting on this subject. "Broward's First City' 100 West Dania Beach Boulevard Dania Beach, Florida 33004 Phone: (954) 924-3600 www.ci.dania-beach.fl.us CITY OF DANIA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Ivan Pato, City Manager FROM: Thomas J. Ansbro, City Attorney ) DATE: August 13, 2004 RE: Pier Restaurant Lease In connection with the discussion at the recent City Commission meeting (Tuesday, August 10, 2004), you asked me to expand upon my comments which were made at the meeting. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2003-019, adopted on May 28, 2003, the City Commission authorized execution of a pier restaurant and bait shop lease with Mr. Sven Jutz. The vote was 3-2 in favor (Commissioners Flury, Chunn and then-Mayor Anton as "yes" votes; then Vice- Mayor McElyea and then Commissioner Mikes as "no" votes). The Lease Agreement was then formally executed and dated June 20, 2003. The relevant portions of the Lease, some of which were discussed during the meeting, provide that: 1) The tenant is permitted to use the premises for "restaurant and bar uses open to the general public including the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption within certain portions of the premises" (for this type of use, seating for 200 patrons under a fixed roof is required before a beverage license can be issued). (Section 5 (a) (1)); 2) The sale of alcoholic beverages from any of the six "kiosks" may be "absolutely" prohibited in the City's sole discretion. (Section 5 (d)); 3) Upon completion of all Tenant "Improvements", which includes but is not ,limited to mean "all restaurant equipment such as stoves, sinks, coolers, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, and any additions . . . including those that are nailed, bolted, stapled or otherwise affixed to the Premises . . . shall become and remain the Landlord's property free and clear of any liens and encumbrances whatsoever". (Section 6 (c)); 4) Restaurant services are to be provided not less than six days a week, 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. (Section 7 (b)); Ivan Pato August 13, 2004 Page 2 5) A minimum of 100 parking spaces are to be provided by the City for employees and patrons of the Tenant. (Section 7 (c)); 6) The City's "obligation is to complete the Premises to shell construction with building systems consisting of plumbing, electric, HVAC [heating, ventilation, air conditioning], access and emergency facilities (including emergency exits and fire suppression systems), sewer, water, fuel and gas, as applicable. All further improvements necessary to place the Premises in a condition for operation as a restaurant shall be the obligation of Tenant" (Section 6 (a)). The Lease does not specify a minimum or maximum monetary contribution or allocation by the City as to the "shell construction" provision. If the City elects to not proceed, there is a likelihood of a claim of default by the Tenant. If litigation were filed, it would be filed rn he Broward County Circuit Court. Either party can ask for a jury trial. In the event of a breach of lease, the "prevailing" (winning) party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees (determined by the trial court). There is no "sovereign immunity" or damages "cap" for cities in contract cases (as there is for "tort" cases, such as bodily injury or death of a person due to City negligence, in which case a limit of $100,000.00 per person and $200,000.00 per any one occurrence is the limit on "damages" that could be collected). There is no insurance coverage for a legal defense of the City in the event of a lawsuit. A review of Florida case law did not demonstrate a clear remedy or measure of damages. In a case with some similarity, involving a breach of contract claim for a building not constructed by one party, a court allowed the recovery of a buyer's expenses which were incurred by changing his position in reliance on the construction commitment of a builder. In another case, a Florida court stated that "While it is not ordinarily granted in construction contract cases, courts have ordered specific performance of construction contracts where the completion of a building and the transfer of real property were involved" Home America, Inc. vs. Atkinson (Fla 2nd DCA 1980). In the present case, the tenant sold a restaurant owned by him and his wife, although it is unknown what monetary effect that could have in a possible claim against the City. The tenant did retain the services of a person experienced in restaurant kitchen design and equipment, and such person participated actively with the City architect and staff in the shell design. Other costs or expenses which the tenant could possibly claim to be "out of pocket" are unknown at this point. In a "best case" scenario, if the court found in favor of the Tenant, expenses he incurred would, be awarded to him as well as his attorney fees. The City would also be responsible for its own legal fees. In a "worst case" scenario, it is conceivable that a court could order the City to fulfill its obligation to build the shell and that attorney fees for both the City and the Tenant would have to be paid by the City. 566.028 TJA:sIw 2 11.8 Discussion on Pier Restaurant. (City Manager) (Continued from July 27, 2004, Commission meeting) City Manager Pato remarked this item was continued from the last meeting at the request of the Commission. He reminded the Commission that we had provided an update that puts the projected cost for the completion of this project, which is substantially different than what was originally envisioned, to be somewhere between $800,000-$900,000, instead of the original $650,000 that was approved years ago. The primary reason is increased construction costs, the $650,000 figure was established several years ago, and a significantly different building due to direction from this Commission and ADA issues that we needed to address. It's not just construction costs, but the longer we wait, the more this will cost and the City has already invested close to $250,000 on this project. If the Commission wishes to continue the discussion or has any questions, staff will be glad to address them. Mayor McElyea asked what we got for$250,000. City Manager Pato responded we got to this point in time. Mayor McElyea remarked we got nothing. Vice-Mayor Mikes remarked he did not support this type restaurant to begin with and it goes to the heart of who are we trying to serve with the facility on the beach. As far as some people looking at income and things, everything in our City should be income related. He would be happy if some of these things break even. But if they serve the community, whether it be something that is appropriate for people that use the area, both the pier and the beach and the hours of operation those tend to be heavily used during the day, and we seem to have approved the type of facility that is geared towards alcoholic beverage sales and has to be at least 200 seat capacity, which is different than most fishing pier restaurants. Most are community oriented, they are set up to serve the people that frequent the beach and pier, and occasional people from the community that come in. They are not really set up, he is afraid what we are doing, and part of the problem is previous City Managers had this idea that we had to duplicate Martha's. The community always has been in support of building a restaurant there, but he is worried about the fact that the language in the agreement said they had the ability to put kiosks all the way down the beach. We did get some control on alcoholic beverage sales, but he is still uncomfortable with the final end product that this is going to be and the fact that we are putting up, basically he believes, the majority of the money, particularly on top of the pier construction. Deerfield got a developer going onto their pier and pretty much paying for everything. We are basically putting in the majority of the money and don't have that much control in the lease. He thought we were heading towards a lease where we would have, if we or the community were unhappy with it, we could easily remove the tenant and entertain someone else to operate the facility. Now we are putting in this very expensive facility that will cater to a crowd that is going to compete with our own restaurants in town. These taxpaying people that run restaurants in our town were building a competitive facility and it isn't really geared to serve the clientele that serves the beach_ If it does become geared towards night operations, that means we are going to need more Public Safety visits down there during the time of the day that ordinarily they don't go. So, our Public Minutes of Regular Meeting 17 Dania Beach City Commission Tuesday,August 10, 2004—7:00 p.m. Safety personnel, not only have to cover during the day use of the beach area, but now will have to cover additional conditions that are going to occur in the evening hours when this type of operation, he believes is geared for. When he and the City Manager met with the President of FAU, he detected in the conversation with the Vice-President, that they still have this concept in mind for rerouting the road and possibly the bridge traffic. This is what scared him many years ago when the Sea Fair was basically sold off to FAU, and with most of the money going to the party that had rented to us, meaning had built the building and that was supposed to belong to the City, they got four times as much money as the City and a lease agreement was put through and when he attended the ribbon-cutting and talked to one of the regents, he told him that they were going to move the bridge to the other end right where the pier is and basically they would move the road so the road to Lloyd Park would now go through our parking lot and then cross over to the Lloyd Park peninsula. Then when he saw the Tarpon Bend project, and this is for the benefit of the Commissioners that are wondering why we didn't act early on, besides having a City Manager that wanted a certain type of thing, the Tarpon Bend project had all this language about condemnation and what happens if the project. It was very unusual. Most of the contracts that he has seen for use of City property, you see all that extensive condemnation language, but when you add it to the discussion he had with FAU, they could come in here and basically take out the parking for this restaurant, put a road through the middle of our beach area, and we will be sitting here with a restaurant and no parking. He is still not too crazy about this thing, 200 seats and will FAU, or will they not, keep pushing for that. He and the City Manager have tried to set some things up and tried to get an understanding with FAU, but he definitely detected in that meeting, one of the staff persons, the head architect, was talking like this concept is still kicking around over there. What would we do? Build a 200 seat restaurant and then have FAU come in here and lobby the State to move the bridge and then we have no parking and no parking even for a beach. This has been his concern for some time now. We could throw a million dollars into it, but he thinks it needs a workshop. He said this the last time because it is more complicated than what you can discuss in a one item situation here. We need to clarify this position with FAU and the parking, and the marina too, which is part of the problem, and sit down with the actual people who will run this restaurant, because he still has concerns with them also. Commissioner Anton remarked it was his understanding that we had a signed lease agreement and had given our approval to this lease in prior Commission meetings. Granted, there have been some cost overruns and some increases in costs, which are significant. As he has told some folks privately, and he will say it publicly, he was not in favor of this to begin with. Unfortunately, it did go through and it becomes a matter of our credibility, as well as the fact of throwing away$250,000 of taxpayer dollars. He is fairly confident that the restaurant will not be turned into a nightclub facility. He thinks we need to live up to the agreement we've made and we need to move forward with this. If we cancel now, we are going to lose that money; if we move forward we still have enough revenue coming in from the lease that will cover our debt service so it will not become a burden to the taxpayers. In the event that it does fail for some reason, the business part of it, his understanding in the lease, is that the City keeps everything that is not easily removable, which would make it enticing to bring another type of restaurant to take over. Minutes of Regular Meeting 18 Dania Beach City Commission Tuesday, August 10,2004—7:00 p.m. City Manager Palo responded you would have a restaurant, if for some reason, the present operators would fail. It would be ready for someone else to come in and be interested in. In fairness, in the last search for a likely tenant, and he talked to a lot of people, there was an issue with the past history connected with this project. There was an uncertainty about what the City would do that made a lot of people walk away from the table. It is an issue of credibility. Eventually we did find someone who was willing to make a significant investment of their own because it will cost a great deal of money to finish it off. That is the contract that we brought to the Commission and was approved by a 3-2 vote. They have a high expectation that we will deliver on this product because we signed a contract too. He was not here when the original concept was put together, or when the Commission voted to do this years ago. But, he followed the Commission's direction and found a tenant and brought it forward for consideration. The Commission approved it and all we are bringing today is updated figures on construction costs. Not whether this is a good or bad lease, the Commission has already debated that. We have a timetable of 14 months ahead of us, a little longer than the tenant anticipated to wait for us to deliver a product. He hears everything the Commission is saying, Commissioner Anton asked if we would need to increase our debt service. City Manager Palo responded we would not need to borrow additional money to finish the project. We will have to ask the Commission to delay one of the beach improvement projects in order to focus on finishing this project. It is the Commission's call; he will follow their direction as he has in the past. Commissioner Chunn asked if something else had been added to the equation. He heard that if we don't proceed with the project that we may not ever be able to build anything on the pier at all. City Manager Pato asked Ken Koch, Building Official, to give the specific explanation. His understanding is the State, in the future, will not issue permits for construction of this type on the coastal areas. If this project has a very high probability that it will be grandfathered-in because we submitted our request a long time ago. So, we feel very confident that we will get our permits, but if we don't get our permits, for whatever reason, and that is a highly unlikely situation, then we won't be spending the money. It is not like we are throwing money away; if we don't get the permits, it does not move forward. But if it does not move forward, we definitely won't get the permits. Ken Koch, Building Official, remarked there is not much more to add to that except what he learned yesterday in the application being made to DER Their concern is that the City has not been committed to a project, we started with them in 1995 when we built the pier. We got approval in 1998 to put a temporary structure up that was supposed to last for a year, and it has now been there for seven years. What they are saying now is that if the City of Dania Beach is not committed to building, they are not going to even consider the arguments that are putting forth to use the grandfathering that we had the approval for prior. They won't approve the project unless we commit, and we can't commit unless they approve the project. Somebody has to make the first move. Minutes of Regular Meeting 19 Dania Beach City Commission Tuesday,August 10, 2004—7:00 p.m. Commissioner Chunn remarked that every time he voted he thought he was committed to doing this. Now he finds out that we have not been committed. Mr. Koch responded that the State did not know that we were committed to building because they hadn't seen anything coming from us in the application for the permit. It is just nor° at the point where we have the lease and we are getting ready to build. That is considered to them a commitment. City Manager Pato added the actual activity in the project, besides just some casual approvals of renderings and concepts and ballpark figures, began on July 1, 2003. By July 17, 2003, the RFP was issued. We have moved at a very fast pace since then, it may not seem fast because it is a complex project. On January 7, 2004 the Commission chose an architect. We needed to know years ago, but no one asked. Now we are now ready to move forward. The only reason it is back here is because the cost has changed as a result of all of the delays. It is a significantly different building because the direction the Commission gave to the architects was taken into consideration, ADA issues were considered. The State is confused about what we are doing; they are not confused about what they are doing. Now we have an opportunity to either say "yes" or "no". It is the Commission's call, and we will follow your direction. Commissioner Chunn stated the cost has him worried, and also the contract we entered into. Mayor McElyea remarked he thinks you better lick your wounds and walk. City Manager Pato asked what about the contract. Mayor McElyea asked, with the set of plans we have today, when could we begin construction. Mr. Koch responded, if the Commission said to go today, we could probably begin construction in January Mayor McElyea asked what the holdup was. Mr. Koch responded the final set of drawings for the construction documents have to be put together. It will probably be four weeks to finish the plans. Then we need to go to bid. Mayor McElyea remarked we already have $250,000 invested. Mr. Koch responded it is not more money to the architect. Mayor McElyea remarked you still need to pay him. Then when you talk about the fixtures they are going to put in this property we might get back in two years, if it is not successful. Suppose he goes out and gets a rental purchase on all the equipment for 5-6 years. Used equipment is not worth a dime, and the rental purchase people come in and take the equipment and you can't do a thing about it. Commissioner Flury remarked you don't get a rental purchase on, for example, an exhaust hood. Minutes of Regular Meeting 20 Dania Beach City Commission Tuesday, August 10, 2004—7:00 p.m. Mayor McElyea responded yes you do. He has equipment he buys everyday like that. Commissioner Flury remarked, in consideration of Commissioner Chunn's issue, if this is voted affirmatively tonight, is that a clear enough message to State that we are serious and wish to go forward and will get their support. Mr. Koch replied he believes that is where we are at because we are in a hold right now to do anything further with the State. Commissioner Flury remarked the City Manager put it fairly clearly, in that the only thing we are here to decide tonight is if we want to pay for the overrun. The lease should not be an issue; we already agreed, at least four Commissioners, and we have a signed document. To re-nig on that would be a very costly thing to us. She asked the City Attorney to clarify that. The restaurant people are putting a lot of money into the building; the cost will probably be 50-50 between them and the City. In the end we will have a significant asset for the City. She thinks we need to vote it up or vote it down and get it over with tonight. She asked the City Attorney if we voted it down tonight, what happens to the lease that this Commission approved and now would not honor. City Attorney Ansbro responded the Commission would be breaching the lease; we would be in default. The tenant would exercise whatever remedies he chose to do. This is no insurance to defend this kind of lawsuit. It would be us paying for it, whatever we need to do to minimize the expenses to try to walk away. He has done some legal research, but can find no definitive answer on his kind of issue. He has read 15 different cases; nothing relates to this kind of a case, it is un-chartered water. But there is a range of things that can happen, none of which when you default are good. He did want to clarify two different things while we were here. For the equipment; it would be required to be put in and left there. The tenant could not put stuff in and lease it, then.have it taken back out. Mayor McElyea remarked if he leased it to start with, they can. He was there this week. You are preaching law. I'm doing business as a businessman. City Attorney Ansbro responded he is just reading what the lease says. It says he must leave it in. Mayor McElyea remarked it does not matter what the lease says. They will tear it apart. City Attorney Ansbro remarked no alcohol can be sold from any kiosk. Mayor McElyea remarked he can't believe a man would sell his business and go out and work in another restaurant and come back and want to sue. That is a way of making money. He thinks we better pray the State pulls our permit. City Attorney Ansbro replied if the State does pull the permit, then the City has an absolute defense with the fellow, because it is what would be called impossibility of performance. If the Minutes of Regular Meeting 21 Dania Beach City Commission Tuesday, August 10, 2004—7:00 p.m. State does not approve it, there is no liability on the part of the City whatsoever. He can guarantee that. Mayor McElyea remarked we started originally with Benjamin Walls, who was going to build the thing for free of everything. But he wanted a 60 year lease, if you remember. Mayor McElyea said no, you sharpen your pencil and I'll talk about 20 years. We loused that deal and then we went with Whiskey River, the drug boys, and that didn't flow either. Commissioner Flury remarked she didn't think anything was ever going to float if we can't make up our mind. She thinks we ought to just vote on it tonight and get this thing over with. Commissioner Flury motioned to appropriate up to $350,000 to complete the project; seconded by Commissioner Anton. Vice Mayor Mikes remarked we are in another one of those situations where we got ourselved into a lease and in this case we have a cost overrun. What bothers him consistently with this particular party we are leasing this to, is they never show up for serious discussion on the issues that we are talking about. You would think that somebody, like Commissioner Flury said, is going to put up a million dollars, would show up here. He assumes they know this item is on the discussion. They did not even show up on the final reading of the approval for the lease. This bothered him. He has never seen anyone commit to a relationship with a City, particularly when negotiating a lease, that did not show up for the final vote to at least answer questions or try to get some communication among Commissioners. This is the strangest thing he has ever seen. But, we have been burnt; we were talking about renewing the Harbour Towne lease, shortly. We were burnt when the Commission put that in place, in that we have to pay new dredging fee costs if we were to go out to a second party and negotiate a better deal for the City, for the taxpayers of this City. We were burnt on that one. Sea Fair, he objected to that thing. What happened was we were supposed to get an eight or ten million dollar building at the end of the lease that belonged to the City plus we owned the land. Instead, the university pays us a token amount; the gambling interests get four times as much money. He finds out during a ribbon-cutting that they want to move this bridge, or at least on regent told him that. Nobody up here still said what happens if FAU does not cooperate with what we are doing with this restaurant. Then we are going to be sued by everybody. He thinks he asked for some changed on that condemnation language before. Anyway, we are in another situation where we are between a rock and a hard place. We are asked to spend a million dollars where other cities are having builders do it, pretty much, totally at their cost. He still says maybe there are some fancy chairs and kitchen equipment in there, and the A/C is very expensive, but we built the pier structure and foundation underneath it too, and waterfront, oceanfront land is not getting any cheaper in the last couple of years. Oceanfront land to put a restaurant on is getting precious and more precious by the month and by the week. That land is very unique. Every place that had a restaurant along the coast in Broward County that could be turned into a condominium has pretty much had that happen by now. So, he still thinks that somebody could have negotiated better and got us a developer that would put up the money so the taxpayers of this city aren't having to put up the money to compete with the restaurant owners in this city who pay taxes to run a restaurant. We are basically going to subsidize this and have somebody compete with them and it still is not designed to serve the people that ordinarily go to the beach. They didn't even want to be open in Minutes of Regular Meeting 22 Dania Beach City Commission Tuesday,August 10, 2004—7:00 p.m. the morning. Basically, he thought this was the wrong concept for a restaurant to begin with, Commissioner Flury is probably correct. We are stuck now, people. Just like we've been stuck on almost every lease this City gets into because we rush into them. People say we should have had it yesterday and guess what, the legal language and protections aren't in the lease to protect. We always get the short side of the deal and here we are on the short side again. It is frustrating to him because he has seen a number of these leases and he spoke up on every one of them and he still gets outvoted and he can say he told us so, he told us so, he told us so. But the only person that gets stuck is the taxpayers of this City and that is all he has. Commissioner Flury responded she was not here when Vice-Mayor Mikes signed all those other leases. He has been here for 15 years, she just got here. But, she does recall asking Attorney Ansbro if he would get specialty counsel looking at this lease, so those things that happened in the past would not happen with respect to this lease. She believes the attorney did that. City Attorney Ansbro replied that is correct. Commissioner Flury remarked she does not know how much more you can ask. We certainly did not rush into this because as best as she can see, this discussion has been going on for about 7-11 years, and that is not a rush job. There is a limit to how much, and how long you can talk about something. Your arguments are the same arguments you made when we talked about the lease, and the lease was approved. So, that's history. The only thing that we are dealing with today is additional funds. She does not understand why Vice-Mayor Mikes has this feeling that this community does not deserve a nice restaurant. She has had dozens of calls just since last month about this restaurant and the people in the community are so frustrated that they don't understand what is the matter with us that we can't get a restaurant on this pier. This is our last opportunity. It is now or never because as we have been told by the lady from the State permitting department two weeks ago, if we don't go forward with this now, the chances of ever getting a restaurant of any sort up there, are slim to none. The beachfront property, of course, is becoming more and more scarce, and more and more expensive, but so what. The pier is already there. If we have a restaurant on it, or we don't have a restaurant on it, it doesn't mean anything to anybody in terms of dollars. She would just like to see this get over with, that is all. There is a motion on the floor. Mayor McElyea called for the roll call. Commissioner Anton: Based on the reasons that he spoke earlier, he is voting yes we need to move forward. Commissioner Chunn: Because of the cost overrun, he is voting no. He knows he supported this, but he supported it with a figure in mind and he can't understand why it kept escalating. This thing has been problematic from beginning to end and he is voting no. Commissioner Flury: Yes. Vice-Mayor Mikes: No, until we sit down with these people who are going to rent this thing and get an understanding of where we are at. Minutes of Regular Meeting 23 Dania Beach City Commission Tuesday, August 10, 2004—7:00 p.m. Mayor McElyea: No. Motion Defeated 2-3, with Commissioner Chunn, Vice-Mayor Mikes, and Mayor McElyea voting no. 12. Appointments There were no appointments at this meeting. 13. Administrative Reports 13.1 City Manager City Manager Pato had no additional reports. 13.2 City Attorney City Attorney Ansbro advised the City Manager gave him a copy of an e-mail received from Jay Field regarding an article where residents of Pembroke Pines were disputing their zip code designation. The City of Dania Beach has also had this problem for a long time. He thought the Commission would want all of Dania Beach to have the same zip code. He has not seen much success in this effort because the Postmaster issues zip codes. The Finance Director has advised him that we are not losing revenue from the zip code issue. Commissioner Anton suggested that staff draft a letter for the Mayor's signature asking assistance from Senator Nelson. City Attorney Ansbro advised the City won the Rousseau lawsuit in Circuit Court. 13.3 City Clerk—Meeting Reminder Tuesday, August 24, 2004 @ 7:00 p.m. —Regular Commission Meeting 14. Adjournment Mayor McElyea adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m. CITY OF DANIA BEACH ATTEST: C. K. MCELYEA Minutes of Regular Meeting 24 Dania Beach City Commission Tuesday,August 10, 2004—7:00 p.m.