Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 11 02 City Commission Workshop Minutes ~ ~ C I TV CXH11 SS ION WORKSHOP November.2, 1992 . The workshop was called to order by Mayor Kulbes at 7:00 P.M. Mayor Philip A. Kulbes, Present Commissioner John V. Torcaso, Present Commissioner Don .Jonas, Present . Deputy Mayor John Lange llott i, Present Ccmnissioner Terri Donnelly, Present Ccmnissioner Cindy Kaehler, Present City Manager R. Rozansky, Present City Attorney F. Kruppenbacher Mayor Kulbes stated that we will discuss the amendments to the Winter Springs Code of Ordinances Sections 19-97, 19-100, and 19-102. These are same changes that have been recommended by the staff to clarify same of the things that are in the existing ordinance. Kulbes stated that he has a question on one, but after reading it a second time, he understands what you are ta 1 king about. I t says II A payment not received within fifteen days fram the date of mailing the bill shall be delinquent, and the delinquent amount shall be included in the next months billing. In the entire bill is not paid in full within fifteen days fram the date of ma i 1 i ng, serv i ce sha 11 be d i scont i nued. II City Manager Rozansky clarified that that is the second mailing. i. Kipton Lockcuff, utility Director, explained that the delinquent amount will appear on the next months bill i ng, and both months amount has to be pa i d within fifteen days of the mailing. Ccmnissioner .Jonas asked about the change in Sec. 19-100 regarding the deposit fee. He asked what is the deposit fee and appl ication fee mentioned. Lockcuff said that the deposit is $65.00 and the application fee is $10.00 Jonas also asked if this was explained any where else. Rozansky stated that it is in the fee resolution. Cammissioner Lange110tti asked if there are any people that have a deposit that money has not been refunded to? Harry Martin, Finance Director, said that currently the $65.00 deposit is retained until 8uch time as service is discontinued. They are proposing to refund the deposit after 24 months. Lange110tti mentioned that a few months back there were same people that had money on deposit, and was over two years and they had not received a refund. , Lockcuff stated that the peop le were calling because Semi no le ut i 1 ity refunded deposits and it wasn't our policy, this is what basically got this in lOOt ion. r. .Jonas asked if the City is not honoring Seminole utilities agreement. Martin stated that we have on the people that have made the request, the City Manager has authorized us to refund their money. Martin said that it has been a case by case basis. Ccmnission Workshop November 2, 1992 Page 2 .1 Jonas said that the only point he has is we are going to refund the deposit after 12 rronths. Lockcuff said that the deposit wi 11 be refunded after 24 months, they are allowed three del inquents within that period. Jonas said the only point he has is, if you are going to give $65.00 back, why alloW three delinquents? If you are going to give the $65.00 back because saneone did what they were suppose to do; in other words they weren't del inquent, they had a good record and pa i d the i r bill on time. I'm say i ng that if you are going to give $65.00 back, go back with what the original one was and make them go a two year period and after that time get the $65.00 back without any delinquents. The object is to get rid of delinquencies, he stated that this is his opinion. Martin stated that PSC has a rule when they approve a that you have to have at least twelve good rronths in a row out of 24 before you can get your rroney back. So you have to have good credit and they are rewarded by gett ing it back after that twelve rronths. He also stated that we are giving them three del inquents within twenty four months which is more. Jonas asked what is considered delinquent. Lockcuff said if the payment is not made within fifteen days, an example is we bill the West side on the 15th of the month- the pa~nt is due on the 1st on the next month. Discussion. Ku1bes stated that Jonas has a good point that if you are going to refund the deposit after 24 rronths there should be no delinquencies involved. Discussion on the meaning of delinquencies. The Ccmnission was in agreement that the deposit wi 11 be refunded if there is no del inquencies within a 24 month period. ' . Jonas asked if the billing will be the same with the utilities combined. Lockcuff stated that the bills will be the same the 15th of the month for the west and the 25th for the east. Ku1bes asked in Sec. 19-102, are the charges any different than what they were? Lockcuff said what we have added is under #1 - the 3/4 x 3/4 meter is clarified under that category. We are taking out the reference to East, we are just bringing the charges up equally like they were done last October. Rozansky said there is no changes in #2. In #3 is clarified for the 3/4 meter and the reference to the East system. Lockcuff also said a change is we have increased the gallons to be consistent with DER's permitting; we were charging one fee and then DER would permit a higher flow rate so we wanted to be cons i stent. Langellotti asked what determines a meter size. Lockcuff stated that single- fanily is generally 5/8 x 3/4, a custaner can request up to a 1". Doug Taylor, utility stated that we recommend a 3/4 x 3/4 to people who have hcmes that are set more than 150' back fran the road. Kulbes mentioned under item 6 under miscellaneous charges, a format . suggestion. Lockcuff stated that there is actually a whole list of other charges in there; we are just adding onto the end, what is on this is just the changes. Commission Workshop November 2, 1992 . Page 3 Lockcuff said the next item is the reuse charges. What we are proposing is a flat rate for single-family of $5.00 per month. Kaehler asked if we should wait until we see exactly what we are going to do before we put down any kind of a rate in writing, we don't even have an effluent reuse system at this time. Discussion. The Commission agreed that they would wait until there is a whole subdivision to hook-up. Kaehler also mentioned adding a paragraph regarding the use of a bib hose are penmitted. Lockcuff stated that we will have to get real specific and use the correct tenminology. Kaehler stated that she would like to see the ordinance changed to reflect the use of bib hoses so the people that do not have a sprinkler system can still use the reuse system. Lockcuff stated that is something they can work on and come back to you with that and other requirements. Sol id Waste Contract/Ordinance: Tan Daily and Charles Wilson fran IWS, gave their presentation. . Rozansky said the first thing they would like to discuss is the provided us on the 24th of September, regarding the tipping fee. is asking for an increase for the landfill tipping fee of $1.40. provide the Commission 'with a copy of the letter. letter they The letter Tan Daily Charles Wi lsoo, stated that the letter requests an adjustment to the residential, and cannercial rates for landfill tipping fees only. The average tons per resident is 1.3 tons per year. The way we did this, is we had a $13.00 per ton increase (the landfill went fran $18.00 per ton to $31.00 per ton) we multiplied 1.3 times the $31.00 and comes out to a $16.90 per year increase;n tipping fees; then divide that by 12 months in a year which equals $1.40 increase per resident; this is how we arrived at the figure. Wilson said the 1.3 tons is an average for the City and County when we look at the residential, and that does take into consideration of taking the recycl ing. Kaehler asked if conversely if the rates go down - so does yours correct? Wilson said if they 90 down yes. Kruppenbacher said that will be put in the franchise agreement. . Langellotti said 'that the County took this upon themselves to increase this, they are claiming that the amount of solid waste going into the landfill is down, yet they are penalizing the people, what recourse do we have? Wilson said he doesn't know what recourse the City has, but what caused the increase is the fact that the State of Florida passed the recycling ordinance, they went out and bought bonds to do their landfill. So when they Commission Workshop November 2, 1992 Page 4 . reduced the volume going requirement of the bonds, to cover the bonds. into the landfills, they can not meet the so therefore, they are raising the landfill price Torcaso asked if any City is challenging this? Wilson stated that they are challenging this to the standpoint that they are voicing their opinion. Torcaso asked Kaehler if anything about this has came up before the CALNO members. Kaehler stated that Sherry Newkirk came and gave the members an update and what Wi 1 son is ta 1 king about is what she sa i d, you became so efficient that you can't meet your bond, therefore, you have to raise the funds somewhere to payoff your bond; so in turn they go back to the hauler and the hau 1 er canes back to us. Kaeh 1 er sa i d that a 11 of the other jurisdictions brought in their fees that they pay for garbage pickup and we are very carparable and in sane cases such as the County, we far beat them. Torcaso said as far as he can see at the present time there is not much we can do except go along with $1.40 increase. Kaehler asked if there was a way that it can be broken out on the bill at least for the first few months to say landfill increase? Because we really are not raising the residents rate, we have no choice in this matter. . Daily stated that IWS could send out letters explaining the increase. Martin stated that this could be out by establishing a separate rate table and code for that particular item. Discussion. It was determined that the breakdown would state: County Imposed Fee. Wi 1 son said he a 1 so wanted to go over cannerc i a 1 accounts. The cannerc i a 1 accounts are average of 90 1bs per cubic yard. The land fill increase per ton as of Oct. 1, 1992, is $13.00 per ton. We took the $13.00 increase and divided it by 2000 lbs., which equals $.0065 per lb. then that times 90 1bs. which makes the increase for cannercial $.59 per cubic yard. The rate for commercial would be $3.44 per cubic yard. wilson also stated that the tipping fee increased on October 1, 1992, and we would like the rites to retro-bi11 everybody. Kaehler asked when does the new contract officially start. Rozansky stated it starts January 1, 1993. Kaehler then said that we are still working under the old contract. Kruppenbacher asked if he is understanding it correctly, that under the old contract that IWS can cane in and ask for an increase and the Commission can say no? wilson stated that we are talking several thousand dollars that we have had to pay in landfill increase to the County. Daily said that they were late in getting the notice and that is why the City did not know until . late. Kaehler said that IWS bills three months in advance so you got stuck. Dave Deeroff, 1059 Deer Run, spoke about the increase. Cannission Workshop November 2, 1992 4It Page 5 4It 4It Art Hoffmann, 1436 Mt. Laurel Dr., also spoke on the increase. Robert Daves, 1260 N. Brassie Dr., spoke on the increase and that the City should ask the County why they have put the increase on. Discussion. The Cannission directed the City Manager to send a letter to the County asking for an explanation on the increase. Rozansky stated that this is on the agenda for next Monday, for fonmal action. Kulbes said we will now go over the franchise agreement. Rozansky said we have been through the agreement and the changes are: page 2- where they talk about a solid waste collection ordinance we added a word "mandatory so 1 i d waste co 11 ect ion ord i nance"; page 3 #b renewa 1 - they had 2 one year extensions (this is fram an old contract) the way this was written the City and IWS by nutual consent may opt to extend this agresnent for an additional terms of 1 one year each; we thought it would be better, rather than keep going with one year to give them a two year, so you can cane in and extend for it for a two year period. After we discuss it if they have any plans or programs that is a better way to do it, because we don't really have to do it anyway. It is better than coming in every year and do another extension ordinance. Kaehler asked if there was a reason that it is 180 days now instead of 90 days in the old contract; it was 90 and 60 and you have 180 and 90. Wilson said that was one of the discussions that we had in one of the pervious meetings and it was felt that if you needed more time to prepare it rather than the 90 day extension. Kaehler questioned the need for 6 months to work on this? Wilson said if you were going to 90 to bid to do something you might, if you want to change it back to 90 days I don't have a problem with it. Rozansky stated that we thought if we did want to do something else, we thought it would give us more time. Kaehler said you don't need to have it in there, because if you decide that we don't like their service and you want to go out for bid there is nothing in the contract that would preclude the day after we 90 into a contract if something happened and we did not like what was going on, we could go ahead and get the paper work started. The only one that this would benefit is the hauler because they would know 6 months into a contract whether or not they would be renewed for the following year so in other words instead of 90 days out fram their contract expiration they could came in 180 days and say we want to be renewed. Discussion. Wilson stated he did not have a problem with that. It was determined that it would get changed to 90 days and 60 days. Rozansky asked if it was all right to keep the two year term rather than the one year term. The Cannission was in agreement to a two year term. Rozansky said on page 4, arbitration - we told them that we the City, we would not go to arbitration at all, we would let it be settled in a Court. However, that is an u 1 t imate one as long as it is non bind i ng; we said we Commission Workshop Noverrber 2, 1992 Page 6 .,' were going to just write this verbiage so it is a non binding arbitration because it is still better if we can sit down and try to work it out, we just don't want it to be binding on our part. Then if we can't work it out then if there is a bad problem, we can 90 to Court. That is what the Attorney recommends and that is the way I like it, I think it should be that way and IWS agree, so that would be non binding arbitration. Kaehler asked about in the discussion of 90/60 for renewal, in the old contract th i s is a 1 so a paragraph that states that th i s agreement may be tenminated by the City under the same agreements as the renewal and I don't see that in here now. Under the old contract it says - not withstanding the state of tenm of this agreement the same may be tenminated by the City if IWS's services are considered unsatisfactory, subject however to the City's first giving IWS a maximum of 60 days written notice of it's intent to cancel th i s agreement. That was under renewa 1 and it is not under renewa 1 anyrrore and I don't find where it has been put in. Discussion. Kruppenbacher said we did not take that paragraph out, what you are look ing at is a draft, those statements will be in it. My intent was to take less the issues of cost etc., to take the old contract and the existing franchise to the extent you've all agreed to thel spe,cifics about dollars, and take what e. I think are all the good port ions ega ly to protect the City. There are sane minor changes and rather and try and redo it and then redo it again, I waited to see what they all had to say and agreed to and have what you said and then br ins it back in one f i na 1 document. Kaehler asked if we would have this one final document by next week to vote on. Kruppenbacher stated when you are done ton i ght, there is no reason not to have it on the agenda for Monday night. Rozansky on page 6 - we can't fill in the blanks until we cane up with the do llar 8f00Unt. Then the method of bill ing - A: we left "A" in there purposely, the first part is only applicable until we do the billing, and we will be ready on 1 Jan., but if something happens we wanted sanething in this franchise that they would collect it and we wou.'d help them until we can do it. Page 9 General Provisions - they have the unifonm rates that wi 11 be fill ed in when we get the do 11 ar per IroOth and they have a 1 so what we have not for the disabled residents where they give side yard service. Page 10- second paragraph, the 8 lines from the top - everything before where it says "IWS shall also be entitled to request...." I have crossed out, that is where they use that index and I talked about this at the last meeting, and asked the Commission if I was right of what you felt, and the Commission said I was, and they would like to address it; but I crossed everything out so it now says "IWS shall be entitled to request that for those other ones". Kruppenbacher said what we recannended was that you had said in the past that they would be entitled on an increase based upon a state or Federal mandated e passed down - cost, but as to an automatic increase per schedule - you were not in favor of that. . Commission Workshop November 2, 1992 Page 7 Wilson asked if we would have a right to approach the Commission to try to request an increase. Kaehler said no. Discussion. Wilson asked that since he has no control over landfill can we put some landfi 11 fonrula in there to address landfi 11 so I don't have to "eat" landfill increase like what just happened. I would like to put a formula in . there so that when it is passed on you know how to compute it, just like I did in the letter. Kaehler stated and also the paragraph that says that if the County should 90 out and refinance their bond and lower the fee that that comes back to us as well. Wilson said it would be calculated just like in the letter. Rozansky asked then the rest is out. The answer was yes. . Kruppenbacher said that he heard Kaehler say that her interpretation would be that she doesn't want them coming in period, and there will be no coming in and there will be no requests and asked the rest of the Commission if they supported that position or not. Kaehler stated that there is a cancellation clause in here, if this contract becomes too cumbersome for IWS to work with and they want to come back in and say this contract is not good for us an~e, they have the right to come in and cancel their contract and bring up a whole new contract. Kaehler also stated that as far as this contract is written it's a mandatory, we are giving them mandatory, we are picking up the billing, we are giving them the landfill and there is no reason to put an RRI in here. If you are going to do a 5 year contract there has to be some guarantees for the people who live here. Discussion. Kruppenbacher said if they don't like the rate, they can not get out of the agreement other than if we said they can get out of the agreement. Kaehler said exactly. Wilson said but to the same token if the state passes some other laws that says we have to do other things...Rozansky said that is covered in here. Rozansky said the rest he does not have any problem with. Rozansky asked Kruppenbacher if he agrees with the changes in the franchise. Kruppenbacher said yes. Jonas said one thing he wanted to mention is that in the contract it was mentioned about other people picking up in the area which you have the right such as lawn service companies.... Kruppenbacher said that will be identified because there is one in the City and I will look at the issue when that expires, we by law cannot mandate that they came under this. . Kruppenbacher said on the Ordinance - there are some minor technical changes, but there is one or two significant one, one is on page 7 para. E as it relates to suggesting regulations governing the days etc. in matters regarding collection - we intend to ITDdify that to provide that the only changes that can take clearly specify that any change in collection days or Cannission Workshop November 2, 1992 Page 8 -- regulations can only go into effect H the Cannission approves them. There is no problem with IWS on that. Beyond that now that you finalized what you want in the franchise, we need just modify the ordinance to pick up and make sure it is consistent with what you wanted in the franchise and other wise it is a standard document. The Cannission asked about getting the documents for the next meeting. Kruppenbacher said that they will get the franchise and ordinance for the meeting on next Monday night. Rozansky said that it will be first reading of the Ordinance on next Monday. Kaehler said under specifications for the collection of solid waste the time of collection says 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., but in another place in here it says 6 a.m. Discussion on the collection times. It was detenmined that the time of collection will stay as is 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Jim Ryan, Wedgewood Golf Vi 11 as Haneowners Assoc., spoke about the collection times. Kaehler asked about on page 4 of the specifications it says "..Franchisees shall be responsible for rerooving and cleaning all oil, grease, paint.." you .- don't pick up pain, oil or grease, so what it that? Discussion. Rozansky said that no they don't pick it up but if they drop something such as glass they should pick it up. Kruppenbacher explained to Kaehler he would rather keep that provision and modify it because if homeowner "X" puts it in there (paint etc.) and they take it and spill it they know they clean it up. It was detenmined that that clause will stay in. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk .