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
.