Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-05 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesP. 0. Box 25010 Tamarac, Florida 33320 FIRST CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL Please be advised that a Special Meeting of the City Council has been called for Thursday, June 5, 1980 at 3:30 P.M. in Council Chambers of City Hall. The items to be discussed are: Item #1 - Irrigation Meters _ Discussion & Possible Action regarding rates for irrigation meters. Item #2 -- Public Service Commission - Refunds -- Discussion & Possible Action regarding the equity of refunds established by the P.S.C. Council may discuss such other business as may come before it. The public is invited to attend. MAR YN ERTHOLF CITY CLERK 6/2/80 MB/mt CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 5, 1980 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Falck called the meeting to order on Thursday, June 5, 1980 at 3:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Vice -Mayor Helen Massaro Councilman Irving M. Disraelly w Councilman Irving Zemel Councilwoman Marjorie Kelch ALSO PRESENT: City Manager, Edward A. Gross City Attorney, Arthur M. Birken Clerk/Steno, Gertrude Bernhardt Mayor Falck read the notice of the special meeting stating the items to be discussed are: Item #1 - Irrigation Meters - Discussion and Possible Action regarding rates for irrigation meters. Item #2 - Public, Service Commission - Refunds - Discussion and Possible Action regarding the equity of refunds established by the Public Service Commission. It was decided to first discuss a matter brought to the attention of the Mayor and City Manager this morning relating to the Bennett vs. the City litigation. The City Attorney said that George Platt, representing certain parties in the Bennettvs. Behring case had come in to see the Mayor and City Manager to leave a draft of the letter which he requested the City approve and sign, wherein the City would be notifying certain owners of recreation parcels that the City would intend to condemn.those parcels under Chapter 418 of Florida Statutes. The reason for the letter would be to allow certain tax benefits to the sellers if the property could not be sold and to allow or to begin the process for the establishment of special recreation taxing districts which are authorized by Chapter 418. A very short deadline was given because Judge Gonzales had a hearing scheduled forJune9th and it was the desire of the parties to have the letter submitted to the 4udge at that time. The City Attorney spoke with Mr. Michael Crow, one of the attorneys in the case and the attorney whose firm prepared the draft letter. He said he also tried to speak with Commissioner Platt, but he was not -,available. The hearing that was scheduled for Monday has bEen rescheduled to July 7th at 1:30 p.m. The City Attorney told Mr. Crow and recommended to Council that the letter be sent to the City's Bond Counsel immediately, and that he review the letter and provide his input and whatever language changes he would suggest. The City would then consider incorporating the language into the letter that could be sent to the attorneys in the case. No action appears needed at this time. Mayor Falck asked for comments from the Council; there being none he ruled that Council will not discuss or consider the Item further at this particular meeting, but when additional information is obtained another meeting may be scheduled. C/W Kelch MOVED that Council agendize by consent, at the request of the City Manager, Item #3 "Removal of Sludge Lime from Lake" and Item #4 "The Purchase of United Interlock Grating for Catwalk at the Utility Plant. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE ITEM #1: Irrigation Meters_ - Discussion & Possible Action regarding rates for irrigation meters. Mr. Oscar Tucker was recognized and greeted by Council. He said this item relates to a matter that has been of concern to a large number of homeowners for over 10 years. One of the problems made by the developer when the homes were purchased was free sprinkler water which lasted until 1970 or 1971. At that time the residents were told that if they wanted sprinkler water they would have to pay for it. Mr. Tucker described the circumstances confronted by the residents and the arrangement made between the developer (utility) and the residents. Mr. Tucker explained that the residents paid 45� per thousand gallons prfor to meters being installed. When meters were installed, the minimum charge during 1975 to 1979 was $4.50. This arrangement continued until the City took over the utility. Mr. Tucker said the arrangement which resulted from the agreement to pay sprinkler water in part was the reason kor the installation of a separate meter. Many people don't need a separate meter and would be happy without it. However the cost might be prohibitive and the loss to the City would be undesirable. The City would loose $60,000 in revenue even though a drop of water was not consumed. Mr. Tucker proposed a solution to this problem. He stated that it has been developed that insofar as residential water and sewer is concerned, a resident throughout the City pays, on the basis of actual usage, $3.08 per thousand gallons. For irrigation water a resident pays, for actual usage $1.73 per thousand gallons. Commercial water and sewer users, on an actual basis pay $2.32 per thousand gallons. $2.32 as compared to $3.08 that a residential user pays per thousand gallons for water and sewer. Mr. Tucker proposed to remove the $11.65 minimum charge for the water meter for the separate sprinkler meter and substitute therefore 90C per thousand gallons instead of 60G per thousand gallons. Thus, for every gallon or every thousand gallons that would be used, there would be an additional 30G income as compared to the present 60G. There is no question that this would bring about $17,000 into the City. Increase the use of commercial water and sewer from $2.32 per thousand gallons to $2.62 per thousand gallons, and an additional $40,000 to $45,000.00 would be obtained from that source. So that an inequity would be remedied and by virtue of this adjustment where they contribute 50% more than they contribute on the basis of per gallon usage, one-third of that sum would be recaptured and on the basis of making an adjustment of the slight nature which was indicated, the balance would be realized by the City. Even with that increase, the commercial use for water and sewer per thousand gallons would be 46� less than the residential users paying per thousand gallons. In _.9 memorandum of April 21, 1980, an alternative was submitted whereby the. -City could reduce the $11..65 minimum charge for the separate sprinkler meter to $3.90 and make an appropriate increase with respect to commercial users. Mr. Tucker said that either proposal would be acceptable to him and those people he represents. Steve Wood, the Finance Director stated that his opinion was that mechanically Mr. Tucker's proposal would be difficult to implement. Mr. Wood then explained his objective in arriving at his alternative proposal. He explained the yearly impact which would save the residents who have these irrigation meters $36,000 a year and increase the cost to all commercial users by $39,908. He further explained that this was an administrative procedure which can resolve the problem if Council decides to adopt it. He is presenting a means whereby the City can maintain the same level of revenues required to operate the utility. Mr. Gross said the item regarding commercial water has already been discussed with the consulting engineer because it was found that after reviewing the rates the commercial rates were lower than had originally been anticipated. He said the rates as discussed by 615180 -2- the Finance Director were discussed with our Consulting Engineer who said that he believes that this is a correct method to use and will submit a letter, as a Consulting Engineer, approving this type of change if the Council so wishes. C/M Disraelly felt that Council should review both of the situations that are presented of the irrigation savings and the commercial increases because they have two different methods that have been presented. He wants to correct the inequity that exists, but doesn't think that it can be done today without having time to review it,. without having some input from the Engineer and from the Consulting Engineer and without Council getting together, maybe even having a workshop to decide which way to go in order to correct it. Mr. Barry Eden stated on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, that they would reserve comment until the proposal mentioned can be studied. Mr. Eden, expressed concern that one group of people is being benefitted at the expense of others. C/W Kelch expressed the feeling that the method. which had been most lately suggested would be the better method because it would involve a great deal less individual computation in order to arrive at a mathematical standoff, which is the thing that Council must be bound into because of the bond commitments and other items. C/W Kelch asked Mr. Wood if the item is tabled would he enlarge on the amount of actual saving in clerical and accounting costs that would derive from the use of his second suggested method. C/M Zemel wanted to give the business commumity an opportunity to study the proposals. He indicated that he would MOVE to TABLE the item at the appropriate time. Mayor Falck said that the fair and right thinq is to table it until the meeting next Wednesday, June llth. Mayor Falck observed that the City cannot be responsible for inequities that existed when they did not own this particular facility. What the City has to do is to look at it on the basis of the inequity that existed from October 15, 1979, at the time the City ,took over the utility. In response to a comment by Mr. Neese of Woodlands Section 7, V/M Massaro stated that she would like to correct a statement made. She said if there was an °inequity that she would see to it that there was a hearing to have it corrected. Mr. Allen Bernstein, Woodlands, substantiated V/M Massaro's statement that if it developed that there were inequities she would make every effort to see that the inequities were corrected and that is exactly what is being done here today. Mr. Bernstein wished to call Council's attention to two things. 1. Tamarac is unique in having commercial rates so much lower than residential rates for water as compared with all of the surrounding communities. A major inequity could be corrected without burdening any one group unfairly by bringing those commercial rates more in line with the rates that are being.paid by the residents. 2. Using the April 21st memo as an example, he stated that one of the problems is a communications failure where essential data doesn't reach the hands of all the people who are concerned with rape that data for an extended period of time. The Finance Director Side basically agreed with the figures as submitted by Oscar Tucker with #2 minor differences. Mr. Tucker's proposal is about a 15�: per thousand gallon increase in commercial rates would seem to leave the City with more rather than less revenue than at the present time. He is referring to the 15� per thousand, and added to the 30� per thousand increase in irrigation water rates referred to by Oscar Tucker. When it is worked out mathematically, you find out you come out two, three, five thousand dollars more. As to the added work that has to be done, clerical work, in connection with the proposal, -3- b/5/80 as for example, the one made by Steve Wood would only require a reprogramming of a computer. The computer recognizes the various classes serviced, by code number. The computer computes a bill in accordance with a crankedin program and prints the bill out automatically. 'A minor change in that program would result in the automatic printing out of bills in accordance with the proposal of Steve Wood or in accordance with the proposal of Oscar Tucker. Mr. Soley Goldberg, Summit Bank, indicated the business community doesn't have sufficient time to prepare for June 11. He wants to present this matter to the industrial user and before he can get their. accountants to give them the figures he would like to have an outside Engineer say whether all the figures given today are right or not. C/M Disraelly MOVED that this item be TABLED to a public hearing to be held at the meeting of June 25th. C/M Zemel SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Mr. Schoenfeld, President of the Woodlands Homeowners Association, asked that a workshop be held prior to the Public Hearing to present the program on which Council will take action. Mayor Falck said a workshop will be held when the information becomesavailable, prior to the Public Hearing. V/M Massaro clarified for those people who formerly had a two meter system and converted to a one meter system, that they are better off -- they would have less to pay. ITEM #2: Public Service Commission - Refunds - Discussion and Possible Action regarding the equity of refunds established by the Public Service Commission. Mr. Birken, the City Attorney, reviewed events of last September 1979 relating to the Public Service Commission recommended outline for a refund schedule. The City Council and the residents had been given notification of the events taking place relating to the Public Service Commission order on the refund plan, the ability to appeal, to the State Supreme Court within a specific period of time etc. Council accepted the order of the Public Service Commission after conversation with Public Service Commission staff members. Mr. Birken doesn't feel the Public Service Commission would be willing to reconsider any matters relating to Tamarac Utilities. Mr. Alan Bernstein, Woodlands, pointed out that the rebate plan is an average, rather than computed exactly. He stated there is no justice in paying $313.00 refund to those people who had one meter and only $140.00 refund to those people who had two meters. The P.S.C. no longer wants jurisdiction in this matter and has said that any decisions to be made should be those of the City Council. Mr. Fitzsimmons was recognized and said that he had asked the Supreme Court to require Tamarac Utilities to post a $3.5 million bond to protect the customers. The P.S.C. asked the Court to require $2.5 million bond while litigation was pending, but both motions were denied. Mr. Fitzsimmons pointed out that the inequity he sees is that a large portion of residents *leave the City for the summer, but there are many others who pay utilities year round.. He said the P.S.C. order to charge on 5/8" pipe input into each residence and comes to a $311.00 refund is inequitable to those who have paid year round as compared to those who only paid 6 - 9 months. Mayor Falck stated there are three alternatived: 1. Work out another plan. 2. Accept the recommendation of the City Attorney. 3. Table it. -4- d/5/80 C/M Zemel indicated that he would be in favor of tabling the matter in order to have more time to study the information, as he is not as familiar with the matter as the other Councilmembers are. Mayor Falck stated that it is his feeling that the refund plan should not be changed. It was accepted previously and he can't see the point in reopening it. C/W Kelch agreed with the Mayor's feelings. Alan Bernstein suggested that in the process of going over the question of the rates it'may be possible to come up with a formula that could correct the injustice without disturbing the settlement in any way. Both Mayor Falck and C/W Kelch concurred with C/M Disraelly's suggestion. V/M Massaro stated that she doesn't believe the Council could entertain Mr. Bernstein's suggestion. Mr. Tucker said that it is his intention to suggest to interested members of the community that they make application to the P.S.C. to amend their order. He said that he believes that if the P.S.C. realized it has an opportunity to correct an injustice they will, given the proper presentation. He is therefore asking Council not to close its mind to this subject, to table the matter to give the people an opportunity to resolve the matter. C/M Zemel MOVED to TABLE this item until a fUturL - date. V/M Massaro said that the City Attorney informed her that while Council can't prevent members of the public from doing as they think best, if something is pending before the P.S.C. it could hold up the refund. The City Attorney said the City would have to hold back a certain amount of the money; that two checks would have to be sent out. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. C/W Kelch MOVED that no action be taken on Item #2, in other words, if Council wanted to bring it up again on another item it could be done. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE ITEM #3: Sludge Removal - Tamarac Utilities - Lake - Discussion and Possible Action The City Manager said he is requesting approval of a bid for removal of sludge in the pond behind the water plant at Tamarac Utilities. He explained that the pond is full and the residue is flowing into the pond outside the property. He therefore would like to start the work immediately by awarding the bid to CPS Construction, who could begin the dredging tomorrow at a cost of $40 an hour. In response to questions from the Mayor, the City Manager stated that the City went out for bid, receiving three bids, $40 per hour, $50 per hour and $55 per hour with a total appropriateion of $7,400, but this job should only cost $4,000. V/M Massaro stated that.this affects the health and welfare of the people and it is an emergency, she then MOVED that CPS Construction quote of $40 per hour be accepted subject to the City Manager being required to bring it back to Council, if it appears that it is going to exceed the amount of $4,000. C/W Kelch SECONDED the motion. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -5- ej,/5/80 ITEM 04: United Interlocking Grating - Discussion and Possible Action The City Manager stated that this is an emergency item. OSHA conducted an inspection at the beginning of the week and they found a hazard at the utility plant in the grating (walkways over the different tanks). Unfortunately there is only one manufacturer, one supplier available with the price being expensive at $4,139. He said that the City has only 15 days from the date of inspection to comply. C/M Zemel MOVED that on an emergency basis the City Manager be authorized through the Purchasing Agent, to purchase the necessary gratingthrough United -McGill Corporation of Columbus, Ohio at a total cost of $4,139 plus freight. V/M Massaro SECONDED the motion. C/M Zemel amended his motion to include that this affects the health and welfare of the people. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Meeting adjourned ATTEST: Sri This public document was promulgated at a cost of !3 2.a or per copy to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac, Florida. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON o�3 y46 615180 -6-