Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-17 - City Commission Budget Workshop Meeting MinutesMAIL REPLY TO; P.Q. BOX 25010 TAMA RAC, FLORIDA 33320 58'f1 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722.5900 September 12, 1986 NOTICE OF BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COUNCIL TAMARAC, FLORIDA There has been a City Council Workshop Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, Se tember 17, 19ll, at 10:00'A.M. in the West Conference Room o y a , NW 88 Avenue, for review of Proposed Budgets for Fiscal Year 1986/87. The public is invited to attend. T Carol E. Barbuto Assistant City Clerk 0 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING September 17, 1986 Tape 1 CALLTO ORDER: Mayor Hart called the meeting to order at 10:00 A.M., on Wednesday, September 17, 1986, in the West Conference Room of City Hall. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Bernard Hart Councilman Sydney M. Stein Councilman Arthur H. Gottesman Vice Mayor Jack Stelzer Councilwoman Helen Massaro ALSO PRESENT: John P. Kelly, City Manager Frank Etheredge, Finance Director Patricia Marcurio, Secretary Mayor Hart said at the Public Hearing, which was held on Monday evening, 9/8/86, the original Resolution was amended after dis- cussion and comment from the public to have'a 3.35 millage rate and a 6% utility tax. He said after the Motion was made and approved, it was noted that the utility tax was on both electric and telephone. He said technically a utility tax could cover water and sewer as well. Mayor Hart said the Finance Director and City Attorney told him there is a State Statute which reads as follows: "A public hearing to finalize the budget and adopt the millage shall be held not less than two days or more than five after the date the advertise- ment is first published. At the meeting, the adoption of the budget millage levy shall be by separate votes. In no event shall the millage rate adopted may not exceed the millage rate tentatively adopted at the first meeting." Mayor Hart noted that it was; therefore, impossible to add any other charge and they had to go with a 3.35 millage rate. Mayor Hart said Walter Falck, the Executive Director of the Broward League of Cities, attended the Public Hearing on 9/8/86, and gave Council a copy of a survey that the League is making on utility tax levies which shows that 21 cities do have the utility tax. He said of these 21 cities there are only 4 cities besides Tamarac that do not have a utility tax and the greatest amount have a 10% tax on all utilities. Mayor Hart said he did a survey of 26 cities and all of them have a separate garbage charge with the exception of 5, which include the garbage charge in the ad valorem taxes. He said in most cases the charge appears on the monthly utility bill and some have separate contracts with the collection company. C/W Massaro asked if the commercial and rental properties furnish and pay for their own garbage collections or does the City do that and Mayor Hart said he did not determine that. C/W Massaro said that makes a difference. Frank Etheredge, Finance Director, said the last meeting left the tax rate at $3.35 with a 6% utility tax. He said there has been some complaints of this and the only choices now are the 6% utility charges on telephone and electricity or a full garbage fee. He said whatever direction Council gives will be worked out for the next Budget meeting. C/W Massaro said "all utilities" could include water and sewer and Mayor Hart said if a 6% utility tax were passed it could go on all other utilities unless specified otherwise. 1 9/17/86 /pm C/M Stein said at the meeting it was clearly stated that the discussion of all utilities at this moment meant electric and telephone. He said Waste Management notified them that direct billing to the residents would have a minimum charge of $.35 per month as an additional amount and Council felt that was not a necessary charge to pass on to the residents. C/M Gottesman said even though Council at this time is only considering electric and telephone, at a future time Council could add a water and sewer charge. Mayor Hart said if the Council decided to go to a utility tax, the Resolution should read "tele- phone and electric" only. C/W Massaro asked Mr. Etheredge if the garbage collection fee would cover the amount of money that is needed for the operation of the City and Mr. Etheredge said yes, and he noted that is the fairest way to handle this. C/W Massaro said that would be the most economical way for the residents. Mayor Hart asked Mr. Etheredge what the garbage charge would be for single family homes and condominium units and Mr. Etheredge said he was quoting $6.39 but the newspaper had an amount of $6.37 for residential units and $3.06 for condominium units per month. He said this would be a charge to a house whether the services are turned on or not. Mayor Hart asked if this garbage collection fee could be handled by a semi-annual bill to each property owner instead of a monthly billing on the utility bill and Council members said no. C/M Stein said that would be more expensive and he suggested that monthly billing be considered if this is adopted. He said the people who benefit from the garbage collection fee are the commer- cial users since they pay their own fees. He said the City residents are paying $3.00 for garbage collection now with a condominium paying $1.70; therefore, the residents will only be paying $3.00 more plus a few cents more in the ad valorem. He said he is in favor of the garbage collection fee. V/M Stelzer said Council has received mixed comments since the people in the east area of the City, whose homes have low assessed values, complain that they will be paying more total taxes if an ad valorem tax of $3.35 plus the 6% utility tax is levied. He said; however, in the areas with families, there is complaint that a home with 6 people could pay over $300.00 per month for electric bills. He said the people in the Woodmont area, where the homes have a high assessed value, are in favor of garbage collection fee. V/M Stelzer said by charging the garbage collection fee on the utility bill, residents are being charged what they should be charged. He said if the City adopts the utility tax the business people will pay much more because they have higher utility bills. He said he feels the fairest way would be the garbage collection tax. C/M Stein said rentals are commercial as well and C/W Massaro said those people pay an Occupational License for each unit. V/M Stelzer said presently the owner of a property of entire rental units pays an ad valorem tax which is included in the rent. He said they will now reduce the ad valorem taxes the owner of the apartment complex and increase the garbage collection fee for each unit. He said there are many inequities but the garbage collection fee would only charge the resident for what they are getting. 1 2 9/17/86 /pm C/M Gottesman said according to a Tam -A -Gram of November, 1985, there was a survey made by the County regarding taxes such as property, utility, garbage, etc., and, of the 18 cities included in this survey, the garbage collection per unit was $36.00 per month maximum. He said if the garbage collection tax is adopted in Tamarac, the maximum amount residents will pay is $78.00 per year. He said he felt the garbage collection fee was the fairest route to take. V/M Stelzer asked if the City pays for garbage collection for the unoccupied or not owned apartments and Mr. Etheredge said if a condominium has received a Certificate of Occupancy then the City pays a garbage fee. C/W Massaro said these are approximate rates because the Finance Director has to check this further. She suggested that the new rates include the full tipping charge that will be assessed to the City and Mr. Etheredge said it is included now. C/W Massaro asked if there will be a small fee required as a service charge to the City for accounting, billing, etc. Mr. Etheredge said this will be included on the utility bills and that cost is considered. in the rates. C/W Massaro said this should be considered further. Mayor Hart said he originally favored the higher ad valorem but now feels that he would support the garbage fee instead of a utility tax. He said the comment was made that commercial users would not pay this because they pay separately; however, when the franchises for the various collection companies are due, the City could consider a franchise to one company with rates set for commercial pickups in the City. Mr. Etheredge said the City may try to consolidate the garbage pickup for residential and commercial under one contract to reduce the rates. David Silvergleid, resident, said there are inequities in any option and he noted that if commercial businesses were taxed on utilities, that would have been added to the sales price and the consumers of the City would suffer. He said Council was concerned about setting a precedent by imposing a tax on utilities and he complimented Council on their decisions. Irving Lopatey, President of the Tamarac Presidents Council, said the people who attended the first Public Hearing on the budget were not aware that the City was tied into the maximum millage rate that was sent. He asked why today's discussions were not brought out before this. C/M Gottesman said at the Public Hearing, when the utility tax was explained, he suggested that consideration be given to going to a non -subsidized garbage fee. Mr. Lopatey said there was no mention at that meeting that once a millage rate was established, it could not be increased at the next meeting. Mr. Etheredge said the situation has arisen because no Council has ever set the tax rate and then tried to raise it. Shirley Slumfield, resident, said most people would be happy to pay just the garbage removal fee and she suggested Waste Management bill the resident directly. Council members explained that this cannot be done this year because there is a standing contract. Vickie Beech, resident, said she concurs with the garbage removal fee and she suggested that when this is implemented, the legisla- tion indicate that it is just garbage. She said she feels no one should be exempt to paying this fee such as various houses of worship. She asked if residents would not be vulnerable to Waste Management's negotiations if they have an exclusive contract with the City. 3 9/17 86 /pm Tape 2 Louis Solomon, resident, said on behalf of the elderly residents who only have phone contacts with family in some cases, he would hate to see a utility tax on the telephone. C/M Stein noted that this is not a "garbage tax" but a "garbage removal fee". Milt Siegel, resident, asked if there will be an increase in the water and sewer fees and Council members said there is a meeting at 12:30 P.M. today to discuss that further. Mr. Siegel said the ad valorem is a 22% increase over last year. Mayor Hart said this is a garbage removal fee and he asked if this is addressed under State Law. Mr. Etheredge said what is being referred to is a tax that would be placed on the garbage removers themselves, not the residents. Louis Silverman, resident, said he originally objected to a garbage fee; however, after much discussion he felt this would be much more fair. He asked if that fee could be made a yearly amount and added to the County tax and Council members said no. Melanie Reynolds, resident, asked if the garbage collection fee had been included in the beginning, how much would the ad valorem have been. Council members said it was based on $4.58. Mrs. Reynolds said she objects to the garbage collection fee and feels the ad valorem is proper. V/M Stelzer said the City has never yet had a budget where the ad valorem was being raised above the rate that was established. C/M Stein said this is the fairest situation since the residents will only pay their fair share. C/W Massaro said the people east of 441 will have to pay more but they have always stated they are willing to pay their fair share. Mr. Lopatey asked how the $3.06 for condominiums will show on the utility bill and Mr. Etheredge said the water bill is being paid by the Association. He said there will just be the number of units times $3.06 and it will be one line item. Mr. Kelly said this budget is a "bare bones budget" and will not be a boon to the services that must be provided for the City. He said with the fixed costs of salaries, this budget is $47,000.00 less than what was used last year. He noted that this will not be a banner year for the City and he asked for cooperation with the various committees and boards as well as departments. Mayor Hart adjourned the meeting at 11:15 A.M. ATTEST: Marilyn Be tholf City Clerk This public document was promulgated $2.21 per copy to inform the general and employees about recent opinions Council of the City of Tamarac. 4 at a cost of $79.62 or public and public officers and considerations by the City 1 1 �J 9/17/86 /pm