Loading...
09-05-1990 - Special (2) ..... .....". ~ CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 8:25 P.M. MINUTES Mayor Mitchum called the special meeting to order at 8:25 p.m. in the Community Center. He questioned wording on the meeting notice that stated it would be after adjournment of the previous meeting, however, that was recessed. City Attorney Alvarez said if they recessed the meeting to a future date, there's a requirement for a 15-day notice and this recess is to the same date for a few minutes to deal with pending matters, and the notice called for the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and the public was on notice. He said he doesn't have an answer if the recess of 20 minutes has the same legal affect as 15 days. He added one meeting follows the other and notice is on the front and the public is still present. Mayor Mitchum asked if he sees a problem. City Attorney Alvarez said he doesn't see one now, but he i sn 't sayi ng there cou 1 dn 't be some. Mayor Mitchum recommended they table items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, and go to 5, and come back to the others. Councilman Hatfield asked if they'll come back to those tonight. Mayor Mitchum replied they'll table them until the next regular meeting. Councilmember Bennington didn't have a problem with tabling to the next regular meeting and she so moved. Motion DIED for lack of second. ROLL CALL Mayor David Mitchum Councilman Dan Hatfield Councilmember Gigi Bennington Councilman Russell Gold Councilman Thomas Fish City Attorney Jose' Alvarez City Manager Elly Johnson City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present Present Present Excused Excused Present Present Present Present Fire Chief1s recommendation to award bid for 13 air packs at $20,020 to National Draeger, Inc. - Mayor Mitchum asked if this is in the budget. Mr. Johnson replied within $100 and the balance will come out of the budget of the Fire Department. Fire Chief Vola said the original estimate was $19,500. Mr. Johnson said it's about $500. Mayor Mitchum noted it's $520 over. Councilman Hatfield moved they award the bid for 13 air packs. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-0. Recommendation to award residential recycling contract to Tomoka Waste, Inc., Ormond Beach, at cost of $1.54 per residence - Councilman Hatfield moved they adopt the recommendation. Motion DIED for lack of second. Utilities Director1s recommendation to award bid for sludge truck tank to Bennett Truck Eauipment in amount of $12,431 - Councilman Hatfield moved they accept the Utilities Director's recommendation and award the sludge truck tank. Council- member Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-0. Appointment of citizen to Capital Improvements Program Committee - Councilmember Bennington nominated John Nixon. Councilman Hatfield nominated Nora Jane Gillespie. Mayor Mitchum nominated Dominick Fazzone. Mr. Fazzone refused the nominat ion. Counci lman Hatfield moved to TABLE. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-0. First reading of Ord. 90-0-34 Providing for a 10% increase in water rates each year for the next five years: 6% increase in wastewater rates for fiscal years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and 5% for the fiscal years 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95: increase in wastewater svstem impact fee from $1,000 to $1,425 per eauivalent residential unit: increase in customer deposits from $30 for combined services to $45 each (total $90 for combined utility services) applicable to new residential customers, and for non-residential customers deposit to be two times average monthly bill - Mayor Mitchum stated they have a letter from Councilman Fish and he read the letter into the record, which is attached and made a part of these minutes, correcting the number on the ordinance to be 90-0-34. ~ ~ " First reading of Ord. 90-0-34 (Continued) Mayor Mitchum read the ordinance. ORD. 90-0-34 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19, UTILITIES AND SERVICES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, BY PROVIDING FOR A TEN (10%) PERCENT INCREASE IN WATER RATES EACH YEAR FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS; A SIX (6%) PERCENT INCREASE IN WASTEWATER RATES FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990-91 AND 1991-92 AND FIVE (5%) PERCENT FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1992-93, 1993-94, AND 1994-95; INCREASE IN WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE FROM ONE THOUSAND ($1,000.00) DOLLARS TO ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE ($1,425.00) DOLLARS, PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT; INCREASE IN CUSTOMER DEPOSITS FROM THIRTY ($30.00) DOLLARS FOR COMBINED SERVICES TO FORTY-FIVE ($45.00) DOLLARS EACH (TOTAL $90.00 FOR COMBINED UTILITY SERVICES) APPLICABLE TO NEW RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, AND FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS DEPOSIT TO BE TWO TIMES AVERAGE MONTHLY BILL; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. He asked the alternatives if they don't pass this related to the CIP. Mr. Johnson said they heard the Financial Advisor give them information that nobody would want to finance the bond and held have to answer that. He added the rate increases have been discussed at a lot of the CIP meetings and they authorized Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt to do the rate study in order to do financing of the bond. He said if no action's taken, they'll operate under present rates and wi 11 adjust the budget to reflect current rates, but most increases were based on the bond issue. He sa i d if Counc il doesn't want to proceed with the bond issue, that's fine, and they've received permits from the County and from DER and they're looking at restricted water again next year if they have the same kind of year. Councilman Hatfield asked if there are alternative means of financing. Mr. Johnson explained there is no grant or special revolving fund for water and they have two years' approval in the State Revolving Fund and are trying for a third year on the sewer to keep rates down but the only way for water is through rates of the system. Councilman Hatfield moved they accept 90-0-34. Motion DIED for lack of second. Councilman Hatfield moved to TABLE. Councilmember Bennington stated they could have a workshop to go over rates. Councilman Hatfield moved to TABLE it to Monday night. Mayor Mitchum stated the motion to table died for lack of second. Councilman Hatfield asked if he can bring it back. City Attorney Alvarez stated a motion to reconsider can be made at a subsequent meeting so the motion could be made. Mayor Mitchum said it died tonight for lack of second, but could he request it be put back on an agenda. City Attorney Alvarez said then it would have to be a special meeting. Councilman Hatfield moved they bring this up again Monday night. Mayor Mitchum said it will be on the agenda at Councilman Hatfield's request. Councilman Hatfield recommended they include the recycling contract in that same workshop. Mayor Mitchum didn't have a problem with that, noting it will be at 7:00 p.m. for a special meeting and workshop for discussion and action on water utility rates and maybe the rate study and wastewater budget and franchise. Mr. Johnson suggested the workshop on the water budget be first and then follow it with a special meeting. Mayor Mitchum agreed. Councilmember Bennington asked to include Hacienda Del Rio. Mayor Mitchum agreed it could be brought back for action. City Manager's request for funds for Kennedv Park boat ramp repairs due to bids coming in over budgeted amount - Mr. Johnson stated they were advised by the Port Authority that the money they'd appropriated, and the cost to do the four ramps of around $50,000 was about $10,000 more than anticipated, and they've asked the City for $5,000 as a share of the cost. He added they'll ask the County tomorrow to approve $41,000 pending approval of getting the rest of the money. Councilmember Bennington moved they accept the Manager's request. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-0. Discussion on direction for purchase of Indian River Utilities (Hacienda Del Rio) Councilmember Bennington moved they TABLE until Monday night. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 3-0. George Ewing asked if all the items on the agenda are first reading. Mayor Mitchum explained they're some items from last Wednesday's meeting to expedite them and only 90-0-34 was first reading, which was tabled. Mr. Ewing asked if only item 5 was first reading. Mayor Mitchum replied yes. Mayor Mitchum suggested a motion to adjourn. Councilman Hatfield so moved. Councilmember Bennington seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lura Sue Koser 2 Council Special Meeting Minutes September 5, 1990, 8:25 p.m. 'w ~ .... Signature page for Council Special Meeting Minutes, September 5, 1990, 8:25 p.m. ATTEST: 'I ~ J ?i--L/~~ "tITY CLERK / A~roved this I day of d , 199 0 . ~~$:. M YOR J)~~~ Lf(b (/1-_"'-' {/ ~ ~1 3 Council Special Meeting Minutes September 5, 1990, 8:25 p.m. r- '- .... RECEIV.ED ~ t: () - ~ 1~9U. ................... Mayor and fellow council members, i As I'm sure you know I am unable to attend meetings on wednesdays due to my schedule. While I realize that the budget hearing has been scheduled for September 5th, I am disappointed that the special meeting was . called for a time which I am unavailable. Several of the items on the agenda for tonights special meeting are very important, and I feel it appropriate to express my opinion. First is Ordinance 90-0-43 increasing the water rates for the next five years, by ten p~rcent. These rate increases were not part of the original plan, this was very strongly articulated by both the Mayor and myself during the various C.I.P. committee meetings. In fact the mayor pointed out in no uncertain terms that the phrase "rate increase" was an obscenity and would not be tolerated. I also find the simplistic way in which the rate increases have been presented to be objectionable. Using the figures presented in the D.R.M.P. rate study it would initially appear that there would be a fifty percent (50%) increase over the next;five years, however, the actual impact is closer to 182% (the rate'at 10/94 compared to the existing rate) .1.... . o!: "-. 0 ": ," ,', ,.:' ",,' ~'; " 0 . I ... l.'... J ~ 'I 1 l l l< i} 1)~.. : " ~.. to,:!<j.' , In addition to the financial impact on the citizens, an~\in~:.., I.;;,'?~(,:~;, particular those on a "fixed income", there is the five year lock. ,);11;- '/J:i'; in period during which future co~ncils would have no control over: .jn}~t;'~~ the rate increases. Then there' is the potential problems with tl,/:~:J respect to the effluent discharge permit, our comprehensive land ;.: ,"j use plan, and the! possibility of a building moratorium in the ! Florida Shores area. True, we've heard there's a possibility that : these things can be worked out, possibly a compromise may be i. reached. But if these things can't be worked out, if a compromise can not be reached; if that very real possibility of a building moratorium should become a reality then the current citizens ,will be left holding the bag. The rapidly spiraling rates combined with the current economic uncertainties, the possible building moratorium along with the unreasonable burden it could place on the citizens make this ian unacceptable, action. I would encourage my fellow council members to search. their souls, look deeply at all the implications and the ultimate consequences of the passage of this ordinance. There is no doubt that we need sewer and water system improvements, however we should not be blinded by our desire to implement these improvements. We started with a definite plan, while there may be an obstacle in the path of our original plan is that reason enough to hastily abandon that plan and pursue a hastily charted and perilous course? It appears as though someone has adopted the attitude that this project is gOing to be pushed through no matter what. Let's not be blinded by the details of one specific issue at hand, we must maintain a view of the "big picture" and implication of all past and future actions. Were I present I would have no choice but to cast a vote in the negative. ~- ! . ....... " ...... RECE~VED c: C'lJ - " 1~~U -....---....--...--- Mayor and fellow council members, As I'm sure you know I am unable to attend meetings on wednesdays due to my schedule. While I realize that the budget hearing has been scheduled for September 5th, I am disappointed that the special meeting was called for a time which I am unavailable. Several of the items on the agenda for tonights special meeting are very important, and I feel it appropriate to express my opinion. First is ordinance 90-0-43 increasing the water rates for the next five years, by ten percent. These rate increases were not part of the original plan, this was very strongly articulated by both the Mayor and myself during the various C.I.P. committee meetings. In fact the mayor pointed out in no uncertain terms that the phrase "rate increase" was an obscenity and would not be tolerated. I also find the simplistic way in h'hich the rate increases have been presented to be objectionable. Using the figures presented in the D.R.M.P. rate study it would initially appear that there would be a fifty percent (50%) increase over the next five years, however, the actual impact is closer to 182% (the rate at 10/94 compared to the existing rate). In addition to the financial impact on the citizens, and in particular those on a "fixed income", there is the five year lock in period during which future councils would have no control over the rate increases. Then there is the potential problems with respect to the effluent discharge permit, our comprehensive land use plan, and the possibility of a building moratorium in the Florida Shores area. True, we've heard there's a possibility that these things can be worked out, possibly a compromise may be reached. But if these things can't be worked out, if a compromise can not be reached, if that very real possibility of a building moratorium should become a reality then the current citizens will be left holding the bag. The rapidly spiraling rates combined with the current economic uncertainties, the possible building moratorium along with the unreasonable burden it could place on the citizens make this an unacceptable action. I would encourage my fellow council members to search their souls, look deeply at all the implications and the ultimate consequences of the passage of this ordinance. There is no doubt that we need sewer and water system improvements, however we should not be blinded by our desire to implement these improvements. We started with a definite plan, while there may be an obstacle in the path of our original plan is that reason enough to hastily abandon that plan and pursue a hastily charted and perilous course? It appears as though someone has adopted the attitude that this project is going to be pushed through no matter what. Let's not be blinded by the details of one specific issue at hand, we must maintain a view of the "big picture" and implication of all past and future actions. Were I present I would have no choice but to cast a vote in the negative. I' -, " ....... '-' """'" second is the issue of awarding the recycling contract to Tomoka waste Inc. There are several questions which remain unanswered. when did the council authorize the letting of bids for this contract? shouldn't a contract of this importance and financial magnitude have been authorized by council? And why was it on the consent agenda for the previouS meeting? 11m not opposed to the implementation of a recycling program I am, however, opposed to the way in which the letting of the contract has been handled. Who decided to change the procedure, why, and with whose approval? Did the recommending parties consider the background of the company, its reputation in the community, its financial picture. A contract of this type not only has the potential for large financial rewards to the selected firm, but numerous liabilities. If the selected firm lacks the resources to lIcoverllthose liabilities then that obligation falls back to the city. Questions of this type need to be asked, just as they were during the selection of our original financial team for the C.I.P. until these questions are answered I would oppose the awarding of the contract to any firm. Thirdly, the Hacienda Del Rio utili ties. I was opposed to the purchase and I still feel that at this time the costs would out weigh the benefits to the community.