HomeMy WebLinkAbout062088-Workshop Session MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
June 20,
1988
The City Commission of
the city Manager's Conference Room of the City
4:00 o'clock P. M. on June 20, 1988.
Hall in the City of Sanford,
Present:
the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Workshop Session in
Florida, at
Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith
Commissioner Whitey Eckstein
Commissioner John Y. Mercer
Commissioner Bob Thomas
Commissioner A. A. McClanahan
City Manager Frank A. Faison
Deputy City Clerk Janet R. Donahoe
Absent:
City Clerk H. N. Tamm, Jr.
City Attorney William L. Colbert
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Jim Jernigan, Director of Parks and Recreation, presente~ a film~..~~_.~ "~88_
Almost Anything Goes" and invited, the Commission and staff to participate in a fun-filled
day of light hearted competition on July 9, 1988 at 9:00 p.m. at Fort Mellon Park.
Commissioner Eckstein briefed the Commission on the interloca! Agreement
regarding signs in Lake Mary Boulevard right-of-way. Jay Marder, City Planner, reported
Sanford and Lake Mary would have common power to remove simple signs as set forth in the
Seminole County Land Development Code. The Commission authorized the proposed agreement to
be submitted to the City Attorney for his review and to place same on the Agenda of June
27, 1988.
Commissioner Thomas reported that Mrs. Ruth Hester had supplied him with a copy
of the Sanford Housing Authority Tenant Election information which was not followed on the
recent appointment to the authority. The Commission authorized said procedures to be
forwarded to the City Attorney for his review.
The City Engineer submitted a memo on the reclaimed water reuse program, as
follows:
RECLAIMED WATER REUSE PROGRAM
It is proposed that the Sanford Reclaimed Water Reuse
Program be structured with the objective of achieving maximum
cost effective reclaimed water reuse. It is believed that
the reuse program should be established by City ordinance,
within the utility section of the City Code. (Certain
procedures could possibly be established by resolution, or
City Commission "policy".)
Prior to drafting of a proposed ordinance, there are a
number of basic policy issues which need to be resolved for
staff guidance. Some of these issues are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
When and where should reclaimed water mains be installed?
Recommend that this be determined on the basis of receipt of
written requests for service, on a form to be developed, from
property owners within the neighborhoods of the City. The
request form should contain a written commitment to utilize
the reclaimed water fo~ irrigation of the specified property,
in accordance with r~les of the City and DER, when reclaimed
water is available. Perhaps subscription forms should be
mailed to all utility service customers.
It is recommended that reclaimed water mains be planned and
installed in a given "neighborhcod" when over 50% of property
owners in that neighborhood have submitted service requests.
This determination could be based on a count of lots within a
subdivision or on an "acreage" basis. Special consideration
should be allowed for large potential users whose property,
alone, could justify the cost effective installation of the
necessary reclaimed water main. Some method of defining a
minimum size "neighborhood" for reclaimed ~water main
installation should be developed. Perhaps this definition
should include consideration of the property fronting onto
the street right-of-way where the reclaimed water main may be
installed. {For instance, a main to be installed along a
two-block section of a City street could directly serve all
lots with frontage on that street.)
3 2 0 MINUTE S
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
installation should give heavy consideration to cost
effective installation of mains within given whole
neighborhoods rather than going "street by street". Soil
type and lot size will have significant bearing on the
overall cost effectiveness within a given neighborhood,
however, percent of property owners who subscribe for the
service must also be recognized. The common denominator
should be "specific cost" for the infrastructure installation
on the cost per projected GPD of consumption. This
consideration should allow both initial prioritization for
reclaimed water main installation, and later in the program,
for selection between possible alternative sites for
additional capacity. Capital cost funding for this project
must be identified.
The Sewer Bond Proceeds Trust Fund, augmented by DER grants,
would be the recommended initial source for funding. (An
non-recommended alternative could be partial capital costs
funding by assessment of a "capital" cost charge to each new
subscriber similar to a "connection charge". This
alternative is not recommended since it could discourage
subscription uo the system.) U!tima%e funding of the capi%ai
costs includes potential .for some capital cost recovery by
means of whatever type of service charge(s) are established
for the reclaimed water program. Capital recovery, similar
to bond debt service, could be included in either a monthly
flat rate administrative/ready-for-service charge or a small
increment on the gallonage consumption charge otherwise
necessary for system operation and maintenance. (Each of
these types of charges presently exist in our pouabte water
and sewer service rate structure. I recommend that the
reclaimed water program be viewed as being comparable to
these two existing utility programs.)
It will be necessary to establish certain property owner
responsibilities. These.should include the following:
Provide a dedicated "in ground" irrigation system for
application of reclaimed water. This system should have a
satisfactory backflow prevention device, and have no hose
bibs, or possible means of cross connection to the potable
water system within .the house. Specific DER regulations
will apply. Run-off into storm sewers will not be allowed.
Normally irrigation must not extend beyond the property
line. Irrigation is not allowed within 1OO-feet of a
private or public drinking water well head. A small volume
or consumption charge per 1,000 gallons of metered
consumption related to O&M, R&R, and ultimately supply vs.
demand.
A connection charge to cover the physical cost of connection
to the reclaimed water main, similar to the tap fees now
charged. This fee could be waived if actual work is
performed by a contractor, incident to subdivision
construction.
Customer charges for reclaimed water use clearly should %e
kept.at a minimum in order to encourage subscription and use
of the product, however, capital recovery for the system must
either be from the customers of this program or ultimately be
applied to the sewer and water system customers against a
water consumption base which we expect to somewhat reduce by
the use of reclaimed water for irrigation. It is therefore
believed appropriate to include a certain amount capital
recovery under the reclaimed water program to avoid a
concomitant increase of costs under the water and sewer
service sales program. This will clearly require careful
balancing.
Termination of service must be Provided for in cases of
refusal to comply with necessar~ rules and/or nonpayment of
bills. Recommend that billing be included in the present
water/sewer billing system to minimize administrative cost
and to insure payment.
June 20,19 88
back to the Commission.
The Commission authorized consideration of Amendment No. 13 to the Con, lin, Porter
and Holmes contract for engineering services for Effluent Filtration, Disinfection,
Storage, Pumping and Transm~sion Facilities to increase the fee by $12,600 to $406,719.47
to be placed on the ~ June~ 27, 1988 Agenda.
The Commission requested staff to devise a plan on saleable marketing and report
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
321
Jufie 20,1988
The Commission authorized consideration of Amendment No. 23 to the Conklin,
Porter and Holmes contract for engineering services in the agreement dated December 7, 1983
for and an update study for Water and Sewer Impact Fees estimated not-to-exceed a cost of
$18,800 to be placed on the January 27, 1988 Agenda.
Request submitted from Eduardo Vergara, Trustee, for City of Sanford water for
Bakersfield Estates, a subdivision of approximately 30 acres, North of Seminole College.
The City Engineer reported that the City surrounds said property on three sides but
does not have the ability to provide sewer service nor access for Fire service. This
property would be subject to a 25% surcharge and expand the utility base.
The Commission discussed that at the time the developer, Eduardo Vergara, Trustee
obtains right-of-way access for emergency vehicles to said proper~y, the request would be
reconsidered, and further, the 'developer would be responsible to extend line and impact
fee.
The City Manager and City Engineer recommended to adopt the Rental Rehabilitation
Policy Guidelines dated May 1988 as policy guidelines to the City. The Commission
authorized said be placed on the 6/27/88 Agenda.
The Commission reviewed the ramp fee waiver request from Halifax Cruise Club,
Inc. and the City Manager's recommendation that any special rate consideration should
benefit the community and not members of an organization. The Commission authorized said
request be placed on the Agenda for June 27, 1988.
There be no further business the meeting was adjourned.
ATTEST: