Loading...
062088-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: