Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/92affao CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 7, 1992 5:00 p.m. Large Conference Room Roll call: Angel, Budak, Buck, Lemke, Dell and Wright. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss levels of service and rates for solid waste management and garbage. (See Work Session minutes of November 23, 1992, for additional discussion) John Meyer, Public Works Director, presented additional detailed and cost information relating to the current level of service and an alternative budget for minimum service. The current service level budget amount is $3,400,000 which includes required and mandated services including garbage and refuse collection, yard waste collection, enforcement, and support administration. Other existing services include large item pickup, weed/litter/trash abatement, and street cleaning. In conjunction with the recycling program, additional services now authorized include recycling center/six neighborhood drop offs, a special spring/fall leaf collection and public education. A 5% contingency carry over is also included in said amount. The minimum service budget totals $2,800,000 and includes such required and mandated services as garbage and refuse collection, yard waste collection, enforcement, and support administration. Large item collection would be eliminated. The weed/litter/trash abatement program would be greatly reduced eliminating the operators and mowing crew. Complaints would be received and citations issued and the work load transferred to the city attorney's office. The proposed budget also decreases the level of service to the street cleaning function by 50%. The neighborhood recycling centers would continue to function; however there would be no spring/fall leaf collection. The educational campaign recently authorized by the Finance Committee would be reduced by 50%. The impacts of this minimum service budget would be as follows: 1. Layoffs of six employees, 2. No enforcement of mowing, 3. No abatement/clean up crew, 4. No "free" yard waste collection, 5. No large item collections/drop off, and 6. Drop off for recycling would be provided. Any of the above services could remain if desired by the City Council at a cost. Several rate scenarios were reviewed as follows: I. Full Service Budget A. Revenue Per Dwelling Unit = $12.00 per month B. Options 1. Fixed Fee of $12.00 per month 2. Fixed Fee of $10.00 per month plus $1.00 per bag after 1st 3. Fixed Fee of $11.00 per month plus $.50 per bag after 1st 4. Fixed Fee of $6.00 per month plus $1.00 per bag for all bags 5. Fixed fee of $9.00 per month plus $.50 per bag for all bags City Council Work Session December 7, 1992 5:00 p.m. Page 2 II. Minimum Service Budget A. Revenue Per Dwelling Unit = $10.00 per month B. Options 1. Fixed Fee of $10.00 per month 2. Fixed Fee of $8.00 per month plus $1.00 per bag after 1st 3. Fixed Fee of $9.00 per month plus $.50 per bag after 1st 4. Fixed Fee of $4.00 per month plus $1.00 per bag for all bags 5. Fixed Fee of $7.00 per month plus $.50 per bag for all bags Mr. Meyer emphasized the need to act on a rate increase immediately because of a projected deficit in the solid waste collection budget at year end. He stressed the need to raise the monthly fee to $10.00 per month beginning January 1st to avoid a negative fund balance. After considerable discussion, it was recommended that the following action be taken: Street cleaning be reduced by 50%, reducing costs from $269,000 to $174,000, and that the garbage fee be increased immediately to $10.00 per month. No decision was made on whether the weed/litter/trash abatement program should continue. It was agreed that once the recycling centers are in place, the city council will then review the garbage rate structure to determine the rate after the implementation of recycling. Members also favored a bag charge, which would encourage recycling. The Public Works Director was given informal approval to proceed with plan implementation. No official action was taken by the City Council at said meeting. With no further business before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Larry P. Burger City Clerk/Auditor CITY COUNCIL WORK SE ON December 7, 1992 6:00 p.m. Large Conference Room Roll call: Angel, Budak, Buck, Lemke, Dell and Wright. The purpose of the work session was to discuss two proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance which appear on the City Council Agenda under Public Hearings on December 7th. The first amendment increases setbacks for all "R-3" Multiple Family Residence Districts and less restrictive uses except the central business district from the current five foot side yard setback to a graduated setback depending on the building height. A proposed side yard setback as approved by the Planning, Programming & Zoning Commission has been reviewed by a group of developers and other interested parties. This group has submitted a petition recommending that the side yard requirements in "R-3" and less restrictive zones be amended to require a five foot setback for a one- story building, a 10 foot setback for two-story buildings, and 15 feet for a three-story building which is half of the recommended setbacks proposed by the Planning, Programming & Zoning Commission. City staff concurred in the less restrictive requirements. Reasons cited for increasing setbacks relate to safety, providing open spaces, and landscaping. The Fire Chief commented that the Commission's recommendations are adequate to maintain fire safety. It was also noted that the proposed amendments provide for a transfer of development rights which would allow a building to be constructed closer to the property line if the adjoining building is further from the property line than required. The second amendment to the zoning ordinance relates to landscaping requirements in "R-3" Multiple Family Residence Districts and less restrictive zoning classifications except the central business district. The landscaping requirements are designed to allow flexibility while still requiring a modest amount of landscaping with all new construction and additions of 10% or more. Several proposed lot layouts were shown and the minimal landscaping that would be required by the proposed ordinance. City staff have not received any objections to the proposed landscaping requirements. Bob Stevenson, City Planner, noted that the council would be considering an agreement with the Iowa Department of Transportation relating to street lighting on Relocated U.S. Highway 218. Conflict lights will be installed at the intersections where new traffic lights are being installed. Additionally, tower lights are being constructed in the downtown from W. llth to Black Hawk Creek and roadway luminaries are being placed from Black Hawk Creek to Forrester Avenue. The IDOT will be responsible for all energy and maintenance costs for tower lights and all of their lights associated with the highway. The city will be responsible for the energy and maintenance costs for all lights which are placed on city streets including the intersections of Ansborough and Maynard, Relocated Fletcher and Westfield, north and south bound U.S. Highway 218 at W. llth Street, and north and south bound U.S. 218 at Williston Street. The second agreement to be considered by the city council relates to the construction of parking lots under U.S. Highway 218 bridge in the downtown area. The land is owned by the IDOT; however, this agreement will allow the city to construct parking lots at a later time at our own cost. The agreement stipulates that upon notification by the State, the city could be required to vacate the premises although this clause has never been invoked in similar situations in other Iowa cities. The agreement does not commit the city to spend any money. The design and funding for said project would require city council approval at a later time. It was noted that the parking lots could be designed for a capacity of approximately 304 parking spaces. Any revenue derived from meters would be used by the city to defray costs of operation and construction. Any profits would be split with the State of Iowa at an 85% - 15% split. No official action was taken by the city council at said meeting. With no further business before the Work Session, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Larry P. Burger City Clerk/Auditor