Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 17, 2017 Public CommentCouncil cannot take action or deliberate on items that are not on this agenda unless there is an emergency and the need to take action on that emergency arose after this agenda was posted (Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2)), All other items may only be referred for review to staff or placement on a future Council agenda. Augie Yrigollen expressed concerns with the recent flyer from Waste Management regarding potential fines and penalties against those who do not recycle properly, stating it is unfair to impose fines on those who accidently dispose of trash improperly and it is a violation of privacy for Waste Management workers to sift through customers' bins. He stated his bins are secured behind a locked gate and he does not want Waste Management coming onto his property. Mr. Yrigollen stated that he contacted citizens through the Nextdoor app and this seems to be a common concern among residents. Mayor Kuehne responded that Council had a Shirtsleeve Session on this topic to discuss how the issue of improper recycling has become so problematic. He explained that over the years the number of people abusing the opportunity to recycle has increased and more and more people are putting garbage into the recycling or yard and garden bins, which contaminates recyclables. Waste Management determined the way to handle the problem is to catch the attention of citizens by penalizing those who are abusing the system. Mayor Kuehne stated those who follow the rules and recycle properly will not have a problem. He further stated that Waste Management will not go onto properties to inspect bins, but they will spot check cans that are on the curbside. Mr. Yrigollen thanked Mayor Kuehne for the explanation, stating the flier came across as serious and it caused concern among residents. Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi stated the fear is legitimate because many others felt the same way. City Manager Schwabauer further explained that Waste Management is not after residents who accidently dispose of a plastic bag or greasy pizza box in the recycling bin; instead, Waste Management wants to hold those individuals accountable who are putting a significant amount of non-recyclables, such as bicycles, diapers, charcoal, paint, and oil, in the recycling or yard and garden bins. He stated it is difficult to market the policy and get the message out to all citizens, especially if the flyer were to state that rules will be softened for less significant violations or one- time accidents. He stated residents will receive notices for improper recycling, but fines will not be assessed on those who make a one-time mistake or have minor issues with recycling. Council Member Johnson agreed that the marketing issue by Waste Management was a public relations disaster and the company is rethinking its process and where to go from here. He announced that he will be joining the City Manager and Public Works Director tomorrow to meet with Waste Management staff and view the recycling line and process. Council Member Johnson stated he believes Waste Management will work with the City to ensure the program is truly directed at habitual abusers of the recycling system and not at those who genuinely attempt to follow guidelines. Spencer Dayton commented on the last Council meeting, at which the Mayor Pro Tempore requested he not provide his testimony during the public hearing process for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Draft Annual Action Plan. While he is not upset that he was prevented from commenting, he questioned whether the action was a violation of the Brown Act because the City cannot prohibit testimony and, whether there is agreement among all parties or not, the public has a right to speak. Mike Lusk read from and submitted a claim (filed) asking that the City use the funds received from the sale of property located at 705 East Lodi Avenue (former Fire Station 2) to repay the interfund loan from the Water Impact Fee fund in 2001 to build Fire Station 4 in the amount of $1.9 million plus the accrued annual interest on the loan starting with the 2002 year to 2017 or until the loan is completely repaid. 5 A_p_ot LODI CITY COUNCIL LODI CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM G-01 OF MAY 17, 2017 CLAIM OF MAY 17, 2017 THAT THE CITY OF LODI USE THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 705 EAST LODI AVE (FORMER FIRE STATION 2; APN 043-230-06) TO REPAY INTER -FUND LOAN FROM THE WATER IMPACT FUND IN 2002 TO BUILD FIRE HOUSE 4 IN THE AMOUNT OF 1.9 MILLION DOLLARS PLUS AND THE ACCRUED ANNUAL INTEREST ON THIS LOAN STARTING WITH THE 2002 YEAR TO 2017 OR UNTIL LOAN IS COMPLETELY REPAID. The City of Lodi by not repaying this loan in a timely manner has over the years continually shorted the Water Utility Enterprise Budgets on an annual basis and unfairly inflated the Utility budgets. This is contrary to Prop 218 and the wording of the Certificates of Participation stating that the City of Lodi was not directly responsible nor the obligation of the General Fund to repay these COP's and only the revenues of the Utility would be obligated to repay the COP. The City by diverting the Water Impact Funds is opposed to Prop 218 revenue neutral provisions and prohibiting the City of Lodi from diverting revenues away from the Utility for General Fund purposes. Therefore, since Firehouse 4 was a General Fund Asset, built with Impact Mitigation Fee Funding it is logical to use the revenue of sale of Old Firehouse 2, a General Asset of like kind, to repay the Water Impact fund loan. In so doing those Water Impact funds can be used to offset Water Enterprise budget items such as the payment of Certificate of Participation loan for the construction of the surface water treatment plant at Lodi Lake. The City has specified that 46 percent of the cost of this plant is to be paid by Developer Impact Mitigation Fees on any new housing which increases the demand on the system. After 15 years I think it is time for the City of Lodi to repay the Citizens/rate payers back this loan and provide some Utility rate relief. Page 1 of 2 Mike Lusk disclaimer: All the information contained in this Claim is meant to support the argument of the Claim and not in any way meant to miss -lead the intention of this Claim. The representation of sources and excerpts were taken from official documents in part or in whole but may not contain all of the information of the source document. Persons reviewing this Claim are urged to review all source documents in their entirety if further understanding is required. This Claim is directed at the City of Lodi and not to anyone individual or individuals within the City Government. Respectfully Mike Lusk 2518 Colony Dr. Lodi, Calif. Page 2 of 2