Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/1981Wednesday, November 25, 1981 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Courtroom, County Courthouse, 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, November 25, 1981, at 10:45 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; William C. Wodtke, Jr., Vice Chairman;"Dick Bird; Alfred Grover Fletcher; and Don C.Scurlock, Jr. Also present were Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Coordinator; George G. Collins, Jr., Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. DISCUSSION RE MISUSE OF F.I.T. TRACKING STATION PARK vunp�umv Administrator Nelson introduced Tom Adams of Florida Institute of Technology and Dr. Harry Weber, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of Studies and Research. Mr. Adams commented that at the time of acquisition, they agreed to secure their property with a decorative fence and not put gates in the opening, but chains. It now appears obvious that this arrangement is not sufficient to prevent misuse of the property,.especially because their area is more open and offers easier access :to the beach than the County property. He continued that they want to proceed with remodeling for a research facility and they plan to fix up a little house just inside the main gate and have a student in residence while the project is going on. Mr. Adams agreed that F.I.T. wants to solve the problem, and Dr. Weber has gotten funds together for an adequate fence around the property, but they would like to install a fence that would preserve the campus atmosphere as much as possible. Mr. Adams assured the Board of their full NOV 25191 1 BOOK 40" PkirrM L- NOV 251981 UOK 48 PAV20 cooperation and confirmed that they would be happy to post the area to assist the Sheriff with enforcement. Dr. Weber commented that they are proposing a fence back from the dune line - probably a wire fence. They have some small buildings 75' to 80' back from the dunes where they want to store equipment and they would like to be able to launch a small boat in the surf for research purposes. Discussion continued as to the best way to proceed and also as to the type of permanent fencing. Commissioner Wodtke emphasized the need for coordination between the County and F.I.T. He felt it would be desirable if they could immediately secure the area and get it posted and then work in conjunction with the County Recreation and Parks Committee. Dr. Weber agreed that F.I.T. will prepare a plan and consider it jointly with the Recreation and Parks Committee. He explained that the larger existing building will be a research laboratory, and the pedestal building is intended for classrooms; there will be a building for storage and one to be used as a residence; they will dispose of the domes. They hope to be on site right after the first of the -year. Considerable discussion ensued as to the type of fence desired, and it was generally,felt it should be a standard 6' high cyclone type -fence. Question arose as to whether there should be barbed wire on top of the fence and whether 6' was high enough. Mr. Latta, manager of Pebble Beach Villas noted that the residents want to be able to see through the fence. He questioned whether barbed wire was legal on fences around parks, and favored a fence 7' high without barbed wire. Setbacks for the fence were discussed, and Chairman Lyons questioned whether a chain link type fence would be strong enough. Dr. Weber pointed out that they intend to have a resident on the site within a short period of time, and 2 believed that this, coupled with the fence would be sufficient. It was agreed that F.I.T. will post signs reading "No Trespassing — Florida Institute of.Technology Property," and further agreed that they will plan on installing a 7' chain link fence and coordinate on the setbacks. ASSESSMENT FEE STRUCTURE FOR PEBBLE BAY AREA REVIEWED Administrator Nelson reviewed his memo of November 20th which is as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 20, 1981 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: Proposed Assessment Fee Structu^e for Pebble Bay Sewage REFERENCES: The Board of County Commissioners acquired a five -acre tract on April 7, 1976, in the Pebble Bay area for $200,000.00. A sewage treatment plant was located on this property. The Board's intention was to operate this plant .for a short duration and then connect.the users of the plant to the City of Vero Beach sewage system. The County assumed direct operation of this plant August 23, 1978. Extensive repairs are required by D.E.R. if we continue to operate the system. The cost estimate of these repairs is $175,105.50. Based upon last fiscal year's revenue and budget expense, it would take 13 years to recover these costs. The customer base is limited; therefore, upgrading of the system and continued operation is not profitable. The alternative would be to connect to the City of Vero Beach sewer system. On November 5, 1980, a tri -party agreement was entered into by the Town of Indian River Shores, the City of Vero Beach, and Indian River County for the City of Vero Beach to supply sewer service. In this agreement the County is required to: 1. Release 290,000 gallons per day from the County's regional waste water allocation. 2. Pay the City $187.50 per unit for every unit in the unincorporated area of Pebble Bay now connected to the County's system. 3. Participate with the Town of Indian River Shores in the Force Main construction and connection. 4. Pavement replacement. 5. Meter and meter pit installation.. 6. Pump station installation(s). 3 NOV 25 1981 L_ BOOK 48 PAcF 203 NOV 25 1981 Box 48 PnE 2.04 The estimated project cost to the County is $242,811.41. This includes construction and engineering costs, contingency costs, possible legal fees, and interest charges. These costs could be paid by the County or provided for through assessment fees in accordance with Ordinance 81-27. The Town of Indian River Shores assessment fees are as follows: Date Fee Reouired The above fees include a 10�' increase in fees per year. The 10% is due to interest on the Town's construction loan. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 1. The County assume all project costs and not assess the customers. Advantage a) No public hearing would be required. b) Immediate construction could begin. c) Five acre tract available for park development. d) Elimination of package treatment plant. e) Available package treatment plant for other location in the County. Disadvantage a) The entire project costs of $242,811.41 will be assumed by the County. b) Board would be required to provide project fees. 2. The County assign four (4) units (park restrooms) to the five -acre parcel • to increase the assessible units to 264 for an impact assessment of $919.74 per unit. Advantage a) The County would save $175,105.50 -required to keep existing plant in operation. b) The assessment would be shared by all users. c) Five -acre tract available for park development. d) Elimination of package treatment plant. e) Available package treatment plant for other location in the County. Disadvantage a) Public hearings on the assessment would be required. b) The assessment would be larger than that of the Town of Indian River Shores. (This is because the customer base and construction cost are different.) 4 - M M 1981 $635.00 January 1, 1982 699.00 January 1, 1983 769.00 January 1, 1984 846.00 The above fees include a 10�' increase in fees per year. The 10% is due to interest on the Town's construction loan. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS 1. The County assume all project costs and not assess the customers. Advantage a) No public hearing would be required. b) Immediate construction could begin. c) Five acre tract available for park development. d) Elimination of package treatment plant. e) Available package treatment plant for other location in the County. Disadvantage a) The entire project costs of $242,811.41 will be assumed by the County. b) Board would be required to provide project fees. 2. The County assign four (4) units (park restrooms) to the five -acre parcel • to increase the assessible units to 264 for an impact assessment of $919.74 per unit. Advantage a) The County would save $175,105.50 -required to keep existing plant in operation. b) The assessment would be shared by all users. c) Five -acre tract available for park development. d) Elimination of package treatment plant. e) Available package treatment plant for other location in the County. Disadvantage a) Public hearings on the assessment would be required. b) The assessment would be larger than that of the Town of Indian River Shores. (This is because the customer base and construction cost are different.) 4 - M M 3. The County provide the sum of $60,900 to the project. Advantaqe a) Maximum flexibility in methods of County financing. b) The total assessment would be comparable to that of the Town of Indian River Shores. c) Elimination of package treatment°plant. d) Available package treatment plant for other location in the County. Disadvantage a) Public hearing would be required. b) Results in funding cost to County. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that: 1. The County provide the sum of $60,900 toward the project cost. 2. 260 units in the Pebble Bay sewage area be assessed 5700.00 per unit. 3. The assessment procedure outlined in Ordinance 81-27 be followed. 4. Funding a) Funding of the $60,900 could be provided frcm the following: 1) Gifford Utility Enterprise Fund. 2) Escrowed Utilities Impact Fees 3) F.H.A. money.available at low interest. 4) General Fund money could be used since the park would be available to all County residents. 5) Unobligated interest income from South County Water System. 5. It is recommended that: Initial funding of approximately $60,900 be provided from the Escrow Utility Impact Fee and unobligated interest income of approximately $25,000.from the South County Water System. 5 aGOK 8 PAcf. ��� NOV-25 1981 N 0 V 25 1981 800K 48 FACT 200 Administrator Nelson stated that he would like to add an additional recommendation that interim financing be authorized until funds are collected. Discussion followed regarding funding, and it was noted that the estimated project cost of $242,000 does not include the cost of moving the plant. Question arose as to whether the donated plant would be purchased from the Gifford Utilities Enterprise fund, whether the value of the donated plant would be in the vicinity of $60,000, what the cost involved in moving it would amount to, and what the cost of buying a new plant would be. Engineer Guy Sullivan felt the cost of such a plant on the open market would be from $150,000 to $200,000 installed and informed the Board that it cost about $11,000 to move the plant, which was not in the ground at the time, from Castaway Cove to Kings Highway. Utility Director Liner reported that there is money in the Utilities budget for moving that plant. Commissioner Wodtke wished to know if we have spent all the money we were allocated from FHmA. He pointed out that we put a sewer plant in Gifford that didn't cost us anything ' except moving costs, and he believed we should set some type of value on that plant and release those funds to be utilized in the Pebble Bay area, i.e., since the -Gifford system in reality did not pay for that plant, we could use these funds and reimburse the General Fund, which would give us a plant we could eventually use somewhere else in the County, possibly at Blue Cypress Lake. Attorney Collins believed the loan funds are all expended for budgeted expenses, but felt there are still surplus grant funds over and beyond the budgeted expense. Discussion ensued about the high impact cost which results from the small base, and it was Questioned whether four units were sufficient to assign for the park restrooms. A _ M M E 1 M M Commissioner Fletcher felt installing septic tanks in the park area would be much more economical, but it was pointed out that if you are within 300' of a sewer line, you are required to hook up to it, and it was further noted that the county is saying we are willing to assess ourselves to help defray some of the cost. In further discussion it was noted that while the 260 units referred to include the vacant lots in Pebble Bay, the F.I.T. property was not figured in. It was generally felt that F.I.T. should be contacted' -in this regard. Question next arose about Eckerd's Drug Store and the 7-11 convenience store paying an assessment to the county, and it was noted that we must work on the assumption that h the annexation is going.to take place and that once this takes place the county will not have the authority to assess in these locations. The need for subsidizing the system to some extent in order to have uniform assessments and have an agreement with the Town of Indian River Shores for them to pay the assessment to the County after annexation was next reviewed. A great deal of discussion followed as to the value to be assigned to the donated plant and the actual cost to move it, which Commissioner Wodtke felt could amount to as much as $30,000. Chairman Lyons felt that rather than subsidizing anything, we are buying a sewer plant and four taps, and' Administrator Nelson pointed out that it would cost about $175,000 to put the Pebble Bay system in compliance with D.E.R. standards and then we would have to go up on the rates. Commissioner Scurlock felt there is merit in the fact that the plant is worth something in whatever system we use it, and he did not have a problem in assigning a value to a system we will be able to move and use somewhere else or 7 BOOK 4no PAcF 207 I NOV 25 1981 BOOK 48 PACT 208 with charging ourselves for whatever taps we are going to use. Commissioner Fletcher continued to talk about economics as opposed to reality and having septic tanks in the park, and Commissioner Wodtke felt it would not be fair for the park to be on septic tanks and have the residents mandated to go on sewer. In further discussion, it was felt that it would cost about as much to go with septic tanks as to go on the sewer in any event. Attorney Collins pointed out that the property with the sewer plant on it is not particularly useful for park purposes whereas without the plant, it serves the whole county, and the Board.will be serving a county function by making that property usable. Discussion continued about subsidizing to make the assessment the same as that of Indian River Shores, and Commissioner Wodtke noted that residents have to pay the cost of moving their own plants in order to hook up into our system and discussed the possibility of having the residents share in the cost of moving our plant. Mr. Latta, Manager of Pebble Beach Villas, stated that actually they don't have to move their plant; they could just disconnect it, and he objected to sharing in the cost a of moving the county -plant. The issue of a critical time frame was brought up, and Administrator Nelson noted that the contractor has already given us an extension, and if we wait past December 1st, there will be an increase of $5,500 for materials. He further noted that before any funds can be collected, we have to advertise the assessment roll and have a public hearing. Chairman Lyons stated that he would be glad to get with Indian River Shores and see if we can get an agreement about collection of assessments rather quickly. He reported that 8 he has received an indication that they will cooperate, but he still wished to know what to do about Eckerd's and 7-11 stores. Further discussion ensued re the value of the donated plant, the status of Eckerd's and 7-11 stores, the F.I.T. property, etc., and Attorney Collins felt the Board should consider that when the Pebble Bay plant and the property on which it is located were bought, the property was bought at substantially less than the market value because of the sewer plant being located upon it, and it was anticipated there would be expenses associated with removal of the plant at some time. He believed that the property was worth at least.$100,000 more than we paid for it. Lengthy discussion continued re the impact fee, and the possibility of raising it to $800. Mr. Latta strongly objected to any raising of the impact fee. Chairman Lyons noted that removing this plant will result in a park for the use of the whole county. He felt the $700 figure makes sense and is one that can be sold to Indian River Shores for collection. In addition, he pointed out that we can help the situation by adding the various parcels discussed. The Chairman pointed out that we are not able to run the sewer plant at a reasonable cost because of the problems we inherited, and he believed it is worth the money, if we can get rid of this plant. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, to set a value on the used plant of $40,000; include the additional commercial property and F.I.T. property in the assessment roll; and reach an agreement with the Town of Indian River Shores about collection of the impact fees on any annexed property. The Board continued to review the figures involved, and Commissioner Scurlock felt 267 taps would result in an impact fee of approximately $815. Alternatives for trying to reduce this amount were suggested, and it was noted that N O V 25 1991 9 gooK P1. �� N O V 25 1991 9bGK PACT 210 the County already has had to put a great deal of money into this plant to keep it running. It was suggested that the Motion be amended to include the statement that any assessment was not to exceed $800 for residential connection. The Motion was reworded by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, to agree to set a value on the used plant of $40,000 with $15,000 being the figure estimated for moving costs; to include the additional commercial property and F.I.T. property in the assessment roll, the assessment not to exceed $800 for residential connection; and to reach an agreement with the Town of Indian River shores about collection of these fees on any annexed property. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas informed the Board that he has had a discussion with First Bankers and they are willing to accept tax anticipation notes against the eventual assessment income from this project. It was agreed that a Special Meeting would be called for Monday, November.30, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. in the County Courtroom to approve the finalized assessment figures and act on awarding the contract. There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:55 o'clock P.M. Attest: Clerk 10 �X4 Chairman I