HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/29/1982Wednesday, September 29, 1982
The Board of County .Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County .
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, September 29, 1982, at 7:00 o'clock P.M.
Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover
Fletcher, Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons; and
William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Gary Brandenburg,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Michael J.
Wright, Administrator; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director;
and Janice Caldwell, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING RATES & CHARGES - WATER & SEWER
The hour of 7:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly_
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
/ n the matter of —1-3 �/Jl�!/�l[ 1 .,
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in e issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as secor•d class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period 'of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, cpmmission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said'hewspaper. Q
Sworn to and subscribedore rpe thisi�l"-1/ 1! day of � A. D. /qA�
( 1 � .�,
V07usiness Manager)
(SEAL) %t -jerk of the CircuitrCourt/—'Tr7dian River County, Florida)
EP 2 9 °192
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER
COUNTY ORDINANCE 1NCREASINGTHE`"
RATES AND CHARGES APPLICABLE TO
ALL COU NTY
-WATBRANRSYSTEMS
The Board of County fbmmissioruers mot
Indian River County will conduct a public
hearing on September 29, 1982 at 7:00 p.m.;in
the Commission Chambers at -the County
Administration Building, 184025th Street, Vara
Beach, Florida to consider, adoption of an
ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
.COUNTY • COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDIN19
INDIAN RIVER -COUNTY ORDINANCE No. .
,.80-13 SECTION 6, .RATES AND CHARGES;.
INCREASING AND MODIFYING THE
RATES AND CHARGES APPLICABLE TO
THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER AND
SEWER SYSTEMS; .PROVIDING FOR' IN-
CLUSION IN THE CODE,. SEVERABILITY:
AND EFFECTIVE DATE. �� :
Copies of proposed alternate rate and charge
schedules will be available for your inspection
In the County Administrator's Office, County -
Administration Building, 184025th Street, Vero
Beach. Florida.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he -she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he -she may need to insure that a ver-
batim
erbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which .record includes the testimauy Ala
evidence on which the appeal is based.
Sept.14,1482-r
F 71SEP 29 1982x Ft
The Chairman explained that the purpose of the meeting
f.
was to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance 80-13 regarding
the rates and charges of the County water and sewer systems.
He then explained the procedures that would be followed
during the course of the meeting regarding the order in
which persons would be heard.
Administrator Wright then reviewed his memorandum dated
September 23, 1982, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: September 23, 1982 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael
County .
SUBJECT: UTILITY RATES
REFERENCES:
I recommend for your consideration a water usage charge of $9.00 for
the first two thousand gallons and $2.25 for each additional thousand
gallons to fund the Utility Department in the 1982/83 fiscal year.
It is further recommended that sewer service charges, where applicable,
equal water services to a ceiling of 12,000 gallons on residential customers.
Commercial customers would not have a'ceiling limit.
The estimated revenue will be $1,518,548, or some $6,000 above pro-
jected expense of $1,513,526. The proposed rate does not include the usage
of impact fees in the operating budget. The revenue projections are based
on customers who will be on line October 1, 1982.
Attached is a copy of the projected October customers and the probable
customers who will become a part of the system during the fiscal year.
There is a potential for additional customers, but the total, at best, is
an educated guess.
The average water utility bill, based on 5,500 gallons of consumption,
will be $17.88. The current average utility bill, based on the $7.10/$1.50
rate, is $12.35. The $8.00/$2.00 minimum bill would have been $15.00.
Furthermore, I would propose that impact and tapping fees be increased
from $650 to $900 with the additional revenue being placed in the escrow
• account. There is approximately $350,000 in the account -at present and the
additional revenue would be in the neighborhood of $135,000.
Should you consider the impact fee proposal, I would further recommend
it be instituted on January 1, 1983. This would encourage potential custo-
mers to connect to the system prior to the impact fee increase. A proposed
schedule is attached.
If there are any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Present proposed
Impact Plant
294.84
1
550.00
Impact Mains
58.97
60.00
Meter Installation
90.00
90.00
Deposit
20.00
20.00
Vista Royale Peak
463.81
720.00
Average Tapping Fee
186.50
186.50
$650.31
$906.50
ANTICIPATED REVENUE BY CLASSIFICATION
12.50/2.25
Present Commercial Customers:
North County (33)
Water
Sewer
Single Family Residential (2,634)
$573,053
(593) $129,013
Mufti -Family Units (527)
100,362
(352) 67,035
Vista Royale Base (1347)
277,050
(1845) 276,750
Vista Royale Peak
17,211
17,211
Sub -Total
294,261
293,961
Present Commercial Customers:
North County (33)
27,225
(1)
.825
South County (90)
79,110
(34)
29,886
Vista Royale (9)
7,911
(7)
6,153
Sub -Total
114,246
361864
SUB -TOTALS
1,031,922
526,873
Service Charges
66,000.
GRAND TOTAL
$1,674,795
'Q 3,000 gallon base
SEP 29 1982
51 Pabc
1
SEP 29 1982
ANTICIPATED REVENUE BY CLASSIFICATION
* 11.50/2.25
Water S er
Single Family Residential $541,129 $121,S26
Multiv.Family Residential 94,038 62,811
Vista Royale Base 254,610 254,886
I
Vista Royale Peak 17,211 17 211
'271 7
Commercial Customers:
North County 26,829 813
South County 78,030 29,478
Vista Royale 7,803 6,069
1� 3b 1000
Sub -Totals 1,019 650 493,094
�1,51Z,744
Service Charges 66,000
GRAND TOTAL $1,578,744
3,000 gallon base
I ANTICIPATED REVENUE BY
CLASSIFICATION
9.00/2.25
Water
Sewer
Single
(2634)
533,543
(593)
120,118
Multi -Family
i
I
(527)
92,520
(352)
61,797
Vista Royale Base
(1847)
•199,476
(1845)
199,260
Vista Royale Peak
48,640
48,640
Present Commercial:
North County
(33)
26,730
(1)
864
South County
(90)
77,760
(34)
29,376
Vista Royale
(9)
7,776
(7)
6,048
Sub -Totals
$986,445
$4667103
1,
Service Charges
66,000
GRAND TOTAL
$1,518,548
* 2,000 gallon base
SEP291982
ANTICIPATED REVENUE BY CLASSIFICATION
* 8.00/2.00 Residential
12.00/3.00 Commercial
Water Sewer
Single (2634) 474,120 (598)107,640
Multi -Family (S27) 82,212 (352) 54,912
Vista Royale Base (1847) 177,312 (184S)177,120
Vista Royale Peak ' 43,236 43,236
Tro-InT 220,356
Present Commercial:
North County (33) 3S,640 (1) 1,080
South County (90) 103,680 (34) 39,168
Vista Royale (9)- 10,368 (7) 8,064
Sub -Totals $926,568 ,$431 220
1,357,788
Service Charges 66,000
GRAND TOTAL $1,423,788
* 2,000 gallon base
ANTICIPATED REVENUE BY CLASSIFICATION
* 7.10/1.50
Water Sewer
Single Family Residential (2634)(593) 390,358 83,114
Multi Family Residential (527)(352) 68,615 43,802
Vista Royale (1847) (1845) 106,286 94,248
Commercial Customers:
North County (33)(1) 18,2SS 553
South County (90)(34) 53,028 20,032
Vista (9) (7) S,302 4,124
J 641,844 245,873
GRAND TOTAL $887,717
* 2,000 gallons base
K 51 PA;E4F?7
5
SEP 29 1982 B,X 511. PAGE
1.
UTILITY DEPARTMENT EXPENSE
Debt Service & Reserve 492,946
R/0 Plant (3) 230,881
Distribution and Maintenance 592,602
Data Processing 75,000
Legal/Administration 25,000
j Capital Outlay 22,700
j Contingency 74,397
TOTAL 1,513,526
Present Residential -Single Family
water
Sewer
North County
782
182
South County
i
1,199
138
Sub -Total
1,981
320
Present Multi -Family Units
North County
112
55
South County
415
297
Sub -Total
527
352
Vista Royale
Sub
-Total
1,847
1,845
Present Commercial Customers
i -
North County
33
1
South County
90
34
Vista Royale
9
7
Sub -Total
132
42
Additional Customers by 10/1/82
Ixora Utilities
273
273
Laurelwood
180
South County
50
Maggie's Trailer Park
16
Tropic Villas North
117
Oak Villas
12
Colonial Heights
2
Colonial Terrace
3
Sub -Total
653
273
TOTAL PRESENT AND
ADDITIONAL CUSTOMERS
5,140
2,832
Probable Additional Customers
During Fiscal Year
Vero :fall
32
Tropic Villas Soutli
40
Pinecrest
4
Luria's Plaza
21
Random Customers
150
.TOTAL
247
Southtown Plaza 22 This has not been built.
Orange Terrace 64 There were 92 units buildable, there are 28
units completed and being serviced by the
Utilities. They have not started constructic
on the other building.
Maggie Trailer Park 16 16 We can service these people as soon as the
new water plant is runninq.
Vista Royale 458 This is based on the total possible amount
built in Vista Gardens and Forest Park.
Tropic Villas North 117 117 Nle are presently servicing these people sewer -
and will be servicing them Crater as soon as
possible.
TOTAL 1095 176 4
Administrator Wright further explained that the
original proposal for $12.50/2.25 was a bit ambitious, and
that he now recommended the $9.00/2.25 rate. He continued,
after queries from the Chairman, that it was true there was
a loss of revenue amounting to approximately $50,000 in
1981, and a loss of $60,000 for this past year, in the
Utility Department.
Chairman Scurlock commented that approximately 3h weeks
ago, he and the Administrator travelled to Gainesville to
visit the office of FmHA, who is providing the financing.
He added that FmHA would not allow the County additional
time to do a full rate analysis in order to generate enough
information to look at several options; their extension
request of 90 to 120 days was denied. The Chairman
commented that they were told to adopt a rate structure that
would be acceptable to FmHA, or the process would come to a
I�
S E P,2 9 1992
7
51 FA 6'j
IMPACT FEES
BUILDINGS
BUILDING
COLLECTED
PRESENT
UNDER
REMARKS
CONST.
Tropic Villas South
16
19
There are 10 buildings in existence presentl;
Oak Villas
19
19
Some completed and some under construction.
Carmens
65
This has not started construction. I under-
stand the density was changed from 65 to 40
units.
Colonial Heights
91
5
This development is next to Colonial Terrac"
however, we are servicing 5 new customers in
Colonial Terrace.
Pinecrest
107
0
4
Phase I and II have been developed, Phase III
has not even been developed.
Hotel
120
Lot is cleared, however there has. not been
any further construction. (It was cleared
six months ago.)
Southtown Plaza 22 This has not been built.
Orange Terrace 64 There were 92 units buildable, there are 28
units completed and being serviced by the
Utilities. They have not started constructic
on the other building.
Maggie Trailer Park 16 16 We can service these people as soon as the
new water plant is runninq.
Vista Royale 458 This is based on the total possible amount
built in Vista Gardens and Forest Park.
Tropic Villas North 117 117 Nle are presently servicing these people sewer -
and will be servicing them Crater as soon as
possible.
TOTAL 1095 176 4
Administrator Wright further explained that the
original proposal for $12.50/2.25 was a bit ambitious, and
that he now recommended the $9.00/2.25 rate. He continued,
after queries from the Chairman, that it was true there was
a loss of revenue amounting to approximately $50,000 in
1981, and a loss of $60,000 for this past year, in the
Utility Department.
Chairman Scurlock commented that approximately 3h weeks
ago, he and the Administrator travelled to Gainesville to
visit the office of FmHA, who is providing the financing.
He added that FmHA would not allow the County additional
time to do a full rate analysis in order to generate enough
information to look at several options; their extension
request of 90 to 120 days was denied. The Chairman
commented that they were told to adopt a rate structure that
would be acceptable to FmHA, or the process would come to a
I�
S E P,2 9 1992
7
51 FA 6'j
f SEP 291982
Bea 51 F:!="'' 0'0
stop. He advised that the County 4s debt had increased to
almost one-half million dollars. 11
Commissioner Bird asked for an explanation on how the
$6 million, under discussion, was spent.
Joseph Baird, Utility Department, advised that it was
for the new reverse osmosis plant in South County, and for
related water mains. He added that this system would go
into the deeper levels to obtain water.
The Chairman interjected that money was also spent to
purchase Treasure Coast Utilities and Ixora Utilities.
Commissioner Lyons noted that Vista Royale had some
problems regarding metering and wondered if any of those
things had been considered in the rate matter.
Administrator Wright responded that they had looked
into the problem.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Vista system could
carry itself with the current rates.
Administrator Wright commented that he did not have
that data with him in order to respond.
Mr. Baird interjected that at the present time it might
be able to, but the Vista system was getting old and would
need to be refurbished to remain operable in the future.
Commissioner Bird noted that a great percentage of the
people present tonight were from the Vista area and felt it
would be helpful for them to hear a brief history of events
that occurred in their area.
John Robbins, consulting engineer for the County,
volunteered to shed some light on this and explain how the
Vista system began. He continued that he -had -been involved
with this system since 1978, when the Board wanted to
eliminate certain problems and to correct violations
relating to water in the South County area. At that time,
there were various franchises experiencing difficulties.
The initial concept behind the South County water system was
to provide longevity of service, fire protection, and to
improve the drinking water; the Board authorized that a
municipal service taxing district be established. About $9.2
million was associated with water projects and with the
funding source coming from the Government, the County filed
a pre -application to determine at what level their loan
would be from FmHA. The County received a 14% grant, which
amounted to $796,900; in combination with the $5.8 million,
it established the funding nucleus for the construction that
is now underway. In 1979, there were 2,886 residential
connections, and a particular rate was determined as being
the one necessary to pay back FmHA under the then existing
bond resolution. Since 1979, and the actual approval of
South County Water System by FmHA, many things have changed.
In providing a water system for a metropolitan area and fire
protection, they looked at the long term, net effect of the
water resource. The Vista water system had wells east of
U.S. #1 and the growing concern at the time was if pumping
continued at a large quantity, there was a potential for
salt water intrusion. Once salt water intrusion enters a
wellfield, there are only one or two procedures for
improving it.
So, from the very outset in planning, it was
recommended that the Vista Properties water plant remain in
line until the water quality began to degrade. �Mr. Robbins
continued that the entire Vista Properties area was to be
incorporated and be furnished water from the South County
water plant. When the pre -application was filed with FmHA,
the revenues were pledged to secure the loan from FmHA, and
FmHA stated that the County would have to demonstrate how
they were going to pay the loan.
51 PACE �1
SEP 29 1982 ax
9
SEP 291992
Chairman Scurlock reviewed the Letters of Conditions
r•
from 1977 to 1980. The Board did not adopt the rate
structure of $8.00/2.00 that was, in Engineer Robbins'
analysis when they adopted Ordinance 80-13; therefore, the
confusion arose. He continued that the auditing firm did
not point out to the Board that their bond requirements were
not being met. The Chairman then quoted minutes of previous
meetings where the rate structure had been discussed.
Mr. Robbins commented that at the time the Board
adopted Ordinance 80-13 using the rate structure of
$7.10/1.50, they contacted FmHA in order to find out how
they felt. FmHA's response was that the County could charge
the rate indicated in Ordinance 80-13 but just before
closing on the loan, they would have to be in compliance
with the Letter of Conditions.
Lengthy discussion followed, and it was emphasized-=,
that from the very beginning, the Board entered into an
agreement with Vista Properties to convey their system to
the County.
William J. Lehr, Jr., Vista Royale Association
President, came before the Board and requested the following
be made a part of the minutes:
M
William J. Lehr, Jr., President
Vista Royale Association, Inc.
103-205 Royal Oak Drive
Vero Beach, Florida, 32960
September 29, 1982
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
County Commission
Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Chairman Scurlock.:
Within the past few days, our Association has
of the proposed increase in water -sewer rates,
will have a drastic affect on the residents o
You should be aware of the general background
uation in..Vista Royale in order to fairly set
to cover our particular -.circumstance.
learned
which
f Vista Royale.
of our sit -
water -sewer rates
As you probably know, the water -sewer system servicing
Vista Royale was=built by the developer of this condo-
minium, Vista Properties, Inc. We believe it fair to
assume that the cost of the systems was passed on the
purchasers of the.individual units in Vista Royale. Ob-
viously, Vista. -Properties was a profit making corporation,
and not in business to build water -sewer systems for free.
The water and sewer.system was then turned over to the
County for the payment of $1.00.
All buildings in Vista Royale are serviced by a master
meter.. Each of the 108 buildings has 14 units with cor-
responding 108 meters. The 108 meters are read by the
County, and then one check is sent from the Association
to the County for our water -sewer charge. The Association
collects the necessary funds from the residents, and
budgets for that purpose.
Averaged over a one year period, there are approximately
42,000 gallons of water consumed per building per month.
Under the present rate structure, there is a charge of
$7.10 for the first 2,000 gallons per building, with $1.50
for every 1,000 gallons utilized over the 2,000 gallon
base. The sewer rate is approximately 87% of the water
rate. At this rate, the residents of Vista Royale are
S E P 2 9 1992
11
w . 51 ?k;-, 473
SEP 29 1982 ' six 5,1 XPi F 7
•
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., - 2 - September 29, 1982
Chairman
paying approximately $164,000.00 per year for water -sewer
services, and we have budgeted for this amount.
Under the County's proposal
for each apartment of some
gallons and $2.25 for each
amount, our residents will
a year.
This is an increase of
County can justify an
increase based on the
sewer system. We know
ture, Vista Properties
at a profit.
in which there is a charge
$9.00 for the first 2,000
1,000 gallons over the base
be paying approximately $400,000.00
148%. We question whether the
increase of 148% or any substantial
cost of operating our water and
that under the existing rate struc-
operated our water -sewer system
Our Association received numerous assurances when the
County began operating our system that there would be
no impact fee or substantial increases in rates. It now
appears the County is attempting to place the main cost
of expansion and operation of the new water -sewer pro-
gram undertaken by the Coulity on the shoulders of the
present users of water and sewer. It so happens that
most of these present users are in -the Vista Royale com-
plex. We think it unreasonable that the County can attempt
to start the massive undertaking of servicing the south
County area with water and sewer and expect it to be on
a "profit making" basis within the first year -or -so of
operation.
We have no objection to paying our fair share. We be-
lieve Vista Royale has a unique situation in which our
water -sewer plant was basically paid -for by the residents.
We have a unique metering system, which the County knew
at the time the system was taken over, and which there
are master meters for each building. We have numerous
people who spend only a short period of time within our
condominium development during the year, which means there
is a substantial variation in water -sewer usage and re-
quirements, which is not taken into account in any pro-
posed rate structure. Additionally, we have received
assurances from County officials numerous times that
we would'be fairly treated, which means to us that our
present and ongoing rate structure should bear some re-
lation to the water -sewer charges that have been made
in the past.
There may be some alternative to placing the whole load
on the existing users. One alternative may be a taxing
district that would cover the areas to be sold. -Obviously,
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., - 3 -
Chairman
i
September 29, 1982
land owners will benefit from the ability to receive
water and sewer services; and should pay some proportional
share of the expenses.- A special taxing district could
balance the interests of the present users with those
future users, who also have a substantial -benefit from
the present system.
Some members of our Association would like to explore
the possibility of buying our system back from the County.
Obviously, it is our opinion that we could operate the
system more economically and efficiently then apparently
the County is willing or able to do. It has been our
experience that'we have had very few problems with water
and sewer services in the years the system has been in
place.
It is impossible to outline all of the considerations
that should be given to the residents of Vista Royale
in this letter. As mentioned above, we have only recently
learned of the County's proposal for massive increases;
and we need additional time to explore alternatives to
the proposed increases in rates. We would like an op-
portunity to.obtain our own water -sewer rate specialist
to work with the County in establishing a reasonable
and fair_rate structure. We would also like to explore
the possibility of buying,our system back from the County
and the establishment of a taxing district to fairly spread
the water -sewer costs.
We respectfully request the County delay any rate.increases
for a period of 30 to 60 days, so we can fully explore
the alternatives. Information as to costs of the system
has been availab�e to the County administration for a
considerable period of time, and we believe some small
delay -in forcing and proceeding with an unfair and dis-
criminatory rate would be appropriate at this time.
.1
SEP -29 1992
Sincerely,
WilliamLehr, Jr., President
Vista Royale Association, Inc.
13
ox 51 PA -E 70
SEP 2 9 1992 sax 4 76
Mr. Lehr then inquired what was the Board's target date
t•
for taking a vote on this matter.
- Administrator Wright explained to him that action would
have to be taken tonight as there was a closing tomorrow in
Jacksonville.
Robert L. Gaskill, 28 Forest Park Drive, approached the
Board and commented that Vista Properties would be absorbing
the impact of Whispering Palms Subdivision, and others. The
debt service was going to be absorbed by water and sewer and
they would be getting no benefit from the sewer. Mr.
Gaskill wanted to go on record, on behalf of Vista.
Properties and Vista Royale, that they opposed this drastic
rate increase.
Ellis Duncan, Vista Royale, commented that their
association consisted of 1,512 condominium apartments, and
the residents were upset. He urged the Board to have
consultants make additional studies in this regard. He
informed the Board that their association had been
discussing the possibility of buying the Vista system, and
hoped the Board would give this some consideration. Mr.
Duncan pointed out that at present there was a new trend
towards apartments and condominiums, and time-sharing
apartments are also popular. He felt .these should be
recognized and possibly a new classification could be
established for them. Mr. Duncan discussed- the various
apartments that are located at the Vista site; he believed
that every family should have 3,000 gallons of water, and
pay a minimum fee for it. He urged the Board to make an
exception and not sign anything tonight and call in the
experts.
Chairman Scurlock noted that immediately upon becoming
aware of a rate adjustment, the Board authorized the Adminis-
trator and his staff to do a full in-depth analysis; the
14
Board.was still committed to this project. It would be done
with the thought of an adjustment in rates, as needed.
Commissioner Fletcher asked the audience how serious
they were about operating the Vista system instead of the
County operating.the system.
There were various shouts from the audience which
indicated they were very serious.
Henry Donatelli, 810 8th Street, owner of Su Rene
Mobile Home Park, talked about the rate structure and stated
that he would pass on any increases to his customers.
Myra Taylor, 566 23rd Avenue, inquired if there would
be a hearing concerning Laurelwood Subdivision.
The Chairman pointed out that Laurelwood was not yet on
the County system; Peter Robinson still had the franchise
for that subdivision.
Lengthy discussion followed regarding Ordinance 80-13.
Charles Ripley, 560 W. Forest Trail, Forest Park, came
before the Board. He commented that with the rate
increases, he would be paying more per year for.water and
sewer than on taxes for his home. Mr. Ripley suggested that
the Board reconsider their rates, and maybe Vista should
take back the system.
Don Hommell, 97 Springlake Drive, Vista Royale, stated
that he had been in the water business for 25 years. He
pointed out that so far he had not heard any expression as
to the quality of water - it might show the benefits of
being on the new County system.
Mr. Robbins responded that, indeed, the water quality
would be much better, and he explained the chemical analysis
of the South County reverse osmosis water plant.
Mr. Hommell interjected that the quality would be quite
superior to the water presently in the area, and will, in
.p
the long run, save money for the residents.
SEP 2 9 1992
15
BDit51 Pace[ � 7
SEP 2 91982
8 � 51 pn.x`78
A resident at 555 Citrus Road stated that he was a
retired consulting engineer in the water treatment field.
He spoke of the reverse osmosis plant as compared to the
City of Vero Beach plant. After obtaining figures from
several California companies, he felt the County rates were
too low, and that the County should be warned of this fact
when the plant was put into operation.
John Koch, 6 Vista Palm Lane, spoke about the,
subdivision when it was originally planned years ago. He
hoped the Board would have a study made and that their area
would get a better rate structure in the future.
Lengthy discussion followed, and it was determined that
the County was striving to have a uniform rate structure.
A resident at 2520 6th Street, Laurelwood, complained
about the County charging such high rates; he urged the
Board to reconsider as he felt the rates were outrageous.
Howard Walton, 2240 4th Street, Laurelwood, wondered if
they were paying now for 25 years into the future.
Peter Lembo, 3424 -SW 2nd Street, was distressed that
his water bill would be increased to almost $35.00 a month,
and wondered what he would be getting for this increase.
Mr. Baird, Utilities Department, interjected that he
would be getting better water.
Mrs. Lembo displayed a jar of water obtained from her
residence in Ixora Park, and complained about it.
Attorney Brandenburg talked of the possible
consequences that could occur if the County defaulted in
paying their debt. He stressed that their bond rating would
be heavily affected and interest would start running from
the first day of the default.
Discussion ensued.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that since purchasing the
new system, the people in Whispering Palms now do not have
raw sewerage in their back yard, as they once did. He also
noted that, as Commissioner Wodtke indicated, the Board had
an ability to raise the rates two years ago and the
customers could have been paying $8.00/2.00 since that time.
Victor Hart, P. O. Box 5193, Gifford, expressed concern
about the entire situation. He commented that he had been
involved in trying to get good water in the Gifford
community since 1968. Mr. Hart stated that the residents
were concerned about the bond issue and they felt the
Gifford and the Vista Royale areas were being penalized as
nothing would be improved there at this time. Mr. Hart felt
this could not be justified.
Mr. Baird commented that FmHA requires that the County
have a County -wide rate.
Commissioner Fletcher felt the question was: Do we
honor the commitments that were made by others prior to us?
Mr. Hart suggested that we take a look at the earlier
commitment. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, they were willing
to pay whatever it cost to get water - they went to the City
and the City said the Gifford residents should go to the
County. He wanted to know why the Board was asking the
residents in Gifford and Vista Royale to pay $8.00/2.00 and
still continue to get the same type of service. Mr. Hart
wondered why other developments could not be made into
separate taxing districts. He did not want the Board to
charge them more and get nothing in return.
Commissioner Lyons felt Mr. Hart made a very good
point, but we are all one system and there has to be one
rate for that system. He pointed out that being a single
system has created certain problems but we all must remember
where the water is coming from and that it will be a
reliable supply.
The Chairman reviewed the background of funds that had
been committed for water and waste water over the years.
S EP 2.9 1982 17 #01,
51 ?AG -L 9
SEP 29 1982 '
5
BQDX %�� 1.
Mr. Hart stated, after doing some research, that the
County rate for water was the highest in the United States.
- Mr. Robbins disagreed; there are higher rate structures
that exist in Florida today, such as in Key West, for
example.
Lengthy discussion followed regarding reverse osmosis
plants.
A resident of 5 Vista Palm Lane approached the Board
and stated he knew that the County would eventually be
taking over the water system in their area. He commented
that he would be happy to pay his bill at the old rate,
until the wells were thought to be no longer usable. The
resident talked about cities and companies defaulting in the
past, but after setting up a new structure, they were able
to overcome their difficulties. He felt the FmHA was
dictating to the County and that they should give the County
a chance to restructure - he was in favor of defaulting.
Bernice Johnson, Gifford resident, inquired about the
rate structure.
The Chairman affirmed that it would be $9.00 for the
first 2,000 gallons and $2.25 for every 1,000 gallons
thereafter; it would be a uniform rate structure.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
agreed to close the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Bird commented that this was a very
complex matter. He briefly reviewed the history, and noted
that from the very beginning, the Board knew that when the
system was built and completed, it would take a certain
customer base to cover the expenditure. The Board made that
commitment, the project is completed, and the bill is due.
Commissioner Bird stated that in order to pay that bill, the
Board must commit themselves to repay the loan granted.to it
from FmHA. He pointed out that when you add the debt
service and the operating expenses and divide the number of
customers there are, you come out with a rate structure of
$9.00/2.25. Commissioner Bird stated that the bill is due
and payable and the good faith and reputation of the County
must be considered. He could not, in good conscience, put
the County in a position to default.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he had always been
voting no on centralized water systems. He referred to the
people in the Vista area who wanted to run their own system;
he felt that commitment would be up to them.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, that the Board adopt
Ordinance 82-22 amending Ordinance 80-13,
increasing the rate structure to $9.00/2.25,
with the understanding that staff proceed
without delay to obtain a rate study, taking
into account the unique situation at Vista
Royale, Gifford and Laurelwood; and investigate
the possibility of untangling from the single to
a divided system concept.
Commissioner Lyons noted that Vista Properties was
saving the County a great deal of money just from their
collection efforts and this fact should be considered, with
possibly a rebate. He advised that he would not vote to
default on payment of the debt. Commissioner Lyons felt all
of the customers would.be better off having a County system.
Commissioner Wodtke referred to the previous Boards and
made comments about the old UDU system in Gifford, the taps
made on 6th Avenue, and the fact that the City furnished
water to the County
for a short term.
The Board
knew
that
S EP.2 9
1982
19
fix,
51
PAGE481
S E P 2 9 1982
max
it had to get into the water business in order to serve the
people, taking into account their health, welfare and
safety. Commissioner Wodtke discussed the engineering study
and that it was determined to use the reverse osmosis
system. He pointed out that in 1979 when the Board made the
commitment to build a plant, there were considerable
discussions and FmHA, the bond counsel, and the CPA firms
encouraged the County to have a uniform system.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the County purchased two very
poorly run systems and they now have the responsibility of
serving those -people and addressing the sewerage problems.
He stated he also would not default on the Board's
commitment. Commissioner Wodtke suggested that if it was
possible, he would not want to close tomorrow; but if not,
he would like to amend the motion to have a rate structure
of $8.00/2.00 and use the funds from the impact fees to pay
the expenses.
The amended motion died for lack of a second.
Lengthy discussion ensued.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and carried with a vote of 3 to 2,
with Commissioners Fletcher and Wodtke voting
in opposition.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 82-22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 80-13 SECTION 6, RATES
AND CHARGES; INCREASING AND MODIFYING THE RATES
AND CHARGES APPLICABLE TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION
IN THE CODE; SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that it is in the best interest of the
citizens of Indian River County to provide a water and sewer
system that is self sustaining and does not rely upon other
sources of revenue, and
WHEREAS, the County Commission has determined that a
rate increase is necessary to meet the current obligations of the
water and sewer system and the requirements of the bond resolu-
tions issued as the basis of the financing for the system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
gRrTTnN 1 _
Indian River County Ordinance No. 80-13, Section 6,
RATES AND CHARGES (a) Schedule. is hereby amended to read;
(a) Schedule.
The following rate schedule is hereby adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners;
WATER
Up to 2,000 gallons per month . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.00
For all usage over 2,000
gallons the charge per 1,000
is equal to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.25
The minimum base rate charge per unit per month . . . . $9.00
SEWER
Residential
All sewage rates are calculated upon the
respective water consumption per unit.
Up to 2,000 gallons per month . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.00
All usage over 2,000
gallons per -month, charge per each
1,000 additional gallons (up to
10,000 additional gallons maximum). . . . . . . . . 2.25
The minimum base rate charge per unit per
months is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.00
-1-
SEP 2.9 1982
got 51 ?AGIE483
F
-SEP 2 91992
Commercial
1
seas F)4
Including schools, public buildings, churches,
service stations, retail stores, and all
nonresidential services . . . . . . . . 100% of water bill.
r•
SECTION 2_
INCORPORATION OF ORDINANCE IN COUNTY CODE.
Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 3.
SEVERABILITY
In the event any section, paragraph or phrase of this
Ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdic-
tion, such section, paragraph or phrase shall be deemed a separate
provision of this Ordinance and shall not affect the validity of
other parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this Ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida this 29th day of
September, 1982.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY , BY..' ITS,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION 'S,
By G
DON C. SCUR OCR; JR.
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this day of 1982.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this day of , 1982,-at-A.M./P.M. and
filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED TO FORM AND
LEGAL ICIE
By r
G Y ARED_ErBVq, County Attorney
Commissioner Fletcher felt the Board was denying people
the right to run their own system.
Discussion followed along those lines.
Commissioner Lyons felt it would be.a mistake if Vista
left the County system.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out there would be problems
with salt water intrusion.
The Chairman commented that when the analysis is
completed with the consulting firm, there is a possibility
that more customers can be found to be included in the
system.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board add an
emergency item to the agenda regarding the library.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was
voted on and failed with a vote of 4 to 1, with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition.
There being no further business to come before the
Board, on Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting
adjourned at 10:55 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
9
,1
y
.. .�� 0
Chairman
IV .
S E P 2 9 198Z. 23 .GER, 51 tA465