Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/21/1989Thursday, December 21, 1989 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 Thursday, December 21, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Richard N. Bird was delayed and entered the meeting at 9:15 A.M., and Margaret C. Bowman was absent. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that it was called for the purpose of reviewing the status of the proposed sludge/septage facilities. PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED SLUDGE/SEPTAGE FACILITIES Administrator Chandler informed the Board that he just wanted to give the Commission an overview of where we are at with the sludge and septage facilities because we are under a critical time element. Utilities Director Pinto came before the Board to review the history of the sludge and septage situation during his tenure with the County. He noted that in his first inspection of the Landfill, he found the method of getting rid of septage and sludge in the county was nothing more than an open pit at the Landfill. Because of his prior experience in this area, he foresaw a serious problem ahead of us with this type of treat- ment. He came to the Board about this when the DER was starting to take a strong position and closed down several similar operating facilities south of here. If we just went ahead and DEC 21 1989 BOOK l 3 P uE DEC 21� 989 BOOK 8 f' G[ 72 closed the gates on the Landfill accepting this material, he was fearful of what would be done with it and where it would be dumped. Knowing that we were building our own treatment plants which would be generating sludge and knowing the sludge rules were due to change, he, therefore, came to the Commission and asked for permission to apply for funding to build a sludge treatment facility for Indian River County. He did so and received a letter of intent from the City of Vero Beach stating that they would participate in the facility. He proceeded through the process, and he and Commissioner Scurlock made a personal appearance before the State Board that issues such grants and managed to receive a substantial grant based on our need. The engineer from CDM is present today to make a presentation in any detail the Board wishes. There are some stringent changes coming right around the corner in the sludge laws, and Director Pinto felt our timing is very appropriate. Commissioner Eggert requested a very basic explanation. She believed sludge is residue from a waste treatment plant, which was confirmed, but asked for a description of septage. Director Pinto advised that septage and grease come from the cesspools that are in many yards now - the single family homes and businesses not connected to a public source. Donald Munksgaard, Engineer from Camp Dresser & McKee, took the floor to give the Board an overview. He advised that the new federal regulations are what is driving what they are calling "wastewater residuals management." What this basically means is that the old package plants and even some of the newer facilities the county has implemented will not meet the new federal design criteria. What the state is doing is trying to meet the federal regulations about halfway. This is a very volatile situation and very difficult to predict where it will end up. However, the main thing is that the county needs to get control of the wastewater residuals that are being generated in the county, and 2 Mr. Munksgaard noted that what CDM proposes is in a phased approach where it is flexible enough to meet the changes down the road. He recapped that in 1987, CDM did the Master Plan for the county, which ended up being an amendment to the 201 Plan, and then got into the grant which resulted in the county receiving about 1.8 million to get this program implemented. He then displayed the following Activity Diagram and noted that the last bar in the graph is the Rate Analysis, and Larry Adams will get into that later. MASTER PLANING DESIGN/ PERMITING GRANT SRF LOAN NEGOTIATIONS RATE ANALYSIS t ACTIVITY DIAGRAM 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJ 1987 1988 1989 1990 Mr. Munksgaard then gave a quick overview of the charts showing the previously existing package plants and treatment plants in the county, which totaled about 75, and the chart of the presently existing treatment facilities, which are in the low 2O's. He felt the County should be commended for their progress, and noted that now the county needs to take that next step which is to get control of the residuals that result not only from the wastewater plants, but from the septic tanks. DEC2J • 3 BOOK 7 0 F'AGE �� DEC ,N 1 X98 • BOOK -Jo .1 4GE 730 rr Mr. Munksgaard next displayed a schematic of a centralized sludge/septage/grease facility which would allow all the waste residuals to be brought to that site for processing and recom- mended that the county implement a phased program. He noted this was approved by all the regulatory agencies. The first phase would consist of getting the infrastructure involved in your central facility - the receiving facilities, the dewatering, odor control equipment, and miscellaneous ancillary facilities. What we are not building at this time is the stabilization process, which is what is so volatile right now in the regulatory arena. Mr. Munksgaard advised that CDM would recommend the county eventually end up combining this with the solid waste problem they are facing. He clarified that the county is mandated to get a 30o reduction in their solid waste stream to the Landfill, and only 15% of that can be obtained from yard waste. What the yard wastes can consist of, however, is the organic matter that can be necessary for the composting of the wastewater residuals. CDM, therefore, is recommending continuing in the phased approach so you don't overload your existing customer base, but have a blueprint to get to where you need to get in the mid 90's. Commissioner Scurlock asked if when you say the Landfill that also includes the sod farm land application. Mr. Munksgaard could not answer exactly. He noted that sludge is now graded differently. The wastewater the County is now generating will be Class C, which is the lowest class and has the most restrictions on it. Commissioner Scurlock asked if Class C will not allow land application. Mr. Munksgaard felt that it will to some extent, but there are very tight restrictions on it. Commissioner Bird asked if there is a plan to perhaps upgrade our facilities to produce Class B or A to widen our opportunities for effluent disposal. 4 Mr. Munksgaard noted that in the Master Plan they looked at whether it is better to have the subregional approach, which is obviously better for the water or effluent side of the equation. However, on the wastewater residual side, it was concluded that is not the best solution and that the best thing to do was to centralize the management of those residuals. Commissioner Scurlock assumed our treatment plants are at least as advanced as those of the City of Vero Beach. He noted that the City now is suggesting it may remove themselves from our program, and although there may be some short term cost savings to them, how is it in terms of long range - are they gambling that these rules that are going to be promulgated are going to be lightened up considerably in terms of land application, etc.? Mr. Munksgaard stated there is good news and bad news. The good news is that what CDM is recommending on the interim basis is exempt from these rules. CDM, however, is not recommending that in the long term the county dispose of their sludge in the Landfill facility but that they need to move with a joint program with your solid waste and combine that with your yard waste. What the City of Vero Beach had recommended to them by their consultant is to get into a process to further reduce pathogens by heating the sludge and changing it to a Class A. Right now they are at Class C. Commissioner Bird still wished to know if we need to do something to upgrade ours. Director Pinto explained that we are proceeding in the direction of doing exactly that - the difference being that our study shows that it is not cost effective to move from the Class C to Class A at each individual plant. He clarified that we are talking about sludge treatment, not the treatment of the water itself. We are fine with our treatment of sewerage; we meet all the criteria for that and will be able to irrigate with it. For sludge treatment, we have determined the best solution is to centralize it and treat all the sludge at one facility where we 5 DEC 21d98 BOOK .78 ME 731 DEC 21'989 MOK 78 PAGE '732 can receive it and dewater it, and then it will go to the Landfill. That is the first phase. The second phase, which will bring us to an A level, would be to get into composting at the Landfill site and then when it is composted, you can put it anywhere you want to put it. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the fact is that the City, which has only one plant, has determined it is worth the dollars to upgrade and change their process to achieve a Class A rating. Why then have we been unable to demonstrate to them that it is in their best interests to do what is proposed here? Director Pinto noted that in fairness to the City, if we were to look at our sites individually and say that we only have the west county treatment plant, for instance, it may be the most cost effective thing to do to build sludge treatment at that facility for that specific facility, but when you have several subregional facilities, and need sludge treatment at each facility, it is not cost effective. Commissioner Scurlock did not understand when, for instance, you have a plant rated at 4.5 million gpd and we have one rated the same, how it differs on a plant by plant basis. Director Pinto confirmed that it shouldn't differ, but if they were both our plants, where it takes 4 million to build one facility to treat both plants, if you build a facility for each one individually, it might cost 6 million. The City of Vero Beach is looking at their individual operation. He personally felt they are going astray and that it will cost them more than they are estimating, but at this point, they feel their cost on an individual basis is less than if they came to us collectively. He disagreed, and further pointed out that their consultants did a very fast review while we went through a very long exercise in establishing the cost effectiveness of what we are doing. Commissioner Eggert believed the newspaper said we are going to have to take them in the future anyway, and wished to know if that is correct. 6 Director Pinto noted that there is some misunderstanding on the City's part that we are going to have to take their septage into our facility without an agreement with the city. The reality is that if we build a facility and receive federal funds towards the portion allocated to the City, we have to have a service agreement. If the County chooses to build a facility without federal funding, then we can do whatever we want with the City and there is not a requirement for an agreement. The agreement that is required between us and the City is to protect the interest of the federal funds that are put in the system. Commissioner Scurlock believed there also is a difference as to whether you handle this as a solid waste activity or a sewer activity. He believed we are charged with the recycling program and we are charged with the solid waste aspect of Indian River County. We are not charged with the sewer activity countywide. He, therefore felt some attention needs to be paid to whether this is to be under the SWDD or whether this is going to be a part of our Utility Division because he felt there are some serious legal abilities we have under one scenario versus the other. For example, if you took the Solid Waste District which we have established and have interlocal agreements, and we treated this as part of the Solid Waste Division, could we not take a rate approach and a guaranteed revenue stream as a part of that charge in this activity, and, therefore, they would have no option about whether they wished to participate or not. Director Pinto advised that staff has looked at that scenario. If we establish a charge that runs with the SW charge for those who have septic tanks and we build our facility based on that specific income, then in the county where we also control the flow of sludge, when there is a transfer of septic tanks to public sewer, the revenue that you lose from someone who is no longer on a septic tank shifts over and you pick it right back up because they are now a wastewater customer. If you are dealing with a city and you use that billing system for their septage and DEC 21 989 7 EAGGx.FArr ', rlUC re, DEC 21 i9tiY �1 fLLL�JJJ BOCK PAGE , you are not receiving revenues from their sludge, if they expand their wastewater system, it eliminates your ability to collect from those people for septage. Commissioner Scurlock felt you pick it up on the sludge side. We don't give them an option not to use our Landfill, and he felt the same approach can be taken with their sludge, which will be disposed on in some sort of land application, and we control all the zoning in the county as well as the Landfill. Director Pinto noted that their position is that they will take their sludge and raise it to Class A and utilize it however they want, possibly even within their own city. He personally doubted that. However, putting cost aside, they could build a facility where it could be composted and then they could use it wherever they want. That would impact the revenue we have designated for our septage because they are taking away the septage customers. The other scenario would be that, without an agreement, we make the investment to treat the septage, and all of a sudden they decide to treat septage in their own treatment plant after we have the investment in our treatment plant. That is why you have to have agreements. Commissioner Eggert asked if we can't design with them not included, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that then we would lose $500,000 grant monies. He stressed that we have many, many things that must be decided in the interim while they determine if they are really out or only halfway out or what. They have complicated all this significantly. Chairman Wheeler wished more clarification. He noted that his understanding up to this point is that the City is talking about not participating in our plan by modifying their plant to make the sludge more versatile for disposal. Mr. Munksgaard explained that the City's concept is that they can take waste heat from their power plant across the street to raise the temperature to get the number of degree days needed 8 to accomplish that. Their one advantage is that they have this waste heat. Chairman Wheeler felt if it then is true that they can raise the sludge to Class A in that fashion, the next question is do they have the areas within the City limits to dispose of that material. Mr. Munksgaard did not know if there is enough vacant land area within the City limits for that purpose. Commissioner Bird asked if the City has the option of hiring a contractor to come in and haul the material away, and Mr. Munksgaard noted they even could take it to another county. There are multiple options available to the City. Commissioner Scurlock noted that although the Ag interests have been willing in some cases to accept this material in the groves, they have a concern about the build-up of heavy metals over a period of time. Mr. Munksgaard confirmed that is where the federal regula- tions are so stringent. They have studied this type disposal in regard to impact on the food chains, and the federal 503 rules basically would make land application not cost effective. The way they are currently proposed, they have reduced them by an order of magnitude of 10. DER, in their 17.6.04 rule, did not adopt those strict land application requirements on heavy metals. but if the federal rules go through in 1990 as written, the state will have no choice but to meet the federal requirements. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Class A the City has meets those requirements for land application, and Mr. Munksgaard believed the way the DER rule is written, they would, and possibly also under the federal rules, but at such a very low rate. He explained that when you talk about an order of magnitude of 10, instead of having a sod farm of 1,000 acres, you now would be talking 10,000 acres, and this, of course, has a great impact on cost effectiveness. Mr. Munksgaard noted that his firm is a national consultant, and he believed they have a good vision of the way things are headed. They, along with DEC 21 1989 T BOOK 78 PAGE735 DEC BOOK t 736 staff, made the decision two years ago to go in the direction of building the infrastructure for centralizing, etc., and what they proposed and got grant money for is exactly in keeping with where the industry is headed. He believed the way the City is headed is uncertain. Commissioner Scurlock asked if he thought it is in the best interests of the county, not only from the standpoint of cost but from the standpoint of the city being a part of the county, that we should try to encourage the City to participate in our plan for the long term economic reasons. He noted that, as a Commissioner, he would have a hard time going over to tell the City something that is not in their long term best interests. Mr. Munksgaard felt the hard part about the City versus the County issue is that they have to spend dollars also, and their consultant calculated the impact to their wastewater customer base at 14% and that the impact from participating with the County would be 20%. That is only a 6% differential, and he personally felt the numbers are too close to call. Commissioner Scurlock believed it all comes down to 6% of what base. Director Pinto advised that the 14% and 20% is of the typical sewerage bill in the City, and there you are talking about cents, not dollars. He continued to stress that he and CDM are very sure that for the long term our solution is better for the County and would be better for the City. He further explained that the City in making their decision to remove themselves from the system because of the sludge treatment part of it, has ignored that we are also talking about the septage part of it. In effect, they have said we are going to choose half of it which we think is better for us, but the other half that we know we can't handle and we know will be expensive to operate, we will let the County worry about that, and there are about 3,000 septic tanks in the City. Director Pinto stressed that we think the disposal of sludge in the City boundaries is 10 questionable. We think the disposal of our sludge, after it gets composted, always can be disposed of in the Landfill even as a cover material to enhance it or put in our parks. Commissioner Scurlock felt that for the best interests of the county we should have one more approach to the City and then if we can't get a quick determination, we should do two things. We should move forward aggressively with our own plan making it explicitly clear that what we are building at today's cost is, in fact, for the unincorporated area, and if future capacity is demanded of us, it will carry whatever the cost of doing business at that time dictates. Commissioner Scurlock informed the Board that the second thing is that Brevard County has a problem in that the Duda Ranch where they planned to do land application and build a facility for their south county needs, has gone by the wayside, and they are looking at temporary or possibly even long terms needs for that area. So, if the City of Vero Beach is not going to participate, possibly we should contact Brevard County and see if an interlocal agreement is possible. Commissioner Bird noted that suggestion leads him to his question about a regional sludge facility - have we explored our options as far as joining with adjoining counties in building a truly regional facility, or do we have to build our own facility? Commissioner Scurlock felt that transportation is the big thing, and Mr. Munksgaard noted that to get the septage hauler to cooperate, you need to get something central. Commissioner Bird commented that if there was only one facility in a 3 -county area where they could legally take this material, they they would have to use it. Director Pinto advised that we had some preliminary discussions on that. He• felt that even if we were to get into a tri -county regional treatment of sludge, the infrastructure we are building still would be a necessary part of our operation. That operation reduces the volume and makes it cheaper to haul. DEC 21 6i4 11 BOOK 10 ['AGE 737 flEC Lott BOOK 78 F":GE 738 If we get into a composting system on a tri -county basis, we would be right on target to be able to move in that direction. He stressed that staff feels very, very.comfortable that what they are asking to be done here is a necessary part and that no matter what the end result, we need the facilities. Mr. Munksgaard reported that CDM has been retained in Martin County to design them a septage facility, and Lee County and Hendry County just signed to build a joint facility; it varies. CDM is retained by St. Lucie County as their solid waste consultant, and right now, they are heading more in the direction of addressing their solid waste needs and recycling. Commissioner Bird believed that St. Lucie County has many more septic tanks, and what do they do about that. Environmental Health Director Mike Galanis commented that they choose to ignore the problem. Commissioner Bird suggested that we give the City of Vero Beach one more shot and then move on. He commented that he would find it helpful if City Manager Little or Tom Nason would come and present their side. Commissioner Eggert believed she understood what they are doing. Commissioner Scurlock did also. He noted that with what their consultants are telling them (and there is a crystal ball here to some extent), it all comes down to a 6% difference. Administrator Chandler agreed that there is no question that there is a differential in the short range; we all recognize that. He felt the big differential in the long range is whether what we propose is the most cost effective in terms of what is pending in legislation and what is out there. When you cut through it all - they are taking a chance on the future and what they think may happen. Director Pinto had one further point that he felt is very important, which is that there is,a 201 Facility Plan that has been approved by the state and by the federal government. The 12 201 Facility Plan is Indian River County, and every treatment plant within the entire county is part of that plan, including the City. It has been the state's opinion and the opinion of the EPA that the plan we propose is the most cost effective and best plan to proceed on countywide. The City is electing to remove itself from the 201 Facility Plan, and Director Pinto felt that is very important. What that means to the City is that they then cannot participate in federal funding for wastewater treatment unless they comply with the 201 Facility Plan. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the 201 Facility Plan that was originally adopted has been modified to reflect our current plan, and Director Pinto stated "Yes, it has." Mr. Munksgaard informed the Board that the Master Plan CDM did for the County, the 1987 version, was submitted to the state. It was approved by all the permitting/review agencies shown in the following list, and it is now the working document for your county. APIPIrOVALO BY PERM1 1-rING/REV1EW AGENC1F 1 DEC 21`u9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Tallahassee) Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Orlando) Office of the Governor, Florida Planning and Environmental Clearinghouse Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Department of health and Rehabilitative Services. Indian River County Public Health Unit 13 EOOK /8 PAGE 739 BOOK 78 PAGE i40 Commissioner Scurlock wished it on the record that the 201 Facility Plan, which did provide for one regional plant along the Indian River north of Grand Harbor, has been updated and modified. He noted that it has been suggested to him that the comment about the 201 Facility Plan doesn't make any sense because we have never followed it; we didn't have a current plan; and it has not been modified; and that is not correct. Director Pinto advised that whoever made that comment is still "back in the dark ages" and hasn't been following what is going on currently. Our appearance before the State Board was talking about the 201 Facility Plan and what is best on a county level, and we have no alternative but to look at that. Director Pinto noted that if he were sitting on the City side, however, there are a couple of assumptions, he would make also. If he could unload the problem of septic tanks and subtract that, that would keep the costs down for just sludge, and if he could make the decision, even for Indian River County, that we are going to land spread in St. Lucie County because it is the cheapest way, that would be his recommendation if he thought we could get away with it. Commissioner Scurlock felt we must not be too critical of the City's decision - we must recognize that we have different constituencies and a different perspective. Commissioner Eggert did not believe Director Pinto is being critical, but just saying that City has a very valid reason for doing what it feels it should do. Administrator Chandler commented that in meetings with the City staff, they mainly had a difference on the long range solution and the different directions we feel are the right way to go. When they made that decision on sludge, however, the thing that still impacts us and what we must be concerned about is the septic part of it. Commissioner Scurlock asked if we can't set an appropriate rate for that. 14 Director Pinto believed we can, but there is a problem with that as relates to the guaranteed revenue stream. With the absence of an agreement, the rate will be set on the fact that the portion we are building for the City will not have federal participation. Commissioner Scurlock felt then they simply have a higher rate; i.e., this is the deal if you are in for everything, and this is the deal if you are only partly in. He noted that we could tell them we are not going to build anything for them. Director Pinto agreed there are two alternatives - either guarantee us the revenue stream so we can make the investment or do it yourself. Commissioner Scurlock believed in the bottom analysis, the best thing we can do is make this quick contact with the City and then get on. In the short range, it is his opinion there are some minor economic advantages to the City doing its own thing; however, with the undertainty of long term permitting require- ments, his feeling is that it would be advantageous for the City to participate in the County program. He personally did not think the City will participate, and he can see where they are coming from and he is not critical of that, but with them out, we must design and pay for this in the most economical way. He also honestly did feel that Brevard County may have a serious interest in participating at some level. Discussion continued and the question arose as to what happens when the City shuts their plant down every so often if they are depending on the waste heat. Commissioner Scurlock noted that actually is not our concern. He again suggested that we present our proposal to the City just one more time, and then move ahead accordingly. Chairman Wheeler noted that his concern is that if they opt out, they can't just come back in later on and jump on our bandwagon, and Commissioner Scurlock believed City Manager Little understands that. Discussion ensued at length about various DEC 21 1989 15 BOOK 8 F',.GE 741 DEC "=ri BOOK 7 8 PAGE 74Z factors and alternatives; the possibility of a joint meeting with the City, etc.; and Attorney Vitunac stressed that the clock is ticking on our grant funds. Environmental Health Director Galanis wished to point out that there are still probably 3,000 to 5,000 septic tanks that have not been addressed by the City in their cost estimates, and he did not believe their process will take septage. Commissioner Eggert asked if the City can adapt their plant to take septage, and it was confirmed that they can if they wish to spend the money. Commissioner Scurlock noted their other option is to show up at our door at sometime and say we haven't made any provisions and we don't have any kind of agreement, but we want to put this in your plant, and then we will have to say that it will cost them "X" amount of dollars, whatever that may be. Director Pinto pointed out that when we originally started, the very first thing we did was approach the City about receiving the septage and modifying their plant to take of the septage problem for everyone, and at that time, they said no - we want the County to do it - and they issued a letter of intent to be part of the system and we moved on. Commissioner Eggert wished to know since apparently our staff has been talking to the City staff, what are they saying about septage now? Administrator Chandler reported that our next step with the City staff was to get into the septage portion of it. After they made their report to the City Council and they made their deter- mination on the sludge, we then had to get with the DER and see what their requirements would be of us and the City, and that is what staff is trying to relay to the Board today that as a result of that we are going to need to get back with the City to nail down that septage part. Commissioner Bird wished to know, since the City's opting out on this will cost us $500,000 in grant funds, if that has an 16 effect on the feasibility of us building a stand-alone facility or does it push us into the position that we need to go into a combined project with neighboring communities so we won't overload our customer base. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that if we were to reduce the size of what is proposed, with the City now being almost half, we would have to do a redesign. Commissioner Bird felt we then need to go out to neighboring counties in order to add to the customer base. Director Pinto informed the Board that they have done that analysis and will give the Board the numbers, and even with the absence of what the City of Vero Beach will take out, they still think the final numbers are livable numbers. He continued that if we adopt that the project will work with the numbers that have been proposed here without the City (which we think it will), then if you get into negotiating with a neighboring community to utilize unused capacity of your system at the very least until such time as you need that capacity, then that would even drop it more. He emphasized that what we have to do, however, is base our decision on the numbers for here. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that you have to demonstrate a guaranteed stream of revenue. The Board continued to go over the various factors involved, including customer base, rate structure, etc., and Director Pinto impressed on the Board that we really don't have an alternative not to do it. We have to treat our sludge and we have to treat our septage. He stressed that the Board must keep in mind that our permit on the Gifford treatment plant and the west treatment plant is based on the County continuing in the direction to build an adequate sludge treatment facility. Discussion next ensued regarding the numbers involved with the City's pull out as shown in the following graph: DEC 211989 17 F=` .� P,OOK PAGE d4 DEC 21 1989 BOOK DERIVATION OF ESTIMATED LOCAL SHARE of PROGRAM CAPITAL COSTS TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS = $8,082,314 LESS : LIQUID HAUL TRUCKS -445,000 VERO BEACH'S EXCLUSION -1,425,000 ORIGINAL GRANT AWARD 1,800,000 PLUS : ESTIMATED GRANT LOSS +500,000 ESTIMATED LOCAL SHARE 4912,314 CDM_ 78 FAE 744 Commissioner Scurlock believed that we have not even considered an impact fee and wondered if you could add another $100,000 revenue from some other source per year, what that would do? Mr. Munksgaard explained that what they are trying to do today is present maybe a worst case scenario. He further noted that we are required to hold this meeting today for the DER and EPA, and the transcript of this will be submitted to them to demonstrate that we have got public input back into the process. Board members pointed out that this is not a public hearing, and Mr. Munksgaard clarified that what DER asked them to have was a public meeting with the Commissioners, not a public hearing. Administrator Chandler commented that, irrespective of the kind of meeting this is, he felt it was important to get this 18 f information to the Board, and there will be public hearings later in the process. Mr. Munksgaard again confirmed that there was just a requirement to have a formal meeting because of the changes with the City pulling out. He repeated that they are just showing the worst case situation today and just want to get conceptual approval from the Board that the project should go forward. He then reviewed the following list setting out all the various steps and time periods involved in getting the proposed facility to start-up, and stressed that as every day goes by, you have the potential of grant erosion: DEC 21 1989 Activity INDIAN RIVER GDUfTTY REGIONAL SLUDGE/SEPTAGE/GREASE FACILITY Description Duration (mos.) 1 IRC BCC Approval - 0.5 2 Conduct Mtg. w/ City of Vero Beach for Septage Service 0.5 3 Negotiate Agreement w/City of Vero Beach 1.5 4 Solicit Private Utilities 0.5 5 Negotiate Agreements w/Private Utilities 1.5 6 Contact Brevard Co. 0.5 7 Negotiate Agreement w/Brevard Co. 1.5 8 Adopt Agreements by IRC BCC and Authorize Engineer 0.5 9 Finalize Rate Structure 1.0 10 Authorize Bond Counsel/Financial Advisors 0.5 11 Complete Bond Prospectus 2.0 12 Bond Closing 1.0 13 Redesign Facilities 1.0 14 Issue Addendum 0.5 15 Advertisement/Bidding 1.5 16 FDER Review 1.0 17 Evaluate Bids 0.5 18 FDER Review/Contract Award 3.0 .19 Preconstruction/Notice to Proceed 0.5 20 Construction 14.0 21 Start—up 1.0 19 -� EL c1,. FACE 745 DEG 21 Ha BOOK .78 PAGE Larry Adams, Vice President of CDM, next took the floor to review rates and noted that the total program costs shown in the preceding graph do not include the bond.financing costs. Mr. Adams referred to the following graph comparing monthly charges with and without the City participating: 0 PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF MONTHLY CHARGES WITH ESTIMATED CHARGES PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 25,1987 PRESENT ESTIMATE CUSTOMER WITH WITHOUT TYPE PUBLIC HEARING CITY CITY SEPTIC TANK $1.37 $1.38 $2.20 GREASE TRAP $24.36 25.33 $27.08 SEWERED HOME $2.79 $2.56 $4.23 Mr. Adams noted that if the City were still in the program, the charges would be very similar to what was estimated in 1987. Without them the costs do increase, and the cost for a sewered single family home would go to $4.23 per month. Essentially, that cost per sewered home is with the 1990 estimated customer base carrying all of the cost. Mr. Adams noted that Commissioner Scurlock mentioned the possibility of impact fees, and that is a viable approach to reduce that amount. His initial calculation showed that an impact fee in a range between $100/200 could be appropriate. Commissioner Scurlock noted that if the City withdraws and we build excess capacity, then the question is who should pay for that and who is it reserved for. Discussion continued regarding rates, and Mr. Adams ex- plained that they have calculated the rate structure assuming that the facility is a regional facility. By regional facility, 20 they mean that the County is a regional user (a Targe user); that private utilities are a large user; and the City of Vero Beach, if they were in the system, would be a large user. Based on that, there are 3 ways to calculate a regional charge. (1) Everything on a volume basis; (2) Everything on a fixed basis; and (3) On a combination basis, with a portion being a fixed charge and a portion being volume charge, which is very similar to a water rate where you have a base facility charge, which is a fixed charge per month regardless of how much water you use. Mr. Adams advised that they have developed a rate structure similar to the combination alternative for both sludge and septage. As shown in the following charts, without the City of Vero Beach, the volume charge for sludge actually doubles, and the yearly charge for a septic tank owner goes from $10 with the City to $16 without. However, as the customer base increases, the cost to the average customer decreases: 0 RATE STRUCTURE COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY CHARGES FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY VOLUME (PER DRY (PER 1,000 TON PER DAY) GALLONS) WITH • VERO BEACH $195 $25 WITHOUT VERO BEACH $300- $50 DEC 21 1989 21 BOOK. 78 f'AGE 747 BOOK 78 FACE 748 0 RATE STRUCTURE COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY CHARGES FOR ' SEPTAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY VOLUME (PER SEPTIC (PER 1,000 TANK PER YEAR) GALLONS) WITH VERO BEACH $10 $ 45 WITHOUT VERO BEACH $16 $50 Chairman Wheeler believed for septage there are some inequities between commercial and single family, and Environmen- tal Health Director Galanis advised that his Department currently will be implementing a fee to repair the systems, and he felt a pump -out fee could be implemented. Mr. Adams pointed out that as we move along, things will keep changing. It is a dynamic situation, and when we discover more of the unknowns, we will be able to set a rate. Commissioner Scurlock felt we need a Motion to direct staff to follow/the time chart established and make the necessary contacts with the City of Vero Beach and Brevard County as discussed and move on. Chairman Wheeler noted that we are not setting rates at this time, and it was confirmed that we are not and that will be coming back separately. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) directed staff to follow the 22 time chart established; make the contacts with the City of Vero Beach and Brevard County as discussed; and move on ahead. Various Board members expressed concern about thoroughly understanding the City's position and felt perhaps having a joint meeting with the City Council might be worthwhile. It was noted that what we have so far is their staff's recommendation. Considerable discussion continued as to exactly what the City Council itself understands about the fact that their withdrawing will have a considerable financial impact on the remaining customers on the system, and Director Pinto believed that what the City has forgotten is that by withdrawing just from sludge, they have chosen to raise the cost to those in the City for septage also. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, Commissioner Bowman being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) directed staff to set up a joint meeting with the City of Vero Beach as discussed. Director Pinto thanked the Board for taking the time to go through this meeting as he felt it is very important for them to get a good handle on what is taking place. Environmental Health Director Galanis felt that something the Board needs to know is that every day there are thousands of gallons of sludge coming into this county. We have it coming in from Brevard County, Martin County, St. Lucie County, and as far away as Clearwater. This is mainly because Indian River is a rural county. The present law says that you can't graze cattle where this material is spread, but the DER's enforcement in this area is difficult. Director Pinto stated that it can be written in the record that he said that it is going to be the law that you will not be DEC 21 'd939 L_ 23 BOOK. 78 FALL740 DEC 21 '069 BOOK ! FACE, IOU spreading liquid sludge in the future. As the public builds out in those areas, whether it is legal or not, they will raise up a protest and you will not be doing this. Composted sludge you will be able to spread, but not liquid, and public pressure will make this come about. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board unanimously (4-0) adjourned at 11:05 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: Clerk 24 Chairman