HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/14/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 14, 1991
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird , Chairman
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Carolyn K. Eggert
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. Discussion regarding Special Assessments
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICHCTHE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
For - 3 PA.CE 5 t 5
JUN 14199
SPECIAL MEETING
Friday, June 14, 1991
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 Friday, June 14, 1991,
at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman;
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert; Margaret C.
Bowman and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES - PRO'S AND CON'S
Chairman Bird announced that today's workshop meeting was
called for the purpose of discussing special assessment alternatives
for water, sewer and paving projects with special attention being
given to the 12th Street Water Service Project
public hearing next Tuesday, June 18, 1991.
Prior to the presention of the assessment
scheduled for
alternatives,
Administrator Chandler wished to have Community Development
Director Robert Keating give a brief overview of how this project
ties into the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan with regard
to the urban service areas.
Director Keating advised that by 1995, 30 percent of the
existing residential units must be connected to water. The Comp
Plan also calls for the installation of public water and sewer to
the eastern, urban area of the county by 2010.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised that in an effort to
meet the Comp Plan requirements, the Utilities Department is
concentrating on subdivisions with "undersized" lots, such as
those in the 12th Street Water Service Project. These substandard
Tots are less than half an acre with existing wells and septic
tanks. Once a new lot has public water, its minimum size can be
one-quarter acre. The county is concentrating on the undersized
lots because of public health reasons. By bringing water to
these areas, the potential of well contamination from a septic
tank is eliminated. Of the 610 lots in the 12th Street project,
358 of them, or 59 percent, are substandard lots. The County has
POOK
JUN 14.91
PAGE
JUN 14 1051
BOOK 83 FAGS 577
a petition from 81 lot owners who want county water in their
homes. The assessments cover the total cost of the construction
of the distribution system, which is estimated at $827,825. The
approximate boundaries of the project are 12th Street to the
north, 8th Street to the south, 43rd Avenue on the west and 27th
Avenue to the east.
Administrator Chandler noted that in addition to considering
the assessment methodologies, we will be exploring the feasi-
bility of a more flexible plan for payment of the assessments,
such as 10 years at 9-3/4o instead of the current payment plan of
2 years at 12%. However, the main concern today is the method of
assessing the lot owners. Three alternatives will be discussed
this morning: square footage basis, front footage basis, and per
unit basis.
The Board reviewed the following memo and charts:
DATE: JUNE 12, 1991
TO: HARRY E. ASHER -
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM:
WILLIAM F. McCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
DAN CHASTAIN
MANAGER OF SAS�iiENT PROJECTS
SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES - PRO'S AND CON'S
Attached is a summary of the pro's and con's of the three assessment
alternatives.
SOUARE FOOT BASIS
no's:
1. Most equitable in commercial and industrial application;
addresses what ultimate use of property could be; i.e., size of
lot a size of building.
2. Addresses house size to lot size in providing adequate pressure
for fire flow and consumption; i.e., larger home needs
potentially more flow and pressure.
3. Equitable in regard to lot size; the larger the lot, the more
pipe constructed across front (generally).
on's:
1. Some smaller homes on large-sized parcels of land (with perhaps
good intentions) may feel they are not being treated equitably.
2. Doesn't address current land use (possibly existing
Agricultural, for example).
2
FRONT FOOTAGE BASIS
1. A property owner with smaller frontage would pay less than an
owner with greater frontage, regardless of overall property
size, home improvement size, and water demand.
2. Directly addresses actual construction cost to cross (i.e.,
serve) said property.
Con's:
1. Less equitable if neighboring/area properties have less
frontage but are larger; i.e., greater depth, cul-de-sac
properties, etc.
2. Does not address additional pressure or flow requirements
necessary'for larger home on larger lot (for consumption or
fire protection).
PER UNIT BASIS
Pro's:
1. A larger lot owner would not pay more than a smaller lot owner.
2. Addresses only current property use, lowering assessment on
large undeveloped properties (see No. 1 of Con's).
Gon,s:
1. If per unit used, do you address existing units or ultimate
zoned number of units?
If existing is used, the rest of the project picks up the cost
of construction for ultimate use of that property; i.e., system
must be constructed for the potential ultimate use of property.
If the Utilities Department was to pick the difference between
current use assessed and ultimate use assessed on larger
tracts, for the purpose of future assessment at the time of
development, the cost would have to be increased annually (at a
set interest rate). Potentially, after enough years, the
assessment could be more than the property value.
2. Some properties may have the size and potential of development
'of additional residences, rezoning potential, possibly
including commercial, multi -family, etc. Larger, more
expensive, replacement cost improvements have greater fire
protection/water needs.
3
StAi 141991
BOOK 83 ME 5 7
MiN 14 14q1
EXHIBIT A
VARIOUS ASSESSMENT METHODS
COST ANALYSIS
BOOK 83 FACE 57C
C
SQUARE SQUARE FT. FRONT FRONT UNIT UNIT
LOCATION FOOTAGE METHOD FOOTAGE FOOTAGE $ METHOD METHOD $
LOT 1 26,866 $2,122.41 150 $2,129.55 1 $1,703.64
LOT 2 13,500 $1,066.50 75 $1,064.78 1 $1 ,703.64
LOT 3 27,000 $2,133.00 150 $2,129.55 1 $1,703.64
LOT 4 40,365 $3,188.84 225 $3,194.33 1 $1,703.64
LOT 5 26,960 $2,129.84 150 $2,129.55 1 $1,703.64
LOT 6 27,000 $2,133.00 150 $2,129.55 1 $1,703.64
LOT 7 27,000 $2,133.00 150 $2,129.55 1 $1,703.64
LOT 8 26,960 $2,129.84 150 $2,129.55 3 $5,110.93
215,651 $17,036.43 1,200 $17,036.43 10 $17,036.43
SQUARE FOOTAGE RATE = $.0790 VACANT LOTS = 6 UNITS PER ACRE
11
t
LO'
26.066 . FT.
-r
I
,
!LOT 21 Lot3 I LOT 44 ; 1
ir
` I13.300 So. FT.I ` 27.`00. FT. I 140 365 S0. FT I
o
ol: to o l `0 1— tI
M41•...,co / liTs a a
I I I 1 I aI
ii.
I •
1
I I 1
75 _ ',x
1_75_75=j,__75' i_ 75 _i 75' I
• 1 `'9- 50'i 75'
I 150' T
�) I
I119
I
126,960 S0. FT. 1
1' LOT
Ii
>o 16 0 30 00 00
SCALI 21FOS
i'= 30'
150' 150' 150' I 1
119
1 j 1 VACANT '
1 II,
27.000 Sc. FT 1 27.000 S0. FT 1 26.960 So. FT. I I
LOT6 LOT7 •LOT8 il!
EXHIBIT A
ZONING 6 UNITS PER ACRE
4
EXHIBIT B
VARIOUS ASSESSMENT METHODS
COST ANALYSIS
SQUARE SQUARE FT. FRONT FRONT UNIT UNIT
LOCATION FOOTAGE METHOD FOOTAGE FOOTAGE $ METHOD METHOD $
LOT 1 15,000 $1,185.00
LOT 2 15,000 $1,185.00
LOT 3 15,000 $1,185.00
LOT 4 15,000 $1,185.00
LOT 5 15,000 $1,185.00
LOT 6 25,390 $2,005.81
LOT 7 27,375 $2,162.63
LOT 8 102,052 $8,062.11
229,817 $18,155.54
100 $1,427.10
100 $1,427.10
100 $1,427.10
100 $1,427.10
100 $1,427.10
123.6 $1,763.89
25 $356.77
623.6 $8,899.38
1,272 $18,155.54
1 $756.48
1 $756.48
1 $756.48
1 $756.48
1 $756.48
3 $2,269.44
3 $2,269.44
13 $9,834.25
24 $18,155.54
SQUARE FOOTAGE RATE = $.0790 VACANT LOTS = 6 UNITS PER ACRE
I
t'
t
I 1750'
1
LOT 8 1
218.60•
1 % 102,052 S0. FT. I
1 "
C I
rl /1
H .•
in
t
N LOT 71
r"10017 1001—[' - -
1001"-ioo' r" l00% '
— . ` 27.375 S0. FT.
•' 15,000 S0. FT. 1 15.000 S0. FT. 1 15,000 SO. R. 1 15,000 S0. FT. 1 15,000 S0. FT. 1 •\ 218.60••
1
I
1
1 1 1
1
joto 10 to jo
_, in in in !1.2 in 25,390 So. FT. \'` . 1
t
T 1-1
I LO1 21 LOT 3 _ ,LLOT 41 _ LOT _5_ _ LOT 6_
am
1
JUN 14J99
EXHIBIT B
5
BOOK 83 FALL bSO
;JUN 14 1991
EXHIBIT C
VARIOUS ASSESSMENT METHODS
COST ANALYSIS
BOOK 83 PAGE I
SQUARE SQUARE FT. FRONT FRONT UNIT UNIT
LOCATION FOOTAGE METHOD FOOTAGE FOOTAGE $ METHOD METHOD $
LOT 1 37,900 $2,994.10 291.7 $4,347.82 1 $805.68
LOT 2 35,700 $2,820.30 275 $4,098.90 1 $805.68
LOT 3 13,960 $1,102.84 131 $1,952.57 1 $805.68
LOT- 90,000 $7,110.00 10 $149.05 12 $9,668.14
LOT 5 49,700 $3,926.30 406 $6,051.47 6 $4,834.07
LOT 6 37,900 $2,994.10 291.7 $4,347.82 5 $4,028.39
265,160 $20,947.64
SQUARE FOOTAGE RATE = $.0790
___..____
T,
300'
o
• VACANT
1111•1110 111. R.
L___0_11=••_____
=Li 70 7>a
1• • 30•
LAT
MR
OW
411.IID GO
1,405 $20,947.64 26 $20,947.64
LAT 2
37.780 7G. R.
W
- 111•111•1•1 111.11•101.11.
VACANT
0.700 7a. R.
DO
LOT 1 1
(, 37.I0>o. R. I I I
1 I I
1 I�
1
I= VACANT '!I
37•11,110 79. R. I
291.67. i
EXHIBIT- C
ZONING 16 UNITS PER ACRE
6
EXHIBIT D
VARIOUS ASSESSMENT METHODS
COST ANALYSIS
SQUARE SQUARE FT. FRONT FRONT UNIT UNIT
LOCATION FOOTAGE METHOD FOOTAGE FOOTAGE $ METHOD METHOD $
LOT 1 37,900 $2,994.10 291.7 $4,348.74 1 $4,190.41
LOT 2 37,900 $2,994.10 291.7 $4,348.74 1 $4,190.41
LOT 3 49,708 $3,926.93 406 $6,052.75 1 $4,190.41
LOT 4 49,708 $3,926.93 406 $6,052.75 1 $4,190.41
LOT 5 90,000 $7,110.00 10 $149.08 1 $4,190.41
265,216 $20,952.06 1,405 $20,952.06 5 $20,952.06
SQUARE FOOTAGE RATE = $.0790
300'
1
I
1
1 LOT 5
I0
0
1 MOOS fi. i7.
1
I
1
END .11101111. OM. 11.1.
LOT 3
4$.7m S. R.
51
OD =0 300---------
•
rauaPM
30•
JUN 4 091
-r
1
1
---_---_----_---
EXHIBITMP MmMilr
D
ZONING : 3 UNITS. PER ACRE
7
BOOK
IM0--- 111
LOT 1 I I ;
37.930 m. FT. , I
;l;
1"31 A?' ••••••ii I I
.IMMIOEM1=1. 000•11 Off/
Ill
II
I37.1110 �I'
..o. R. 1
LOT 2 ;,3111.7.1l
FA6E.J32
JUN I4199.
BOOK C� rAGE 55
After discussing the pros and cons of the various method-
ologies for over one hour, Director Pinto recommended square
footage as the most equitable way to calculate special assessments.
Commissioner Scurlock was absolutely convinced that the
square footage methodology was the most equitable, and Attorney
Vitunac advised that the square -footage method is the only one
that has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Florida. That was a
case where a county was charging a dog track $1 -million for water
and sewer for a parking lot, but the owner was arguing that it
was going to be used only as a parking lot and would never have
any facilities built on it. The Supreme Court said that the
utilities improved the property because someday the property
could be subdivided.
Commissioner Scurlock realized there may be some inequities
with the square footage methodology, but felt we would be far
better off by looking at those situations on an individual basis
through the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Equalization
Board rather than trying to come up with a Rube Goldberg approach
that has never been tested in court.
Director Pinto pointed out that the square footage assessment
is not new. It goes back over 100 years. The reason they came
to a square footage assessment is because other methodologies
have failed.
Commissioner Eggert noted that in the calls she's been
getting people have been upset over the size of the impact fee as
well as the assessment. She inquired if there had been any kind
of explanation about the impact fee in the information that went
out to the residents.
Director Pinto advised that we have an information sheet
that tells the amount of the impact fee and the cost for setting
the meter, but there was some confusion in the very beginning of
this project. The current total impact fee for water is $1320,
but $502 of the impact fee pays for lines and storage in that
system. So, in essence, that impact fee has reduced the assessment
Commissioner Eggert was concerned that the explanation of
the impact fees and the assessment costs just is not getting out
to the people. It seemed to her that a little more information
would be helpful. In fact, she understood that is what we were
going to do when we talked about this a couple of years ago.
Director Pinto suggested that if the Board decides to go
with the square footage assessment and addressing the inequities
through the Board of Equalization, we make up a little pamphlet
8
of all of our charges and include an explanation of the adopted
method of assessment.
For the record, Commissioner Bird gave the following recap:
... We are into this project because we were invited to take
a look at this area by a petition request to provide
service to this area.
.., There is an area in the service area of undersized lots
that mandates us under our Comp Plan to take a look at
it for utility service.
... In starting to look at this area, it was determined that
there would be other areas and properties that would
benefit by the project if we were to service the area
that petitioned for the service and the area of
undersized Tots. That was the way staff came up with
the overall project area and came up with an estimated
cost to provide service to that area.
... Staff is recommending that the cost be passed back to
the owners of property in that area through the square
footage method of assessment.
Once that assessment is determined for those particular
properties, individual property_ owners who feel they
must appeal that assessment will have the opportunity to
appeal through the Board of County Commissioners sitting
as the Board of Equalization at a public hearing
scheduled at 9:00 o'clock A.M. on Tuesday, June 18,
1991.
Chairman Bird hoped that prior to the public hearing on
Tuesday there would be some kind of guidelines established for
hearing any appeals that might be made, and Attorney Vitunac
advised that the first guiding Tight is that the cost to the
person's property does not exceed the benefit. The second
guiding light is that his share of the cost should be
proportional to that charged everyone else on the system. There
cannot be favorites. The third guiding light, and this is
important on the square footage method, is that whatever relief
you give to one person, that same theory must be applied
throughout the hearing. So, if the very first appeal is from an
individual who wants to reduce his lot size and you give him
relief, you must give everyone else that same relief. Therefore
9
POOK
AR d 14 1991
BOOK 83 PAGE 585
the Board would have to make a finding right from the beginning
not to give relief on the square footage method of assessment
because they have determined fairness. The Board will look at
other factors, but the property owners cannot argue any longer
that they do not like the square footage method of assessment.
Chairman Bird suggested that at the outset of Tuesday's
public hearing Attorney Vitunac repeat the guidelines just given
in order to inform any of the applicants what their burden of
proof is.
Commissioner Eggert understood that benefits are not just in
terms of what the property is at the current time but benefits
that could potentially happen to that property in the future.
Attorney Vitunac explained that it encompasses all forms of
benefits, such as increased value, etc., but Commissioner Eggert
felt people think of it as what is there now and not the fact
that they could divide their property or develop a larger acreage.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that there is an economy
to doing the project in terms of reading meters and in servicing
the lines. It is a concise service area, and from that standpoint
it ends up not inordinately impacting our system.
There being no other questions of staff, Chairman Bird
commended the Utilities staff on their presentation this morning.
He felt it was very helpful and informative.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:30 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Chairman