The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991 11 06 - County's Response to Meeting,2I'1. J1 0•u6u0 t v i fru w, COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO SEBASTIAN MEETING 1116/91 (2 & 3) Staff position has always been to assist the City as much as possible but that the franchise has to be released entirely to the City of Sebastian because of the many problems involved when the County serves only part of a city. (5) The County is not insisting upon a bulk arrangement but would be quite happy to be the retail utility service provider, once the franchise is revoked, in the City's name until the City is ready to provide the utility services itself. - 1 - (6) The only one with power to make assessments in the city is the City Council. Under the existing franchise, the Council must cooperate with the County in doing assessment programs to build the collection systems. However, the County has consistently told the City that the type, design, and cost of the connecting systems could be at the discretion of the City as long as the connections met technical standards required of a utility system. That includes having the City engage its own utility engineering firm if the City is unhappy with the County -sponsored utility connecting plans. The stated policy of the County Utility is to provide services whenever and wherever it is financially feasible and consistent with the City's Comp Plan. (8) The reason the County has not provided a rate schedule (and there was no request for a rate schedule in April) is that up until October 9, 1991, The City was insisting that the County retain service responsibility for that part of the City of Sebastian near the river, and, until the issues of boundaries was resolved, a rate could not be developed. The City negotiating staff dropped its request that the.County service the river area only in October, 1991, and immediately after that the County engaged the services of a rate consultant to develop the rates. - 2 - (13) As of November 13, 1991: City of Sebastian Original No. of ERUs 1,878 No. ERUs repurchased _(568) Balance of ERUs in City 1,310 No. ERU with no payment (City)535* Total Dollar Amount $772,250 *Interest and penalty charges are accruing and the liens will be enforced by foreclosure in Circuit Court (14) The County addresses the state -mandated mandatory connection rule by building only as much sewer capacity as is paid for in advance. Therefore, the fact that a sewer line may run in front of any particular piece of property does not mean that sewer is "available" to that property, since a line without capacity in a treatment plant is not "available." The only "mandated" payment would be any property's proportionate share of the assessment cost for line installation only when a line is run down any particular street. That cost would be the same whether the City or the County ran the line. (15) The franchise terms of acquisition for Park Place by the County are identical to the ones for acquisition of GDU by the City. 3 - (18 & 19) Mr. Pinto and the negotiating committee do have a problem with a later termination date. The County has been consistent that an early transfer date was required and has never changed or mutated. Commissioner Scurlock has concurred with the committee's decision. - 4 - (28) The County was ready on March 5, 1991, to provide service. (28 -continued) Regarding Park Place, the last draft of the agreement from the City's consultants left Park Place out of the agreement. The County agrees with Councilman Oberbeck that Park Place should be in. - 6 - (30 & 31) The County's method is actually extremely easy for the City to start utility service. The City's consultants continuously avoid mentioning that the County has offered to perform all utility services required, only in the name of the City. What could be easier? (33) The person responsible for setting an early transfer date is County Administrator James Chandler, who espoused the majority view of the committee in that an early transfer date was important to both sides. The County's position is that the transfer date should have no connection with the date of acquisition of GDU by the City. - 7 - (38) The rate exhibits are being developed now and could not have been developed much sooner. The exhibits showing connection points depend on the City's development plans. See answer to paragraph #8 above. (39) The County believes that it has consistently negotiated in good faith and used the same standard of diligence with the City as it uses for itself. In fact the County on at least three occasions has asked the City for a decision on the franchise termination. Each request asked for a response within 30 days. (42) No specific amount of units was discussed. - 8 - (44) See answer to paragraph 8. - 9 - (52) The City has the whole agreements minus the exhibits. The exhibits were left out only because they added nothing but extra copying, e.g., the legal description of the mobile home park and the inventory list (which was nothing). (52 -continued) The system was purchased under the conditions set forth in the City of Sebastian franchise for Park Place. No facilities have been crushed and thrown away. All water and sewer facilities purchase are operational except for the wastewater treatment plant which was removed from service upon connection of Park Place to the North County Sewer System. One of the original goals in taking over this development was the removal of the package treatment plant from service and to serve the development from the North county Regional System. (53) If the County had not purchased the system, the Utility owner could have justifiably raised the rates even higher. Even with the $10 surcharge, the County rate is lower than what it could have been under a true cost of service. (54) The agreement puts no one at a disadvantage. - 10 - (54 -continued) Mr. Hyatt receives no impact fees. Mr. Hyatt, as owner of Park Place, is responsible for payment of impact fees for all -units within the development. (55) Mr. Hyatt receives no tap fees. (57) The County estimates Mr. Hyatt will receive something like 1/3 of the sale price under this agreement. (58) The County agreement actually is a "good deal" for the residents of Park Place. (See answer to page #53.) (59) 1. Developer does not receive any impact fees. Developer is responsible for payment impact fees. 2. Exhibit "A" was "Schedule of Inventory" in the agreement. No inventory was purchased. 3. "Service Territory" is as described in legal description of Park Place franchise from City of Sebastian. (59 -continued) There are no "hidden facts" or "side deals." We resent the implication from the City's consultant lawyer and feels that he should correct the record. (60) This transcript is inaccurate. For an honest appraisal the Park Place residents and the City Council need to read the Park Place agreement itself. (61) This whole paragraph shows how the misinformation provided by the consultants has prejudiced a City Councilman. (62) The entire County negotiating team supports the County position and that position is subject to approval or rejection by the entire BCC- - 12 - (72) All the impact fee payments for service in the City were made voluntarily. There are no mandatory connections in Sebastian under the County franchise. (76) See answer to paragraph 14. - 14 - (83) This is incomprehensible and shows a misunderstanding of the County policy on rates and charges. - 15 - (97) The reason there is a franchise fee on Sebastian utility customers is that the City of Sebastian requested that the fee be put on its customers to generate revenue for the City. The County would be perfectly pleased to remove the franchise fee at the request of the City. - 16 -