Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 01 09 - Documents from Legal CouncilINDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FIZRIDA, AMENDING SECTION 24-31 THROUGH SECTION 24-67 OF TBE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA r PROVIDING FOR CONNECTIONS WITH WATERWORKS SYSTEM; CONNECTIONS WITH SEWER REQUIRED; SEWER CONNECTIONS REQUIRE COUNTY WATER; EXCEPTIONS TO CONNECTIONS; CONNECTIONS MAY BE MADE By COUNTY; DEFINITIONS; RATES AND CHARGES; IMPACT FEE, EXPANSION POLICY; EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES; OFF-SITE WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS; EXISTING AGREEMENTS; UNIFORM EXTENSION POLICY; UNLAWFUL CONNECTION; UNLAWFUL CONSTRUCTION; CONNECTING OLD PLUMBING; SANITARY REQUIREMENTS; DISPOSAL REQUIREMENT; STANDARDS FOR INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK; MAINTENANCE OF PLUMBING SYSTEM; PAYMENT OF FEES AND BILLS REQUIRED; COLLECTION OF SEWER FEES WHERE OWNER HAS COUNTY WATER SUPPLY; FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PLUMBING SYSTEM; NO SERVICE FREE; SEPARATE CONNECTIONS FOR EACH SEPARATE UNIT; WATER/SEWER FEES CHARGEABLE TO PROPERTY OWNERS--COUNTY MAY BILL TENANT; BILLING CYCLE; WATER CHARGES ON NEW CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTS; DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE FOR NON-PAYMENT; WATER AND SEWER EQUIPMENT IN EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF UTILITY DEPARTMENT; PERMIT REQUIRED TO DRAW WATER FROM FIRE HYDRANTS; PROHIBITION AGAINST DAMAGING EQUIPMENT; REQUIRED INSTALLATION OF BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICES; POWER AND AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS; DISCHARGE OF WATER IN SANITARY SEWERS; PROHIBITING DISCHARGE OF SPECIFIED WASTE AND WATERS INTO THE COUNTY SEWERAGE SYSTEM; WATER SHORTAGE EMERG CIES; SPRINKLERLAWN WELL AND PROVISIONSINCORPORATIOEIN'CODE; SE EERABILITY; AANDCTING N EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1 CONNECTIONS WITH WATERWORKS SYSTEM Where the same shall be available, the owner of every lot or parcel of land within the unincorporated portion of Indian River County, hereinafter referred to as "County",' shall (except as limited by Section 3) connect, or cause the Plumbing of any building, or buildings thereon to be connected, with the County waterworks system of Indian River County, Florida, or franchised Private utility system upon the approval of the system managers, and use such facilities within two (2) months following notifica- tion to do so by the Indian River County Utility Department. All such connections shall be made in accordance with the rules and regulations which shall be adopted from time to time by the Board Of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which rules and regulations shall provide for a charge for making such -1- r-. connections in such reasonable amount as such board may fix and determine by resolution, or in the case of a private utility, the rules and regulations adopted by the utility and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION 2 CONNECTIONS WITH SEWER REQUIRED The owner of each lot or parcel of land within the County upon which lot or parcel of land any building or trailer used as a dwelling is now situated, or shall hereafter be situated, for either residential, commercial or industrial use, shall connect or cause such building or buildings or trailer or trailers to be connected with the public sewer facilities of the County sewer system of Indian River County, Florida, or franchised private utility system upon approval of the systems managers, and use such facilities within two (2) months following notification to do so by the Utilities Department of Indian River County, Florida. All such connections shall be made in accordance with the rules and regulations which shall be adopted from time to time by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which rules and regulations shall provide for a charge for making any such connections in such reasonable amount as such board may fix and determine by resolution or in the case of a private utility the rules and regulations adopted'by the utility and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. No connection or connections shall be required where said sewer system or line is more than two hundred (200) feet from such lot or parcel of land, unless such connection is necessary to prevent a health hazard. SECTION 3 'SEWER CONNECTIONS REQUIRE COUNTY WATER All Connections to the County sewer system shall be simultaneously connected to the County water system, unless the water system is not available, as determined by the Utility Department. No County sewer service shall be provided without County water except as determined by the Utility Department, the tripartite [agreement] between the City of Vero Beach, Vero Mall -2- , r , r-. connections in such reasonable amount as such board may fix and determine by resolution, or in the case of a private utility, the rules and regulations adopted by the utility and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION 2 CONNECTIONS WITH SEWER REQUIRED The owner of each lot or parcel of land within the County upon which lot or parcel of land any building or trailer used as a dwelling is now situated, or shall hereafter be situated, for either residential, commercial or industrial use, shall connect or cause such building or buildings or trailer or trailers to be connected with the public sewer facilities of the County sewer system of Indian River County, Florida, or franchised private utility system upon approval of the systems managers, and use such facilities within two (2) months following notification to do so by the Utilities Department of Indian River County, Florida. All such connections shall be made in accordance with the rules and regulations which shall be adopted from time to time by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which rules and regulations shall provide for a charge for making any such connections in such reasonable amount as such board may fix and determine by resolution or in the case of a private utility the rules and regulations adopted'by the utility and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. No connection or connections shall be required where said sewer system or line is more than two hundred (200) feet from such lot or parcel of land, unless such connection is necessary to prevent a health hazard. SECTION 3 'SEWER CONNECTIONS REQUIRE COUNTY WATER All Connections to the County sewer system shall be simultaneously connected to the County water system, unless the water system is not available, as determined by the Utility Department. No County sewer service shall be provided without County water except as determined by the Utility Department, the tripartite [agreement] between the City of Vero Beach, Vero Mall -2- and Indian River County and the lands addressed thereon, or where such service previously existed. SECTION 4 EXCEPTIONS TO CONNECTIONS This article shall not be construed to require or entitle any person to cross the private property of another to make any such sewer or water connection. SECTION 5 CONNECTIONS MAY BE MADE BY COUNTY If any such owner of any lot or parcel of land within the County shall fail and refuse to connect with and use the facilities of the sewer system of the County after notification by the Utilities Division, as provided herein, then the Utilities Division shall be authorized to make such gonnections, entering on or upon any such lot or parcel of land for the purpose of making such connections. The.base facilities charge of the County shall apply.beginning twenty (20) days'after notification by the County Utility Department to connect. The County shall thereupon be entitled to recover the cost of making such connection, together with accrued base facilities charges, interest and attorney's fees, by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction. In addition, and as an alternative means of collecting such costs or making such connections, the County shall have a lien on such lot or parcel of land for such cost, which lien shall be of equal dignity with the lien of state and county and munici- pal taxes. Such lien may be foreclosed by the County yin the same manner provided by the laws of Florida for the foreclosure of mortgages upon real estate. SECTION 6 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth thereafter. ' (a) Base FacilitieCharge. The charge imposed by the County for each equivalent residential unit which is not related to actual usage of either water or sewer service but represents a portion of the cost to the County of having the system available _S_ to serve that equivalent residential unit. (b) E uivalent Residential Unit (1) Each single family residence served by the County through a single water meter and/or single sewer service connection constitutes one equivalent residential unit. (See chart below.) (2) Each residential room or combination of rooms, designed to be occupied on a permanent or long-term basis, and not otherwise defined as a hotel or motel herein and each apartment unit, condominium unit, multi -family unit or prepared mobile home space that includes connection points for sewer and/or water service and that is owner occupied, offered separately for rent as a rental or lease unit, or vacant, will constitute one equivalent residential unit. Multi -unit apartment condominiums, and similar multi -unit residential structures or complexes are defined to con- sist of multiple equivalent residential un;ts regardless of whether or not a single water or sewer connection serves the entire complex. (See chart below.) (c) Commercial, Industrial and Non-residential Accounts. All other types of accounts not previously defined as an equivalent residential unit will, for the purposes of estab- lishing the applicable rate structure, be considered to comprise multiple equivalent residential units according to the following chart and formula: UNIT DESIGNATIONS I. Single family home UNITS 2. Private dwellingw '1 each room available rforerrooms entove ora boarding house 1 3. Hotel/motel1 - per living unit 4. Rental or condominium apartment 20 5. Mobile livin 1 9 unit 6. Townhouse 1 7. Single family home wlace of 1 of business other than restaurantlness, each place 1 9. School -per each 1 p p 30ime11u time i is pupils S faculty 1 per each 60 art p p' s faculty (part time attendance less than 3.5 hours) 1 9. Church 1 (d) Combination Accounts. Accounts that contain both residential and commercial facilities served through a common meter may be treated as either residential or non-residential whichever method of.computation results in a larger number of -q_ ' Ali1 ^l 10. Church w/banquet facilities 2 11. Clubs, societies, service organizations w/dining facilities 1 3 12. Service station -w/o repair or maintenance w/repair or 1 maintenance w/car wash per 250GPD 2 1 13. Take out restaurant w/o seating 3 14. Diner, tavern, restaurant -1 to 50 seating capacity each additional 15 3 seats or segment thereof 1 15. Laundromat or self service laundry per @ washer 16. Soda fountain and/or 1 luncheonette 1 to 25 cap. each additional 20seats or segment gment thereof 2 1 17. supermarket 1 to'3 water fixtures per water fixture thereafter .33 1/3 6000=-dS�=C1R1t�S 1s. Retail and general commercial business per first 2500 sq. ft. 1 per each 5000 or part thereof 1 1 19. Office building for @ 3000 sq, ft. or part thereof 1 1 20. Nursing home -per 20 bed capacity for @ 10 staff or segment thereof 1 1 _ 21. Warehouse -per @ 5000 sq. ft. gross floor part thereof area or 1 22. Industrial d manufacturing plant w/o use of water for processing per @ 3000 sq. ft, gross area or for @ 5 employees whichever is greater 1 23. Industrial s manufacturing plant using water for processing and/or has discharge to wastewater system shall be determined on an individual basis. Minimum 3 24. Barber shop -hair dresser 1 to 3 sinks. each additional sink 1 1/3 25. Establishments requiring service for irrigation or fire service will be handled on an individual basis using 250GPD as a basis of calculating units., In any case, where use exceeds 250GPD per unit, units will be increased or flow will be restricted at the discretion of the Utility. 26. In the event that a business or structure is described in the schedule by general classification but the particular nature of said business or structure would result in an inequitable connection charge if the schedule were usedthe Utility in its discretion may determine that a higher or lower number of units shall be used. ., Multiple use of an individual structure or group of structures shall be classified uses. to include all (d) Combination Accounts. Accounts that contain both residential and commercial facilities served through a common meter may be treated as either residential or non-residential whichever method of.computation results in a larger number of -q_ equivalent residential units. (e) Hotel and Motel. Any building or groups of build- ings containing sleeping room accommodations for guests and pro- viding the services generally provided by a hotel or motel and recognized as a hotel or motel in the community in which it is situated or by the industry, and offering daily or weekly rates, with a bath or connecting bath for every rental unit and occupied only by transient guests. It is the intent of this section that any such structure offering a residential or combination of rooms for rent or lease for longer than a month at a time shall not be considered a hotel or motel. SECTION 7 RATES AND CHARGES The rate schedule attached hereto as Appendix "A" is hereby adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. A. Base Facilities Charge. This charge shall apply to every connected equivalent residential unit and to each equivalent residential unit reserved for future use in a development. For facilities that have received a Certificate of Occupancy this charge will apply until the facility is permanently disconnected from the system. For developments which have entered into an agreement with the County for the construction of the necessary lines to connect the project to the County system, the fee shall commence upon certification by appropriate governmental authori- ties that the lines are ready for use. For all other reserva- tions, the fee shall commence at the time of reservation. For temporary disconnegtions, customers will pay the base facilities charge for each month the facility is disconnected at the time of reconnection. All individuals who have reserved capacity at the date of enactment of this section shall be given the option of commencing payment of the base facilities charge or to relinquish the reservation and receive a refund of all funds collected by County for the reservation. This election must be made within thirty (30) days of notification by the County. B. Water Production Charge. This charge represents the cost associated with the production of water at the County water Plant and shall apply to all customers who purchase water at the water plant to be distributed by purchaser, as set forth in Appendix "A," C. Volume Charqe. A charge imposed that is directly related to the volume of water consumed or sewage treated and designed to recoup the cost associated with the operation of the system that varies with consumption levels as set forth in Appendix "A," D. Customer This charge represents the costs to the system associated with billing, collection, meter reading and general customer services imposed on each meter installed, as set forth in Appendix "A." E. Deposits Required upon 02ening, Transferring Reconnecting; Refund Policy. The County shall require a deposit as set forth in Appendix "A" for all water or sewer accounts that are opened, transferred to another name or upon reconnection to the , stem s ' - Y Upon di scontinuance 'of service, and rendering of final bill, the deposit shall be refunded; less any amount remaining unpaid. In the event any customer service is shut off for non-payment; prior to reconnection the customer will pay the accrued base facilities charge plus, if in the discretion of the Utility Director it is necessary to assure payment, a deposit equal to twice the customer's average monthly bill in lieu of following the schedule set forth hereafter. Accrued interest on the County Deposit Fund shall be used to offset bad debts of the system. Customers who have not been assessed late payment fees or been shut off for non-payment for a period of thirty (30) months shall receive a refund of their deposit. (1) Sewer A deposit equal to the water deposit. -A sewer only customer will pay a deposit equal to two ._ (2) times the water deposit schedule. F. Specific Service Charges (1) water Service Connection: To defray the cost of and imposed when County constructs a water lateral from customer's Property to watermain in adjacent street, including meter installation (normal residential customers only; others cost plus -7- IW* See Appendix "A." (2) Sewer Service Connection: To defray the cost of and imposed when County constructs a sewer lateral from customer's property to main in street (normal residential customers only). See Appendix "A.- (3) Meter Installations On : Where an existing available usable service lateral is presently installed, a charge will be imposed as set forth in Appendix "A." The listed charges do not include meter vault which will be supplied by developer. G. Miscellaneous Service Charges (1) Reconnect d"rinq normal working hours 9:00 (8:30 AM - ): This charge is made upon initial service connect, or for change from temporary to permanent service, a reconnect after delinquency shut-off, or for transfer of service from one location to another, where there was an existing account. See Appendix "A. (2) Reconnect duringoff-duty "A." hours: See Appendix (3) Meter re -reads and leak inspection: This charge is for special inspection at request of customers when there is no interruption of service and the account remains in the same name. If the re -read is a result of an error of the intial meter read- ing, this charge will not be assessed to the.customer. See Appendix "A." (Q) Delinquency charge: County shall charge an addi- tional $1.50 plus one and one-half percent (1-1/28) interest monthly on all outstanding balances if payment is not made in total by each payment deadline date. The deadline date shall be fifteen (15) days after the billing date. (5) General service calls: In all instances where County is requested to respond to a service call to correct a problem that was not caused by the County, the County shall charge the responsible party for all direct labor, direct materials, direct overhead, fringe benefit factor and the County's indirect cost rate pursuant to a formula established by the County's Utility Division. i6) Meter calibration: Upon request of a customer, the Utility Department shall test a water meter to determine if the meter is operating within established standards, (95 to 101.5 per cent of true). If the meter has been tested within the last twelve (12) months, there shall be a ten -dollar ($10.00) non-refundable service charge if the meter is found to be operating accurately. If the meter is in error, i.e., outside the range of ninety-five (95) to one hundred one and five -tenths (101.5) per cent of true, then a billing adjustment will be made for a period not to exceed the past six (6) months of actual service. There shall be no charge for testing in the event the water meter has not been tested within the last twelve (12) months preceding the request. The service charge may be applied against monies due in the event a meter, after testing, is found to be inaccurate within the range established above. (7). Damage repair: All damage caused by the failure of a contractor or customer to properly locate and isolate water and sewer facilities shall be repaired by the County and charged to the responsible party under the provisions of paragraph "E"; or in the alternative, County may hire a contractor to perform the repair work and charge the responsible party for the repairs. In addition, the responsible party shall pay the County a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each such instance. (8) Line location -- same as general service calls. (9) Engineering services: These fees will be assessed to defray the cost of processing a developer's application for subdivision construction, site plan, reviewing the plans and inspecting the water and sewer facilities as constructed. See Appendix "A." Inspection fee: County shall charge according to the table on Appendix "A" or time, materials and overhead whichever is greater. (10) Other miscellaneous charges --See Appendix "A". H. Additional Costs for Com lex Connections The specific service charges listed in this section are based on the average historical costs of such services. If in the -9- event a particular service required by a customer is determined by the Utility Division to have a cost which greatly exceeds the "norm", then such cost of service shall be negotiated between the County and the developer and reduced to a written instrument approved by the customer and the Utility Director. See Appendix "A. I. Annual Fire Protection Charges These charges are established to defray the cost of pro- viding extra capacity in the water system and maintaining water and fire protection facilities for customers having sprinkler systems, private fire lanes, etc.; they are designed to recover a portion of the availability cost and customer cost. In addition, this cost covers the additional capacity and expense associated with line size and hydrants in the fire district. (1) Hydrants. The fire district wherein the water system and hydrants are located shall be assessed the charge set forth in Appendix "A"per hydrant annually': If hydrant is accessible by private entity only, then that entity shall be charged. (2) Fire systems. Each facility with a fire protection system shall be charged annually in accordance with the chart in Appendix "A." SECTION 8 IMPACT FEE, EXPANSION POLICY This section establishes procedures to Facilitate the orderly expansion of the County water supply system and wastewater treatment system and provides alternates for funding such expan- - sion by those specifically benefiting thereby, by imposing a user charge which is reasonably calculated to offset a portion of the capital cost of the anticipated new demand on the systems. .The remaining capital cost shall be recouped through the monthly charges. Indian River County has determined that certain neces- sary improvements will have to be undertaken in order to provide a water supply and wastewater treatment system to meet the needs of a large influx of new residents, industrial and business -10- establishments anticipated to occur in future years: In order to finance these improvements, several combined methods of financing will be necessary, one of which is an impact fee. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida has the authority under Florida Statutes 5125.01 and 5163.3161 et seq., and supporting cases to establish a user charge hereinafter called an impact fee in order to offset the cost of the necessary extension of the County's water and sewer systems. The amount of these impact fees have been established on the recommendation of the County's rate consultants and after wide ranging input from concerned citizens at public hearings. The Board of County Commissioners now finds and deter- mines after an examination of all methods of financing, that the impact fee is a necessary integral part of financing the cost of future water systems and wastewater treatment systems in th'e County at this time, and that this fee should be reviewed on a regular basis in order to ensure that it cpntinues to reflect a charge that is commensurate with the burden imposed on the system by new development. . A. Impact Fee Imposed. There is hereby imposed an impact fee according to the following schedule, based on the equitable portion of the cost of financing the extension of the County's sewer and water systems on each equivalent residential unit responsible for creating the need for additional system expansion. The obligation to pay the impact fee $hall occur at the earliest of the following dates: When the capacity is reserved, when a water or sewer permit_' is granted, or when a building permit is issued. Water service. . . . . . . . . . . See Appendix "A" Sewer service. . . . . . . . See Appendix "A" B. If a building permit is issued for an existing non- residential, commercial or industrial connection which will increase water demand or sewer treatment demand or if a building changes from residential to non-residential occupancy, the total number of equivalent residential units for the old and new parts of the facility will be computed according to the definition of -11- equivalec,c residential units and impact fees shall be assessed on the difference. C. Escalation of impact fees. The basis for the impact fees imposed by this section has been structured by the County i with respect to two major but variable factors. First, the ' present level of construction cost of water distribution, sewer collection, water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant facilities. Second, the theory of treatment facilities and their relative degree of treatment system sophistication as prescribed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The foregoing schedule of impact fees shall auto- matically escalate based upon increases in utility construction index published in the Engineering News Record magazine (ENR) (if ENR goes out of business, an equivalent index will be used by the j County), entitled "twenty cities' construction cost index," using 1 as a base the published index for the quarter-ending June 30, • 1980.' The County shall automatically adjust the impact fees set forth herein semi-annually with the first such adjustment to be not earlier than December 31, 1984. The automatic escalation shall not exceed the percentage difference between said construction cost index for the base period as compared with the period in review. D. Escalation of plant caDacity fee by County Board of County Commissioners. Separate and apart from the automatic esca- lation provisions set forth above, the Utility Department of the County may file with the Commission a higher or lower impact fee I schedule, and in support of that schedule, detail the reasons requiring such increased fees. Such reasons may include and be related to increasing standards of service; inadequate or incorrect estimates of the total anticipated fees versus the actual investment levels required by the County for water or sewer plant treatment facilities; actual experience with regard to matters of service area density having a direct bearing upon assessments received versus the cost of construction of the facilities; matters of net investment bearing upon rates and :lecess!CIes or consideration requiring.-: jh change. Q. Use of proceeds. The proceeds accumulated by reason of the establishment of the impact fees can be used only for capital expenditures for the expansion*of the County's water system or wastewater treatment system. The funds may be used for extending, oversizing, separating or constructing new additions to the treatment plant or collection and interceptor systems of the water and wastewater systems so as to meet the increased demand which additional connections to the system create. Said proceeds may not be used for improving, updating or bringing the present system into compliance with any change in law or other events which would otherwise require such improving, updating or bringing the present system into compliance. F. Trust fund established. There are hereby estab- lished two (2) trust funds, one designated as -(A) Impact Fee Trust Fund for the Expansion of the Indian River County water System, and the second one designated as (S) Impact Fee Trust Fund for the Expansion of the Indian River County Sewerage System. All impact fees paid to the County shall be r deposited in the appropriate trust fund to be held in separate accounts and used only for the purposes of the expansion of the respective County systems. Funds may be disbursed from these accounts in a customary manner in accordance with appropriate law with the added requirement that the disbursal of such funds shall requireapproval of the County Administration and Utility Director. Any funds on deposit in said trust funds which are not immediately necessary for the expansion of the respective systems may be invested in the manner provided by law for the investment of surplus County funds. All interest earned on invested funds in the respective trust funds shall bear the same restrictions on expenditure as those funds which created the interest. All of the preceding notwithstanding, none of such funds deposited in the respective trust fund shall ever be expended by Indian River County in a manner that is contrary to -13- those principles set forth in the case captioned; Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas Countv v. Cit" of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (1976) as further interpreted from time to time by the " Supreme Court of the State of Florida and various appellate courts. G. Use of funds previously collected. The use of.any funds previously collected by the County under Ordinance No. 80-22 or 80-21 as plant capacity fees or contributions in aid of construction are hereby restricted for use for the purpose for which they were collected. In no event shall any of such funds ever be used in a manner contrary to the principles set forth in the case of Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas Countv v. Citv of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (1976) as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida and appellate courts from time to time. Under no circumstances shall any funds collected under the terms of any previously adopted ordinance or 1 under the terms of this ordinance be expended.for any purpose other than extending, oversizing, separating, or constructing new additions to the treatment plant or collection and interceptor' systems of the water and wastewater system so as to meet the increased demand which additional connections to the system create. H. Time payment of impact fee upon showino of hardship. The Board of County Commissioners may establish an alternate method of payment for units presently in existence which have received occupancy permits from the County. Upon a showing of proper hardship to the Commission, the Commission may allow in its sole discretion pay- ment of the water and/or sewer impact fees in whole or in part over a period of three (3) years at such interest rate to be determined by the Board. Upon the Commission's authorizing an alternate pay- ment schedule for an applicant, a lien•for the amount due shall be executed in recordable form reflecting the payment schedule and filed. in the public records of Indian River County, Florida. Upon all payments being made in full, said lien shall be released of -14- , establishments anticipated to occur in future years. In order to finance these improvements, several combined :methods of financing will be necessary, one of which is an impact fee. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida has the authority under Florida Statutes §125.01 and 5163.3161 et seq., and supporting cases to establish a user charge hereinafter called an impact fee in order to offset the cost of the necessary extension of the County's water and sewer Systems. The amount of these impact fees have been established on the recommendation of the County's rate consultants and after wide ranging input from concerned citizens at public hearings. The Board of County Commissioners now finds and deter- mines after an examination of all methods of financing, that the impact fee is a necessary integral part of financing the cost of future water systems and wastewater treatment systems in the County at this time, and that this fee should be reviewed on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to reflect a charge that is commensurate with the burden imposed on the system by new development. A. Impact Fee Imposed. There is hereby imposed an impact fee according to the following schedule, based on the equitable portion of the cost of financing the extension of the County's sewer and water systems on each equivalent residential unit responsible for creating the need for additional system expansion. The obligation to pay the impact fee shall occur at the earliest of the following dates: When the capacity is reserved, when a water or sewer permit_' is granted, or when a building permit is issued. Water service. . . . . , . , , , . See Appendix "A" Sewer service. . . . . , , , See Appendix "A" B. If a building permit is issued for an existing non- residential, commercial or industrial connection which will increase water demand or sewer treatment demand or if a building changes from residential to non-residential occupancy, the total number of equivalent residential units for the old and new parts of the facility will be computed according to the definition of -11- equivalent residential units and impact fees shall be assessed on the difference. ' C. Escalation of impact fees. The basis for the impact fees imposed by this section has been structured by the County with respect to two major but variable factors. First, the present level of construction cost of water distribution, sewer collection, water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant facilities. Second, the theory of treatment facilities and their relative degree of treatment system sophistication as prescribed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. .. The foregoing schedule of impact fees shall auto- matically escalate based upon increases in utility construction index published in the Engineering News Record magazine (ENR) (if ENR goes out of business, an equivalent index will be used by the iCounty), entitled "twenty cities' construction cost index," using as a base the published index for the quarter-ending'June 30, 1980. The County shall automatically adjust the impact fees set forth herein semi-annually with the first such adjustment to be not earlier than December 31, 1984. The automatic escalation shall not exceed the percentage difference between said construction cost index for the base period as compared with the period in review. D. Escalation of plant capacity fee by County Hoard of County Commissioners. Separate and apart from the automatic esca- lation provisions set forth above, the Ut4 lity Department of the County may file with the Commission a higher or lower impact fee _• schedule, and in support of that schedule, detail the reasons requiring such increased fees. Such reasons may include and be related to increasing standards of service; inadequate or incorrect estimates of the total anticipated fees versus the •• actual investment levels required by the County for water or sewer plant treatment facilities; actual experience with regard to matters of service area density having a direct bearing upon assessments received versus the cost of construction of the facilities; matters of net investment bearing upon rates and charges required of consumers and/or such other matters which may /1 reasonallonk� )ear upon the needs, necessitie consideration requiring such change. E. Use of proceeds. The proceeds accumulated by reason Of the establishment of the impact fees can be used only for capital expenditures for the expansion'of the County's water system or wastewater treatment system. The funds may be used for extending, oversizing, separating or constructing new additions to the treatment plant or collection and interceptor systems of the water and wastewater systems so as to meet the increased demand which additional connections to the system create. Said proceeds may not be used for improving, updating or bringing the present system into compliance with any change in law or other events which would otherwise require such improving, updating or bringing the present system into compliance. F. Trust fund established. There are hereby estab- lished two (2) trust funds, one designated as -(A) Impact Fee Trust Fund for the Expansion of the Indian River County Water System, and the second one designated as (B) Impact Fee Trust Fund for the ,Expansion of the Indian River County Sewerage System. All impact fees paid to the County shall be deposited in the appropriate trust fund to be held in separate accounts and used only for the purposes of the expansion of the respective County systems. Funds may be disbursed from these accounts in a customary manner in accordance with appropriate law with the added requirement that the disbursal of such funds shall require approval of the County Administration and Utility Director. Any funds on deposit in said trust funds which are not immediately necessary for the expansion of the respective systems may be invested in the manner provided by law for the investment of surplus County funds. All interest earned on invested funds in the respective trust funds shall bear the same restrictions on expenditure as those funds which created the interest. All of the preceding notwithstanding, none of such funds deposited in the respective trust fund shall ever be expended by Indian River County in a manner that is contrary to -13- those principles set forth in the case captioned; Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas Countv v. Cit" of Dunedin, 329 So -2d 314 (1976) as further interpreted from time to time by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida and various appellate courts. G. Use of funds previously collected. The use of.any funds previously collected by the County under Ordinance No. 80-22 or 80-21 as plant capacity fees or contributions in aid of construction are hereby restricted for use for the purpose for which they were collected. In no event shall any of such funds ever be used in a manner contrary to the principles set forth in the case of Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas Countv v. Citv of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (1976) as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida and appellate courts from time to time. Under no circumstances shall any funds collected under the terms of any previously adopted ordinance or I under the terms of this ordinance be expended.ior any purpose other than extending, oversizing, separating, or constructing new additions to the treatment plant or collection and interceptor systems of the water and wastewater system so as to meet the increased demand which additional connections to the system create. 6 H. Time payment of imoact fee upon showina of hardship. The Board of County Commissioners may establish an alternate method of payment for units presently in existence which Yave received occupancy permits from the County. Upon a showing of proper hardship to the' Commission, the Commission may allow in its sole discretion pay- ment of the water and/or sewer impact fees in whole or in part over a period of three (3) years at such interest rate to be determined by the Board. Upon the Commission's authorizing an alternate pay- ment schedule for an applicant, a lien'for the amount due shall be executed in recordable form reflecting the payment schedule and filed in the public records of rndian River County, Florida. U_oon all payments being made in full, said lien shall be released of -14- record. SECTION 9 EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES A. Contributions in aid of construction, The County requires the contribution in aid of construction through the. installation of water distribution and sewage collection facili- ties by the developer with title to such facilities being trans- ferred to the County when the installation has been completed. The facilities are "on-site" and "off-site" as defined in this article. The requirement for such contributions is for the. purpose of defraying' the cost of the water distribution and sewage collection systems and to partially defray the cost of the hydraulic share of the systems. B. On-site facilities. Each developer shall be respon- sible for the design, installation, inspection and testing of the complete water distribution and sewage collection systems located , in the street or streets adjoining or within fhe boundaries of the developer's property. The term "complete water distribution and sewage collection systems," as used herein, shall include all component parts of a water distribution system including valves, fittings, laterals, hydrants and all appurtenances as shown upon the approved design of such water distribution system and all the components of the sewage collection system, including all -collec- tion lines, manholes, force mains, lift or pumping stations, including the site for same, and all other appurtenancbs as shown on the approved design for installation of such sewage collection. systems. The developer shall supply the County with two sets of "as built" plans. SECTION 10 OFF-SITE WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS A. The location, size or proposed densities of a developer's property may make such service to the property depen- dent upon the developer's extension of Off-site water distribution and sewage collection facilities. For the purpose of this -Is- article, the term off-site shall defined as those mains, water transmission lines, sewage collection lines, sewage force mains and/or pumping stations necessary to connect to the developer's property with facilities of the County adequate in size to trans- mit to the developer's property an adequate quantity of water under adequate pressure and/or transmit sewage collected on -the developer's property to the treatment plant or disposal site of the County. It is the County's policy to expand its water and sewerage system in an orderly, economical manner and in those cases in which the County would not normally be expanding its system to serve a developer's project at that time and such an extension would require an extraordinary expenditure by the County for transmission facilities and such expenditure does not fall within the "norm" associated with the County's standard impact fee then such developer shall be required to construct or pay the cost Of off-site facilities associated with his project. In this event,'the County shall negotiate an agreement with -the developer requesting service setting forth the developer's responsibility for off-site facilities and the County's responsibility for ' requiring such facilities to be oversized to meet future demands. B. Refundable advances. The County may require, in addition to the contribution in aid of construction of off-site facilities herein set forth, a refundable advance by the developer to further temporarily defray the cost of any "off-site" extension of water and/or sewer mains and pumping stations necessary to connect the developer's property with the then terminus of the County's water and sewer facilities. This provision recognizes instances in which a developer may be required to advance funds to construct off-site facilities sized in accordance with the County's Master Plan. All amounts expended by the developer pur- suant to such an agreement over and above the developer's hydraulic share for off-site facilities shall be refunded to developer in accordance with the terms and conditions of a refunding agreement which the County will execute with the developer. County may assume a portion of the material cost of such projects when it deems it to be in the best interest of the -16- County utility system. The refund agreement shall provide for a plan of refund based upon the connection of other properties, to the extent of their hydraulic share, which properties will be served by the "off-site" facilities installed by the developer. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the County will limit the life of such refund agreement to a term of not more' than five (5) years, after which time any portion of the refund not made to the developer by the terms and conditions of the refund agreement will have lapsed and thereafter such refund agreement shall be canceled. In no event shall the developer recoup an amount greater than -the difference between the capitalized cost of. such "off-site" improvements and the developer's own hydraulic share of such improvements. The developer shall not be entitled to any interest upon the refund of the developer's advance. SECTION 11 EXISTING AGREEMENTS County recognizes that certain developer agreements have been executed by the County and developers in the past. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to abrogate, obviate or avoid" the respective parties obligations in those agreements. SECTION 12 UNIFORM EXTENSION POLICY The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County hereby declares its intent to adopt a uniform non- discriminatory water and sewer service extension policy. Such Policy is hereby authorized to be adopted by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners and provide for but not be limited to the following subjects: ' (a) Uniform policy for the extension of the County's water system (b) Unlrn rm ..r.l i.... F.... ��_ wastewater system , (c) Criteria for determining the financial feasibility for such extensions (d) Apportionment of costs for off-site water systems (e) Apportionment of costs for off-site sewage -17- collection systems (f) Contributions in aid of construction (g) Refundable advances SECTION 13 UNLAWFUL CONNECTION No person shall be allowed to connect into any water line or sewer line owned by the County without the written consent of the County, and then the connection with such line shall be made only under the direction and supervision of the Utility Department. Any property owner, plumber or other individual who shall make any connection without such consent of the County' shall, upon conviction, be subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. SECTION 14 UNLAWFUL CONSTRUCTION Noerson P group of persons, firm or corporation shall build or remodel or cause to be built or remodeled any structure used for human habitation or occupancy on a property within the county which is within two hundred (200) feet of a public sanitary gravity sewer line or water main without connection to tha gravity line or water main. All construction shall adhere to latest revision of "Construction specifications for water distribution and sewage collection facilities by Vero Beach." SECTION 15 CONNECTING OLD PLUMBING Whenever it is desirable or required to connect old plumbing with the County sewer main and/or water line, the owner or plumber contemplating doing such work shall notify the County Utility Department, who will inspect said old plumbing and notify the owner or plumber what alterations will be necessary to place said old plumbing in an acceptable condition for such connection. Alterations shall be made within two (2) months of notification. Any owner or plumber who shall make any connection without the approval of the County Utility Department shall, upon conviction, be subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. -18- m SECTION 16 ' SANITARY REQUIR=_MENTS Every residence and building in which human beings reside, are employed or congregated, shall be required to have a a sanitary method of disposing human excrement, gray water discharge such as washing machines, dishwashers, etc.; namely, either a sanitary water closet that is connected with the County or fran— chised sewer, or an approved type of septic tank. A septic tank will be used only if the property is more than two hundred (200) feet from the gravity sewer line. SECTION 17. DISPOSAL REQUIREMENT It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation owning or leasing any premises in the County to permit the disposal of any human excrement on any property, leased or i rented by any such person, firm or corporation, except in a sani- tary water closet, where sewage lines are hvailable as defined above. SECTION IS STANDARDS FOR INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK No septic tank other than those approved by the appro- priate agencies shall be constructed or installed within the County. No septic tank shall be constructed on a property within two hundred (200) feet of a County gravity sewer line. Where elevation, soil conditions and environmental requirements permit, septic tanks will be preferred for single-family homes provided with public or franchised water. For lots with wells and septic tanks, there shall be no more than four (4) units per acre with a limitation that the number of units per acre allowed shall be determined by current Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Health Department Rules and Regulations existing as of the date application is made. Multifamily buldings and commer- cial buildings shall not be permitted to have septic tanks which have a higher equivalent than that allowed for residential connections. The standard of connection for multifamily and commercial buildings not exceeding the above residential equi- valent shall be as provided by the Florida Department of -19- Environmental Regulation and Health Departnent Rules and Regulations existing at the time of application. SECTION 19 MAINTENANCE OF PLUMBING SYSTEM The owner of the property shall be responsible for maintaining and keeping clean the water and sewer pipes leading and connecting from the plumbing system to the County distribution lines and main sewers. This includes the meter boxes and easements for access to them. SECTION 20 PAYMENT OF FEES AND BILLS REQUIRED Bills for monthly charges and fees should be submitted and shall be payable on the fifteenth day from the date of the bill. If any monthly bill remains unpaid on the sixteenth day of the month for such service, a penalty as set forth in Appendix "A" shall be imposed and added to the bill. If the monthly bill remains unpaid on the twenty-fifth calendar day after the bill, the water service to the customer shall be subject to discontinu- ance until all -past -due water bills are fully paid, together with such reconnection fee as set forth in Appendix "A." All other parts of this article will apply as presently written. SECTION 21 COLLECTION OF SEWER FEES WHERE OWNER HAS COUNTY WATER SUPPLY Where sewage disposal fees are not paid in accordance with the provisions outlined above, the County shall have a right to cut off the water supply to the plumbing system, ani} the owner shall have no right to reconnect the water supply until the sewage disposal fees have been paid in full. Any violation of this pro- vision by reconnecting the water supply, until such sewage dis- posal fees are paid in full, shall be considered a violation of this article and subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. SECTION 22 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PLUMBING SYSTEM Failure to keep the sewer pipe, i.e., the pipe leading from the plumbing system to the sewer main, clean and maintained -20- in a proper manner will give the County the right to cut off the .water connection, which shall not be reconnected until the sewer pipe is cleaned and maintained properly. Any violation of this provision by reconnecting the connection from the County .rater line, until such sewer pipes are cleaned and maintained properly, shall be considered a violation of this article, and subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. Cleaning by forcing obstacles through service lines to the public system is forbidden. SECTION 23 NO SERVICE FREE No water nor sewage disposal service shall be furnished or rendered free of charge to any person, firm or corporation whatsoever; and the County and each and every agency, department or instrumentality which uses either or both services shall pay therefor at the rate fixed by this article. SECTION 24 SEPARATE CONNECTIONS FOR EACH SEPARATE UNIT Each building, whether occupying one or more lots and whether it shall occupy any lot or parcel jointly with any other residential building, shall be billed separately for the payment of the water fees and the sewage disposal fees, and separate connections and meters will be required for each building, unless the Director of Utilities determines it is in the County's best interest to approve the use of a master meter. SECTION 25 WATER/SEWER FEES CHARGEABLE TO PROPERTY OWNE COUNTY MAY BILL TENANT Water and sewer services are held to be furnished to the property and the fees, therefore, are chargeable to the property owner. The County may bill the tenant or occupant of each prem- ises for the water and sewer charges at the request of the owner, -. express or implied, but this shall in no way relieve the owner of responsibility for payment. Any payment remaining unpaid for a period of thirty (30) days shall constitute a lien in favor of Indian River County against the property serviced and the County Administrator is authorized and directed to record said lien in -21- S the public records of Indian River County, Florida. County is authorized to discontinue service when payment is thirty (30) days overdue and shall not reinstate service until full payment is received. SECT= BILLINBILLINGCYCLE The County Administrator may arrange the dates of bill- ing into a cycle as he may deem best to most efficiently admin- ister the system. Charges for water and sewer service shall be billed on the same bill at the same time. SECTION�27 WATER CHARGES ON NEW CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTS On new construction accounts, water may be provided to the contractor subject to a deposit determined by the Utility Department refundable on cancellation and upon payment of the i construction account for water used, and provided further that this deposit shall be forfeited if the building is occupied prior to the cancellation and payment of the construction account for water used. SECTION 28 DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE FOR NON-PAYMENT FEE FOR RESTORING SERVICES, PENALTY FOR TAMPERING WITH WATER METER A. If water and sewer bills are not paid within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date rendered, a penalty will be gener- ated. On the twenty-fifth (25) day if the bill still remains unpaid, then the County may turn off the water and discontinue service -until the bill is paid in full. B. If the water is turned off and service is discon- tinued under this action, an additional turn -on fee shall be charged for restoring service and a deposit shall be required as set forth herein. C. If service has been discontinued, anyone tampering with the water meter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor as provided by law. -22- SECTION 29 WATER AND SEWER EQUIPMENT IN EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF UTILITY DEPARTMENT The operation and maintenance of all buildings, equip- ment and apparatus belonging to the water and sewer systems of Indian River County shall be solely and exclusively in the charge of the County Administrator and Utility Division and shall not be molested, tampered with, or trespassed upon by any other person whatsoever. SECTION 30 PERMIT REQUIRED TO DRAW WATER PROM FIRE HYDRANTS A permit shall be required from the County Administrator or his designee before water is drawn from any fire hydrant or other service outlet, except by the fire department in the regular discharge of its duties, and only after arrangements have been made for payment to the County for water so drawn at a just and reasonable rate. SECTION 31 PROHIBITION AGAINST DAMAGING EQUIPMENT It shall be illegal and subject to the punishment pro- vided herein for any person to maliciously, willfully or negli- gently break, damage, destroy, uncover, deface or tamper with any structure, appurtenance or equipment which is a part of the Indian River County water or sewerage systems. SECTION 32 REQUIRED INSTALLATION OF BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICES All new residential, commercial or industrial customers requesting service from the Indian River County water system shall first be required to install back flow prevention devices for the protection of the Indian River County potable water system. Such devices will meet specifications adopted by the Indian River County Utility Department. SECTION 33 , POWER AND AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS The Utility Director and other duly authorized employees of Indian River County bearing proper credentials and identifica- tion shall be permitted to enter upon all properties for the -23- purpose of inspection, observation, measurement, sampling and testing in accordance with provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 34 DISCHARGE OF WATER IN SANITARY SEWERS No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage or unpolluted industrial processed waters into the Indian River County sewerage collection and treatment system. SECTION 35 PROHIBITING DISCHARGE OF SPECIFIED WASTE AND WATERS INTO TRE COUNTY SEWERAGE SYSTEM( A. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any of the following described waters or waste into the County sewerage system. (1) Any liquid or vapor having a temperature higher than 150` F. (2) .Any water or waste which may contain more than one hundred parts per million, Or Mg/L, Of fat, oil, or grease. (3) Any gasoline, benzene, naphtha, fuel oil, or other flammable or explosive liquid, solid or gas. (4) Any garbage that has not been properly shredded. (5) Any ashes, cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal, glass, rags, feathers, tar, plastics, wood, or any other solid or viscous substance capable of causing obstruction to the flow in sewers or other interference with the proper operation of the sewerage works. (6) Any waters or wastes having a pH lower than 6.2 or higher than 8.0, or having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment, and personnel of the sewerage works. (7) Any waters or wastes containing a toxic or poison- ous substance in sufficient quantity to injure or interfere with any sewage treatment process, constitute a hazard to humans or animals, or create any hazard in the receiving waters of the sewage treatment plant. (8) Any waters or wastes containing suspended solids of such character and quantity that unusual attention or expense is -24- required to handle such materials at the sewage treatment plant. (9) Any noxious or malodorous gas or substance capable of creating a public nuisance. B. Interceptors; when required, expense of maintain' . Grease, oil, and sand interceptors shall be provided when, in the opinion of the Utility Director, they are necessary for the 'proper handling of liquid wastes containing grease in excessive amounts, or any flammable wastes, sand, and other harmful ingredients. All interceptors shall be of a type and capacity approved by the County Utility Division, and shall be located as to be readily and easily accessible for cleaning and inspection. Grease and oil interceptors shall be constructed of impervious materials capable of withstanding abrupt and extreme i changes in temperature. They shall be of substantial construc- tion, watertight, and equipped with easily removable covers which when bolted in place shall be gastight and watertight. Where installed, a31 grease; oil and sand inter- ceptors shall be maintained by the owner, at his expense, in continuously efficient operation at all times. SECTION 36 WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCIES This section shall be enforced from time to time by the Board of County Commissioners at any regular or specially called public meeting declaring that a water shortage emergency exists in the County because of an impending condition and shall be enforced until such time as the County Commission at a regular or specially called meeting declares that the state of shortage no longer exists. A. Definitions, For the purposes of this section the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the Plural number include the singular number, and words in the singu- lar number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory: (1) Countv is Indian River County, Florida. -25- (.2) Person is any person, firm, partnership, associa- tion, corporation, company or organization of any kind. (3) Water is water from the County water supply system. B. Apolication of regulations. The provisions of this section shall apply to all persons using water in the County regardless of whether any person using water shall have a contract for water services within the County. C. Certain uses Prohibited. The use and withdrawal of water by any person between the hours to be designated by the County Commission in'its declaration that a state of emergency exists'for the following purposes is hereby prohibited: (1) Watering Yards. The sprinkling, watering or irri- gating of shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, ground cover, plants, wines, gardens, vegetables, flowers, or any other vegetation. (2) Washing mobile equipment. The -washing of automo- biles, trucks, trailers, trailer -houses, or any other type of mobile equipment. (3) Cleaning outdoor surfaces. The washing of side- walks, driveways, filling station aprons, porches and other out- door surfaces. (4) Ornamental fountains. The operation of any•orna- mental fountain or other structure making a similar use of water. (5) Swimming pools. Swimming and wading pools not employing a filter and recirculating system. (6) Escape through defective Plumbing. The escape of water through defective plumbing, which shall mean the knowing permission for defective plumbing to remain out of repair. D. Exception to maintain sanitation and to Provide for hardship cases. The County Administrator shall have the authority to permit a reasonable use of water in any case necessary to maintain adequate health and sanitation standards. Any user of water for business purposes may apply for a temporary permit from the County Administrator for relief from the provisions of this section provided a written request for authorization to use water shall indicate that a hardship exists, and the nature of the -26- hardship. The discretion of the County Administrator in issuing a temporary permit to a business user shall be final, except that in the event a temporary permit is not issued by the County Administrator, the business user may appeal to the County ' Commission for relief from the provisions of this section, at its next regular scheduled meeting. E. Enforcement. - (1) Sheriff's officer enforce. Every Sheriff's officer of the County shall, in connection with his duties imposed by law, diligently enforce the provisions of this section. (2) Discontinuance of service and Penalty fees. The County Administrator shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this section by the discontinuance of water service in the event of violation hereof. All water used in violation of a declaration of water shortage shall be billed at three (3) times j the regular rate. SECTION 37 WELLS AND LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEMS A. No cross connections between the County's water supply system and any other water supply system shall be allowed. B. All sprinkler systems using the County's water system as a source shall have a check valve so installed as to prevent back drainage from the sprinkler system into the County water system. C. All residential and commercial sprinkler systems shall be inspected and approved by the County Building Department before initial operation. D. All potable water wells shall be inspected by the County Health Department upon payment of such fee as established by the Board of County Commissioners. Wells shall be installed in accordance with the Florida Safe Water Drinking Act and shall meet the standards outlined in the appropriate DER HRS or St. John's River Water Management District regulations. SECTION 38 PENALTIES - Any person, firm or corporation or anyone acting in -27- behalf thereof who shall violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). The Board of County Commissioners may enforce the provisions of this article by seeking injunctive relief or any other remedies provided by law. SECTION 39 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordi- nance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Specif- ically, Section 24-31 through and including Section 24-67 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County including ordinances numbered 80-13, 80-21,'80-22, and 82-22 are hereby repealed in their entirety and Section 1 through 38 of this ordi- nance shall be inserted in their place according to Section 40 hereof. SECTION 40 INCORPORATION IN CODE The 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 41 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitu- tional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such uncon- stitutional, invalid or inoperative part. -28- SECTION 42 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, or May 1, 1984, whichever is the later date. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 4th day of April, 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Hy �� DON C. SCURLOCK, JR, Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 23rd day of P.aril , 1984. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 27th day of Aoril , 1984, atl0.20 P.M. and filed in the Office of County the Clerk of the Board of County Comriltsioners of Indian River County, Florida. By Attorney _29_ STATE OF FLORIDA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE FREDA WRICHT, CLERK GATE RATES AND CHARGES Water Minimum Charge (Includes NO Consumntion) Base Facilities Charge........................$5.34/ERU Customer Charge................................1.32/,toter Volume Charge•,,,,,,,,,,, 1.99/1,000 gallons Water Production Charge ............... 1.72/1,000 gallons Sewer Minimum Charge (Includes No Consumption) Base Facilities Charge .........................1.53/ERU Customer Charge................................1.84/Dieter "Volume Charge ............... 2.86/1,000 gallons - "Only applied to first 12,000 gallons of Water Consumption on each Residential•ERU. SPECIFIC SERVICE CHARGES Water Service Connection 5/3" Neter........'........... .00 1" Meter ................. $345 $345.00 1 1/2" Meter...... 706.00 Larger than 1 1/2" Dieter.......... ........................ Cost Plus Overhead Sewer Service Connection Residential Unit........... ••....$440.00 Commercial and Other........... . •••••••.. Cost Plus Overhead Meter Installation 5/8" Dieter..........................:.........115.00 1" Dieter........ ...........................170.00 1 1/2" Dieter....................................440.00 2" Meters and ................ ...550.00 3" ;_fetors and above ............. Fire Hydrant Meter ................• •••'•-•Cost Plus Overhead .......... 15.00 Reconnect (Turn -on Fee) During Working Hours..........................12.00 After Working Hours...........................21.00 Meter Reread and Leak Inspection ...................12.00 Delinquency Charge (Late Payment Processing) ........ 1.50 Plus 1 1/ General Service Calls.............................Cost Plus Overhead Meter Calibration (Dieter Testing) 5/8" Meter.....................................15.00 1" Meter ............... 15.00 ................... 1 1/2" Dieter or Larger ......................... _. .Cost plus Overhead Damage Repair (Repair Water E Sewer Break) •,,,,,,, 100.00 Plus Cost Engineering Services Site Plan Review Under 40 units without a liFtstation..... 50.00 Minimum Over 40 units or a devclonment with liftstation...........................150.00 Minimum APPENDIX "A" . •I'nsne=Fee . Residential or Commercial Water .................................... 20.O0/Per ERU Sewer ....................................=0.00/Per ERU _ Ilvdrant Flow Calibration .................50.00/Test Annual Fire Protection Charge 2" Meter......................................21.00 3" Meter......................................49.50 4" Meter., 75.00 6" Meter or Fire Hydrant„ .•...... ,150.00 8" Meter.....................................240.00 Impact Fee Water ................... 380.00/ERU Sewer........................................540.00/ERU OTHER Deposits Residential or Commercial Water Sewer ...............................................40.00/Per ERU 40.00/Per ERU Hydrant Meter................................300.00 Charge For Returned Checks.........................10.00/Per Check Issuing a Duplicate Bill ..:.......................:1.00 Water Tanning Charge 3/4" Line......................................186.50 1" Line., ....................................186.50 1 1/2" Line........ ..205.00 2" Line and Over ...............•••••••••••• •••••••.......Cost Plus Overhead Sewer Tapping Charge ' 4'• Line......................................Cost Plus Overhead Above 4".....................................Cost Plus Overhead Replace Meter 5/8" Meter......................................85.00 1" ;•Teter.....................................110.00 1 1/2" Meter ......................... 2" and Above ........................ 265,00 Cost Plus Overhead Removal of Meter S/8" Meter..................................25.00 1" Meter.......... .... 25.00 1 1/2" Meter and Above ............................ Paved Road Cuts.........................I:..........175.00 Minimum (Cost Plus Overhead) 'Road Jacking and Boaring ..........................Cost Plus Overhead Installation of Water and/or Sewer................cost Plus Overhead Grass Restoration.................................Cost Plus Overhead Fire Hydrant Meter Instnllation .................... 15,00 Unauthori=ed Use of Fire Hydrants .................100.00 Unspecified Services..............................Cost plus Overhead Franchises .Application Fee ............................ J1.00 Minimum* Franchise ........................956.00 :•linimum* Franchise Name Change ........................170.00 :linimum* Franchise Territory Change...................170.00 Minimum* Change of Ownership 49 Units or Less ........................100.00 ;linimum* 50 Units or %•lore ........................250.00 ,Iinimum* Rate Hearing 49 Units or Less........................250.00 Minimum* 50 Units or ?tore........ ...500.00 Minimum* Public Hearing...............................170.00 Minimum* *Expenses incurred in excess of the minimum Plus overhead. will be billed at cost -3- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85-3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MODIFYING APPENDIX "A," RATE SCHEDULE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-18, INCREASING THE WATER IMPACT FEE AND SEWER IMPACT FEE FOR NEW CONNECTIONS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF IMPACT FEES; FULL FORCE AND EFFECT OF ORDINANCE NO. 84-18; INCLUSION IN THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Indian River County has conducted a study to determine the capital costs associated with one equivalent residential unit being connected to the County water and sewer system, and WHEREAS, it is now apparent that an increase in the County's impact fee is necessary to assure that new growth pays its fair share of the cost of the County system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. CONNECTION TO THE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM Modification of impact fees, Appendix "A," Schedule of Rates, Ordinance No. 84-18. Appendix "A," Schedule of Rates of Indian River County Ordinance No. 84-18 is hereby modified as follows: IMPACT FEE Water 51,140.00/ER U Sewer 51,250.00/ER U FULL FORCE AND EFFECT Ordinance No. 84-18 and Appendix "A" thereto remain in full force and effect except to the extent modified in Section 1 of this Ordinance. -I- t, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85-3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MODIFYING APPENDIX "A," RATE SCHEDULE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-18, INCREASING THE WATER IMPACT FEE AND SEWER IMPACT FEE FOR NEW CONNECTIONS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF IMPACT FEES; FULL FORCE AND EFFECT OF ORDINANCE NO. 84-18; INCLUSION IN THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Indian River County has conducted a study to determine the capital costs associated with one equivalent residential unit being connected to the County water and sewer system, and WHEREAS, it is now apparent that an increase in the County's impact fee is necessary to assure that new growth pays its fair share of the cost of the County system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. CONNECTION TO THE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM Modification of impact fees, Appendix "A," Schedule of Rates, Ordinance No. 84-18. Appendix "A," Schedule of Rates of Indian River County Ordinance No. 84-18 is hereby modified as follows: IMPACT FEE Water 51,140.00/ER U Sewer 51,250.00/ER U FULL FORCE AND EFFECT Ordinance No. 84-18 and Appendix "A" thereto remain in full force and effect except to the extent modified in Section 1 of this Ordinance. -I- SECTION J. INCLUSION IN CODE This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Indian River County 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 purposes. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, it is the legislative 'intent that the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Section which can be given in effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this Section are declared severable. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE - The provisions of this Ordinance shall be come effective upon receipt from the Secretary of the State of Florida 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, on this 9th day of January 1 1985, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIA IVER COUNTY By P ' ick B. Lyon Charrman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 16th day of January 1985• Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State, received on this 21st day of January , 1985, at2:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of ' County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPRO D AS TQ F.O jtA1 STATE OF rtcRMA AND AL SSYb`FNCY: '�'. 1:''v !ewi�n CCt^i'r !L/// 'HIS :5 '.'r f'�;Y OF ...,_ _ ; R4 rIus Cyary�-p7. •Brandenburg, ` IREOA Y:I:I / HT, CLERK 7 DATE _ ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT EXPAND WATER MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE SERVICE TO THE SEBASTIAN AREA AND THE CITY OF VERO BEACH THIS document, executed this day of 1986 is Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement dated December 12, 1984 (hereinafter called "AGREEMENT") between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (hereinafter called "OWNER") and BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a California Corporation, (hereinafter called "ENGINEER") with an office located at 320 East South Street, Orlando, Florida 32801. 1. , WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the AGREEMENT provides that the OWNER, by means of an addendum to the AGREEMENT, may authorize the ENGINEER to provide services other than those described in the AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the OWNER desires to have the ENGINEER provide other services related to the water system. WHEREAS, the ENGINEER is willing and able to perform additional pro- fessional services for the OWNER within the basic terms and conditions of Sections 2 through 6 of the AGREEMENT, which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, and this Addendum No. 1. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein contained, it is hereby agreed that the ENGINEER shall serve as the OWNER -s professional engineering representative for the Project to which this Addendum No. 1 applies, and will give consultation and advice to the OWNER during the performance of his services as hereinafter set forth. 4/18/86 1 PART A SCOPE OF SERVICES A.1 Background. In December 1984, the OWNER authorized the ENGINEER to prepare a water system master plan as set forth in Section 1 of the AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the Original Master Plan) for a Study Area consisting of (a) an area west of Interstate 95 (1-95) near the State Road 60/1-95 interchange, plus (b) all parts of Indian River County between 1-95 and the Indian River except the City of Vero Beach and an area in the northeast portion of the County in and around the City of Sebastian (hereinafter referred to as the Study Area). The Original Master Plan identifies certain water supply, treatment, pumping, storage and trans- mission main facilities to serve the population projected -by the Indian River County Planning Department to live in the Study Area during the period 1984 - 2005. The Original Master Plan was completed by the ENGINEER and a review draft submitted to the OWNER in February 1986. Subsequent to completion of the Original Master Plan, the City of Sebastian requested that the OWNER extend its water system outside the limits of the Study Area to provide water service to the City of Sebastian. The OWNER desires to provide water service to the City of Sebastian and surrounding unincorporated areas not presently contained within the Study Area and has requested that the ENGINEER prepare a master plan for the Sebastian Study Area. The limits of the Sebastian Study Area, and their relationship to the Study Area covered in the Original Master Plan, are shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Subsequent to completion of the Original Master Plan, the OWNER and the City of Vero Beach had preliminary discussions related to the OWNER's supplying treated water to the City on a bulk water sales basis to supplement or replace the City of Vero Beach's existing source of treated water. The OWNER desires to provide water service to the City of Vero Beach on a bulk water sales basis, and has requested that the ENGINEER investigate the technical aspects of the OWNER doing so. The limits of the Vero Beach Study Area are also shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. A.2 The ENGINEER will prepare a master plan for development of a water system to serve the Sebastian Study Area and will investigate the technical feasibility of the OWNER supplying treated water to the City of Vero Beach (hereinafter referred to as Project). The ENGINEER will coordinate the master planning for the Sebastian and Vero Beach Study Areas with the recommendations contained in the Original Master Plan as approved by the OWNER. 4/18/86 2 A.3 Master Plan for Sebastian Study Area A.3.1 The master plan prepared by the ENGINEER for the Sebastian Study Area will include estimates of future water service connections based on population projections and land use data to be provided to the ENGINEER by the OWNER; estimates of future water demands; revision of the computer model developed during the Original Master Plan to analyze alternative future water system configurations; identification of the well field, treatment plant, storage, pumping and major transmission main facilities that will be needed to serve future growth; development of a schedule for implementation of the future improvements; probable construction cost estimates for recommended improvements, and; a written report summarizing findings Wand recommendations of the ENGINEER, which shall be in thb form of a revision of the report prepared for the Original Master Plan as approved by the OWNER. The master plan will cover the time period for the years 1986 - 2005. A.3.2 Base Map. The ENGINEER will update existing USGS quad maps for use as base maps for the Sebastian Study Area. The existing quad maps must be updated because they have not been revised by USGS since 1970. Updating will consist of adding roads to the quad maps based on maps provided to the ENGINEER by the OWNER. Maps showing existing water system facilities within the Sebastian Study Area will not be prepared as part of this Project. A.3.3 Computer Model. The ENGINEER will modify the computer model approved by the OWNER and developed as part of the Original Master Plan so that it can be used to analyze alternative water system facilities for the Sebastian Study Area. The computer model will be modified to consider the existing and recommended future facilities as approved by the OWNER in the Study Area with those in the Sebastian Study Area, and will represent one interconnected system serving both study areas. A.3.4 Water Supply Evaluation. The ENGINEER will assess the feasibility of obtaining water for the Sebastian Study Area from the Floridan aquifer at the North County park site in sufficient quantity to meet the estimated year 2005 water supply needs of the Sebastian Study Area and those portions of the Study Area not supplied from the South County plant site. This assessment will be based solely on the data and information obtained by the ENGINEER from the OWNER during preparation of 4/18/86 3 ' 1 1 the Original Master Plan without independent review or verification by the ENGINEER. The ENGINEER will develop a conceptual plan for development of a well field at the North County park site. The ENGINEER and OWNER agree that the conceptual plan will be based solely on the available data described above and that site specific aquifer tests must be performed in the future to verify the preliminary recommendations made in the master plan. The OWNER and ENGINEER agree that the performance of site specific aquifer tests shall not be completed as part of this Project, but shall be completed as part of a subsequent addendum to the AGREEMENT. The feasibility of obtaining water for the Sebastian Study Area from surface water sources, the shallow aquifer, sites other than the North County park site or from sources other than the Floridan aquifer at the North County park'site shall not be investigated as part of this Project. A.3.5 Treatment Plant Evaluation. The OWNER and ENGINEER agree that only reverse osmosis (RO) treatment will be considered as part of this Project, and that no pilot plant work will be conducted as part of this Project to verify its applicability. The ENGINEER shall develop the master plan considering only RO treatment plant construction at the North County park site to provide the estimated treated water needs for the year 2005 in the Sebastian Study Area and those parts of the Study Area not served by the treatment plant planned for the South County plant site in the Original Master Plan. A.3.6 Evaluate Alternative Short -Range Water Supply and Treatment Options. The water supply and treatment plant evaluations to be performed by the ENGINEER in accordance with Sections A.3.4 and A.3.5 respectively, assume that all future well field and treatment plant facilities to serve the Sebastian Study Area in the year 2005 will be located at the North County park site, which is located approximately one mile south of the Sebastian Study Area. It may be cost effective and require less time to construct a small capacity, interim well field and RO treatment plant within the Sebastian Study Area to serve the short-range needs of the Sebastian Study Area. The ENGINEER will investigate the feasibility of constructing a small capacity, interim well field and RO treatment plant at a site within the Sebastian Study Area to be determined by the OWNER. The well field investigation will be based solely on the data and information obtained by the ENGINEER from the OWNER during preparation of the Original Master Plan without independent review or verification by the ENGINEER. The OWNER and ENGINEER agree that only RO treatment will be evaluated for use in the interim treatment facility. 4/18/86 4 The ENGINEER will also investigate the feasibility of using existing well field and treatment facilities owned by General Development Utilities (GDU) to provide the short-range needs within the Sebastian Study Area. GDU is a privately owned water system located within the Sebastian Study Area. The ENGINEER shall review available reports obtained by the OWNER from the Florida Public Service Commission to obtain the presently permitted well field and treatment plant capacity that is available to serve those portions of the Sebastian Study Area located outside the GDU franchise area. A detailed inspection of facilities to determine their condition, operational effectiveness and value shall not be performed by the ENGINEER as part of this Project. A.4 Investigate Feasibility of Supplying Treated Water to City of Vero Beach A.4.1 The ENGINEER will investigate the technical feasibility of supplying treated water to the City of Vero Beach (the City) under two conditions. (1) to supplement the City's existing treated water supply source; and (2) to replace the City's existing treated water supply source. The OWNER intends to supply treated water to the City via a single or multiple metered interconnects between the OWNER's and City's transmission mains. The ENGINEER will use the computer model developed during the Original Master Plan to analyze alternative metered interconnect configurations under the two supply conditions described above under projected 1990 and 2005 water demand conditions; identify the well field, treatment plant, storage, pumping and transmission main facilities that will be needed by the OWNER to supply the City; estimate the probable construction cost estimates for recommended improvements, and; prepare a written report summarizing findings and recommendations of the ENGINEER, which shall be in the form of a revision of the report prepared for the Original Master Plan as approved by the OWNER. A.4.2 Base Maps. The ENGINEER will utilize base maps developed as part of the Original Master Plan for the Vero Beach Study Area. The ENGINEER will not prepare maps showing the City's water system facilities as part of this Project A.4.3 Computer Model. The ENGINEER will not incorporate the City's existing or planned transmission system into the computer model. The Vero Beach Study Area will be treated as a single large customer with one or several points of connection to the OWNER's transmission system. 4/18/86 5 A.4.4 Water Supply do Treatment. The ENGINEER will assess the feasibility of obtaining water for the Vero Beach Study Area from the Floridan aquifer at the North County park site and the South County plant site. The provisions outlined in Sections A.3.4 and A.3.5 for the Sebastian Study Area with respect to water supply and treatment shall also apply to the Vero Beach Study Area. A.4.5 The ENGINEER will not identify the transmission main improvements that will be needed within the City of Vero Beach's system to transmit projected water demands away from the point(s) of- interconnection. A.5 The OWNER and ENGINEER agree that the work tasks summarized in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though se0orth in full, represent the work tasks that are anticipated of the ENGINEER by the OWNER for preparation of an estimated budget for this Project. Further, the OWNER and ENGINEER agree that the level of effort by labor classification set forth in Exhibit B appears reasonable and was used to develop an estimated budget for the Project. Material differences between the actual work tasks and levels of effort required for completion of the Project from those shown in Exhibit B will be used by the ENGINEER and the OWNER as a basis for amending the estimated budget. A.6 To identify the work tasks and estimate the manhours that will be needed to complete this Project, the following assumptions were made. The OWNER agrees that these assumptions are valid and that they shall govern the work of the ENGINEER. Computer Model. The City of Sebastian does not own any existing water system facilities. Existing pipes and other facilities within franchise areas and the City of Vero Beach will not be incorporated into the computer model. The OWNER agrees 1. that the computer model developed during preparation of the Original Master Plan can be used on this Project, and that no additional field calibration will be required. Population Projections. The OWNER shall provide ENGINEER with population projections by traffic zone for the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 and future land use data for the Sebastian Study Area, which shall be used by ENGINEER to estimate future water service connections and water demands without independent review or verification by the ENGINEER. 4/18/86 6 Water Demand Projections. The OWNER shall obtain from the City of Vero Beach and provide to the ENGINEER projections of average day, maximum day and peak hour water demands, and required fire flows, for the Vero Beach Study Area for 1990 and 2005. The projections shall be disaggregated into at least six (6) comparably sized subareas within the Vero Beach Study Area. 1. Coordination of Master Plan with Existing Franchise Areas Located within the Sebastian Study Area. The transmission mains proposed in the master plan will allow future connection of existing franchise areas located within the Sebastian Study Area. The master plan will be prepared under the assumption that existing treatment, high service pump and storage facilities within existing franchise areas will not be incorporated into the OWNER's system. However, 'such facilities could be incorporated if it is determined by the OWNER at the time service is provided that such facilities are compatible with the OWNER's system. Design Criteria. Design, criteria for high service pumps, storage, treatment plant, used to treat all water well field and required fire flows used by the ENGINEER on this Project will be the same criteria used in the preparation of the Original Master Plan. Coordination with Cities. The OWNER shall obtain all data from the Cities of Sebastian and Vero Beach that may be required by the ENGINEER. The OWNER shall make arrangements with appropriate City representatives for all meetings involving OWNER, ENGINEER and City representatives. Base Maps. The OWNER will provide to the ENGINEER accurate, up-to-date street maps showing all major road rights-of-way in the Sebastian Study Area and accurate, up-to-date maps of the City of Vero Beach water system. ' Data on Existing Franchise Areas. The OWNER shall provide all data requested by the ENGINEER related to existing franchise areas located in the Sebastian Study Area. Water Supply. Water supply will be from the Floridan aquifer. Treatment. It is assumed that reverse osmosis will be used to treat all water withdrawn from the Floridan aquifer. No pilot plant or bench scale treatability studies will be conducted as part of this Project. 4/18/86 7 Copies of Report. ENGINEER will provide up to twenty (20) copies of the report prepared pursuant to this Addendum No. 1. If, in the process of completing work tasks associated with this Project the ENGINEER determines that these assumptions are not valid, then the Scope of Services. will be modified and a corresponding change in the budget and schedule shall be made as may be mutually acceptable by OWNER and ENGINEER. I 4/10/86 6 PART B SCHEDULE B.1 ENGINEER shall commence work within five (5) days from the date that this fully executed Addendum is received at the Orlando office of the ENGINEER. The ENGINEER shall complete the Scope of Services set forth in Part A herein within six (6) months from the date that all data requested by ENGINEER from OWNER is received by the ENGINEER. M 4/18/86 9 PART C PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER C.1 Compensation shall be as set forth in Section 5 of the AGREEMENT except for the following modification: payment for computer time will be based on actual costs as determined by the ENGINEER times the following factors for each type of computer equipment utilized on this Project: • HP -3000 computer 1 :1.25 • Computer aided design/drafting (CADD) equipment 1.25 • s Micro -computers 1.50 For the purpose of this Addendum No. 1, the reference to EXHIBIT B in paragraph 5.1 shall refer to the Exhibit B attached hereto and previously incorporated herein. 4/18/86 10 OTHER PROVISIONS 62REEMENT, ith respect to the Scope of Services provided by the ENGINEER pursuant to it is further agreed that the OWNER shall indemnify and hold harmless ENGINEER and their consultants, agents, directors, officers and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, direct and indirect, and consequential damages, including but not limited to fees and charges of attorneys and court and arbitration costs, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work by ENGINEER, or claims against ENGINEER arising from the work of others, related to hazardous materials, to the fullest extent permissible by law regardless of any action or omission (active, passive or comparative negligence included) on the part of ENGINEER. The above indemnification provision extends to claims against ENGINEER which arise out of, are related to, or'are based upon, the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants, and any directive to test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize pollutants. "Pollutants" means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. It is further agreed that the OWNER shall indemnify and hold harmless ENGINEER and their consultants, agents, directors, officers and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, direct and indirect, and consequential damages, including but not limited to fees and charges of attorneys and court and arbitration costs, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work by ENGINEER, or claims against ENGINEER arising from the work of others, related to asbestos activities, to the fullest extent permissible by law, regardless' of any action or omission (active, passive or comparative negligence included) on the part of ENGINEER. "Asbestos Activities" means any specification of a product, material or process containing asbestos, failure to detect the existence or proportion of asbestos in a product, material or process and the performance or failure to perform abatement, replacement or removal of a product, material or process containing asbestos. ENGINEER agrees to pay OWNER, or credit OWNER against compensation due hereunder, the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) as specific consideration for in- demnifications set forth in the AGREEMENT. ' 4/10/86 11 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum No. 1, consisting of twelve (12) pages plus Exhibits A and B inclusive, has been fully executed on behalf of the ENGINEER by its duly authorized officers, and the OWNER has caused the same to be duly executed in its name and in its behalf, effective as of the date hereinabove written. Senior Civil Engineer Clerk Board of County Commissioners 4/1©/©6 12 ENGINEER BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION Kermit L. Prime, Jr., P.E Managing Engineer OWNER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Chairman Board of County Commissioners L L [17rky--4 --a- 0 tit oil ROV39 OV3A Intl in' WIT- I- 1** 81 —11, 19 1, -19 . ....... . . set t r 61 % w 'St.1 C , SUOmS UP{II Ss All 1 . .......... t.4.. SOS 4' c .. ....... It TV to 19 Rbw . :h-. . . . . . . . ......... .. Va % —Na. % o SO .3 .1 TIT TIT, ........... IT EXHIBIT B TO ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT This exhibit presents an estimate of the Work Tasks, number of manhours, direct wages and salaries, reimbursable expenses, and budget for completing the Scope of Services. In the following tables, Work Tasks.are listed under the heading "Description". To the right of.each Work Task, two rows of numbers are shown. The top row is an estimate of the number of manhours required for each of the listed personnel classifications to complete the Work Task. The bottom' row shows the estimated direct wages and salaries based on the average wages and salaries anticipated to be paid to personnel engaged directly on the Project. The direct wages and salaries shown do not include direct payroll and general overhead expenses. All the Work Tasks relating to a certain phase of the Project are grouped together under a Phase title with a "00" series identification number. The estimated manhours and direct wages and salaries for each Phase are shown between the double dashed lines in the table. The estimated manhours and direct wages and salaries for all Phases of the Project, an estimate of the reimbursable expenses, and the estimated budget for the Project are shown on page B-12. 4/18/86 B-1 MASTER 'PLAN FOR SEBASTIAN STUDY ARE( DESCRIPTION 100 Project Planning\Data Collection EXHIBIT B ')RI. APR 18. 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH. SURVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOTALS 111 Update List of Data For County to 1 $0 2 $26 0 f0 0 $1 0 $0 0 t0 2 126 Collect 1 4 0 1 0 2 2 7 215 Analyze 6 Convert Popvlation to Water Services $22 152 11 fl fl $1 $97 125 Meet w\Comte and City to Obtain Data y 6 0 0 0 8 4 Review fl 50 0 1 J 0 6 235 Develop Svbarea Boundary, Franchise fl $78 fl f0 f1 fl $78 131 Prepare Base Map 1 4 $160 f0 0 0 ?0 - 200 24 1 1 0 29 GROWTH PROJECTIONS $22 $52 $241 '• tl f1 --ZS== - fl $314 111 PROJECT PLAHNIHG\DATA COLLECTION 2 17 0 0 3 14 24 1 1 2 42 $44 $182 $241 f0 f0 $16 $482 211 Growth Projections 205 Review Popvlatien Data from County Planning Department 1 $0 2 $26 0 f0 0 $1 0 $0 0 t0 2 126 210 Review Development 4 Franchise Information from Cionty and City 1 $22 8 5194 9 $0 0 10 0 f0 R f0 9 1126 215 Analyze 6 Convert Popvlation to Water Services 1 $1 8 $104 0 $1 0 $0 p f9 0 f0 g $104 220 Estimate Comercial\Indestrial Acreage 0 4 0 0 0 8 4 225 Tabvlate Water Services and Commercial\Ind. 1 2 1 0 Acres for 1991, 1995, 2010 b 2005 $22 $26 f0 f0 0 2 5 f0 516 t64 230 Obtain USGS Quad Paper Prints, 1 0 Review fl 50 1 $10 0 f0 0 f0 1 f8 2 118 235 Develop Svbarea Boundary, Franchise 0 4 16 1 and Development Overlays $1 $52 $160 f0 0 0 ?0 - 200 f0 $0 1212 GROWTH PROJECTIONS 2 28 17 0 0 3 50 - 144 - $364 $170 $a 10 $24 5602 - 300 Water Demand Projections 4/18/86 B-2 HAST€R-PLAN FOR SEBASTIAN STUDY AREA 1 2, APA 18, 1996 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER DESCRIPTION SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH. SURVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOTALS 315 Review Franchise Areas 0 6 0 0 0 1 6 Water Demand Data $0 $78 $1 f0 fl $1 $78 310 Establish Per Unit Demand Factor 1 4 8 0 0 1 4 411 Determine Standby Capacity fl $52 $1 f0 f0 fl 12 315 Determine Commercial\Industrial 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 Demand Factor $1 $26 f8 fl f/ $6 $26 320 Determine Future Water Demands 0 8 1 , 1 1 1 8 420 Prepare Report Exhibits $1 $114 $1 s1 $D $1 $114 325 Distribute Future Demands to 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 Subareas fl $104 $o f0 fl if $114 330 Tabulate Projected Water Demands 1 2 0 0 1 1 4 122 $26 $6 $0 $1 f8 $56 335 Establish Design Fire Flews 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 by Subarea $1 $26 $1 $0 $0 $1 $26 341 Prepare Report Exhibits 0 2 16 0 0 4 22 fl $26 $160 $0 f1 $32 $218 300 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS 1 34 16 6 6 5 56 $22 $442 $160 fl $1 140 $664 410 High Service Pimp Analysis 415 Determine Future Capacity 1 4 1 0 0 0 4 f0 $52 f0 so 11 f8 $52 411 Determine Standby Capacity 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Requirements $1 $13 f0 $0 f$ $0 $13. 415 Determine Future Improvements 1 4 1 0 0 0 5 $22 $52 f0 $0 SO $0 $74 420 Prepare Report Exhibits 1 2 8 0 0 1 11 f0 $26 $81 $1 $6 $8 $114 400 HIGN SERVICE PUMP ANALYSIS 1 it 8 0 0 1 l '1 $22 $143 $81 f0 f0 $8 $253 4/18/86 g_3 MASTER PLAN FUR SEBASTIAN STUDY AREA )I, APR le, 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER DESCRIPTION SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH. SURVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOTALS 511 Storage Analysis 505 Determine Future Operating Volume 1 4 0 0 0 1 5 16 122 $52 so sl s0 s0 $74 511 Determine Future Fire Flow Volume 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 s0 126 $1 $1 $c $0 $26 515 Determine Need for Elevated 1 B 1 1 0 0 9 Storage 122 6104 , $1 $1 sl so $126 520 Determine Future Improvements 1 8 0 1 0 0 9 4 $22 $114 s1 $0 60 $6 $126 525 Prepare Report Exhibit 0 2 8 1 0 1 11 625 f0 $26 see $0 so 18 $114 20 10 $26 501 STORAGE ANALYSIS 3 24 8 1 1 1 36 $66 $312 $81 $1 $1 $8 $466 16 16 0 0 6 67 601 Raw Water Supply Analysis\North County Park 605 Reanalyze Groundwater Development 16 0 0 1 1 0 16 Potential in North County Park $352 $0 $0 s0 f0 s0 $352 611 Expand Groundwater Analysis of North 8 8 0 0 0 0 16 ovnty Park bile for ncrease eman s 615 Determine Future Improvements 1 4 0 1 1 0 5 122 152 s0 $0 s0 $0 $74 620 Revise Conceptual Design 4 2 0 4 0 4 10 $88 $26 $0 s0 t0 $32 $146 625 Prepare Report Exhibits 0 2 16 0 0 2 20 10 $26 $160 s0 to 116 t202 600 RAW WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS\NORTH COUNTY PARK 29 16 16 0 0 6 67 1638 $208 1160 $0 t0 $48 11.154 760 Treatment Plant Analysis\North County Park 4/18/86 B-4 MASTER'PLAN FOR SEBASTIAN STUDY AREA i APR 18. 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER DESCRIPTION SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH. SURVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOTALS 715 Determine Fvtore Plant Capacity 1 4 0 0 0 1 5 $22 $52 $4 $o $0 $1 $74 715 Revise Conceptval Plan 1 16 8 0 1 0 25 $22 $208 $80 $1 SO SO $310 720 Revise Implementation Schedule 2 8 0 0 0 1 10 $44 $104 f0 f0 fl f0 $148 725 Prepare Report Exhibits 1 4 16 1 1 2 23 $22 $52 $160 fl 11 116 $251 sszxx zaaar--_—zxsaxsxxzz-3a—assaz=�z—x �azzass r_asseass aazzz=xza —aazsa zsssszaa a:ai=a xxzxss=- 701 TREATMENT PLANT ANALYSIS\NORTH COUNTY PARK 5 32 24 1 0 2 63 $110 $416 $241 11 $0 116 $782 axxzzzxaazzsa =_ �-zaaassa_sszzssssr_ssa-� =ss�_zaz ______—_ z=-zax3 a-zzssaxa --_—s=a axxxzza axxxss� 800 Evalvate Short -Range Sopply and Treatment Options 805 Review Data Fur GDU Sopply\Treat- 2 4 0 0 0 2 -8 hent Facilities $44 152 $0 $0 $0 116 $112 810 Determine Conceptval Design For 2 B 0 0 0 0 t0 Interim 3rd Plant Supply\Treatment Facility $44 $104 $1 10 $0 $o $148 815 Estimate Costs For Facilities 1 8 1 0 0 0 9 Identified in 810 $22 $104 $0 10 $0 $6 $126 xzxxxxxxxxxzxxzxssxx__=xzssssz—zzzr_ssaax_____ss � xxzaxss _zxxxzxss x=zxx— ___—__ ss_�____ =ss__—__ ____-___.. 800 EVALUATE SHORT-RANGE SUPPLY AND TREATMENT 5 20 0 0 0 2 27 OPTIONS to $16 ss�cxxx---=----=---zx:------_=— ssxxx—xxxxx= xxzxxxssx--------- --------- ------- -------- --------- 910 Expand Compvter Model 905 Set Pipe, Node Numbering Scheme 8 2 0 0 1 0 2 $1 $26 $0 $0 f0 $0 Qb 910 Identify Nodes 6 Pipes 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 f0 $104 t0 f0 10 $0 $104 915 Correlate Tops Maps 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 $1 $13 $40 f0 to t0 $53 920 Determine Pipe 6 Node Coordinates 0 1 12 1 0 0 13 $0 $13 $120 $0 f0 $0 $133 4/18/86 g_5 MASTER PLAN FOR SEBASTIAN STUDY AREA 1 )I, PPR 18, 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER DESCIIPTIOH SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH, SURVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOTALS 925 Correlate Node Numbers with Planning Areas 1 $1 2 126 4 $41 1 f0 0 f0 1 f0 6 $66 930 Distribute Water Demands to Nodes 1 12 0 1 0 1 12 4 i40 $1 $156 $0 f0 f0 f0 $156 935 Locate Large User Demands at Nodes 1 4 1 1 0 0 4 f0 $1 $52 t0 t0 $0 $0 $52 940 Code Input For Pipes 6 Nodes I so 1 113 B In '• 1 fl 0 fl 1 f0 9 $93 945 Code Control Data 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 fl fl $13 so fl s0 f0 $13 950 Code Plotting Data 0 2 2 0 0 1 4 f0 $26 $20 f0 so to $46 __ azxxx_ � s_z=xa xaax-_�a aux:- —3a xx-_-t_x� __ =axacaa riasz 900 EXPAND COMPUTER MODEL 0 34 30 0 0 I 64 f0 $442 $311 fl $0 f0 1742 f0 f0 f0 $33 1 2 1010 Hudel 2105 Systen 1105 Run 2115 Demands, 2105 System 1011 Debug Data as Required 1115 Analyze Output L Plotted Schematic 1021 Determine Improvements 1025 Code Corrections 6 Improvements into lodel 1030 Rerun 6 Replot 1035 Analvze Output, Determine Other Improvements 1040 Rerun to Optimize -Up to 4 Tines 0 1 2 1 ' 0 0 3 f0 f13 $20 f0 f0 f0 $33 1 f8 2 —f26 4 i40 1 {0 0 $1 0 $0 6 $66 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 $22 $26 f0 f0 f0 f0 $46 1 2 0 1 ' 0 0 3 122 $26 to 10 f0 f0 $48 0 2 8 0 0 0 10 fl 126 $80 10 $0 10 $106 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 f0 $13 $20 f0 f0 f0 $33 1 2 0 6 0 0 3 $22 $26 $1 $0 $0 $0 $48 0 4 8 0 0 0 12 $0 $52 $8o f0 so to $132 4/18/86 B_6 RASTER PLAN FOR SEBASTIAN STUDY AR° ) `SRI. APR 18. 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER DESCIIPTION — SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH, SURVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOIALS 1045 Analyte Ovtput 2 0 0 0 0 8 $9 1114 8 1 1 0 1 10 1 $44 $104 10 f0 SO $I $148 1050 Assess Compatibility of Connec- ' 2 $41 f0 f0 $0 $114 tion to GDU System $44 4 0 D I 1 b $52 - 1001 MODEL 2105 SYSTEM f1 f1 -- 10 - $0 196 $0 7 28 24 0 0 1 0 -$154 $364 z===zaxa�=zzx=x==sexzzxxxxz=xzzsxaxoxxz== ---- _-= $240 f0 f0 f0 1753 f0 f0 f0 t48 1 2 4 0 0 0 1101 Model 1990 System 10 $26 $41 f0 f0 SO 1105 Revise Demands 1111 Revise Piping Layout to 1990 System 1115 Ron 1991 Demands, 1991 System 1120 Analyze Oetpvt, Determine Changes 1125 Rerun to Optimize -Up to 2 Tines 1131 Analyze output 1135 F' F1 R 1 8 0 0 0 0 8 $9 1114 $1 fl f0 fl $104 1 4 4 0 0 1 9 122 $52 $41 f0 f0 $0 $114 1 1 2 0 0 0 J $0 113 $20 $0 $0 $0 $33 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 $22 $26 f0 f0 f0 f0 t48 1 2 4 0 0 0 6 10 $26 $41 f0 f0 SO 166 1 4 0 1 0 0' S zre ow ins - Up to 2 2 $44 8 $114 4 $40 0 $1 0 f0 0 f0 14 $188 1140 Assess Compatibility of Connection to GDU System - 116I MODEL 1990 SYSTEM __ -_-- 2 $44 7 $154 4 0 $52 $0 - -31 ----- 14 ------ $429 $140 0 $0 0 ----- $1 0 $0 0 - - f0 0 $0 -- 0 ---- $0 6 $4 54 1723 1200 Develop Improvement Program 1205 Determine Unit Prices 0' 4 0 0 0 0 q f0 $52 $0 $0 $0 f0 $52 4/18/86 B_7 MASTci PLAN FOR SEBASTIAN STUDY AREi 1 SRI, APR 18, 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER DESCRIPTION SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH. SURVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOTALS 1211 Calculate Qvantities 1 12 0 0 0 1 12 9 f0 $156 $0 $0 f0 so $156 1215 Estimate Costs 1 1310 Vrite Svmmarf for Each Run (11) 1 20 0 0 0 15 12 0 1 0 4 17 $0 $22 $156 f0 $0 $0 $32 $211 1220 Establish Phasing 2 8 1 1 0 I 10 fl $44 $114 $0 $6 $0 $0 $148 1 4 2 — 1201 DEVELOP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 3 36 1 '� I 0 $52 $20 f0 $0 $16 $88 4 43 $66 $468 $1 $0 $0 $32 $566 28 17 1 0 21 1300 Compvier Ovtpvt Notebooks 1305 Prepare Summary Sheet Format 1 4 0 1 0 4 9 s0 so $22 $52 f0 s0 s0 $32 $106 1310 Vrite Svmmarf for Each Run (11) 1 20 0 0 0 15 35 11.676 2 $0 $260 $0 $0 s0 $120 $380 1315 Reproduce Plats 0 1 15 0 0 0 15 1 0 f0 fl $151 so to $0 $151 1320 Assemble in Notebooks 1 4 2 1 0 2 8 f0 $52 $20 f0 $0 $16 $88 ---' -- 1301 COMPUTER OUTPUT NOTEBOOKS 1 28 17 1 0 21 67 U64 S170 SO )u 11611 V24 1401 Revise Original Master Plan Report 1405 Revise Oviline 1410 Write Rough Draft 1415 Rough Draft Exhibits, Tables 1420 Edit Draft 1 8 0 1 1 2 11 $22 $114 s0 so $D $16 $142 32 60 0 0 0 24 116 $704 $780 s0 $1 $0 $192 11.676 2 8 0 0 0 8 18 $44 $114 $0 $0 $0 $64 $212 40 16 1 1 0 0 56 $881 $208 s0 fl SO s0 $1.088 4/18/86 B-8 MASTER PLAN FOR SEBASTIAN STUDY ARE 1 )RI. APR 18, 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER DESCRIPTION SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH. SURVEYOR INSPECTOk CLERICAL TOTALS 1425 Prepare Final Exhibits 0 $0 8 $114 48 $481 0 f0 0 f0 16 $128 72 $71•[ 1430 Q.C. Review i Edits 16 $352 B $104 0 f1 0 f0 0 f1 8 $64 32 $520 1435 Review with Cointy'and City 8 1176 _ 8 $114 0 $1 0 f0 0 10 1 f8 17 $288 1440 Final Editing 4 $88 8 $104 B $80 , 0 f1 0 f0 8 $64 28 $336 1445 Printing l Binding 2 $44 1 $13 B Wo 0 f0 0 $0 4 $32 15 $169 1450 Presentation to Client 1401 REVISE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN REPORT - 12 1264 117 $2,574 8 $104 133 $1,729 16 $160 81 Soup 0 f0 0 $0 0 f0 — 0 $0 1 36 fl 1528 71 411 1568 $5,671 1501 Project Management 1510 Review Project Status w\County Staff - Up to 2 Meetings 0 f0 24 $312 0 $1 0 f0 0 $0 2 116 26 $328 1515 Prepare Status Reports (Up to 6) 0 12 0 0 0 24 ' 36 1501 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 0 36 'V 0 Py 1 Vu UU 0 26 1349 62 f0 $468 f0 f0 $6 $208 $676 auu GRAND TOTAL ova 183 507 27B $4,026 $6,591 $2,780 4/18/86 B-9 0 0 144 1.112 f0 $0 $1,152 $14,549 FEASIBILITY OF SERVING VERO BEACH )I. APR 18. 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIAIE DRAFTER DESCRIPTION -- SENIOR ASSISTANT - TECH, - SURVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOTALS 1600 FEASIBILITY OF SERVING VERO BEACH 1602 PREPARE LIST OF DATA FOR CITY OF VERA BEACH TO COLLECT 1 $22 4 $52 0 fl 1 $5 1 f0 2 116 s90 1614 MEET WITH COUNTY AND CITY TO DISCUSS PROJECT $132 $78 $0 f1 f0 $1 $210 1616 REVIEW DATA FROM CITY 2 $44 8 $114 1 $1 1 f0 0 $I 1 f0 11 $148 1618 REVIEW AVAILABLE MASTER PLANS 1 $6 8 $104 0 $0 6 $1 1 10 0 s1 8 $104 1634 DETERMINE t EVALUATE SHORT- RANGE SUPPLY AND TREATMENT 8 $176 16 $208 0 $0 1 f0 0 fB 0 $0 24 $384 1636 DETERMINE 6 EVALUATE LONG-RANGE SUPPLY AND TREATMENT 16 $352 16 $218 0 f0 p f1 p SO 1 $6 32 5561 1638 REVIEW MAPS OF CITY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 2 $44 6 $78 0 $1 0 sl 1 $0 1 $0 8 $122 1641 EVALUATE POSSIBLE INTERCON- NECTION POINTS BETWEEN CITY t COUNTY SYSTEMS 4 $88 16 $208 0 $0 0 f0 0 f1 0 f0 20 $296 1642 EVALUATE WATER QUALITY CONSIDER- ATIONS 2 $44 8 $104 0 $0 1 $0 0 $ 0 $0 II = 48 1644 EXPAND COMPUTER MODEL 0 $0 8 $104 16 $160 1 $1 0 $0 0 $0 24 6264 1646 MODEL 2005 SYSTEM -UP TO 4 ADDITIONAL RUNS 4 s88 16 $208 0 t90 1 $0 0 $0 0 SO 28 $3?6 1648 MODEL 1990 SYSTEN-UP TO 4 ADDITIONAL RUNS 4 $88 16 1208 B $80 1 $1 0 $0 0 00 29 $376 1650 CALCULATE QUANTITIES 6 ESTIMATE COSTS 1 $22 16 $208 0 $0 1 $1 0 f0 0 40 17 $230 1652 ESTABLISH PHASING 1 $22 4 $52 0 f0 0 $0 0 sl 0 t0 5 174 1654 UPDATE COMPUTER OUTPUT NOTEBOOKS 0 s0 11 1130 6 $65 1 to 0 t0 8 S64 24 $254 1656 REVISE FINAL DRAFT REPORT AND EXHIBITS 20 $440 40 $520 40 $400 1 f0 0 t0 24 1192 124 (1.552 4/18/86 B-10 FEASIBILITY OF SERVING VERO BEACH _ 1 ` A .i, APR IB, 1986 PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DRAFTER DESCRIPTION SENIOR ASSISTANT TECH. SUkVEYOR INSPECTOR CLERICAL TOTALS 1658 REVIEW WITH COUNTY AND CITY 8 8 1 0 0 1 17 $176 $104 fl f0 f0 $8 $288 1659 QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW 16 $352 8 $104 0 $1 1 $1 0 t0 4 $32 28 $488 i'LSSSL-2{25533223=SLSZSSZIIZ 9i S====.=====a==zz=zxz= 1601 FEASIBILITY OF SERVING VERO BEACH 95 $2,090 {i ZSSSzz=Sa 214 78 - 1 $2,782 $781 10 z 0 t0 SSS SS 39 1312 - 426 $5,964 fill GRAND TOTAL 95 214 78 0 0 39 426 $2,091 $2,782 $7B0 $O f0 $312 f5,S64 4/18/86 B-11 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BUDGET A. Master Plan for Sebastian Area (Work Tasks 100 - 1500) Total estimated direct wages and salaries (See page B-9) $14549 Multiplier 2.95 Estimated labor $42920 Estimated reimbursable expenses (includes factors) HP -3000 computer time (up to $ 2250 15 computer modeling runs) CADD equipment time 625 Micro -computer time 750 USGS quad negatives and prints 170 Camera work & report printing 3000 Miscellaneous reproduction , 275 Travel (inside County) 275 Total estimated reimbursable expenses $ 7345 Total Estimated Budget -Master Plan for Sebastian Area $50265 B. Investigate Feasibility of Supplying Water to Vero Beach (Work Task 1600) Total estimated direct wages and salaries (See page B-11) $ 5964 Multiplier 2.95 Estimated labor $17594 Estimated reimbursable expenses (includes factors) HP -3000 computer time (up to 8 computer modeling runs) $ 1200 USGS quad negatives and prints 75 Miscellaneous reproduction 150 Travel (inside County) 100 Total estimated reimbursable expenses $ 1525 Total Estimated Budget - Investigate Feasibility of Supplying Water to Vero Beach $19119 C. TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET -SEBASTIAN AREA $69384 do VERO BEACH 4/18/86 B-12 ell FILED FOR RECORD -10Aic`.'41iO wt VEINFIED MASTER 87 DEC -Z All ll 31 WASTEWATER CAPACITY FRFOA 1'911011 RESERVATION R8 Of WWI G1111:4.UJ, 17VF11 0J �L;,. ' AND CONSENT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ' !4$CTSDN A INDIAN RIVER reserves the number of COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "County"), hereby equivalent forth above of we reaidentiel unity (("ERUrset stewater treatment plant and transmission capacity, am defined in county Ordinance e4-18, as ' and Supplemented now or hereafter amended "Reserved ERUs"), for the I' s(the property described herein and subject to)thender the harms and conditions set forth i its Division oL Utito POlicies-andthe "practices of the County and • applieInd t with transmission thesreservationlOr wastewater treof atment) pleat and transmieaion capacity in the County now or hereafter eatabliehed. Terms and conditions nty Plans treatment plantTendcrtain wastwate transmis■iontfaeilitlaetineaccordanceewithrplans 6.6 and specification• on file with the Utility Division "Project"). tc O n (the The County will use its beet efforts to complete the Project by August, 1989, but } j does not guarantee such completion date `�° Countyand ldoestnot on be ranteelthat rwastewater lservice f ? > gua ` to the Property upon completion ywill betaveilable r? of the Project. The availab111ty of a wastewater service may require the construction of additional transmission linea, laterals and other facilities ar well as ': facilities to connect the Plumbing J IZZ4 systems on the Property to the facilities of ntyeway byethe, couwater requireofurther sption 1 against the Property and/or ecialhassessments , _;:. other coats to the Property owner. No representation n d.fa to yarding the dates on which construction of any such additional facilities will be l commenced, or completed, The Property owner should examine the Project plans to and before determine the amount se vicetional facilities which will be required before wastewater service will be availeblf to the Property. The the County expecte to able to have and will have t us* wastewater treatment plant beat efforts to capacity available ERUe when service is desired by the for the Reserved Property owner and otherwise available. If the county does not have within such capacity available a reasonable period of time after such date t the Property owner, at any time thereafter prior to such capacity becoming available, shall have the right to cancel the reservation for the Reserved ERV• by written notice thereof to the county, Such shell not be effective until a written Instrument indicatinghas been ' the County so -recorded by the county in the public records of su ch cancellation shall not affect Assessment, ahereinafter the special including without limitation, thedhe I in any manner whatsoever, event of such cancellation the �count�aa Of Payment thereof. In the six (6) months ntythereaet agrees after the due date to pay within Installment of the Special Assessment, regardless of ray scheduled the owner of the Property ns of the date of such any prepayment, amount ual to the Special Assessment pinterestn thereoneqThe paid plus all exclusive remedyrOfothe shall or cProperty Owner of theht Ae the sole and the event that such against the countyiin capacity ie not so available, the owner of the Property have the In no avant shall right not tD n Assessment. pay the special 1• This reservation runs any time be with the land and may not at soldc transferred, �` or assigned by the Property ,net, except to the County with its written consent the sale of or in connection with fee simple title to the Pr°merty. 7. If the entire Reserved ERUs are not reasonably expected to be needed for the Property, the County may reclaim the excans ERUe (the "Excess ERUe") for resale by written inatrument, the original of which shall be recorded in the public records of the county and a copy of which shell be sent to the Property owner. Upon receipt of payment for the Excess ERUe and any Smpact fees and special assessments in connection therewith by the county from the purchaser of the Excess ERUe, the county shall refund to the owner of the Property as of the date the Excess ERUe were reclaimed an amount equal to the amount paid prior to the date the Excess ERUe were reclaimed for the Excess ERU9 and any impact fees and special assessments in connection therewith, exclusive of interest and coats associated therewithl provided,. how ever, that the County's obligation to make such refund shall be limited to the amount received from such resale. The County will be under no obligation to find a purchaser for the Excess ERUe. Any amounts received by the County from the purchaser of the Excess ERUe in excess of the amount refunded shall belong to the County. 4. Commencing with the first month following completion of the Project, the Property owner will be required to pay monthly base facilities charges established by the County. In the event the base facilities charge with respect to any unused Reserved ERUe is not paid within 70 days after becoming due and payable and after demand of the county, such unused Reserved ERUe may be reclaimed by the County in the manner set forth in paragraph 7 and the county shall be entitled to resell much Unused Reserved Me. Upon any such resale, the County shall make a refund in the amount and manner set forth in paragraph ], provided that the County shall deduct from the refund the amount of monthly base facilities chargee due and accruing to the data of the resale of the unused Reserved ERUe. S. It is expressly understood and agreed that one of the Purposes of this instrument is to prohibit speculation in wastewater treatment plant and transmission capaoity. THE UNDERSIGNED, the owner of the Property defined above, ter himself and his heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors and aeeigns, for value received, hereby irrevocably Agrees to the foregoing and, pursuant to County Ordinance 86-3e, as amended consens to the imposition dOfua special dasse smentfurther iineliedrrvocab4 impactt tfees with respect to the Property in the amount set forth above (the "Special Assessment") and agrees to the terms and conditions thereof am met forth in said Ordinance and the resolutions of the County now or hereafter adopted pursuant thereto. The Special Asseapment shall be payable in ten (So) annual installments together with interest on the outatanding amount thereof at a rate not to exceed two percent (2t) above the interest rate on the bonds to be issued by the county in connection with the Special Assessment. The entire outstanding amount of the Special Assessment may ba prepaid at any time provided the accrued interest thereon and an appropriate interest and/or prepayment charge is paid together therewith. It is understood and agreed that failure to pay the Special Assessment, interest thereon or any other charge appurtenant thereto may result in foreclosure and loss of title to the Property. The property owner further agrees that the amount of the outstanding Special Assessment and the interest rate thereon may be inerea3 ad by the County in connection with the refunding of any issue of outstanding bonds of the county secured by a'�pledge oC.the Special Aeseasment by written instrument, the original of which shall be recorded in the public records of the County and a copy of which shall be sent to the Property owner} provided that the amount of the outstanding Special Assessment and the interest to be paid thereon thereafter is no greater than that which would have been Payable without such increase or decrease. - 1 SECTION 1 SEBASTIAN UTILITY SYSTEM PROJECT STATUS o CITY COUNCIL HAS ACCEPTED THE HAI REPORT. o CITY HAS HIRED LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO UNBUCKLE CITY/COUNTY AGREEMENTS. o THE COUNTY IS IN PROCESS OF GIVING GDU FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BACK TO CITY. o CITY AND COUNTY MET ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1991, AND CONCEPTUALLY AGREED ON CUSTOMER TRANSFER PROGRAM (SEE FIGURE 1). o CITY ADVERTISES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST IN THE ACQUISITION OF GDU. o FUTURE TASKS: - HIRE PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST IN THE ACQUISITION OF GDU. - CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE COUNTY AND ADDRESS ASSESSMENT ISSUE. - NOTIFY GDU OF CITY'S INTENTION TO EXERCISE THE PURCHASE OF THE CITY'S FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY. - ACQUIRE GDU WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES (SEE FIGURE 2 FOR TASKS INVOLVED). ORGANIZATION AND START-UP OF A WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY. PREPARE UTILITY-- STANDARDS, POLICIES, PROCEDURES, RATES, CHARGES, CODE REVISIONS, FORMS AND 01 ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES. - PREPARE FINANCE PLAN. I HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SECI.RPT 0 0 0 t` 1 PREVIOUS CITY/COUNTY AGREEMENTS UNBUCKLED CITY/COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CRY PURSUES I I COUNTY SELLS ERU'S FOR ACQUISITION OF NORTH COUNTY WWTP TO CDU CITY AND COUNTY CUSTOMERS EQUALLY ACQUISLTTON OF GOD (SEE FIGURE 2) CITY ACQUIRES GDU WATER UNCONNECTED ERU'S AND WASTEWATER WCTHIN CITY SERVICE FACILITIES AREA CITY EXPANDS WATER k WASTEWATER FACILITIES CffY BU CITY CUSTOMER FLOW DIVERSION FACILITY TRANSFERED TO CITY NORTH COUNTY WWTP CAPACITY 0 COUNTY OPTION FOR I NEW COUNTY TRANSFERRING CUSTOMERS 41 REQUESTING SERVICE CUSTOMER *FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE FLOW DIVERSION FACILITY AFTER ACQUISITION OF GDU THE COUNTY CONCEPTUALLY AGREED TO TRANSFER CITY CUSTOMERS TO CITY AS NEW COUNTY CUSTOMERS CONNECTED HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INc. CITY/COUNTY INTERLOCAL <¢giaren, hydrogeolagisla, seienUsLs k m�.`�.ol ro�,w�h AGREEMENT 1 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING SUITE 1000 • 201 EAST PINE STREET• OIUANDO,FL 72801 FIGURE 1 TELEPHONE (407)879-7955• FAX (407) 879-9790 o0 WTAMIN FW PURCHASE INSURANCE L052 rlNn+rtn ar mNERs . fl A PLAN OPCRIElONS PRNIERAIICN NON-BONo SSUE � PRCCPAI6 HARTMAN 8c ASSOCIATES, INC. e0(inttn, L)dra(mlo(ial., PcieRUPta k m.0.(emml consult.. SOUTHEAST BANK BUHDING SUITE 1000 • 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANOO,PL 92801 TELEPHONE (407)839-3955• FAX (407) 839-3790 . AGtFEUEM Eb.Brt$ • IloJol 11ElR.lo • USEA RAhS • clPruE auacEs • unurr $fANLWID$ . Pouaa PRo¢mmE NAvui WO MUE/ OUT PROC • PtM011SE AGREEUEM • ISOM, NEM.Io • RESoIUOONS . oRpNANCES . SE ORoN cu . STD. OEVTlOPERS ACREEUENI . i14N(.1LL REPORE UTILITY AQUISITION INVESTIGATION FLOW CHART FIGURE 2 - PREPARE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN. - APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR FINANCING ASSISTANCE. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SECI.RPT 1-4 SECTION 2 MEETING WITH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 On September 4, 1991, a meeting was held in the Engineering Conference Room at the City Hall complex to discuss the potential water and sewer interlocal agreement between Indian River County and the City of Sebastian. Attendants at this meeting included: o City of Sebastian - Robb McClary, Dan Eclds and Brian Cooper. o Indian River County - Terry Pinto, Charles Vitunac and Harry Asher. o Hartman & Associates, Inc. - Gerry Hartman and Hal Schmidt. o Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A. - Tom Cloud. Mr. Vitunac and Mr. Pinto opened the meeting by indicating that the County recently discovered that no capacity was available for the North County wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), and in fact, the North County WWTP was over -committed based on existing equivalent residential units (ERU's) sold. Furthermore, the County was advised by their financial consultants that it is impossible to fund the construction of the WWTP without permanent customers. W. Pinto then informed us that the County builds and/or expands their WWTP's once they are fully committed. W. Pinto indicated that the County would like to get away from selling capacity to the City on a customer -by -customer basis and would prefer to sell bulk capacity to the City on a wholesale basis, which would then be sold by the City to its customers. Mr. Hartman indicated that we would need to know from the County what the capital and wholesale costs for wholesale service would be from the County. At this point, it was requested that the County could rerate the North County WWTP flows based on actual historical flows to the facility, which in tum, will create interim capacity, make the County "whole" and avoid the need for a wholesale agreement. The County indicated that they could not consider rerating the North County WWTP so a value less than 250 gpd/ERU could.not be used. However, the County was informed of several municipalities that have been rerating plant capacities based on historical wastewater flows (i.e., Cities of Melbourne, Orlando, Palm Bay, etc.). , Mr. Asher indicated that of the over 5,200 ERU's have been sold for the North County WWTP,. which iscurrently rated at 1.0 MGD, approximately 2,000 are located within the City limits. Of these 2,000 City ERU's, over 700 ERU's have been turned into the County and have been recommited. In addition, approximately 500 ERU's of the 1,300+ ERU's have not paid their first assessment. We were then informed that of the 5,200 ERU's remaining sold for the North County WWTP, FDER has issued wastewater collection system permits for approximately 2,500 ERU's. Based on this information, it became obvious that the County HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC2.RPT 2-1 has already sold capacity on a rerated basis at a value of significantly less than their 250 gpd/ERU with no problem from FDER. The City requested a list of all the customers requesting capacity at the North County WWTP, as well as the ones requesting capacity immediately. In addition, HAI requested the approximate number of new connections added per year from the City and County. Mr. Asher indicated that approximately five (5) ERU's were added to the County's system last year. We asked the County what the bulk transmission impact fee component was under the County system. No response from the County was given. Mr. Hartman indicated throughout the meeting that the City intends to make the County "whole" for all their investments. It was recommended to the County and seemed agreeable to the County that they would continue to sell ERU's to the residents of the City of Sebastian on a non-discriminatory basis and the new ERU's should be considered as equals or permanent. Therefore, business should be conducted as usual. At some point in the future, the City will remove capacity from the North County WWTP on a gradual basis; thereby, reducing the flows from the City to the North County WWTP. Prior to this date (September 4, 1991), the City ERU's which are wetted up will be considered the City's when the City is ready to accept them. Once the City acquires the General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) facilities and is ready to treat the wastewater and provide potable water, there will be a transitioning period when the County will transfer to the City a portion of the City's ERU's and pay the City back the principal of the impact fee paid to the County. The transfer and payback of ERU's will occur once the County has ERU's to trade. Therefore, this will allow the County to sell the transferred ERU's at a higher rate, as well as be maintained "whole" for their investment. Additionally, the assets now built will be transferred from the County to the City. Moreover, the County will be able to buy capacity from the City to treat a portion of the wastewater and/or provide potable water service on an as -needed basis. Mr. Cloud provided to the County draft copy of the City of Sebastian/Indian River County Interlocal Utility Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement for their review. In addition, it was recommended that the County provide to the City the following information: o Capital and wholesale costs for bulk capacity. o Discount rate off the impact fee. o Names and addresses of City customers, as well as City residents who have purchased ERU's frofn the County. The meeting can be summarized as follows: o The City of Sebastian has submitted a draft working document agreement, and requested comments from the County towards finalizing this agreement. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC2.RPT 2-2 o New customers will be treated on an equitable non-discriminatory basis within the service area. Therefore, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. o The interim and permanent distinctions no longer applies. o There will be a transition of capacity and customers through time, such that the County can be maintained whole. o Prior to September 4, 1991, those City customers on the County system will all be incorporated into the City's facility at once. It is important to note that while there are 1,300 committed ERU's of capacity in the City, only 800 have paid the assessments, and less than 10 ERU's of capacity are actually connected and being serviced by the County system. o Certain assets of the County that do not serve the County, but serve customers in the City, should be transferred to the City at some future date. o The City and the County should enter into an interconnect deal/flow diversion deal that allows for the sale of wholesale water and sewer capacity back and forth between the City and the County. o The County agreed to give us back the GDU franchise purchase option now. o The Indian River County franchise will revert back to the City of Sebastian after the City is ready to take on the permanent capacity within the County plant. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC2.RPT 2-3 1 SECTION 3 ) CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 28, 1991 On August 28, 1991, a number of issues were brought up regarding the above referenced report from three (3) specific individuals. Summarized herein are our responses to these comments as delineated by the individuals who had these concerns. o Mr. George Metcalf Comment No, 1 Concerns of the taxpaying public and the City have no backup information from the consultants (i.e., no on-site inspections of GDU facilities and these facilities have not been inspected for a number of years, etc.). The questions which remain unanswered are the most important. Response: We firmly believe that the City Council and taxpaying public have been provided sufficient information regarding whether or not the City should acquire the GDU water and wastewater franchise agreements. The potential acquisition of the GDU facilities will require a full investigation of the Chapter 180.301 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.) stated information and other information.. We expect that the public will be informed as to the status of this future investigation and a public hearing under Chapter 180.301 F.S. will be held if the final acquisition is recommended. Even though no site inspections could be conducted, our firm is very knowledgeable regarding the construction and operation and maintenance (O & W practices of GDU. In fact, we have visited the WWTP and WTP in the past; although, not during this study due to the present legal constraints; and members of our project team (i.e., past GDU employees) are very knowledgeable regarding the GDU water and wastewater facilities and management practices. Comment No. 2 How much is the total complete projected cost of the wastewater and potable water systergi? Response: The total complete projected cost of the water and-wastewatersystem, including the initial expansion, is approximately $6,200,000 as identified in Table 5-5 of the report. This value excludes the cost of wastewater collection and water distribution which may be funded through assessments or other means. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-1 Comment No. 3 The water system has numerous citations (refer to page ES -3). Response: The violations noted were for not conducting the monitoring requirements as required in Chapter 17-550 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). On only a few occasions was GDU cited for violating the water quality standards for total trihalomethanes (TTHM's) and copper. These problems were intermittent and can be readily corrected. The TTHM's will not be formed if ammoniation is used as is practiced in Palm Bay. The copper problems can be controlled through pH and alkalinity adjustment at the WTP. Both these solutions are simple and inexpensive. Comment No. 4 The wastewater system was planned to be updated to bring it up to speed and now we are committing ourselves to spend approximately $6.5 million. Response: No, GDU had no plans to improve and/or expand the WWTP. Presently, the WWTP is treating an average daily flow of 113,000 gpd and the WWTP has a rated capacity of 300,000 gpd. The effluent disposal system has a permitted capacity of 142,000 gpd. To increase capacity, it was recommended by HAI that the WWTP be expanded to 600,000 gpd, as well as increase the effluent disposal system to same. Comment No. 5 How will it be financed and over what period of time? Response: Presented in Section 5, specifically pages 5-22 through 5-26, are a number of financing options available to the City with pay -back periods ranging from 20 to 40 years. The method of financing will be determined at a later date, so that the best financing method is provided to the City and its customers. Comment No. 6 Did_ ive, as'County residents, vote through a referendum to go for a bond issue for .Phase I of,the wastewater system and therefore, are we going to pay for this again? Response: No, the taxpayers will not be paying for Phase I of the wastewater system again. The City and County has tentatively agreed in principle to an ERU buy-back/transfer program presented at the September 4, 1991 meeting. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-2 Comment No. 7 What will the impact fees be? Response: It is difficult to determine the actual impact fee. However, based on what is known regarding the GDU water and wastewater systems, the impact fees should not be greater than the County's impact fee. Comment No. 8 Page ES -17 indicates a savings of $1,068 if we use this system, but there is no back-up or data to support these figures. Response: The paragraphs in question compared the GDU impact fees to the County's impact fee. Basically, the GDU water and sewer impact fee is $2,545.00 and the County's 1991 water and sewer impact fee is $3,613.00. The difference between them is $1,068.00. Comments No. 9 When will the City system be on-line? Response: Initially, the City system was proposed to be on-line by the summer of 1992. However, due to delays, this time frame could be pushed further back to the winter of 1992. Comment No. 10 What happens during the interim in developing this system a moratorium; no new tax base (refer to ES -17 regarding concurrency statement)? Response: This is untrue, since at a recent meeting between the City and the County, it was tentatively agreed upon that the County will continue to sell ERU's to City residents on an equitable non-discriminatory basis. Therefore, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. Therefore, concurrency requirements will be met. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-3 Comment No. 11 Why have we gone this far with no public hearing? Response: There have been several appropriately noticed public meetings and many newspaper articles. No action requiring a public hearing has been undertaken. Comment No. 12 The County system uses no tax dollars. Will the City be able to say the same? Response: The County uses a special assessment to finance the capital of WWTP construction. The City may also utilize this method of funding water and wastewater facilities; otherwise the City system will not use tax dollars. Comment No. 13 What are the implications of the new utility department (i.e., staff, vehicles, etc.), new building, etc.? Response: A new utility will require additional expenses and facilities. However, based on the size of the existing systems, these expenses should be minor and will be in the form of operational personnel, preferably GDU operations personnel, utility billing staff and miscellaneous O & M expenses. It is anticipated that the City Engineer can handle the responsibility of the Public Works Director, and vehicles and other miscellaneous items can be obtained through the utility acquisition. To a great extent, there will be a transfer of utility duties from Miami and GDU operations in Palm Bay to the City of Sebastian. o Mr. Warren Dill Comment No. 1 Concerned with the fact that the consultants "flat-out said" that mandatory hook-ups to fund the wastewater system. .Response - This is a false -statement. We did not say that mandatory hookups to fund the wastewater facilities was required. A similar method 0 the County's will be proposed, as well as special assessments. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-4 l Comment No. 2 No real physical review of WWTP; his understanding is it is a small site. Where is effluent going to be disposed of (i.e., golf course, etc.)? Response: The condition of the GDU facilities were not inspected during this study, due to the existing legal constraints imposed by GDU's legal staff. However, our experience and knowledge of GDU's construction methods and O & M practices, as well as discussions with ex-GDU employees, have given us valuable information regarding the facilities assets. The overall site which the WWTP is located on is approximately 29 acres, which can accommodate a significant future expansion. Regarding the effluent disposal, it was suggested that expansion for the first phase of the wastewater facilities may be accommodated at the City of Sebastian Golf Course and Country Club or other sites. Comment No. 3 The County's system was designed and located to utilize parks, golf courses, etc., for effluent reuse disposal and we may have a problem in the future due to effluent disposal which may restrict the size of the City's WWTP. There was a glancing blow in the report as to the golf course for effluent disposal and how much effluent reuse can the golf course handle? Response: Based on our review of the data obtained from the Soils and Conservation Service (SCS), approximately 300,000 to 600,000 gpd of treated effluent could be land applied on a golf course of this size. Other forms of effluent disposal include parks, agricultural reuse, residential reuse, as well as the existing percolation ponds are available. Comment No. 4 Assumption that the City will collect $2,400,000 from the County for advanced payment for ERU's? Is this true or will the City taxpayer receive this payment instead of the City. Response: As previously mentioned, at two (2) previous meetings prior to the issuance of the report the County and the City have tentatively agreed upon a method tq enable both entities to work together. At a September 4, 1991 meeting, the County reconfirmed the tentative agreement to continue to sell ERU's to City residents on an equitable non-discriminatory basis. Therefore, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. There will be no transfer of HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-5 funds between the County and City taxpayers, unless the taxpayer does not want the utility service provided by either the County or the City. Comment No. 5 Centralization of services; what we have here is decentralization of services. Response: It is proposed in the HAI report that the City will have centralized water and wastewater facilities for the City of Sebastian. Comment No. 6 Potential of moratorium, which most likely will have to be imposed on all commercial properties that have not purchased ERU's to date. These property owners will not be able to use this property until the City system is on-line (i.e., 2 to 3 years). Response: There will be no moratorium imposed on any development within the City limits for properties that have not purchased ERU's to date. On September 4, 1991, the City and representatives from the County met to discuss the transitioning period until the City had control of GDU facilities. It was tentatively agreed to that the County would continue to sell ERU's to City taxpayers on a non-discrimi tory basis within the City's proposed service area. In addition, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. o Mr. Clay Price Comment No. 1 Report does not state that the City can provide water and wastewater service at a rate less than the County. The report only does a comparison on the County, surrounding communities and what the current GDU rates are and there are problems with the GDU costs that need further analysis. Response: This is true, the report does not state that the City can provide water and wastewater service at a less cost than the County. However, utilizing today's impact fees and rates for water and sewer, the County impact fees and rates are -5ignilicanl ly higber than GDU's and surrounding communities. Furthermore, the County's impact fees will increase $638 to $4,121/ERU for` water and sewer service, as well as their rates will increase to $50.49 for 5,000 gallons in 1993. Therefore, utilizing the best data we have regarding the existing conditions, the City should be capable of providing water and sewer service at an equitable cost to the taxpayer. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-6 However, the primary concern is not whether or not the water and wastewater service can be provided at a lower cost. The major emphasis should be whether or not the City wishes to control their own destiny in the utility business, which in turn controls growth. Comment No. 2 Of the $2,345,000 for expansion of the WWTP, nothing is allocated for effluent disposal (i.e., purchase of land, etc.). The GDU WWTP is at capacity.. There is $675,000 identified in the report for effluent disposal, but it does not say for what it is (i.e., land, line extensions, acquisition of right-of-way, etc.). Response: The estimated $675,000 identified for expansion of the effluent disposal facilities included pipeline costs, pumping facilities, acquisition of rights-of-way, site improvements, etc. necessary for delivering reuse water to the golf course. Improvements to the percolation ponds are considered on-site costs and are within the $1,670,000 value. Neither the WWTP or existing effluent disposal facilities are at capacity. Comment No. 3 Under positive impacts, item no. 3 states that there would be a $1,068 cost savings per connection to the system. How does Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) determine the cost to be $2,545 per connection for the City, if the acquisition cots, expansion costs, number of customers and financing costs have not been determined? Response: The comparison was based on the existing County and GDU's impact fees for 1991. The $1,068 savings is represented by the difference between the County's impact feed of $3,613.00 and GDU's impact fee of $2,545.00 for water and sewer service. Comment No. 4 The purchase price of GDU WWTP's have been stated to be $2,000,000 (refer to 5- 19). How has this price been determined with regard to the absence of a facility inspection? Response: The price of $2.0 million was determined based on our knowledge of the Sebastian water and wastewater facilities and franchise documents, review of permitting documents and discussions with ex-GDU employees regarding these systems. We preformed a preliminary "rate base" replacement cost analysis and HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-7 added the costs of acquisition to determine a preliminary estimate. Note that the costs of expansion and improvements are presented as a separate value. Comment No. 5 The report has certain capital recovery assumptions that do not seem to bear analysis (refer to page 5-20 of report). Item No. 1: The City can presell 2,000 water and wastewater ERU's. Item No. 2: There are another 1,000 units at $1,200/ERU for a total sale price of $1,331,000. Therein of itself is a mathematical error. Item No. 3: Consider the assumption for water ERU's for 3,000 ERU's for capital recovery will be sold at $1,214. There is no increase for future costs. Item No. 4: There are supposed to be an additional 3,000 ERU's with regard to the system and line extension cost are $2,000,000. How does the figure $667 per ERU figure into the costs related to the County (i.e., included in impact fee or built-in somewhere else). Response: The City is not preselling any water and wastewater ERU's. The 2,000 ERU's noted were the ones which the County and City would participate in the buy-back program that was tentatively agreed upon at a meeting between the City and County on September 4, 1991. The footnote identified in the table after "Future Capital Revenue from 1,00 ERU's for wastewater system" should be changed from (1) to (2) and footnote (2) should read "...$1,214 per ERU and the existing GDU wastewater impact fee of $1,331 per." and thus no mathematical error. The 3,000 ERU's for water service includes the 2,000 ERU's already committed to the County which will be transferred back to the City based on the specific conditions of the buy-back program. It is difficult to compare the $667/ERU figure for line extension costs with the County's costs for the same since the County did not provide this information to use for this study. Comment No. 6 The report states that the City can provide "significantly improved" water and :wastewatet services to the r-ustomer. Is this over GDU or the County? Secondarily, the report states that they have more stringent design standards and operational procedures. Response: The City can provide significantly improved water and wastewater services over GDU providing these services, as well as providing an equal -service HES/GCH/ch/mg „ C6/SEC3.RPT 3-8 -- in comparison to the County. The City will most likely impose more stringent design and operational providers in comparison to GDU. This is very common for public utilities to have more stringent standards than private utilities. Comment No. 7 The report states that the City system will provide a system that will provide a system whereby the infrastructure costs to the customers will pay $2,500 to $3,500 less than what the customers would pay under the County systems. Response: This is based on our preliminary estimates of both County and GDU facilities and operation. We felt that it would not be unreasonable to project that the cost for a water and sewer combined infrastructure normally dedicated to the utility and paid for by the customer may cost between $5,000.00 and $8,000.00 for the County system and for expansion of the GDU system the cost would range from $3,500.00 to $5,500.00. Our preliminary estimate is that a City taxpayer would save between $2,500.00 and $3,500.00 total in capital cost by City ownership versus County customer connections. Comment No. 8 The $667 per ERU capital recovery expenditure for line extensions is not included in the customer provided infrastructure. Response: The $667/ERU is not an appropriate calculation. The $2,000,000 is an optional line extension fund which may present an opportunity to pay for extensions with tax-free fmancing dollars. Comment No, 9 What this report does not tell me is the number of customers, purchase price of the utility, costs for expanding the facilities, financing method and herb is how we are going to pay for the facilities. Response: The report indicates that the County will ultimately transfer to the City the 2,000 ERU's which were held by the County, plus it is anticipated that an additional 1,000 ERU's will be sold in the future. The estimated purchase price of .the utilities and the antidllated costs for expansion was provided in the report to be approximately $6.2 million. In addition, a number of financing methods were presented in Section 5 of the HAI report. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-9 o Damian B. Gilliams Comment No. 1 Have concurrency right down the road and if water and sewer is not in place by a certain time period, everything will come to a halt, which will affect a number in this area. Response: On several occasions the County committed to work with the City. The County will continue to sell ERU's to the City residents on an equitable non- discr natory basis. Therefore, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. Therefore, concurrency will be met. HES/GCE/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-10 SECTION 4 MEETING WTTH CLAY PRICE AND DAMIAN B. GILLIAM - AUGUST 30, 1991 Comment No. 1 Of the $2,345,000 for expansion of the WWTP, how much, if any, is allocated to the cost of off-site effluent disposal and does the golf course have the capacity for such. See page 5-18. Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 2 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 2 Under positive impacts, Item 3 states that there would be a $1,068 cost savings per connection to the system. How does Hartman & Associates, Inc. determine the cost to be $2,545 for Sebastian, i.e., with acquisition costs (not old GDU costs) and expansion costs, number of customers and financing costs not determined. Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 3 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 3 The purchase price of GDU the report has been stated as $2,000,000 (see 5-19). How has this price been determined with regard to the absence of facility inspection? Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 4 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 4 The report has certain capital recovery assumptions (page 5-20) that do not seem to bear close analysis: 1) That the City can presell 2,000 wastewater ERU's. 2) There is a mathematical error in that the sale of 1,000 ERU's at $12.00/ERU is $1,331,000. How does the report estimate future costs? HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC4.RPT 4-1 3) Please consider the assumption as to water ERU's capital recovery in that no future costs are associated with this, i.e., 3,000 ERU's will be presold at $1,214. 4) If there are 3,000 additional ERU's with regard to the system and the line extension, costs are $2,000,000. How does this amount of $667 per ERU figure into the costs related to the County costs? Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 5 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 5 The report states that the City can provide "significantly improved" water and wastewater services to customers. Over GDU or the County, i.e., more stringent design standards and operation/maintenance procedures? Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 6 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 6 The report states that the City system will provide a system whereby the infrastructure costs, the customer will pay $2,500 to $3,500 less than what the customers would pay under the County systems. Hartman & Associates, Inc.'s report recommends the City acquire the GDU plants and revoke the franchises with the County. The report does not state that the City can provide services less expensively than the cost per ERU would be based upon a customer base. Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 7 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC4.RPT` 4-2 0167-1 o: ToM d1olid �c- Sw6 e iam: 11al irri,al� S lease revieuj, Crrn - ali& eoiv-er.f &/here nec� ;aryy. /ease have e'e'w �i reedy 61 9-/D so cde eo' UTILITY FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS 7'0 BRIEFING DOCUMENT CITY OF SEBASTIAN r. ,ull INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PREPARED BY: HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ME GRAY, HARRIS, ROBINSON, KIRSCHENBAUM & PEEPLES NOVEMBER 6, 1991 HAI #91-174.00 HES/ch R5/Brief. Cvr PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATIONS General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) has been providing potable water service to the residents of the City of Sebastian, with the exception of existing franchise areas, since the early 1970's, and wastewater service since the mid 1980's. In 1981, the City of Sebastian granted GDU a water and wastewater franchise area, which in all general purposes, encompassed all lands within the City's incorporated boundaries. The only areas not included in GDU's water and wastewater franchise area were a few out -parcels and existing water and/or wastewater franchise areas. Between 1987 and December 12, 1990, the City of Sebastian and Indian River County entered into a series of agreements which changed the provisions of water and wastewater service in the City of Sebastian. As a result of the December 12, 1991 agreement, the City of Sebastian basically became the County's agent for the provision and regulation of water and wastewater service in the City. On March 5, 1991, Indian River County unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the City of Sebastian. As a result of the County's offer, the City of Sebastian conditionally accepted the County's offer, subject to the completion of the necessary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both parties so that the agreements, ordinances and resolutions could be rescinded in a manner as to not impact third parties. A feasibility study addressing the advantages and disadvantages of providing water and wastewater services was prepared by Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI). The study concluded that the City of Sebastian should take all necessary steps to regain all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to potentially acquire GDU's Sebastian Highlands water and wastewater facilities to enable the City to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility. As a result of this recommendation, modifications to the County's franchise is necessary for the development of the City's water and wastewater system. Therefore, there is a need to negotiate with the County to develop the necessary modifications to the County's franchise. It should be noted that presently Indian River County does not provide water service to any residents within the City limits, with the exception of Park Place. The County's Water Master Plan provides for an orderly expansion of the County's potable water system with most of the future improvements occurring north of County Road 512 (Fellsmere Road). However, at this time, no facilities are in the ground and all major improvements are just in the pre -planning phase. This is not the case with the wastewater system. Presently, the County has pump stations and wastewater collection and transmission facilities installed in the City, as well as HES/ch R5/Brief. 174 1- 1. major wastewater transmission lines running south along U.S. 1 which serve the Rosilind area and miscellaneous developments (i.e., Park Place, etc.). Furthermore, the County had a significant number (i.e., approximately 2,000) of City residents committed to the wastewater system, and the County was ready to provide service for City customers on or about March 5, 1991. Presently, there are approximately 95 equivalent residential units (ERUs) receiving wastewater service from the County. The primary purpose of the negotiations between the County and the City is to develop a relationship between the two (2) entities so that a smooth transition for providing water and wastewater service to the residents of the City could occur. The County has agreed to cooperate with the City, as long as the interests of the County utility system, the bond holders, and the City customers who have reserved capacity in the system are protected. SITUATION The County and City staff members, as well as their engineering and legal consultants, have met on several occasions to work out interim plans to effect the separation of the utility systems. As a result of these meetings, a number of drafts and revisions to the proposed "Interlocal Utilities Agreement" have been prepared. Furthermore, the City staff members and their engineering and legal consultants have met with individuals from the private sector to respond to any and all concerns. As a result of our meetings with the County, a fourth draft of the "Interlocal Utilities Agreement" has been prepared. and submitted to the County for their comments. It appears that all concerns of the County have been addressed with this third draft. A meeting will be scheduled with the County and their staff in the near future. HAI is presently responding to concerns brought to our attention by Mr. John Little regarding the feasibility study prepared by HAI. It is anticipated that other meetings may be necessary to have future meetings with the County and private sector to answer any additional concerns that these groups may have. DRAFT AGREEMENTS As previously mentioned, a number of meetings have been held between the City and County regarding the proposed "Interlocal Utility Agreement." On October 16, 1991, the second HES/ch R5/Brief. 174 -2- meeting was held at the County complex to discuss the County's version of the "Interlocal Utility Agreement." At this meeting, the City presented to the County a revised version of the County's draft "Interlocal Utilities Agreement" which the City and their consultants had the opportunity to review and modify. Although there were some discrepancies between the two (2) versions of the Agreement, the meeting was very productive and resulted in the fourth version of the draft "Interlocal Utilities Agreement." Presented in Appendix A is the draft "Interlocal Utilities Agreement" between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. WHAT THE AGREEMENT MEANS The "Interlocal Utilities Agreement", as presented in Appendix A of this Briefing Document, means that the City will be permitted to investigate the option of pursuing the acquisition of the GDU Sebastian Highlands water and wastewater facilities with no ties. The Agreement provides for a cancellation date (6 -month period) from the date of execution of said Agreement to determine the feasibility of acquiring the GDU facilities. Furthermore, this Agreement immediately cancels the existing franchise and all rights granted to the County by the City under Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7 and the Agreement with respect to the territory covered by the GDU franchise. Moreover, up until the cancellation date, the County will allow permanent capacity to the County's system to be purchased by residents within the City limits under the same terms of the existing franchise. After this date, the County will sell available permanent capacity for connections within the City only to the City itself, which in turn will make this capacity available to customers within the City. This portion of the Agreement will enable the City to purchase bulk wastewater capacity from the County, if necessary, until their utility system is in place and operational. This Agreement also re -assigns the City's rights to purchase the GDU Sebastian Highlands water and wastewater facilities effective immediately; thereby, terminating tfie City Resolution R-90-55 with the County. Furthermore, this Agreement is accepted to allow the City to exercise its option to purchase the GDU facilities and provide water and wastewater service in the territory covered by the GDU franchises. In addition, the draft Agreement identifies three (3) classes of customers. These classes of customers are defined in the Agreement as follows: HES/ch R5/Brief. 174 -3- (1) Class I Units: Customers within the City which are connected to or which have reserved capacity in the County wastewater system prior to January 1, 1992, and have a wastewater collection system available to them, even if the physical connection has not been made. (2) Class H Units: Customers within the City which have reserved capacity in the County wastewater system prior to January 1, 1992, but do not have a wastewater collection system available. (3) Class III Units: All other customers within the City other than Class I and H customers. The Agreement also provides for a service agreement between the City and County which becomes effective on the cancellation date of the agreement. In other words, on this date the County will cease to be the utility provider within the City and will instead become only the wastewater transmission, treatment and effluent disposal provider for all Class I and II units, as well as for the Class III units for which the City has purchased permanent capacity. Furthermore, the City must provide wastewater collection systems for Class I customers, such that the interests of the Class II customers are not harmed by the revocation of the County franchise. As a result, the County agreed to develop a non-discriminatory, cost -of -service rate to be charged to the City. To protect the County and make them "whole", there is a paragraph in the Agreement which describes the transfer of customers. In summary, the County agrees that on the request of the City, it will transfer to the City for wastewater collection, treatment and effluent disposal purposes, Class I, II and III customers for which permanent capacity has been bought, provided that the County has a customer available to purchase the capacity used or reserved by the customers which are requested to be transferred. In turn, the County will use "good faith" efforts to procure a replacement customer for the capacity. Moreover, upon receipt of the impact fee from the new customer, the County will remit to the City the impact fee originally paid by the customer who is to be transferred to the City. The transfer of customers from the County to the City is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. HES/ch R5/Brief. 174 -4- 0 0 0 n CITY/COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PREVIOUS CITY/COUNTY AGREEMENTS UNBUCKLED CITY PURSUES COUNTY SELLS ERU'S FOR ACQUISITION OF NORTH COUNTY HTTP TO GDU CITY AND COUNTY CUSTOMERS EQUALLY ACQUISITION OF GDU (SEE FIGURE 2) CITY ACQUIRES I I GDU NATER UNCONNECTED ERU'S AND WASTEWATER WITHIN CITY SERVICE FACILITIES CITY CITY EXPANDS WATER k WASTEWATER FACILITIES NORTH COUNTY WWTP CAPACITY CI1Y BUILDS CITY CUSTOMER COUNTY OPTION FOR NEW COUNTY FLOW DIVERSION TRANSFERRING CUSTOMERS 11 FACILITY TRANSFERED TO CITY REQUESTING SERVICE CUSTOMER *FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE FLAW DIVERSION FACILITY AFTER ACQUISITION OF GDU THE COUNTY CONCEPTUALLY AGREED TO TRANSFER CITY CUSTOMERS TO CITY AS NEW COUNTY CUSTOMERS CONNECTED HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY/COUNTY INTERLOCAL eagioeen, hydrogeologists, acientist� k management consultants AGREEMENT 1 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING SUITE 1000 • 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORIANDO,FL 32801 FIGURE 1 TELEPHONE (407)839-3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 Finally, the Agreement acknowledges that certain collection systems may be disconnected from the County system entirely, transferred to the City without charge, and reconnected to the City's wastewater system. The transfers of systems will occur when all units on the system are City customers, by transfer or otherwise. As noted, the Agreement has been modified numerous times with the attempt to provide protection to both the County and City. It is firmly believed that this fourth draft Agreement addresses the concerns of the County and protects both the City, County and innocent third parties. RECOMMENDATIONS (1) Continue negotiations with Indian River County to develop the final "Interlocal Utilities Agreement" for service area, wholesale service, cost sharing of certain assets, transfer of customers and facilities within the City to the City from the County. (2) Schedule workshops with the public and other concerned residents of the City to respond to any and all concerns. (3) Notify GDU of the City's intention to exercise the purchase of the City's franchise agreement with GDU. THE PROGRAM Once the "Interlocal Utilities Agreement" between the City and the County is signed and GDU has been notified of the City's intention to exercise the purchase of the GDU Sebastian Highlands water and wastewater facilities, a number of tasks must be initiated: (1) Acquire the GDU Sebastian Highlands water and wastewater facilities, starting with the requirements of Chapter 180.301 of the Florida Statutes (FS), then proceeding with inspections, negotiations, etc., as illustrated in Figure 2. (2) Investigate the possibility of grants, low interest loans, and other forms of financial assistance. HES/ch R5/Brief. 174 -6- • FmmCE PIAN DOCUMENTATION FOR PURCMSE OPERAnOxS PRMnIATpx NON-BCND 1 a PROGRAMS NSUP.WCE COSES I IlLAI10Ep BY OTHERS HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists k management mmultanL3 a SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING SUITE 1000 • 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO,FL 32801 TELEPHONE ({07)839-3955• FAX (407) 839-3790 • AOREENENT EKNIBnS • 00.301 NEMmC • USER RATES • WRK C ES • UTUIY 57AN s • POUCES PROCEDURE NANWL • PURbNSE AGREEUEW • 160.301 NEARING • RESOLUTIONS • ORDN A ms • SEWER ORDWANCES • SID. DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT • iINAN REPORT BOND ISSUE/ DEBT PROGP.W OpNS RESOLU110N5 ORDmANCES MiWG/NSURANCE UTILITY AQUISITION INVESTIGATION FLOW CHART FIGURE 2 (3) Prepare a finance plan. (4) Prepare utilities standards, policies, procedures, rates, charges, code revisions, forms and other associated activities. (5) Organization and start-up of a water and wastewater utility. (6) Prepare a comprehensive water and wastewater master plan for the City. HES/ch R5/Brief. 174 -8- APPENDIX A II' INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT (AS OF OCTOBER 30, 1991) HES/ch R5.Brief.ApA INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THIS AGREEMENT, made this _ day of , 1991, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (hereafter COUNTY) and the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, the address of which is Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978 (hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or assigns, W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: 1. AGREED FACTS. The following are true statements: 1.1. The CITY granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance 0-81-9 (col- lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GDU to operate and main- tain a water distribution and a wastewater collection and dis- posal system within a portion of the CITY. 1.2. On January 14, 1987, by CITY Resolution R-87-61 the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30 -year exclusive franchise for the provision of water and wastewater services within the rest of the City. 1.3. An interlocal agreement entered into between the CITY and COUNTY and effective July 3, 1987, required the CITY to assist the COUNTY in assessing property owners for the construc- tion of collection systems in the City limits. 1 1.4. At construction financing for a wastewater plant and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of $6,075,000 on October 15, 1989. Part of the security for the re- payment of these bonds was the revenue from impact fee assess- ments for reserved connections within the City. 1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from the plant through the unincorporated area into the City and beyond and was ready to provide service for CITY customers on or about March 5, 1991. 1.6. Approximately 95 CITY equivalent residential units are now receiving wastewater service from these facilities. 1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered into and executed an assignment whereby the CITY transferred to the COUNTY, and the COUNTY accepted, all of the CITY's right, title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU fran- chises. 1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter- mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to consider a revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to the COUNTY in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater service. 1.9. On March 5, 1991, the COUNTY unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was what the CITY wished. 1.10. On March 13, 1991, the COUNTY sent a letter to the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights. 1.11. On April 5, 1991, the CITY conditionally accepted the COUNTY's offer, subject to completion of the neces- sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both 2 parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact third parties. 1.12. On March 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con- sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems. 1.13. The feasibility study prepared by the CITY's consultants was presented to the CITY on June 26, 1991, and recommended that the CITY go ahead with its own utility service. 1.14. Based on the announced intention of the CITY to develop its own utility systems, on or about August 6, 1991, COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUNTY's North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1.15. The CITY is taking the necessary steps to regain all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to potentially acquire GDU's water and wastewater systems to enable the CITY to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility. Modification of the COUNTY's franchise is also a necessary prerequisite to the CITY's development of its own water and wastewater system. 1.16. The COUNTY has agreed to cooperate with the CITY as long as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond holders, and the CITY customers who have reserved capacity in the system are all protected. 1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff members have met on several occasions to work out interim plans to effect the separa- tion of the utility systems and have recommended the provisions of this agreement as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of all parties. 2. CANCELLATION OF OUNTY FRANCHISE. Effective six (6) calendar months from the date of execution of this Agreement (the "Cancellation Date"), the parties hereby agree to and do cancel' the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and under the Intergovernmental Agreement between the CITY and the J COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987; provided, however, that the CITY and COUNTY agree and do hereby cancel the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under said resolutions and agreement with respect to the terri- tory covered by the GDU franchises, said cancellation to take effect immediately. Upon the Cancellation Date, the CITY's retail water and wastewater service area shall be as depicted on Exhibit "A" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. 3. CONTINUANCE OF PRESENT SERVIrR, Up to and until the Cancellation Date, the COUNTY will allow available permanent capacity of the COUNTY system to be purchased by customers within the City limits pursuant to the terms of the existing franchise. On and after that date the COUNTY will sell available permanent capacity for connections within the City only to the CITY itself, which may in turn make this capacity available to customers within the City. 4. REASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO PURCHASE GDU FACILITIES. The assignment by the CITY to the COUNTY by CITY Resolution R-90-55 of all right, title, and interest in GDU's franchises given in CITY Ordinances 0-81-8 and 0-81-9 are hereby reassigned to the CITY effective the date of this agreement. That Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY entered into on December 12, 1990, is hereby terminated. The parties agree that the effect of this termination and reassignment, together with the immediate partial cancellation referred to in paragraph 2 hereof is to allow the CITY to exercise its option to purchase the GDU facilities and provide water and wastewater service in the territory covered by the GDU franchises. 5. DEFINITIONS. 5.1. Class I Units - Units within the CITY which are connected to or which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY waste- water system before January 1, 1992, and which have a collection system available to them, even if the physical connection to the unit has not been made. 4 5.2. Class II Units - Units within the CITY which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY wastewater system before January 1, 1992, but which do not have a collection system available. 5.3. Class III Units - Units within the CITY other than Class I and II Units. 5.4. "Utility Service" shall be used to include rate setting, customer connections, meter installation, meter reading, billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com- plaints, collection system construction, related repair work, and all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per- formed by a utility company other than the treatment of waste- water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance of the COUNTY's lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on Exhibit "E". These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. 6. SERVICE AGREEMENT. 6.1. Effective on the Cancellation Date, the COUNTY will cease to be the utility service provider within the City and will become instead only the treatment, transmission, and effluent disposal (hereinafter "treatment") provider for all wastewater generated for all class I and II Units and for the number of Class III Units for which the CITY has purchased or does purchase permanent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment plant. 6.2. Effective on the Cancellation Date, the CITY shall become the utility service provider for all classes of customers within the service area depicted on Exhibit "A" hereof and shall, as part of this duty, provide collection systems for Class I customers in.a manner such that the interests of the Class II customers will not have been harmed by the revocation of the COUNTY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a non- discriminatory, cost -of -service rate to be charged to the CITY for treatment of the wastewater which rate shall take into account the fact that the CITY is the utility service provider 5 for all classes of units within the CITY. The rate and components which make up this rate are depicted in Exhibit "C" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. The CITY reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights of the COUNTY as described in paragraph 5. The points of interconnection between the CITY's and COUNTY's wastewater systems are depicted on Exhibit "B" hereof. To bill for the rates hereunder, the COUNTY shall install at its initial expense (to be recouped in the non-discriminatory, cost -of -service rates) meters in the pump stations to calculate usage. 6.3. Upon installation and acceptance, the metering equipment shall become the property of the provider, and the provider shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the meter. The provider shall read the meter for billing purposes. The metering equipment shall meet the standards of the American Water Works Association ("AWWA") for accuracy, which is plus or minus five percent (58). The purchaser may request an accuracy test by the provider without charge once during any twelve (12) month period. The purchaser may witness the test. Additional testing may be requested by the purchaser at the provider's established cost for such tests. Copies of the test results will be provided to the purchaser within thirty (30) days of the test. There will be no charge for tests that discover an inaccurate meter. If an inaccurate meter is found, as defined by the AWWA, bill adjustments will be made for one-half (1/2) of the preceding period since the last accuracy test. 6.4. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater system, CITY understands that it will have to comply with COUNTY Policies on the quality of wastewater put into the COUNTY system and other customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by the COUNTY countywide. C 7. TRANSFER OF UNITS. The COUNTY agrees that on the request of the CITY it will transfer to the CITY for treatment purposes also Class I and Class II Units and any Class III Units for which permanent capacity has been bought, whenever the COUNTY has a COUNTY customer available to purchase the capacity used or reserved by the units which are requested to be transferred. The COUNTY will use good faith efforts to procure a replacement cus- tomer for the capacity, and, upon receipt by the COUNTY of the COUNTY impact fee current at that time from the new customer, the COUNTY shall remit to the CITY the impact fee originally paid by the customer who is to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of money may be used by the CITY to finance the City operated replacement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for that transferred unit. Units so transferred shall not be charged an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY. B. TRANSFER OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS. The COUNTY and the CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis- connected from the COUNTY system entirely, transferred to the CITY without charge for the collection facilities, and reconnected to a new CITY system, said reconnection to be at CITY's expense, when all units on the system to be reconnected are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTY will cooperate in making these transfers. 9. CITY PURCHASE OF CAPACITY IN COUNTY PLANT. COUNTY agrees to sell capacity to the CITY under standard COUNTY poli- cies and rates. The present COUNTY policy is to expand waste- water treatment plant facilities when financially and technologi- cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan, provided that reservations are committed which will fund the expansion. Part of the reservation includes the requirement to pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges. 10. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This agree- ment is solely for the benefit of the formal parties herein and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason 7 -1 hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a formal Party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason of this agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations, covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. 11. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The agreement shall be in effect for 30 years. The termination of agreements, resolutions, and ordinances specified in paragraphs 2, and 5 hereof shall not be affected by termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this agreement on the date first above written. Attest: Jeffrey E. Barton, Clerk Attest: Clerk INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By:. N. Bird, Chairman CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: Attachments: Exhibits "A," "B," and -C- 77/29018/2 8 r Mayor SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 1991 (1) Attorney Cloud: First of all, for the record, my name is Tom Cloud. I'm with the Orlando law firm of Gregg, Harris, Robinson, and Peoples. We sent, late yesterday, a briefing document. I don't know if all of you got one. If you don't have one, I've got an extra copy here. I'd be glad to give it to you right now. They'll be available after the meeting, but I'm going to tell you everything that's in that document. It's a pretty short one. (2) There are four items I'd like to cover tonight. I'll try to be as brief as possible and answer any questions you may have. The first is to describe the status of the negotiations. I think, on the whole, they've been pretty positive. We've had a series of meetings with the County personnel. The last meeting that we had was over at the County offices. There have been some what I'll call "signal crossings" in this thing. Initially, as some of you will recall, Mr. Scurlock and other County officials indicated_ that their offer was really very open-ended; that the Cit they didn't really care, (3) Well, at our last meeting, they said they really did care, that they wanted us to either take all or none, and when asked the question that that's not exactly what you said to begin with, the response was by Mr. Scurlock, "Gosh, gee, I just don't remember what I said." So, I mean, ere's a IitTe bit of thata goes on in a negotiations, but for the most part, I think they've been very positive negotiations and I think that we're very close to an agreement right now and before we finalized it, we wanted to bring it to you to let you know where we were, get some input back from you about the agreement to see if you were satisfied with it, if we were going in the right direction. And right now, the conceptual agreement that's before you is not what I would call the best of all worlds for the City, but I think it's a lot better than the situation that you have now. (4) The agreement, the proposed agreement, that we have sent to the County and that we found out today, but for two points, they're in artrpampnt with, calls for the cancellation of the County franchise in the six months from the date that we sign the agreement. (5) It calls for the City to be a wholesale customer of the County and when you think about it, there's one of two ways to go: either we can continue to receive service with the County being a retail provider until we are readv to provide the services through our own systems,_ which is what we prefer, or you can_ receive it tnrougn a Dulx arrangement, which is what the County is now insisting upon. And this wholesale arrangement would click in at the end of that six-month period, and the City would be the retail provider of utilities, and would actually render the bills. A► Aftk (6) And most importantly, would get to make decisions without veto flLq"J "Jump!" you must iump,_or you're in breach o agreement. (7) Another provision would allow for the return of the GDU purchase option immediately upon execution of the agreement. You were not required_ to buy. GDU under this agreement, as indeed you couldn't be because there are some investigations that need to be made of the operability of the plants. Just to update the information that Mr. Hartman's already been able to ascertain by having to analyze the plants several years ago, these very plants, as well as to determine what their current price should be. (8) Another provision provides that rates to be charged by the County will be nondiscriminatory and based on a cost of service. We've actually asked since April, for some data on what those rates would be and we're still waiting to receive that and I'm sure that we will receive that from the County eventually, and certainly before we sign the agreement, because we've called for the components of the rates to be attached to the agreement; we think that's a prudent thing for you to know, and for the City to know what they're getting into before you sign. (9) Finally, the agreement provides for the later transfer -of customer flows from the County sewer plant to the City sewer plant, and that's when the City is ready, when the City has capacity available and, so that the County is not hurt, when the County has the ability to bring in another customer. And that can occur on a customer -by -customer basis. It doesn't have to occur all at once. (10) So those are the basic outlines of the agreement. And I think it's important at this point to analyze this agreement and ask yourself the question, "How does this stack up with the existing agreement you have with the County?" And I think that, again while it's not the best case that we could have hoped for, what we were initially led to believe by the County we could obtain, in fact, is still better off than the deal you have today. (11) Question from the floor: Why is that? (12) Attorney Cloud: Well, you're certainly no worse off because you're still going to be having the ultimate sewer service provided by the County. Notice I did not say water, and that's because right now, the County has no water service in the City. They have yet to run the first line to provide water service in your city. -2- AN** (13) They are serving approximately considerably less than the original capacity; in fact, most of that capac have actually put up their money. 95 units of sewer capacity; 2,000 that signed up to buy and not all of those people (14) So the demand appears to be less than what was originally thought by anyone on the system. The City's arguably better off under this arrangement because,. unlike the existing agreement which requires you to be the enforcement arm of the County, when the County says, "Jump!" and the County says, This is the assessment program that we want to place in the City --here's where we're going to serve now," under that agreement, you are required to do that. You are required to be the olicemen for . the Count in enforcingmandato nn coection, interestingly, un er.the agreement for both water and sewer, under that scenario. Under the new agreement, the decision goes back to you. The decision goes back to the City, and it's a decision that the City can then exercise based upon input from its citizens, without being overridden by a governmental entity outside of the City. (15) And, a second point, why are you better off, you get back the GDU option. And I think that the GDU option is going to be important to this City, because the one t zng the GDU systems have is expan ability, and it is the kind of thing while this agreement does not mandate you to acquire GDU, you will have the ability.to acquire GDU and if you do seek to acquire GDU, I think under your franchise options, you have the contractual right to acquire at a very favorable price, whicri you negotiated quite wisely in 1981, and with that comes expandability in both water and, if you so choose, sewer. (16 ) Now, the last item that I wanted to cover with you is two very recent phone calls that were made. I was, in an effort to try and find out where the County was with respect to what we submitted to them, I called up the County Attorney today, Charles Vitunac, and asked him, and he had indicated previously that the staff and Commissioner Scurlock were going to meet this afternoon. And I'm very pleased to report that with the exception of two items, they're in agreement with what we submitted to them. And the two items are these, and we talked about these two items with both Charles Vitunac and with Terry Pinto. We were able to reach Terry Pinto; we were sitting out there in the car talkinq with him up until about five minutes after seven; that's why we were a little late getting in. (17) But the two points are these: first of all, they would like for us to install the sewer meters. The way we had this drafted, they would install the sewer meters and bill us back for them through the rates. These sewer meters, and we believe that anywhere from three to five will need to be installed at each of the major pump stations, are fairly expensive items, and Mr. Hartman talked with Mr. Pinto about deferring the actual installation of those meters until they were -3- really necessary. Some of you may know you can actually bill based upon water consumption, rather than using a sewer meter. In fact, it's probably more accurate to do that, because sewer- meters are not terribly accurate in terms of the metering business, and I believe that Mr. Hartman was successful in getting Terry to agree that we could work on that in terms of deferring when those meters were installed. (18) The second item dealt with the timing. In the meeting, we were originally told by Mr. Scurlock, and of course there were a couple of reporters there so this is something that is very easily verifiable, that they would like for us to take over everything in January, but yeah, he could go along with four months, and we suggested back that, "Well, what about six months - it's only two months more - the actual decision of the City getting into the business is being made when we sign the agreement, what's a couple of months among friends?" Mr. Vitunac said that now Commissioner Scurlock is saying something entirely different, that he wants the City to take over in January, certainly no later than February, and get immediately into the retail business, which is different from what was said in the meeting to us. And I asked Charlie to explain to me why it was bad for the County to go along with our six month suggestion. And he really was unable to explain that, and that's when he suggested that I call Mr. Pinto and speak with him. (19) And so I had Mr. Hartman, who is our engineer, contact Mr. Pinto and the truth is, Mr. Pinto, when we got down to discussing it, said that he really didn't have a problem with it. It really.wasn't that big of a deal tohim; i but to Commissioner Scurlock, it was a big deal with him. So we suggested, and I would like to suggest to you, that you have Mr. McClary ask for some time from the County Commission so that we can discuss this with the full County Commission and try and straighten this one point out, and get it straightened out so that there's no more missed communications. That's been the one frustrating part about this agreement; they say one thing and then all of a sudden,_ it just keeps changing and mutating. (20) We're very close to an agreement, and I think you should feel quite positive about this and Mr. Vitunac has been very above -board and has dealt straight up with us, and I have only good things to say about that, and I think that we're very close to an agreement. We're still missina a couple of exhibits. I think those will be worked out in due course. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, if you think we're going in the right direction, or if you have some points that you'd like to cover. We'd be happy to listen to them. (21) Mayor Conyers: Aren't we supposed to have a meeting with the County? (22) City Manager McClary: We have a meeting set up with the County on the 26th that they specifically requested is going to be solely on the one subject of the Twin Pairs, because I had sent back and asked them -4- rN 00%, if we could include other items on the agenda, as we had done in the past, and they felt that the Twin Pairs/CR 512 issue was of sufficient magnitude that that would occupy the entire meeting, so they chose not to include other agenda items. (23) Mayor Conyers: I've got a couple of questions. First off, well it's actually it's to let some people here in the City know what's going on: Number One, people in Park Place will be glad to know that they're not going to be included in this, in the City's utilities rate; also, we've never been told where we're going to get the money to pay for all this, because I noticed some questions here on the back, and I want you all to listen to this closely: mandatory connection, mandatory assessment on each parcel based upon benefit and County capacity for assessed parcels. What's gonna happen: we're gonna have to make this say a mandatory connection, and every parcel of land you own, regardless of whether you've got a house on it or not, you're gonna be assessed on that particular lot to help finance this sewer system. And as I've said in the beginning, and I'll say it again, start from scratch in the utility and not have any idea of how we're gonna pay for it, and letting the people that said it was a good idea for us to get into it be the people that also negotiate all these deals, is not the way to go. (24) We're looking at over $6,000,000, at least, in years to come, and we've never even heard the other side of the story about what questions that maybe someone else may have about the sewer and water that we're getting into. And in particular, I'm talking about Mr. John Little, who I have asked to talk to Mr. Cloud, and I understand he did, and I understand that Mr. Cloud was supposed to answer some of his questions; I don't know if he's done that or not. I also want Mr. Little to appear here to at least let the public know some of the pitfalls of stuff we're talking about getting into down the road, such as in state health inspectors, running sewer plants, and God, the list goes on and on. (25) Another thing I'd like to challenge the City and the citizens here: come into City Hall, and I want you to read this book, this agreement, read all these agreements in our book that we've got for tonight, and see if you can figure out what we're doing. Step One goes to Step Two, and if we all do Step Three, we'll go to Step Four, and do Sten A and B. and, oh aee, what a mess! We have a problem right now with our police department. We've got a sewer system right now going right down by our police station, that we're having a problem with right now of getting hooked up with it, because it belongs to the County. The Health Department wants us to hook up because it's available. Some of the members of our staff don't seem to think that that's the way to go; that we should spend more money to put in a temporary situation and wait for down the road whenever we can get started on our sewer and water. -5- AMEN a-. (26) In fact, I just think that I have nothing wrong with having sewer and water. I think we need that. We need that for growth in this City; it's absolutely imperative that we have it. But you can see the problems that are happening. We've already got major lines that have already been laid in this City. Sewer is available; it's here; most of the work has been done. We don't have to hash this thing out all over again, and I still say these engineers and these people up here are telling us how great GDU's plant is, and they have yet to have been on the property. (27) They have yet to have been on that property... let's see, now what are they, mindreaders? They can ride by and look at it and make an X-ray vision of it, and tell us how great this GDU property is! Well, I'm here to tell you what the County says, and I'll make a note what one of our councilmen said, "Why is it a good idea when the County wants to buy it, but it's not a good idea when we want to buy it?" When the County comes in here and takes the sewer system, they'll bulldoze that plant down out there. That's what they think about it. That's all I have. (28) Councilman Oberbeck: I have several items highlighted. I don't know if they're worth rehashing, but I again would question the integrity of the County -when they stood here and said in a New York minute we could have it back. We've been paying you guys for the last few months. I look at the dates in this briefing document you've given me today, and I kinda find a lot of them hard to believe on the part of were in a position to service the customers in our city on marcn �, i99i. i aon'L Lninx LnaL nV1uS 'F± tLLC, aicaa ii vu. u The six-month period, read t a a so in the agreement and what the agreement means, and I couldn't understand myself why they shouldn't go along with a six-month period. They wanted to be cooperative. Unless that's part of the New York minute they talk about. As far as Park Place is concerned, I feel that I would insist that Park Place i part of the negotiations and that you look in the best interest of the City in negotiating it, because that is part of the City, and we can't leave that a stepchild for the community. We represent the entire City, and I would hope that you would look out for our best interest in acquiring Park Place along with the rest of the system. (29) As far as a mandatory connection, it's not unusual; 'I believe it's law. If it passes within so many feet of your property, it's mandaLed that you connect to it. I, for one, have six parcels or seven parcels of property in this community. Some of them are developed; some are not developed. I'm gonna have to pay because I think it's going to better the community. So I probably will be paying, to the best of my knowledge, seven times as much as you're paying, Mr. Mayor. But I think it's worth it. I think it's something we need, we can control our own destiny, we can bring in proper growth, and all the way down the line, this thing from the County's thing we can do is throw it out. So I bringing this briefing document. been "bassackwards." The best appreciate what you're doing in (30) Councilman Holyk: Mr. Cloud, I have just a couple of quick questions. We've listened to one thing in the press, and it's very convenient to have the press who's always there to hear how the County is willing to do anything and everything they can to help the City do this correctly. There are a couple of questions that I have. Number One, it seems to me that by the County mandating a date very near in the future for us to take, not what they said was what we felt would be best for us, but to take all or none, does that seem to you to be an effort to overwhelm the possibility of us doing this correctly, or is that just my -imagination? Could you speak to that for a moment, please? (31) Attorney Cloud: Well, you know, it's certainly not making it easy on us, is it? (32) Councilman Holyk: It doesn't sound that way to me, and I guess that's what I'm asking. Is that the easiest way for us to do it? It doesn't sound that way to me. (33) Attorney Cloud: Well, it's not the easiest way for us to do it. I really can't speculate on what the County's motivations are for that, and would not want to. I can just tell you that it's not the easiest way in the world to do that, and that a couple of extra months is not going to harm them, if their lawyer was unable to come up with any reason, in his discussion with me, how they would be harmed. Nor was Mr. Pinto able to come up with any reasons ii► his discussion with Mr. .Hartman, how the County would be harmed, and it just seemed to be emanating from Commissioner Scurlock, and it seemed like something that ought to be raised to the level of the County Commission, so that we could air this, because it's just one point in an agreement. It's something that they could give in on, that could help make this agreement work smoothly, for the benefit of the citizens of the City, who are also supposed to be County citizens. It seems like a point that could be resolved without harm to the County. (34) Councilman Holyk: I understand. (35) Attorney Cloud: I'm gonna yield to the vice mayor for one question, at his request. (36) Councilman Oberbeck: You brought up the subject that I had written down, and neglected to read off. -7- r� r (37) Councilman Oberbeck: Will we have adequate paper by then? The information that we're waiting to be afforded from the County? If they're talking January... (38) Attorney Cloud: We're still waiting for the exhibits. The exhibits are supposed to have the components for the rates, and we've been waiting for them since April; well, I'm sure they're working on them and that will happen in due course (however long that means). (39) Councilman Holyk: I guess that should be amplified just a little bit, Mr. Cloud, whatever that means, due course? It's interesting how it's yesterday and when it comes to the County, it's fifty years from 'now. That's interesting due course. The other question I wanted to touch on --help me and make sure that I understood correctly --we're talking about flow diversion type meters with respect to sewage, and that this was one of the points on which the County was saying that the City should be kinda in charge of picking that up and making sure .did I understand that correctly? (40) Attorney Cloud: Yes sir. (41) Councilman Holyk: Okay. The other half of my question then is, you started to refer to the conversation that Mr. Hartman just finished prior to the meeting, and the conversation was with Mr. Pinto, apparently there is agreement at least on Mr. Pinto's part that that could be deferred; it was not absolutely necessary. i mean, if there was a section that didn't require a specific year now, that that could be deferred... I'm sorry, please help me understand; I'm a little bit confused, Jerry. (42) Mr. Hartman: For the record, on the meter issues, my discussion with Terry Pinto tonight:. if it's a force main system tying in jus a few—more cus omers, there's no need for a meter at this time. If there's a large subdivision that comes into sewer or major gravity interceptor system program that's built for 500 units or some large portion of the City, even if you may only have one or two customers coming into that large gravity system, once that gravity system is tied into the County pump station, they want the meter on the County pump station due to potential infiltration problems in that gravity system. Now, initially, we would not build a flow diversion facility because the force main system would have more thaii adequate capacity. That would be a more future metering system that you would do. So, yes, we believe we can work these things out on the metering issues. I think what we need to do also is gather the sources and uses on the cost and budget aspects. I concur with the Mayor's statement that you've got to know all the costs, and we are doing that with them, trying to get all the costs. We don't have them tied down for you because they haven't been provided yet. ^ '1 (43) As soon as they're provided, we will provide them to you so you will know the revenues and expenses, what types of charges are applicable to the City, what are not, which charges_ we hand to our customers, what they will be billed for and won't be billed for ... a very important part of this is that once you do have the control of this system, then we can sit down with the business community and work out how, in the commercial areas and industrial areas and homeowner groups, they'll be accommodated with their engineers in the most cost-effective manner. Not to dictate necessarily the specific programs to them, but working together in this community, making our own decisions for both blocks of services. (44) Councilman Holyk: While you're both standing, let me just ask this one question, because you can probably either one or both speak to this. In any of your discussions, hasanv person among County. personnels from the County Commissioners on down, given us a reason why - +l,o., havo not armsiPGred to our questions about the rate structures and put that into an exhibit, after all these montns or asxingr given us a reason? I didn't ask for a good reason; a reason. (45) Mr. Hartman: Yes. They said that they haven't had a rate consultant look at that yet, and that the staff hasn't had time to get to it either. (46) Councilman Holyk: What kind of effort would that require? Can I have some idea? I mean, is this like 300 man-hours of work, or is this... (47) Mr. Hartman: Typically, the financial analysts for the Utilities Department should be able to pull this together. (48) Councilman Holyk: I understand. Thank you. I appreciate that. (49) Mayor Conyers: I want to make note there: you're talking about these rate schedules. It seems like all the discussion's been done and we should have known this before; we've spent all this money so far. That's one of my biggest gripes about this whole deal. We're gonna get so far down the road and have so much money into it, then you're gonna find out how much it's really gonna cost us. You should know this up front. (50) Councilman Holyk: Mr. Mayor, i agree with yuu, and I think that perhaps we should send the bill to the County for what we're gonna have to pay to get the answers to those questions. (51) Councilman Holyk: I have one other question that I wanted to ask. In terms of Park Place, we heard two statements at this point. One statement was from the mayor, and that was that the residents of Park Place would be happy to know that they were being excluded; we're going to comment on that in just a minute. The other question, or the other statement, regarding that was that we did not want to make the residents of Park Place a "stepchild of the community." Can we look at that in terms of how does that whole issue tie into the water and sewer that we're talking about with the County? (52) ).itorney­i]oud: I'd be glad to answer that because I would like to get some direction from the Council on this tonight ... I feel it's necessary. I think it's an important point and I hope you'll recognize in the letter that I sent to the County, I did not say. the City would not take Park Place. That is a mischaracterization. What I said was that, based upon the lack of data that we qot from the County_ the didn't get any of the exhibits to it), I felt that I was not in a position to recommend to you that you step in and rescind an agreement that you have not even gotten everything dealing with the agreement. Indeed, I found out tonight that apparently the County is not pressing that point. But in the original draft agreement that we got from the County, the County asked us to assume their agreement that they negotiated with Mr. Nelson Hyatt, and take over that system. And the only reason that we deleted that from the agreement is that the agreement they attached to their draft was incomplete, there appeared to be some possibility of some liability there we were uncertain of. If there are no hidden liabilities in the rest of the agreement that we didn't receive, or any other side deals that may be floating out there that we don't have a copy of, that just wasn't sent, that deal works nevertheless, that's what that agreement calls for. (53) Now, they didn't pay $775,000.00 on Day One. There's no clause in the agreement that says they pay this money over to the owner of the system. Why is that? Because they couldn't have afforded to. That system wouldn't support $77.5,000.00. How did the owner get it back? I submit to you that he's gettn paid back off the bacxs or Lhe customers in a way that we can't break. That's the sad truth of that deal. Whether the City owns it or the County owns it, the deal is what it is, and we can't change it. (54) Here's how he got paid. impact fees, and it's a break complex at a competitive disad Because he got an exemption fr First of all, he got a break on iat puts every owner of a unit in stage with the developer. Why is t having to Dav impact fees for five -10- years, so he can sell out all his units. Oh, There's no way the City can break that deal. I want you to understand that. (55) The second part of the deal is, they have a $10.00 surcharge that's been put on their rates, and that $10.00 surcharge lasts for ten years. And there aren't a whole lot of units in there. Now, I frankly $775,000.00, based on what I've seen today, even if you take all the tap fees. from that area and all the $10.00 surcharges. But you can't take that $10.00 surcharge off. It stays on there because it went with the purchase and sale of the system. We can't get rid of it. It's legally impossible without incurring massive sums of liability for the City. (56) The third deal was the land upon which the plants sat, which arguably was where the value of the assets came from, because the plants that were out there really weren't all that great. I guess the water plant's still providing water there. (57) So the water plant's still out there, but'the area that the sewer plant sat on, that land, if the County doesn't use it, goes to the developer. So he gets that land back and presumably, he can turn around and sell that land. So maybe with a combination of all those things, he does get $775,000.00. The reality o that ea is, even i the City a es It over, even i you take it over and bring them into the fold, there's nothing we can do for them because of the deal the County's struck. They've basically acquired that system on the backs of the customers,_ and that's not an uncommon deal, and they're not insisting that we take it over, but if you feel, if the City feels, that we want to take it over, I don't think they'll object. I don't think they care that much. (58) They originally requested that we do take it over, and if it's yn„r desire that we take it over, I would want you understand and go in with open eyes, there's not anything we can do in terms or cnanging that rate structure or the way the impact fees work. It's not a great deal. It's certainly not a good deal for the customers out there. One wonders what kind of deal would have been struck for the GDU system under that scenario. I don't know. But I do know that if we do agree to take on that system, that we ought to at least get the rest of the documentation. -11- ,.*) 'til is it a small development? We've been told it's just that development, but I don't know. I aven't seen the documents. Was there a side deal, that said he got $300,000.00 out of their whatever? I don't know. Before I think I could recommend to you all that we take it over, I want to have due diligence done and have a statement from the Countv that there were no hidden facts that we didn't know about. I we could do that, if we could cover ourselves in that respect, then I'm not sure that it hurts the City, but I do want you to understand that there's nothing you can do for those customers. You can't drop their rates. That $10.00 surcharge was put on there by the County in that contract. (60) Councilman .Holyk: I would hope that the residents of Park Place who may or may not understand the true nature ot the deal_ would a least borrow this tape or get_a.written transcript of it, because then they might understand. It certain y makes sense. I appreciate that explanation. Thank you. I think that's all I have at this time. (61) Councilman Reid: If anybody was listening, I think they just heard a real good reason why Sebastian ought to be in its own utility business. There's an example of just exactly the kind of a deal the County can strike, and I just don't think that we. need anymore of that kind of foolishness. When Sebastian first entertained the thought of going into its own utility system, Mr. Scurlock and some other people were quoted in the newspaper as having said, "If you want it, you've got it. You can have it this way, or you can have it that way. You just tell us what you want, and you've got it." It was in your newspaper. Sat right there during the meeting with us and said exactly the same thing. "If you want it, hey, you've got it." (62) Well, surprise, surprise! Sebastian took him up on it. And now what does he do; you know? Now he doesn't want to deliver. All we've had is just a bunch of roadblocks, a bunch of reasons why, "Well, I really didn't mean that sort of thing." Okay. My problem is, where in the world is the rest of the County Commission. Since when is the County of Indian River being run by one ma"? Anymore—than this Council should be run y one man. I think it's time that the dealings between this City and the County Commission be brought before the entire Commission. I think that this is not the time for us to continue to deal with one or two people, either on the County staff, or one of the Countv Commissioners. (63) Now, I'm shocked, really, at the lack of representation that we have had from our elected County officials. Not just on this item, but on some other items. Like lVin Peaks. (64) Comment from the floor: Twin Pairs, please! -12- (65) Councilman Reid: Okay. You know, where is our representation? Who is speaking for us? All we get is: Open your mouth, clunk, and down your throat it goes. Okay? This has happened on several deals now, and we're getting the same kind of soft-shoe dance on this item, and I think it's about time that this Council got together with the County Commission eyeball -to -eyeball and said, "Look, what's the deal, boys and girls? Where are you on this thing? Did you agree that one of your Commissioners should be dictating the policies of the entire Indian River County insofar as Sebastian getting into the water and sewer system?" (66) I think it's high time we did that, and I would strongly recommend that this Council go on record of asking for a meeting eyeball to eyeball with the whole County Commission, and get this thing straightened out once and for all. I don't think we should go into this thing on an adversarial position. I think we should go into this thing wide open, and I think the County Commission should have enough sense to do the same thing, because this is not going to do the County Commission any more good than it's doing us, and I think they should know what's happening. If they don't know what's happening, then we should make them aware of it. If they do know what's happening, then we should ask for a reason why. (67) Councilman Holyk: Did you have any other questions for Mr. Cloud? (68) Councilman Reid: I don't have any more questions for him, and I'm sorry I kept you up there while I had to get fat off of my chest. (69) Mayor Conyers: I would like to say something just for the record, and let's be fair, Mr. Reid. The City of Sebastian City Council asked the County to come in here and do this sewer thing. They asked the County to come in here and do the Twin Pairs deal. Public hearings were set; people heard about this. Previous Council, by unanimous vote, voted for this, and the only problem we've had with it so far, is that this Council doesn't want it! And because this Council doesn't want it, it's gonna cost us a duplication of things that have already been done, more money's gonna be spent, and I think fair is fair. This whole thing came about because the City of Sebastian asked for it!!! Let's get that clear. I live here, I pay taxes here, but I believe in fair. What's fair is fair, and what's right is right. And I don't believe that it's been SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS! Because, now cou.La something be shoved down our throats when we told them to come in here and do it in the first place? (70) Mr. Cloud, do you have anything else? -13- AIM* 00*) (71) Attorney Cloud: I wanted to try and answer some of the questions, and I assume they were questions and not just statements in the abstract. One dealt with Park Place. I think we've answered that one. With the financing, it's very common to finance these agreements with revenue bonds; there also are some grants available we think we can qualify for. Number Three: there's a lot of misconceptions about mandatory connection. You know, when I first started practicing law, I did (?) mandatory connections, so I happen to know quite a bit about it, including the fact that there's no case in the United States that says you can enforce mandatory water system connection on existing homes. (72) I can tell you this. Right now, if the County says, "Jump, and mandatorily connect these people out here," you can't do a thing about �it. You're stuck. But with an agreement that allows you to be the retailer, you can do something about it. You can make a decision if the people say they don't want it, not to build the pipe. If you don't build the pipe, there's no mandatory connection. That's the law in Florida. I think that answers that question. (73) With respect to Mr. Little, Mr. Hartman was asked to contact Mr. Little. I believe Mr. Hartman can address in great detail the discussions he's had with Mr. Little. If you're interested in hearing. (74) Councilman Oberbeck: Before Mr. Hartman gets to Mr. Little, could I just address something on this mandatory connection? (75) Attorney Cloud: Yes sir. (76) Councilman Oberbeck: Okay. The Mayor commented that the County has stated, or will grant the practice, of nonmandatory connection. I would defy anyone to go to the County and apply for a fence permit if a sewer line is within a thousand feet of your property, because the first place you're sent is the Utilities Department. And if sewer's in that neighborhood, you ain't getting a permit until you connect to the sewer. (77) Attorney Cloud: I agree with that. I have no problem with that at all. That's not the mandatory connection I'm talking about. i7nl rn„nr.;lman Oberbeck: Well, that is mandatory. They've got you. You ain't improving on your home. (79) Mayor Conyers: If they've got a sewer plant out there by your house, then sure. I'm saying that there's no way we can operate this City without having a mandatory connection. Your definition of mandatory lacks a lot as far as I'm concerned, because mandatory means, "mandatory, you will do." -14- Aamk .-%k (80) Councilman Oberbeck: Mr. Cloud, I'm just stating that I don't object to a mandatory connection, because it's beneficial to the entire community, and that's what we have to look out for. That's what we're elected to represent. Now if we can do a mandatory connection with a federal grant from HUD, Farmer's Home, or whoever it might be, at 50% of the cost that it's gonna cost me to do it through the County, then I'm definitely in favor of it. (81) Mayor Conyers: All these people who reserved capacity are hollering now because they're getting charged and they're not using their capacity. Wait till they get their lots down here and have to pay on an empty lot. Then, Mr. Mayor or Mr. Vice Mayor, let's see what you tell them! (82) Councilman Oberbeck:. Well, I own vacant lots, too,. Mr. Mayor, and I can't wait until... (garbled speech) (83) Mr. Hartman: .. those people wno reserves capacity, the situation riaht now is, they only paid for 20% of the cost. Another 80% will be (84) Mayor Conyers: They reserved that capacity. My point is, these people are complaining they're not hooked up, and they're being charged. And these people will complain about that when the City comes in and makes every lot in this City divided, whether you have anything on it—whatever you're doing, you're gonna be paying for this. Each separate lot. (85) Now don't shake your heads at me, because you have not come up yet with an idea how we're gonna pay for this whole system. You've talked about maybe we might be able to get some bond money. I have a hard time finding that to even be a viable solution, because I think that when it gets down to us looking for bond money, with what we have to work out of them (?) I have another problem. (86) Mr. Hartman: Thank you. I didn't mean to be argumentative at all. All I'm trying to do is advise you. You were asked if we did meet with Mr. Little; we did, and it was a very good meeting, about three hours. He's a fine person, a quality person, and I think that when you talk to him you'll see that he had an excellent meeting with us. and we're q_oinq to continue our discussions because we have a few more points to talk about, and I'd rather reserve any stast•s report of this until that time. He will then follow up and finish the report; he is doing so, and I think he was enlightened quite a bit about the situation because he talked to you both. The County and us at the same time. (87) Councilman Oberbeck: When you get done talking to him, I've got a fellow I met in Germany you can talk to, too. Maybe he can enlighten US. -15- (88) Mayor Conyers: That's the kind of thinking we have up here. (89) Councilman Oberbeck: Mr. Mayor, I think for myself. I didn't need Mr. Little to pay for me. In fact, I may be furnishing this Council with some documents with regard to Mr. Little's background. (90) Mayor Conyers: I don't have any problem with anybody standing up here and telling something about this system, because all we've heard so far is, "We may be able to do this, we might be able to do this"; we've already thrown out $40,000.00. (91) Councilman Oberbeck: We can stand back and let somebody else do it all for us, and we can pay them. (92) Attorney Cloud: If I could, the one thing that I did want some direction from you all on was on Park Place, because I think that's really in your hands. That could go either way. (93) Councilman Oberbeck: Well, Mr. Cloud, I stated my position. I just feel that those people ... we do represent those people..:they are part of our community, and I'm not in favor of giving away the farm. I know Park Place could be a little detriment to us, but the fact is that those people that come before us have stated that they wouldn't care if they even had to pay a couple of dollars more, rather than be controlled by the County. That was the position of the representatives; I believe it was Mr. Pitiak who stood before this Council last year, or earlier in the year. (94) Attorney Cloud: so, your position would be, if I may take the liberty of stating it, that assuming we can get the necessary assurances of what the liabilities are, you'd be in favor of including it in the agreement. (95) Councilman Oberbeck: Yes sir. (96) Mayor Conyers: If this City Council wants to do something for them, let's drop the franchise fee and the utility tax. That ought to help out a little. (97) Councilman Holyk: How are you going to drop it? • You just said it's illeaal. Is that right? we can't drop the franchise fees even if we take them over. (98) Attorney Cloud: Well, are they paying a franchise fee now? They're County. I guess the County's paying a franchise fee. But if we take them over, they're gonna pay a franchise fee ... they'll be your customers. -16- (99) Mayor Conyers: I would assume that you would know this information. (100) Attorney Cloud: I just told you! (101)' Mayor Conyers: You don't know who has the franchise fee ... the County or the City. (102) Attorney Cloud: I would assume the County is paying you a franchise fee. Okay, it you take over thesystem. If you take over the system you're not going to Pay yourself a franchise fee, are you? Do either of the rest of you have a feeling about Park Place? I would like to... (103) Councilman Reid: I don't want to make a decision on that until you get all the information that we need to make a logical decision. This business of shooting from the hip and saying, "Oh, hey, let's do something for those people!" Well, we have to find out what we can do for them and what kind of liability we're going to assume for the rest of the City of Sebastian. So until we get the information, I'm not going to make any kind of decision to tell you either yes or no. (104) Mayor Conyers: Absolutely. I agree with that 100 percent. That's what I've always hollered for. Get all the information. (105) Councilman Oberbeck: If I may, George, part of my statement was to do it. If he had to pursue it, pursue it in the best interest of the community. Now, they (?) gave away the farm. I would hope that they would come back and afford us the rest of the information when he can acquire it. (106) Attorney Cloud: I'll request the rest of the information... (107) Councilman Reid: If you're successful in getting it from the County, lots of luck. (108) Councilman Oberbeck: ...but I don't want to leave them out of the overall program. (109) Councilman Holyk: No, I agree that they're citizens, and we r!nn't. want to leave anvbody out of any program. Obviously, they're under a different franchise agreement is what I understand, from where it stands right now. (110) Attorney Cloud: Well, they're covered by a Purchase and Sale Agreement that defines their rights. (111) Councilman Holyk: Jerry, you had something to add to that. -17- �ID •buTgsaaaquT Apoqawos gnoqu XTPI (aaqubnPZ) LauO aaugo auq s,Ogm 'auo qugq gnogP ga6ao3 :Xoagaago uPwTTounoO (SZT) •dnoab s,aOTad APT3 sPM auo :uPwg.TPH -JW (bZT) Lsdno=b oMg aug aiaM ouM :Xoagaag0 upwTTounoo (£ZT) •••pagUeM gpuq sn pagoPquOo anPu gPgg sdnolb oMq ueaq ATuo anPu alauq 'abpaTMOUX Aw oy :upwq-TPH •ski (ZZT) • aJau Tpap aug ;o q.Tpd qou ST auoupTq agapD •uPax :X Tog upwTTouno5 (TZT) ... qnq 'sAnb noA aXTT I 'noA anrb Oq quPM q,UOP I " 'Puuob noA a3P Mou JO 'aojawwo3 ;o .Tagwpu0 TpooT auq ugTM qubTu auo a=au gaaw nob pTnoM LbuTgaaw adAq PausTTgnd P aq sTug TTTM 'pauaaOUOO auOA=ana goagoad oy :Xoagaag0 UPwTTounoO (OZT) •MouX oq ApogAaana quPM gsnC I qnq 'gpaa6 'wauq oq gPuq anTb upo nOA ;T pup 'uOTgPw30;UT aaow qOT P spaau Aq?unwwoo aql :pTag uparTTounoO (6TT) •••Agrunwwoo auq 3o; qT burop TTTgs az,noA :3(1,TOH UPwTTounoO (8TT) ---quads TTaM AauOw s,qT XuTc{q I „;quads aM Aauow auq TTP qP XOOM„ 'sAPs PUP iagPT sawoo ouM Apoqawos gpug eons aXpw oq gupM gsnC I :PTag uPwTTounoO (LTT) gpi{q noA TTaq uP0 I 'buTugou io; qT op Puuo6 qou az,Aauy :saa uO0 zo PW (9TT) •abzoa0 'aoTn-7as Agrunwwo0 'qT zO; Aed Puuob aa,noA as-Tnoo ;0 :Xoagaago uPwTTounoO (STT) Lawrg gPug .To; Apd Puuob am azV LawTq auq ao; Apd Puuo6 s,ouM :PTag uPwTTouno5 (VTT) 'UOTUTdo Aw s,geuq qnq 'TTounoo aTOuM auq -70; Xpeds g,upo I 'UOTuTdo Aw s,gPuy •gpuq op oq noA abzn I 'qT og Pasoddo qou I wP ATuo qou 'ou 'pau.zaOUOo w,I SP 3p; sy :X Tog uPwTTOuno5 (ETT) 'aTdoad asogq ugTM sbuTgaaw ;o OTdnoo P anPq oq 5UT06 a.T,aM uagM pup suoTgpuTgwoo iaMas qP buTXoo7 •sburuq ;o sadAq asoug pup 'AgTO aqq To; pup AgTO auq uT pe.zPda.Td 'ubTsap Tengdeouoo AZan P ;o adAl :ubTsap AuPUTwTTaad auq ;o uoTgdaoiaquT au -4 pup swPzboid aaMas au -4 ssnosTP PUP 'wauq Oq XTPq oq sn io; paXsP anPq Oqm aTdoad aaggo PUP AgTunwwoo ssauTsnq auq og qno ob oq uorssrwaad anoA buTgsanbea eap am :uPwg.TeH '.TFI (ZTT) Am%, Awwk (126) Mr. Hartman: The Park Place group... (127) Councilman Oberbeck: Could we not let them come in here, and you guys have a meeting right here or at our community center one night, so we don't go broke? I mean, a community meeting... one night! (128) Mr. Hartman: If there's too many people, it would be very difficult to accomplish a lot and... (129) Councilman Holyk: But by the same token, it may also answer questions that you wouldn't have to repeat, so that there is validity of doing that. I think if it gets out of hand, and that becomes obvious where you have people standing on Main Street waiting to get up here and speak, I think it's obvious that that's not gonna work, then you can begin to consolidate people a. little bit by a specific spokesman for a larger group of people, but still it may not be unwise to at least try that. (130) Councilman Oberbeck: Pete, was it not effective the night we opened up the community center and had the County up to answer questions to the public? Will you do the same thing here? That's big . enough to accommodate both groups with no problem. Just schedule a meeting one night and that's it, and we'll pay once. (WSEBMTG.CEW):cew -19- COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO SEBASTIAN MEETING 11/6/91 (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. .. ,•.} (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. (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 1#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. (44) See answer to paragraph 8. (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. in - (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 n53.) (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. (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. (83) This is incomprehensible and shows a misunderstanding of the County policy on rates and charges. (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 Lu generate revenue for the City. The County would be perfectly pleased to remove the franchise fee at the request of the City. - 16 - (102) See above. Mir" A G R E E M E N T BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND NELSON HYATT RE: COUNTY TAKE-OVER OF UTILITY SYSTEM THIS AGREEMENT, made this 11th day of July 1989, between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 (COUNTY) and NELSON HYATT (SELLER), whose address is 12505 North A -1-A, Vero Beach, FL 32963 W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, SELLER is the owner of a water and wastewater utility system servicing a portion of the City of Sebastian; and WHEREAS, COUNTY has embarked on a program of providing quality water and wastewater service to as much of Indian River County as Is financially feasible; and WHEREAS, as part of this program, the COUNTY has approached SELLER concerning purchasing h'ls utility system; and WHEREAS, SELLER has agreed to this purchase by COUNTY, provided that he will have five years rn which to finish his development, without paying Impact fees, and for those units sold before the end of the five-year period, Impact fees will have to be paid only as those units are resold; and WHEREAS, SELLER would like to receive a return of his initial capital Investment of some $777,000 used to construct the utility; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to this, provided that only the customers in the service area of SYSTEM at the date of this agreement shall be charged for this expense, NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein as well as other good and valuable consideration, the COUNTY and SELLER agree as follows: 1 1 2 1. EXHIBITS TO BE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT: Attached to this agreement are certain exhibits which shall be considered to be Integral parts of this agreement as much as If they were written In this agreement. This list of exhibits is as follows: Exhibit "A" - Description of all personal property, customer deposits, and fixtures included in sale of SYSTEM. Exhlbit "B" - Legal description of real property (PROPERTY) to be sold to COUNTY. Exhibit "C" - Description of all easements to be transferred to COUNTY. Exhibit "D" - Service area of utility SYSTEM. 2. DEFINITIONS: A. SYSTEM - For convenience, the term MUM%i3 tl �Hza`f Ra ?'ass>, , ;Flus; rlessir In which It has a legal interest i wRT6T,-�g-i.{*io-.*hwi-016 firs which are being purchased by COUNTY and which Include the following: (1) The Items of inventory described in i Exhibit "A." M ail i" btffidingS^and'Itnprovemehtt: %, +• il�bbn, SELLER shall transfer' -off o _-iE'V.pie'tifle�to Al 1,-of-sald'real (3) All easements, licenses, rights of way, and consents owned by SELLER for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SYSTEM, Including the easements specifically set forth on Exhibit "C." (4) All water and wastewater plants, lines and facilities of every kind and description whatsoever, Including collection mains, transmission mains, effluent distribution pipes, lift stations or facilities, 2 valves, service connections, and all other physical facilities and property Installations In use In connection with the SYSTEM. (5) All of SELLER's rights of every character whatsoever and all certificates, Immunities, privileges, permits, licenses, easements, consents, grants, ordinances, leaseholds, and rights of way., and all rights to construct, maintain, and operate plants and systems for the collection of sewage and promises of water and every right of every character whatever In connection therewith; and all renewals, extensions, additions, or modifications of any of the foregoing; (6) Copies of all past and current customer records, books, prints, plans, engineering reports, surveys, specifications, shop drawings, equipment manuals and other Information required by COUNTY which are in possession of SELLER or Its agents on the closing date pertaining to the operation of the system. (7) A set of record drawings, including as -built drawings, if available, showing all facilities of the utility system, Including structural, mechanical, and electrical detalIs. Such drawings shall also Include any original tracing, sepias, or other reproducible material where same Is In possession of SELLER. B. EXCLUDED ASSETS - Cash or bank accounts of SELLER which are SELLER's sole property and which are not subject to refund to customers or which have no application to specific purposes or uses of the SYSTEM. 4. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: COUNTY agrees to deed the real property described on Exhibit "B" to SELLER when the COUNTY no longer uses the property in Its utility operation or at the end of ten years from the date of this agreement, whichever comes first; provided that if at the end of ten years the COUNTY stI11 needs the property, the COUNTY shall pay the fair market value of the property to SELLER, and SELLER shall have no further claim against the property. 3 S. WARRANTY OF TITLE; HOLD HARMLESS: SELLER shall warrant title to all the real and personal property in SYSTEM and shall hold the COUNTY harmless from any and all claims for damages from third parties, and in particular for any claims from LAKE DELORES UTILITIES AND CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS, INC. 6. IMPACT FEES: After five years from the date of this agreement SELLER shall be obligated to pay Impact fees to the COUNTY, at the rate then current, for each unit which thereafter requires a Certificate of Occupancy. Units which have had a Certificate of Occupancy Issued to them before five years from the date of this agreement must have an Impact fee paid when that unit Is resold, without regard to the five-year SELLER's grace period. At closings on such sales, SELLER or successor in title shall collect the impact fee and remit It to COUNTY, 7. SURCHARGE ON RATES: COUNTY shall establish a surcharge on water and wastewater rates for customers in the service area as shown on Exhibit "D." The surcharge shall be collected by the COUNTY for ten years only or until $777,000.00 has been paid, whichever comes first, and funds so collected shall be remitted quarterly to SELLER. SELLER agrees that the funds so remitted shall be full satisfaction for SELLER's right to be reimbursed for its equity in the SYSTEM. The COUNTY surcharge shall be $10 per ERU (equivalent residential unit). 8. CLOSING DATE: The closing shall take place on or before August I, 1989. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date first set forth above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest By ary FeeTer Chaff man e y ar t6n� Cler t rjhe--�Qoa�yd"'� (SEAL) a,n U Aperoved Ualn C AImin %e S-�-b ��nness mac.✓/ Witness fJR i e75 n yatt%"— t . Attachments: Exhlblts "A," 118," "C," and "D" RE: NELSON HYATT WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES 1. No inventory is included With the purchase. coLzas THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT, made and executed this _15th day of _June __. A.D. 1989, by NELSON C. HYATT. whose Post Office address Is 12505 N. A -1-A Vero Beach, FL 32963, hereinafter called GRANTOR, to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, hereinafter called GRANTEE. (***Whenever used herein, the terms -GRANTOR and GRANTEE Include all the parties to this Instrument and their heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns.) WITNESSETH: That Grantor for and In consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS and other valuable consideration, receipt of which Is hereby acknowledged by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, allen, remise, release, convey, and confirm unto the Grantee, a perpetual easement of 10 - feet In width for utilities over, across, and beneath �Fe following described land, situate in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF and EXHIBIT "A-1" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AND Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor Is lawfully seized of said servient land In fee simple, and that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to convey the easement established hereby and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. q IN WITNESS, -WHEREOF, the Granto has hereunto set cZZ Grantor's hand and seal the day/ d year first above written. n e Signed sealed and del Iv ed In the pres ce of: 0 a S. I ss Ne Ry - • '� r I. 1 e s STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER w .. SWORN TO and subscribed before me by •NELSON C. HYATT, on this 12LI1day of _- June 1989. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF FLORIDA, MF COMMISSION EXPIRES: DEC. I4.1995. DOC. ST. - AMT. 9 • 5 S JA eA ffcil. -tY, 01 C11091 Cony InEfiw River Comty - bya"'d4.Su`' T7tiB Jocumcnt was pr. rnrcd luy V nrd rL'nuld Le r -n 1 :0 hn rr.:al.y �.:: o:::^y': t;•ficR, Jl., Y:ra li L•:1 C)1, Florida S::ri%ll Al 0. R. 836 PG 1237 J Parcel SEA #85 - North County Sewer Easement EXHIBIT A l A 10 foot non-exclusive utility easement from the west right-of-way of U. S. Highway No. 1 running in a westerly direction within the 80 foot right-of-way of Stratton Avenue on the northerly side thereof, to be located within a 10 foot area from the existing pavement extending to the existing sewer plant and from there to the existing lift station, the said Stratton Avenue traversing the real property described in Exhibit A-1. 0. R. 836 PG 1238 Centerline description of a proposed 10' easement lying 5' feet on each side of the following described line[ Being a part of Government Let 13, section 21: Township 31 south, Range 39 east and a part of the southeast 1/4 of Section 20. Township 31 south, Range 39 east. Indian River County, rlorida*, being more fully described as followet Comnencing at the intersection of the west right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 11 and the north line of the south 550 feet of Government Lot 03, Section 21, Township 31 south, Range 39 east, thence N 26.00' M (assumed bearing) along said right -of- way line, 108.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, thence S 83052' 30- W. 196.00 feet; thence N 85.16'05' N, 111.45 feet, thence N 68.17'35' H, 180.45 feet; thence S 89'56'52' W. 378.28 feet: thence 8 e5'07'10' W. 104.20'feet. thence S 63'47'50' w. 357.78 feet$ thence along a curve to the left having a delta of 64.052 17', a radius of 370 feet, an arc length of 413.86 feet, thence 8 0.17127' R. 400 feet, thence along a curve to the right having e delta of 70.001, a radius of 280.00 feet, an arc length of 342.08 feet; thence S 69*42.33' W. 90.10 feet; !hence N 20'17.27' H, 40.00 feet to the terminus of said eanterllne. Subject to a11 ea cements and rights of way of record. _ TAx La, Tlo.-. 11-]\•lq- 000n0 }000• O0o 01.4 OWHf 0.'. '4. SZ CQ NEHr ,11L£s mow. 1O. E\• ]1• 00000- ,oeo• \ 00 n0 E.4 NGLSOq C.MYgTT \ TwerosEO ."l T. e' F` tyY'tT p•41'OS'\l A • 41 E.BB I - \ \• ]4- oOn00- �� lOH Y11LLE4 . TAx 1.0. Hn.: 10-�1. 31 - 00000 - 9nn' OwNE0.: tyE Lt'!l C. H`r A11 9O5'o710 w NBS"IC OS•w •n4.2n - NLaS` F 359.70 Ne0'li'15w 00000- 1 7000 - OOOb E.O %_t'\ FATO0. LUMAE0. CO. 1NG r 1 \ 10•Et-]9• 0. as Oo00n- loo'. � 00004.1 �eS G\T`f N 10-31-34.00000• 8+1 Y.E£A3T\MI °� 7000• n000 T.O q I \ N1LE1 11• A. 1TttNtH CT t1 /P/ - 10•]1-1e- 00000• \ 1!\tT1Nq IITT I. 1000- OOOa .O \ aT A.•1N 4. ldeeee- NILE[ S4 1BO.Oe A. D1ElMEH C1 R) f /� n . 3♦>.ea %4q' 11 40.00 10.00 �to0.TN Sc. ALE. �" • 300` 'll- EI-E4- 6n000- 0010- 00 4 OWlIE q: HELEnH t f N rATT 4 w•o O• aeO.V lei GL•• fl6 ° O xa.an ,J 00000• Oe0]0- 000e1.1 9PEaf7C PURPOSE SURREY 1O �f rA�"r •1O°�101 �"' N07E.THIS SURI'£Y SJC£7CH IS PREPARED f7?0,V INFO4MARON SUPPLIED RYWLNAN RII•£R IME CORP. NO PHYSICAL SURI'£Y CORNETTS SET. PRFPARED FOR NO47H COUNTY SEVER PRaCCT ACAUIW7/ON CER77f7CA 77ON.- I.ROO REED, HEREBY C£R77FY THAT THE' SURI-EY SHOW HEREON WAS PERFORMED S -7 -o -A9 AND SAID SURI'EY MEF7S 7HE MINIMUM 7ECHNICAL STANDARDS PURSUANT 70 SEC77CW 472.027 CF 7HE fZCRIDA STATUTES AND CEFARED ICt 21HH-6 CF 7HE ADMINIS7IU I7I£ CODE XHIBIT RLS /(7916 M -MAS TELLER, MOL ER & REED INC. M PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PHONE 589-4810POST OFFICE BOX 1045 ORANING SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32958 1 cc n R Pr 1 7.i9 r„ A The South .,,4 a n South 1/4, Section 20, ss skip 31 South, Rassge• 39 East. Parcel 2s The Southeast 1/4 or tlse Southeast 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 Fast, LESS that portion lying East of the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way., Parcel Jr The West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, EXCEPT, the following three parcels of lands A. Beginning at a point '25 fect East of the North- west corner 'of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run East 47 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 47 feet, thence North 150 feet to the Point of Beginning. B. Beginning at a point 72 feet East of the North- west corner of the southeast 1/4 ofthe Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, thence East 100 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 100 feet, thence North 150 feet to Point of Beginning. . C. Beginning at a point 25 feet East of Southwest corner of Southeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run North 50 feet thence East 100 feet; thence South 50 feet, thence West 100 feet to Point of Beginning. LESS road right -o£ -way. Parcel 4s The West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 29, Town- ship 31 South, Range 39 East. Parcel 5s That part of the NE 1/4 of BE 1/4 of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West of the West right-of-way of Florida East Coast Railroad, LESS.AND EXCEPT the following two parcels of lands A. "The North 6.5 acres of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4. B. The South 150 feet thereof. The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, LESS and EXCEPT the followings 1. The North 6.5 acres thereofs 2. The South 150 feet lying West of the FEC right-of-ways 3. The South 550 feet lying East of the FEC right-of-way/ 4. Right-oE-way for U. S. Highway Al and FEC Railroad. That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West of U. S. Highway Al right-of-way, less the South 55U feet thereof. EXHIBIT A-1 r 0. R. 836 PG 1240 S SCj.uo'CO A UW OFFICE OF T. OALIAGNER , O bt I,OJ T e11<R. noe.w )21..190) IIL1„RU.•,i 11; BOOK ] PAGCjaLLNVI walla /Er, Be NOV -3 All 9: 34 FRER,; S�'�argr ; I,FRK OF Cl[CLOI COURT 1191;1t! 11YIIlLO.Ji.A. 57403y- 5=3093 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 88-0180 CA -09 Judge Paul B. Ranarek NELSON C. HYATT, rn SI ATE of FLORIDA ,_,I- _ •�T-n':• Plaintiff, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY -' O I'I '•I, TNIS IS TO CERTIFY 114AT THIS IS i; ��=-' i _i! IT' Vs. A TRUE AND CORIEECT CORY OF ^?i `j fV `O•' IME JRIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS TAT_ __j f?j OFFICE. R. STEPHEN MILESF JR., FR = IG LER �'. �_-i. _ _��0C iq c as Trustee, et al.,eY 0.4 ��n=' �?: _ (v Defendants. DATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE The undersigned Clerk of the Court certifies that she -executed and filed a Certificate of Sale in this action on the day of October, 1988, for the property hereinafter described, said sale having been confirmed by the Court. . The following property in Indian River County, Florida, DCC. ST. - NAT. 1,5 =527= to -wit: FRFOA WRML Clak of CYcull Cout tldm PoYa Canty - bye„ I Parcel 1E �L The South 3/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. 'Parcel 21 The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 Fast, LESS that portion lying East of the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way.. Parcel 31 The West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, EXCEPT, the following three parcels of lands A. Beginning at a point 25 feet East of the North- west corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run East 47 feet, thence South 150feet, thence West 47 feet, thence North 150 feet to the Point of Beginning. B. Beginning at a point 72 feet Feet of the North- west corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, thence East 100 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 100 feet, thence North 150 feet to Point of Beginning. �XN&// ” n n n nan rin ngan f F¢E UGNFfl .m •wniw z C. Beginning at point 25 feet East of Southwest .corner of Southeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run North 50 feet thence East 100 feet, thence South 50 feet, thence West 100 feet to Point of Beginning. LESS road right-of-way. - Parcel 4E The West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 29, Town- ship 31 South, Range 39 East. Parcel 5, That part of the NE 1/4 of BE 1/4 of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West of the West right -o£ -way of Florida East coast Railroad, LESS AND EXCEPT the following two parcels of lands A. The North 6.5 acres of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4. B. The South 150 feet thereof. TOGETHER WITH the utility and water system, lines, plant and all facilities relating thereto and located on and being incorporated in the real property above described. SUBJECT TO.a first mortgage to First Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association dated September 11, 1984 and recorded in Official Records Book 0693, Page 2040, and Official Records Book 0696, Page 2939, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, in the original.principal amount of $3,000,000.00. (Modular homes are not included.) was sold to Nelson C. Hyatt, 12505 N. AIA, Vero Beach, FL 32693 WITNESS my hand and the seal of this Coµrt this a� day of October, 1988. "`• FREDA WRIGHT Clerk o the Circj t Court r:a By Deputy Cler I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate of Title was furnished by U. S. Mail this .. day of October, 1988, to the parties named'ori';the attached mailing list. '•"'�"""• C" m N CM M O O O nn nm pp, L1 The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, Town" hip 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, LESS and EXCEPT the followings I. The North 6.5 acres thereof; 2. The South 150 feet lying West of the FEC right-of-way; 3. The South 550 .feet lying East of the FEC right -o£ -way; 4. Right-of-way for.U. S. Highway 11 and FEC Railroad. That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West of U. S. Highway p1 right-of-way, less the South 550 feet thereof. f.. Exhibit "A" VILLAGES OF LAKE DOLORES FRANCHISE LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 - The South 3/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the South- east 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. PARCEL 2 - That part of the Southeast 3/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying west of the Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way: PARCEL 3 - The Hest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, except the following 2 parcels of land: 1. Beginning at a point 25 feet east of the Northwest Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the - Northwest 1/4 of Section 29-31-39, run east 147 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence west 147 feet,. thence north •150 feet to point of beginning; and 2. Beginning at a 'point 25 feet east of' the Southwest corner of Southeast 1/4 of North- west.1/4 of Section 29-31-39, run north 50 feet, thence east 100 feet, thence south 50 feet, thence. west 100 feet to the point of beginning; less road right-of-way. PARCEL 4 - The Nest 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. Said property lying and being In Indian River County, Florida. PARCEL 5 - That part of the southeast quarter of the south- east quarter of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East lying Nest of the F.E.C. Railway right-of-way. PARCEL 6 - That part of the northeast quarter of the south- east quarter of said Section 20, lees the north 6.5 acres there- of; and less the south 150 feet lying west of the F.E.C. Railway right-of-way, and rights-of-way for the F.E.C. Railway and U.S. Highway No: 1. rn Z i LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCE AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF STRATTON AVENUE AND BRISTOL STREET, AS.SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF ! SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 17, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8 PAGE 46 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, h FLORIDA, AND RUN ACCORDING TO THE SAID PLAT lV 1 . S 0° 29' 01° E ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF BRISTOL STREET A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET. THEN RUN EAST 25.00 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BRISTOL I� STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THEN RUN ALONG A 1014.13 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, WITH A CHORD BEARING OF N 830 37'33" E, THROUGH A J CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 44' 54°, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 225.64 FEET TO A POINT. . THEN RUN S 00 29' 01° E A DISTANCE OF 169 FEET TO A POINT. THEN RUN WEST 224 FEET TO A POINT. THEN RUN N 0029' 01° W A DISTANCE OF 144 FEET TO THE POINT m OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.80 ACRES, LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. �I THE SETTING OF PROPERTY CORNERS IS BEING DEFERRED AT THE REQUEST OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCE AT THE NE CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND RUN S 0° 45' 33" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE AFORESAID 40 - ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 211.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING THEN RUN S 89° 09'47" E A DISTANCE OF 108.90' FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY ( 100 FEET WIDE). THEN RUN ALONG THE WEST RIGHT -OF- WAY, S 26° 00' 12" E A DISTANCE OF 659.37 FEET TO A POINT LYING N 26"00' 12" E 12 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF PAVEMENT OF AN UNDEDICATED ROAD. THEN RUN S 890 14'27"W A DISTANCE OF 390.07 FEET TO THE AFORE- MENTIONED 40 -ACRE LINE. THEN RUN N 0045'33"W ALONG THE SAID 40 -ACRE LINE A DISTANCE OF 599.43 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 3.419 ACRES AND LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 1*1*4001111305 1 ^1 'Ej�IBIT "Cy ^' 4b l baa "- Engineers Pionners Economists Scientists December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 Mr. Terry Pinto Director, Utility Services Division Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394 Subject: Bulk Wastewater Rate Letter Report Work Order No. 6 authorized CH2M HILL to conduct an analysis of the cost to Indian River County of providing bulk wastewater transmission, treatment, and disposal service and to develop rates to recover those costs from potential bulk wastewater system users. This letter report presents the results of this evaluation. The recommended rates are directly applicable to the County's contemplated service to the City of Sebastian. Background Indian River County (the County) currently provides wastewater service on a retail basis to customers in various locations in Indian River County, including a small portion of the City of Sebastian (the City). The City is currently considering purchasing a privately owned wastewater utility that serves the remainder of the City. In anticipation of this acquisition, the City has requested that the County convey to the City the right to provide retail wastewater service to customers located within the City limits which are currently served by the County. At least initially, the County would continue to provide bulk wastewater transmission, treatment, and disposal ser- vices to this service area. However, the County would relinquish responsibility for operation and maintenance of the collection system, and retail customer billing and collection services to the City. Master meters would be installed at the City's expense to measure the total wastewater flows from the City to the County's system. CH2M HILL Southeast Florida Office Hillsboro Executive Center North. 600 Fairway Drive, Suite 350 305.426.4008 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 407.737.6665 Mr. Terry Pinto Page 2 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 Report Organization The remainder of this letter report presents the underlying assumptions, the analysis, and the recommended bulk wastewater rates to be paid by the City of Sebastian and other customers requesting similar service. The study findings and recommendations are presented along with an overview of the methodology used. Detailed rate calcu- lations are included in the appendix. Study Assumptions The following assumptions were used in calculating bulk wastewater rates: • All wastewater rates are charged on a uniform systemwide basis for similar classes of service, i.e., all users are assessed the same rates for the same type of service. • Bulk users will be charged rates designed to recover their proportionate share of the County's wastewater system costs including transmission, treatment, disposal, and their share of the customer and billing costs for the master meter bill for bulk wastewater service. • The County will continue to own, operate, and maintain force mains running through and serving Sebastian. • Sebastian will purchase and install approximately five master meters to measure its flow and then donate these meters to or reimburse the County for the cost of installation. • The County will be responsible for operating, maintaining, and reading the master meters; the City will reimburse the County for these costs. • Bulk customers will be responsible for meter and service maintenance, meter reading, customer billing and collection, and any line maintenance between force mains and service mains for retail customers in their service area. • Bulk users will pay a billing charge, a base facility charge per equivalent residential unit (ERU), and a volume charge per 1,000 gallons of wastewater flow. The rates charged to bulk users per account, per Mr. Terry Pinto Page 3 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 ERU, or per 1,000 gallons will be adjusted, as needed, to reflect the bulk users' cost of service. • The volume rate per 1,000 gallons of wastewater flow will be based on 100 percent of metered wastewater flow, with no maximum. This differs from retail rates which are based on 85 percent of the customers' metered water consumption, with a 10,000 gallon cap for residential users. • The bulk users will continue to use the County's ERU system. Analysis The bulk rates recommended in this report are based on the retail wastewater rates presented in CH2M HILL's, September 1991 Independent Evaluation and Update of the Indian River County Water and Wastewater Fee and Rate Study and associated cost -of -service analyses. The retail wastewater rates presented in the September report were modified as needed because bulk users provide their own wastewater collection services and billing and collection services for retail customers in their service area. A detailed line item review of the County's operating budget was performed by County and CH2M HILL staff to identify those costs incurred to provide collection services; transmission, treatment or disposal services; and administrative services. Administrative costs were then redistributed between collection and transmission, treatment, and disposal services in proportion to the distribution of the directly allocated costs. System capital costs (debt service, debt service reserve, and renewal and replacement costs) were similarly allocated between collection and transmission, treatment, and disposal processes. For bulk rate calculations, the identified collection system costs were deducted from the system costs, and base facility and volume rates were developed from the residual transmission, treatment, and disposal costs. Two exceptions should be noted: 1. All construction fund costs, over and above those costs for renewal and replacement, were deducted from the system costs for the bulk rate calculations. The rationale for this procedure is the County's expectation that expenditures from this fund would be allocated for retail service improvements or for future growth, not for bulk users. Mr. Terry Pinto Page 4 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 2. All of the debt service on the Gifford FHA bonds and associated debt service reserve were, with staff acknowledgement, included in the bulk rate calculations. The inclusion of this debt in the bulk rate calculations was based on the low interest rate, long-term financing that the County was able to obtain through the Farmers Home Administration on the treatment plant and other improvements. Thus, because of the overall benefits to the system of this financing, which was only available due to the inclusion of the collection improvements, the portion of the debt service on the Gifford Bonds that was collection related was included in the bulk rate calculations. Proposed Bulk Rates The proposed bulk wastewater rates are shown in Table 1. The proposed bulk rates follow the same structure as the retail rates, with a billing charge, base facility charge, and a volume rate. The rates assessed per equivalent residential unit and per 1,000 gallons of wastewater flow have been adjusted to reflect the cost of providing bulk wastewater service. The calculation of each rate component is discussed below. Billing Charge When Sebastian converts to bulk user status, as opposed to remaining individual retail users, the County will have to send only one bill per meter to Sebastian. Because the difference in the number of accounts on the County's system is small, no change in the billing charge is calculated. Thus, bulk users will pay the same billing charge as the retail customers, $2.00 per account per month. Base Facility Charge The base facility charge, where master plan lines are available, is designed to recover a large proportion of the system's fixed costs which generally exhibit little change in response to a change in wastewater flows. The base facility charge includes a portion of the system operation and maintenance costs, all debt service costs, debt service reserve costs, renewal and replacement costs, and construction fund costs. For the bulk rate calculations, the portion of the fixed operating costs related to the collection system, collection -related debt service, debt service reserve, renewal and replacement, and all construction fund costs were deducted from the fixed costs. The base facility charge for bulk users would be $10.83 per ERU per month in comparison with $12.25 per ERU per month for retail customers. Mr. Terry Pinto Page 5 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 Volume Rate The volume rates are designed to recover a portion of the system's fixed costs and all of the system's variable costs, or costs that vary with the volume of wastewater collected and treated. All of the system's variable costs are operation and maintenance costs. The portion of the variable operating costs that were determined to be collection related were deducted from the total variable operating costs for the bulk rate volume charge calculation. As a result, the volume rate for bulk users declines to $3.20 per 1,000 gallons, from $3.35 per 1,000 gallons for retail customers. It should be noted that the volume rate for bulk users applies to the total volume of wastewater metered through the customers' master meters, with no maximum volume or cap. Retail rates, however, are based on 85 percent of the users' water consumption with a 10,000 -gallon per month maximum for residential customers. Retail customers are subject to an excess use surcharge when wastewater flow exceeds 11,000 gallons per ERU per month. Because of the blending effect of a master meter, excess use by some individual customers of a bulk user is offset by the lower use of other customers. Therefore, for bulk customers the excess use surcharge should apply at a use rate greater than the level corresponding to the reserved capacity, based on the number of ERUs in the system and the flow per ERU. An excess use surcharge, equal to of the excess volume surcharge charged to retail customers, would be charged only on flows exceeding the reserved capacity in any given month. All provisions of the County's rate ordinance relating to purchasing of additional ERUs should apply. Recommendations CH2M HILL recommends that the County: • Enact the proposed FY 1991-92 bulk wastewater rates. The County should offer to provide this service at the proposed rates to the City of Sebastian or to any other bulk user. Contracts for bulk wastewater service should include provisions for annual updating of these rates. • Contracts for bulk wastewater service should include provisions for the assessment of an impact fee to the City by the County for transmission, treatment and disposal capacity. The impact fees should follow the same fee schedule as charged to retail customers by the County, as Mr. Terry Pinto Page 6 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 these capital fees are designed to recover system transmission, treatment, and disposal capacity, and do not include any collection system costs. • If the City eventually provides transmission, treatment, and disposal services to the proposed service area, the County should reimburse the City for impact fees collected from City retail customers, as the County obtains other customers who wish to purchase the capacity previously used by the City. We appreciate this opportunity to again be of service to Indian River County. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please call me. Sincerely, 9�2M HILL avid D. Green Economist set/dbt128/008.51 Table 1 Indian River County Recommended Rates Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 Relall89arer Rat" 1992 1493 Billing Charge - per Account per Month 52.00 52110 Base Factllty Charge Where Linea Are Avallahle - per ERU per Month S12.25 513.50 Base Faculty Charge Whefe Capeclty is Reserved, But Liner Are Not Available - per BRU per Month 56.13 $6.75 Volume Charge • per 1,000 gattona Estimated Wastewater Flow 53.35 $3.35 (95 percent of water use - 10,000 gallons/rnomh maximum for raidendal customers) Excwt Volume Surcharge - Grwor than 11,000 g►llons per month Per RRU 54.05 $4.45 Brak Serrer Rata BillingCIwSo- pvAocounlperMonth $2.00 $2.00 Base Facility Chcgo Whom Mutcr Plan Linea Aro Available - perERUper Month $10.93 $11.97 Base Facility Charge Where Capacity Is Roeorvod, But Linea Are Not Arallable - per E.RU per Month Volume Charge - por 1,000 gallons mucrcd xastGwatcr flow Excess Volume Surcharge - Greater than 11,000 gallons per month per ERU (a) (a) Surcharge for bulk uteri will apply to flow exceeding reserved by bulk user In all meten. $5,42 $5.99 S3.20 $3.19 $4.05 $4.45 surOwrgc txpµity 1719 W741 ?Incl rye! I'?n ?F_p1_yn Appendix Table I Indian River County Retail and Bulk Sewer Bane Facility Charge Rate Calculation for 199I and 1993 RNail 1992 1993 Sewer Fixed Coots $3,399,081 S4277A48 Appendix Table I Indian Rlvtr County Retail and Bulk Sewer Baas Facility Charge Rafe Calculation for 1992 and 1993 Sewer Flnod Coats $3.399.021 $4277A42 Number of ERUe 23,123 26,404 Billing Perim 13 12 Monthly Rate Per CRU $12.25 $13,50 Sewer Fixed Costs $3,399,081 $4277,448 Lcxs Cullcutiun Rola" FixW O&M CtAw $210,875 $227,744 Leu: Collection Related Debt Service $0 $0 Lea: Collection Related Debt Service Reserve $0 $0 Leu: Collection Related Renewal arW Replacement $16,367 $28,847 Lose Construction Fund $103,944 $x26 833 Net Fixed Costs $3,005,695 $3,794,019 Number of 13RUs 23,123 26,404 Billing Perioda 12 12 Monthly Rate Per ERU $10.83 $11,97 STIR W HI WAJI WV 1 :711 n -OI -60 Appendix Table 2 Indian River County Retail and Bulk Serer Volume Rate Calculation for 1992 and 1993 Sewer Variable Cotu $1,527,446 $1,565,633 WastewaterFlown(IMO's Gallons) 455,954 467,353 Volume Rate Per Thousand Gallons $3.35 $3.35 Sewer Varlable Costa 51,527,446 $1.565,633 Loss: Collection Related Variable O&M Coln M7 YA S72.96S Not Vnriabk Coot: $1,459,996 S1,492,668 Wottewster Flows (1,000'e GalionO 455,954 467,353 Volume Rate Per Thousand Gallons 53.20 53.19 F,�T 771U @741 Nl).11 lye i -7n. n-ni-f,n AppmALc Table 3b Indian RIVM Count) Allocation of 5swer Operating Egwnw to Colkc !an/P1aat/Adminittratl4• FODCUDrU 1993 ?can' Coal ADooano0 'I7a7a++Uvw ihernYllow gm �70p rLTJ Adyhlavatha Coneabp I Admklban47e Uw6s.a4 Wy.. N.Ik.al.l wlUlu 17471) 100.046 524710 SD tO No1mu H.mlllo. $1 a,SLt IM 0% SI1556 t0 so Ikn Whew. 21 1.7m 9064 20.0% $14.623 53.656 t0 SuPelvlaa 1174,938 l00% 90.0% $7.04 $67,444 t0 MmhLniv $25,6011 1000% 52309 so s0 Vac Tt#Optraw 8471 100.0% 1459 $0 t0 LIR Swkn 5upa2rlaa 123,053 10.0% 904% $2,363 $11,269 $D 061K 2.aW $535,111 OA% 100.D% $al7t] 5,111 N suhlota5 SAaW and Walm $733,371 ;37,194 $647,497 s0 hmaal 100.0% 11.7% 11]% DD% BOMMI S310,291 $17,364 6326,927 Cow.ctul3mba n4luesda$3ro. $45,200 75,044 23A2 372,400 110,600 $0 Oa AAIeY Byaw. t77,10'1 IC0.0% 10 SD $97.107 Olb.e PnN"bJ Sv., 501,477 100.04 5o 102,172 SO Ro dAMl1,... It t,OL W0 O% LO t0 $11.0]4 Ciba Omkockal Srta RIM 100.0% SO $21, 19 Toul Cocn.cwd Srn 5273,107 $32,400 Sl3Qt72 1100,u1 Pacaat 100.0% 11.996 47.9% 4014 OpwwY .a. 1.pP5e1 VWdds Alkrma 112,474 100.096 SO so 712,474 ARTMal $11AM 100.014 110 SO $8,465 Tol.phow 94,320 IW.O% so 3D $4,720 Mar C2iUMICatka 3K 15,464 1000% 4D so 35A00 TOua1. 315,446 100.0% 30 $0 117,446 Oab.p.ad auld W4 $14,060 11,566 $12,174 $0 Rent - "Idkila 325.795 1000% $0 30 $23,795 Aw-13uvr B„Il.atOt $540 100.014 $0 30 8580 PBC p.ymaeK 9441 1000% t0 s0 $649 R.1-O4M nrdpe..1 9§40 100.04 to t0 6540 A,nomlvlva Ion:.nr. 114.950 1000% SO OD $16,140 Gw llA4Nney SD loom so to 10 Otka 6.Qroca 1165.172 100,04 so s0 64,632 M.h l Bulldinia 11.010 I0D.0% $0 t0 $1.0110 ALb3LCMR BOulpmaot $15154 1000% so $0 117154 M.I.L Arafinetlr. EquJp $23,760 sl2 mo $11,710 to MIW-"MY7 Bgaynmt 119,172 1000% so SO $19,172 MJnL Ewa Bac" BWS 55,400 1DO.D% so to 15,400 MamL Odw Egalp 110,105 100.0% to SO Ilo,too Ouudh 741mm1 $1,105 IODO% SO so WOO Adratiama/Etapl Lal) Sim IDO.D% 110 50 6'364 LaSJ AN Sam ILK) (A6 $0 50 $664 hack. Seer 1317,933 IDOA% so 1317,930 30 Llaso.n.ad ramal 4mm ICDA% 12 34,710 111 T.1 0,.W.. L,pplte. /571,407 817,916 834{,154 1511,111 P«.." 100.04 2.4% 47.1% 57.5% nn,n ,,n qn .'. .. n., I n •r q. _n Appendix Table 3b Indlan River Conon Alloc"a of Sewer OPIMIN Bxpommi to Collection lRot/AdminLtrative Funcnon3 19Y7 n4111 bl'+17� m^"I nl dl l•'n 7C n 4n P.r. a Cb t AlboW9e TrrormWlod 7}.o.ml+loN Cr QP1M�. Li ryt A4m pYrr.M�r Lwl.n4. 7� 0rM Ry,pl W 0mc*suppose 111272 ;00.0% W W Campulr IPtrwsm 17,360 100.0% s0 W Port rod Latdlcrmu 877.600 84X5 871235 77+M Red 7UbM 51,170 100.0% m 30 C1mk*b 171110 100.0% so $32110 Uexum A Clo%In1 57,114 1PI.U% t0 30 ItltUm"C suppbse $1.944 100.0% 30 30 119pradrW Twlr 86,410 100.0% 10 10 ModkW send Mrd. &TFUM sl m 100.0% 00 e0 06cr or.."JP 57460 100.01, s0 RD Prbs Ma>.Wrl SIA77 100.0% SIA77 511 lend 4"KUwLk 21,141 10001, 57240 t0 Tmrnc Sigmai"s 51]96 1000% 11296 so BoobMaalsm SIAM 100.04 t0 to Dur - mmbmh4m 52,700 100.0% so 8o 7Ultlodlivwedtm Pise 16,477 IWO% SO so C1rNIRr1 and 1000% 10 45,040 TbW GUM 3MUN 1112,764 1103/3 8116,077 Prom IOt2.V% 0:1% W7.01R 0.4 DlWAAQd Ur An. 191710 IOOA% t0 10 OprWim SLlelrereee wd RrgrYr IJ n laden PlrtAe 06AOO 11291 n1.106 6rvRR4 T4 Plrnl EW 1164AW 1000% t0 51b/.600 LIA lWIoa Now 861,100 59.976 119164 a.. NRLr MRInt. $472W 71.0% 274% 112,400 110,800 UW46 PLN Rac SIOIA91 I0D0% m S101A91 n— Sop MNe 11,620 100.0% SO 10 MYo-1iepRY1 11 AW IOU% to so 3lM411 Sidi Rem V41 MANY IW.U% 12 P7AW TU.I �p.c. 8122: a R•W*' 8401}11 1.0,010 87f7,Ne Pmrt /00.004 7.8% 91.716 lkdrr Llraxmrlfmlm $1 Am IWD% t0 31,670 Matt 06,v F10UIp,rumt SHAM lmrf4 W SIIt10 Pwl and Lubtimu 12.700 100.04, SO 12.700 Ororl M4 damw o MA20 100.01, s0 866,420 Tow aar 142,620 w a2.am Damm 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 3U8-IDTAL 12,MA90 57!6377 /2.217,141 P.t !IAAF,/ 9.71b 90.5% Ad.146aWn AUb Woa S37 F357AW s vbmld U«r 12,879,490 1274217 12A7271 Omni Ca% - Sow Pord90 127).967 $26,472 Sb1A90 03sduda Nrlvrlc Caro) T9W 3r Rod On" 17,1770472 1700,709 =Zf3 741 n4111 bl'+17� m^"I nl dl l•'n 7C n 4n Appendix Table 4b Indian River County Summary of Allocation of Server Operating Expenses to Collection/Plant/Genersl Functions 1993 Cost Allocation Transmission/ collecdo Dint Administrativo Total Salaries and Wages $85.884 $647,487 SO $733371 Benefits S43.364 5326.927 SO $370291 ContrachtslServlca S32,400 $130,872 3109.831 $273,103 Oreradnns Supplies $13,916 S346.134 $216.332 $576.402 OtherSimplies $10,37R 5116,055 S56.331 $182,764 Bad Debt k Land Use Amortization SO So 59,720 $9,720 Operations Maintenance and Repairs $50.630 5597,348 53,240 $651,218 Other Contractual Services 50 $1,620 so S1,620 Other Services and Equipment 50 511,880 SO $11,880 Fuel and Lubricants so $2,700 So S2,700 Grove Matntonance so $66,420 so $66,420 Oonoral Costs SO ;2$277.%3$277,963 S326,927 $370,291 Toud $236,573 62,247,443 $673,436 $3,157,452 Direct Percent 9.596 90.556 OtherSupDH:3 100.0% Adminlstradve Allocation SaLriea and Wages 30 $0 SO Boneftts SO SO $0 Conuactualservlces $10,460 $99,371 $109,831 OperatiauSupplios $20,603 $195,747 $216,352 Odter Supplies 33,363 $50,966 336,331 Bad Debt tit Land Use Amortization $926 $9,794 39,720 Operations Malntersnce and Repairs $309 $2,931 $3,240 Other contractual Services $0 $0 $0 Other services and Equipment 3o $0 $0 Nuel and Lubricants $0 $0 $0 Grove Maintenance So 30 $0 General Coss $26,473 $251,4911 $277,963 Revised Allocation Salaries and Wages $83,884 $647,487 $733371 Berens 543,364 S326,927 $370,291 Contractual Services $42,860 $230,243 $273,103 Operations Supplies $34,521 5541,881 $576,402 OtherSupDH:3 513,743 5167,021 $182,764 Bad Debt & Land Use Amortization $926 $8,794 $9,720 Operations Maintenance and Repairs $50,939 $600279 $651218 Other Contractual Services $0 51.620 $1.620 Other Services and Equipment SO S11.880 $11.880 Fuel and Lubricants SO $2.700 $2.700 Grove Maintenance so $66,420 566.420 General Costs $26.473 $251.49 5277.963 Total 5300.709 $2.856.743 S3,157.452 RTf It Iii"II11 I""T IT f''"' I I i Al Fr. Appodlx Tabla Sb Indian Kl t County Allocation of CoUtctlon and Plant Optrndng CDats to Mud and VarWDls FuncOoru 199] nnI II I,n 11n "''-I TTI I'^r. n !n Cellecdon Trantmiaeion/pltnt xF1&4 V"bl4 Fjx6d Variablo Total Manes and wages $68,707 $17,177 $317,990 $12YAW 5773,371 oeneflu $34,4591 SB,073 $2451,342 163,385 5370,291 Conrnotuol 8a 1v $42,860 SO $230,243 SO $273,103 Operations SappUea SO S34,521 SO $541,111 5376,402 DtberSuppUm $1,149 SI2,594 533.404 $133,617 5182,764 &.d Dobt A Land UK Amordsadon 5926 $0 $6,794 $0 $9.720 Opamdons Wittman" and Repairs 550,939 SO $600,279 SO $651,218 Mer colimmilServicu SO i0 $1,620 SO $1,620 Win Ssxvlca and F,quipmonl SO $0 $11,880 $0 $11,160 Fool and Lubricants $U $U 50 $2,700 $2.700 Orvva Malntauzncn 30 $0 566,420 $0 566,420 Cen"Cub U447 p0 1231490 20 S277.%3 Tnul 5727,744 572.965 51.9/3,662 S973.D81 S3,1S7.452 nnI II I,n 11n "''-I TTI I'^r. n !n ^1 Appendix Table 6 8545,750 0.0% $0 Indian River County $34,118 0.0% 80 Mbt Service Allocation Between Collection and Ttansmisslat and Treatment 0.0% 30 1991 Series Sewer Excluded Amplin1 P.ercen Yt!Allocation Collection Bond FHA Oifford 5545.000 0.0% SO FHA Bent Pint $34,100 0.0% 50 1989 Serler 5435,196 OA% SO 1991 Series N 0.0% SD x1,014,196 $O Dcbt Serviec Rceervc $58,015 0.0% SO Rcncwaland Replaccmcnt $141,469 11,7% S16,567 1993 FHA t3IMrd 8545,750 0.0% $0 FHA EcaltPinc $34,118 0.0% 80 1989 Series 5435,056 0.0% 30 1991 Series 3378057 0.09b $0 $1,372,981 $0 Debt Service Reserve $58,015 0.0% SO Renewal and Replacement $ Mi,326 11.7% $28,847 Rn r,l W'11n " r, " , � I In I[ /rl �n INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/SEBASTIAN INTERLOCAL UMMUS AGREEMENT City of Sebastian POSTTELE HONE (407) 589-5330 0 FAXI(407)L 89 DA 978 5570 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER ) CITY OF SEBASTIAN I, Kathryn M• O'Halloran, City Clerk of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO. R-92-23: REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. FLORIDA, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O F THE CITY OF SEBASTI , INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, R-87-6, R-87-7, AND R -9O-55; REPEALING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA; PRVIDING FRNSOIN CONFLOICTRHEREWITH;RPROVIDINGSOR PARTS OF EPEAL OF FOR RESOLUTI SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Also attached are Exhibits A, C, and D. Exhibit B is not City Clerk. attached but a copy is on record in the office of the fix h a IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and £fSeptembereA.Df• the City of Sebastian, Florida , this 22nd day o 1992. Kathryn�M• p�Halliran, CMC/AAE City C1 rk ORDINANCE NO. 0-92-16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 27 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO "UTILITIES" BY AMENDING DEFINITIONS, AMENDING SECTION 27-5 RELATING TO OPERATING AND TESTING; CREATING REQUIREMENT FOR SERVICE AVAILABILITY POLICY, CREATING GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING SERVICE AVAILABILITY POLICY; CREATING PROCEDURE FOR IMPUTING CONTRIBUTIONS -IN -AID - OF -CONSTRUCTION, CREATING SECTION 27-10 RELATED TO APPLICATIONS, PROVIDING SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Sebastian hereby makes the following findings of fact and makes the following declarations of intent: (1) The Florida Constitution in Article VIII, Section 2(b), grants unto cities all governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and authorizes cities to exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law. (2) Pursuant to Chapter 166, Florida Statutes (the "Municipal Home Rule Powers Act"), the Florida Legislature in turn extended to cities the exercise of powers for municipal governmental, corporate, or proprietary purposes not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, general or special law, or county charter and removed any limitations, judicially imposed or otherwise, on the exercise of home rule powers other than those expressly prohibited. (3) The City has previously invoked the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act through the adoption of its Home Rule Charter and numerous ordinances. (4) The City's Home Rule Charter grants it all governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable it to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law. (5) Pursuant to its Home Rule Powers, the City has previously adopted Chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sebastian for the regulation of franchised water and sewer utilities within the City. (6) As currently enacted and amended, Chapter 27 of the Code has become outdated and does not address issues which have been discovered and analyzed since its adoption. (7) The City finds that the current Chapter 27 of the Code lacks any sufficient mechanism or guidelines for the approval of adequate service availability policies. (8) Adopting guidelines for the approval of service availability policies can accomplish many beneficial objectives, including preserving reasonable rates for utility services, preventing cash-flow crisis resulting from insufficient income to cover expenses, creating incentive for the owners to efficiently and effectively - 2 - manage the utility company, and properly allocating the risk of potential nondevelopment of new service areas. (9) Utilities with excessive amounts of contributions -in -aid -of -construction ("CIAO") can experience a cash-flow crisis with no income to cover increased expenses, leading to inadequate and unsafe operation and maintenance. (10) Utilities controlled by development companies can also manipulate lot sales contracts and developer agreements to unreasonably and unfairly inflate the rate base, thereby causing rates to be unjust, unfair, and inequitable. (11) Since CIAC is by its nature compelled to be contributed by the customers, there is a substantial public interest in providing guidelines for the approval of just, fair, and equitable service availability policies justifying substantial public scrutiny. (12) Since service availability policies are intertwined with all rates of a given utility, the City finds it to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to address and regulate appropriate levels of CIAC during all future rate cases or proceedings of any utility regulated by the City. (13) The City also finds it to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to encourage a fair and proper balance between the utility - 3 - owner's invested capital and compelled CIAO so that all rates are just, fair, and equitable. (14) Prior determinations or reported levels of the rate base or CIRC are hereby found to be non-binding on future rate case decisions of the City. (15) The City also declares its intent to implement this ordinance in a manner such that a utility's rate of return is not impaired. (16) Because of the additional work effort which will be involved for the City in order to review and process rate applications for utilities, the City has determined to adopt an application fee to defray the estimated costs of said review and processing. (17) The City has scheduled and conducted the necessary public hearings and received testimony and other competent and substantial evidence to support its actions and the findings set forth herein. (18) The City hereby declares its intent that ,.his ordinance be liberally construed to effect its purposes and to provide for just, fair, and equitable rates to consumers. (19) In the franchises it has previously granted, the City has reserved the right to fix utility rates which are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unfairly discriminatory. - 4 - L (20) Section 27-20(b) of the Code also provides that the issuance of any franchise shall be further subject to all applicable City regulations. Section 2. That Section 27-1 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Sebastian, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 27-1. Definitions. [As used herein, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them:] City refers to the City of Sebastian, Florida. Franchise means a contract with the City by which the utility is licensed to conduct a particular business within a particular area for a given period of time. Service Availability Policy refers to a policy which sets forth a uniform method of determining the system capacity charge or other charges to be paid and conditions to be met by applicants for service in order to obtain water and sewer service. Utility means water or sewer utilities serving subdivision, apartment and housing complexes, condominium, mobile home or trailer parks, industrial complexes, shopping center and similar systems. "Utility" includes wells, pumps, tanks, treatment facilities, distribution systems, water meters, disposal facilities, force mains, pump stations, collection systems, service lines and pipes, real estate and easements necessary to such systems and includes every - 5 - person, corporation, lessee, trustee, or receiver owning, operating, managing or controlling a utility systems or proposing construction of a system or who is providing or proposes to provide water or sewer service to the public." Section 3. That Section 27-5 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Sebastian, Florida, is amended to read as follows: "Section 27-5. Operating and testing in accordance with agency rules and regulations. Upon completion of the initial portion of the utility plant, the applicant shall be responsible for the operation and regular testing of the utility in accordance with the rules and regulations of all agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation the City of Sebastian." Section 4. That the Code of Ordinances, City of Sebastian, Florida, is hereby amended by adding a section to be numbered Section 27-7, which said section shall read as follows: "Sec. 27-7. Applicability. (a) All utilities within the jurisdiction of the City of Sebastian must develop a service availability policy. (b) The provisions of Section 27-7 through 27-9 shall apply to any utility that on or after September 2, 1992, (i) files or applies for a change to any of its rates or charges or (ii) when the Council of the City of Sebastian, Florida, initiates a show cause proceeding to require the utility to adopt or change a service availability policy or charges." Section 5. That the Code of Ordinances, City of Sebastian, Florida, is hereby amended by adding a section to be numbered Section 27-8, which said section shall read as follows: "Sec. 27-8. Guidelines for designing service availability policy. (a) A utility's service availability policy shall be designed in accordance with the following guidelines: (1) The maximum amount of contribution - in -aid -of -construction, net of amortization, should not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the total original cost, net of accumulate depreciation, of the utility's facilities and plan when the facilities and plant are at their designed capacity; and (2) The minimumamountof contributions - in -aid -of -construction should not be less than the percentage of such facilities and plant that is represented by the water transmission and distribution and sewage collection systems. (b) In any case where compliance with the guidelines of subsection (a) introduces unusual hardship or unreasonable difficulty, and the Council of the City - 7 - of Sebastian, Florida, utility, or interested party shows that it is not in the best interest of the customers of the utility to require compliance, the Council may exempt the utility from the guidelines." Section 6. That the Code of Ordinance, City of Sebastian, Florida, is hereby amended by adding a section to be numbered Section 27-9, which said section shall read as follows: "Sec. 27-9. Imputation of Contributions -in -aid - of -construction. (a) If the amount of Contributions -in -aid - of -construction ("CIAC") has not been recorded on the utility's books and the utility does not submit competent substantial evidence as to the amount of CIAC, the amount of CIAC shall be imputed to be the f i amount of plant cost charged to the cost of land sales for tax purposes if available, or the proportion of the cost of the facilities and plant attributable to water transmission and distribution system and the sewage collection system. (b) In any case where the provisions of subsection (a) introduce unusual hardship or unreasonable difficulty, and the Council, utility or interested party shows it is not in the best interest of the customers of the utility, the Council may waive the applicability of this Section to the utility." 8 — e Section 7. That the Code of Ordinances, City of Sebastian, Florida, is hereby amended by adding a section to be numbered Section 27-10, which said section shall read as follows: "Sec. 27-10. Application for Rate Increase. (a) Each applicant for a rate increase shall file with the City Clerk a written application containing information substantially the same as that information required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 25-30.436, 25-30.437, 25-30.438, and 25-30.440 in effect on the effective date of this ordinance. (b) Notwithstanding any previous ordinance to the contrary, the applicant's application for rate relief will not be deemed filed and the applicant shall not have the right to collect any increased rates until the appropriate filing fee has been paid and all minimum filing requirements have been met, including prepared testimony where appropriate. (c) Each applicant shall pay an application fee as determined by the City based upon the City's estimate of the City's fees and costs to review and render a decision on the requested rates; provided, however, mw*� that the application fee shall not exceed $50,000.00. Said fee may be recovered in the rates as an expense of the utility over a ten (10) year period. The City shall notify the applicant of the application fee due to the City within seven (7) business days after the City receives the applicant's initial application. (d) The City may grant a waiver with respect to specific data required by this rule upon a showing that the production of the data would be impractical or impose an excessive economic burden upon the applicant. All requests for waiver shall be made with the f submittal of the initial application. (e) This section shall apply to all applications filed on or after September 2, 1992." Section 8. SEVERABILITY. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold or determine that any part of this Ordinance is invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected and it shall be presumed that the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to enact such invalid or unconstitutional provision. It shall further be assumed that the City Council would have enacted the remainder of - 10 - i\ this Ordinance without said invalid and unconstitutional provision, thereby causing said remainder to remain in full force and effect. Section 9. CONFLICT. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 10. ATTORNEYS' FEES. Should it become necessary for the City to initiate legal or other proceedings to enforce the terms of this Ordinance, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. Section 11. CODIFICATION. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, and it is hereby provided that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sebastian, Florida; that the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention; and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "Section," "Article" or other appropriate designations. Section 12. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage and adoption, but the requirements set forth in Sections 4 through 7 hereof shall be applied to all rate applications received on or after September 2, 1992. The foregoing Ordinance was moved for adoption by Council member Council member vote, the vote was as follows: The motion was seconded by and, upon being put to a -1 Mayor Lonnie R. Powell Vice -Mayor Frank Oberbeck Council member Peter R. Holyk Council member George G. Reid Council member Carolyn Corum The Mayor thereupon declared this Ordinance duly passed and adopted this day of , 1992. ATTEST: Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: Lonnie R. Powell, Mayor I HEREBY CERTIFY that notice of public hearing on this Ordinance was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal as required by State Statute, that one public hearing was held on this Ordinance at 7:00 p.m. on the day of , 1992, and that following said public hearing this Ordinance was passed by the City Council. Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE City Clerk Approved as to Form and Content: Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney - 12 - RESOLUTION NO. R-92-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. R-87-6, R-87-7, AND R-90-55; REPEALING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, beginning in 1986, Indian River County and the City of Sebastian held discussions and meetings regarding the County's desire to provide water and wastewater service within the City of Sebastian; and WHEREAS, at two hearings held by the Sebastian City Council on January 7 and January 14, 1987, the City of Sebastian (the "City") adopted a series of documents which granted certain franchise and service rights to Indian River County within the City of Sebastian; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution Nos. R-87-6 and R-87-7 which had the effect of granting a franchise to Indian River County before the entire area within the incorporated limits of the City (excluding previously granted franchised areas) and which approved the form and substance of an Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution No_ R-90-55 and executed an Assignment Agreement dated December 12, 1990, in which the City agreed to transfer to Indian River County (the "County") all of the City's right, title and interest in the water and wastewater franchises granted to General Development Utilities, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City on or about February 27, 1991, determined that it would be in the City's best interest to consider revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to Indian River County and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater service; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 1991, Indian River County unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the City; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 1991, the Indian River County sent a letter to the City of Sebastian offering to relinquish its franchise rights; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 1991, the City hired a utility consultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the City should provide its own water and wastewater system; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 1991, the City of Sebastian conditionally accepted Indian River County's offer subject to completion of the necessary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as do not impact third parties; and WHEREAS, the feasibility study prepared by the City's consultants was presented to the City on June 26, 1991, and recommended that the City proceed with its own utility service; and WHEREAS, the City and the County have this day approved an Interlocal Utilities Agreement between Indian River County, Florida, and the City of Sebastian, Florida, which provides for the revocation of the County's franchise rights within the City of Sebastian and other terms and conditions. - 2 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, that: Section 1. Repeal and Termination of Indian River County Franchise. The City hereby repeals, revokes, and terminates Resolutions Nos. R-87-6, R-87-7, and R-90-55, together with that Intergovernmental Agreement by and between the City and Indian River County entered into February 3, 1987, and the Assignment Agreement dated December 12, 1990 between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. Section 2. Agreement. The Mayor and the City Clerk of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, are hereby authorized to sign, on behalf of the City, the Interlocal Utilities Agreement between Indian River County, Florida, and City of Sebastian, Florida, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. Conflict. All Resolutions or parts of Resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 4. Severability. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold or determine that any part of this Resolution is invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the Resolution shall not be affected and it shall be presumdd that the City Council of the City of Sebastian did not intend to enact such invalid or unconstitutional provision. It shall further be assumed that the City Council would have enacted the remainder of this Resolution without such invalid and unconstitutional provision, thereby causing said remainder to remain in full force and effect. - 3 - Section S. Effect Date. immediately upon its adoption. This Resolution shall take effect The foregoing Resolution was moved for adoption by Councilmember r�C� The motion was seconded by Councilmember and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor Lonnie R. Powell Vice -Mayor Frank Oberbeck Councilmember Carolyn Corum Councilmember Peter R. Holyk Councilmember George G. Reid The Mayor thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted this 1-24—day of (.0 1992. LITY O SEBAS FLO B ' n ie R. Mayor ' ATTEST: 1 Nathry4n M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE City Clerk (SEAL) Approved s to Form and Content: Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney - 4 - INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THIS AGREEMENT, made this . / day of 49J±h L , 1992, by and between �— INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (hereafter COUNTY) and the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, the address of which is Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978 (hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or assigns, W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 1. AGREED FACTS. The following are true statements: 1.1. The CITY granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance 0-81-9 (col- lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GDU to operate and main - F tain a water distribution and a wastewater collection and dis- posal system within a portion of the CITY. 1.2. On January 14, 1987, by CITY Resolution R-87-6, the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30 -year exclusive franchise for the provision of water and wastewater services within the rest of the City. 1.3. An interlocal agreement entered into between the CITY and COUNTY and effective February 3, 1987, required the CITY to assist the COUNTY in assessing property owners for the construction of collection systems in the City limits. 1.4. At construction financing for a wastewater plant and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of $6,075,000 on October 15, 1989. Part of the security for the re- payment of these bonds was the revenue from impact fee assess- ments for reserved connections within the City. 1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from the plant through the unincorporated area into the City and beyond and was ready to provide service for CITY customers on or about March 5, 1991. 1.6. Approximately 303 CITY equivalent residential units (including those in Park Place) are now receiving wastewater service from these facilities. 1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered into and executed an assignment whereby the CITY transferred to 3 the COUNTY, and the COUNTY accepted, all of the CITY's right, title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU fran- chises. 1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter- mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to consider a revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to the COUNTY in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater service. 1.9. On March 5, 1991, the COUNTY unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was what the CITY wished. 1.10. On March 13, 1991, the COUNTY sent a letter to the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights. 1.11. On April 5, 1991, the CITY conditionally accepted the COUNTY's offer, subject to completion of the neces- sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions, may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact third parties. 1.12. On March 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con- sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems. 4 1.13. The feasibility study prepared by the CITY's consultants was presented to the CITY on June 26, 1991, and recommended that the CITY go ahead with its own utility service. 1.14. Based on the announced intention of the CITY to develop its own utility systems, on or about August 6, 1991, COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUNTY's North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1.15. The CITY is taking the necessary steps to regain all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to potentially acquire GDU's water and wastewater systems to enable the CITY to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility. Modification of the COUNTY's franchise is also a necessary prerequisite to the CITY's development of its own water and wastewater system. 1.16. The COUNTY has agreed to cooperate with the CITY as long as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond holders, and the CITY customers who have reserved capacity in the system are all protected. 1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff members have met on several occasions to work out interim plans to effect the separa- tion of the utility systems and have recommended the provisions of this agreement as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of all parties. 5 EXISTING AGREEMENTS 2. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY FRANCHISE. Effective May 1, 1992 (the "Cancellation Date"), the parties hereby agree to and do cancel the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and under the Intergovernmental Agreement between the CITY and the COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987. 3. CONTINUANCE OF PRESENT SERVICE. Up to and until the Cancellation Date, the COUNTY will allow available permanent capacity of the COUNTY system to be purchased by customers within the City limits pursuant to the terms of the existing franchise. On and after that date the COUNTY will sell available permanent capacity for connections within the City only to the CITY itself, which may in turn make this capacity available to customers within the City. 4. REASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO PURCHASE GDU FACILITIES. The assignment by the CITY to the COUNTY by CITY Resolution R-90-55 of all right, title, and interest in GDU's franchises given in CITY Ordinances 0-81-8 and 0-81-9 are hereby reassigned to the CITY effective the date of this agreement. That Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY entered into on December 12, 1990, is hereby terminated. The parties agree that one of the effects of this termination and reassignment is, among other things, to allow the CITY to exercise its option to purchase the GDU 0 facilities and provide water and wastewater service in the territory covered by the GDU franchises. 5. OTHER AGREEMENTS. During the term of the COUNTY's franchise in the CITY an agreement was entered into with Park Place which created rights and obligations in the County. This agreement and all exhibits thereto is attached to and incorporated in this Agreement as Exhibit "A." The COUNTY assigns and the CITY assumes all COUNTY's rights, duties, and obligations under this agreement effective upon the Cancellation Date. The COUNTY agrees that the CITY's and its customers' obligation to pay impact fees under this agreement attached as Exhibit "A" shall be the same as the Seller under this Agreement. The COUNTY agrees to assist the CITY in any litigation with respect to the agreement attached as Exhibit "A." NEW UTILITY AGREEMENTS 6. DEFINITIONS. 6.1. Class I Units - Units in the CITY which are connected to or which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY waste- water system before the Cancellation Date and which have a collection system available to them, even if the physical connection to the unit has not been made. 6.2. Class II Units - Units within the CITY which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY wastewater system before the 7 Cancellation Date but which do not have a collection system available. 6.3. Class III Units - Units within the CITY other than Class I and II Units. 6.4. Treatment - The treatment, transmission, and related effluent disposal of wastewater. 6.5. Utility Service - shall be used to include rate setting, customer connections, meter installation, meter reading, billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com- plaints, collection system construction, related repair work, and all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per- formed by a utility company other than the treatment of waste- water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance of the COUNTY's lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on Exhibit "B", as amended from time to time. These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. 7. SERVICE AGREEMENT. 7.1. Effective on the Cancellation Date but except as modified by paragraph 7.5 hereof, the COUNTY will cease to be the utility service provider within the City and will become instead only the treatment, transmission, and effluent disposal (hereinafter "treatment") provider for all wastewater generated for all Class I and II Units and for the number of Class III Units for which the CITY has purchased or does purchase permanent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment plant. 9 7.2. Effective on the Cancellation Date the CITY shall become the utility service provider for all classes of customers within the City limits and shall, as part of this duty, provide collection systems for Class II customers in a manner such that the interests of the Class II customers will not have been harmed by the revocation of the COUNTY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a nondiscriminatory, cost -of -service rate to be charged to the CITY for treatment of the wastewater which rate shall take into account the fact that the CITY is the utility service provider for all classes of units within the CITY. The rate and components which make up this rate are depicted in Exhibit "C" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. The CITY reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights of the COUNTY as described in paragraph 8. 7.3. Upon installation and acceptance, the metering equipment shall become the property of the COUNTY, but the CITY shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and replace - went of the meter. The COUNTY shall read the meter for billing purposes. The metering equipment shall meet the standards of the American Water Works Association ("AWWA") for accuracy, which is plus or minus three percent (3%). The CITY may request an accuracy test by the provider without charge once during any twelve (12) month period. The CITY may witness the test. Additional testing may be requested by the purchaser at the COUNTY'S established cost for such tests Copies of the test results will be provided to the purchaser within thirty (30) days of the test. There will be no charge for tests that discover an inaccurate meter. If an inaccurate meter is found, as defined by the AWWA, bill adjustments will be made for one-half (1/2) of the preceding period since the last accuracy test. In any event, the CITY shall continue to pay bills, whether disputed or not, until any dispute is resolved. Following the period set forth in paragraph 7.5 hereof, the requirement for the CITY to install a sewer meter at a COUNTY pumping station shall not arise at said pumping station until the CITY expands a gravity collection system to be connected to that pumping station of adequate size to warrant installation of an appropriately sized sewer meter to be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and COUNTY based upon industry standards and engineering standards. Until any such installation, billing for sewage flows through that pump station shall be based upon metered water consumption of each individual customer. 7.4. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater system, CITY understands that it will have to comply with COUNTY policies on the quality of wastewater put into the COUNTY system and other customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by the COUNTY countywide. 7.5. COUNTY shall provide any of the services included within the term "Utility Service," which it can legally perform, 10 on behalf of the CITY, for up to one (1) year from the Cancellation Date. The costs for the services to be charged by COUNTY to CITY will be the COUNTY's retail rates. The CITY shall have the option of earlier terminating this arrangement and assuming responsibility for utility services at any time during the one (1) year period by sending written notice to the COUNTY giving the COUNTY thirty (30) days' advance notice. Upon termination of the COUNTY's provision of utility services hereunder or the end of the one (1) year period, whichever first occurs, the COUNTY shall not charge said retail rates, but rather shall charge the bulk rates referred to in Exhibit "C" hereof. 8. TRANSFER OF UNITS. The COUNTY agrees that on the request of the CITY it will transfer to the CITY for treatment purposes also Class I and Class II Units and any Class III Units for which permanent capacity has been bought, whenever the COUNTY has a COUNTY customer available to purchase the capacity used or reserved by the units which are requested to be transferred. The COUNTY will use good faith efforts to procure a replacement cus- tomer for the capacity, and, upon receipt by the COUNTY of the COUNTY impact fee current at that time from the new customer, the COUNTY shall remit to the CITY the impact fee originally paid by the customer who is to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of money may be used by the CITY to finance the City operated replacement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for that transferred unit. Units so transferred shall not be charged an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY. 11 4. TRANSFER OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS. The COUNTY and the CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis- connected from the COUNTY system entirely, transferred to the CITY without charge for the collection facilities, and reconnected to a new CITY system, said reconnection to be at CITY's expense, when all units on the system to be reconnected are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTY will cooperate in making these transfers. 10. CITY PURCHASE OF CAPACITY IN COUNTY PLANT. COUNTY agrees to sell capacity to the CITY under standard COUNTY poli- cies and rates. The present COUNTY policy is to expand waste- water treatment plant facilities when financially and technologi- cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan, provided that reservations are committed which will fund the expansion. Part of the reservation includes the requirement to pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges. 11. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This agree- ment is solely for the benefit of the formal parties herein and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a formal party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason of this agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations, 12 covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. 12. DELINQUENT FEES, CHARGES, AND ASSESSMENTS. With respect to customers who have previously purchased capacity from the COUNTY but have not yet connected (Class II customers), the CITY is not required to guarantee or make payment of COUNTY impact fees, base facility charges or assessments in lieu of impact fees due but not yet paid by the customer. However, if the said customer does not pay any such assessments, fees and charges, the COUNTY may keep any impact fees, charges or assessments paid and the individual customer cannot receive service from either the CITY or the COUNTY unless all delinquent assessments, fees, and charges are paid to the COUNTY. Under these circumstances, the CITY shall be able to charge an additional impact fee charges, and assessments to the customer but shall not provide service until all delinquent fees, assessments, and charges are paid by said customer to the COUNTY. 13. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The agreement shall be in effect for 30 years. The termination of agreements, resolutions, and ordinances specified in paragraphs 2 and 4 hereof shall not be affected by termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this 13 agreement on the date first above written. Attest: ... Jeffr Attest: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: �j lel l GA -901-y1 •E44�' airman CITY OF 77/29:319/5 Approved as to Form and Conte t: Char es Ian Nash, City Attorney 14 Mayor Inde n pivo Cn I Approved Cele Admin / S— LeaB! .J ^dGi. I Rise ;star. i I Clerk --�'� f _Lonnie' Kath yn M. O'Halloran Attachments: Exhibits "A," "B," and "C" 77/29:319/5 Approved as to Form and Conte t: Char es Ian Nash, City Attorney 14 Mayor Inde n pivo Cn I Approved Cele Admin / S— LeaB! .J ^dGi. I Rise ;star. i I ,LXffr_r AK", A G R E E M E N T BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND NELSON HYATT .. RE: COUNTY TAKE-OVER OF UTILITY SYSTEM THIS AGREEMENT, made this 11th day of July 1989, between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 (COUNTY) and NELSON HYATT (SELLER), whose address Is 12505 North A -1-A, Vero Beach, FL 32963 W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, SELLER is the owner of a water and wastewater utility system servicing a portion of the City of Sebastian; and WHEREAS, COUNTY has embarked on a program of providing quality water and wastewater service to as much of Indian River County as Is financially feasible; and WHEREAS, as part of this program, the COUNTY has approached SELLER concerning purchasing his utll lty system; and WHEREAS, SELLER has agreed to this purchase by COUNTY, provided that he will have five years In which to finish his development, without paying Impact fees, and for those units sold before the end of the five-year period, Impact fees will have to be paid only as those units are resold; and WHEREAS, SELLER would like to receive a return of his initial capital investment of some $777,000 used to construct the utility; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to this, provided that only the customers in the service area of SYSTEM at the date of this agreement shall be charged for this expense, NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein as well as other good and valuable consideration, the COUNTY and SELLER agree as follows: I 7. EXHIBITS TO BE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT: Attached to this agreement are certain exhibits which shall be considered to be Integral parts of this agreement as much as if they were written in this agreement. This list of exhibits is as follows: Exhibit "A" - Description of all personal property, customer deposits, and fixtures Included in sale of SYSTEM. Exhibit "B" - Legal description of real property (PROPERTY) to be sold to COUNTY. Exhibit "C" - Description of all easements to be transferred to COUNTY. Exhibit "D" - Service area of utility SYSTEM. 2. DEFINITIONS: A. SYSTEM - For convenience, the term "SYSTEM" shall be used to designate the assets, business properties, and rights which SELLER owns or In which It has a legal Interest, but not Including the "excluded assets," which are being purchased by COUNTY and which Include the following: (1) The items of Inventory described In i Exhibit "A." (2) The real estate owned by SELLER described In Exhibit "B" and all buildings and improvements owned by SELLER located thereon. SELLER shall transfer or cause to be transferred fee simple title to bil of said real property necessaryto the SYSTEM. (3) All easements, licenses, rights of way, and consents owned by SELLER for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SYSTEM, including the easements specifically set forth on Exhibit "C." (4) All water and wastewater plants, lines and facilities of every kind and description whatsoever, including collection mains, transmission mains, effluent distribution pipes, lift stations or facilities, 2 valves, service connections, and all other physical facilities and property installations in use in connection with the SYSTEM. (5) All of SELLER's rights of every character whatsoever and all certificates, immunities, privileges, permits, licenses, easements, consents, grants, ordinances, leaseholds, and rights of.way., and all rights to construct, maintain, and operate plants and systems for the collection of sewage and promises of water and every right of every character whatever in connection therewith; and all renewals, extensions, additions, or modifications of any of the foregoing; (6) Copies of all past and current customer records, books, prints, plans, engineering reports, surveys, specifications, shop drawings, equipment manuals and other Information required by COUNTY which are in possession of SELLER or its agents on the closing date pertaining to the operation of the system. (7) A set of record drawings, Including as -built drawings, if available, showing all facilities of the utility system, including structural, mechanical, and electrical details. Such drawings shall also Include any original tracing, sepias, or other reproducible material where same is in possession of SELLER. B. EXCLUDED ASSETS - Cash or bank accounts of SELLER which are SELLER's sole property dnd which are not subject to refund to customers or which have no application to specific purposes or uses of the SYSTEM. 4. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: COUNTY agrees to deed the real property described on Exhibit "B" to SELLER when the COUNTY no longer uses the property In Its utility operation or at the end of ten years from the date of this agreement, whichever comes first; provided that if at the end of ten years the COUNTY still needs the property, the COUNTY shall pay the fair market value of the property to SELLER, and SELLER shall have no further claim against the property. 7 S. WARRANTY OF TITLE: HOLD HARMLESS: SELLER shall warrant title to all the real and personal property In SYSTEM and shall hold the COUNTY harmless from any and all claims for damages from third parties, and In particular for any claims from LAKE DELORES UTILITIES AND CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS, INC. 6. IMPACT FEES: After five years from the date of this agreement SELLER shall be obligated to pay Impact fees to the COUNTY, at the rate then current, for each unit which thereafter requires a Certificate of Occupancy. Units which have had a Certificate of Occupancy Issued to them before five years from the date of this agreement must have an Impact fee paid when that unit is resold, without regard to the five-year SELLER's grace period. At closings on such sales, SELLER or successor in title shall collect the Impact fee and remit it to COUNTY. 7. SURCHARGE ON RATES: COUNTY shall establish a surcharge on water and wastewater rates for customers In the service area as shown on Exhibit "D." The surcharge shall be collected by the COUNTY for ten years only or until $777,000.00 has been paid, whichever comes first, and funds so collected shall be remitted quarterly to SELLER. SELLER agrees that the funds so remitted shall be full satisfaction for SELLER's right to be reimbursed for Its equity In the SYSTEM. The COUNTY surcharge shall be $10 per ERU (equivalent residential unit). 0. CLOSING DATE: The closing shall take place on or before August I, 1989. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date first set forth above. Attest tey71-5r Ce-9oayd, � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Gr ee Gar a/C "'FeeTer Cha ilfman (SEAL) In"m O.n [e ACR Duca D3 1, :Zll nness WI tness 17 elsonHyatf,/- Attachments: Exhibits "A," "B," "C," and "D" 5 a RE: NELSON HYATT WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES 1. No inventory is included with the purchase. 606488 ICI 5'>l THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT, made and executed this _15th day of June A.D. 1989, by NELSON C. HYATT, whose Post Office address is 12505 N. A -I -A Vero Beach, FL 32963, hereinafter called GRANTOR, to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the Slate of Florida, 1840 2501 Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, hereinafter called GRANTEE. ' (***Whenever used herein, the terms GRANTOR and GRANTEE Include all the partles to this Instrum"entland their heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns.) WITNESSETH: That Grantor for and In consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, convey, and confirm unto the Grantee, a perpetual easement of 10 - feet In width for utilities over, across, and beneath tFie following described land, situate In Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF and EXHIBIT "A-1" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AND Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor Is lawfully seized of said servient land in fee simple, and that the Grantor has good right and lawful authority to convey the easement established hereby and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons r whomsoever. v UJI z v IN WITNESS -WHEREOF, the Gran has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day d year first above a written. i s 94' Signed sealed and de ed In the pres ce of: 0 4Z ^ - I ess Ne C. Fyatt - -7—. I I as STATE OF FLORIDA:? COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER c .. SWORN TO and subscribed before me by NELSON C. HYATT, on this l�tl1 day of _ June 1989.. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE Dr rLOPIDA, MT COM M1551 o11 EXPIRES: DEC. [14. 1992. DDC. ST. - AMT. 9. 5S J& UPTC1. ^Nna d CIIEE71 COL -1 Indian FIvef Co•Inly - by (jyxR!% Tide dnemment was pr -hared 'up Vnr•.d a:cuhl be rrt:.1::711 :o' it d6 31"afh 9t., itara ue:Ecu, Aot ry Pu Ic l .ate.. •�.� Parcel SEA #85 - North County Sewer Easement EXHIBIT A A 10 foot non-exclusive utility easement from the west right-of-way of U. S. Highway No. 1 running in a westerly direction within the 80 foot right-of-way of Stratton Avenue on the northerly side thereof, to be located within a 10 foot area from the existing pavement extending to the existing sewer plant and from there to the existing lift station, the said Stratton Avenue traversing the real property described in Exhibit A-1. A0001 -1- -'s'. Centerline description of a proposed 10' easement lying S• feet no each side of the following described llnet Reing a part of Government Lot 13, SeIon 21. Township 31 south, Range 39 east and a pert of the ct southeast 1/4 of Section 20, TwnshiP 31 south. Range 39 east. Indian River County, Florida; being mere fully described an follwsl commencing at the' intersection of the west right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 11 and the north line of the South 550 feet. of Government Lot 13. Section 21, Township 31 south, Range 39 east) then... N 26'00t W (assumed bearing) along said right-of- way line. 108.00 feet to the Point of Beginningt thence B 63-52- 10- W, 196.00 feet? thence N 85.16.05' W. 111.45 feett thence N 68'17135' W. 160.45 feet; thence S 89'56.52• W. 378.28 feet; thence B 85'07-10' W. 104.20 -feet, thence S 63'17.50' W. 357.78 feet; thence along a curve to the left having a delta of 64'.05- 17', a radius of 370 feet, an are length of 413.06 feet, thence S 0.17-27' E. 400 feetf thence along a curve to the right 6eving a delta of 70.00•. a radius of 280.00 feet, an arc lenath of 342.08 feet? thence S 69'42.33' U, 90.00 fall" thence N 20'17627' W, 40.00 feet to the terstinus of said centerline. Subject to a14 easements and rights of way of record. tax Ll. Nn. •, it -3\•34- beeeo• iOh4- Onbn1A OWMl0.•. Z. STCOMENI t1\L5] �*• ?1o0.1w SCALE. i- ]a• eeoeo• \\ \ • 00004.1 \, .ON M1LLlq 1 \ 1obeft. o p, o ebeo 4.1 LO-]1-39-eon00• � � aelnsT.a.l r 7nnn- nnD0T.0 \ - 0 0 uLe+ aa, 8. asaee[w (T+) iODe - 0008 •O eTR.1-I / AI VO•eues HILL+ '+[. , \ N y f 1 ` /�e.i+i es �• ]Tata[H (mal N N le'111i w�� lL4' 11 ]]••W I 40.00 10.00 SPM5170 PURPOSE SUR4EY A K /o Ar usmll.tD$KaeY atW N07F..• MIS SURI•£Y SKE70V IS PREPARED AROU /NFOPMA 770V SUPPLIED BY INDIAN RIWR 177L£ COPAA, NO PHYSICAL SUR6£Y CORNERS SET. PREPARED FAP NORM COUNIy SEHER Pm EC7' ACOWS/ROV fERMCA7708- I,ROO REED, HEREBY C£R77FY THAT ME S'URWY SHORN HEREOV WAS PERFORMED S-io-B9 AND SAID SVR4£7 MEE75 MEA MMUM 7MYN/CAL STANDARDS PURSUANT. 7D SEC770V 472027 OF THE nc RIDA STA7UIES AND CERI7f7ED 7O• 2INN--8 Or THE ADMN/SAiA R(£ CWE..' NELSgN C• C`YATT V L IL-1' -TIS It CIT`( nF- E9AST 1(\H' /\ I I 1 l I I X /�- MILES R.. A. STEeHC-H A. SAO &EZh RLS pUm M MAS TELLER. MOL ER & REED INC. M PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PHONE 589-4810 POST OFFICE BOX 1045 •' oR�KINc SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32958 TI,x +L. Nn:. .0000- 0010• 1 • DODOO - ioolr, OWHIR: \ 10.3\•]\• - 9000 o0001.0 OwNE0.: � NlLSOH r �' N`tnTT 00000• NL:LSOH C. HY RTT 10 D0• • y ne na ].4 90g•o710 w i105'WWW '�• r' j;]SSeN C•MVnvr 01.20 Ill.'s I -a. U..a \ \�E6 ]'4V•So w 3Ta• 1160'1i'35•W lei+C-I. 1.8 41'• +Ret OSEh . 367.iB \00.45 na•On \r le• / GLt1T \ le•9\•iq. eeb0o• � 11•)1. J1- \_ i ±OqO 0000 ].O 00000- 7 (p GhTOR eee]e• 'ecce).? • A. CM'05•\T- 0.1 3Ve.0e LOMaE0.Ce. \- 4RnnR WI+L+L en. / A • 41].06 \ • e i- ]a• eeoeo• \\ \ • 00004.1 \, .ON M1LLlq 1 \ 1obeft. o p, o ebeo 4.1 LO-]1-39-eon00• � � aelnsT.a.l r 7nnn- nnD0T.0 \ - 0 0 uLe+ aa, 8. asaee[w (T+) iODe - 0008 •O eTR.1-I / AI VO•eues HILL+ '+[. , \ N y f 1 ` /�e.i+i es �• ]Tata[H (mal N N le'111i w�� lL4' 11 ]]••W I 40.00 10.00 SPM5170 PURPOSE SUR4EY A K /o Ar usmll.tD$KaeY atW N07F..• MIS SURI•£Y SKE70V IS PREPARED AROU /NFOPMA 770V SUPPLIED BY INDIAN RIWR 177L£ COPAA, NO PHYSICAL SUR6£Y CORNERS SET. PREPARED FAP NORM COUNIy SEHER Pm EC7' ACOWS/ROV fERMCA7708- I,ROO REED, HEREBY C£R77FY THAT ME S'URWY SHORN HEREOV WAS PERFORMED S-io-B9 AND SAID SVR4£7 MEE75 MEA MMUM 7MYN/CAL STANDARDS PURSUANT. 7D SEC770V 472027 OF THE nc RIDA STA7UIES AND CERI7f7ED 7O• 2INN--8 Or THE ADMN/SAiA R(£ CWE..' NELSgN C• C`YATT V L IL-1' -TIS It CIT`( nF- E9AST 1(\H' /\ I I 1 l I I X /�- MILES R.. A. STEeHC-H A. SAO &EZh RLS pUm M MAS TELLER. MOL ER & REED INC. M PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PHONE 589-4810 POST OFFICE BOX 1045 •' oR�KINc SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32958 A T1e Soutl, 3/•1 of the Soutlroest ii4 0- as 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. 1 Parcel 2n The Southeast 1/4 of 20, Township 31 South, portion lying East of the right-of-way.. Parcel 31 the Southeast 1/4, Section Range 39 East, LESS that Florida East Coast Railroad The West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of tine Southeast 1/4 of. the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, EXCEPT, the following three parcels of lands A. Beginnting at a point *25 feet East of Elle North- west corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run East 47 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 47 feet, thence North 150 feet to the Point of Beginning. S. Beginning at a point 72 feet East of the North- west corner of kite Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, thence East 100 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 100 feet, thence North 150 feet to Point of Beginning, _ C. Beginning at a point 25 feet East of Southwest corner of Southeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run North 50 feet thence East 100 feet, thence South 50 feet, thence West 100 feet to Point of Beginning. LESS road right-of-way. Parcel 4, Tile West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 29, Town- ship 31 South, Range 39 East. Parcel 51 That part of the HE 1/4 of BE 1/4 of Section 2U, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West of Elie West right-of-way of Florida East Coast Railroad, LESS .TND EXCEPT the following two parcels of landn A. The North 6.5 acres of the NE 1/4 of kite BE 1/4. B. Tile South 15U feet thereof. The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, LESS and EXCEPT the following, 1. The North 6.5 acres thereof# 2. The South 150 feet lying West of the EEC right-of-ways 3. The South 550 feet lying East of the FEC right-of-way# 4. Right-of-way for U. S. Highway Al and FEC Railroad. That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West of U. S. Ilighway Ai right-of-way, less the South 550 feet thereof. EXHIBIT h-1 S SCj.oa to i t R LAW OFFICE OF :O T, OALUGHER 1 .o N.C...Ito".4 3218.4" I iL, ' UA -%UA -Al/ e00h r ,O PACE AOOVI a` VEGUR9 JERIFIEO 00 NOV -3 All 9: 34 fREDA l\'iil(illl I,TRK OF Clll;hll COURT :R>U,II fwaJU;OJI.A. BY Clvc{�_Y.csuc D.C. NELSON C. HYATT, Plaintiff, VS. R. STEPHEN MILES, JR., as Trustee, et al., Defendants. 574038 573093 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 88-0180 CA -09 Judge Paul B. Kanarek s11,,E o0 FLORIDA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IHIS IS TO CERTIFY 114AT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE 711IOINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE FR W IC LER Py D.C. DATE .. , 1 f CERTIFICATE VF'TITLE The undersigned Clerk of the Court certifies that she executed and filed a Certificate of Sale in this action on the _. day of October, 1988, for the property hereinafter described,said sale having been confirmed by the Court. The following property in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: IXC. ST. - AIAT. 0,5 ZS"77 ~ FRFDA WRMT. Oek of Olcull Cwl Elden Wva CouOy • bT� � f I Parcel It The South 3/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Parcel 2s - The Southeast 1/4 of Lite Southeast '1/40 Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 Fast, LESS that portion lying East of Elie Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way.. Parcel 31 TITe West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4A of tite Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, EXCEPT. the following three parcels of lands A. Beginning at a point 25 feet East of Elie North- west corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run East 47 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 47 feet, thence North 150 feet to the Point of Beginning. B. Beginning at a point 72 feet East of the North- west corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the NorEhwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, thence East 100 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 100 feet, thence North 150 feet to Point of Beginning. rn - _rn F C'11 c,9 LD T l i, f. I nl The undersigned Clerk of the Court certifies that she executed and filed a Certificate of Sale in this action on the _. day of October, 1988, for the property hereinafter described,said sale having been confirmed by the Court. The following property in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: IXC. ST. - AIAT. 0,5 ZS"77 ~ FRFDA WRMT. Oek of Olcull Cwl Elden Wva CouOy • bT� � f I Parcel It The South 3/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Parcel 2s - The Southeast 1/4 of Lite Southeast '1/40 Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 Fast, LESS that portion lying East of Elie Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way.. Parcel 31 TITe West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4A of tite Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, EXCEPT. the following three parcels of lands A. Beginning at a point 25 feet East of Elie North- west corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run East 47 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 47 feet, thence North 150 feet to the Point of Beginning. B. Beginning at a point 72 feet East of the North- west corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the NorEhwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, thence East 100 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 100 feet, thence North 150 feet to Point of Beginning. "VICE r .1UGIIEN ..,ae ., nonma ..ao C. Beginning at a'point 25 feet East of Southwest .corner of Southeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run North 50 feet thence East 100 feet, thence South 50 feet, thence West 100 feet to Point of Beginning. LESS road right-of-way Parcel 4, The West 1/2 of tl,e Northeast 1/4, Section 29, Town- ship 31 South, Range 39 East. Parcel 5, That part of the NE 1/4 0£ SE 1/4 of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West of tl,e West right-of-way of Florida East Coast Railroad, LESS AND EXCEPT the following two parcels of land, A. The North 6.5 acres of the NE 1/4 of tl,e SE 1/4. B. The South 150 feet thereof. TOGETHER WITII tl,e utility and water system, lines, plant and all facilities relating thereto and located on and being incorporated in the real property above described. SUBJECT TO a first mortgage to First Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association dated September 11, 1984 and recorded in Official Records Book 0693, Page. 2040, and Official Records Book 0696, Page 2939, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, in the original.principal amount of $3,000,000.00. (Modular homes are not included.) was sold to Nelson L. Hyatt, 12505 N. AIA, Vero Beach, FL 32693 WITNESS my hand and the seal of this Court this a� day of October, 1988. FREDA WRIGHT Clerk o the C�rcEtlt Coart By Deputy Cler I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate of Title was furnished by U. 5. Mail this a7 `day of October, 1988, to the parties name .' -or �i.the attached rn mailing list. I.,.:••.• N ',: .l:. - fir. , ..., • i. .. CM r� Deputy ClerCID ce .•. : _ ', • •,� '�''. iy U=•• I •v 1I '' The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, LESS and EXCEPT the following: 1. The North 6.5 acres thereof] 2. The South 150 feet lying West of the FEC right-of-way; 3. The South 550 feet lying East of the FEC right-of-way; 4. Right-of-way for U. S. Highway Al and FEC Railroad. That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying West Of U. S. Highway #1 right-of-way, less the South 550 feet thereof. Exhibit "A" VILLAGES OF LAKE DOLORES FRANCHISE LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 The South 3/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the South- east 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. PARCEL 2 - That part of the Southeast 3/4 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, lying west of the Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way: .- PARCEL 3 - The Nest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, except the following 2 parcels of land! 1. Beginning at a point 25 feet east of the Northwest Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the. Northwest 1/4 of Section 29-31-39, run east 1d7 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence west 147 feet,. thence north .150 feet to point of beginning; and 2. Beginning at a 'point 25 feet east of'the Southwest corner of Southeast 1/4 of North- went.1/4 of Section 29-31-39, run north 50 feet, thence east 100 feet, thence south 50 feet, thence. Neat 100 feet to the point of beginning; lase road right-of-way. PARCEL 4 - The Hent 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. Said property lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. PARCEL 5 - That part of the southeast quarter of the south- east quarter of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39 East lying Hest of the F.E.C. Railway right-of-way. PARCEL 6 - That part of the northeast quarter of the south- east quarter of said Section 20, less the north 6.5 acres there- of; and less the south 150 feet lyihv west of the F.E.C. Railway right-of-way, and rights-of-way for the F.E.C. Highway No. 1. Railway and U.S. 3AIYG EXHIBIT 3N01 S.(3,1 ;�: 133YIS 701SIY9 7J z s z o ZLLm� opoo > K wZQ z ~F-00 W J WxLL 2 Z Z LLL a: -i F n:3 F a to o ox 4- F W K O w K J m Z O= Z W U f- LL x a K Q Z F 0~z dN K � Z LL Wo OFWF-F IL auto Q 0z mW ' OO-a0m Zmu O0 N> F•z W z 0 LL73 K looLL M Z Q - N D O LL WOK Z U Q Z F W p tn Q KxUOxWzo_ r ¢www W M w Z cr Z WZ Z O w w w F- Z w �- Z IL Zee x Ztn Doz Ht00 KmQW Z W K cn 'r —aro�F z _ W Kwu .xw _ z m cr W �- In 4-F- vm Z� Z W N O .JW F -ix v)LDLL- Oz Z W �}-.K 0- K K Z K Qoww W o 0 0 t F- W O W L) J K H LL K Z a - LLIQ W d . W Z m J U F x~ 2 N Q UJ NmQO01-- EL0 w KWH tn OzazzooiLowo �o U ° �¢ J w W]ONF w Q Q(7p LJ,M"c a LLHa F -KS FKQ LLW J Ix(Dl-wLL W W o0 (7 W aoxLLzwOU- z oQ= Boz-xaw_v_zo Z �w(n J waz _oz -a U WONO-N A H W .. Q Q J LL w a O N F- a Q N N W- Z D f n W F W I- N N N Mzawcr hw zx�(Re F-, °o�¢ I—J mw m (7 00 NKO�--Z v) ON O Z O W UQ Il/. O. LLN Q W wQ?iU N Ina z0 Ula_ 3AIYG EXHIBIT 3N01 S.(3,1 ;�: -'I -'4 -i -1 D x x x x z M m m m a z z z z z a x x z z z Z Z z z on "ZMWMMO DONmafnN0 :Z- 07mAmCm" OnCDf*IOOCmi3 Znw-b— *. mZiaaZm +3 <Z„wZA VW -4 rr', A/- 0 �O 4:E 3�Ix+1 rT.,r GZ] o W NO OW 4% :E -I m'F 7I1m �m � r z:t� 0 xmm_ n -� Of D m'i(nOa nO= m OO O a izno as o0Zm G7 � x r^ z o D mmimz 1a=aia Zoom f rnvmro m -4-Iz n--1 0 p zm zo,�m mxw0 D nz"'mo 0- 00 M z z -{ n• zmao o yz m _ m - n -q m m0 m (n c c w i y -4 n r -0o o <<-acmm N i=o b mz_ aio tor. zw> K0 rO tpZA-� m c)mo m m (n :e max _n x m Z Z N a m m z m m m-1 0) -< m m 0 — z -4 N e -m monrz O z_r omo_-4 +'n z ozz m e m 0 - -iron G)O DO0-OO Ox A D n Z_Nm mm Z x N mm 2 2>(nl O o m Z -i m r*m m 'r < n " mmn�f vm m M Z OONCOm p M 0 m D DmZ -4 D m M o r� z r -Io m z pA A M �C? o m np F_Xf-I II1- Y' 1E7CIiIBIT "C" "- Engineers Planners Economists Scientists December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 Mr. Terry Pinto Director, Utility Services Division Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394 Subject: Bulk Wastewater Rate Letter Report Work Order No. 6 authorized CH2M HILL to conduct an analysis of the cost to Indian River County of providing bulk wastewater transmission, treatment, and disposal service and to develop rates to recover those costs from potential bulk wastewater system users. This letter report presents the results of this evaluation. The recommended rates are directly applicable to the County's contemplated service to the City of Sebastian. Background Indian River County (the County) currently provides wastewater service on a retail basis to customers in various locations in Indian River County, including a small portion of the City of Sebastian (the City). The City is currently considering purchasing a privately owned wastewater utility that serves the remainder of the City. In anticipation of this acquisition, the City has requested that the Courity convey to the City the right to provide retail wastewater service to customers located within the City limits which are currently served by the County. At least initially, the County would continue to provide bulk wastewater transmission, treatment, and disposal ser- vices to this service area. However, the County would relinquish responsibility for operation and maintenance of the collection system, and retail customer billing and collection services to the City. Master meters would be installed at the City's expense to measure the total wastewater flows from the City to the County's system. CH2M HILL Southeast Florida Office Hillsboro Executive Center North, 800 Fainvoy Drive. Suite 350 305.426.4008 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 407737.6665 Mr. Terry Pinto Page 2 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 Report Organization The remainder of this letter report presents the underlying assumptions, the analysis, and the recommended bulk wastewater rates to be paid by the City of Sebastian and other customers requesting similar service. The study findings and recommendations are presented along with an overview of the methodology used. Detailed rate calcu- lations are included in the appendix. Study Assumptions The following assumptions were used in calculating bulk wastewater rates: • AU wastewater rates are charged on a uniform systemwide basis for similar classes of service, i.e., all users are assessed the same rates for the same type of service. • Bulk users will be charged rates designed to recover their proportionate share of the County's wastewater system costs including transmission, treatment, disposal, and their share of the customer and billing costs for the master meter bill for bulk wastewater service. • The County will continue to own, operate, and maintain force mains running through and serving Sebastian. • Sebastian will purchase and install approximately five master meters to measure its flow and then donate these meters to or reimburse the County for the cost of installation. • The County will be responsible for operating, maintaining, and reading the master meters; the City will reimburse the County for these costs. • Bulk customers will be responsible for meter and service maintenance, meter reading, customer billing and collection, and any line maintenance between force mains and service mains for retail customers in their service area. • Bulk users will pay a billing charge, a base facility charge per equivalent residential unit (ERU), and a volume charge per 1,000 gallons of wastewater flow. The rates charged to bulk users per account, per Mr. Terry Pinto Page 3 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 ERU, or per 1,000 gallons will be adjusted, as needed, to reflect the bulk users' cost of service. • The volume rate per 1,000 gallons of wastewater flow will be based on 100 percent of metered wastewater flow, with no maximum. This differs from retail rates which are based on 85 percent of the customers' metered water consumption, with a 10,000 gallon cap for residential users. • The bulk users will continue to use the County's ERU system. Analysis The bulk rates recommended in this report are based on the retail wastewater rates presented in CH2M HII.I 's, September 1991 Independent Evaluation and Update of the Indian River County Water and Wastewater Fee and Rate Study and associated cost -of -service analyses. The retail wastewater rates presented in the September report were modified as needed because bulk users provide their own wastewater collection services and billing and collection services for retail customers in their service area. A detailed line item review of the County's operating budget was performed by County and CH2M HILL staff to identify those costs incurred to provide collection services; transmission, treatment or disposal services; and administrative services. Administrative costs were then redistributed between collection and transmission, treatment, and disposal services in proportion to the distribution of the directly allocated costs. System capital costs (debt service, debt service reserve, and renewal and replacement costs) were similarly allocated between collection and transmission, treatment, and disposal processes. For bulk rate calculations, the identified collection system costs were deducted from,the system costs, and base facility and volume rates were developed from the residual transmission, treatment, and disposal costs. Two exceptions should be noted: 1. All construction fund costs, over and above those costs for renewal and replacement, were deducted from the system costs for the bulk rate calculations. The rationale for this procedure is the County's expectation that expenditures from this fund would be allocated for retail service improvements or for future growth, not for bulk users. Mr. Terry Pinto Page 4 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 2. All of the debt service on the Gifford FHA bonds and associated debt service reserve were, with staff acknowledgement, included in the bulk rate calculations. The inclusion of this debt in the bulk rate calculations was based on the low interest rate, long-term financing that the County was able to obtain through the Farmers Home Administration on the treatment plant and other improvements. Thus, because of the overall benefits to the system of this financing, which was only available due to the inclusion of the collection improvements, the portion of the debt service on the Gifford Bonds that was collection related was included in the bulk rate calculations. Proposed Bulk Rates The proposed bulk wastewater rates are shown in Table 1. The proposed bulk rates follow the same structure as the retail rates, with a billing charge, base facility charge, and a volume rate. The rates assessed per equivalent residential unit and per 1,000 gallons of wastewater flow have been adjusted to reflect the cost of providing bulk wastewater service. The calculation of each rate component is discussed below. Billing Charge When Sebastian converts to bulk user status, as opposed to remaining individual retail users, the County will have to send only one bill per meter to Sebastian. Because the difference in the number of accounts on the County's system is small, no change in the billing charge is calculated. Thus, bulk users will pay the same billing charge as the retail customers, $2.00 per account per month. Base Facility Charge The base facility charge, where master plan lines are available, is designed to recover a large proportion of the system's fixed costs which generally exhibit little change in response to a change in wastewater flows. The base facility charge includes a portion of the system operation and maintenance costs, all debt service costs, debt service reserve costs, renewal and replacement costs, and construction fund costs. For the bulk rate calculations, the portion of the fixed operating costs related to the collection system, collection -related debt service, debt service reserve, renewal and replacement, and all construction fund costs were deducted from the fixed costs. The base facility charge for bulk users would be $10.83 per ERU per month in comparison with $12.25 per ERU per month for retail customers. Mr. Terry Pinto Page 5 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 Volume Rate The volume rates are designed to recover a portion of the system's fixed costs and all of the system's variable costs, or costs that vary with the volume.of wastewater collected and treated. All of the system's variable costs are operation and maintenance costs. The portion of the variable operating costs that were determined to be collection related were deducted from the total variable operating costs for the bulk rate volume charge calculation. As a result, the volume rate for bulk users declines to $3.20 per 1,000 gallons, from $3.35 per 1,000 gallons for retail customers. It should be noted that the volume rate for bulk users applies to the total volume of wastewater metered through the customers' master meters, with no maximum volume or cap. Retail rates, however, are based on 85 percent of the users' water consumption with a 10,000 -gallon per month maximum for residential customers. Retail customers are subject to an excess use surcharge when wastewater flow exceeds 11,000 gallons per ERU per month. Because of the blending effect of a master meter, excess use by some individual customers of a bulk user is offset by the lower use of other customers. Therefore, for bulk customers the excess use surcharge should apply at a use rate greater than the level corresponding to the reserved capacity, based on the number of ERUs in the system and the flow per ERU. An excess use surcharge, equal to of the excess volume surcharge charged to retail customers, would be charged only on flows exceeding the reserved capacity in any given month. All provisions of the County's rate ordinance relating to purchasing of additional ERUs should apply. Recommendations CH2M HILL recommends that the County: • Enact the proposed FY 1991-92 bulk wastewater rates. The County should offer to provide this service at the proposed rates to the City of Sebastian or to any other bulk user. Contracts for bulk wastewater service should include provisions for annual updating of these rates. • Contracts for bulk wastewater service should include provisions for the assessment of an impact fee to the City by the County for transmission, treatment and disposal capacity. The impact fees should follow the same fee schedule as charged to retail customers by the County, as Mr. Terry Pinto Page 6 December 19, 1991 SEF30360.G0 these capital fees are designed to recover system transmission, treatment, and disposal capacity, and do not include any collection system costs. • If the City eventually provides transmission, treatment, and disposal services to the proposed service area, the County should reimburse the City for impact fees collected from City retail customers, as the County obtains other customers who wish to purchase the capacity previously used by the City. We appreciate this opportunity to again be of service to Indian River County. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please call me. Sincerely, 9�2M HILL avid D. Green Economist set/dbt128/008.51 Table 1 Indbhn River County Recommended Rates FYcai Years 1992 and 1993 Retail Sewer Ratty 1992 1993 Billing Charge . per Accaunt per Month 52.00 $2M Rase Facillty Charge Where Lines Ara Avallahle - per FRU per Month $12.23 $13.50 Bare Facility Charge Where Capacity is Reserved, But Lines Am Not Available - perERU Mr Month 56.13 $6.75 Volume Charge • per 1,000 g:altons Estimated Wastewater Flow 5335 $3.35 (95 patent of water sus . 10,000 gallonthnomh maximum for residential customers) Exosat Volume Surcharge - Grsaw than 11,000 gallons per month Par RAU 54.05 $4.45 Bulk Bever Rata Billing Chatgo - pct Aocount per Mouth $200 11.00 Base Fadllty Charts Whore Master Plan Lina Are Available - par ERU Per Month $10.93 $11.97 Bate facility Charts Wthete Capaolty Is Roeorrod. But Linea Are Not Arallabls - per SRU per Month $542 55.99 Volume Chap - per 1,000 gallons mc=rdwastcwaccrflox M20 53.19 Excess Volume Surcharge - Greaser than 11,000 gallons pa month per ERU (a) $4.05 $4,45 (a) $tue"a for bulk users will apply to flow exceeding total surcthnrgn a Pauity reserved by bulk user In all teeters. TTru IV'N1 rrn.7i INI!I-70 7s-nI_bn Appendix Table 1 Indian Rlrer County Retail sad Bulk Sewer Bax Facility Charge Rate Calculation for 1992 and 1993 R Hail Sewer Fixed Come 53399.081 U277A48 Appendix Table 1 Indian River County Retail and Bulk 9awer game Fadgty Charge Rita Calculation for 1992 and 1993 Ratan 1992 1993 Sc;w= Flxod Corte $3,399,091 S4,277A49 Number of ERUJ 23,123 26,404 Dilling Podods 12 12 Monthly rummer CRU $1225 $1350 Sowor Flxed Conn Less: Cullcudun Itclatai Fixed ORM Ctnts Les Collection Related Debt Service Lett Collection Related Debt Service Reserve Leu. Collection Related Renewal and Replacement tats: Consuvction Fund Na Fixed Costs Number of ERUs Billing Periods Monthly Rue Per FRU $3,399,081 $4277,448 $210,875 5227,744 30 30 so so $10467 MA47 $165,944 s=534 $3,005,695 53,794,019 23,123 26,404 $10.83 $11.97 Appendix Table 2 Indian River County Retail ud Bu0c Senor Volume Rate Cakaladon for IM and I993 xerau _.. _ 1992, 1993 Sewer Variable Coen SI,527,446 $1,565.633 Wasleaeater Plows (1.000's Gallons) 433,934 467,353 Volume Ram Per7housand Gallons Sewer Variable Cats Let= Colltedon Related Variable O&M Coen Net Variable Costs Wastewater Flows (1,000't Gallons) Volume Rate Pernoueand Gallons $3.35 $335 51327,446 $1—%5.633 W. W 572965 $1,459.886 .11,492,668 453,954 467,353 53.10 $3.19 `. 7 11 Q 10 PI) MAj1 1,r1 I.7n 76_01-p0 APpmdLx T" 3b Indian itlr4rCounty Albntloa of Sewer Operating Exyanw to C016ctlon(P1aaNAdntnistradvo Fucctlmu 1993 pr09m Can A09Nner I1a7.x. T1u4m16119W Cis collooeq Ltacm Admml.vuh4 Gucka nm Adialia"e. S.1.SN..06 W.p. N.W.1.1 W016M 134770 1000% 524710 SO f0 Nan., walko. SI1,.114 IN.Os 214,!!6 SO >a0 Rm WF,. 212.776 111006 20.0% 514.623 13.656 so Supaviw 174,931 lob% W." 17,404 167,4 4 $0 MMALOIC Cl,A09 100.04 W,6D9 t0 s0 Vic Ttud Opra,w 9456 100.0% 3459 to 0o Lin 31&Wn Oapwiw 1234311 10.0% 90.01 71.303 111.20 SD 04M LAbr W5,111 00% 1000% 10 15"M l 12 sublot.,24" WA Wit" 5717,771 513,234 $647.497 10 N 100.0% 11.7% IU% 051% Beal= SJ10,191 $"366 3420.917 Cv=v..1_ i 2rrbm > W Sew S43Jao 750% 730'3 572,406 110.1Oo to Ow ♦ AA- {. Yapwnr 197,191 100.0% t0 SO 197,707 Odr Pt.b,.64.1 ler CM1472 100.046 t0 !01,472 t0 R.r.,1.1 Ae le SI 1,935 10001E to t0 111,034 Quramnc+WSro. CLU 100.0% R 321.62& 14 Tail Con 4cbd swo 11121103 512,400 8130.t72 $100,131 Prot 100.0% 11.90. 47.9% 403% Oprrlm.l.wlu vowd. Allorno. $12,474 100.091 so to $13,474 AIl76w.1 UAdi 100011 $o $0 PAS T.l.pbae 94,310 100.0% 50 AI S1a20 t rllr Q+••,•UOJR 1514W 100.0% ' SO 10 219700 Poral. $1 J,446 100.0% so so 111,446 Oab.l.. dsww71..34 $1.,0+0 11,665 513,174 10 R.r- Q.iltlls, 2171791 100.01 SO 50 t13,795 R..4 -Firer 2l.Ipir 1140 IMO -6 to SD lluo M Psyw 9441 1000% t0 so tui Rr-06. 1540 1006#. to SD 1540 A..Mr. Ie.umr.. 114.150 loom to to 116.959 Clrrnl l.YL01p 17 100.04 so to 1 l0 015r lir SMA32 100.011 so s0 16.1.632 M"k Bw1d6p S1.010 ICi104 s0 so $1.090 M -b- OSlfei BOdtmrt $15.1% 100.011 $0 so 111114 Ma6r. A -.(Iv. pqulp =760 111,070 111,710 t0 MXIDL Burp Bgaop w 317,972 IOOA% so s0 119,1171 Mafac ll r a ..Fa Bids MAW 100.016 so so $5,400 Mair. Q4r Equip s10.S00 100.0% t0 $O 110,100 O.Wd. M=Ll $1,100 I00.D% s0 $0 $LIDO Adratlsla V-U*pt L.2.1 $64 1000% $0 so 77164 !ilii ACs 1164 I00.(7% 50 $0 $404 rva...a 6.wr 1717,170 1000; so 1317,930 10 Ll. .W Fr 444,g ICDA% 12 hag a S.rl Chw.r... a.,niw• 1774AW 111,911 004,124 1176.151 Ow.w 100.04 144 40.1% 17.5% Appadi: Tat1I4 3b IcdJ6a River County AllocmWo of Rawer 0p11%ting K p10941 lO COIYCOOM71a IJAdminbtrtcw Mmcticm IM ^T I11 61,11n ^, .., '4•i t `n 'L nr +-n P. OM1 Alk"dm Trao4mWbel i1.u.IMY.y Cr c5wb, 941 Ar A4s1YYna•a C.Ilrlr Olhw tRpaal OMM 3MPdM 311.1]2 :00.00 s0 so C9wpmr tohwn 37360 100.0% so 10 Herd Lukka s MAW $1361 371735 11r1d and 7Uta 31310 100.0% 10 so CSscksY 371210 100.0% 3o M210 Ua CIO" 17,194 IC3l.u% s0 s0 tnaOgtlOW fwptlw 31.944 100.0% 30 $0 64paadesla TwIs 36,430 100.0% $D 30 Maakw 6406 Mc *TPUM 63296 I00.0% 94 94 GV Ori. ayr11. 17.9w 100.04 s0 so Rnh.614ae/d III X" 100.M SIA77 IR IaMc1An3940. .4 L1]aa 100214 1]340 10 TMITIa SIVA" mk 31.296 IMA 31396 so Ho9LN(mmbw 31 A" IOODS sa s0 Dmw • UmAwmk4t 12,700 100A% so SO 7Uldad 31S11�e3dmPalt 36,111 IOaD% 30 10 (114Q)klr 92% IOOD73 30 MW LwalObw31"am 3131,766 fIRTt 3116437 pw[a1 1091n1 1!% 03.5% OWIHYI,AWUMAM 710,730 1004% 14 an Opwr43w Na6IeeMr d RIp4s 11113h6ow 11ar.Ae 3MAM 31294 Mod &.w &Tn PLm low 3164AM IOU% so 32",60a Lm AN11*0 M= 364,100 $9,926 LMAM 3tww Lida Malo so 6441 77.0% 210% 371400 110,100 3awap plan Mew 1101943 100.04 so 3101491 comas Ropmm 31420 100.0% s0 s0 Mke.7.a11Y1 31 AX IOOD% A 10 stwop smsxamaM1 117AW IWD% 11 377A99 71.1 Optr. Mow A SLpia 3671.213 MUM 37)7}1# r� I00.OF 7.M 91.7% Ober Cb 0.j Lube 31 AM two* so 11.670 Mme O6ua R*rm 311A10 IOon% S/1 111230 Pad d Lbdaan 21.700 100.0% 30 32.100 am" M7lotaaca 166,420 100.0% 10 114020 761 WAS ISU20 s0 112610 prow 1000% 0.0% 100.0% gulrmTAL 11.319,490 3136373 57347."7 P rwa 110.7.11% 9311 90.7% AdwWLeW.�A6a+tba #2]_661 R1T1J1% Subaot.l 364.7 f1, r19At0 2274117 12.601131 Orad Cas - 64nw Pam" 3177.963 326471 32311490 mxdudr Ctrlanr caul 61il So" m4 Ot rd 31.137,432 3700.709 11274741 ^T I11 61,11n ^, .., '4•i t `n 'L nr +-n Appendix Table 4b Indian River County SaMM" of Allocation of Sewer Operating Expeases to Collectionfl tant/General Functions 1993 Cott Allocation Transmission/ Collection Plant A4gk#istradvo Total Salaries atnd Wates $85.884 $647,487 30 $733371 Beaefita 543364 $326,927 30 $370291 Contractual Services 531400 5130.872 5109931 5273.103 Orseradnnt SappBea 513.916 5346,134 5216352 S576.402 OtherSuppliet $1017R Sl 16r355 556.331 $182,764 Bad Debt A Land Use Amortization 30 SO 59,720 S9.720 Operadoru Maintenance and Repaln $50,630 5597,348 S3,740 5651,213 OtherConnaetual Services 50 $1,620 SO SI.620 OtherSarvicea and Equipmcu SO 511,880 $O $11,880 Fuel and Lubrionnts SO $2,700 SO 52,700 Grove Mnintmw= 50 $66,420 SO $66,420 Gonoral Costa SO ¢Q $277,963732 7,963 Tout $236,573 $2,247,443 $673,436 $3,157,452 Dhoctlmccnt 9.596 90,5% 100.0% Adminiatrulve Allocation Salaries and Wates $0 SO $0 Bonetlts 3o $0 $0 Contractual Services $10,460 $99,371 $109,811 Opersdau Supplltu $20,605 5195,747 $216,332 Other Supplies 35,365 $10,966 $56,331 Bad Debt & Land Use AmonWWm $926 $8,794 39,720 Operations Maintmnnce and Repairs 3309 $2,931 S3.2AO Mer Contract al Services SO $O $0 Other Services and Equipment SO $0 $0 Fuel and Lubricants SO $0 $0 Grove Maintenance $0 SU S0 General Cont 326,473 $251,490 SZ77,963 Revised Allocation Saluirt and Wates $85,884 $647,487 5733.371 Beneflis 543364 $326,927 $370,291 Contractual Services $42,860 S230243 5273,103 OlxradonsSuirpdca $34,521 $541.881 $576,402 Other Supplies $13,743 5167,021 $182,764 Bad Debs & Land Use Amortization $926 $8,794 $9,720 Operation Mainterance and Repairs 550.939 $600279 $651,218 Other Contractual Services SO $1420 $1.620 Other Servicea and Equipment SO S11.880 511980 Fuel and Lubricants SO $2,700 $2.700 Grove Maintenance SO S66.420 566.420 General Costs 326.473 W1,49 S27 967 3 Total S300.709 S2.856.743 S3,157.452 Appendix Tabla 5b ladle RJv County Anotatba of Coorctba and Plant Oparatn$ Cant to Fhrd and varla6la Fanetlotu 1497 artrrl 1'r ?M •,, , nit, , • "^ . " 4n Cullecdon hananlaeiaNRant FIK#4 Vulabla Fri Venable Total SeLnea and W04ta $06.707 117.177 5117,990 5129.07 5733.371 neoenta 574.01 36,073 1241.742 $63.331 $370241 Contraanrl lwio.. 942,660 to 0270,243 So $277.103 Dpmdons Snpvu" t0 $34,521 So $541.161 $$76,405 Other Supplies 53.119 511594 533.40{ 5133,617 1161761 Had Debt dt Ladd Uta Amordoxdoa 5926 $o 56.794 50 $9,720 Opmtldda Maintenance and Reptin $50,939 SO $600,279 50 $651115 OthorContraotmlSK*fitaa w SO $1,620 m $1.b20 Oder Saving and Equipment $0 $0 $11,660 $0 $11.$60 Poll and Labdantt $0 $0 SO 52.700 $2,700 Otave Malutanana $o SO 160.420 SD $66,420 Gneral Coete 473 W2,490 iQ $3 Jd] Tntal 5227,7Ad 577961 S1.013662 5$73.061 53,157,431 artrrl 1'r ?M •,, , nit, , • "^ . " 4n Appendix Tahle 6 $545,750 0.0% $0 Indian River County $34,118 0.0% $0 Nht SmNire Allncatinn Between Collection aM Trarumiasitn and Treatment $475,056 0.09b 30 fewer Excluded Collection Bond Amoun Percenllltlo mon 1 Q92 FHA Gifford S545.000 0.0% SO FHA Bent Pine S14,100 0.0% SO 1989 Seriew 5435.196 OA% 50 1991 Series $0 0.0% SO $1,014,296 m Debt SaviccRceetvc $58,015 010% $0 Rencweland Rcplaccmcnt 9141,469 11,7% $16,367 FKA 0 150r $545,750 0.0% $0 PHA Henri Pine $34,118 0.0% $0 1989 Series $475,056 0.09b 30 1991 Series35$ 8,057 0.09b $0 $1,372,981 $0 Debt Service Reserve S58,015 0.0% SO Renewal and Replacement $246,326 11.796 528,847 nor„ 6, -II, " •• 91^I•^t ,i r•1 Fn SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES. FEES. AND CHARGES 1991. 1992. AND 1993 Water Service Connection 519 Inch Meter 1 Inch Meter 1 112 Inch Meier Larger than 1 112 Inch Meter Some Service Connection Residential Commercial and Other Paved Road Cuts Road Jacking and Boling Grass Restoration Unauthorized Use of Fire Hydrants Other and Extraordinary Services Meter Installation 5/8 Inch Meter 1 Inch Meier 1 112 Inch Meter 2 Inch Meter 3 Inch Meter and Larger Flre Hydrant Meier . Water Service Reconnection During Working Hours After Working Hours dbI075/047.wkl 1991 5400.00 $460.00 $810.00 Cost Plus Overhead $500.00 Cost Plus Overhead Cost Pius Overhead S200 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead Cost Ptus Overhead 2115.00 Cost Plus Overhead 5130.00 5200.00 $500.00 5630.00 Cost Plus Overhead 525.00 $18.00 $25.00 1992 5400.00 $460.00 $810.00 Cost Plus Overhead S5o0.00 Cost Plus Overhead Cost Plus Overhead $200 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead Cost Plus Overhead $115.00 Cost Plus Overhead $130.00 $200.00 5500.00 $630.00 Cost Plus Overhead 525.00 $18.00 $25.00 1993 5400.00 $460.00 $810.00 Cost Plus Overhead 5500.00 Cost Plus Overhead Cost Plus Overhead 5200 Minimum 60V Plus Overhead Cost Plus Overhead 1115,00 Cost Plus Overhead 5130.00 $200.00 $500.00 5630.00 Cost Pius.Overhead 525.00 S18.00 $25.00 SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES 1991. 1992, AND 1993 Volume Charge -Calculated as 1991 1992 1993 85 Percent of Water Use - Per 1,000 Gallons - 10,000 Gallon Per Month Maximum for Residential Customers 53.35 $3.35 53.35 Excess Volume Surcharge For Use Greater than 11,000 Gallons Per Month Per ERU - Per 1,000 Gallons Excess Sewage Strength Charge Excess Sewage Strength charge Applicable to Customers Required to Use Greasetraps But Who Have Obtained a Variance Due to Hardship or Financial Unfeasibility Septage Charge per 1,000 Gallons IMPACT FEES Water - Per EAU Water Treatment and Storage Water Transmission Total Sewer - Per ERU Wastewater Treatment and Sludge Disposal Effluent Oisposal Wastewater Transmission Total Dt075/047.wk 1 53.70 Sewage Charge ' Rath of Total Olssolved solids or Biochemical Oxygen Demand In milligrams per liter 1250 50 Percent Excess Sewage Strength Charge $818.00 $502.00 $1,320.00 $979.00 5604.00 $580.00 $2,163.00 $4.05 Sewage Charge Ratio of Total Dissolved Solids or Biochemical Oxygen Demand In milligrams per liter / 250 5893.00 $548.00 57,441,00 51,048.00 $647.00 $626.00 52.321.00 54.45 Sewage Charge ' Ratio of Total Dissolved Solids or Biochemical Oxygen Demand in milligrams per liter / 250 5105.00 $973.00 $597.00 $1,570.00 $1.159.00 $716.00 $676.00 52.551.00 BXH l B� 1 'A RESOLUTION NO. 9I- 31 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING RAS, FEES, AND CHARGES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY. SERVICES, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-9 WHEREAS, Indian River County operates a Department of Utility Services, which is funded without contribution from the ad valorem tax fund of the County and is required to support itself from rates, fees, and charges paid by the customers of the utility system, and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 91-9 authorizes the imposition by the Department of Utility Services of certain rates, fees, and charges to support the operation of the Department in a fair and equitable manner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, schedule of rates, fees, and charges is hereby adopted by FLORIDA, that the following Utility Services effective April 1, 1991. Rates, fees, and char by the Department of become effective October -1, 1991. Rates, fees,. and charges shown for 19931will will become effective October 1, 1992 - The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert put to a vote, the vote was as follows: and, upon being Chairman Richard N. Bird Vice Chairman Ga C Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent Commissioner Margaret Bowman Aye C. Commissioner Carolyn K Eggert Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this day of _Mar h 1991. Attest: 1�It� Jeffrey K Barton Clerk: dbi075,D4.51 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Kicnaro N. Bird Chairman 1,9 SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES, FEES. AND CHARGES 1-991-1992. AND 1993 Franchise Name Change Franchise Terrllory Change Change of Ownership 49 ERUs or Fewer 50 ERUs or More Rate Hearing 49 ERUs or Fewer 50 ERUs or More Public Hearing )75/047.wk1 1991 CostCost Plus F—CIVerheac $1.100 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $115.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $115.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $115.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead 5300.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead 5300.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $575.00 Minimum Cast Plus Overhead $115.00 Minimum 1992 --osy CPIuOv $1,100 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead St 15.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $115.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $115.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead 5300.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead 5300.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead 5575.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead 5115.00 Minimum 1993 Celt Plus Plu Ov S1,100 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $115.00 Minimum Cosi Pius Overhead $115.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $115.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $300.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead 5300.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead $575.00 Minimum Cost Plus Overhead 5115.00 Minimum RESOLUTION NO. 92- 60 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91-31, WHICH ADOPTED RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-9, BY ADOPTING A NEW RATE FOR BULK PURCHASES OF WASTEWATER SERVICE AND BY REMOVING THE WORDS "RATIO OF" ADDED INADVERTENTLY TO ONE LINE OF THE RATE STUDY. WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Indian River County Department of Utility Services enact a rate for the bulk purchase of wastewater services so that the City of Sebastian and others will have that utility service option available; and WHEREAS, the Department has recommended that the words "ratio of" be removed from the description of "Excess Sewage Strength Charge" of the rate study adopted by Resolution No. 91-31; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The schedule of rates, fees, and charges adopted for use by the Department by Resolution No. 91-31 is amended by removing the words "ratio of" from the description of the sewer charge under "Excess Sewage Strength Charge" for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. See attached Exhibit "A." 2. The schedule of rates, fees, and charges for the bulk purchase of wastewater service from the Department of Utility Services, attached as Exhibit "B," is adopted as an additional rate to be added to the rates already adopted by Resolution No. 91-31. 3. These changes shall go into effect on adoption of this resolution. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed adopted this 21 day of April 1992. 71- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA of B 41 Ca n K. Ert Je rearto-n�, C�le7,rk ChEurman .fl . Qa SEBASTIAN / 40107-1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUBFILE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS INDEX 1. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-18 dated April 4, 1984 2. ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT EXPAND WATER MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE SERVICE TO THE SEBASTIAN AREA AND THE CITY OF VERO BEACH (unexecuted) 3. MASTER WASTEWATER CAPACITY RESERVATION AND CONSENT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT filed December 2, 1987 4. SECTION 1 SEBASTIAN UTILITY SYSTEM PROJECT STATUS 5. UTILITY FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS BRIEFING DOCUMENT/CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND IRC prepared by HAI on November 6, 1991 6. SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 1991 7. EXHIBITS A, B, AND C TO IRC/SEBASTIAN INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT 8. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/SEBASTIAN INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT executed April 21, 1992 JLM:40107-1:OFFDOCIRC:10/01/92:0 � � �i nn 11 F n n � � Ivd�eS ,I V I�Me , �� 1 �. -�- e S e � � c_� Aorfk -'Op i 1( 4 0 Descf:, 6,z Ale ep L,( ve__ o O-Ljs—cer� .. .... ja.h A A 1\10 W oT"r, -7- ON �dgRc 1 —Tijfof�-J� I CVA.— Q a z 0000000 �4 a tv. ( '�, '�. 3 � ���� � 1-►, .-, 1 t CLQ `IG BUW*U OF FLORIDA - 1-800 \2-0332 /, PRESS JOURNAL TAMPA TRIBUNE CAPE DAILYI- -36,000 DAILY - • PPE CORAL VERO BEACH 408,000 DAILY BREEZE FLORIDA TODAY LEGu NorlcE AUG 1 2 1 DAILY - - 114 ____M FORMS DAILY - - 7,300 ,000 GDU Rate MELBOURNE Increase Expected By ADAM CIIR'LAN- PressJournal Staff Writer An analysis of General Devel- opment Utilities' request for wa• ter and sewer rate Increases justifies most of the company's proposal to nearly double the ay. erage monthly utility bill. Rales recommended within the city -commissioned analysis likely will be granted by the City Coun. cil after next week's public hear• ing on the Issue, Sebastian officials said Wednesday. .- GDU will not contest, liti• gale or otherwise dispute the re- port's findings," Marilyn Swichkow, the city's finance di. rector, said. Swichkow stressed GDU's indications arc "strictly verbal ". I have nothing in writ- ing, on paper." GDU officials did not return phone calls Wednesday. While slightly lower than what GDU askedfor, the rates recom• mended by the report represent a 02 percent Increase for the over. age water and sewer customer. GDU had sought an almost 108 percent increase for the average customer using 5,000 gallons of water and the equivalent sewer capacity cath month. The Rachlin & Cohen report recommends new utility rales that would boost the current $40 water and sewer bill to more than $76. Customers using 3,000 gallons of monthly water and sewer capac. ity would see their bilis rise from $35 to more than $69, an almost 75 percent Increase. Water and sewer customers us. ing 7,000 gallons would see their bills rise to $01 from the current $44 charge, a 106 percent jump. The cost of 5,000 gallons of wa• :cr will go from :19.25 to more .ham ;32.50. Sewer costs for the same capacity will jump from ;20.50 to almost j44. GDU In April notified the city It :mended to raise rates, the first Such move since 1986. The city, In -esponse, called for a rate study o determine whether GDU's ro- (uesl was reasonable. By law, utilities are permitted ertain revenue returns on their ryslcros. The city, as regulator, Tannot deny a rate Increase If the ,mount Is within guidelines act by he Public Service Commission. GDU, which serves about 1,200 ouseholds with water and half of hose with sewer, indicated Its ate increases would provide an 8 accent rale of return. That rate ould be acceptable under ser. ice commission guidelines, wichkow said. The recommended rates all lar above what customers on 'her area systems pay, accord. lg to the report. In Vero Beach, water and sewer lstomers pay $33.40 for 5,000 gal - To-lenu.m-vua9.tm.rw...en ORLANDO SENTINEL DAILY - - 388.000 Ions of water and sewer service. Indian River County customers Pay $50.50. Customers within the City of Fort Pierce pay less than 530. While city officials expect pub• lic outcry at Wednesday night's public hearing, there may be little to curb a steep increase. "If a rate increase Is justified, then obviously we're committed by law to allow one," Vice Mayor Frank Oberbeck said. The city had Intended to buy the system, but Its $2.75 million offer fell $500,000 short of GDU's final proposal. The council's public hearing be. . gins at 7 p.m. at City Hall. CAPE CORAL CITY OF CAPE CORAL LEGAL NOTICE Car I FOR BIDS TM Cay Land of ew Ory W Cape Coral. Fbrih W reoaite Ma, b Meeh a0 lata, mate- nd, tecta, eauiym m and eupemteion Sc con.ovet IM 'C.R.A. SURFAC)rWATER MAT7A'QEMEFr—SST M AS r H sooerdonra with Plane aed specification, on M N no Pur. chasing D"lon. Bid Opening for bids conned by e,eae plane and epetifira. 9Nvbe alp2mP.M. , a 0r 15. oa mons Conlorene Roan located on the second floor of floe Lae Caary Government Complex at 1039 S.E. Pel Plsoa, Cape co- ral, Florida 33980. As tide are to OR submitted and rJdre"W ONLY b vix General SaMon Admi i.n. dm, Lee Gam? Ginammenl Center, 1039 S.E. 9WPteoa, Second Floor, Cape Coal, Florida 33990. corked re the attention of Na Purchasing Manager. RIDS 9111.1. NOT 339 TED FIFTEEN (15) MINUTES PRIOR TO BID OPENING TIME. A mrtdsmrr Pra4Sid Confe, ems will be hold Tuaaday, ftu 131 190 P.M. M ttta neral Semkes Center. arca Mon located On M co- end hour of ea Lee County Govemmant Complex at 1039 S.E. Pot Piece. Oape Coral, FL 33990. Anadanoa el er fig meeting Is MANDATORY M arnebpaa must be ptelnry marked: T.R.A. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS • PHASE r. Doconentawig ba mad. avi4 able a tlw of. of the Pur - chatting Diviaim, Gy of Cape made In ew ONoa of We Gan - gal Services Adminisiredan, PRIOR to ptddng up doaw: menta. Coat of each cwnptete eat of Bid Docorcnh is am Hundred Do9rs ($700.00). rakmtivote. Mty Waafiau rNadve V the len Will m handled byJoa Cao- non. rantraate Administrator. EngmarmVpLib4 Works De- . peNnent. Guy of Cape Coral, P.O. Box 150027, ape Cort, Florida 33915-0027 (e13)W7 0712. The Gty reserves the right b ref any or We bid. In ttfiote Or N Put sed b wiw anylr gu- ladd.a ar inlormalitioa whrt in the beet interest of ew rldserw of Yw Cly W apeCarat. . By Orin of e,a Cuy Manager E. RJw9eruea C1 c, Cl or Bel Hodge, Genal S.Mns Director Mag. 13, IM codes j o; y -Y Irl $A, Press -Journal, Saturday, November 3Q, 1991 Sebastian River Area *Grant *Micco-Little Hollywood *Barefoot Boy *Sebastian Wellsmere *Roseland Utilities. Negotiations Hit Snag County, City Plans Differ, Manager Says hicelary's mcnno warned City Council a ainsl lh l By JAMES KIRLEX customers — all but five in Park departments. Sebastian Rumau Chief PI Indian River County utility offi- cials offering to let Sebastian out of a franchise so it can build Its own water and sewer systems, are proposing plans in which odds are against city success, accord- ing to a report by City Manager Robb McClary, The view, in a report to City Council, outlines a wide gulf be- tween city and county wishes. Sebastian was hoping to slowly case into a venture that it expects to cosi an initial $62 million. Instead, McClary said, the county wants "a clean and bnme- diate break" that would leave Se- bastian retailing county water and sewer service to 152 current aee. "Although (county) officials ini- tially indicated that they would cooperate with the city lu provid- ing for it smooth transition, they have dramatically narrowed the options to one: a wholesale deal without it transition period," v%IcC- lary said. Il Sebastian accepts, it will be forced into the utility business "in a most untimely fashion' at a ttnrc when it should be concen- trating on acquiring the General Development Utilities Sebastian Highlands water and sewer- plants. ewerplants. The city hopes these private systems can be made the nucleus of Its own public- water and sewer But under, the county's propo- sat, McClary wrote, "We will be so busy put- ting out tires, we will not have adequnte time to devote to the GDU acqui- sition." McClary The current county proposal would also force Sebastian to spend abort $120,000 on four me- ters to measure its flow to the county wastewater plant, b1cC- lary said. "'Phis docs not sound practical to me," he added. g. c Coon } s cm - rent. proposal. "Given the above identified factors, and a hundred more I haven't thought of, Indian River County's 'wholesale' rates may look like their retail rates, only higher. "I am hoping that the conlfnu- ing negotiations with Indian River County can be marked with an attitude of principles over personalities, where the cus- tomer is king," McClary said. "Unless Indian River County is willing to find ways for the unbuckling process to work, It is certainly assuring that the city will have a most difficult time succeeding." -Q, 587 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET FAX # — G� �-- `63 9�) . DELIVER TO: FROM: CY r DATE: TIME SENT: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) Rm r . i,L -q0107.-r1p_ �Qc e G (- : il'i ORIGINAL WILL ( ) WILL NOT FOLLOW. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 0 •-pn?yX Deno w. nn o o��I a0 °'•y eaan W•';wwo n � Naga+bl ' �'w• a 759 Ynav .°.a .5 A O•< S;b 6q tlll..y �•Sn O.. a,Y n ey (Q �-.'. n _1 ornla ., !i nn ?T$� Envy ya 0- /��) •S `J H'O Ty�onyjr�o a'R•f pV p £e Coni: •Y � c•O b .ni a:3 ��Awc�oy JNanrt w W Y S O .fig• g J A C X b •Y ^ T. } 9 3 Rum EY Qt 'AME a• _ �'•y a »yaa tv bhc°o n.sn ..�<� :nom^ enY�•_T•a' v •• .. •-pn?yX Deno w. nn o o��I a0 w c.r Yqw ' �'w• a 759 Ynav .°.a .5 A O•< w .°.ORSq na pYV pS''i YYj �-.'. T •i n E O c g"? •(A nrt t. 4 n B•i FC^ `Raw S^��y ao .w. � c•O b rY pj�00 JNanrt mCr 2G"^go r Rum EY Qt 'AME a• F v •• .. r Rm'o N �Q NN Or �.Xp..•p p?^p� Oa °O0- ^Le°•�n Fav E<mrt � ,�O••�� �� °LN °•�1�.n no Ort' C _� V01 N r• W.� �� °ybOJC-d :0-Zrt + V 40%0 Y} O ip N n'a F•nE (/1f OQ y�j rr�� tl, O 6 Ln W,,wmn C R3 n�YA .0•_.133.° -Le_ r.. ^ =1 ^3pa ^rt •o Jp a w n 7 n't7� xwYn_ e. -9'-P (n s+ l' �I o "S' •. i ia•� a ,a. o ��34 � 3�^n a�b�� m4 °cx ON rnIY CM 8Y�_Y.Cw�Y rYC.� a a�a n .0 �1��SR OS7pdX 0- v pzxp= - yF$nnb o^c wY�S7pP n yfni� } ril QJn!]e Eo}P L•.3arn9 v rY��'�V'n fijw °•m �Y �q [��' L ,a Y r . C A.^ n^� A S b 1i nNXw aii •< •CX F, ep960-J a 3=-Epzm nnr Q '.C3ea•'n� F�nr �' ;r n e e ..omnia Rw?ar �2w uA icn tea= nn a`h_w $S� a XGzw 6 e a t r �X LrY,lw E ° �vDo> ••piety Hai ne On n�iri.n p6e•` 'x �. vw a� �' � � •? C n u ? irk .'. n 4p• SO N G R O w m _S u 'C S 0 ^n .,n 0 • 60 A y^f ^ S N,• W M r . Y • DIe'p p O Y -Sao a IFN U n..n •O .Y4--gi . CD LAW c CD Q C 2 1 F.3 •� B n 'Yp 0r Ip4-n°r• kms° 60 PoLAOp w n'�: a -n �k ao ibnYr ==a c y nil 00 e� Y R^ �n ayaq w n`N bye .o wn Sn'°J 0nX00te 'n= nE _a,on3 OnYn /, V I C p u a o If •. .. w " O O O n •( N Y 1�u n N •NQ ^ Y N X. nwa SW i�.... p F lyw • / 1 R A 714 A � .'1 N =J A h r'. � • `Y p Xa OX Im IV 3 \VaaS; 'oF %ten �_o cad \ _� ^ry (D cn 4•J p`— ur�. r'1 .5 A / - fJ - pYV pS''i YYj N p� O � c•O b rY pj�00 n °eR 2G"^go r =wN2 F v •• .. w�•p 10 Or �.Xp..•p p?^p� W7FA 5` Rc R oa Gp°•. RO YOw 'p RUB: V LC •ri O Y} O ip N 'Cn N M d'J y IS nyO T= n�YA .0•_.133.° -Le_ kms° 60 PoLAOp w n'�: a -n �k ao ibnYr ==a c y nil 00 e� Y R^ �n ayaq w n`N bye .o wn Sn'°J 0nX00te 'n= nE _a,on3 OnYn /, V I C p u a o If •. .. w " O O O n •( N Y 1�u n N •NQ ^ Y N X. nwa SW i�.... p F lyw • / 1 R A 714 A � .'1 N =J A h r'. � • `Y p Xa OX Im IV 3 \VaaS; 'oF %ten �_o cad \ _� ^ry (D cn 4•J p`— ur�. r'1 NOV 26 '91 09:52 407 589 5570 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589.6570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET FAX # - /- 44LI'7-- 7- J DELIVER TO: L4a i FROM: 'ZIx. )�y c DATE: f/aC J ��y TIME SENT: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) -L RE: 5 WILL ( ) WILL NOT (j/ ) FOLLOW. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 P.1 4o�o—I c It County Attorney C Utility Proposal `Rarit y By DAVID BENESH Indian River County Attorney Charles Vitunac said a proposed utility agreement with Sebastian is a rarity that is not often seen be- tween a city and county govern. ment. Vitunac made his statement during a workshop meeting Wednesday night on a proposed utility franchise ordinance be. tween Sebastian and the county. Sebastian City Council is consid. ering adopting an ordinance grant. ing the county the exclusive rights to provide public water and sewer services within non -franchised areas of the municipality when it becomes economically feasible to do so. The proposal also gives the county permission to establish and levy special assessment and impact fees to build the utility system and authority to collect on non -pay. ment of bills. L A hearing on the proposed ordi. nance has been scheduled for next Wednesday where council will take comments from the public before voting on the proposal. Granting of the ordinance will give the county the green light on its regional north county utility project being proposed for the Se. bastian River Area. The franchise agreement with the city does not spell out all the NEWS SUMMARY • Sebastian City Council considers granting utility fran- chise to Indian River County to operate within the city. • County officials propose an overall regional north county utility system for Sebas. ti an River Area. • A public hearing on the proposal will be held Wednes- day before City Council makes a decision. terms of the county utility project, County Utility Director Terry Pinto said. "Everything will be done by the C ounty," Pinto said of the assessing and financing of the utility project. The city has joined the county in an overall utility study of the north county. Sebastian's downtown commercial corridor along U.S. I is included in the county's first phase of its wastewater project. City Attorney Tom Palmer said the county utility project is not re- stricted because of political bound. aries. "There will be no discrimination Of utility rates to people living within the city who are being serv- iced." Palmer said. Sebastian Mayor L Gene Harris said the intergovernmental agreement on a regional utility system is a first for Sebastian. Although the county proposes a regional system for Sebastian and surrounding areas, three private utility systems are already under franchise within the city. General Development Utilities Inc., Sebastian fakes Utilities and Villages of Lake Dolores all have_ franchises in Sebastian to operate utility systems. Under the proposed franchise with the county, those utilitv com- panies will not have the right to expand their systems. Under the proposed franchise. those utility companies will not have the right to renew their franchises once they expire. Pinto said the county is negotiat. ing with GDU to buy the utility systems they now operate in Se- bastian Highlands. "Our intention is that, when county utilities become available, (other utility companies) will get out of the business and join the public system," Pinto said. :;� J +^. /+� i, gni ie -k (- le__ FAX ## �- DELIVER TO: FROM: 4olo�-i ?- L C"t" City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589.5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: :a� 4;2 TIME SENT: a, TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) RE: (J ORIGINAL WILL ( ) WILL NOT 4 FOLLOW. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 COLLINS INVESTMENT COMP �ZZ3�6ej December 3, 1991 �f�1991 H Rem%v Mr. Rob McClary, Manager � 9a City of Sebastian `11 tl 8ars 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958�.___�� Dear Rob: I see where the sewer and water issue is becoming more and more complicated. As you know, my position has always been that we should allow the county to complete the sewer and water facilities as per an agreement worked out with a prior City Council and the County Commission. Of particular concern to us at Capt. Hirams is the availability of water. We expensed considerable sums and expanded our organization based on the fact that county water would be available approximately one year after the availability of county sewer. In talking with the county we find that the main county water line will be running right by our property in the very near future. We are told that we would be unable to hook into the line due to the City's recent position to cancel their franchise agreement with the County. We felt it was very important that we go on record with the City regarding this issue as we may have devastating consequences in the event we are unable to obtain a public water supply in a timely fashion. We are operating off a shallow well and are limited in our ability to permit additional wells. We are therefore requesting that if a deal is cut with the County to break the franchise, we should be able to hook into their system on a temporary basis until the City can adequately supply water to us. I thank you for your kind attention and trust you will keep us informed on this most important issue. Sincerely, Thomas H. Collins THC:jh cc: Mayor Conyers City Council Members 9301 A -1-A, Suite 4 Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Telephone (407) 589-8000 FAX (407) 589-5100 J. CHARLES GRAY GORDON M. HARRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE, JR. WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS, III LEO P. ROCK, JR. G. ROBERTSON DILL CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIRSCHENBAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES III FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 3068 POST OFFICE BOX 320757 ORLANDO, FL 3280E-3068 COCOA BEACH, FL 32932-0757 TELEPHONE (407) 843-6880 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2215 FAX (407) 244-5690 FAX (407) 783-2287 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando December 9, 1991 Charles P. Vitunac Indian River County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MOKR15 ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH 5. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. GUINN. JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK K. McMULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN D.TASSELL FREDERICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E. BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. BOROERT JOHN S. SHOEMAKER LISA J. FRANK* MICHAEL K. WILSON MARK 5. WALKER LILA 1. MCHENRY MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENBAUM OF COUNSEL e1. OF N YORK AND CONNECTICUT CARS ONLY VIA FACSIMILE 407/567-9323 RE: Interlocal Utilities Agreement Between Indian River County, Florida and City of Sebastian, Florida Dear Charles: Enclosed is a redraft of the above referenced Agreement, together with a "blacklined" copy of the same Agreement. I have incorporated the changes discussed during the last meeting at Sebastian City Hall. The only change can be found in Recital No. 1.6, page 3, concerning the number of ERUs in the City. It is my understanding that Park Place has over 140 connections which were not in the 95 ERU number. I have left the number blank, asking only that you obtain from Mr. Pinto the total ERU number for the City including Park Place. If this draft is acceptable to you ( subject of course, to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners), then I need the following from you to complete the Agreement: (1) A complete copy (including all exhibits) of the Park Place agreement as Exhibit "A", (2) The map to be used as Exhibit IIB", and (3) The rate exhibit for the "bulk" rate to be included as Exhibit "C". GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFES51ONAL ASSOCIATION Charles P. Vitunac December 9, 1991 Page 2 If you can also send me a copy of the County's rate schedule, that would be helpful in implementing paragraph 7.5. The City will then review the exhibits and contact the County directly with any input. I would imagine most input will involve Exhibit "CII; if you like, you can send a copy directly to Gerry Hartman. As soon as we have reached consensus on the exhibits, I will prepare two complete originals and submit them to City Council for approval and execution. I will then forward both originals to you for approval and execution by the County Commission. You can then return an original executed Agreement directly to Robb McClary, with a copy to me. Please call me if you have any questions or suggestions. Sip.ic�ely yours Thomas A. Cloud GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON, P.A. Special Counsel for City of Sebastian TAC: jlm Enclosure cc: (all with enclosure) Robb McClary Charles Nash Gerald C. Hartman INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA —'e INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1991, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (hereafter COUNTY) and the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, the address of which is Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978 (hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or assigns, W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 1. AGREED FACTS. The following are true statements: 1.1. The CITY granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance 0-81-9 (col- lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GDU to operate and main - 2 tain a water distribution and a wastewater collection and dis- posal system within a portion of the CITY. 1.2. On January 14, 1987, by CITY Resolution R-87-6, the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30 -year exclusive franchise for the provision of water and wastewater services within the rest of the City. 1.3. An interlocal agreement entered into between the CITY and COUNTY and effective February 3, 1987, required the CITY to assist the COUNTY in assessing property owners for the construction of collection systems in the City limits. 1.4. At construction financing for a wastewater plant and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of $6,075,000 on October 15, 1989. Part of the security for the re- payment of these bonds was the revenue from impact fee assess- ments for reserved connections within the City. 1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from the plant through the unincorporated area into the City and beyond and was ready to provide service for CITY customers on or about March 5, 1991. 1.6. Approximately CITY equivalent residential units are now receiving wastewater service from these facilities. 1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered into and executed an assignment whereby the CITY transferred to the COUNTY, and the COUNTY accepted, all of the CITY's right, 3 title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU fran- chises. 1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter- mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to consider a revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to the COUNTY in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater service. 1.9. On March 5, 1991, the COUNTY unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was what the CITY wished. 1.10. On March 13, 1991, the COUNTY sent a letter to the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights. 1.11. On April 5, 1991, the CITY conditionally accepted the COUNTY's offer, subject to completion of the neces- sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact third parties. 1.12. On March 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con- sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems. 4 1.13. The feasibility study prepared by the CITY's consultants was presented to the CITY on June 26, 1991, and recommended that the CITY go ahead with its own utility service. 1.14. Based on the announced intention of the CITY to develop its own utility systems, on or about August 6, 1991, COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUNTY's North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1.15. The CITY is taking the necessary steps to regain all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to potentially acquire GDU's water and wastewater systems to enable the CITY to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility. Modification of the COUNTY's franchise is also a necessary prerequisite to the CITY's development of its own water and wastewater system. 1.16. The COUNTY has agreed to cooperate with the CITY as long as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond holders, and the CITY customers who have reserved capacity in the system are all protected. 1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff members have met on several occasions to work out interim plans to effect,the separa- tion of the utility systems and have recommended the provisions of this agreement as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of all parties. 5 EXISTING AGREEMENTS j 2. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY FRANCHISE. Effective 1992 (the "Cancellation Date"), the parties hereby agree to and do cancel the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and under the Intergovernmental Agreement between the CITY and the COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987. 3. CONTINUANCE OF PRESENT SERVICE. Up to and until the Cancellation Date, the COUNTY will allow available permanent capacity of the COUNTY system to be purchased by customers within the City limits pursuant to the terms of the existing franchise. On and after that date the COUNTY will sell available permanent capacity for connections within the City only to the CITY itself, which may in turn make this capacity available to customers within the City. 4. REASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO PURCHASE GDU FACILITIES. The assignment by the CITY to the COUNTY by CITY Resolution R-90-55 of all right, title, and interest in GDU's franchises given in CITY Ordinances 0-81-8 and 0-81-9 are hereby reassigned to the CITY effective the date of this agreement. That Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY entered into on December 12, 1990, is hereby terminated. The parties agree that one of the effects of this termination and reassignment is, among other things, to allow the CITY to exercise its option to purchase the GDU 0 facilities and provide water and wastewater service in the territory covered by the GDU franchises. 5. OTHER AGREEMENTS. During the term of the COUNTY's franchise in the CITY an agreement was entered into with Park Place which created rights and obligations in the County. This agreement and all exhibits thereto is attached to and incorporated in this Agreement as Exhibit "A." The COUNTY assigns and the CITY assumes all COUNTY's rights, duties, and obligations under this agreement effective upon the Cancellation Date. The COUNTY agrees that the CITY's and its customers' obligation to pay impact fees under this agreement attached as Exhibit "A" shall be the same as the Seller under this Agreement. The COUNTY agrees to assist the CITY in any litigation with respect to the agreement attached as Exhibit "A." NEW UTILITY AGREEMENTS 6. DEFINITIONS. 6.1. Class I Units - Units in the CITY which are connected to or which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY waste- water system before the Cancellation Date and which have a collection system available to them, even if the physical connection to the unit has not been made. 6.2. Class II Units - Units within the CITY which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY wastewater system before the 7 Cancellation Date but which do not have a collection system available. 6.3. Class III Units - Units within the CITY other than Class I and II Units. 6.4. Treatment - The treatment, transmission, and related effluent disposal of wastewater. 6.5. Utility Service - shall be used to include rate setting, customer connections, meter installation, meter reading, billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com- plaints, collection system construction, related repair work, and all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per- formed by a utility company other than the treatment of waste- water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance of the COUNTY's lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on Exhibit "B", as amended from time to time. These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. 7. SERVICE AGREEMENT. 7.1. Effective on the Cancellation Date but except as modified by paragraph 7.5 hereof, the COUNTY will cease to be the utility service provider within the City and will become instead only the treatment, transmission, and effluent disposal (hereinafter "treatment") provider for all wastewater generated for all Class I and II Units and for the number of Class III Units for which the CITY has purchased or does purchase permanent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment plant. 3 7.2. Effective on the become the utility service within the City limits and collection systems for C1 /VKI fg 7Y ion Date the all classes of customers as part of this duty, provide stomers in a manner such that the interests of the Classes customers will not have been harmed by the revocation of the COUNTY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a nondiscriminatory, cost -of -service rate to be charged to the CITY for treatment of the wastewater which rate shall take into account the fact that the CITY is the utility service provider for all classes of units within the CITY. The rate and components which make up this rate are depicted in Exhibit "C" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. The CITY reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights of the COUNTY as described in paragraph B. 7.3. Upon installation and acceptance, the metering co L) b equipment shall become the property of the , the C' 17 shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and (_Ov replacement of the meter. The shall -read the meter for billing purposes. The metering equipment shall meet the stand- ards of the American Water Works Association ("AWWA") for accuracy, which is plus or minus three percent (3%). The Pe eel�may request an accuracy test by the provider without charge once during any twelve (12) month period. The I may witness the test. Additional testing may be requested by the purchaser at the established cost for such tests. Copies of the test results will be provided to the purchaser within thirty (30) days of the test. There will be no charge for tests that discover an inaccurate meter. If an inaccurate meter is found, as defined by the AWWA, bill adjustments will be made for one-half (1/2) of the preceding period since the last accuracy test. In any event, the CITY shall continue to pay bills, whether disputed or not, until any dispute is resolved. Following the period set forth in paragraph 7.5 hereof, the requirement for the CITY to install a sewer meter at a COUNTY pumping station shall not arise at said pumping station until the CITY expands a gravity collection system to be connected to that pumping station of adequate size to warrant installation of an appropriately sized sewer meter to be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and COUNTY based upon industry standards and engineering standards. Until any such installation, billing for sewage flows through that pump station shall be based upon metered water consumption of each individual customer. 7.4. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater system, CITY understands that it will have to comply with COUNTY policies on the quality of wastewater put into the COUNTY system and other customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by the COUNTY countywide. 7.5. COUNTY shall provide any of the services included within the term "Utility Service," which it can legally perform, 10 on behalf of the CITY, for up to one (1) year from the Cancellation Date. The costs for the services to be charged by COUNTY to CITY will be the COUNTY's retail rates. The CITY shall have the option of earlier terminating this arrangement and assuming responsibility for utility services at any time during the one (1) year period by sending written notice to the COUNTY giving the COUNTY thirty (30) days' advance notice. Upon termination of the COUNTY's provision of utility services hereunder or the end of the one (1) year period, whichever first occurs, the COUNTY shall not charge said retail rates, but rather shall charge the bulk rates referred to in Exhibit "C" hereof. 8. TRANSFER OF UNITS. The COUNTY agrees that on the request of the CITY it will transfer to the CITY for treatment purposes also Class I and Class II Units and any Class III Units for which permanent capacity has been bought, whenever the COUNTY has a COUNTY customer available to purchase the capacity used or reserved by the units which are requested to be transferred. The COUNTY will use good faith efforts to procure a replacement cus- tomer for the capacity, and, upon receipt by the COUNTY of the COUNTY impact fee current at that time from the new customer, the COUNTY shall remit to the CITY the impact fee originally paid by the customer who is to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of money may be used by the CITY to finance the City operated replacement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for that transferred unit. Units so transferred shall not be charged an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY. 11 9. TRANSFER OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS The COUNTY and the CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis- connected from the COUNTY system entirely, transferred to the CITY without charge for the collection facilities, and reconnected to a new CITY system, said reconnection to be at CITY's expense, when all units on the system to be reconnected are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTY will cooperate in making these transfers. 10. CITY PURCHASE OF CAPACITY IN COUNTY PLANT. COUNTY agrees to sell capacity to the CITY under standard COUNTY poli- cies and rates. The present COUNTY policy is to expand waste- water treatment plant facilities when financially and technologi- cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan, provided that reservations are committed which will fund the expansion. Part of the reservation includes the requirement to pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges. 11. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This agree - went is solely for the benefit of the formal parties herein and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not z formal party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason of this agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations, 12 covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. 12. DELINQUENT FEES, CHARGES, AND ASSESSMENTS. With respect to customers who have previously purchased capacity from the COUNTY but have not yet connected (Class II customers), the CITY is not required to guarantee or make payment of COUNTY impact fees, base facility charges or assessments in lieu of impact fees due but not yet paid by the customer. However, if the said customer does not pay any such assessments, fees and charges, the COUNTY may keep any impact fees, charges or assessments paid and the individual customer cannot receive service from either the CITY or the COUNTY unless all delinquent assessments, fees, and charges are paid to the COUNTY. Under these circumstances, the CITY shall be able to charge an additional impact fee charges, and assessments to the customer but shall not provide service until all delinquent fees, assessments, and charges are paid by said customer to the COUNTY. 13. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The agreement shall be in effect for 30 years. The termination of agreements, resolutions, and ordinances specified in paragraphs 2 and 4 hereof shall not be affected by termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this 13 agreement on the date first above written. Attest: Jeffrey R. Barton, Clerk Attest: Clerk INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Richard N. Bird, Chairman CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: Attachments: Exhibits "A," "B," and "C" 77/29:318/5 14 Mayor "BLACK -LINE" COPY: Additions Underlined Deletions Shown by "n" INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1991, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (hereafter COUNTY) and the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, the address of which is Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978 (hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or assigns, W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 1. AGREED FACTS. The following are true statements: 1.1. The CITY granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance 0-81-9 (col- lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GDU to operate and main - 01 tain a water distribution and a wastewater collection and dis- posal system within a portion of the CITY. 1.2. On January 14, 1987, by CITY Resolution R-87-6, the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30 -year exclusive franchise for the provision of water and wastewater services within the rest of the City. 1.3. An interlocal agreement entered into between the CITY and COUNTY and effectiveAFebruary 3, 1987, required the CITY to assist the COUNTY in assessing property owners for the construction of collection systems in the City limits. 1.4. At construction financing for a wastewater plant and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of $6,075,000 on October 15, 1989. Part of the security for the re- payment of these bonds was the revenue from impact fee assess- ments for reserved connections within the City. 1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from the plant through the unincorporated area into the City and beyond and was ready to provide service for CITY customers on or about March 5, 1991. 1.6. Approximately— CITY equivalent residential units are now receiving wastewater service from these facilities. 1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered into and executed an assignment whereby the CITY transferred to the COUNTY, and the COUNTY accepted, all of the CITY's right, 3 title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU fran- chises. 1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter- mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to consider a revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to the COUNTY in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater service. 1.9. On March 5, 1991, the COUNTY unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was what the CITY wished. 1.10. On March 13, 1991, the COUNTY sent a letter to the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights. 1.11. On April 5, 1991, the CITY conditionally accepted the COUNTY's offer, subject to completion of the neces- sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact third parties. 1.12. On March 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con- sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems. 4 1.13. The feasibility study prepared by the CITY's consultants was presented to the CITY on June 26, 1991, and recommended that the CITY go ahead with its own utility service. 1.14. Based on the announced intention of the CITY to develop its own utility systems, on or about August 6, 1991, COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUNTY's North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1.15. The CITY is taking the necessary steps to regain all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to potentially acquire GDU's water and wastewater systems to enable the CITY to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility. Modification of the COUNTY's franchise is also a necessary prerequisite to the CITY's development of its own water and wastewater system. 1.16. The COUNTY has agreed to cooperate with the CITY as long as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond holders, and the CITY customers who have reserved capacity in the system are all protected. 1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff members have met on several occasions to work out interim plans to effect'the separa- tion of the utility systems and have recommended the provisions of this agreement as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of all parties. 61 EXISTING AGREEMENTS 2. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY FRANCHISE. EffectiveAarch 1, 1992 (the "Cancellation Date"), the parties hereby agree to and do cancel the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and under the Intergovernmental Agreement between the CITY and the COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987 3. CONTINUANCE OF PRESENT SERVICE. Up to and until the Cancellation Date, the COUNTY will allow available permanent capacity of the COUNTY system to be purchased by customers within the City limits pursuant to the terms of the existing franchise. On and after that date the COUNTY will sell available permanent capacity for connections within the City only to the CITY itself, which may in turn make this capacity available to customers within the City. 4. REASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO PURCHASE GDU FACILITIES. The assignment by the CITY to the COUNTY by CITY Resolution R-90-55 of all right, title, and interest in GDU's franchises given in CITY Ordinances 0-81-8 and 0-81-9 are hereby reassigned to the CITY effective the date of this agreement. That Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY entered into on December 12, 1990, is hereby terminated. The parties agree that one of the effects of this termination and reassignment Ais, among other things, to allow the CITY to exercise its option to purchase the GDU 9 facilities and provide water and wastewater service in the territory covered by the GDU franchises. 5. OTHER AGREEMENTS. During the term of the COUNTY's franchise in the CITY an agreement was entered into with Park Place which created rights and obligations in the County. This agreement and all exhibits thereto is attached to and incorporated in this Agreement as Exhibit "A." The COUNTY assigns and the CITY assumes all COUNTY's rights, duties, and obligations under this agreement effective upon the Cancellation Date. The COUNTY agrees that the CITY's and its customers' obligation to pay impact fees under this agreement attached as Exhibit "A" shall be the same as the Seller under this Agreement. The COUNTY agrees to assist the CITY in any litigation with respect to the agreement attached as Exhibit "A." NEW UTILITY AGREEMENTS A6. DEFINITIONS. 46.1. Class I Units - Units^in the CITY which are connected to or which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY waste- water system before Athe Cancellation Date and which have a collection system available to them, even if the physical connection to the unit has not been made. 6 2. Class II Units - Units within the CITY which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY wastewater system before Athe 7 Cancellation Date but which do not have a collection system available. ti.3. Class III Units - Units within the CITY other than Class I and II Units. A6.4. Treatment - The treatment, transmission, and related effluent disposal of wastewater. &6.5. AUti1itv ServiceA- shall be used to include rate setting, customer connections, meter installation, meter reading, billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com- plaints, collection system construction, related repair work, and all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per- formed by a utility company other than the treatment of waste- water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance of the COUNTY's lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on Exhibit "B", as amended from time to time. These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. AZ.. SERVICE AGREEMENT. A7.1. Effective on the Cancellation Date but except as modified by paragraph 7.5 hereof, the COUNTY will cease to be the utility service provider within the City and will become instead only the treatment, transmission, and effluent disposal (hereinafter "treatment") provider for all wastewater generated for all Class I and II Units and for the number of Class III Units for which the CITY has purchased or does purchase permanent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment plant. M 7.2. Effective on the Cancellation Date the CITY shall become the utility service provider for all classes of customers within the City limits.,and shall, as part of this duty, provide collection systems for Class I customers in a manner such that the interests of the Class II customers will not have been harmed by the revocation of the COUNTY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a nondiscriminatory, cost -of -service rate to be charged to the CITY for treatment of the wastewater which rate shall take into account the fact that the CITY is the utility service provider for all classes of units within the CITY. The rate and components which make up this rate are depicted in Exhibit "C" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. The CITY reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights of the COUNTY as described in paragraphA8-.A �.3. Upon installation and acceptance, the metering equipment shall become the property of the provider, and the provider shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the meter. The provider shall read the meter for billing purposes. The metering equipment shall meet the stand- ards of the American Water Works Association ("AWWA") for accuracy, which is plus or minus Athree percent (.3%). The purchaser may request an accuracy test by the provider without charge once during any twelve (12) month period. The purchaser may witness the test. Additional testing may be requested by the 0 purchaser at the provider's established cost for such tests. Copies of the test results will be provided to the purchaser within thirty (30) days of the test. There will be no charge for tests that discover an inaccurate meter. If an inaccurate meter is found, as defined by the AWWA, bill adjustments will be made for one-half (1/2) of the preceding period since the last accuracy test. In any event, the CITY shall continue to pay bills, whether disputed or not, until any dispute is resolved. Following the period set forth in paragraph 7.5 hereof, the requirement for the CITY to install a sewer meter at a COUNTY pumping station shall not arise at said pumping station until the CITY expands a gravity collection system to be connected to that pumping station of adequate size to warrant installation of an appropriately sized sewer meter to be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and COUNTY based upon industry standards and engineering standards. Until any such installation, billing for sewage flows throughAthat pump station shall be based uponAmetered water consumption of each individual customer. A.4. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater system, CITY understands that it will have to comply With COUNTY policies on the quality of wastewater put into the COUNTY system and other customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by the COUNTY countywide. 7.5. COUNTY shall provide any of the services included within the term "Utility Service," which it can legally perform 10 on behalf of the CITY, for up to one (1) year from the Cancellation Date. The costs for the services to be charged by COUNTY to CITY will be the COUNTY's retail rates. The CITY shall have the option of earlier terminating this arrangement and assuming responsibility for utility services at any time during the one (1) year period by sending written notice to the COUNTY giving the COUNTY thirty (30) days' advance notice. Upon termination of the COUNTY's provision of utility services hereunder or the end of the one (1) year period, whichever first occurs, the COUNTY shall not charge said retail rates, but rather shall charge the bulk rates referred to in Exhibit "C" hereof. ^8. TRANSFER OF UNITS. The COUNTY agrees that on the request of the CITY it will transfer to the CITY for treatment purposes also Class I and Class II Units and any Class III Units for which permanent capacity has been bought, whenever the COUNTY has a COUNTY customer available to purchase the capacity used or reserved by the units which are requested to be transferred. The COUNTY will use good faith efforts to procure a replacement cus- tomer for the capacity, and, upon receipt by the COUNTY of the COUNTY impact fee current at that time from the new customer, the COUNTY shall remit to the CITY the impact fee originally paid by the customer who is to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of money may be used by the CITY to finance the City operated replacement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for that transferred unit. Units so transferred shall not be charged an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY. 11 ^9. TRANSFER OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS. The COUNTY and the CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis- connected from the COUNTY system entirely, transferred to the CITY without charge for the collection facilities, and reconnected to a new CITY system, said reconnection to be at CITY's expense, when all units on the system to be reconnected are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTY will cooperate in making these transfers. ^10. CITY PURCHASE OF CAPACITY IN COUNTY PLANT. COUNTY agrees to sell capacity to the CITY under standard COUNTY poli- cies and rates. The present COUNTY policy is to expand waste- water treatment plant facilities when financially and technologi- cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan, provided that reservations are committed which will fund the expansion. Part of the reservation includes the requirement to pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges. 411. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This agree- ment is solely for the benefit of the formal parties herein and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a formal party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason of this agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations, 12 covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. 12. DELINQUENT FEES, CHARGES, AND ASSESSMENTS. With respect to customers who have previously purchased capacity from the COUNTY but have not yet connected (Class II customers), the CITY is not required to guarantee or make payment of COUNTY impact fees, base facility charges or assessments in lieu of impact fees due but not yet paid by the customer. However, if the said customer does not pay any such assessments, fees and charges, the COUNTY may keep any impact fees, charges or assessments paid and the individual customer cannot receive service from either the CITY or the COUNTY unless all delinquent assessments, fees, and charges are paid to the COUNTY. Under these circumstances, the CITY shall be able to charge an additional impact fee charges, and assessments to the customer but shall not provide service until all delinquent fees, assessments, and charges are paid by said customer to the COUNTY. 113. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The agreement shall be in effect for 30 years. The termination of agreements, resolutions, and ordinances specified in paragraphs 2^andti hereof shall not be affected by termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this 13 agreement on the date first above written. Attest: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Attest: Clerk INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Richard N. Bird, Chairman CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: Attachments: Exhibits "A," "B," and "Cl - 77/29018/5 C" 77/29018/5 14 Mayor ******* OF-250 ***********-JOURNAL- DATE DEC -09-1991 ***** TIME 19:14 ****** NO. COM DOC DURATION X/R IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME DIAGNOSTIC 14 OK 31 00:21143 XMT T 915679323 DEC -09 18:52 640480280800 -GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINS014 - ******************** -PANASONIC- ************************** - 407 244 5690- *********** y: i I#. tl: A r L(N CYt �OMOON la rawYl[ a�CMAMe Y YpOlY00N r�LLIM Y IIYCY a r(Lw 6 .ESO( r[t I. ♦aOC J4 arluM r. T rem +�LWr t (OTL[3 -uOYw( - -,go -'+Or .CLCYO 9Tr0 I. u rµL rw. _rw[Or .YI m.r1 f[j Z.c/TNer OILO _MCA ..LA.6 C( A. aucwYr r(N w. .[[Kbc,,cX IIZ •pwY[iT 1 Iq LOi rw. GRAY Hsams & Bosnvsox •.Ott11101YL affOCYT10Y ATTORNEYS AT LAW sunt 1300 lOYTMCA6T NAME OUILOINO +LASS NAME OUILOINO SOI [ANT MNc ITft R ]O[ O.TM OEL/.NOO AVc.U[ .• NT amcr NO3 3060 -O!T 01ryCZ NO3 330"7 0AZ.Alfn0. FL 32aoa-6o COCOA HEACs. FL 329 0-0757 -CLZl me 1ACTI W.6660 TUNg I4071 T63.8316 .a 1.071 1...E660 I-- Iw011 783Y 'V IMTLON OI E[R OIAL -LUN[ ECKT TO' Orlando �ATE 'VOYA6 C 3NA� M r. EVTRIIMOM71• .0\OOY Lr<Nr<rOCL a.Vl [. OUIMa JIL �A+ne L, acM.ec _.C( L .r VLLiII 5ULAm `A LVOY a ]AM O. iAc6(LL • [O[rIC( a E CMAwf .SCM :rp L SUM[ _SEI 6[rTOY A. •ti60rNE6(/IATwerJ, DCAM _O E, . _.L y IYArE• ra LOpW 1. .�MNC..ItNY 'JI COV NIIL '-1ME[6 M .A — .. FAX COVER SKEET /JPlease Note our our New FAX ; 407_244-5690 TO : FAX # : � Lslp 7 - 9.3a & FROM: �J1ome2� f • c 1aus�_ C/M #: * OF PAGES `3/ (includ-na cover sheet) Thai fay- 2n=" Am J may r+.+WA'n ^r� in�wlEAwd pQji far rbm :w.if1.:♦i1Ewl a= ab_U and e�s•�eiwwr:wl iniamm" r... aat tQa �L az= "=pwcwc' Or rww .p tMw at thin sraalga is inrw�+--+ Tw..:F:wwrl F� Azs b nlm=IfJrrw,i� a to dla, it to the eiix==barz= Or �� rb/L Aar robIb r ti�w�Zwwz�nw �FJsa4 a1 rwiw co�....Mt:^w ja pz.,�.�w,rrwd. Zt tdjs r71�.wTrM== W" x0coxw" SII dad L'mt tt/ a.•:.t:.._ 1 m"=Woo tc uapat tha addrmw abate vmn IItbm Q.S. PO=ca.% Sarvma. =ank yva. If any nrahlema are encountered with this tranzm ttal cont/act: at eztenaion �a5� J. CHARLES GRAY GORDON K HARRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON .MILLI, R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE, JR. WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS, III LEO P. ROCK. JR. G. ROBERTSON DILL CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIRSCHENSAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES = FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. GRAY, HARRIS & RomivsON PROFES51ONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOK 3088 ORLAND(>, FL 132802-3068 GLASS BANK BUILDING 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 320757 COCOA BaAcn,FL 32932-0767 TELEPHONE (407) 843-9880 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 FAX (407) 2H-5890 FAX (407) 783-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando December 6, 1991 Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MOKRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH S. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. 0UINN, JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK K. McMULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN O. TASSELL FREDERICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E. BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. BORGERT JOHN B. SHOEMAKER LISA J. FRANK' MICHAEL K. WILSON MARK S. WALKER LILA L McHENRY MALCOLM R. KtASCHENSAUM OF COUNBCL ....... OF NCW TOR. AND CONNCCTICUT BARO ONLT VIA FACSIMILE 407/589-5570 RS: Status of Negotiations with Indian River County Regarding Interlocal Utilities Agreement Dear Robb: I am writing you this letter for distribution to the City Council regarding our negotiating session yesterday with Indian River County. As you know, our meeting went very well with the County. The County representatives were extremely cordial and showed a great willingness to work out the final details of the Agreement. The final details worked out yesterday in the meeting are of course subject to final approval by the City of Sebastian City Council and the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. These points are as follows: (1) The City will be granted up to one year during which time Indian River County will continue to provide all utility services and continue to bill at the existing Indian River County retail rate. The City will have the option to take over billing and other utility services during the first year; after the end of the first year, the City is required to take over billing. Once the City takes over billing, a wholesale rate will kick in in place of the retail rate. GRAY, HARRIS & Rouixs ON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Robb McClary December 6, 1991 Page 2 (2) The City will not have to pay for sewer meter installation at any one of the five County pumping stations until the City expands a gravity collection system to be connected to a given pumping station of adequate size to warrant installation of an appropriately sized sewer meter to be mutually agreed upon based upon industry standards and good engineering standards. (3) The County agreed to reinsert language making it clear that the City's right to purchase GDU comes back to the City. (4) The City would be agreeing to take over Park Place as part of this Agreement. However, the County agrees that the City's obligation to pay impact fees for customers under this Agreement shall be the same as the seller (i.e., Nelson Hyatt) under the existing purchase and sale agreement. The County also agrees to assist the City in any litigation with respect to the Agreement. (5) The City will not be required to guarantee payment of basic facility charges or assessments in lieu of impact fees due but not yet paid by customers who have not connected. For its part, the City agrees not to provide service to an individual customer unless all delinquent fees and charges that should be paid to the County are paid to the County. The Agreement will be completed in the following manner: (1) The County will prepare Exhibits "BIL and '"C" setting forth the diagram of County facilities and setting forth the components of the wholesale rate. (2) I will complete the redraft of the Agreement and transmit it to Charles Vitunac. (3) Once all of these items are completed, the complete Agreement will be submitted to the City Council and the County Commission for approval. The Agreement will probably be ready for execution sometime in February, and the cancellation date for the County franchise will probably be March 1, 1992. GRAY, HARRIS & RoDiNso.N PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Robb McClary December 6, 1991 Page 3 Therefore, assuming that the City Council and the County Commission accept the recommendations of the County and City negotiating teams, it appears that this Agreement will be completed. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely yours, Thomas A. Cloud, Esqui e GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON, P.A. TAC: jlm cc: Charles Ian Nash, Esquire Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. n Bt, -.RD OF COUNTY COMMISStvNERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407)567-8000 December 4, 1991 Mr. Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian Post Office Box 127 Sebastian, FL 32958-0127 Dear Robb: �gIVER r z 4b 910 1 �'�LORI�4' jry RO� 00 VV 40107-/ IRC / 224-1011 The County recently obtained a verbatim transcript of the Sebastian City Council meeting of November 6, 1991, at which the City's consulting attorney, Tom Cloud, presented an update on the negotiations with the County for the return of the water and sewer franchise to the City. The County negotiating team is very concerned at the number of inaccuracies in the presentation. As we have discussed, on the date of the Council meeting, the County negotiating team had also met to review the latest draft of the interlocal agreement submitted by Mr. Cloud. Based on the prior negotiating meeting and the new draft from Mr. McCloud, our team was of the opinion that we were very close to an agreement satisfactory to both the City and County. The points relating to timing and metering, as well as the absence of Park Place in the draft, in our opinion, required further discussion. However, none of these matters appeared to be major obstacles that could not be resolved by further discussion by the two negotiating teams. Our negotiating team is still unanimously of that opinion. However, our team is concerned that the inaccuracies presented at the November meeting need to be addressed, in order to remove any unnecessary impediments to the continued progress in arriving at a mutually acceptable interlocal agreement. As a result, enclosed is a copy of the verbatim transcript and our team's general response to it. We look forward to a productive negotiating meeting on Thursday and will have, a redraft of the nrnnncar9 n"Ppmpnt rpAf3[> fn" rliQQnll cin" 0+ +lint meeting. " Sincerely, James E. Chandler County Administrator JEC/Vk Enclosures SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 1991 (1) Attorney Cloud: First of all, for the record, my name is Tom Cloud. I'm with the Orlando law firm of Gregg, Harris, Robinson, and Peoples. We sent, late yesterday, a briefing document. I don't know if all of you got one. If you don't have one, I've got an extra copy here. I'd be glad to give it to you right now. They'll be available after the meeting, but I'm going to tell you everything that's in that document. It's a pretty short one. (2) There are four items I'd like to cover tonight. I'll try to be as brief as possible and answer any questions you may have. The first is to describe the status of the negotiations. I think, on the whole, they've been pretty positive. We've had a series of meetings with the County personnel. The last meeting that we had was over at the County offices. There have been some what I'll call "signal crossings" in this thing. Initially, as some of you will recall, Mr. Scurlock and other County officials indicated_ that their offer was really very open-ended; that the City could take back all or part of the franchise, ,-,.,... A4A4 1, .ems,,.. ..ro (3) Well, at our last meeting, they said they really did -care, that they wanted us to either take all or none, and when asked the question that that's not exactly what you said to begin with, the response was b . Scurlock, "Gosh, just don't remember what So, I iations,eMrthere's a i e i ngdt but for the most part, I think they've been very positive negotiations and I think that we're very close to an agreement right now and before we finalized it, we wanted to bring it to you to let you know where we were, get some input back from you about the agreement to see if you were satisfied with it, if we were going in the right direction. And right now, the conceptual agreement that's before you is not what I would call the best of all worlds for the City, but I think it's a lot better than the situation that you have now. (4) The agreement, the proposed agreement, that we have sent to the County and that we found out today, but for two points, they're in agropmant with, calls for the cancellation of the County franchise in the six months from the date that we sign the agreement. (5) It calls for the City to be a wholesale customer of the County and when you think about it, there's one of two ways to go: either we can continue to receive service with the County being a retail provider until we are ready to provide the services through our own systems,_ which is what we prefer, or you can receive it through a bulk_ _ arrangement, which is what the County is now insisting upon. And this wholesale arrangement would click in at the end of that six-month period, and the City would be the retail provider of utilities, and would actually render the bills. (6) And most importantly, would get to make decisions _without veto Dower by the Countv over the assessment Program and whether or not the_ "Jump!" you must jump, -or you're agreement. (7) Another provision would allow for the return of the GDU purchase option immediately upon execution of the agreement. You were not required_ to buy GDU,. under this agreement, as indeed you couldn't be because there are some investigations that need to be made of the operability of the plants. Just to update the information that Mr. Hartman's already been able to ascertain by having to analyze the plants several years ago, these very plants, as well as to determine what their current price should be. (8) Another provision provides that rates to be charged by the County will be nondiscriminatory and based on a cost of service. We've actually asked, since April, for some data on what those rates would be and we're still waiting to receive that and I'm sure that we will receive that from the County eventually, and certainly before we sign the agreement, because we've called for the components of the rates to be attached to the agreement; we think that's a prudent thing for you to know, and for the City to know what they're getting into before you sign. (9) Finally, the agreement provides for the later transfer.of customer flows from the County sewer plant to the City sewer plant, and that's when the City is ready, when the City has capacity available and, so that the. County is not hurt, when the County has the ability to bring in another customer. And that can occur on a customer -by -customer basis. It doesn't have to occur all at once. (10) So those are the basic outlines of the agreement. And I think it's important at this point to analyze this agreement and ask yourself the question, "How does this stack up with the existing agreement you have with the County?" And I think that, again while it's not the best case that we could have hoped for, what we were initially led to believe by the County we could obtain, in fact, is still better off than the deal you have today. (11) Question from the floor: Why is that? (12) Attorney Cloud: Well, you're certainly no worse off because you're still going to be having the ultimate sewer service provided by the County. Notice I did not say water, and that's because right now, the County has no water service in the City. They have yet to run the first line to provide water service in your city. -2- A. k .-kk (13) They are serving approximately 95 units of sewer capacity; considerably less than the original 2,000 that signed up to buy capacity, in fact, most of that capacity was turned -back in and only about 700 of those 2,000 remain outstanding_and not all of those people put up their money. (14) So the demand appears to be less than what was originally thought by anyone on the system. The City's arguably better off under this arrangement because,._ unlike the existing agreement which requires you to be the enforcement arm of the County, when the County says, "Jump!" and the County says, "This is the assessment program that we want to place in the City --here's where we're going to serve now," under that agreement, you are required to do that. You are required to be the gemen - for , the Count in enforcingmandato connection, interesting y, un er.the agreement.for both water and sewer, under that scenario. Under the new agreement, the decision goes back to you. The decision goes back to the City, and it's a decision that the City can then exercise based upon input from its citizens, without being overridden by a governmental entity outside of the City. (15) And, a second point, why are you better off, you get back the GDU option. And I think that the GDU option is going to be important to this City, because the one t Ing t e GDU systems have is expandability, and it is the kind of thing while this agreement does not mandate you to acquire GDU, you will have the ability.to acquire GDU and if you do seek to acquire GDU, I think under your franchiseoptions, you have the contractual right to acquire at a very favora a price, which you negotiated quite wisely in 1981, and with that comes expandability in both water and, if you so choose, sewer. (16 ) Now, the last item that I wanted to cover with you is two very recent phone calls that were made. I was, in an effort to try and find out where the County was with respect to what we submitted to them, I called up the County Attorney today, Charles Vitunac, and asked him, and he had indicated previously that the staff and Commissioner Scurlock were going to meet this afternoon. And I'm very pleased to report that with the exception of two items, they're in agreement with what we submitted to them. And the two items are these, and we talked about these two items with both Charles Vitunac and with Terry Pinto. We were able to reach Terry Pinto; we were sitting out there in the car talking with him up until about five minutes after seven; that's why we were a little late getting in. (17) But the two points are these: first of all, they would like for us to install the sewer meters. The way we had this drafted, they would install the sewer meters and bill us back for them through the rates. These sewer meters, and we believe that anywhere from three to five will need to be installed at each of the major pump stations, are fairly expensive items, and Mr. Hartman talked with Mr. Pinto about deferring the actual installation of those meters until they were -3- A4014 10 � 1 really necessary. Some of you may know you can actually bill based upon water consumption, rather than using a sewer meter. In fact, it's probably more accurate to do that, because sewer- meters are not terribly accurate in terms of the metering business, and I believe that Mr. Hartman was successful in getting Terry to agree that we could work on that in terms of deferring when those meters were installed. (18) The second item dealt with the timing. In the meeting, we were originally told by Mr. Scurlock, and of course there were a couple of reporters there so this is something that is very easily verifiable, that they would like for us to -take over everything in January, but yeah, he could go along with four months, and we suggested back that, "Well, what about six months - it's only two months more - the actual decision of the City getting into the business is being made when we sign the agreement, what's a couple of months among friends?" Mr. Vitunac said that now Commissioner Scurlock is saying something_ entirely different, that he wants the City to take over in January, certainly no later than February, and get immediately into the retail business, which is different from what was said in the meeting to us. And I asked Charlie to explain to me why it was bad for the County to go along with our six month suggestion. And he really was unable to explain that, and that's when he suggested that I call Mr. Pinto and speak with him. (19) And so I had Mr. Hartman, who is our engineer, contact Mr. Pinto and the truth is, Mr. Pinto, when we got down to discussing it, said that he really didn't have a problem with it. It really ,wasn't that 6_19_0 f a ea to JM;out to Commissioner49 Scurlock, it was a big deal_ with him. So we suggested, and I would like to suggest to you, that you have Mr. McClary ask for some time from the County Commission so that we can discuss this with the full County Commission and try and straighten this 'one point out, and get it straightened out so that there's no more missed communications. That's been the one frustrating part about this agreement; they say one thing and then all of a sudden,_ (20) We're very close to an agreement, and I think you should feel quite positive about this and Mr. Vitunac has been very above -board and has dealt straight up with us, and I have only good things to say about that, and I think that we're very close to an agreement,. We're still mi.ssina a couple of exhibits. I think those will be worked out in due course. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, if you think we're going in the right direction, or if you have some points that you'd like to cover. We'd be happy to listen to them. (21) Mayor Conyers: Aren't we supposed to have a meeting with the County? (22) City Manager McClary: We have a meeting set up with the County on the 26th that they specifically requested is going to be solely on the one subject of the Twin Pairs, because I had sent back and asked them -4- if we could include other items on the agenda, as we had done in the past, and they felt that the Twin Pairs/CR 512 issue was of sufficient magnitude that that would occupy the entire meeting, so they chose not to include other agenda items. (23) Mayor Conyers: I've got a couple of questions. First off, well it's actually it's to let some people here in the City know what's going on: Number One, people in Park Place will be glad to know that they're not going to be included in this, in the City's utilities rate; also, we've never been told where we're going to get the money to pay for all this, because I noticed some questions here on the back, and I want you all to listen to this closely: mandatory connection, mandatory assessment on each -parcel based upon benefit and County capacity for assessed parcels. What's gonna happen: we're gonna have to make this say a mandatory -connection, and every parcel of land you own, regardless of whether you've got a house on it or not, you're gonna be assessed on that particular lot to help finance this sewer system. And as I've said in the beginning, and I'll say it again, start from scratch in the utility and not have any idea of how we're gonna pay for it, and letting the people that said it was a good idea for us to get into it be the people that also negotiate all these deals, is not the way to go. (24) We're looking at over $6,000,000, at least, in years to come, and we've never even heard the other side of the story about what questions that maybe someone else may have about the sewer and water that we're getting into. And in particular, I'm talking about Mr. John Little, who I have asked to talk to Mr. Cloud, and I understand he did, and I understand that Mr. Cloud was supposed to answer some of his questions; I don't.. know if he's done that or not. I also want Mr. Little to appear here to at least let the public know some of the pitfalls of stuff we're talking about getting into down the road, such as in state health inspectors, running sewer plants, and God, the list goes on and on. (25) Another thing I'd like to challenge the City and the citizens here: come into City Hall, and I want you to read this book, this agreement, read all these agreements in our book that we've got for tonight, and see if you can figure out what we're doing. Step One goes to Step Two, and if we all do Step Three, we'll go to Step Four, and do Sten A and B, and, oh tree, what a mess! We have a problem right now with our police department. We've got a sewer system right now going right down by our police station, that we're having a problem with right now of getting hooked up with it, because it belongs to the County. The Health Department wants us to hook up because it's available. Some of the members of our staff don't seem to think that that's the way to go; that we should spend more money to put in a temporary situation and wait for down the road whenever we can get started on our sewer and water. -5- 10' r'*4,i (26) In fact, I just think that I have nothing wrong with having sewer and water. I think we need that. We need that for growth in this City; it's absolutely imperative that we have it. But you can see the problems that are happening. We've already got major lines that have already been laid in this City. Sewer is available; it's here; most of the work has been done. We don't have to hash this thing out all over again, and I still say these engineers and these people up here are telling us how great GDU's plant is, and they have vet to have been on the property. ... (27) They have yet to have been on that property... let's see, now what are they, mindreaders? They can ride by and look at it and make an X-ray vision.of it,.and.tell us how great this GDU property is! Well, I'm here to tell you what. the County says, and I'll make a note what one of our councilmen said, "Why is it a good idea when the County wants to buy it, but it's not a good idea when we want to buy it?" When the County comes in here and takes the sewer system, they'll bulldoze that plant down out there. That's what they think about it. That's all I have. (28) Councilman Oberbeck: I have several items highlighted. I don't know if they're worth rehashing, but I again would question the integrity of the County when they stood here and said in a New York minute we could have it back. We've been paying you guys for the last few months. I look at the dates in this briefing document you've given me today, and I kinda find a lot of them hard to believe on the part of were in a position to service the customers in our uizyon tnarcn p on in a o s quite rue, a east rom w at I see. The SiX7month period, I read a also in the agreement and what the agreement means, and I couldn't understand myself why they shouldn't go along with a six-month period. They wanted to be cooperative. Unless that's part of the New York minute they talk about. As far as Park Place is concerned, I feel that I would insist that Park Place be part of the negotiation, and that you look in the best interest of the City in negotiating it, and that is part of the City, and we can't leave that a stepchild for the community. We represent the entire City, and I would hope that you would look out for our best interest in acquiring Park Place along with the rest of the system. (29) As far as a mandatory connection, it's not unusual;�I believe it's law. If it passes within so many feet of your property, it's maridaLed that you connect to it. I, for one, have six parcels or seven parcels of property in this community. Some of them are developed; some are not developed. I'm gonna have to pay because I think it's going to better the community. So I probably will be paying, to the best of my knowledge, seven times as much as you're paying, Mr. Mayor. But I think it's worth it. I think it's something we need, we can control our own destiny, we can bring in proper growth, and all the way down the line, this thing from the County's thing we can do is throw it out. So I bringing this briefing document. been "bassackwards." The best appreciate what you're doing in (30) Councilman Holyk: Mr. Cloud, I have just a couple of quick questions. We've listened to one thing in the press, and it's very convenient to have the press who's always there to hear how the County is willing to do anything and everything they can to help the City do this correctly. There are.a couple of questions that I have. Number One, it seems to me that by the County mandating a date very near in the future for us to take, not what they said was what we felt would be best for us, but to take all or none, does that seem to you to be an effort to overwhelm the possibility of us doing this correctly,or is that just my -imagination? Could you speak to that for a moment, please? (31) Attorney Cloud: Well, you know, it's certainly not making it easy on us, is it? (32) Councilman Holyk: It doesn't sound that way to me, and I guess that's what I'm asking. Is that the easiest way for us to do it? It doesn't sound that way to me. (33) Attorney Cloud: Well, it's not the easiest way for us to do it. I really can't speculate on what the County's motivations are for that, and would not want to. I can just tell you that it's not the easiest way in the world to do that, and that a couple of extra months is not going to harm them, if their lawyer was unable to come up with any reason, in his discussion with me, how they would be harmed. Nor was Mr. Pinto able to come up with any reasons in his discussion with Mr. .Hartman, how the County would be harmed, and_ it just seemed to be ,emanating from Commissioner Scurlock,_ and it seemed like something that ought to be raised to the level of the County Commission, so that we could air this, because it's just one point in an agreement. It's something that they could give in on, that could help make this agreement work smoothly, for the benefit of the citizens of the City, who are also supposed to be County citizens. It seems like a point that could be resolved without harm to the County. (34) Councilman Holyk: I understand. (35) Attorney Cloud: I'm gonna yield to the vice mayor for one question, at his request. (36) Councilman Oberbeck: You brought up the subject that I had written down, and neglected to read off. -7- (37) Councilman Oberbeck: Will we have adequate paper by then? The information that we're waiting to be afforded from the County? If they're talking January... (38) Attorney Cloud: ,We're still waiting for the exhibits. The exhibits are supposed to have the components for the rates, and we've been waiting for them since April; well, I'm sure they're working on them and that will happen in due course (however long that means). (39) Councilman Holyk: I guess that should be amplified just a little bit, Mr. Cloud, whatever that means, due course? It's interesting how it's yesterday, and when it comes to the County, it's fifty years from now. That's interesting due course. The other question I wanted to touch on --help me and make sure that I understood correctly --we're talking about flow diversion type meters with respect to sewage, and that this was one of the points on which the County was saying that the City should be kinda in charge of picking that up and making sure .did I understand that correctly? (40) Attorney Cloud: Yes sir. (41) Councilman Holyk: Okay. The other half of my question then is, you started to refer to the conversation that Mr. Hartman just finished prior to the meeting, and the conversation was with Mr. Pinto, apparently there is agreement at least on Mr. Pinto's part that that could be deferred; it was not absolutely necessary. i mean, if there was a section that didn't require a specific year now, that that could be deferred ... I'm sorry, please help me understand; I'm a little bit confused, Jerry. (42) Mr. Hartman: For the record, on the meter issues, my discussion with Terrypinto tonight: if it's a force main system tying in bus a few more ci uomers, there's no need for a meter at this time. If there's a large subdivision that comes into sewer or major gravity interceptor system program that's built for 500 units or some large portion of the City, even if you may only have one or two customers coming into that large gravity system, once that gravity system is tied into the County pump station, they want the meter on the County pump station due to potential infiltratiog problems in that gravity system. Now, initially, we would not build a flow diversion facility because the force main system wouid have more than adequate capacity. That would be a more future metering system that you would do. So, yes, we believe we can work these things out on the metering issues. I think what we need to do also is gather the sources and uses on the cost and budget aspects. I concur with the Mayor's statement that you've got to know all the costs, and we are doing that with them, trying to get all the costs. We don't have them tied down for you because they haven't been provided yet. (43) As soon as they're provided, we will provide them to you so you will know the revenues and expenses, what types of charges are applicable to the City, what are not, which charges. we hand to our customers, what they will be billed for and won't be billed for...a very important part of this is that once you do have the control of this system, then we can sit down with the business community and work out how, in the commercial areas and industrial areas and homeowner groups, they'll be accommodated with their engineers in the most cost-effective manner. Not to dictate necessarily the specific programs to them, but working together in this community, making our own decisions for both blocks of services. (44) Councilman Holyk: While you're both standing, let me just ask this one question, because you can probably either one or both speak to this. In any of your discussions, has any person among County personnel, from the County Commissioners on down, given us a reason why they have not acquiesced to our questions about the rate structures and put that into an exhibit, after all these months of asking? Have they given us a reason? I didn't ask for a good reason; a reason. (45) Mr. Hartman: Yes. They said that they haven't had a rate consultant look at that yet, and that the staff hasn't had time to get to it either. (46) Councilman Holyk: What kind of effort would that require? Can I have some idea? I mean, is this like 300 man -hours of work, or is this... (47) Mr. Hartman: Typically, the financial analysts for the Utilities Department should be able to pull this together. (48) Councilman Holyk: I understand. Thank you. I appreciate that. (49) Mayor Conyers: I want to make note there: you're talking about these rate schedules. It seems like all the discussion's been done and we should have known this before; we've spent all this money so far. That's one of my biggest gripes about this whole deal. We're gonna get so far down the road and have so much money into it, then you're gonna find out how much it's really gonna cost us. You should know this up front. (50) Councilman Holyk: Mr. Mayor, i agree with you, and I think that perhaps we should send the bill to the County for what we're gonna have to pay to get the answers to those questions. (51) Councilman Holyk: I have one other question that I wanted to ask. In terms of Park Place, we heard two statements at this point. One statement was from the mayor, and that was that the residents of Park Place would be happy to know that they were being excluded; we're going to comment on that in just a minute. The other question, or the other statement, regarding that was that we did not want to make the residents of Park Place a "stepchild of the community." Can we look at that in terms of how does that whole issue tie into the water and sewer that we're talking about with the County? (52) Attorney Cloud: I'd be glad to answer that because I would like to get some direction from the Council on this tonight...I feel it's necessary. I think it's an important point and I hope you'll recognize in the letter:that I sent to the County, I.did not say.the City would not take -Park Place. That is a mischaracterization. What I said was that based upon the lack of data that we clot from the County (they_ sent us half the agreement; they didn't send us the whole agreement --we didn't get any of the exhibits to it), I felt that I was not in a position to recommend to you that you step in and rescind an agreement that you have not even gotten everything dealing with the agreement. Indeed, I found out tonight that apparently the County is not pressing that point. But in the original draft agreement that we got from the County, the County asked us to assume their agreement that they negotiated with Mr. Nelson Hyatt, and take over that system. And the only reason that we deleted that from the agreement is- that the agreement they attached to their draft was incomplete, there appeared to be some possibility of some liability there we were uncertain of. If there are no hidden liabilities in the rest of the agreement that we didn't receive, or any other side deals that may be floating out there that we don't have a copy of, that just wasn't sent, that deal works like this: Mr. Hyatt sold the system for $775,000,00. Now that is the (53) Now, they didn't pay $775,000.00 on Day One. There's no clause in the agreement that says they pay this money over to the owner of the system. Why is that? Because they couldn't have afforded to. That system wouldn't support $775,000_00. How did the owner get it back? I submit to you that he's getting Paid back off the backs of the customers in a way tnat we can t deal. Whether the City owns it or it is, and we can't change it. 54) Here's how he got paid. First of mnact fees. and it's a break that outs an -10- •s the saa trutn or tnat owns it, the deal is what he got a break on owner of a unit in pay impact Tges for five 'n years, so he can sell out all his units. There's no way the City can break tt that. (55) The second part of the deal that's been put on their rates, and years.--_And_there_aren't a whole lot f Oh, but . I want you to unders is, they have a $10.00 surcharge that $10.00 surcharge lasts for ten of units in there. Now, I frankly _$775,000.00, based on what -I've seen today, :gen if you take all the ,tao_fee y from that area and all the $10.00 surcharges. But you can't take that $10.00 surcharge off. It stays on there because it went with the purchase and sale of the system. We can't get rid of it. It's legally impossible without incurring massive sums of liability for the City. (56) The third deal was the land upon which the plants sat, which arguably was where the value of the assets came from, because the plants that were out there really weren't all that great. I guess the water plant's still providing water there.. (57) So the water plant's still out there, but the area that the sewer plant sat on, that land, if the County doesn't use it, goes to the developer. So he gets that land back and presumably, he can turn around and sell that land. So maybe with a combination of all those Things, he does get $775,000.0 a reality o a ea 1 is, even the Cityat xes it over, even it you take it over and bring them into the fold, there's nothing we can do for them because of the deal the County's struck. They've basically acquired that system on the backs of the customers,- and that's not an uncommon deal, and they're not insisting that we take it over, but if you feel, if the City feels, that we want to take it over, I don't think they'll object. I don't think they care that much. (58) They originally requested that we do take it over., and if it's your desire that we take it over, I would want you understand and go in with open eyes, there's not anything we can do in terms of cnanging that rate structure or the way the impact fees work. It's not a great deal. It's certainly not a good deal for the customers out there. One wonders what kind of deal would have been struck for the GDU system under that scenario. I don't know. But I do know that if we do agree to take on that system, that we ought to at least get the rest of the documentation. -11- 10,41) lom�1 is it a small development? We've been told it's just that development, but I don't know. Ihaven't seen the documents. Was there a side deal, that said he got $300,000.00 out of their whatever? I don't know. Before I think I could recommend to you all that we take it over, I want to have due diligence done and have a statement from the County that t ere were no hidden facts that we didn't know about. If - we could do that, if we could cover ourselves in that respect, then I'm not sure that it hurts the City, but I do want you to understand that there's nothing you can do for those customers. You can't drop their rates. That $10.00 surcharge was put on there by the County in that contract. (60) Councilman Holyk: I would..hope.that the residents of Park Place who may or may not understandthe. ti7ue na ure of the ea wouict a ,least borrow this tape or get a. written transcript of it, because then they might understand. It certa n y makes sense. i appreciate that explanation. Thank you. I think that's all I have at this time. (61) Councilman Reid: If anybody was listening, I think they just heard a real good reason why Sebastian ought to be in its own utility' business. There's an example of just exactly the kind of a deal the County can strike, and I just don't think that we need anymore of that kind of foolishness. When Sebastian first entertained the thought of going into its own utility system, Mr. Scurlock and some other people were quoted in the newspaper as having said, "If you want -it, you've got it. You can have it this way, or you can have it that way. You just tell us what you want, and you've got it." It was in your newspaper. Sat right there during the meeting with us and said exactly the same thing. "If you want it, hey, you've got it." (62) Well, surprise, surprise! Sebastian took him up on it. And now what does he do; you know? Now he doesn't want to deliver. All we've had is just a bunch of roadblocks, a bunch of reasons why, "Well, I really didn't mean that sort of thing." Okay. My problem is, where in the world is the rest of the County Commission. Since when is the County of Indian River being run by one man?_ Anymore than this Council s►s►—foci a run y one man. I think .it's time that the dealings between this City and the County Commission be brought before the entire Commission. I think that this is not the time for us to continue to deal with one or two people, either on the County staff„ or one of the Countv Commissioners. (63) Now, I'm shocked, really, at the lack of representation that we have had from our elected County officials. Not just on this item, but on some other items. Like Twin Peaks. (64) Comment from the floor: Twin Pairs, please! -12- (65) Councilman Reid: Okay. You know, where is our representation? Who is speaking for us? All we get is: Open your mouth, clunk, and down your throat it goes. Okay? This has happened on several deals now, and we're getting the same kind of soft-shoe dance on this item, and I think it's about time that this Council got together with the County Commission eyeball -to -eyeball and said, "Look, what's the deal, boys and girls? Where are you on this thing? Did you agree that one of your Commissioners should be dictating the policies of the entire Indian River County insofar as Sebastian getting into the water and sewer system?" (66) I think it's high time we did that, and'I would strongly recommend that this Council go on record of asking for a meeting eyeball to eyeball with the whole County. Commission, and get this thing straightened out once and for all. I don't think we should go into this thing on an adversarial position. I think we should go into this thing wide open, and I think the County Commission should have enough sense to do the same thing, because this is not going to do the County Commission any more good than it's doing us, and I think they should know what's happening., If they don't know what's happening, then we should make them aware of it. If they do know what's happening, then we should ask for a reason why. (67) Councilman Holyk: Did you have any other questions for -Mr. Cloud? (68) Councilman Reid: I don't have any more questions for him, and I'm sorry I kept you up there while I had to get fat off of my chest. (69) Mayor Conyers: I would like to say something just for the record, and let's be fair, Mr. Reid.. The City of Sebastian City Council asked the County to come in here and do this sewer thing. They asked the County to come in here and do the Twin Pairs deal. Public hearings were set; people heard about this. Previous Council, by unanimous vote, voted for this, and the only problem we've had with it so far, is that this Council doesn't want it! And because this Council doesn't want it, it's gonna cost us a duplication of things that have already been done, more money's gonna be spent, and I think fair is fair. This whole thing came about because the City of Sebastian asked for it!!! Let's get that clear. I live here, I pay taxes here, but I believe in fair. What's fair is fair, and what's right is right. And I don't believe that it's been SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS! Because, how coulo something be shoved down our throats when we told them to come in here and do it in the first place? (70) Mr. Cloud, do you have anything else? -13- .-. (71) Attorney Cloud: I wanted to try and answer some of the questions, and I assume they were questions and not just statements in the abstract. One dealt with Park Place. I think we've answered that one. With the financing, it's very common to finance these agreements with revenue bonds; there also are some grants available we think we can qualify for. Number Three: there's a lot of misconceptions about mandatory connection. You know, when I first started practicing law, I did (?) mandatory connections, so I happen to know quite a bit about it, including the fact that there's no case in the United States that says you can enforce mandatory water system connection on existing homes. (72) I can tell you this.-_Right^now,^if the Count* says,* it. You're stuck. But with an agreement .that allows you to be the retailer, you can do something about it. You can make a decision if the people say they don't want it, not to build the pipe. If you don't build the pipe, there's no mandatory connection. That's the law in Florida. I think that answers that question. (73) With respect to Mr. Little, Mr. Hartman was asked to contact Mr. Little. I believe Mr. Hartman can address in great detail the discussions he's had with Mr. Little. If you're interested in hearing. (74) Councilman Oberbeck: Before Mr. Hartman gets to Mr. Little, could I just address something on this mandatory connection? (75) Attorney Cloud: Yes sir. (76) Councilman Oberbeck: Okay. The Mayor commented that the County has stated, or will grant the practice, of nonmandatory connection. I_ would defy anyone to 4o to the County and apply for a fence permit if a_ sewer line is within a thousand feet of your property, because the first place you're sent is the Utilities Department. And if sewer's in that neighborhood, you ain't getting a permit until you connect to the sewer. (77) Attorney Cloud: I agree with that. I have no problem with that at all. That's not the mandatory connection I'm talking about. (78) rnnncl.lman Oberbeck: Well, that is mandatory. They've got .you. You ain't improving on your home. (79) Mayor Conyers: If they've got a sewer plant out there by your house, then sure. I'm saying that there's no way we can operate this City without having a mandatory connection. Your definition of mandatory lacks a lot as far as I'm concerned, because mandatory means, "mandatory, you will do." -14- (80) Councilman Oberbeck: Mr. Cloud, I'm just stating that I don't object to.a mandatory connection, because it's beneficial to the entire community, and that's what we have to look out for. That's what we're elected to represent. Now if we can do a mandatory connection with a federal grant from HUD, Farmer's Home, or whoever it might be, at 508 of the cost that it's gonna cost me to do it through the County, then I'm definitely in favor of it. (81) Mayor. Conyers: All these people who reserved capacity are hollering now because they're getting charged and they're not using their capacity. Wait till they get their lots down here and have to pay on an empty lot. Then, Mr. Mayor or Mr. Vice Mayor, let's see what you tell.them!. (82) Councilman Oberbeck:. Well, I own vacant lots, too,. Mr I can't wait until... (garbled speech) (83) now Ce] Mayor, and 0% will be (84) Mayor Conyers: They reserved that capacity. My point is, these people are complaining they're not hooked up, and they're being charged. And these people will complain about that when the City comes in and makes every lot in this City divided, whether you have anything on it ... whatever you're doing, you're gonna be paying for this. Each separate lot. -- (85) Now don't shake your heads at me, because you have not come up yet with an idea how we're gonna pay for this whole system. You've talked about maybe we might be able to get some bond money. I have a hard time finding that to even be a viable solution, because I think that when it gets down to us looking for bond money, with what we have to work out of them (?) I have another problem. (86) Mr. Hartman: Thank you.. I didn't mean to be argumentative at all. All I'm trying to do is advise you. You were asked if we did meet with Mr. Little; we did, and it was a very good meeting, about three hours. He's a fine person, a quality person, and I think that when you talk to him you'll see that he had an excellent meeting with us. and we're aoinq to continue our discussions because we have a few more points to talk about, and I'd rather reserve any staff's report of this until that time. He will then follow up and finish the report; he is doing so, and I think he was enlightened quite a bit about the situation because he talked to you both. The County and us at the same time. (87) Councilman Oberbeck: When you get done talking to him, I've got a fellow I met in Germany you can talk to, too. Maybe he can enlighten US. -15- r (88) Mayor Conyers: That's the kind of thinking we have up here. (89) Councilman Oberbeck: Mr. Mayor, I think for myself. I didn't need Mr. Little to pay for me. In fact, I may be furnishing this Council with some documents with regard to Mr. Little's background. (90) Mayor Conyers: I don't have any problem with anybody standing up here and telling something about this system, because all we've heard so far is, "We may be able to do this, we might be able to do this"; we've already thrown out $40,000.00. (91) Councilman Oberbeck: We can stand back and let somebody else do it all for us, and we can pay them. (92) Attorney Cloud:.. If I could, the one thing that I did want some direction from you all on was on Park Place, because I think that's really in your hands. That could go either way. (93) Councilman Oberbeck: Well, Mr. Cloud, I stated my position. I just feel that those people ... we do represent those people ... they are part of our community,.and I'm not in favor of giving away the farm. I know Park Place could be a little detriment to us, but the fact is that those people that come before us have stated that they wouldn't care if they even had to pay a couple of dollars more, rather than be controlled by the County. That was the position of the representatives; I believe it was Mr. Pitiak who stood before this Council last year, or earlier in the year. (94) Attorney Cloud: So, your position would be, if I may take the liberty. of stating it, that assuming we can get the necessary assurances of what the liabilities are, you'd be in favor of including it in the agreement. (95) Councilman Oberbeck: Yes sir. (96) Mayor Conyers: if this City Council wants to do something for them, let's drop the franchise fee and the utility tax. That ought to help out a little. (97) Councilman Holyk: How are you going to drop it? .You just said Jt'-, i.11eaal. Is that riqht? We can't drop the franchise fees, even if we take them over. (98) Attorney Cloud: Well, are they paying a franchise fee now? They're County. I guess the County's paying a franchise fee. But if we take them over, they're gonna pay a franchise fee ... they'll be your customers. -16- (99) Mayor Conyers: I would assume that you would know this information. (100) Attorney Cloud: I just told you! (101)' Mayor Conyers: You don't know who has the franchise .fee ... the County or the City. (102) Attorney Cloud: I would assume the County is paying you a franchise fee. Okay, if you take over the system. If you take over the system. vou're not aoina toay yourself a franchise fee, are vou7 Do either of the rest of you have a feeling about Park Place? I would like to... (103) Councilman Reid: I don't want to make a decision on that until you get all the information that we need to make a logical decision. This business of shooting from the hip and saying, "Oh, hey, let's do something for those people!" Well, we have to find out what we can do for them and what kind of liability we're going to assume for the rest of the City of Sebastian. So until we get the information, I'm not going to make any kind of decision to tell you either yes or no. (104) Mayor Conyers: Absolutely. I agree with that 100 percent. That's what I've always hollered for. Get all the information. (105) Councilman Oberbeck: If I may, George, part of my statement was to do it. If he had to pursue it, pursue it in the best interest of the community. Now, they (?) gave away the farm. I would hope that they would come back and afford us the rest of the information when he can acquire it. (106) Attorney Cloud: I'll request the rest of the information... (107) Councilman Reid: If you're successful in getting it from the County, lots of luck. (106) Councilman Oberbeck: ...but I don't want to leave them out of the overall program. (109) Councilman Holyk: No, I agree that they're citizens, and we Hnn't. want to leave anvbody out of any program. Obviously, they're under a different franchise agreement is what I understana, from where it stands right now. (110) Attorney Cloud: Well, they're covered by a Purchase and Sale Agreement that defines their rights. (111) Councilman Holyk: Jerry, you had something to add to that. -17- Inc 'buTgsaJaquT dpogawos gnogP XTPy (zaggbnvq) Lauo zaggo aqq s,ogm 'auo gpgq gnogp gabzo3 :Xoagzago uPwTTOUnOD (SZT) 'dnozb s,aoTzd dPTO Sum auo :uPwgzPH 'JW (bZT) Zsdnozb omq aqq aaam oqM :Xoegzago uPwTTOUnOO (£ZT) — paqupm gPgq sn pagouquoo aneq gPgg sdnozb omq uaaq diuo anPq azagq 'abpaTmOUX dw oy :uPwgJPH -JR (ZZT) 'azaq TPap aqq ;o gapd qou ST agouPTq agJPO 'geaA :X TOH uPwTTOunoO (TZT) •••gnq 'sdnb nod aXTT I 'nod anTb og gUPM q,Uop I" 'Puuob nod aJP moq Jo 'aozawwoo ;o zagwego TPOOT aqq ggTM ggbTu auo aJaq qaaw nod pinoM ZbuTgaaw addq pagsTTgnd P aq STgq TTTM 'pauJeouoo auodzana goagozd oL :Xoagzago uPwTTounoo (oZi) 'mouX oq dpogdzana quPM gsnC i qnq 'gpazb 'wagq oq gPgq aerb upo nod ;T PUP 'uOTgPwJo;uT OJow goT P spaau dgTunwwoo aqy :p?ag uPwTTounoo (6TT) ••'dq?unwwoo aqq zo; qT buTOP TTTgs az,nod :X TOH uPwTTOunoO (8TT) ••• quads TTam dauOw S,qT XuTgq I ,iquads am daUOw agq TTP qP Xoal„ 'sties PUP JaquT sawoO oqm dpogewos gPgq Bans aXpw oq quem gsnC I :pTag upwTTounoO (LTT) • gPt{q nod TTaq uPO I 'buTggou zo; qT op PUU06 goU aJ,dagy :sza uoO Jo PR (9TT) 'abzoao 'aoTnzas dgTunwwoO 'qT zo; dud uuuob aJ,nod asznoo ;O :Xoagzago _uPwTTounoO __(STT) ZawTq gPgg Jo; tied Puuob am azy LawTg aqq Jo; dPd Puuob s,ogM: :pTaH uuwiTounoO_(6TT) •UOTuTdo dw s,gegq qnq 'TTounoo aTogm aqq Jo; Xpeds q,upo I 'uoTUTdo dw s,gPgs 'gpgg op og nod abzn I 'qT og posoddo qou I wu dTuo qou 'ou 'pauzaouoO w,I sP JP; sy .:X TOH uPwTTounOD (ETT) 'aTdoad asogq ggTM SbuTgaaw ;O aTdnoo P aAPq og buTob aJ,aM uagm PUP suoTgpuTgwoo Jamas gP buTXOOrI 'sbuTgq ;o saddq asogq puP 'dgTO aqq zo; PUP dgTO aqq UT paJudead 'ubTsep TPngdaouoo dzan P ;o oddq :ubrsap dzeurwTTazd agq ;o uoTgdaOJaquT aqq pup swPJbozd Jamas aq-4 ssnosTp pue 'wagq oq XTPg oq sn Jo; paXSP eAPq oqm aidoad aeggo PUP dgTunwwoo SSauTsnq eq -4 og Ino ob 04 uOTssrwzad znod burgsenbea eav am :upwgJPH -JR (ZIT) (126) Mr. Hartman: The Park Place group... (127) Councilman Oberbeck: Could we not let them come in here, and you guys have a meeting right here or at our community center one night, so we don't go broke? I mean, a community meeting... one night! (128) Mr. Hartman: If there's too many people, it would be very difficult to accomplish a lot and... (129) Councilman Holyk: But by the same token, it may also answer questions that you wouldn't have to repeat, so that there is validity of doing that. I think if it gets out of hand, and that becomes obvious where you have people standing on Main Street waiting to get up here and speak, I think it's obvious that that's not gonna work, then you can begin to consolidate people a. little bit by a specific can_ spokesmafor a larger group of people, but still it may not be unwise to at least try that. (130) Councilman Oberbeck: Pete, was it not effective the night we opened up the community center and had the County up to answer questions to the public? Will you do the same thing here? That's big enough to accommodate both groups with no problem. Just schedule a meeting one night and that's it, and we'll pay once. (WSEBMTG.CEW):cew -19- COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO SEBASTIAN MEETING 11/6/91 (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. (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. - 9 - (13) As of November 13, 1991: City of Sebastian Original No. of ERUs 1,878 No. ERUs repurchased -(568) Balance of ERUs in City 10310 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. -.- (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. SWAM (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. -c- (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. (44) See answer to paragraph S. - Q - (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. (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. 19 - (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. - is - (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 - (102) See above. - 17 - DEC 04 '91 16:41 407 589 " a City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 0 FAX (407) 589.5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET FAX # — '. -414—"5z �'O DELIVER TO: FROM: �! i DATE: �oZ� TIME SENT: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) 15 RE: l J F. 1 '15 40)07 -1 . ORIGINAL WILL ( 1/<WILL NOT ( ) FOLLOW. V IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 DEC 04 '91 17:02 40. (: of Sebastian POST OFFICE BG: X127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589.5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET FAX # -- vo -2 - D, -/ y - s- 6 9 u I�:'..IVER TO: 't C �-r DATE: % -�- '/i � / TIME SENT: F'. 1'S TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET)_ RE: �&'w A' 7` ORIGINAL WILL ( ) WILL NOT ( FOLLOW. IF YOIT DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-53?0 z hu ve i'2 c e7 ✓e� %j.�i7 /1 07 F/}� E r1 „NOV 27 '91 18:93 407 51 X570 .-, City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 7B0127 a SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589.5330 a FAX (407) 589-5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET FAX # f — 5 D / �' C2 DELIVER TO%X., O FROM: DATE: fes/ 9 Z TIME SENT: TOTAL/NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) RE: ORIGINAL WILL ( ) WILL NOT i ) FOLLOW. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 P.1 a NOV 27 'S1 IS:04 -:07 F00�7-70 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589.5330 0 FAX (407) 589.5570 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 26, 1991 T0: W. E. Conyers, Mayor & Sebastian City Council FROM: Robert S. MaClary RE: Water & Sewer Utility Y BACKGROUND Pursuant to Resolution No. R-87-6, Indian River County ("IRC") is franchised to provide public water and wastewater services within the City of Sebastian. Since, 1981, the City also entered into four (4) other franchise agreements with private entities to provide water or sanitary sewer or both services to specified geographic areas: General Development Utilities (11GDU11) under Ordinance 0-81-8 (Water) and Ordinance 0-81-9 (Sanitary Sewer), Lake Dolores Utilities under Ordinance 0-85-12 (Water & Sewer), and Sebastian Lakes Utility Company under Ordinance 0-85-16 (Water & Sewer,). The franchise granted Indian River County is unique and differs from all other franchises in that the City has no ability under the IRC franchise to regulate rates and, IRC is granted additional territory automatically should any other prior franchise "expire, revert, be forfeited, canceled or otherwise come under the control of the City." The bottom line policy, established by the City Council by adopting Resolution R-87-6, is that Indian River County would ultimately be the sole provider of water and wastewater services within the City limits of the City. Indian River County, by special legislative act of May 2, 1959, was authorized to serve, either by itself or by granting franchises, the unincorporated area of Indian River County. RE: water & Sewer Utility page #2 STATUS OF IRC NORTH COUNTY PROTECT * IRC has taken Sebastian out of its master planning study for County water. * Indian River County provides water service in only one area of the City, which is Park Place. On July 11, 1989, IRC entered into a contract with Nelson Hyatt for the County take over of the utility system serving Park Place. * Sewer Plant and Base Facilities: IRC has constructed and put into operation a one MGD Plant, which was designed to serve 2,000 Equivalent Residential Units ("ERU's") in Sebastian. Additionally, the core facilities of main interceptor lines and major lift stations were constructed. Overall, for both City and unicorporated North County, IRC sold 5,200 ERU's in advance of construction of these wastewater facilities. * Sewer Collector system: IRC has not constructed any new internal lines or collector systems for sanitary sewer service in the City. However, on September 30, 1991, IRC transmitted to the City a preliminary engineering study prepared by Kimball, Lloyd, IRC's consulting engineers, dated February 19, 1991, for the Indian River Drive area of the City. * Sewer - Park Place. Indian River County has completely taken out of operation the wastewater treatment plant constructed for Park Place and has installed a lift station to serve the developments of Park Place, Breezy Village and Palm Lake. The wastewater from these developments is pumped to the IRC Hobart plant for treatment. * water Customers. As mentioned earlier, the County's only water customers inside the City are those 147 within Park Place. * Sewer Customers. There are only 152 sewer customers: Park Place, 147; Indian River Drive, 4; and, the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course. Additionally, the City of Sebastian Police Station and the new Food Lion will be connected to the County system in the near future. CITY OWNED WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES In March, 1990, after hearing concerns expressed by property owners in the Indian River Drive area and from residents of Park Place, the City Council became increasingly concerned about the progress of the County sewer system in Sebastian. At that time, the City's involvement in the water and sewer business was limited as regulator of the IRC franchise and as the assessment and enforcement arm of the TRC Utility Department. fu_,'.1 " '91 -Q-1 '°!"%E70 00*1 1 -. a, RE: Water & Sewer Utility Page #3 The City Council wanted basic information from the IRC Utility Department and on April 9, 1990, by letter addressed to IRC Utilities Director, Terry Pinto, requested IRC to provide a briefing to the City Council on the status of the North County Project. Such a briefing would include a description of how the system will work, how a customer will connect, and how much a customer should expect to pay in order to connect to the system. We also asked for a time frame in which the system would be in place and working. Mr. Pinto subsequently declined the invitation and on May 10, 1990, by letter from Mayor Conyers to then IRC Commission Chairman, Carolyn Eggert, requested the County to provide a representative to conduct a public briefing on the North County Sewer Project. Indian River county subsequently held a meeting in Sebastian but the questions about how the system will work, how a customer will connect to it, what expenses the customer should expect and when he would be able to connect to the system, to this date, have never been answered. After hearing the growing concerns of property owners and potential customers, the City appointed a special lawyer, Thomas Cloud, and a consulting engineer, Gerald Hartman, to evaluate the franchise with IRC and outline the advantages and disadvantages of the City providing water and wastewater services for the City. The result of this special engagement was a briefing document, referred to as the "Hartman Report", dated June 24, 1991. The report, among other things, recommended that the City "unbuckle" agreements with Indian River County for the franchise granted under Resolution R-87-6 and all other inter -local agreements between the City and Indian River County relating to water and sewer utilities. The report also recommended that the City pursue the acquisition of the General Development Utilities ("GDU") facilities located in the City under the terms of the two franchises granted to GDU in 1981. Since July, 1991 the City and IRC have been negotiating a new agreement to effect the "unbuckling", as recommended in the Hartman Report. IRC PROPOSAL Indian River County wants a clean and immediate break with its retail water and sewer customers within the City. The IRC proposal would put the City in the retail water and sewer business virtually upon execution of the contract and IRC would "wholesale" treatment services to the City. At the stroke of a pen, TRC would have one sole customer within the City: The City of Sebastian. The City, in turn, would provide retail water and sewer facilities and assume the meager 152 account customer base TRC currently serves. Although IRC officials initially indicated that they would cooperate with the City in providing for a smooth transition, they have dramatically narrowed the options to one: a wholesale deal without a transition period. RE: water & Sewer Utility Page #4 CITY PROPOSAL The City of Sebastian should ultimately become the service provider for the entire city, In fact, the agreement should contain a provision that territories annexed in the future would be served by City water and sewer. The only good deal is one that will serve the best interests of the City, the County, and the affected customers, potential customers, property owners and citizens. The essence of the Hartman Report is the City's successful acquisition of the GDU water and wastewater facilities under the terms of the GDU franchise agreements. The success, in large measure, of the City venturing into the water and sewer business depends on purchasing the GDU facilities under the terms enumerated in the two (2) franchise ordinances. Specifically, the purchase price is to be based on GDU's investment of the system and exclude any contributions in aid of construction ("CIAC"). Ideally, I believe, the City would devote its efforts to acquiring the GDU facilities while the County would maintain a "business as usual" approach for the two (2) territories of Indian River Drive area and Park Place. In the future, the City would "buy" those customers from the County when it is in a position to accept customers and, to protect IRC, when the County had County customers to replace those converted to the City system. Wastewater flows from City customers could be treated at the City's own wastewater treatment facility or through a wholesale agreement with Indian River County. Since the County, as it claims, is in "high gear" in planning, engineering and constructing wastewater facilities, it seems to me that it would be in everyone's best interest for the City and County to form a partnership and determine ways that we could work together to serve the best interests of the customers and citizens. To serve the best interest of the customer, I think it would be logical to look at developing a contingency plan in the unlikely event the City is unable to acquire the GDU facilities in the expected favorable terms resulting from the arbitration process as outlined in the GDU franchise Ordinances. CITY MANAGER CONCERNS There is something wrong with this picture. With the current agreements still in place, the negotiating strength is with the County and not with the City. If the City is forced into accepting this "all or nothing! deal the City will be forced into the utility business in a most untimely fashion. We will be so busy putting out fires, we will not have adequate time to devote to the GDU acquisition. The North County Sewer Project is already off to a rocky start with a 75% failure rate of ERU "commitments". Of the 2,000 ERU's sold to potential customers within the City, 800 ERU's have been turned back in and another 700 are in default of their assessment payments. 170 RE: Water & Sewer Utility Page #5 P. E/7 One of the City's first priorities will have to be the design and construction of the internal lines and sewer collector system for the Indian Drive Area. Property owners who thought the $1,250 impact fee was high should brace themselves for the collector system assessments, which may cost an additional $3,OOOto $5,000 per ERU. The problem, as I see it, is that the County's plan (intentionally or unintentionally) benefits the developers and large commercial customers and penalizes the residential and small commercial customer. This is particularly true since IRC planned and built the plant and interceptor facilities long before they did any planning for the collector system. Most residential or small commercial property owners cannot afford the $20,000 to $30,000 to build a lift station to tap the IRC force main but find themselves with no other alternative since HRS - Indian River County Health Unit, considers the TRC force main as "available" and therefore a connection mandatory for any expansion or new building. Undoubtably, TRC will want the City to guarantee the assessments for all reserved capacity as well as to pay the base facility charges for those reserved units. Of course, for the 152 existing customers, IRC will want large meters installed in the lift stations to measure the amount of wastewater generated from the City. At $30,000 per lift station times four (4) lift stations, the City could be forced into paying $120,000 for meters to measure sewage for the 152 existing customers. This does not sound practical to me. The Park Place deal will present some unique challenges to the City. I am sure the developer will not undo the sale to Indian River County unless he believes he can get a better deal from the City of Sebastian. Assuming the Park Place contract is assigned to the City by the County, those customers will still be paying the $10.00 per month surcharge for the ten (10) year period specified in the contract. But there is more. By.the terms of this contract, IRC seems to have reserved capacity for a total of 650 units without guaranteed impact fees. In fact, the developer will be exempt from impact fees for a five (5) year period. However, as units are sold, the County will collect an impact fee at the time of resale of a Park Place unit. Will the County continue to reserve that capacity in its plant without impact fee assessment guarantees from the City or the payment of base facility charges? Will the contract assignment mean that the City will be forced to exempt the developer from paying an impact fee but at the same time be forced to pay an impact fee to IRC for new Park Place customers? Some Park Place residents expect the City use our legal resources to unilaterally undo the contract between the developer and the County, claiming it was unlawfully entered into. I would not want to see the city embark upon putting together a water and sewer system by starting with the initiation of a lawsuit. NOV 27 '91 13:07 407 5_ _5 0 P.7/7 RE: Water & Sewer Utility Page #6 The bottom line is that there is "no free lunch" and, unless the System is subsidized by General Fund or other City revenues, grants, or contributions and aid of construction (most likely all of these methods will be used to some extent) the customer will pay for the service. Lastly, if the City is forced into the retail business prematurely, our efforts will have to be devoted to completing the unfinished TRC projects and in pursuing the acquisition of GDU facilities. This means that we may be hampered into extending water service into the Highlands. A good public drinking water system should have a high priority since it would have immediate benefit to our citizens and property owners. RECOMMENDATION Given the above identified factors, and a hundred more I haven't thought of, Indian River County's "wholesale" rates may look like their retail rates, only higher. I am hoping that the continuing negotiations with Indian River County can be marked with an attitude of principles above personalities where the customer is king. While the City Council has authorized a joint meeting with the Indian River Commission, both City and County staffs want to attempt to develop a joint recommendation to both governing bodies. Unless IRC is willing to find ways for the unbuckling process to work, it is certainly assuring that the City will have a most difficult time succeeding. r. HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, surveyors & management consultants Mr. John V. Little 336 Grove Isle Circle Vero Beach, Florida 32962 November 13, 1991 HAI #91-174.00 Subject: Response to October 29, 1991 Meeting Dear Mr. Little: First, let me take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us an opportunity to respond to your initial thoughts and comments concerning the utility matters in the Sebastian area. I believe that our meeting on October 29, 1991, was very informative and provided to you some significant insights which are appropriate for consideration. It is difficult for anyone to pick up a report and be able to know all of the background, analyses, thinking and other efforts that were involved in the preparation of the report. Only the written word can be reviewed and commented upon. The attached responds to your comments and provides additional clarification to our report which I believe will be beneficial for you. Let me take this opportunity to say that it was a pleasure meeting and discussing this issue with you, and I am hopeful that you will stay involved and that we can have the benefit of your insights and discussions in the future. GCH/ch Enclosure Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. Gill Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. President 201 EAST PINE STREET • SUITE 1000 • ORLANDO. I'I. 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839.3955 • FAX (407) 839-3'90 PRINCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER - CHARLES \C' DRAKE • GERAD) C. HARTMAN • MARK I. I.I'Kl' • >IARK A. RFNNING • HARDI.D E. SCIUNIIDT. JR. n A00N RESPONSES TO MR. JOHN V. LITTLE'S ANALYSIS OF THE BRIEFING DOCUMENT FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF EXISTING UTILITY FRANCHISE OF PROVIDING WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA PREPARED BY: HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. HAI #91-174.00 November 11, 1991 INTRODUCTION On Tuesday, October 29, 1991, Mr. Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. of Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) met with Mr. Robb McClary, City Manager and Mr. John V. Little. Mr. Little is a private consultant who has reviewed the Briefing Document prepared for and subsequently accepted by the City entitled "Investigation of Existing Utility Franchise and the Advantages and Disadvantages of Providing Water and Wastewater Services for the City of Sebastian." To facilitate review, we have provided each of Mr. Little's comments with our responses directly below. Comment No. 1• A statement is made that the concentrations of trihalomethanes are "not alarming", since GDU does not practice THM control. I my opinion, such THM levels should be a concern as they are considered to be carcinogenic and should be controlled. This can be accomplished by using a disinfection process other than simple chlorination. Response: The levels are not alarming due to the fact that they were expected, similar to Palm Bay, and the same corrective improvement is expected with a combined chlorine residual. The cost for these improvements are included in the report. True, total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) should be controlled. One method of controlling TTHMs is using an alternative disinfection process, such as chlorine dioxide, ozonation and/or ultra -violet radiation, etc. However, these disinfection processes are more costly to implement and operate. Therefore, process modifications to the water treatment process are generally implemented. One such process modification is ammoniation. This process is extremely effective, very simple to implement, and is cost-effective. It would be safe to say that over 90 percent of the water treatment plants (WTPs) in the state of Florida utilize ammoniation for TTHM control, rather than instituting a new disinfection process. It would be recommended for this facility that an ammoniation system be instituted rather than a new disinfection process. Comment No. 2: The bacteria concentrations inside and outside the control residence are most likely a result of faulty sampling technique rather than system problems. Response: Although faulty sampling techniques could be one reason for violating the bacteria standards within a residence and not outside, it would be inappropriate for us to say that the Indian River County Department of Health and Resource Services' sampling procedure is faulty. Moreover, it is very possible that bacteria problems could actually occur within a residence and not be detected at a point outside (i.e., faucet) of the same residence. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp A- Comment No. 3 The copper levels should be dealt with, but cannot be resolved by simply modifying the operation of the plant. Response: True, the copper problems should be dealt with and they will. As a result of the Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for copper, monitoring, treatment requirements, etc., have been revised. The new MCL for copper is 1.3 mg/l. To comply with the Amendments to the SDWA, the utility must begin monitoring by July, 1992 and recommend treatment actions by January, 1993. In accordance with the Amendments to the SDWA, a treatment system must be on-line by July, 1996, assuming the water system exceeds the copper MCL. The source of copper in drinking water is generally due to the corrosion of interior household and building piping. In summary, the finished water is unstable and is basically an aggressive water which induces corrosion in the system. The most cost-effective method of corrosion control techniques is pH adjustment and alkalinity adjustment. Other methods of corrosion control include calcium adjustment and/or the addition of phosphate- or silica -based corrosion inhibitors into the system. It was recommended, based on our review of the monthly operating reports for the WTP, that a pH adjustment/alkalinity control system be installed at the WTP. This system would consist of a chemical storage tank, metering pumps, pH recording device and miscellaneous controls. This system would consist of a chemical storage tank, metering pumps, pH recording device and miscellaneous controls. This system will continuously monitor the drinking water and adjust the pH of the drinking water to maintain a stable water. The costs for these improvements are included in the report. Comment No. 4• The statement that the County impact fees are higher than most others in the region is misleading and is presented as a negative when such is not the case. ,Impact fee levels may vary greatly from system to system due to a number of factors, such as: a) The immediate need for new plant as opposed to costing existing plant. b) Ratemaking philosophy/politics. Impact fees may fully reflect plant costs or may be only partially costed to avoid high fees. The difference is then made up in monthly rates/commodity charges. Since there is no "free lunch", impact fee costing is analogous to the Fram commercial, i.e., "You pay now or you pay later." To avoid growth costs being a burden on existing customers, impact fees should be fully costed. The result is often HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -2- rte. .-• what appears to be high charges. Such a problem should be handled by time payments (term -financing), not by artificially lower impact charges. c) Impact fee levels are greatly affected by what costs are included, i.e., treatment plant, transmission, distribution, service and metering. Again, all appropriate costs should be included, as stated above. The statement that the County's impact fees are higher than most others in the region is awe statement. As Mr. Little indicated, impact fees vary greatly from system to system and are based on the need for new facilities versus upgrade and the ratemaking philosophy/politics. However, all appropriate costs should be included in the impact fees, which include treatment plant needs and collection, transmission and distribution system needs. Comment No. 5 With regard to comparing County impact fees with GDU, in addition to previous relevant comments, one would expect GDU to be lower due to the methods developers almost always use to recover up front capital costs related to utilities and site development. Such capital costs are recovered in the sales price of lots and/or houses. Often, if rate regulation is not sophisticated, such costs are recovered twice, once through lot/house sales and again through impact fees and/or monthly rates. Response: This statement is untrue, though may have occurred in other investor-owned systems in other locations. Our firm is very experienced in the financing policies of GDU, as well as numerous other private utilities. In fact, members of our firm have testified before the Florida Public Services Commission (FPSC) on impact fee and rate making issues. Based on our knowledge of GDU's financing policies, as well as discussions with the ex-GDU president, the customer was charged separately for the connection fee and not recovered twice as implied by Mr. Little. Furthermore, the FPSC as a policy allows a utility to collect up to 75 percent of the facility in service as a maximum and the utility then must carry the remaining 25 percent on their books as an investment. Comment No. 6: When a government agency acquires a privately -owned utility system, particularly if condemnation is necessary, such costs are often recovered again. Condemnation law is very much biased in favor of the system owner. HES/ch R5/Sebast. Rsp -3- #O -V -I Response: ''1 This is true; however, we proposed to invoke our franchise rights and pursue the GDU facilities through an acquisition process. We have not and do not expect that condemnation via a "quick -take" will be pursued by the City. We have recommended against condemnation proceedings in this endeavor. Comment No. 7• The statement that County rates are significantly higher than others in the region is also misleading and seems to imply that rates under City operation would be much lower. Such is simply not the case. Rates/monthly commodity charges will vary greatly between systems due to a number of factors. a) Ratemaking philosophy/politics. Rates should be fully costed. Some cities subsidize water and sewer operations from the General Fund rather than levy proper charges. b) Contribution to/from the General Fund may vary greatly. c) The monthly bill may vary greatly, depending on the level of utility tax levied. Such taxes are not reflective of utility costs, but of local politics and fiscal policy. d) System age, imbedded debt costs, level of service, quality of service, etc. Response: The statement that the County's rates are significantly higher than others in the region is an accurate and true statement. The report never implies that under the City's operation, the rates would be much lower. The remaining statements of Mr. Little's, identified as a) through d) are accurate. Comment No. 8• A proper comparison would compare County rates with pro forma rates under City operation. It is most'unlikely that City rates could be lower than County rates. Most certainly, GDU rates would not be applicable under City operation, even in the short term. Response: A comparison of the County's rates with pro forma rates under the City's operation could not be done at this time, based on the data we had and were provided by the County. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -4- Furthermore, the statement that GDU rates would not be applicable under City operation, even in the short-term, is conjecture on Mr. Little's part. As previously stated, the rate making policies are dependent on a number of factors. Until the GDU system is acquired, any statement regarding rates is conjecture. Comment No. 9 The comparison between the County and GDU is not relevant and is misleading. Assuming that GDU is not the entity to provide citywide utility service, and I believe this a valid assumption considering the present status and integrity of GDU, then the comparison should have been between the City and County as previously stated. It is not proper for us to respond to the status and integrity of GDU. The status of GDU is unchanged, with the exception of various municipalities and counties exercising their franchise rights or condemning the utilities, both of which result in possible sales of their utility. Furthermore, GDU is a subsidiary of General Development Corporation (GDC) and is not under the bankruptcy proceedings that GDC is at this time. Moreover, in our opinion, GDU has in the past been a fine utility that provided good service to their customers. GDU versus the County is the only actual comparison available at this time. Comment No. 10• The City would appear to have some advantage over the County in GDU system acquisition due to existing franchise provisions. I can safely state that the acquisition will ultimately be decided in court, notwithstanding franchise language. The City and County working together should be able to acquire the system in such a manner as to not negatively impact County operation. Response: We agree with Mr.. Little that the City has a clear advantage over the County in acquiring the GDU system. Whether or not the acquisition ends up in court is yet to be determined. However, the City, by exercising their franchise rights, could conceivably offer GDU a value for their utility systems which the bankruptcy hearing officer may accept, or GDU may accept, both of which deletes the courts. Nonetheless, a court case may be required. Comment No. 11: The statements on pages ES -7 and 8 regarding City ownership and operation are naive at best and appear to be comparing City versus continued GDU ownership. There is little question all factors considered that City operation would be preferable to GDU. The HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -5- R question before us, however, is City versus County ownership, not City versus GDU. In my considered, expert opinion, County operation is the proper option if: a) Acquisition costs can be favorably dealt with; b) Appropriate franchise language, terms, conditions, and payments can be favorably negotiated. Inquiring seems to indicate that such obstacles can be overcome. My conclusion is based in part on the following: a) In-place County business experience, plant and staff. b) County staff stability and political stability. c) Ability of County to do/pay what it takes to acquire and keep competent staff. Response: The first question is City versus GDU ownership, which we concur with Mr. Little that public ownership is preferred in this case over investor (GDU) ownership. The second real question is City versus County ownership. Mr. Little's conclusions are correct; however, this does not mean that the City can attain the same. For example, Mr. Robb McClary, City Manager, has over 15 years of utility experience and Mr. Dan Eckis, P.E. is a registered engineer in the State of Florida, who can handle the management of the utility system. Both individuals are very competent individuals and can handle the tasks associated with managing a utility of this size. As to paying and doing what it takes to acquire and keep competent staff, we cannot address Sebastian's past; however, it appears that they are moving in the right direction with the staff they hired in the last three (3) years. As to the political stability and practices of the City Council, it appears that the Council is well versed in utility matters and truly concerned as to rights of the residents of Sebastian. Comment No. 12• Past history in Sebastian generally and the airport, police and golf course specifically do not give comfort in the operation of a utility system, which is inherently so necessary to the public health and welfare. As only one example, it would be necessary to pay a competent utility director more than is currently paid the city manager. Response: There are many competent utility directors that are paid less than the city manager. We concur that reasonable salaries are necessary. The issue of earnings is not the deciding factor. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -6- Again, the past history of the City of Sebastian does not mean that the City is not capable of properly running a water and sewer utility. Comment No. 13: The reasons given for City ownership are as follows: a) Control of growth, development. etc. In my opinion, legally and philosophically, utility service should not be used as a means to control growth. Zoning regulations are the proper vehicle for such control. In a few cases, where cities have used the withholding of utility service as a means to control or eliminate development, antitrust suits have been brought, resulting in the City being the loser. b) Control of operations, rates, etc. Such control is desirable, but it boils down to a "what price glory" situation. In my opinion, rates under City ownership cannot compete favorably with County rates, particularly in the long term. Economics of scale is only one of many reasons. Many admittedly desirable controls can be achieved through an appropriately -drafted franchise agreement. The statements regarding the impact of an ownership change on existing GDU customers are essentially true, when comparing continuing GDU ownership with City ownership. However, the same observations hold true under County ownership. Again, there is not question that City ownership is better than GDU ownership. However, I was under the impression that bridge had been crossed and that we are now comparing City versus County ownership. Response: The above statements are opinions of Mr. Little's. For example, rates under City ownership cannot compete favorably with County rates, particularly in the long term. This statement may or may not be true, since many factors fall into play (i.e., effective operations, future regulations, etc.). At this time, it is very difficult to compare the City ownership versus the County, since until the City has arbitrated the price of the utility, or conducted the necessary 180.301, F.S. investigations, such comparisons are not well documented. Comment No. 14: The statements in Section 5, pages 6 and 7 are, in large measure, opinion not based on factual evidence. In my opinion, they appear to be telling the client what the consultant HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -7- Apmeak AIMN perceived the client wanted to hear. In my opinion, most of the advantages of City ownership listed in Section 5, page 8 are incorrect and/or highly speculative, especially the first eight listed. y.. Based on our review of the legal documents and other documents provided from the County, regulatory agencies and other sources, our professional opinion regarding the City versus County ownership was developed. For example, the County did inform us that if the County took over the GDU wastewater treatment plant, it would be abandoned. The same holds true for the GDU water treatment plant. It is true that the County cannot purchase GDU under the same terms and conditions as the City. It would seem logical that the rates and capital charges would increase if the County did somehow purchase the GDU system, since they have in the past (i.e., Park Place). Furthermore, we believe that the advantages listed in Table 5-2 are an appropriate representation at this time. SUMMARY Our meeting of October 29, 1991, was very productive. We believe the key issue initially is what entity, City or County, is the best to acquire GDU in Sebastian. We believe the City is the best entity due to the ability to acquire using its franchise rights granted to it by GDU. We expect a settlement negotiation, mediation negotiation or formal arbitration to determine the price, terms and conditions. Once the above and the 180.301 F.S. investigations are complete, then any future consideration/negotiation with the County as needed at the time would be appropriate. The second and smaller, yet important, issue is how the existing 95 ERU's as manifested by a handful of wastewater connections are served. We requested the County to continue service; they do not wish to if the City of Sebastian gains the rights to purchase GDU. Therefore, a reasonable transition of the very few existing customers is necessary. The third issue is capacity availability in the County plant for the assessment program the County initiated. The collection system assessment areas were not provided treatment and disposal capacity for 100% of the affected properties. In fact, only those property owners who purchased capacity from the County up -front were assured capacity. In addition, much of the treatment and disposal capacity was sold by the County to City property owners who were not within a collection system assessment area, and these owners have been told they must build their own pump station and force main, or similar facilities, to connect to the County transmission facilities. The County sold transmission, treatment and disposal capacity amounting to 2,000 ERC's in the County system. Then they built the transmission system, plant and disposal system. They sold well over 5,000 ERC's up -front at 250 gpd per ERC in a 1,000,000 gpd plant. The County only conducted a very preliminary engineering study for the collection of sewage in Sebastian and never took the project any further. There are no detailed surveys, plans, specifications, cost estimates or assessment values established for the 2,000 ERC's sold and who had to pay what for connection. We do know that the collection systems will cost HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp 8 probably more than three (3) times the County impact fee. If such costs are applied to only a few properties in the County's assessment area due to the lack of available capacity, such capital costs would be unreasonably great. In order to be able to assess all of the properties in the County assessment area, the County must unconditionally commit that capacity will be available when requested by the property owners. The County has not been willing to make such an unconditional commitment at this time for its own planned assessment area. The County states that new capacity will be available only when the next increment of the plant (the next 1.0 MGD) is sold and only at the time of the capacity sale, because the County will only build enough capacity for those who buy it up -front. After this sale, then one must wait until the next sale (i.e., next 1.0 MGD expansion). The fourth issue is the situation which the original Sebastian customer 2,000 ERC's have been in and their actions. Over 800 of the original 2,000 ERC's have been turned back into the County and the County has resold them elsewhere in the service area. Approximately 700 of the remaining 1,200 ERC's have refused to pay their impact fee assessments to the County and may be considered by the County in default. Nearly 400 ERC's of the some 500 ERC's are continuing to pay their impact fee assessments or have prepaid the entire impact fee and have not or cannot connect to the County system and are paying a reserve capacity fee to the County because they are not connected. Ninety-five (95) ERC's are connected to the County system and are paying all customer charges. In summary, the connected wastewater flow from Sebastian is about 19,000 gpd. The documented inhibited demand of potential paying wastewater customers is 80,000 gpd. There are no County water facilities and no County water customers (other than the maintained Park Place system) in Sebastian. HES/ch R5/Sebast.Rsp -9- NOV 01 '91 10:14 407 5 -V570 g oP n,d City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 a FAX (407) 589-5570 FAX ## DELIVER TO: FROM: FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET oC -714 ^ e DATE: TIME SENT: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) D"ird s - P.1/5 Vw�r -�wcl '�It4 RE: �/(7. C 9 -N-)1% ' ORIGINAL WILL �( ) WILL NOT ( v) FOLLOW, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 0 NOV 01 '91 10:14 407 5 570 C7 Off` P.2/5 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32878 TELEPHONE (407) 5895330 0 FAX (407) 589-5570 SUBJECT: Indian River County Utility Franchise Approval For Submittal By: Lr City Manager Agenda No. Dept. Origin: City Manager Date Submitted: 10/31/91 For Agenda Of: 11/06/91 Exhibits: Cloud Letter To Vitunac dated 10/24/91 Draft Interlocal Utilities Agreement EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: BUDGETED: REQUIRED: SUMMARY The .latest negotiation session with Indian River County on water and sewer franchise matters was held on October 16, 1991. As a result of that negotiating session, special attorney Thomas A. Cloud prepared a new draft of a proposed interlocal utilities agreement between Indian River County and the City. Mr. Cloud and the City's special engineering consultant,Gerald Hartman, will be present at the regular workshop meeting of November 6, 1991 to review the progress of negotiations between the City and the County. RECOMMENDED ACTION Review status of Indian River County negotiations for water and waste water utility franchise matters. NOV 01 '91 10:14 407 5''5570 o� P.3/5 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-6330 c FAX (407) 589.5570 SUBJECT: ) Indian River Drive ) Sanitary Sewer Study Approved For Submittal 9y: ) Agenda No. 9/,07/ Dept. Origin Date Submitted 10 -?FI -91 For Agenda Of 11-6-91 Exhibits: Harry Asher City Manager ) Letter, 4 Shts of Proposed Gravity only Layout, Engr's Mpmri rld 1011A/911Hartman / // 91 EXPENDITURE AMOUNT X11 AP ROPR.IATION REQUIRED: BUDGETED: REQUIRED: SUMMARY STATEMENT TRC has made available to the City of Sebastian, a copy of preliminary design and cost estimate prepared by Kimball Lloyd, Inc. I have reviewed their document for sewer- assessments for the study area along Indian River Drive. The report is comprehensive in anaylising the most economical design for- the collection system and I found it to be accurate with current construction costs. My review of the report is documented by my memo dated 10/18/91. TFC is requesting City Council to decide two issues identified in the report as follows; 1. Installation of a Gravity only System or a combination Gravity and Low pressure system; cost difference of $300,000 over 20 year period. 2. Determine the type of Assessment. A copy of the report is available in the Engineering Department for your review. RECOMMENDED ACTION Review the report, the Engr's memo dated 10/18/91 and discuss with staff questions or concerns that are associated with the study. NOV 01 191 1015 407 51x^5570 P.4/5 H"TMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeotopsts, scientists & =mgc=u consultants MEMORANDUM HAI #91-174.00 TO: Robb McClary Dan Eckis via FROM: Gerry Hartman Hal Schmidt DATE: October 29, 1991 SUBJECT: Riverside Sanitary Sewer System Rob and Dan, thank you for the fax of Dan's comments on the very recent assessment program which the County forwarded to the City. The documents we have are a preliminary draft of a potential program. It appears these are the latest documents or the cost numbers which have not been presented on a more finalized basis. We would appreciate the opportunity to receive a copy of this information. It is good for us to provide preliminary comments to the County relative to their plans associated with sanitary sewer service within the City. 'Very importantly, we need to communicate and coordinate with the property owners and business concerns in the area on at least. two or three occasions to ensure that the overall program is well explained to our potential customers, that they have an input in formulating the program, and that customer accommodation can be facilitated in this manner. Excellent communication and coordination with business interests and property owners in the area is essential to gaining public acceptance and proper participation in an assessment program. Moreover, in many cases, the public and the various engineers for the various property owners do have beneficial comments and beneficial insights which facilitate customer accommodation and minimize the overall cost to the customer for wastewater service. Of course, this is our goal in service to the citizens of Sebastian. We recommend that the plans and program proposed by the County be left out for public review for a week prior to our coordination meeting and properly noticed to those concerned. After our public notification meeting, we would have another one-week period Before we have a utility accommodation and coordination meeting, then one other one-week period, and then a final utility facilities layout and finalization meeting. Of course, this involves approximately one (1) month of utility coordination, but we believe it is necessary in order to have the best program for the City. Following these coordination efforts, then a final mark-up set of drawings can be made for the County consultants' finalization associated with the project. If the County's consultants do not have a set of plans with plan and profile layouts, then it might behoove the City to have such plans prepared so that the final utility accommodation can be made. SOUTHEAST HANK HITS DING • SUM woo • 2ot EAS'r PLNE STREPr • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839.3955 • PAX (407) 839-3790 PHINCIPAIS, JAMES E. CHMSTAPHEK . CHARLES W. DRAKE . GERALD C. IIARTMAN . MARK I. LUKE -MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCUMIDT, JR. NOV 01 191 10:15 407 `^5570 MEMORANDUM (Continued) October 29, 1991 Page Two The work which we received from the County was very preliminary in nature, very conceptual in nature, and would not be to the level of detail necessary to ensure that customers are being served and to ensure that the assessment area is prepared in a manner that would benefit all parties concerned with the minimized cost burden. Several major issues have to be considered. Those include: 1. Mandatory connection. 2. Mandatory assessment on each parcel based upon benefit. 3. County capacity for assessed parcels. Note that it does not make any sense and we are concerned about our ability to show the benefit to the parcel if plant capacity is not available for all required land parcels for the needs as demonstrated by those parcels for the program. 17✓e are concerned about this key element of the assessment program and look forward to your discussing this key element or our participating in such discussions in the future. The above just reflects a few of our thoughts and comments on the faxed materials which you forwarded to us. As a second item, we believe it would be good to sit down with the business leaders in the community after the City Council workshop to discuss our approach and our activities with the County. End of memorandum. GCH/ch C7/Sebast. mem VIA FACSIMILE 407/567-9323 Charles P. Vitunac Indian River County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Interlocal Utilities Agreement between Indian River County, Florida and the City of Sebastian, Florida Dear Charles: Please forgive my delay in transmitting the redraft of the above referenced Agreement; I had to complete a brief to be submitted to Tampa by the first part of this week. For your benefit, I am enclosing a "clean" copy and a "black -lined" copy of the Agreement. I have tried to cover the changes which we discussed in our meeting. Those changes are as follows: (1) I have provided for a cancellation date of six months from the date of execution of the Agreement. This period of time coincides with the period of time in our franchise option agreement with GDU in which they have to turn over the facilities to us. Since this is only two months longer than the period of time mentioned by Commissioner Scurlock in the meeting, I hope this will be acceptable to the County. GRAY, HARRIS & AomNSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION J. CHARLES GRAY THOMAS C. SHAW GORDON K HARRIS PAUL J. MONRIS PICHARDM. ROBINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH PHILLIP R. FINCH DEBORAH S. HERNANDEZ PAMELA O. PRICE SUITE 1200 RA UL 5. OUINN. JR. JAMES F. PAGE, JR. DAVID L SCHICK PHILIP H. TREES SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING JACK K. MCMULLEN WILLIAM A. BOYLES 201 EAST PINE STREET 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE ORLANDO L. EVORA THOMAS A. CLOUD SUSAN D. TASSELL BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. POST OFFICE BOX 3068 POST OFFICE BOX 320757 FREDERICK W. RICHARDS J. MASON WILLIAM S,= RICHARD E. BURKE LEO R. ROCK, JR. ORLANDO, FL 32602-3066 COCOA BEACH, FL 32932-0757 LORI R. BENTON G. ROBERTSON DILL ANTHONY J. COTTER CHARLES W. SELL TELEPHONE (407) 843-8880 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 TRACY H BORGERT JACK A. KIRSCHENBAUM JOHN B. SHOEMAKER JAMES W. PEEPLES III FAX (407) 244-5690 FAX (407) 783-2297 LISA J. FRANK' FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. MICHAEL K. WILSON WRITERS DIRECT DIAL MARK S. WALKER MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENBAUM OF COUNSEL PLEASE REPLY TO: 'MEMBER OF NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT BARS ONLY Orlando October 24, 1991 VIA FACSIMILE 407/567-9323 Charles P. Vitunac Indian River County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Interlocal Utilities Agreement between Indian River County, Florida and the City of Sebastian, Florida Dear Charles: Please forgive my delay in transmitting the redraft of the above referenced Agreement; I had to complete a brief to be submitted to Tampa by the first part of this week. For your benefit, I am enclosing a "clean" copy and a "black -lined" copy of the Agreement. I have tried to cover the changes which we discussed in our meeting. Those changes are as follows: (1) I have provided for a cancellation date of six months from the date of execution of the Agreement. This period of time coincides with the period of time in our franchise option agreement with GDU in which they have to turn over the facilities to us. Since this is only two months longer than the period of time mentioned by Commissioner Scurlock in the meeting, I hope this will be acceptable to the County. GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Charles P. Vitunac October 24, 1991 Page 2 (2) I have reinserted the language previously deleted regarding the customer classes and the transfer of customers, with some minor changes as were discussed in the meeting. The only change not discussed in the meeting relates to the turnover of collection systems referenced in paragraph 8. I have added some clarifying language to that which indicates that, while the City pays the cost of reconnection, it is not to pay for the collection systems. (3) I have inserted language related to the rates and meter billing which I believe is consistent with what was discussed in the meeting. (4) I have inserted language in paragraph 2 relating to the immediate cancellation of that part of the franchise related to the GDU franchise area; I believe this was discussed and agreed to in the meeting. (5) The new Agreement calls for the preparation of three exhibits. Exhibit "A" will spell out the City's service area which will include all the City limits except Park Place (see discussion below). Exhibit "B" will contain the facilities which the County has at present in the City, together with a depiction of the points of connection between the two wastewater systems. Exhibit "C" will contain the rate, as well as a composite breakdown of the rate. Hartman and Associates will prepare Exhibit "A", and it is my understanding that the County will prepare Exhibit "B'I and Exhibit 'IC". (6) With respect to Park Place, I cannot at this time recommend that the City assume the purchase and sale agreement. None of the exhibits were attached to the draft I received. Furthermore, there are several ambiguities in the agreement. Therefore, at this time, I have left reference out of the Agreement to the assumption of the Park Place agreement. I believe Commissioner Scurlock indicated at the meeting that this would be okay with the County. GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Charles P. Vitunac October 24, 1991 Page 3 I believe that Robb McClary has scheduled a time when we can bring this Agreement to the City Council at a workshop in early November. It would be extremely helpful if we could have all the exhibits ready to discuss with the City Council at that time. I will do whatever I can to help expedite this matter. Please call me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely yours, omas A d, Es Ire GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON, P.A. Signed for Mr. Cloud in his absence to prevent delay. TAC: jlm 40107-1 cc: Robb McClary Gerald C. Hartman ******* OF -260 *********** -JOURNAL- ************** DATE OCT -24-1991 ***** TIME 15:04 ******** NO. COM 16 OK PAGES DURATION X/R 20 00:10'35 XMT T IDENTIFICATION 915895570 DATE TIME OCT -24 14:53 DIAGNOSTIC 840450AC7820 -GRAY,HARRISBROSINSON - -PANASONIC- ***************. 407 244 5690- *********** Please Note our New FAX 7-rl 407-244-5690 TO: d. 6 ���Q FAX #: FROM: C/M #: OF PAGES =Pd (including cover sheet) RE: Thin t7022MI2" maaaaffa A14y C==Lin pj=j77'ilag6d asd CCU2f d&nti,7 infnrEMriew. Sn.tandod OniT for the =d1r1dmU namd above. Zf the rwder of thin OanYJO L not =be ==male .-i..:P_L, ar Lha agent rasponaihjs to doJ-L"r it to the -Larondadzvc2pJmnr, you ara hsrabr nottf3ad that any raviaw, dLzmai :natann, dlztt:hrrt:nn Cr Copying Of Lhia C%3jm1K0iCat1tnn jd Prjmbih:tjW. Zf th3a "^!"'•aRrsoa was racasred Jm array. Piaaw ;MEW++•taly notify nn by talaphona I raga tha cri.gi-" maasaga to as at tha addrsas abo" via tho O.S. Pont-) Sarvice. Thank yon. If any problems are encountered with this t=ansImittal contact: e at extension � - C ... L[N YYT zoMOOY I r..M, .�CM.wO K MJ\IM\OM rllU. w. IIMCM r4. a .wle[ ref q ..OL Ji .rµlw r. Twt Ca , 0IN.f A. wLCUCI -vOY.\ A. cLOYO ptwD I V.I\MKL Jw. r.fOM wIIU.YL $ .CO .. wOCL Jw. S T[wrCN ., rILOCw C-Q-A.*w. f[LL .1CR A. wlwaCM(M\AYY — CN •Oww[fT S. rILLOL Jw. GRAY HdaaiS & ROBINSON .wOI[11CMAL .e NOC4TIOM ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3UITC 1300 30Y C.aT NANO \YMDIMO CUSS ".. \YIWI.* 101 CANT MMC NT9CCT )Of MO[)M O.LAN00 .V[MU[ -02T DIIICC box 3096 .OST Of INC( NOa 320"? ORLAaDO. FL aaeoe-DOD[ CocaA Br -Low. FL oakum -Oras 7CLCwNON( (AO)1 W.8890 TCLLMON[ 1.071 )83.1[16 IAf 1.071 1AA.0990 Iu IAO)1 )63-839) Wwrrtwf OIwCCT DIAL -LCAat w[RT TO' Orlando E �rOYAe G fN� •.YL J..pM Aur w. \Ym91.Ow+r �C90LY i r(wYMD[S •.Vl L OYIYK JK RAND L 1CMKO ..Ca L WrVY.CM ORLA5USANDO, 0. L CVOY wICM.M) L [YN[ •rTbMT y COTTl1I JOMr i [MO[W[[ uL 1 rYAN• rALCDLr i .Iw\CY1w\• DI eeuoaL rrYa(w M.aV •w� W C FAX COVER SHEET Please Notte our New FAX m 407-244-5690 TO: FAX # : - 93vz3 FROM: -�ai7) ��i rc�� C/M # : -tL07 -/ # OF PAGES (including cover sheet) / RE: �/l %-oC'/c� / pli �%ek5 n�y7eri 7Z-411IJ oI 4hia tfiCA2 "" ammoad" aey .-Orwin pj1V116ged and confiAanf•11w7 infazwor on intended ILLY far rAw T-&iy;Iinw) mead above. If the reader of ttiiw sveage L not the lntanded mmipjamc, ar the agent ramgmaiyia to dal3var it to the amzanzm) acr, You are hereby not Ied that any rwrserr diau�tsonl damr=mbarjan or copySng of this C®);r.aclan iz prohibited. 1-f twiw comm =cation vas received is error, pjeaw zmmpdiately ti Service. :beak you. nofy Ira by tejepho0e and rets the Original meeaage to as at the address above via the O.S. Postal if any problems are e/n-countered with this transmittal contact: C�2T at extension 3�5� 1 to� • ******* OF -260 * *** ***** -JOURNAL- ** * ***** * DATE OCT -24-1991 ***** TIME 15:26 ***** * NO. COM PAGES DURATION X/R IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME DIAGNOSTIC 20 OK 20 00:17'43 XMT T 915679323 OCT -24 15 08 840480280800 -GRAY,HARRIS&ROBINSON - -PANASONIC- *********************** - 407 244 5690- *********** INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1991, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (hereafter COUNTY) and the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, the address of which is Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978 (hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or assigns, W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: 1. AGREED FACTS. The following are true statements: 1.1. The CITY granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. (GOD) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance 0-81-9 (col- lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GDU to operate and main- tain a water distribution and a wastewater collection and dis- posal system within a portion of the CITY. 1.2. On January 14, 1987, by CITY Resolution R-87-6, the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30 -year exclusive franchise for the provision of water and wastewater services within the rest of the city. 1.3. An interlocal agreement entered into between the CITY and COUNTY and effective July 3, 1987, required the CITY to assist the COUNTY in assessing property owners for the construc- tion of collection systems in the City limits. 1 1.4. At construction financing for a wastewater plant and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of $6,075,000 on October 15, 1989. Part of the security for the re- payment of these bonds was the revenue from impact fee assess- ments for reserved connections within the City. 1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from the plant through the unincorporated area into the City and beyond and was ready to provide service for CITY customers on or about March 5, 1991. 1.6. Approximately 95 CITY equivalent residential units are now receiving wastewater service from these facilities. 1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered into and executed an assignment whereby the CITY transferred to the COUNTY, and the COUNTY accepted, all of the CITY's right, title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU fran- chises. 1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter- mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to consider a revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to the COUNTY in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater service. 1.9. On March 5, 1991, the COUNTY unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was what the CITY wished. 1.10. On March 13, 1991, the COUNTY sent a letter to the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights. 1.11. On April 5, 1991, the CITY conditionally accepted the COUNTY's offer, subject to completion of the neces- sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both 2 parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact third parties. 1.12. On March 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con- sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems. 1.13. The feasibility study prepared by the CITY's consultants was presented to the CITY on June 26, 1991, and recommended that the CITY go ahead with its own utility service. 1.14. Based on the announced intention of the CITY to develop its own utility systems, on or about August 6, 1991, COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUNTY's North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1.15. The CITY is taking the necessary steps to regain all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to potentially acquire GDU's water and wastewater systems to enable the CITY to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility. Modification of the COUNTY's franchise is also a necessary prerequisite to the CITY's development of its own water and wastewater system. 1.16. The COUNTY has agreed to cooperate with the CITY as long as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond holders, and the CITY customers who have reserved capacity in the system are all protected. 1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff members have met on several occasions to work out interim plans to effect the separa- tion of the utility systems and have recommended the provisions of this agreement as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of all parties. 2. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY FRANCHISE. Effective six .(6) calendar months from the date of execution of this Agreement (the "Cancellation Date"), the parties hereby agree to and do cancel the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and under the Intergovernmental Agreement between the CITY and the 3 laft► 7 Iw1 COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987; provided, however, that the CITY and COUNTY agree and do hereby cancel the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under said resolutions and agreement with respect to the terri- tory covered by the GDU franchises, said cancellation to take effect immediately. Upon the Cancellation Date, the CITY's retail water and wastewater service area shall be as depicted on Exhibit "A" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. 3. CONTINUANCE OF PRESENT SERVICE. Up to and until the Cancellation Date, the COUNTY will allow available permanent capacity of the COUNTY system to be purchased by customers within the City limits pursuant to the terms of the existing franchise. On and after that date the COUNTY will sell available permanent capacity for connections within the City only to the CITY itself, which may in turn make this capacity available to customers within the City. 4. REASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO PURCHASE GUU FACILITIES. The assignment by the CITY to the COUNTY by CITY Resolution R-90-55 of all right, title, and interest in GDU's franchises given in CITY Ordinances 0-81-8 and 0-81-9 are hereby reassigned to the CITY effective the date of this agreement. That Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY entered into on December 12, 1990, is hereby terminated. The parties agree that the effect of this termination and reassignment, together with the immediate partial cancellation referred to in paragraph 2 hereof is to allow the CITY to exercise its option to purchase the GDU facilities and provide water and wastewater service in the territory covered by the GDU franchises. 5. DEFINITIONS. 5.1. Class I Units - Units within the CITY which are connected to or which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY waste- water system before January 1, 1992, and which have a collection system available to them, even if the physical connection to the unit has not been made. 5.2. Class II Units - Units within the CITY which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY wastewater system before January 1, 1992, but which do not have a collection system available. 5.3. Class III Units - Units within the CITY other than Class I and II Units. 5.4. "Utility Service" shall be used to include rate setting, customer connections, meter installation, meter reading, billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com- plaints, collection system construction, related repair work, and all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per- formed by a utility company other than the treatment of waste- water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance of the COUNTY's lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on Exhibit "S". These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. 6. SERVICE AGREEMENT. 6.1. Effective on the Cancellation Date, the COUNTY will cease to be the utility service provider within the City and will become instead only the treatment, transmission, and effluent disposal (hereinafter "treatment") provider'for all wastewater generated for all Class I and II Units and for the number of Class III Units for which the CITY has purchased or does purchase permanent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment plant. 6.2. Effective on the Cancellation Date, the CITY shall become the utility service provider for all classes of customers within the service area depicted on Exhibit "A" hereof and shall, as part of this duty, provide collection systems for Class I customers in a manner such that the interests of the Class II customers will not have been harmed by the revocation of the COUNTY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a non- discriminatory, cost -of -service rate to be charged to the CITY for treatment of the wastewater which rate shall take into account the fact that the CITY is the utility service provider 5 for all classes of units within the CITY. The rate and components which make up this rate are depicted in Exhibit "C" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. The CITY reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights of the COUNTY as described in paragraph 5. The points of interconnection between the CITY's and COUNTY's wastewater systems are depicted on Exhibit "H" hereof. To bill for the rates hereunder, the COUNTY shall install at its initial expense (to be recouped in the non-discriminatory, cost -of -service rates) meters in the pump stations to calculate usage. 6.3. Upon installation and acceptance, the metering equipment shall become the property of the provider, and the provider shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the meter. The provider shall read the meter for billing purposes. The metering equipment shall meet the standards of the American water Works Association ("AWWA") for accuracy, which is plus or minus five percent (58). The purchaser may request an accuracy test by the provider without charge once during any twelve (12) month period. The purchaser may witness the test. Additional testing may be requested by the purchaser at the provider's established cost for such tests. Copies of the test results will be provided to the purchaser within thirty (30) days of the test. There will be no charge for tests that discover an inaccurate meter. If an inaccurate meter is found, as defined by the AWWA, bill adjustments will be made for one-half (1/2) of the preceding period since the last accuracy test. 6.4. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater system, CITY understands that it will have to comply with COUNTY policies on the quality of wastewater put into the COUNTY system and other customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by the COUNTY countywide. 6 7. TRANSFER OF UNITS. The COUNTY agrees that on the request of the CITY it will transfer to the CITY for treatment Purposes also Class I and Class II Units and any Class III Units for which permanent capacity has been bought, whenever the COUNTY has a COUNTY customer available to purchase the capacity used or reserved by the units which are requested to be transferred. The COUNTY will use good faith efforts to procure a replacement cus- tomer for the capacity, and, upon receipt by the COUNTY of the COUNTY impact fee current at that time from the new customer, the COUNTY shall remit to the CITY the impact fee originally paid by the customer who is to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of money may be used by the CITY to finance the City operated replacement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for that transferred unit. Units so transferred shall not be charged an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY. 8. TRANSFER OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS. The COUNTY and the CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis- connected from the COUNTY system entirely, transferred to the CITY without charge for the collection facilities, and reconnected to a new CITY system, said reconnection tb be at CITY's expense, when all units on the system to be reconnected are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTY will cooperate in making these transfers. 9. CITY PURCHASE OF CAPACITY IN COUNTY PLANT. COUNTY agrees to sell capacity to the CITY under standard COUNTY poli- cies and rates. The present COUNTY policy is to expand waste- water treatment plant facilities when financially and technologi- cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan, provided that reservations are committed which will fund the expansion. Part of the reservation includes the requirement to pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges. 10. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This agree- ment is solely for the benefit of the formal parties herein and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason 7 hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a formal party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason of this agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations, covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. 11. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The agreement shall be in effect for 30 years. The termination of agreements, resolutions, and ordinances specified in paragraphs 2, and 5 hereof shall not be affected by termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this agreement on the date first above written. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JeffreyX. lerk By. Barton,: Richard N. Bird, Chairman Attest: CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA BY: Clerk Mayor Attachments: Exhibits "A,,, "B," and "C" 9]/29,]10/2 8 u 'BLACK -LINE` ?Y: Additions Underlined Deletions Shown by "A" INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THIS AGREEMENT, made this _ day of , 1991, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (hereafter COUNTY) and the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, the address of which is Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978 (hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or assigns, W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: 1. AGREED FACTS. The following are true statements: 1.1. The CITY granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance 0-81-9 (col- lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GDU to operate and main- tain a water distribution and a wastewater collection and dis- posal system within a portion of the CITY. 1.2. On January 14, 1987, by CITY Resolution R-87-6, the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30 -year exclusive franchise for the provision of water and wastewater services within the rest of the City. 1.3. An interlocal agreement entered into between the CITY and COUNTY and effective July 3, 1987, required the CITY to assist the COUNTY in assessing property owners for the construc- tion of collection systems in the City limits. 1 1.4. At construction financing for a wastewater plant and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of $6,075,000 on October 15, 1989. Part of the security for the re- payment of these bonds was the revenue from impact fee assess- ments for reserved connections within the City. 1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from the plant through the unincorporated area into the City and beyond and was ready to provide service for CITY customers on or about March 5, 1991. n 1.6. Approximately 95 CITY equivalent residential units are now receiving wastewater service from these facilities. 1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered into and executed an assignment whereby the CITY transferred to the COUNTY, and the COUNTY accepted, all of the CITY's right, title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and - charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU fran- chises. 1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter- mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to consider a revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to the COUNTY in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater service. 1.9. On March 5, 1991, the COUNTY unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was what the CITY wished. 1.10. On March 13, 1991, the COUNTY sent a letter to the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights. 1.11. On April 5, 1991, the CITY conditionally accepted the COUNTY's offer, subject to completion of the neces- sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both E parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact third parties. 1.12. On March 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con- sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems. 1.13. The feasibility study prepared by the CITY's consultants was presented to the CITY on June 26, 1991, and recommended that the CITY go ahead with its own utility service. 1.14. Eased on the announced intention of the CITY to develop its own utility systems on or about August 6, 1991, COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUNTY's North County Wastewater Treatment Plant, 1.15. The CITY is taking the necessary steps to regain all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to potentially acquire GDU's water and wastewater systems to enable the CITY to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility. Modification of the COUNTY's franchise is also a necessary prerequisite to the CITY's development of its own water and wastewater system. 1.16. The COUNTY has agreed to cooperate with the CITY as long as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond holders, and the CITY customers who have reserved capacity in the system are all protected. 1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff members have met on several occasions to work out interim -plans to effect the separa- tion of the utility systems and have recommended the provisions of this agreement as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of all parties. 2. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY -FRANCHISE. Effective six .(61 calendar months from the date of execution of this Agreement the "Cancellation Date"), the parties hereby agree to and do cancel the existing franchise and all of the. rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and under the Intergovernmental Agreement between the CITY and the 3 r\ COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987; provided, however, that the CITY and COUNTY agree and do hereby cancel the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under said resolutions and agreement with respect to the terri- tory covered by the GDU franchises said cancellation to take effect immediately. Upon the Cancellation Date, the CITY's retail water and wastewater service area shall be as depicted on Exhibit 'A^ attached to and incorporated in this Agreement 3. CONTINUANCE OF PRESENT SERVICE. Up to and untilnthg .Cancellation Date. the COUNTY will allow available permanent capacity of the COUNTY system to be purchased by customers within the City limits pursuant to the terms of the existing franchise. On and after that date the COUNTY will sell available permanent capacity for connections within the City only to the CITY itself, which may in turn make this capacity available to customers within the City. 4. REASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO PURCHASE GDU FACILITIES. The assignment by the CITY to the COUNTY by CITY Resolution R-90-55 of all right, title, and interest in GDU's franchises given in CITY Ordinances 0-81-8 and 0-81-9 are hereby reassigned to the CITY effective the date of this agreement. That Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY entered into on December 12, 1990, is hereby terminated. TheDarties agree that the effect of this termination and reassignment, together with the immediate partial an enation referred to in paragraph 2 hereof ie to allow the CITY to I exercisa its option to purchase the GDU facilities and 41 revt de wa and wastewater service in the territory covered by the GDU franchises S. DEFINITIONS. 5.1. Class I Units - Units within the CITY which are connected to or which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY waste- water system before January 1, 1992, and which have a collection system available to them, even if the physical connection to the unit has not been made. 4 i 5.2. Class II Units - Units within the CITY which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY wastewater system before January 1, 1992, but which do not have a collection system available. 5.3. Class III Units - Units within the CITY other than Class I and II Units. 5.4. "Utility Service" shall be used to include rate setting, customer connections, meter installation, meter reading, billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com- plaints, collection system construction, related repair work, and all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per- formed by a utility company other than the treatment of waste- water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance of the COUNTY's lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on Exhibit "B". These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. 6. SERVICE AGREEMENT. 6.1. Effective on the "AncpllAtinn Date. the COUNTY will cease to be the utility service provider within the City and will become instead only the treatments transmission, and effluent disposal (hereinafter "treatment") provider for all wastewater generated for all Class I and II Units and for the number of Class III Units for which the CITY has purchased or does purchase permanent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment plant. 6.2. Effective on the Cancellation Date the CITY shall become the utility service provider for all classes of customers within the service area depicted on Exhibit "A" hereof and shall, as part of this duty, provide collection systems for Class I customers in a manner such that the interests of the Class II customers will not have been harmed by the revocation of the COUNTY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a non- discriminatory, cost -of -service rate to be charged to the CITY for treatment of the wastewater which rate shall take into account the fact that the CITY is the utility service provider 5 for all classes Of units within the CITY. The rate and components which make up this rate are depicted in Exhibit "C" attached to and incorporated in this Agreement. The CITY reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights of the COUNTY as described in paragraph 5. The points of interconnection between the ITY's and COUNTY's wa r ewAtor systems are depicted on Exhibit "B" hereof. To bill for the rates hereunder. the COUNTY shall install at its initial expense (to be recouped in the non-discriminatory, cost-- meters oat ometers in the pump stations to calculate usage 6.3. Upon installation and acceptance the metering equipment shall become the property of the provider, and thp Provider shall be responsible for the operation maintenance and replacement of the meter. The provider shall read the meter for billing purposes. The metering equipment shall meet the standards of the American Water Works Association ("AWWA") for accuracy, which is plus or minus five percent (58) The Purchaser may request an accuracv teat by the proyid ti out charge once during any twelve (12) month period The purchaser may witness the test. Additional testing may be requested by the purchaser at the provider's established cost for such testa Copies of the test results will be provided to the purchaser within thirty (301 days of the test There will be no charge for tests that discover an inaccurate meter. If an inaccurate meter i4 found. as defined by the AWWA bill adjustments will be made fgr gne-half (1/2) of the preceding period since the last accuracv teat. 6.4. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater system, CITY understands that it will have to comply with COUNTY policies on the quality of wastewater put into the COUNTY system - and other customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by the COUNTY countywide. 6 7. TRANSFER OF UNITS. The COUNTY agrees that on the request of the CITY it will transfer to the CITY for treatment purposes also Class I and Class II Units and any Class III Units for which permanent capacity has been bought, whenever the COUNTY has a COUNTY customer available to purchase the capacity used or reserved by the units which are requested to be transferred. The COUNTY will use good faith efforts to procure a replacement cus- tomer for the capacity, and, upon receipt by the COUNTY of the COUNTY impact fee current at that time from the new customer, the COUNTY shall remit to the CITY the impact fee originally paid by the customer who is to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of money may be used by the CITY to finance the City operated replacement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for that transferred unit. Units so transferred shall not be charged an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY. 8. TRANSFER OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS. The COUNTY and the CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis- connected from the COUNTY system entirely, transferred to the CITY without charge for the collection facilities and reconnected to a new CITY system, said reconnection to be at CITY's expense, when all units on the system to be reconnected are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTY will cooperate in making these transfers. 9. CITY PURCHASE OF CAPACITY IN COUNTY PLANT. COUNTY agrees to sell capacity to the CITY under standard COUNTY poli- cies and rates. The present COUNTY policy is to expand waste- water treatment plant facilities when financially and technologi- cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan, provided that reservations are committed which will fund the expansion. Part of the reservation includes the requirement to pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges. 10. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This agree- ment is solely for the benefit of the formal parties herein and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason 7 hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a formal party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason of this agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations, covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. 11. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The agreement shall be in effect for 30 years. The termination of agreements, resolutions, and ordinances specified in paragraphs 2, and 5 hereof shall not be affected by termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this agreement on the date first above written. Attest: Jeffrey R. Barton, Clerk Attest: Clerk INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Richard N. Bird, Chairman CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: Mayor Attachments: Exhibits "A," ^B," and -C- 77/293310/2 8 GRAY, HARRIS & ROBIIVSO\ PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELEPHONE: 407/843-5624 FAX: 407/244-5690 FAX COVER SHEET 201 East Pine Street, Suite 1200 (32801) Post Office Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802-3068 DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1991 TO: ROBB MCCLARY, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF SEBASTIAN TELECOPIER NO.: 1/589-5570 TELL FRAM: THOMAS A. CLOUD, ESQUIRE SUBJECT: AGREEMENT NO. OF PAGES: 8(including cover page) NO.: 1/589-1133 Information Telecopiech INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the Individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the Orlando address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. If you experience any probleaIs, call: LIMA FERRIS, Tel. 4071843-8880 ert. 327 INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA THIS AGREEMENT, made this _ day of , 1991, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, the address of which is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (hereafter COUNTY) and the CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, the address of which is Post Office Box 127, Sebastian, Florida 32978 (hereafter CITY), and its successors and/or assigns, W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: 1. AGREED FACTS. The following are true statements: I.I. The CITY granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) in CITY Ordinance 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in CITY Ordinance 0-81-9 (col- lectively the GDU franchises) to allow GDU to operate and main- tain a water distribution and a wastewater collection and dis- posal system within a portion of the CITY. 1.2. On January 14, 1987, by CITY Resolution R-87-6, the CITY gave the COUNTY a 30 -year exclusive franchise for the provision of water and wastewater services within the rest of the City. 1.3. An interlocal agreement entered into between the CITY and COUNTY and effective July 3, 1987, required the CITY to assist the COUNTY in assessing property owners for the construc- tion of collection systems in the City limits. 1 1.4. At construction financing for a wastewater plant and main lines, the COUNTY issued revenue bonds in the amount of $6,075,000 on October 15, 1989. Part of the security for the re- payment of these bonds was the revenue from impact fee assess- ments for reserved connections within the City. 1.5. The COUNTY has constructed a wastewater treatment plant, major collection lines, and certain force mains from the plant through the unincorporated area into the City and beyond and was ready to provide service from CITY customers on or about March 5, 1991. 1.6. Approximately 95 CITY equivalent residential units are now receiving wastewater service from these facilities. 1.7. On December 12, 1990, the CITY and COUNTY entered into and executed an assignment whereby the CITY transferred to the COUNTY, and the COUNTY accepted, all of the CITY's right, title, and interest in the GDU franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU franchises, and except the right to regulate rates and charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU fran- chises. 1.8. The CITY on or about February 27, 1991, deter- mined that it would be in the CITY's best interest to consider a revocation or cancellation of the franchise given to the COUNTY in paragraph 1.2 and perhaps provide its own water and wastewater service. 1.9. On March 5. 1991. the COUNTY unanimously agreed to relinquish its franchise rights within the CITY if that was what the CITY wished. 1.10. On March 13. 1991 the COUNTY sent a letter to the CITY offering to relinquish its franchise rights 1.11. On Anril 5, 1991, the CITY conditional accepted the COUNTY's offer, subiect to completion of the neces- sary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to both 7 1 � � parties so that agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact third parties. 1.12. On March 27, 1991, the CITY hired a utility con- sultant to prepare a feasibility study concerning whether the CITY should provide its own water and wastewater systems. 1.13. The feasibility study prepared by the CITY's consultants was presented to the CITY on June 26, 1991, and recommended that the CITY go ahead with its own utility service. 1.14. On or about August 6, 1991, COUNTY cancelled plans for expanding the COUNTY's North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1.15. The CITY is taking the necessary steps to regain all of its rights under the GDU franchises in order to Potentially acquire GDU's water and wastewater systems to enable the CITY to develop a City-wide water and wastewater utility. Modification of the COUNTY's franchise is also a necessary prerequisite to the CITY's development of its own water and wastewater system. 1.16. The COUNTY has agreed to cooperate with the CITY as long as the interests of the COUNTY utility system, the bond holders, and the CITY customers who have reserved capacity in the system are all protected. 1.17. The COUNTY and CITY staff members have met on several occasions to work out interim plans to effect the separa- tion of the utility systems and have recommended the provisions of this agreement as an acceptable way to satisfy the concerns of all parties. 2. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY FRANCHISE. Effective January 1, 1992, the parties hereby agree to and do cancel the existing franchise and all of the rights granted to the COUNTY by the CITY under CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7, and under the Inter- governmental Agreement between the CITY and the COUNTY which was effective February 3, 1987. 3 3. GRANT OF NEW FRANCHISE. Effective January 1. 1992 the CITY hereby grants to the COUNTY a new franchise to provide retail wastewater service int he CITY to that service areas described and depicted in Exhibit "A" attached to and incorpo- rated in this Agreement All terms and conditions applicable to the provision of wastewater service contained in CITY Resolutions R-87-6 and R-87-7. and the Intergovernmental Agreement shall apply to the CITY and COUNTY with respect to the wastewater service provided within the said service area. This franchise shall expire upon defeasance, pay off. or termination of the revenue bonds referred to in paragraph 1.4 hereof, and which time the COUNTY shall transfer all customers and wastewater facilities located within said service area to the CITY. 4. PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE OUTSIDE RETAIL SERVICE ARE . Up to and until January 1, 1992, the COUNTY will allow available permanent capacity of the COUNTY system to be purchased by customers within the City limits pursuant to the terms of the existing franchise. On and after that date the COUNTY will sell available permanent capacity for connections within the City but outside its retail service area only to the CITY itself, which may in turn make this capacity available to customers within the City. 5. REASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO PURCHASE GOO FACILITIES. The assignment by the CITY to the COUNTY by CITY Resolution R-90-55 of all right, title, and interest in GDU'a franchises given in CITY Ordinances 0-81-8 and 0-81-9 are hereby reassigned to the CITY effective the date of this agreement. That Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY entered into on December 12 3990, is hereby terminated. 6. SERVICE AGREEMENT. 6.1. Effective January 1, 1992, the COUNTY will cease to be the retail utility service provider within the City for that area outside of the retail service area described in Exhibit "A" hereof and will become instead only the wholesale treatment n .mak ^l provider for all wastewater generated from said area outside the retail service area described in Exhibit "A" hereof !hereafter "Wholesale Service area") for which the CITY has purchased or does purchase permanent capacity in a COUNTY wastewater treatment plant. 6.2. Effective January 1, 1992, the CITY shall become the retail utility service provider for all classes of customers within the Wholesale Service Area and shall, as part of this duty, provide collection systems for said customers in a manner such that the interests of the said customers will not have been harmed by the revocation of the COUNTY franchise. The COUNTY agrees to develop a nondiscriminatory rate to be charged to the CITY for the wastewater to be treated, which rate shall take into account the fact that the CITY is the utility service provider for all classes of units within the CITY. The CITY reserves the right to become a wastewater treatment provider also for any or all units within the CITY subject only to the rights of the COUNTY as described in paragraph 7. 6.3. As a bulk customer of the COUNTY wastewater system, CITY understands that it will have to comply with COUNTY policies on the quality of wastewater put into the COUNTY system and other customer reasonable, technical standards adopted by the COUNTY countywide. 6.4. "Utility Service" shall be used to include rate setting, customer connections, meter installation, meter reading, billing, bill collection, customer relations, customer com- plaints, collection system construction, related repair work, and all other necessary, customary, and convenient activities per- formed by a utility company other than the treatment of waste- water. Utility service shall not include repair and maintenance of the COUNTY's lines, force mains, or pump stations shown on Exhibit "B". These shall be the responsibility of the COUNTY. 7. CITY OPTION TO ACQUIRE COUNTY RETAIL CUSTOMERS AND FACILITIES. The COUNTY agrees that on the request of the CITY it 5 will transfer to the CITY the customers and facilities served or owned by the COUNTY within the retail service area described in Exhibit "A" hereof. As a condition of said transfer. the CITY shall assume the amount of existing COUNTY debt directly and reasonably attributable to the facilities used to provide waste- water service to said customers plus any reasonable and neces- sary administrative costs incurred by the COUNTY in providing said facilities. The COUNTY shall then remit to the CITY the impact fees originally paid by the customers who are to be transferred to the CITY. This sum of money may be used by the CITY to finance the City -operated replacement capacity needed to provide wastewater treatment for that transferred unit. Customers so transferred shall not be charged an additional capacity impact fee by the CITY. 8. TRANSFER OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS. The COUNTY and the CITY both acknowledge that certain collection systems may be dis- connected from the COUNTY system entirely and reconnected to a new CITY system, at CITY's expense, when all units on the system to be reconnected are City customers, either by transfer or otherwise. The COUNTY will cooperate in making this transfer. 9. CITY PURCHASE OF CAPACITY IN COUNTY PLANT. COUNTY agrees to sell capacity to the CITY under standard COUNTY poli- cies and rates. The present COUNTY policy is to expand waste- water treatment plant facilities when financially and technologi- cally feasible, and when consistent with the Utility Master Plan, provided that reservations are committed which will fund the expansion. Part of the reservation includes the requirement to pay the COUNTY monthly base facility charges. 10. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This agree- ment is solely for the benefit of the formal parties herein and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party not a formal party hereto. Nothing in this agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person L' 1 ^� ffia-\ or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy, or claim under or by reason of this agreement or any provisions or conditions hereof; and all of the provisions, representations, covenants, and conditions herein contained shall inure to the sole benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. 11. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The agreement shall be in effect for 30 years. The termination of agreements, resolutions and ordinances specified in paragraphs 2. and 5 hereof shall not be affected by termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have entered into this agreement on the date first above written. Attest: Jeffrey R. Barton, Clerk Attest: Clerk Attachments: Exhibits "A" and "B- 77/29:318/1 7 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Richard N. Bird, Chairman CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: Mayor J. CHARLES GRAY GORDON M. HARRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE, JR. PHILIP H. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS, III LEO P. ROCK, JR. G ROBERTSON DRG CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIRSCHENBAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES III FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. I GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 3068 ORLANDO, FL 32802-3068 TELEPHONE (107) 813-8880 GLASS BANK BUILDING 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 320757 COCOA BEACH, FL 32932-0167 TELEPHONE (107) 783-2218 FAX (107) 2AA-5890 FAX (107) 783-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando October 1, 1991 Charles P. Vitunac Indian River County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Return of GDU Franchise Option Dear Charles: THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MONRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH S. HERNANDES PAUL S. GUINN. JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK K. MCMULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN D. TASSELL FREDERICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E. BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. SORGERT JOHN B. SHOEMAKER LISA 1 FRANK' MICHAEL N. WILSON MARK S. WALKER MALCOLM R. NIRSCHENBAUM OF DOUNBEL -.E ...R OF NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT BARS ONLY It has been approximately one month since we last met in the City of Sebastian. I understand that you have been working on a redraft of the draft conceptual document which we delivered at the meeting on September 4. We did, of course, request the County's comments and suggestions regarding the draft and look forward to receiving same. During the meeting both you and Mr. Pinto indicated on several occasions that there would be no problem with the County executing the agreement which will return the option to purchase the GDU franchises to the City of Sebastian. I spoke'yesterday with Mr. Robb McClary of the City of Sebastian, and he indicated that the City had transmitted the executed agreement to the County for its execution on September 4, 1991. Since the County has previously indicated they would have no problems with executing this agreement, I would appreciate it if you would make sure this document is submitted to the County Commission for approval and signatures. Please be so kind as to have a copy of the executed original delivered to Robb McClary after approval and signature. I am sure that Robb will be contacting Terry so that we can get back together in the near future in order to work out the terms of the second agreement on a mutually beneficial basis. GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINsox PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Charles P. Vitunac October 1, 1991 Page 2 We certainly appreciate the County's cooperation and coordination in this matter. Sincerr�elyj yours, C� ���il�l�TIQO Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON, P A. Special Counsel to the City of Sebastian TAC: jlm 40107-1 cc: Richard N. Bird, Chairman, Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Terrance G. Pinto, Utility Services Director, Indian River Co. Sebastian City Council Robb McClary, City Manager, City of Sebastian Charles I. Nash, Esquire Gerald C. Hartman, P.E., HAI a HARrYMAN & ASSOCIATES. INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists S management consultants September 9, 1991 HAI #91-178.00 Mr. Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Subject: Briefing Document for Investigation of Existing Utility Franchise and the Advantages and Disadvantages of Providing Water and Wastewater Services for the City of Sebastian, Florida Dear Mr. McClary: This document will serve as a briefing document for the City Council regarding the project status and future tasks, the negotiations between Indian River County and the City of Sebastian, as well as our responses to the concerns which were brought up at the City Council meeting on August 28, 1991, and subsequent meetings with the City and concerned residents. To facilitate your review, we have divided this document into four (4) sections as identified below: o Section 1 - Sebastian Utility System project status. o Section 2 - Meeting with Indian River County - September 4, 1991. o Section 3 - City Council Meeting - August 28, 1991. o Section 4 - Meeting between Robb McClary, Clay Price and Damian Gilliams. SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING • SUITE 1000 • 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839-3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRINCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE- GERALD C. HART\IAN • MARK I. LUKE -MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. 1 Mr. Robb McClary September 9, 1991 Page 2 We trust this briefing document and our responses to the comments by the concerned residents answer any questions the City may have regarding the utilities. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call us. Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Gerald C. Hartman, `P.E President ♦ aw a •wauu�� HES/GCH/ch C6/McClary.hes cc: City of Sebastian Council Dan Eclds, P.E. - City of Sebastian Brian Cooper - City of Sebastian Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire - GHR SECTION 1 SEBASTIAN UTILITY SYSTEM PROJECT STATUS o CITY COUNCIL HAS ACCEPTED THE HAI REPORT. o CITY HAS HIRED LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO UNBUCKLE CITY/COUNTY AGREEMENTS. o THE COUNTY IS IN PROCESS OF GIVING GDU FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BACK TO CITY. o CITY AND COUNTY MET ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1991, AND CONCEPTUALLY AGREED ON CUSTOMER TRANSFER PROGRAM (SEE FIGURE 1). o CITY ADVERTISES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST IN THE ACQUISITION OF GDU. o FUTURE TASKS: - HIRE PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST IN THE ACQUISITION OF GDU. - CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE COUNTY AND ADDRESS ASSESSMENT ISSUE. - NOTIFY GDU OF CITY'S IlVTENTION TO EXERCISE THE PURCHASE OF THE CITY'S FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY. - ACQUIRE GDU WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES (SEE FIGURE 2 FOR TASKS INVOLVED). ORGANIZATION AND START-UP OF A WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILIT�'4 —... PREPARE UTILITY • STANDARDS, POLICIES, PROCEDURES, RATES, CHARGES, CODE REVISIONS, FORMS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SECI.RPT 1-1 CITY/COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PREVIOUS CITY/COUNTY AGREEMENTS UNBUCh1.ED CITY PURSUES I I COUNTY SELLS ERU'S FOR ACQUISITION OF NORTH COUNTY "TP TO CDU CITY AND COUNTY CUSTOMERS EQUALLY ACQUISITION OF GDU (SEE FIGURE 2) CITY ACQUIRES GDU WATER UNCONNECTED ERU'S AND WASTEWATER WITHIN CITY SERVICE FACILITIES AREA CITY EXPANDS WATER k WASTEWATER FACILITIES CITY BUILDS CITY CUSTOMER FLOW DIVERSION FACILITY TRANSFERED 70 CITY NORTH COUNTY WWTP CAPACITY COUNTY OPTION FOR TRANSFERRING CUSTOMERS REQUESTING SERVICE *FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE FLOW DIVERSION FACILITY AFTER ACQUISITION OF CDU ^ THE COUNTY CONCEPTUALLY AGREED TO TRANSFER CITY CUSTOMERS TO CITY AS NEW COUNTY CUSTOMERS CONNECTED NEW COUNTY CUSTOMER HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY/COUNTY INTERLOCAL engineers, bydrogcologista, scientis6 k msnsgement consultants AGREEMENT SOUTHEAST HANK BUILDING SUITE 1000 • 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORIANDO,FL 32801 FIGURE 1 TELEPHONE (407)839-3955• FAX (407) 839-3790 INSURINOE M CVL STA FPUIXFO wonlERs ♦ AN m PUN OPE1UlpN5 PRnlrlunaN NON—BOND ISAIE k PROGRNtS HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. enginttrs, h7drogeologials, aeien6aLa k mmagemmt conaul6nL+ 1 SOUTHEAST DANK BUILDING SUITE 1000 • 201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO,FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407)839-3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 • /LREE Et s • IE0301 IIEVtNG • OSCR RATE • GWTIL CNMG6 • IlnlJh' SEANWROB Nu+uw BONG 6 UE/ DEBT PRO • �E aLREEYEM • Immi NFIANO • PFBOWIIONB • oRpNUKES ♦ SEWER woa cm . vo. O�OPERS tLREEUEM . REPORT UTILITY AQUISITION INVESTIGATION FLOW CHART FIGURE 2 - PREPARE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN. - APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR FINANCING ASSISTANCE. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SECI.RPT 1-4 1 SECTION 2 MEETING WITH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 On September 4, 1991, a meeting was held in the Engineering Conference Room at the City Hall complex to discuss the potential water and sewer interlocal agreement between Indian River County and the City of Sebastian. Attendants at this meeting included: o City of Sebastian - Robb McClary, Dan Eclds and Brian Cooper. o Indian River County - Terry Pinto, Charles Vitunac and Harry Asher. o Hartman & Associates, Inc. - Gerry Hartman and Hal Schmidt. o Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A. - Tom Cloud. Mr. Vitunac and Mr. Pinto opened the meeting by indicating that the County recently discovered that no capacity was available for the North County wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), and in fact, the North County WWTP was over -committed based on existing equivalent residential units (ERU's) sold. Furthermore, the County was advised by their financial consultants that it is impossible to fund the construction of the WWTP without permanent customers. Mr—Pinto then informed us that the County builds and/or expands their WWTP's once they are fully committed. Mr. Pinto indicated that the County would like to get away from selling capacity to the City on a customer -by -customer basis and would prefer to sell bulk capacity to the City on a wholesale basis, which would then be sold by the City to its customers. Mr. Hartman indicated that we would need to know from the County what the capital and wholesale costs for wholesale service would be from the County. At this point, it was requested that the County could rerate the North County WWTP flows based on actual historical flows to the facility, which in turn, will create interim capacity, make the County "whole" and avoid the need for a wholesale agreement. The County indicated that they could not consider rerating the North County WWTP so a value less than 250 gpd/ERU could.. not be used. However, the County was informed of several municipalities that have been rerating plant capacities based on historical wastewater flows (i.e., Cities of Melbourne, Orlando, Palm Bay, etc.). Mr. Asher indicated that of the over 5,200 ERU's have been sold for the North County WWTP,, which iscurrently rated at 1.0 MGD, approximately 2,000 are located within the City limits. Of these 2,000 City ERU's, over 700 ERU's have been turned into the County and have been recommited. In addition, approximately 500 ERU's of the 1,300+ ERU's have not paid their fust assessment. We were then informed that of the 5,200 ERU's remaining sold for the North County WWTP, FDER has issued wastewater collection system permits for approximately 2,500 ERU's. Based on this information, it became obvious that the County HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC2.RPT 2-1 has already sold capacity on a rerated basis at a value of significantly less than their 250 gpd/ERU with no problem from FDER. The City requested a list of all the customers requesting capacity at the North County WWTP, as well as the ones requesting capacity immediately. In addition, HAI requested the approximate number of new connections added per year from the City and County. Mr. Asher indicated that approximately five (5) ERU's were added to the County's system last year. We asked the County what the bulk transmission impact fee component was under the County system. No response from the County was given. Mr. Hartman indicated throughout the meeting that the City intends to make the County "whole" for all their investments. It was recommended to the County and seemed agreeable to the County that they would continue to sell ERU's to the residents of the City of Sebastian on a non-discriminatory basis and the new ERU's should be considered as equals or permanent. Therefore, business should be conducted as usual. At some point in the future, the City will remove capacity from the North County WWTP on a gradual basis; thereby, reducing the flows from the City to the North County WWTP. Prior to this date (September 4, 1991), the City ERU's which are wetted up will be considered the City's when the City is ready to accept them. Once the City acquires the General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) facilities and is ready to treat the wastewater and provide potable water, there will be a transitioning period when the County will transfer to the City a portion of the City's ERU's and pay the City back the principal of the impact fee paid to the County. The transfer and payback of ERU's will occur once the County has ERU's to trade. Therefore, this will allow the County to sell the transferred ERU's at a higher rate, as well as be maintained "whole" for their investment. Additionally, the assets now built will be transferred from the County to the City. Moreover, the County will be able to buy capacity from the City to treat a portion of the wastewater and/or provide potable water service on an as -needed basis. Mr. Cloud provided to the County draft copy of the City of Sebastian/Indian River County Interlocal Utility Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement for their review. In addition, it was recommended that the County provide to the City the following information: o Capital and wholesale costs for bulk capacity. o Discount rate off the impact fee. o Names and addresses of City customers, as well as City residents who have puFchased ERU's froin the County. y The meeting can be summarized as follows: o The City of Sebastian has submitted a draft working document agreement, and requested comments from the County towards finalizing this agreement. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC2.RPT 2-2 o New customers will be treated on an equitable non-discriminatory basis within the service area. Therefore, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. o The interim and permanent distinctions no longer applies. o There will be a transition of capacity and customers through time, such that the County can be maintained whole. o Prior to September 4, 1991, those City customers on the County system will all be incorporated into the City's facility at once. It is important to note that while there are 1,300 committed ERU's of capacity in the City, only 800 have paid the assessments, and less than 10 ERU's of capacity are actually connected and being serviced by the County system. o Certain assets of the County that do not serve the County, but serve customers in the City, should be transferred to the City at some future date. o The City and the County should enter into an interconnect deal/flow diversion deal that allows for the sale of wholesale water and sewer capacity back and forth between the City and the County. o The County agreed to give us back the GDU franchise purchase option now. o The Indian River County franchise will revert back to the City of Sebastian after the City is ready to take on the permanent capacity within the County plant. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC2.RPT 2-3 SECTION 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 28, 1991 On August 28, 1991, a number of issues were brought up regarding the above referenced report from three (3) specific individuals. Summarized herein are our responses to these comments as delineated by the individuals who had these concerns. o Mr. George Metcalf Comment No, 1 Concerns of the taxpaying public and the City have no backup information from the consultants (i.e., no on-site inspections of GDU facilities and these facilities have not been inspected for a number of years, etc.). The questions which remain unanswered are the most important. Response: We firmly believe that the City Council and taxpaying public have been provided sufficient information regarding whether or not the City should acquire the GDU water and wastewater franchise agreements. The potential acquisition of the GDU facilities will require a full investigation of the Chapter 180.301 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.) stated information and other information. We expect that the public will be informed as to the status of this future investigation and a public hearing under Chapter 180.301 F.S. will be held if the final acquisition is recommended. Even though no site inspections could be conducted, our firm is very knowledgeable regarding the construction and operation and maintenance (O & " practices of GDU. In fact, we have visited the WWTP and WTP in the past; although, not during this study due to the present legal constraints; and members of our project team (i.e., past GDU employees) are very knowledgeable regarding the GDU water and wastewater facilities and management practices. Comment No. 2 How much is the total complete projected cost of the wastewater and potable water system? Response: The total complete projected cost of the water and -wastewater system, including the initial expansion, is approximately $6,200,000 as identified in Table 5-5 of the report. This value excludes the cost of wastewater collection and water distribution which may be funded through assessments or other means. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-1 �l Comment No. 3 The water system has numerous citations (refer to page ES -3). Response: The violations noted were for not conducting the monitoring requirements as required in Chapter 17-550 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). On only a few occasions was GDU cited for violating the water quality standards for total trihalomethanes (TTHM's) and copper. These problems were intermittent and can be readily corrected. The TTHM's will not be formed if ammoniation is used as is practiced in Palm Bay. The copper problems can be controlled through pH and alkalinity adjustment at the WTP. Both these solutions are simple and inexpensive. Comment No. 4 The wastewater system was planned to be updated to bring it up to speed and now we are committing ourselves to spend approximately $6.5 million. Response: No, GDU had no plans to improve and/or expand the WWTP. Presently, the WWTP is treating an average daily flow of 113,000 gpd and the WWTP has a rated capacity of 300,000 gpd. The effluent disposal system has a permitted capacity of 142,000 gpd. To increase capacity, it was recommended by HAI that the WWTP be expanded to 600,000 gpd, as well as increase the effluent disposal system to same. Comment No. 5 How will it be financed and over what period of time? Response: Presented in Section 5, specifically pages 5-22 through 5-26, are a number of financing options available to the City with pay -back periods ranging from 20 to 40 years. The method of financing will be determined. at a later date, so that the best financing method is provided to the City and its customers. Comment No. 6 Did ye, as'66unty residents, vote through a referendum to go for a bond issue for .Phase I otthe wastewater system and therefore, are we going to pay for this again? Response: No, the taxpayers will not be paying for Phase I of the wastewater system again. The City and County has tentatively agreed in principle to an ERU buy-back/transf6r program presented at the September 4, 1991 meeting. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-2 Comment No. 7 What will the impact fees be? Response: It is difficult to determine the actual impact fee. However, based on what is known regarding the GDU water and wastewater systems, the impact fees should not be greater than the County's impact fee. Comment No. 8 Page ES -17 indicates a savings of $1,068 if we use this system, but there is no back-up or data to support these figures. Response: The paragraphs in question compared the GDU impact fees to the County's impact fee. Basically, the GDU water and sewer impact fee is $2,545.00 and the County's 1991 water and sewer impact fee is $3,613.00. The difference between them is $1,068.00. Comments No. 9 When will the City system be on-line? Response: Initially, the City system was proposed to be on-line by the summer of 1992. However, due to delays, this time frame could be pushed further back to the winter of 1992. Comment No. 10 What happens during the interim in developing this system a moratorium; no new tax base (refer to ES -17 regarding concurrency statement)? Response: This is untrue, since at a recent meeting between the City and the County, it was tentatively agreed upon that the County will continue to sell ERU's to City residents on an equitable non-discriminatory basis. Therefore, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. Therefore, con6r-rency'requirements will be met. HES/GCWch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-3 Comment No. 11 Why have we gone this far with no public hearing? Response: There have been several appropriately noticed public meetings and many newspaper articles. No action requiring a public hearing has been undertaken. Comment No. 12 The County system uses no tax dollars. Will the City be able to say the same? Response: The County uses a special assessment to finance the capital of WWTP construction. The City may also utilize this method of funding water and wastewater facilities; otherwise the City system will not use tax dollars. Comment No. 13 What are the implications of the new utility department (i.e., staff, vehicles, etc.), new building, etc.? Response: A new utility will require additional expenses and facilities. However, based on the size of the existing systems, these expenses should be minor and will be in the form of operational personnel, preferably GDU operations personnel, utility billing staff and miscellaneous O & M expenses. It is anticipated that the City Engineer can handle the responsibility of the Public Works Director, and vehicles and other miscellaneous items can be obtained through the utility acquisition. To a great extent, there will be a transfer of utility duties from Miami and GDU operations in Palm Bay to the City of Sebastian. o Mr. Warren Dill Comment No. 1 Concerned with the fact that the consultants "flat-out said" that mandatory hook-ups to fund the wastewater system. .Response;- This is a false statement. We did not say that mandatory hookups to fund the wastewater facilities was required. A similar method fo the County's will be proposed, as well as special assessments. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-4 Comment No. 2 No real physical review of WWTP; his understanding is it is a small site. Where is effluent going to be disposed of (i.e., golf course, etc.)? Response: The condition of the GDU facilities were not inspected during this study, due to the existing legal constraints imposed by GDU's legal staff. However, our experience and knowledge of GDU's construction methods and O & M practices, as well as discussions with ex-GDU employees, have given us valuable information regarding the facilities assets. The overall site which the WWTP is located on is approximately 29 acres, which can accommodate a significant future expansion. Regarding the effluent disposal, it was suggested that expansion for the first phase of the wastewater facilities may be accommodated at the City of Sebastian Golf Course and Country Club or other sites. Comment No. 3 The County's system was designed and located to utilize parks, golf courses, etc., for effluent reuse disposal and we may have a problem in the future due to effluent disposal which may restrict the size of the City's WWTP. There was a glancing blow in the report as to the golf course for effluent disposal and how much effluent reuse can the golf course handle? Response: Based on our review of the data obtained from the Soils and Conservation Service (SCS), approximately 300,000 to 600,000 gpd of treated effluent could be land applied on a golf course of this size. Other forms of effluent disposal include parks, agricultural reuse, residential reuse, as well as the existing percolation ponds are available. Comment No. 4 Assumption that the City will collect $2,400,000 from the County for advanced payment for ERU's? Is this true or will the City taxpayer receive this payment instead of the City. Response: As previously mentioned, at two (2) previous meetings prior to the issuance of4tlhe report the County and the City have tentatively agreed upon a method tq enable both entities to work together. At a September 4, 1991 meeting, the County reconfirmed the tentative agreement to continue to sell ERU's to City residents on an equitable non-discriminatory basis. Therefore, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. There will be no transfer of HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-5 funds between the County and City taxpayers, unless the taxpayer does not want the utility service provided by either the County or the City. Comment No. 5 Centralization of services; what we have here is decentralization of services. Response: It is proposed in the HAI report that the City will have centralized water and wastewater facilities for the City of Sebastian. Comment No. 6 Potential of moratorium, which most likely will have to be imposed on all commercial properties that have not purchased ERU's to date. These property owners will not be able to use this property until the City system is on-line (i.e., 2 to 3 years). Response: There will be no moratorium imposed on any development within the City limits for properties that have not purchased ERU's to date. On September 4, 1991, the City and representatives from the County met to discuss the transitioning period until the City had control of GDU facilities. It was tentatively agreed to that the County would continue to sell ERU's to City taxpayers on a non-discriminatory basis within the City's proposed service area. In addition, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. o Mr. Clay Price Comment No, 1 Report does not state that the City can provide water and wastewater service at a rate less than the County. The report only does a comparison on the County, surrounding communities and what the current GDU rates are and there are problems with the GDU costs that need further analysis. Response: This is true, the report does not state that the City can provide water and wastewater service at a less cost than the County. However, utilizing today's impact fees and rates for water and sewer, the County impact fees and rates are -*nificantly.higher than GDU's and surrounding communities. Furthermore, the County's impact fees will increase $638 to $4,121/ERU for` water and sewer service, as well as their rates will increase to $50.49 for 5,000 gallons in 1993. Therefore, utilizing the best data we have regarding the existing conditions, the City should be capable of providing water and sewer service at an equitable cost to the taxpayer. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-6 However, the primary concern is not whether or not the water and wastewater service can be provided at a lower cost. The major emphasis should be whether or not the City wishes to control their own destiny in the utility business, which in turn controls growth. Comment No. 2 Of the $2,345,000 for expansion of the WWTP, nothing is allocated for effluent disposal (i.e., purchase of land, etc.). The GDU WWTP is at capacity. There is $675,000 identified in the report for effluent disposal, but it does not say for what it is (i.e., land, line extensions, acquisition of right -0f --way, etc.). Response: The estimated $675,000 identified for expansion of the effluent disposal facilities included pipeline costs, pumping facilities, acquisition of rights-of-way, site improvements, etc. necessary for delivering reuse water to the golf course. Improvements to the percolation ponds are considered on-site costs and are within the $1,670,000 value. Neither the WWTP or existing effluent disposal facilities are at capacity. Comment No. 3 Under positive impacts, item no. 3 states that there would be a $1,068 cost savings per connection to the system. How does Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) determine the cost to be $2,545 per connection for the City, if the acquisition cots, expansion costs, number of customers and financing costs have not been determined? Response: The comparison was based on the existing County and GDU's impact fees for 1991. The $1,068 savings is represented by the difference between the County's impact feed of $3,613.00 and GDU's impact fee of $2,545.00 for water and sewer service. Comment No. 4 The purchase price of GDU WWTP's have been stated to be $2,000,000 (refer to 5- 19). How has this price been determined with regard to the absence of a facility inspeption? Response: The price of $2.0 million was determined based on our knowledge of the Sebastian water and wastewater facilities and franchise documents, review of permitting documents and discussions with ex-GDU employees regarding these systems. We preformed a preliminary "rate base" replacement cost analysis and HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-7 added the costs of acquisition to determine a preliminary estimate. Note that the costs of expansion and improvements are presented as a separate value. Comment No. 5 The report has certain capital recovery assumptions that do not seem to bear analysis (refer to page 5-20 of report). Item No. 1: The City can presell 2,000 water and wastewater ERU's. Item No. 2: There are another 1,000 units at $1,200/ERU for a total sale price of $1,331,000. Therein of itself is a mathematical error. Item No. 3: Consider the assumption for water ERU's for 3,000 ERU's for capital recovery will be sold at $1,214. There is no increase for future costs. Item No. 4: There are supposed to be an additional 3,000 ERU's with regard to the system and line extension cost are $2,000,000. How does the figure $667 per ERU figure into the costs related to the County (i.e., included in impact fee or built-in somewhere else). Response: The City is not preselling any water and wastewater ERU's. The 2,000 ERU's noted were the ones which the County and City would participate in the buy-back program that was tentatively agreed upon at a meeting between the City and County on September 4, 1991. The footnote identified in the table after "Future Capital Revenue from 1,00 ERU's for wastewater system" should be changed from (1) to (2) and footnote (2) should read "...$1,214 per ERU and the existing GDU wastewater impact fee of $1,331 per." and thus no mathematical error. The 3,000 ERU's for water service includes the 2,000 ERU's already committed to the County which will be transferred back to the City based on the specific conditions of the buy-back program. It is difficult to compare the $667/ERU figure for line extension costs with the County's costs for the same since the County did not provide this information to use for this study. Comment No, 6 The report states that the City can provide "significantly improved" water and :WastewateX.services to the customer. Is this over GDU or the County? Secondarily, the report states that they have more stringent design standards 'and operational procedures. Response: The City can provide significantly improved water and wastewater services over GDU providing these services, as well as providing an equal service HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-8 in comparison to the County. The City will most likely impose more stringent design and operational providers in comparison to GDU. This is very common for public utilities to have more stringent standards than private utilities. Comment No. 7 The report states that the City system will provide a system that will provide a system whereby the infrastructure costs to the customers will pay $2,500 to $3,500 less than what the customers would pay under the County systems. Response: This is based on our preliminary estimates of both County and GDU facilities and operation. We felt that it would not be unreasonable to project that the cost for a water and sewer combined infrastructure normally dedicated to the utility and paid for by the customer may cost between $5,000.00 and $8,000.00 for the County system and for expansion of the GDU system the cost would range from $3,500.00 to $5,500.00. Our preliminary estimate is that a City taxpayer would save between $2,500.00 and $3,500.00 total in capital cost by City ownership versus County customer connections. Comment No. 8 The $667 per ERU capital recovery expenditure for line extensions is not included in the customer provided infrastructure. Response: The $667/ERU is not an appropriate calculation. The $2,000,000 is an optional line extension fund which may present an opportunity to pay for extensions with tax-free financing dollars. Comment No. 9 What this report does not tell me is the number of customers, purchase price of the utility, costs for expanding the facilities, financing method and hero is how we are going to pay for the facilities. Response: The report indicates that the County will ultimately transfer to the City the 2,000 ERU's which were held by the County, plus it is anticipated that an additional 1,000 ERU's will be sold in the future. The estimated purchase price of .the utilities and the anticll5ated costs for expansion was provided in the report to be approximately $6.2 million. In addition, a number of f-mancing methods were presented in Section 5 of the HAI report. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-9 o Damian B. Gilliams Comment No. 1 Have concurrency right down the road and if water and sewer is not in place by a certain time period, everything will come to a halt, which will affect a number in this area. Response: On several occasions the County committed to work with the City. The County will continue to sell ERU's to the City residents on an equitable non- discriminatory basis. Therefore, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. Therefore, concurrency will be met. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC3.RPT 3-10 SECTION 4 MEETING WITH CLAY PRICE AND DAMIAN B. GILLIAM - AUGUST 30, 1991 Comment No. 1 Of the $2,345,000 for expansion of the WWTP, how much, if any, is allocated to the cost of off-site effluent disposal and does the golf course have the capacity for such. See page 5-18. Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 2 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 2 Under positive impacts, Item 3 states that there would be a $1,068 cost savings per connection to the system. How does Hartman & Associates, Inc. determine the cost to be $2,545 for Sebastian, i.e., with acquisition costs (not old GDU costs) and expansion costs, number of customers and financing costs not determined. Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 3 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 3 The purchase price of GDU the report has been stated as $2,000,000 (see 5-19). How has this price been determined with regard to the absence of facility inspection? Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 4 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 4 The report has certain capital recovery assumptions (page 5-20) that do not seem to bear close analysis: 1) Thal the City can pfesell 2,000 wastewater ERU's. 2) There is a mathematical error in that the sale of 1,000 ERU's at $12.00/ERU is $1,331,000. How does the report estimate future costs? HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC4.RPT 4-1 3) Please consider the assumption as to water ERU's capital recovery in that no future costs are associated with this, i.e., 3,000 ERU's will be presold at $1,214. 4) If there are 3,000 additional ERU's with regard to the system and the line extension, costs are $2,000,000. How does this amount of $667 per ERU figure into the costs related to the County costs? Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 5 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 5 The report states that the City can provide "significantly improved" water and wastewater services to customers. Over GDU or the County, i.e., more stringent design standards and operation/maintenance procedures? Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 6 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. Comment No. 6 The report states that the City system will provide a system whereby the infrastructure costs, the customer will pay $2,500 to $3,500 less than what the customers would pay under the County systems. Hartman & Associates, Inc.'s report recommends the City acquire the GDU plants and revoke the franchises with the County. The report does not state that the City can provide services less expensively than the cost per ERU would be based upon a customer base. Response: Refer to response to Comment No. 7 of Clay Price's under the August 28, 1991 Council meeting above. HES/GCH/ch/mg C6/SEC4.RPT 4-2 - City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570 September 6, 1991 The Honorable Richard N. Bird Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: GH,&R TAC SEP 11 1991 Fla # 0107-/ . Rc. s.1 U& C( • 5." I am writing as a result of a meeting between City and County staff held here in the City of Sebastian on September 4, 1991, regarding the water and sewer franchise. I believe that this was a very positive meeting for both the City and County and that we are very close to working out the details of a final agreement regarding the County's franchise in the City of Sebastian. The idea that was agreed to, in concept, was that, for the time being, potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County, would be considered "permanent" customers of the County's utility system. This situation will continue until the City is in a position in the future to assume responsibilities for these new customers' flows in a permanent City facility in such a manner as to make the County whole. In essence, the City will not ask the County to shunt waste water flows to a City facility and transfer a County customer (within the City) to a City customer unless the County can sell that capacity to another permanent customer. Of course, this would not preclude those in -city customers from staying on the County system but covered in a wholesale agreement between the City and County. It is our understanding that, based upon your approval, the County will sell capacity on a non- discriminatory, first come first serve basis to potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County. Honorable Richard N. Bird Paget Once again, I believe that the City and County made substantial progress towards completing the final agreement regarding the City's eventual assumption of sewer and water service in the City of Sebastian. We will continue to work closely with your staff to bring this matter to a successful completion. Sincerely yours, Robert S. McClary, City M�anar City of Sebastian RSM:sg cc: W. C. Conyers, Mayor & Sebastian City Council Daniel C. Eckis, P.E., City Engineer Bruce Cooper, Director Community Development James Chandler, County Administrator Terry Pinto, Dir. of Utilities Services Indian River County Qiarles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, Indian River County ✓Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire, Gray, Harris and Robinson, P.A. Gerald C. Hartman P E Hartm & • •, an Associates, Inc. SEP 06 '91 11:23 407 y 5570 P.1/3 VON l 2 L 5vi f City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 588-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589.5570 FAX # �_ DELIVER TO: / FROM: FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET 9-9 DATE: l� TIME SENT: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) RE: t9Oh J o n ORIGINAL WILL ( ) WILL NOT ( ) FOLLOW. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 c SEP 06 '91 11:23 407 589 5570 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 September 6, 1991 The Honorable Richard N. Bird Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: P.2/3 I am writing as a result of a meeting between City and County staff held here in the City of Sebastian on September 4, 1991, regarding the water and sewer franchise. I believe that this was a very positive meeting for both the City and County and that we are very close to working out the details of a final agreement regarding the County's franchise in the City of Sebastian. The idea that was agreed to, in concept, was that, for the time being, potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County, would be considered "permanent" customers of the County's utility system. This situation will continue until the City is in a position in the future to assume responsibilities for these new customers' flows in a permanent City facility in such a manner a6 to make the County whole. In essence, the City will not ask the County to shunt waste water flows to a City facility and transfer a County customer (within the City) to a City customer unless the County can sell that capacity to another permanent customer. Of course, this would not preclude those in -city customers from staying on the County system but covered in a wholesale agreement between the City and County. It is our understanding that, based upon your approval, the county will sell capacity on a non- discriminatory, first come first serve basis to potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County. i SEP 06 191 11:24 407 5S9 5570 Honorable Richard N. Bird Paget P.3/3 Once again, I believe that the City and County made substantial progress towards completing the final agreement regarding the City's eventual assumption of sewer and water service in the City of Sebastian. We will continue to work closely with your staff to bring this matter to a successful completion. Sincerely yours, Robert S. McClary, City Manager City of Sebastian RSM: sq cc: W. C. Conyers, Mayor & Sebastian City Council Daniel C. Eckis, P.E., City Engineer Bruce Cooper, Director Community Development James Chandler, County Administrator Terry Pinto, Dir. of Utilities Services Indian River County Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, Indian River County Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire, Gray, Harris and Robinson, P.A. Gerald C. Hartman, P.E., Hartman & Associates, Inc. -- S -P 06 '91 11:23 407 565..Zc 70 F? QO City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 588-5330 0 FAX (407) 509.5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEAT FAX # �n DELIVER TO FROM: DATE: — -T- -�p v 1 TIME SENT: TOTAL J�7NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) �� ORIGINAL WILL ( ) WILL NOT ( IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, ) FOLLOW. F'.1 4o (tel -/ Ip- L� PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 SEP 66 '91 11:23 467 589 5576 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589.5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 September 6, 1991 The Honorable Richard N. Bird Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: P.2/3 I am writing as a result of a meeting between City and County staff held here in the City of Sebastian on September 4, 1991, regarding the water and sewer franchise. I believe that this was a very positive meeting for both the City and County and that we are very close to working out the details of a final agreement regarding the County's franchise in the City of Sebastian. The idea that was agreed to, in concept, was that, for the time being, potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County, would be considered "permanent" customers of the County's utility system. This situation will continue until the City is in a position in the future to assume responsibilities for these new customers' flows in a permanent City facility in such a manner as to make the County whole. In essence, the City will not ask the County to shunt waste water flows to a City facility and transfer a County customer (within the City) to a City customer unless the County can sell that capacity to another permanent customer. Of course, this would not preclude those in -city customers from staying on the County system but covered in a wholesale agreement between the City and county. It is our understanding that, based upon your approval, the county will sell capacity on a non- discriminatory, first come first serve basis to potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County. SEF 06 '91 11:24 407 588 5701 P. 31112 Honorable Richard N. Bird Page2 Once again, I believe that the City and County made substantial progress towards completing the final agreement regarding the City's eventual assumption of sewer and water service in the City of Sebastian. We will continue to work closely with your staff to bring this matter to a successful completion. Sincerely yours, Robert S. McClary, City Manager City of Sebastian RSM:sg cc: W. C. Conyers, Mayor & Sebastian City Council Daniel C. Eckis, P.E., City Engineer Bruce Cooper, Director Community Development James Chandler, County Administrator Terry Pinto, Dir. of Utilities Services Indian River County Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, Indian River County Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire, Gray, Harris and Robinson, P.A. Gerald C. Hartman P.E.Hartman & Associt I . s es, Inc. J. CHARLES GRAY GOROON H. HARRIS. RICHARD M. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE, JR. PHILIP H. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS, ZD LEO P. ROCK, JR. G. ROBERTSON DILG CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. NIRSCHENBAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES $ FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. 1 GRAY, HARRIS & ROBIxsox PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 3058 ORLANDO, FL 32802-3068 TELEPHONE (407) 043-8800 GLASS BANK BUILDING 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 320757 COCOA Bs.LCa1 FL 32939-0767 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 FAX 1407) 244-5890 FAX (407) 783-2297 W RITER'S DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando September 5, 1991 Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian P.O. Box 780127 THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MONRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH 5. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. GUINN, JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK K. McMULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN O TASSELL FREDERICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. BORGERT JOHN B. SHOEMAKER LISA J FRANK' MICHAEL N. WILSON MARK S. WALKER MALCOLM R. KIR5CMENBAUM OF COUNSEL *MLMBCP OF NEW YORK ANO CONNECTICUT PAPS ONLY VIA FACSIMILE 407/589-5570 RS: September 4 Meeting with Indian River County Dear Robb: You asked me to prepare a letter documenting what took place at our meeting yesterday with Indian River County. This meeting took place in the Engineering Conference Room at the Sebastian City Hall complex. In attendance at the meeting were Terry Pinto, Charles Vitunac, and Harry Asher of Indian River County, and Gerry Hartman, Hal Schmidt, Jr., Dan Eckes, Bruce Cooper, you, and me for the City. The subject of the meeting was the discussion of proposed agreements to "unbuckle" the County's franchise within the City. Terry Pinto began the meeting by stating that the 'Indian River County North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is over -committed. He also stated that their financial consultants advised the County that the County cannot finance new capacity based upon temporary, or interim, customers. The County then suggested that, rather than obligating capacity on a customer -by -customer basis, the County wants to sell capacity in bulk to the City for the City to allocate to its customers. Gerry Hartman responded by saying that we would be willing to consider such a modification to the original proposal. Gerry also requested (as we have done on at least two prior occasions) what the capital and wholesale costs of wholesale service would be with the County. Gerry also requested if the County could re -rate its plant flows to create interim capacity to bridge the gap, make the ^: GRAY, HARRIS & RoslNsox PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Robb McClary September 5, 1991 Page 2 County whole, and avoid the need for a wholesale agreement. Rather than responding to Gerry's initial request, Terry Pinto again reiterated that he could not finance interim connections. Mr. Pinto also indicated that he could not consider doing a re -rating of the plant (i.e., re -rating the value of an equivalent residential unit down to 150 gallons per day to some lower value, thereby creating additional capacity for sale). Mr. Pinto indicated that the County would not consider doing this. However, as the discussion developed, it became clear that the County has in fact already done this for the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. At this point, Charles Vitunac asked if the wholesale deal was on the table. Hartman responded by saying for some volume of capacity, but not all. Gerry also stated that rates and charges should be established on an equitable basis. Gerry also brought up the idea of a water wholesale agreement, indicating that the City might be in a position in the future to provide wholesale water to the County. Gerry again brought up the idea of talking to the Department of Environmental Regulation about utilizing unused flows at the plant. In response, Terry Pinto tried to argue a lease analogy, and Gerry responded that the lease analogy was not applicable. We have been assuming that there were 2,000 connections within the City; however, Mr. Asher of the County indicated that some 700 of the original 2,000 connections purchased within the City have been turned back into the County for resale within Indian River County. Apparently, another 500 of the remaining 1,300 have not paid their first assessment. Gerry then asked the County what the bulk transmipsion impact fee component was under the County system. No response was forthcoming. Gerry also suggested looking at the Indian River County ERU value, and we were told that it was 250 gallons per day. Terry Pinto said that Indian River County would be reluctant to move off of the 250 gallons per day for an ERU. Gerry suggested that Indian River County could convert projected usage to historical flow and re -rate the plant capacity. Gerry referred to several examples of this occurring in the City of Melbourne, the City of Palm Bay, and the City of Orlando. We were then told by the County that the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is rated at one million gallons per day and that the County has sold 5,200 equivalent residential units in the plant and that FDER has issued collections system permits for approximately 2,500 ERUs. At this point, it became obvious that GRAY, HARRZs & ROHL\'SON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Robb McClary September 5, 1991 Page 3 the County has already moved off of the 250 gallons per day value for an ERU, and has already sold capacity on a re -rated basis at the plant. They have not had a problem with DER in this regard because only 2,500 ERUs worth of collection system permits have been issued by DER. The County then indicated that they could not provide capacity within the City for interim customers. The City then countered by suggesting that, at some point in the future, the City may be able to acquire permanent capacity for a small volume within the County plant. The other part of the proposal involved having the City remove capacity in the plant on a gradual basis, thereby reducing the flows from the City and County plant. Mr. Vitunac seemed agreeable to this proposal. Discussion then followed on how the buy -down of customers from the County to the City would occur. We also handed out a draft Interlocal Utility Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement for consideration by the County at this meeting. Gerry Hartman then set forth a summation of the meeting to the point as follows: (1) The City has submitted a draft, working document agreement, and we would appreciate comments from the County towards finalizing this agreement. (2) New customers will be treated on an equitable non- discriminatory basis within the service area. In other words, for the immediate future, customers within the City will be permanent customers of the County, subject to a buy -down by the City at a later date. (3) The interim/permanent distinction no longer,applies. (4) There will be a transition of capacity and customers through time, such that the County can be maintained whole. (5) Prior to September 4, 1991, those City customers on the County system will be incorporated into the City's facility as a lump. It is important to note that while there are 1,300 committed ERUs of capacity in the City, only 800 have paid the assessments, and less than 10 ERUs of capacity are actually connected and being serviced by the County system. GRAY, HARRIS &e ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Robb McClary September 5, 1991 Page 4 (6) Certain assets of the County that don't serve the County but serve customers in the City should be transferred to the City at some future date. (7) The City and the County should enter into an interconnect deal/flow diversion deal that allows for the sale of wholesale water and sewer capacity back and forth between the City and the County. (S) The County agreed to give us back the GDU franchise purchase option now. (9) The Indian River County franchise will revert back to the City after the City is ready to take on the permanent capacity within the County plant. At the end of this outline, a question was raised regarding the assessment program. The parties agreed to continue their discussion regarding the assessment program to make sure we ironed out the bugs in this last remaining issue. The City also agreed to send a letter to the County to the effect that as of the September 4 date, the City customers on the County system are permanent until the City provides a permanent system for those customers in such a manner as to make the County whole. I will prepare a draft of that letter for consideration by you and Gerry Hartman. Everyone agreed at the meeting that the meeting had been very positive and that we had made a great deal of progress toward completion of the ultimate agreement with the County. The County also agreed to move forward with the GDU franchise purchase option reassignment back to the City. Except for the assessment issue, I believe we are very close to completing the conceptual framework for an agreement between the City and the County that provides for the gradual elimination of the franchise within the City. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to call on me. S, erely yours, omas aloud Es4 uir GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINS , P.A. TAC: jlm cc: Charles I. Nash, Esquire (via facsimile) Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. [TO BE TYPED ON CITY OF SEBASTION LETTERHEAD] September _, 1991 The Honorable Richard N. Bird Chairman Board of County Commissioners i 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: I am writing you this letter at the request of your representatives at a meeting we held here in the City of Sebastian on September 4, 1991, regarding the water and sewer franchise. I believe that this was a very positive meeting for both the City and County and that we are very close to working out the details for a final agreement regarding the County's franchise in the City of Sebastian. The idea that was agreed to in concept at the meeting yesterday was that, for the time being, potential customers located within the City of Sebastian that seek capacity from the County after September 4, 1991, would be considered permanent customers of the County's utility system. This situation will continue until the City is in a position in the future to assume responsibilities for these new customers flows in a permanent City facility in such a manner as to make the County whole. It is our understanding that, based upon this letter, the County can now continue to sell capacity on a non-discriminatory, first come first serve basis to potential customers located within the City of Sebastian who seek capacity from the County. Once again, I believe that the City and County made substantial progress towards completing the final agreement regarding the City's eventual assumption of sewer and water service in the City of Sebastian. We will continue to work closely with your staff to bring this matter to a successful completion. Sincerely yours, Robb McClary, City Manager City of Sebastian RM: cc: Sebastian City Council Terry Pinto, Dir. of Utilities Services Indian River County Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, Indian River County Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire, Gray, Harris and Robinson, P.A. Gerald C. Hartman, P.E., Hartman and Associates, Inc. p Capt. Ht, 4im's = RL S'L,6Q„ SEBASTIAN INLET 1Vlmm Home of the 'World Famous- River Raw Bar waterJrnnt 93anpet Facilities • Catering Service August 29, 1991 NA" N 1' Mayor and City Council C City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 Dear Mayor Conyers and City Council Members: I, along with many other property and business owners in the Sebastian area are extremely concerned with the City's decision to sever the sewer and water franchises with the County. It is very difficult for me to comprehend how the City can make such a broad ranging decision when the alternatives have not been completely thought out. It is important to note that many of us in the business community have relied on the City's agreement with the County to provide these services in a timely manner. We have based our business decisions on the availability of these services. The County has held to these time tables and made the services available as agreed. The county's project to supply water has been put on hold due to the City's indecision (see attached letter from the county). Business and property owners stand to suffer potentially far reaching damages if these services are not available. Sebastian is growing at a rate where these services are needed now. I have read the report from your consultants and point out that nowhere did they guarantee that these services can be offered more efficiently or at less cost. Additionally, there are serious concerns that even they raised with the timing of the acquisition and/or building of new plants and distribution systems. To my knowledge, the consultants never even bothered to consult with the State Department of Community Affairs about how this decision might affect our Comprehensive plan filed with the state. This is a most serious over sight as the City is under State order to produce an acceptable plan that clearly shows how these basic services will be provided. Our current understanding with the DCA is that the County will provide the services. I believe there is a solution to the sewer and water problem that would be acceptable to both the City and the County. Might I suggest the following: ny ear. iouo inaian River Drive, Sebastian, FL 32958 By Boat: Marker 66 on the Intracoastal Waterway Phone: (407)589-4345 FAX- (407)589-4346 A ►% --) 00*41 1. Sewer capacity would be purchased by the City from the County so that the City would have the right to dispose of their waste in the existing state of the art plant that has recently been constructed by the County. This plant has the ability to expand and could cover Sebastian's sewer disposal needs for some time in the future. The City could retain the option to build their own plant at some point in time provided proper notification is given to the County. 2. The County would maintain the existing forced main lines that have already been installed in the City. 3. The City, to protect City residents and businesses would take over full control of the design, bidding and installation of the system that collects the sewer from individual properties. The County has agreed to turn over all present engineering to the City free of charge. In this way, the City would have the absolute right to determine what it is going to cost for City residents to hook into the system. The City could do the billings and supervise the installation of the collection lines. 4. The County would be requested to continue with the development of the water line as previously agreed. The City would simply purchase water wholesale from the County after the main line is installed. 5. The City would design and install the distribution system for water from the main County line. The City would have full control on the design, construction and implementation of the water distribution system and, again would have the full responsibility for billing and customer relations. The City could also reserve rights to construct its own water plant at some future date upon proper notification to the County. Gentlemen, I cannot emphasize the importance of having sewer and water available in our small community. Any delays in providing these basic services would prove most costly to the tax base and the future -well being of Sebastian. I urge you to work very closely with the County on a City Councilman to County Commissioner level to get this issue resolved once and for all. T H. Collins THC:jh cc: County Commissioners Rob McCleary, City Manager Telephone: (407) 567-8000 June 25, 1991 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Mr. Thomas H. Collins Captain Hiram's, Sebastian Inlet Marina 1606 Indian River Drive Sebastian, FL 32958 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AND SEWER PROJECT BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Collins: This letter is written to follow up on your inquiry as to the status of the aforementioned projects. As you are aware, the City of Sebastian has contracted the engineering firm of Hartman and Associates, to investigate the possible demise of the County's water and wastewater franchise within the city limits. As a result of this query, we have put the design on hold (approximately four months ago) of both the North County sewer expansion and the North County regional water system. This action was deemed necessary as line sizes (particularly with regard to the regional water system) are determined by the ultimate population they are to service. We anticipate some type of response from the city concerning this situation within the next month and will make decisions accordingly with regard to the continuation of both projects. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (407) 567-8000, Extension 308. l Sincerely, WILLIAM F. MCCAIN Capital Projects Engineer Department of Utility Services WFM/c cc: Terrance G. Pinto, Director of Utility Services (CCOLLINS.WFM) City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570 August 29, 1991 Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: GH&R TAC AUG 3 0 1991 Fila # 101 Oy . .TRC. s4 I am in receipt of your letter dated August 20, 1991, concerning Indian River County's Master Plans for water and wastewater. We certainly appreciate the explanation which you have given us regarding several actions recently taken unilaterally by the County, and we generally agree with the thrust of the issues which were also raised in the letter regarding the necessary agreements we will need to enter into regarding this matter. We have already prepared a Termination Agreement to terminate the assignment of the GDU option which is enclosed with this letter. We are also in the process of preparing a draft agreement which would amend our previous interlocal agreement in order to address the issues which you have raised in your letter. A meeting has also been scheduled for September 4, 1991, in the City of Sebastian to meet with your staff in order to proceed with completing this matter. However, we believe it is unnecessary for the County at this time to refuse the extension of service in the County wastewater system. It is our understanding that the County's wastewater system is operating well below capacity at the present time, and the County could provide service to new connections on an interim basis to new connections within the City until the flow diversion facility is constructed. This flow diversion facility is contemplated in the draft agreement which we are preparing. Letter to Richard N. Bird Page 2 This draft agreement also contemplates the City making the County whole with respect to facilities to be acquired by the City and customers to be acquired by the City so that the county does not lose any money. We look forward to discussing this and other issues with your representatives on September 4th. In the meantime, we respectfully recommend that you permit additional connections within the City. 1��"��Sincerely Yours, WEC:js C.C. Terry Pinto, Indian River County Robb McClary, City of Sebastian Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. W. E. ConFys Mayor City of Sebastian FILE COPY VIA TELECOPY (407/589-5570) Mr. Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian Post Office Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Re: City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise Dear Robb: I have discussed the enclosed Resolution and the Termination Agreement with Charles Nash, and have made the minor changes he suggested. I have also made changes, none of which are substantive, to clarify certain points. With the changes, I recommend that the Resolution and Termination Agreement be approved by the City Council. Please call me if you have any questions. GRAY, HARRIS & ROB TAC:SDT:kvr Enclosures cc: Mr. Charles Nash (via Telecopy 407/951-3741) kvr140107-1,1tre-28.MDClary,08/28/91,0 GRAY, HARRIS & RoBINsox J. CHARLES GRAY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION THOMAS G SHAW M. HARRIS PAUL J. J- RICHARD RICHARD M. ROBINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW R. BUTTERWORTH BUTTER PMILLIR R. IINCM "N D[aORAN S. MCRNwNDCS PAMELA RRIC[ SUIT[ 1200 MAUL S. OUINN. JR. . JAMES L PAI L. JR. DAVID L. PHILIP M. TREES SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING JACK K. MeM ULLCN .MULL WILLIAM A. 6OYLE3 201 EAST PINE STREET SOS NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE ORLANDO L. CVORA THOMAS A. CLOUD SUSAN L SYRD I. MARSHALL. JR. POST OFFICE BOX 3066 POST OFFICE BOX 320167 FREDERICK W. RI W. RIC HARD3 J. MASON WILLIAMS. ED ORLANDO, FL COCOA BEACH, RICHARD C. BURKE L[0 P. ROCK, JR. 32808-3066 FL 32932.0167 LORI R. BENTON O. ROBERTSON DILO ANTHONY J. GOTTEN CHARLES W. SELL TELEPHONE (401) 843.8800 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 TRACY A. BORGERT JACKA. KIRSCHENBAUM JOHN B. SHOEMAKER JAM CS W. PEEPLES III FAX (407) 244-5090 FAX (407) 783-2247 LISA } FRANK' FORREST B. FICLOS, JR. WRITERS DIRECT DIAL MICHAEL N. WILSON MARK B. WALKER MALCOLM R. KIRSCHCNBAUM or COUNSEL PLEASE REPLY TO: ....... OF HEW YON. Orlando AND CONNECTICUT BARS ONLY August 28, 1991 VIA TELECOPY (407/589-5570) Mr. Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian Post Office Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Re: City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise Dear Robb: I have discussed the enclosed Resolution and the Termination Agreement with Charles Nash, and have made the minor changes he suggested. I have also made changes, none of which are substantive, to clarify certain points. With the changes, I recommend that the Resolution and Termination Agreement be approved by the City Council. Please call me if you have any questions. GRAY, HARRIS & ROB TAC:SDT:kvr Enclosures cc: Mr. Charles Nash (via Telecopy 407/951-3741) kvr140107-1,1tre-28.MDClary,08/28/91,0 August 28, 1991 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Charles Nash FAX #: 407/951-3741 COMPANY: Frese, Fallace, Nash & Torpy, P.A. FROM: Thomas A. Cloud CLIENT/MATTER #: 40107-1 NUMBER OF PAGES: 9 (including cover sheet) RE: City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise ENCLOSURE: Letter from Thomas A. Cloud to Robb McClary dated this date along with enclosures (Resolution and Termination Agreement) If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: RARLENE ROGERS at Ext. 272 This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the Orlando address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. J S� GRAY, HARRIS & AOBINSON J. CHARLES GRAY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION THOMAS C. a.. GORDON M. HARRIS PAUL J. MOMRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH PHILLT R. FINCH DEBORAH S. HERNANDEZ PAMELA O. PRICE PAUL S. OUINN. JR. JAMES F. PAGE, JR. SUITE 1200 DAVID L. SCHICK PHILIP H. TREES SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING JACK N. MCMULLEN WILLIAM A. BOYLES 201 EAST PINE STREET 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE ORLANDO L. EVORA THOMAS A. CLOUD SUSAN O. TASSELL BYRD R MARSHALL. JR. POST OFFICE BOX 3068 POST OFFICE BOX 320757 FREDERICK W. RICHARDS J. MASON WILLIAMS, III RICHARD E. BURKE LED P. ROCK, JR. ORLANDO, FL 32802-3068 COCOA $HACK, FL 02932-0767 LORI R. DENTON O. ROBERTSON DILO ANTHONY J. COTTER CHARLES W. SELL TELEPHONE (407) 643-8680 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 TRACY A. SORGERT JACK A. KIRSCHENSAUM JOHN B. SHOEMAKER JAMES W. PEOPLES IIS FAX (407) 244.5690 FAX (407) 763-2287 LISA 4 FRANK' FORREST 0. FIELDS, JR. MICHAEL K. WILSON WRITERS DIRECT DIAL MARK S. WALKER MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENBAUM OF COUNSEL PLEASE REPLY TO: 'MEMBCR OF NEW YORK AND CONNCCTICUT BAPS ONLY August 28, 1991 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Charles Nash FAX #: 407/951-3741 COMPANY: Frese, Fallace, Nash & Torpy, P.A. FROM: Thomas A. Cloud CLIENT/MATTER #: 40107-1 NUMBER OF PAGES: 9 (including cover sheet) RE: City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise ENCLOSURE: Letter from Thomas A. Cloud to Robb McClary dated this date along with enclosures (Resolution and Termination Agreement) If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: RARLENE ROGERS at Ext. 272 This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the Orlando address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. J S� August 28, 1991 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Robb McClary FAX #: 407/589-5570 COMPANY: City of Sebastian FROM: Thomas A. Cloud CLIENT/MATTER #: 40107-1 NUMBER OF PAGES: 9 (including cover sheet) RE: City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise ENCLOSURE: Letter from Thomas A. Cloud to Robb McClary dated this date along with enclosures (Resolution and Termination Agreement) If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: RARLENE ROGERS at Ext. 272 This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the Individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the Orlando address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. GRAY, HARRIS & BOBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION J. CHARLES GRAY THOMAS G SHAW GORDON H. HARRIS PAUL J. MONRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH PHILLIP R. FINCH DEBORAH 5. HERNANDEZ PAMELA O. PRICE PAUL S. OUINN. JR. JAMES F. PAGE. JR. SUITE 1200 DAVID L. SCHICN PHILIP H. TREES SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING JACK K. MCMULLEN WILLIAM A. ■OYLES 201 EAST PINE STREET 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE ORLANDO L. EVORA THOMAS A. CLOUD SUSAN O. TA35ELL BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. POST OFFICE BOX 3066 POST OFFICE BOK 320757 FREDERICK W. RICHARD$ J. MASON WILLIAMS. IIS RICHARD E. BURKE LEO P. ROCK, JR. ORLANDO, FL 311802-0065 COCOA Ba cH, FL 39.932-0767 LORI R. BENTON O. ROBERTSON GILD ANTHONY J. COTTER CHARLES W. SELL TELEPHONE (407) 843-8880 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 TRACY A. BOROCRT JACK A. KIRSCHENBAUM JOHN B. SHOEMAKER JAMES W. PEEPLES III FAX (407) 241-5690 FAX (407) 783-2207 LISA J. FRANK' FORREST B. FIELDS, JR. MICHAEL K. WILSON WRITERS DIRECT DIAL MARK S. WALKER MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENSAUM OF COUNSEL PLEASE REPLY TO: M CMBu OF NEW YOIIK ANO CONNECTICUT BARB ONLY August 28, 1991 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Robb McClary FAX #: 407/589-5570 COMPANY: City of Sebastian FROM: Thomas A. Cloud CLIENT/MATTER #: 40107-1 NUMBER OF PAGES: 9 (including cover sheet) RE: City of Sebastian - Termination of GDU Utility Franchise ENCLOSURE: Letter from Thomas A. Cloud to Robb McClary dated this date along with enclosures (Resolution and Termination Agreement) If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: RARLENE ROGERS at Ext. 272 This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the Individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the Orlando address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. RESOLUTION NO. R -91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, TO TERMINATE THAT CERTAIN ASSIGNMENT DATED DECEMBER 12, 1990, WITH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A COPY OF THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT BEING ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT "A," WHEREBY THE COUNTY IS RETRANSFERRING TO THE CITY ALL OF THE COUNTY'S RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST RECEIVED UNDER THE ASSIGNMENT IN THE WATER FRANCHISE GRANTED TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC. BY THE CITY IN ORDINANCE NO. 0-81-8, AND IN THE SEWER FRANCHISE GRANTED TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC. BY THE CITY IN ORDINANCE NO. 0-81-9; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS OR PARTS OF RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERA- BILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Whereas, the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, granted to Indian River County, Florida (the "County"), an exclusive franchise to furnish water and sewer service to the entire area within the incorporated limits of the City, including those areas in which the City had previously granted franchises; Whereas, under the Franchise, the County's franchise territory included those areas in which the City of Sebastian had previously granted franchises should any such prior franchise expire, revert, be forfeited, canceled or otherwise come under the control of the City; Whereas, water and sewer franchises were in existence between the City and General Development Utilities, Inc. ("GDU"), granted by Ordinance No. 0-81-8 and Ordinance No. 0-81-9, respectively (collectively the "GDU Franchises"); 1 Whereas, the GDU Franchises contain provisions granting to the City the right to purchase all of the facilities, together with easements, owned and used by GDU to provide services under the GDU Franchises; and Whereas, by Resolution R-90-55, the City authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to enter into and execute an Assignment whereby the City would assign to the County all of the City's right, title and interest in the GDU Franchises, with the exception of the City's right to receive franchise revenues and to regulate rates, fees, and charges under the GDU Franchises; and Whereas, on December 12, 1990, the City and the County entered into an Assignment whereby the City granted and the County accepted all of the City's right, title and interest granted to GDU under the GDU Franchises, with the exception of the City's right, to receive revenues and to regulate rates, fees, and charges under the GDU Franchises (the "Assignment"). Whereas, the City now desires to regain all rights under the GDU Franchises and the County desires to reassign to the City all of the rights acquired under the Assignment. Whereas, the City Council of the City of Sebastian has reviewed the proposed Termination of Assignment Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and after engaging in deliberations, has determined that it would be in the best interest of the City and its citizens, and in furtherance of a valid municipal purpose 2 for the City to reacquire from the County are of the City's rights under the GDU Franchises. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. Subject to approval by Indian River County and execution by it of the attached Termination Agreement, that certain Assignment Agreement entered into by the Mayor and the City Clerk of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, with Indian River County, Florida, on December 12, 1990, is hereby terminated, void, and of no further force and effect. SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENT. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into with Indian River County, Florida, and execute on behalf of the City a Termination Agreement, whereby the County would reassign all rights acquired under the Assignment to the City. SECTION 3. CONFLICT. Upon execution of the attached Termination Agreement, Resolution R-90-55 shall be deemed repealed as well as any resolutions in conflict herewith. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold or determine that any part of this Resolution is invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the Resolution shall not be affected and it shall be presumed that the City Council did not intend to enact such invalid or unconstitutional provision. It shall further be assumed that the City Council would have enacted the remainder of this Resolution 3 without such invalid and unconstitutional provision, thereby causing said remainder to remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing Resolution was moved for adoption by Councilman The motion was seconded by Councilman and, upon being put into a vote, the vote was as follows: Mayor W.E. Conyers Vice -Mayor Frank Oberbeck Councilman Peter R. Holyk Councilman Lonnie R. Powell Councilman George H. Reid The Mayor thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted this day of August, 1991. CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: ATTEST: W.E. Conyers, Mayor Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC AAE City Clerk (SEAL) Approved as to Form and Content: Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney 609/4:129/48 4 11 r:�r�7►E ' 1 This TERMINATION AGREEMENT, is made this _ day of , 1991, by and between THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, whose address is City Hall, Sebastian, Florida 32958 (the "City"), and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (the "County"). RECITALS 1. The City granted a water franchise to General Development Utilities, Inc. ("GDU") in City Ordinance No. 0-81-8 and granted a sewer franchise to GDU in City Ordinance No. 0-81-9 (collectively the "GDU Franchises") to allow GDU to operate and maintain a water distribution and a sewage collection and disposal system within a portion of the City. 2. On December 12, 1990, the City and County entered into and executed an Assignment (the "Assignment"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," whereby the City transferred to the County, and the County accepted, all of the City's right, title and interest in the GDU Franchises, except the right to receive any and all franchise revenues and fees owed under the GDU Franchises, and to regulate rates and charges being charged and collected pursuant to the GDU Franchises. 3. The County now desires to reassign to the City, and the City desires to reacquire, all of the County's right. -title and interest in the GDU Franchises. ACCORDINGLY, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. REASSIGNMENT: TERMINATION. The County hereby transfers to the City all of the County's right, title and 1 interest in the GDU Franchises which was acquired by the County under the Assignment. The Assignment is hereby terminated, void, and of no further force and effect. SECTION 2. ACCEPTANCE. The City hereby accepts the reassignment by the County of all of the County's right, title and interest in the GDU Franchises which was acquired by the County under the Assignment. SECTION 3. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In any action brought to enforce the terms and provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred, including all such attorney's fees and costs incurred at all trial and appellate court proceedings as well as fees incurred in pursuit of settlement of such actions. SECTION 4. BINDING EFFECT. All of the terms and conditions of this agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their successors in interest and assignees hereof. SECTION 5. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes all previous discussions, understandings, and agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Attest: Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE, City Clerk (SEAL) CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA By: W.E. Conyers, Mayor Approved as to form and content: Charles Ian Nash, City Attorney Attest: Clerk (SEAL) 609/4:131/38 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Richard N. Bird, Chairman J. CHARLES GRAY GORDON N. HARRIS RICHARD M. ROSINBON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA Q PRICE JAMES F. PAGE. JR. PHILIP H. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLE$ THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD P. MARSHALL, JR. J. MASON WILLIAM S. ED LEO P. ROCK, JR, G. ROBERTSON DUO CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIRSCHENBAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES III FORREST A FIELDS, JR. August 28, 1991 VIA FACSIMILE 407/589-5570 Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 RE: Proposed Letter to Indian River County Dear Robb: Enclosed herewith is my suggested draft letter to Indian River County. I am sending a copy to Charles Nash and Gerry Hartman for their comments. Please don't send this letter until we have all necessary comments to it. TAC: jlm 40107-1 Si rely yours, Thomas A. Cloud, E kA Enclosures: Draft letter to Richard N. Bird Letter to Honorable Conyers from Richard N. Bird cc: Charles I. Nash (w/enclosures) (via facsimile) Gerald C. Hartman (w/enclosures) GRAY, HARRIS & RoBINsoiv PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MOKgIa ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALAN R. R INORTH S.H OCBORAN S. CRNANDNANOCZ SUITE 1200 PAUL S. OUINN. JR. DAVID L. SCHICX SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING JACK H. McMULIEN 201 CAST PINE STREET 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN D. TASSCLL POST OFFICE BOX 3066 POST OFFICE BOX 220937 FREDERICK W. RICHARDS ORLANDO, FL COCOA RICHARD C. BURKE 32802-0068 BEACH, FL 3¢93¢-0167 LORI R. 6ENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TELEPHONE (407) 643-8060 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2219 TRACY A. SORCERY FAX (407) 2-6690 FAX (407) 763-2297 M JOHN B � SHOEMAKER LISA J. . SHOE WRITERS DIRECT DIAL MICHAEL K. WILSON MARK 6. WALKER MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENBAUM OF COUNSEL PLEASE REPLY TO: 'M CMaCR 01 NEW 10.K AND CONNECTICUT SXR. ONLY Orlando August 28, 1991 VIA FACSIMILE 407/589-5570 Robb McClary City Manager City of Sebastian P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 RE: Proposed Letter to Indian River County Dear Robb: Enclosed herewith is my suggested draft letter to Indian River County. I am sending a copy to Charles Nash and Gerry Hartman for their comments. Please don't send this letter until we have all necessary comments to it. TAC: jlm 40107-1 Si rely yours, Thomas A. Cloud, E kA Enclosures: Draft letter to Richard N. Bird Letter to Honorable Conyers from Richard N. Bird cc: Charles I. Nash (w/enclosures) (via facsimile) Gerald C. Hartman (w/enclosures) [TO BE TYPED ON CITY OF SEBASTIAN LETTERHEAD] August _, 1991 Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Bird: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 20, 1991, concerning Indian River County's Master Plans for water and wastewater. We certainly appreciate the explanation which you have given us regarding several actions recently taken unilaterally by the County, and we generally agree with the thrust of the issues which were also raised in the letter regarding the necessary agreements we will need to enter into regarding this matter. We have already prepared a Termination Agreement to terminate the assignment of the GDU option which is enclosed with this letter. We are also in the process of preparing a draft agreement which would amend our previous interlocal agreement in order to address the issues which you have raised in your letter. A meeting has also been scheduled for September 4, 1991, in the City of Sebastian to meet with your staff in order to proceed with completing this matter. However, we believe it is unnecessary for the County at this time to refuse the extension of service in the County wastewater system. It is our understanding that the County's wastewater system is operating well below capacity at the present time, and the County could provide service to new connections on an interim basis to new connections within the City until the flow diversion facility is constructed. This flow diversion facility is contemplated in the draft agreement which we are preparing. This draft agreement also contemplates the City making the County whole with respect to facilities to be acquired by the City and customers to be acquired by the City so that the County does not lose any money. We look forward to discussing this and other issues with your representatives on September 4th. In the meantime, we respectfully recommend that you permit additional connections within the City. Letter to Richard N. Bird Page Two Sincerely yours, W. E. Conyers, Mayor City of Sebastian WEC: cc: Terry Pinto, Indian River County Robb McClary, City of Sebastian Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. 08/21/1991 0, Talophone; (407) 567-M 1534 I.R.C. B,M, 407 567 9323 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 259h Strut, Vero Brach, Florida 32960 August 20, 1991 Honorable W. E. Conyers, Mayor City of Sebastian Post Office Aox 127 Sebastian, FL 32958-0127 Dear Mayor Conyers: Re: P,02 Auki 2 + 1991 ......... 00..... wwvw 5vnc0m Telephone: 224.1011 S79-1(+31 Indian River County is committed to assisting the City of Sebastian in developing its own water and wastewater utility system. Therefore, the County feels it is important to explain several actions taken by the County Concerning water, it is clear that if Sebastian is going to be responsible for water provision within the city, then the County Master Plans for water have to be revised. We believe this is consistent with the goals of both the City and the County and should be further evidence that the County is committed to cooperating with the City on water development. Concerning wastewater, the County had already hired an engineer to 'develop plana for the construction of an addition to the County wastewater systultl Which would have provided capacity for residents of the city who had not reserved capacity under tho first voluntary program which is just being completed, (You may remember that the County repeatedly urged anyone who wanted guaranteed wastewater servico to reserve capacity in the first plant, since once that plant was committed it would be necessary to wait for the oonstructlon of an expansion plant, ) � Now that the County has been notified that the City wishes to undertake wastewater treatment itself the County will find it impossible to finance the construction of this expansion, since the source of revenue to pay for the, plant, i.e., impact fees and monthly charges,/� from customers who at short notice might be transferred to a City plant. Under the County Utility System no tax dollars are used and any construction is financed solely from the customers who would use the new construction. AUG 22 '91 09:19 407 SAS 570 P.3/3 08/21/1991 15:35 I.R.C. E.M. 407 567 9323 P,03 Mayor Conyora City of Sebastian Page two August 20, 1991 Once it is determined that the County will be unable to finance an expanded Plant, It follows that the County also is unable to accept impact fees from City residents for new service. This Is why the County is unable to give Utility approvals for several new projects in tho City. `1'o keep these types of problems to a minimum during the changeover of Utility authority, the County requests the following; I. The City should schedule a public hearing as soon as possible at which the franchise will be formally revoked. A precise date for the franchise ending is important for all parties. 2. The public hearing should be advertised to include the reassignment to the City of the County's right to negotiate with GDU for the purchase of the Sebastian GDU facilities. This right was assigned by the City to the County in December, 1990, 3. The public hearing should also be a forum to discuss how the interests of the following four classes of City customers or residents will be affected by this franchise revocation: (a) customers already connected to the County system, (b) customers who havo reserved capacity in the County system but who have not yet connected, (c) residents who aro not connected and who have not reserved capacity but who are located along lines which connect or will connect customers in categories (a) or (b) to the County system, under a mandatory line assessment program, and (d) all other residents who may need utilities before the City is able to provide them. 4. Finally, the answers to these foregoing questions should protect the Interests of the bond holders who financed the system. On August 8, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners recommended that the are ableitoues be Schedulestheed within hearing 3Tiledays. County staffet US kow when will ben available totlwork With your staff to develop answers to these questions. Thank you. Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County coinmissioners l AUG 22 '91 09:18 407 5570 Iol-1 FAX # / DELIVER TO,/ � FROM: City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 588-5330 ❑ FAX (407) 589-5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: � _ - TIME SENT: P. 1/3 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING,COVER SHEET) ':� RE: ORIGINAL WILL (�/ ) WILL NOT ( ) FOLLOW. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (407) 589-5330 0 AUG 22 '91 09:19 407 5e9 5570 03/21/1991 15:34 1.R.C. E.M. 407 567 9323 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 2-1th SIMI, Vero Reach, Florida 32960 Telophoim: 1407) 567.8000 August 20, 1991 Honorable W. F, Conyers, Mayor City of Sebastian Post Office Box 127 Sebastian, FL 32958-0127 Dear Mayor Conyers: Re: . .. _ _ - - - -•---P.2i3---- " I-: MAU(72Z1199l ...r.r•r.r...rrrrre�1r Suncom Telephone' 224.1011 ril- 4�3I Indian River County is committed to assisting the City of Sebastian in developing its own water and wastewater utility system. Therefore, the County feels it is important to explain several actions taken by the County recently,.rt-,ti �aeo�ae.�+f a...o Q , 1 Concerning water, it is clear that if Sebastian is going to be responsible for water provision within the city, then the County Master Plans for water have to be revised. We believe tills is consistent with the goals of both the City and the County and should be further evidence that the County is committed to cooperating with the City on water development. Concerning wastewater, the County had already hired an engineer to develop plana for the construction of an addition to the County wastewater system which would have provided capacity for residents of the city who had not reserved capacity under the first voluntary program which is just being completed, ('You may remember that the County repeatedly urged anyone who wanted guaranteed wastewater service to reserve capacity in the first plant, since once that plant was committed it would be necessary to wait for the construction of an expansion plant.) �- Now that the County has been notified that the City wishes to undertake wastewater treatment itself the County will find it impossible to finance the construction of this expansion, since the source of revenue to pay for The plant, i.e., impact fees and monthly charges,i from customers who at short notice might be transferred to a City plant. tinder the County Utility System no tax dollars are used and any construction is financed solely from the customers who would ties the new construction. AUG 22 191 09:19 407 b� 5570 P.3/3 08/21/1991 15:35 I.R.C. E.M. Mayor C.onyors City of Sebastian 407 567 9323 P.e3 Page two August 20, 1991 Qnce it is determined that the County will be unable to finance an expanded Plan') it follows that the County also is unable to accept impact fees from City residents for new service. This is why the County is unable to give Utility approvals for several new projects in the City. To keep these types of problems to a minimum during the changeover of utility authority, the County requests the following: 1. The City should schedule a public )tearing as soon as possible at which the franchise will be formally revoked. A precise date for the franchise ending is important for all parties. 2. The public hearing should be advertised to include the reassignment to the City of the County's right to negotiate with GDU for the purchase of the Sebastian GDU facilities. This right was assigned by the City to the County in December, 1990 3. The public hearing should also be a forum to discuss how the interests Of the following four classes of City customers or residents will be affected by this franchise revocation: (a) customers already connected to the County system, (b) customers who have reserved capacity in the County system but who have not yet connected, (c) residents who are not connected and who have not reserved capacity but who are located along lines which connect or will connect customers in categories (a) or (b) to the County system, under a mandatory line assessment program, and (d) all other residents who may need utilities before the City is able to provide them. 4. Finally, the answers to these foregoing questions should protect the interests of the bond holders who financed the system. On August 6, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners recommended that the issues be resolved within 30 days. Please lot us know when you are able to schedule the hearing. The County staff will be available to work With your staff to develop answers to these questions. Thank you. Richard N. Bird, Chairman Board of County (,ommissionet;s ■ JUN 19 '91 12:49 407 ��`•7La City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589.5330 n FAX (407) 589.5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET FAX # DELIVER TO: w FROM: l" F.1 '5 40t 07 -�) DATE: �� /�' TIME SENT: ,Ivo TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET$) RE: / ORIGINAL WILL ( ) WILL NOT ( FOLLOW. /(J IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL 407-589-5330 JU1Y 15 '51 12:49 407 586557 0 ` City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407).589-,9330 FAX (407) 589.5570 'Al F -t x -7—,): 'Fo , C i- w e/, c s q. Cr. c /vseG/ _ 5` 1-e �4:d r Cn., �L- /Z- c Ae u Telephone: (4071567-8000 June 17, 1991 Dear Customer: 1 -1 B. _RD OF COUNTY COMMIS& ..HERS 1840 25th Strut, Vero Bauch, Florida 32960 1 Su; WO ORX�� RECE�VEq - JUN 19 1991 P.3,5 V Telephone: 224.1011 This is to advise you of the completion of the North County Sewer Project. In accordance with your reservation agreement (representative copy attached), the Board of Countv Commissioners approved the initiation of the monthly billing of base facility charges as established in the Indian River County Rate Resolution 91-31. As authorized by your reservation agreement, beginning June 1991, you will receive a bill for the base facility fees. You may refer to the Reservation Agreement, Section A-4, for a more detailed explanation. Please review the billing carefully and verify the number of ERUs billed correspond to the number of ERUs you reserved. Our Customer Service Department is available to assist you Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at 407-567-9021. We encourage you to contact us if you do have questions. Thank you, DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES Enclosure (LK:NCSWLTR.DOC) F. 4 'S 5mbat HA8TER WASTEWATER CAPACITY RESERVATION AND CONSENT TO SPECIAL ASSESSNLNT FILED FOR REC( e4 -E t bit) VEIMN 870EC-2 Atli. NFHFOA WNR411 VIA 6F CM11 C =117VEI GO.J By d4'y J'T0—" . EE4TIDN A IAN Cunits reserves theDnumberVER of equivalentoRIDA residentialthe forth above ("290211) got .� of wastewater treatment plant and transmission capaci as defined in county ordinance 84-18, as now or hereafter amended and supplemented (the "Reserved tms"), for the property describe • t' above (the "Property"), under the terms and conditions not forth herein and subject to the j policies -and practices of the County an its Division of Utility Services "Utility (the Division") of gene application with respect to the reservation of wastewater treatme• transmission plant and capacity in the County now or hereafter established. Terms and conditions " . 1. The county plana to construct certain wastewater treatment plant and transmission facilities in u " accordance with pl: and specifications on file with the Utility Division (the "Project"). The CountyProwill use its beet efforts to complete the g e andjwillectbnotubesresponsibletdoes not fee constructiontdelays. completion ? i a G> the County does not guarantee that wastewater service will be availabl ;; to a r the Property upon completion of the Project. The availability wastewater service e may require the construction of additional transmission lines, laterals and other facilities as well as facilities to connect the plumbing systems on the Property to the county,$ wastewater system. Construction of t $ any ouch additional facilities by tpho'County bay require further special assessments the :: representationainst al$ madenreyoardingother thecosts dates Onthe any such whicheconstructionNa additional facilities will be commenced. Propertexamine the andowner project nature, or completed. Th determine the twtbe amount Ofshould additionalfacilitiesPlans before wastewater service be whichill required will availably to the Property. The County expecte to able to have and will a use its best efforts to have we tewe ter treat ea stment plant capacity available for the Roservec ERUe when service is desired by the Property owner and otherwise available. If the County does not have oithin such capacity available period of time after•emch date, the atreasonable an Property y time thereafter prior to much capacity becoming available, shall have the right to cancel the reaervation for the Reserved ERUe by written notice thereof to the County. Such cancellation shall not be affective until a written instrument indicating had been.recorded so by the County in the Public records of the County, such cancellation shall not affect the Special Assessment, an h'arsinatter defined, in any manner whatsoever, Including without limitation, the tame Of payment thereof. In the event Of such cancellation the County hereby agrees to six pay Within (6) months after the duo date of the last regularly scheduled installment of the Special Assessment, regardless of any prepayment to the owner of the Property as of the data of such payment an amount equal to theecial eofscancelsment aid thereon. The foregoinc gright lationlshalllinterest paid exclusive remedy of the the and csale owner of the Property agminsteethe in the event that such capacity is not so available, ih no avant anal: the owner of the Property have the right not to pay the special Assessment. Z• This reservation runs with the land and may not at any time be sold,. transferred, or assigned by the Property owner,. except to the County with itwritten s consent or in connection with the sale of fee simple title to the Prooarty_ �1 1� JL, 4_1i F'. G..:C Y l- 7. If the entire Reserved ERUs are not reasonably expected to be needed for the Property, the County may reclaim the excess ERUs (the "Excess ERUsn) for resale by written Instrument, the original of which shall be recorded in the public records of t County and a copy of which shall be sent to the Property owner. Upon receipt of payment for the Excess ERUs and any impact fees an special assessments in connection therewith by the county from the purchaser of the Excess ERUs, the county shall refund to the owner of the Property as of the date the Excess ERV& were reclaimed an amount equal to the amount paid prior to the date the Excess ERUs were reclaimed for the Excess ERUs and any impact fees and special assessments in connection therewith, exclusive of interest and cos, j associated therewitht provided,.however, that the County's obligation to make such refund shall be limited to the amount received from such resale. The County will be under no obligation — to find a purchaser for the Excess ERUs. Any amounts received by the county from the purchaser of the Excess ERUG in excess of the i amount refunded shell belong to the County. 4. Commencing with the first month following completior of the Project, the Property owner will be required to pay monthly bass facilities charges established by the county. In the event V. base facilities charge with respect to any unused Reserved ERU9 is not paid within 30 days atter becoming due and payable and after demand of the county, such unused Reserved ERUs may be reclaimed b) the County in the manner set forth in paragraph ] and the county &hall be entitled to resell such unused Reserved ERUs. Upon any • such resale, the County shall make a refund in the amount and manne set forth in paragraph 7, provided that the county shall deduct fre the refund the amcunt of monthly bnae facilities chargee due and accruing to the date of the resale of the unused Reserved ERUS. S. It is expressly understood and agreed that one of th Wturoses fthis insttis to prohibit scin asewaterteatmentPlant and transmission epaeity. THE UNDERSIGNED, the owner of the Property defined above, for himself and his heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors and designs, for value received, hereby irrevocably agrees to the foregoing and, pursuant to County Ordinance 86-88, as amended d to the imposition ofu8pspecial dassessment , further iin lizater consents with respect to the Property in the amount set forth above (the "Special Assessment") and agrees to the terms and conditions thereof an set ` forth in said ordinance and the resolutione of the County now or hereafter adopted pursuant thereto. The Spacial Assessment shall be payable in ten (So) annual installments together with interest on the outstanding amount thereof at a rate not to exceed two percent (22) above the interest rate on the bonds to be issued by the Count% in connection with the Special Assessment. The entire outstanding amount of the Special Assessment may be prepaid at any time provider the accrued interest thereon and an appropriate interest and/or prepayment charge is paid together therewith. It is understood and agreed that fallure to pay the special Assessment, interest thereon or any other charge appurtenant thereto may result in foreclosure and loss of title to the Property. The property owner further agrees that the amount of the Citstandinq Special Aaaesement and the interest rate thereon may be Increased by the county in connection with the refunding of any issue CC outstanding bonds of the county eacured by a•.pledge or.the Special Aeaassment by written instrument, the original of which shall be recorded in the public records of the county and a copy of which shall be sent to the Property owner; provided that the amount ofthenOutstanding Special Assessment and the interest to be paid thredf%r is no greater than that which would have been Payable without such increasa or decrease. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 Honorable Richard N. Bird Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 82960 RE: County Utility Franchise Dear Chairman Bird: GH&R TAC JUN 12 1991 File #. 40,07--1 June 7, 1991 I am in receipt of your letter dated May 24, 1991 on May 31, 1991 regarding the County utility franchise. Please be advised that the City is in the process of completing, through Hartman and Associates, an engineering analysis report which will be presented to the City Council in late June or early July of this year. I believe this document will help to answer many, if not all of the questions you have posed in your May 24 letter. That we will address the questions raised in your letter should not be doubted. As soon as the hearing has been finally scheduled, we will notify Terry Pinto immediately. We will also make available a copy of the final report when it is completed by Hartman and Associates. You and any other representatives of the County are certainly more than welcome at the public hearing. We will of course continue the cooperation and communication which Mr. Hartman, Hal Schmidt, Jr., and Mr. Cloud have had with their counterparts at Indian River County. Sincerely yours, Wi i S! Ccers City of Sedan cc: Sebastian City Council Robb McClary, City Manager, City of Sebastian ,/Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire Gerald C. Hartman, P.E., Hartman and Associates, Inc. Reading Board =:1 '91 120 -�9 407 5F'&Z570 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET FAX # DELIVFJL-TO: �/1d �.� ��Qii 'Ili- FROM: laL FROM: DATE: C' TIME SENT: 36) TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (I�NCCL�UDING COVER SHEET) % RE: l ,'0 /i--! -//-, '/' � '' _t l „ /./7 , .. P,1 ORIGINAL WILL ( ) WILL NOT FOLLOW. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL 407-589-5330 0 rev. 10/25/89 FAX.TRA MAY 31 '91 12:39 40 -- - P"ARD OI' COUNTY COMMIS" )NERS .. -1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 3 ,460 Telephone: (407) 567.8000 May 24, 1991 Honorable Will E. Conyers City of Sebastian Post Office Box 780127 Sebastian, FL 32978-0127 Re: COUNTY UTILITY FRANCHISE Dear Mayor Conyers: F. 2/3 Telephone: 224.1011 Some weeks ago the City of Sebastian requested that the County relinquish its franchise rights to provide water and sewer service within the City so that the City could become the utility provider. The County indicated that it had no objection to doing so if that was the wish of the Council and would cooperate in every way that it could. Our staff has met with representatives from the City, namely, Hartman & Associates, as engineers, Thomas A. Cloud, from Gray, Harris & Robbinson, as attorneys, and your City Manager, Rob McClary. Our latest communication from your representatives is dated April 18, 1991, in a letter which indicates generally that as soon as possible the City will develop plans for the transfer from the County to the City of the Utility operation. I'm enclosing a copy of that letter. During this transition period, it would be very helpful to the County to have certain information from the City so that the County Utilities Department can plan and construct the appropriately -sized capital facilities necessary for the. remainder of the County program, and so that the County will know how to treat the customers who have bought capacity in the County system but who are within the City limits. In particular the County would like to know if the City will hold a public hearing to revoke the franchise. We ask this since, although the County has no objection to returning the franchise, there may be rights accruing to City customers of the County system which will need to be addressed by the City Council a the public hearing. Secondly, the County would like to know if there will be a temporary loan of County capacity. Third, the County needs to know how the County �,1aY 31 '31 12:40 407 583yZ-70 �., P.3/3 Honorable Mayor Conyers May 24, 1991 Page 2 should handle current connection requests from customers who have purchased capacity in the County system but who will become customers of the City system when the City system is ready. Finally, the County would greatly appreciate having a time table for all important aspects of the City takeover. Our planning requirements are such that an answer within thirty days would be of great help. The County will make its utility and legal staff available to the City Council at any public hearing on the franchise revocation matter, or at other meetings on the project. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Richard N. Bird Chairman RNB/Cb cc: Board of County Commissioners ) . ) 46107-4 H[ KI MAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineers, hydrogeologists, scientists & management consultants May 3, 1991 HAI i/91-064.00 Mr. Terrance G. Pinto Utilities Director Utilities Services Division Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394 Subject: City of Sebastian/Acquisition of the General Development Utilities, Inc. Water and Wastewater Facilities Dear Mr. Pinto: It was a pleasure meeting with you on Monday, April 29, 1991, at your office, to discuss the City of Sebastian's acquisition of the General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU) water and wastewater facilities. We are fully aware of the urgency required for our report to be completed in a timely manner, so that the County can proceed with the planning of their water and wastewater facilities. At our meeting, we discussed the need to obtain from the County the following items: ° Existing County's rate structure. ° County's ordinance for a franchise fee. ° Cost of service rate study. Master plans (water, wastewater and effluent disposal). As of Friday, May 3, 1991, we have yet to receive these documents. Pldase forward the above documents to my attention at your earliest convenience so that the project can be SOUTHEAST BANK BUnDING • SUITE 1000.201 EAST PINE STREET • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839-3955 • FAX (407) 839-3790 PRINCIPALS: JAMES E. CHRISTOPHER • CHARLES W. DRAKE • GERALD C. HARTMAN • MARK I. LUKE • MARK A. RYNNING • HAROLD E. SCHMIDT, JR. completed in a timely manner. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. Harold E. Schmidt, Jr., P.E. Vice President HES/ch cc: Robb McClary, City of Sebastian Tom Cloud, GHR Gerry Hartman, HAI } BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vera Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407) 567-8000 May 17, 1990 Mr. Robert S. McClary City Manager City of Sebastian Post Office Box 780127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 SUBJECT: FRANCHISE FEE Dear Rob: Sumom Telephone: 224-1011 Thank you for refreshing my memory as to the terms of the franchise agreement. You may wish to discuss the matter with the mayor to assure the new administration agrees with the 6% amount. We are also prepared to proceed with the purchase of General Development Utilities; please let me know when we can meet to discuss this process. Another very important issue is going to be the expansion of lateral and service lines within the utility service areas in Sebastian. The cost for such improvements are gong to be assessed, which necessitates action by your council. It would be worthwhile to discuss that procedure. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincergel , e e G. Director of TGP:cew Pinto Utility Services (WSEBFRAN.TGP):cew i REC :;','; D MAY 1 5 q9Q :321 Mai„ Street. Sebastian, Fl. :x2958 May 14, 1990 Mr. Rob I° iCC:larj--vil':y i'1aY'ager City .if Sebastian 122S Main StrewL. ebast.ian,Fl Dear Rob I Really ,'i„ nt?'t. i:l"iC:,w INi1e1'fi! to -direct 1'Ily questions so as usual I will address them to you. I •woul:i like to know if the citizens of the city and, the north county are going to be subjected to the ".forced feed" sewer's. I have always been of the opinion that the "gravity system" was the most efficient way to handle this immense problem. I would hope that: the City of Sebastian and the Indian River County will stand firm and require the "gravit'y'" system for all of the North county. It is frightening to think that any person, with the interests and well being of the people at this end of the i.ounty,would e've'n consider the. "forced feed" system as, the solution to our problem. Sincerely, Bootie Briggs C:oF-ys. to: Sebastian City C_unci1 Indian River County -County manager b Council RE' .'7 TO MAY 321 Main Street Sebastian, Fl. 295, May 14, 1999 Mr. Rob Mccl .ry-r .i t.'.,, Manager City r of __ebastia r 1225 Main street. Sebas'tia i,hl. ._ .l:'y._i E 1. Dear Rob; I Really do not know where to direct my questions so as usual I will address, them to you. I 'would like to know if the citizens of the city and, the north county are going to be subjected to the "forced feed" sewers. I have always been of the opinion that. the "gravity system" was the most efficient way to handle this immense problem. I would hope that. the City of Sebastian and the Invi an River County will stand firm and require the Nravit.y" system for all of the North county. Itt is frightening to think i:hat any person, with the interests and welt being of We people at this enol of the count:`y',would even consider the "forced feed" system as the sol.uLion to Our problem. Sincerely, & I Bootie Briggs Copy t.� � ; Sebastian City Council Indian River County -County manager & Council J. CHARLES CRAY GORDON K HARRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PACE, JR. PHILIP H. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS J. WILKES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL. JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS,= LEO P. ROCK, JR. STEPHEN A. MILDER G. ROBERTSON DILG CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIRSCHENBAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES DZ FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. GaaY, HARRIS & Aoslxsox PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 3066 DB ANDD, FL 32802-3066 GLASS BANK BUILDING SOS NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 320757 COCOA BEACH, FL 32932-0767 TELEPHONE (407) 843-8880 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 FAX (407) 2M-8890 FAX (407) 783-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando April 19, 1991 �el.5/G /—/ THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MOKRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH S. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. GUINN, JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK K. MCMULLEN ORLANDO L EVORA SUSAN D. TASSELL FREDERICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E. BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY L COTTER TRACY A. BORGERT JOHN B. SHOEMAKER LISA J. FRANK' MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENBAUM OF COUNSEL '.CNBC. OF NEW ...K !AR O"L, VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Charles P. Vitunac 407/567-9323 Indian River County Attorney 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Indian River County/City of Sebastian Meeting of April 17, 1991 Dear Mr. Vitunac: I am writing you this letter as a follow-up to our meeting in your office yesterday in Vero Beach with Commissioner Scurlock, Jim Chandler, Terry Pinto, Robb McClary, Gerry Hartman and Hal Schmidt. We sincerely appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and discuss the initiation of activities necessary to transfer the utility franchises back to the City of Sebastian and create interlocal cooperation agreements between the City and Indian River County. While our discussions yesterday were of necessity conceptual, I nevertheless feel encouraged by the progress made on an outline for future agreements between the City and the County. As we stated yesterday, the City is investigating the feasibility of acquiring the GDU Water and Sewer Systems and is considering development of a city-wide water and sewer utility. As Mr. Hartman indicated yesterday, acquisition of these systems by the City is a necessary prerequisite to the City's development of its own water and sewer system. The GDU Franchise Agreements contemplated such acquisition by the City in a reasonably expeditious manner. We also discussed our willingness to investigate with the County as rapidly and as prudently as possible options related to service areas and flow treatment. We acknowledged then (and now) that the City of Sebastian has to play "catch-up" ball and act as expeditiously as possible, consistent with sound public policy. We t, GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Charles P. Vitunac April 19, 1991 Page 2 understand that the County is working to expand its North County Wastewater System and needs to know the City's intentions with regard to the transfer as soon as reasonably possible, subject to prudent engineering, financial, and legal analysis. As was discussed, construction of treatment plant and transmission facilities is way ahead of the construction of collection facilities. I believe that we agreed to work together cooperatively and expeditiously to work through a transfer of the franchises, consistent with protecting innocent third parties, continuity of service, the County's legitimate concerns, and during this interim period, maintenance of "business as usual" for the County. It is our further understanding that Mr. Pinto will be our technical contact with the County and you will be our legal and financial contact with the County. We also agreed that the City would be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on system connection application during this interim period. Again, we sincerely appreciate the courtesy and cooperation which you and the County showed the City and its representatives at our meeting. Gerry will be contacting Mr. Pinto in the very near future to obtain copies of documents and plans which the County offered to make available to the City. Gerry and I will also begin work on completion of the schedule, briefing document, and draft agreements. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Co Tally (Zou-d,4squi ours, Vom4ask GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON, A. Special Counsel to the City of Sebastian TAC:jlm 40107-1 cc: Commissioner Doug Scurlock (via facsimile) Jim Chandler, County Administrator (via facsimile) Terry Pinto, County Utilities Director (via facsimile) Robb McClary, Sebastian City Manager (via facsimile) Charles Nash, Sebastian City Attorney (via facsimile) Gerald C. Hartman, P.E. Hal Schmidt, Jr., P.E. GRAY, HARRIs & RomNsoN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Charles P. Vitunac April 19, 1991 Page 3 bcc: City of Sebastian Councilmembers Gordon H. Harris * * *** OF -250 ******* *** -JOURNAL- ********* * DATE RPR -19-1991 ***** TIME 12:27 * * * NO. COM DOC DURATION XOR IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME DIAGNOSTIC I ' 25 OK 03 00:02'20 XMT T 919513741 RPR -19 12:25 8404402C0SOO -GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON - ******************** -PANASONIC- ************************** - 1 407 244 5690- *********** J. CHARLES GRAY GORDON H. HARRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE J^MES F. PAGE. JR. PI-IILIP M. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS J. WILKES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL. JR. J. MASON WILLIAM;, III LEO P. ROCK. JR. STEPHEN A. HOLDER G. ROBERTSON OILG CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. HIRSCHENBAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES III FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET 503 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 3008 POST OFFICE BOX 320737 ORLANOO,FL 32802-3068 COCOA BEACH. FL 32932-OTBT TELEPHONE (AOT) 843-8880 TELEPHONE 1407) 783-2218 FAX (407) 2Y-8890 FAX (407) 783-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO' Orlando ��9L9/ DATE THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MORRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH 5.NERNANDE2 PAUL S. OUINN. JR. DAVID L. SCHICK JACK K. McMULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN O. TASSELL F RED CRICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E. BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. BOROERT JOHN B. IMOEMAKER LISA J. FRANK' MALCOLM R. KIRSC.KNBAUM OF COU ... L •MfMRfR 01 .,P FOR YP ..L1 FAX COVER SHEET Please Note our New FAX # 407-244-5690 TO: /X�/P/G� //aai"I. FAX #: FROM: //�J/Y�CIS 4'e • C /6 C/M #: # OF PAGES . 3 (including cover sheet) RE: V0 7195-1-3 7SX/ -101,17-1 This facsimile message may contain privileged and confIdential Tnfoxnation intended Only for the individual named above. if the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dlssendnatiGn, distribution or copying of this cOMIMM-L•aticn is prohibited. If this co—(cation vas received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address above via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. If any `problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: /ems at extension o21 ****** OF -260 ** ** ** * -JOURNAL- ********** * * DATE APR -19-1991 ***** TIME 12:25 ***** * NO. COM PAGES DURATION X/R IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME DIAGNOSTIC f. 23 OK 03 00:02'48 XMT T 915679323 APR -19 12:22 840440280800 -GRAY,HARRIS&ROBINSON - *********************** -PANASONIC- *********************** - 1 407 244 5690- *********** J. CHARLES DRAY GORDON M. MARR13 RICHARD M. ROB INSON PMILLIP R. FINCH PAM[LA O. PRICE DAMES F. PAGE. JR. PHILIP M. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS J. WILEE3 THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSMAL4 JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS.$ LEO P. ROCK. JR. STEPHEN A. HILDER D. ROBERTSON DILL CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIRSCHENSAUM JAMES W. PEERLES $ FORREST S. FIELD5, JR. GRAY, HAiRgIs & AoBINsoN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET SOS NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 3038 POST OFFICE BOX 320737 ORLANDO, FL 32802-3068 COCOA $EACH. FL 32932-075T TELEPHONE (407I 843-0800 TELEPHONE 1407) 783-2218 FAX (407) 2A4-8890 FAX (407) 783-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando �/19/r DATE THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MORRIS ALAN R. aUTTCRWORTM D ESORAM S. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. OUINK JIM DAVID L SCMICK JACK K. MCMULLCN ORLANDO L EVORA SUSAN 6 TASSCLL FREOE RICK W. RICHARDS PIC HARD L BURRO LORI P. BCNTON A.TNOMT 'COTTER TRAC' A. BOROCRT JOHN S. SHOEMAKER LISA, J. FRANK' MALCOLM R. KIRSCHENSAUM OF CO .... L 'M[NCL. O. MCW TOw YR .., FAX COVER SHEET Please Note our New FAX # 407-244-5690 TO: L /�7�L �5 i �cc�a FAX #: '/J7�/--)Z 7- 93x..3 FROM: /�a0Y1t�5 ��GC�_ C/M #: ydioJ—� # OF PAGES 3 (including cover sheet) RE: w/Gt/c2IJ C d, G .�6a57�iE�J �il This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual named above. If the reader of this message 1B not the intended recipient, Or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this commmication is prohibited. If this ca n+cation was received in error, please immedi tely notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address above via the U.S. postal Service. Thank you. If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: nem at extension a�/ loalk /*k * **** OF -250 ***** *** * -JOURNAL- **** **** *** DATE APR -19-1991 ***** TIME 12:24 *** * C NO. COM DOC DURATION X/R IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME DIAGNOSTIC 24 OK 03 00:01,50 XMT T 915895570 APR -19 12:22 840450AC7820 -GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON - ******************** -PANASONIC- 1 407 244 5690- *********** J CHARLES GRAY 11 ORDON M. HARRIS RICHARD M. R031NSON PHILLIP R. FINCH Pr.M ELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE. JR. PHILIP H. TREE, WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS J. WILKES TM 0MA3 A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. J. MASON WILLIAMS. III LEO P. ROCK. in. STEPHEN A. HILOER G ROBERTSON GILD CHARLES W. SELL JACK A NIRSCMEN,AUM JAMES W. PEEPLES $ FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. GRAY, HA$aIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL A550CIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 /Y/ 14 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING 201 EAST PINE STREET 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 3068 POST OFFICE BOX 120757 ORLANDO, FL 32802-3068 COCOA BEACH, FL 32932-0757 TELEPHONE (407) 643-8880 TELEPHONE (407) 781-2218 FAX (407) 2A4 -S800 FAX (407) 183-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO! Orlando D)XTE THOMAS C. S.A. PAUL J. MORRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTM DEBORAH S. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. OUINK JI, DAVID L SCMICK JACK K. McMULLEN ORLANDO L EVORA SUSAN P TASSELL FREDERICK W. gICMARO3 RICHARD L SU KE LDRI q. BENTON ANTHONY } COTTER TRACE A. BOROERT JOHN B. SHOEMAKER LISA } FRANK• MALCOLM R. KIRSCNENBAUM OI COUMBEL •M[u B[K 01 KCR IOP[ MP O.LI F -Ax COVER SHEET Please Note our New FAX # 407-244-5690 TO: —d66 22 � FAX #: 71,97 ac� -�S%O FROM: / 6/Y7a,6 /Y/ 14 C/M #: `zd10 # OF PAGES �12 (including /cover she�Jet) RE: ire :75>L a�5/cL /�i �/ D•,=� .4 14 This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential infoxnntion intended only for the individual named above. If the reader of thin message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reviev, disBeminatinn, distribution or copying of this cam kation is prohibited. If this cu"S""2nicati0n was received In error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address above via the D.S. Postal Service. Thank you. If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: \ e /— at extension -*) // J. CHARLES GRAY GORDON H. HARRIS RICHARD M. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE. JR. PHILIP N. TREES WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS J. WILHES THOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MARSHALL, JR. J. MA50N WILLIAMS, $ LEO P. ROCK, JR. STEPHEN A. HILGER G. ROBERTSON DILG CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. NIR5CHENBAUM JAMES W. PEEPLES $ FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. VIA TELEFAX GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING 201 EA57 PINE STREET POST OFFICE BOX 3080 ORLA.T O, FL 32802-3068 TELEPHONE (407) 843-8880 GLASS BANK BUILDING SOS NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 320737 COCOA BEACH. rL 32932-0767 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 FAX (407) 2M-5690 FAX (407) 783-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando April 5, 1991 The Honorable Richard N. Byrd Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1040 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Byrd: THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL J. MORRIS ALAN R. BUTTERWORTH DEBORAH S. HERNANDEZ PAUL 5. OUINN, JR. DAVID L. SCMICK JACK K. McMULLEN ORLANDO L. EVORA SUSAN O. TA55ELL FREDERICK W. RICHARDS RICHARD E. BURKE LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY J. COTTER TRACY A. BORGERT JOHN B.SHOEMAKER LISA J. FRANK' MALCOLM R. NIRSCHENBAUM OF COUNSEL 'MCMBER OF NEW YORK BAR ONLY This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1991, re- garding the County's offer to "relinquish its franchise rights within the City of Sebastian." My law firm has been retained as special counsel to the City to advise it regarding these matters. During a public hearing of the City Council this past Wednesday, April 3, 1991, the City Council authorized me to accept the offer which you extended on behalf of Indian River County. This acceptance is subject to completion of the necessary documents containing terms and conditions acceptable to the City and the County so that the agreements, ordinances, and resolutions may be rescinded in such a manner as to not impact innocent third parties. I will be contacting the Indian River County attorney in the very near future to set up a meeting time where representatives from the City can meet with appropriate representatives from the County to complete this matter in an expeditious manner in a way which protects the public. The City sincerely appreciates the County's willingness to deal with this problem. Mr. McClary, the City Manager, Mr. Hartman, our engineering consultant, and I look forward to meeting with your representatives in the very near future to complete this matter. GRSY, IIARRIS & ROBIIS..,T PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION The Honorable Richard N. Byrd Page 2 If you or anyone else at the County have any questions re- garding this matter, please do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely yours, Thomas A. Cloud, Esq. Gray, Harris & Robins , P.A. Special Counsel to the City of Sebastian TAC:wpc cc: Mr. Charles Vitunac, Indian River County Attorney Mr. Robb McClary, City Manager Mr. Gerald C. Hartman, Hartman & Associates 77/30:287/0 S ******* OF -260 ********** -JOURNAL- ******** ** DATE APR -05-1991 ***** TIME 16:16 ****** * NO. COM PAGES DURATION X/R IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME DIAGNOSTIC 28 OK 03 00:01,30 XMT T 915295570 RPR -05 16:15 e40450RC7820 -GRAY.HARRIS&ROHINSON - -PRNASONIC- *********************** - 1 407 244 5690- *********** Ii.. :G p J. CHARLES ORA, GORDON H. HARRIS RICHARD N. ROBINSON PHILLIP R. FINCH PAMELA O. PRICE JAMES F. PAGE. JR. PHILIPH. TRCKS WILLIAM A. BOYLES THOMAS J. WILKES TMOMAB A. CLOUD SYRD P. MARSHALL. JR. J. MASON WILUAMS.M LEO P. ROCK. JR. STEPHEN A. MILDER G. ROBERTSON DILG CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIRSCHCNSAUM -AMCS W. PEOPLES III FORREST S. FIELDS, JR. GR&Y, KAig-giS & ROBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITC 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING 201 CAST PINE STREET 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 3068 POST OFFICE BOX 320757 ORLANDO. FL 02802.-3060 COCOA BRAca. FL 329372-0767 TELEPHONE (AOT) 643-8860 TELEPHONE (4OT( 7e3-2218 FAX (AO)( 2AA-5690 FAX (A071 780-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO! Orlando Aep- I L DATE THOMAS C. a.. PAUL J. MORRIS ALAN R. SU1CRW0RTH DEBORA. S..CRNANO,, PAUL S. OUINK JM DAVID I- SCHICK JACK K. NSM yLLCN ORLANDO L CVORA SUSAN D. TASBCLL FREDERICK W. RICMAROS P.C.... C.'U... LORI R. BEMTON ANTHONY y CO,TCR TRAC. A. BOROCBT JOHN B. SHOCMARCR LISA } FRANK' N.LCOLM B. KIRSCNCNBAL. OF COUNSEL •u[Y[[K OF uCF .O.[ W G." FAX COVER SHEET Please Note our New FAX # 407-244-5690 TO: FROM: II OWI (Loup FAX #: 4 - 58 9 - 5576 C/M #: # OF PAGES 3 (including cover sheet) RE: This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential infozmmttan intended only for the individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, diss+nAtinn, distribution or copping of this cin; atioa is prohibited. if this COlem7nicatl n was received in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to vs at the address above via the U.S. postal Service. Thank you. If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: J'60C at extension % I ( •****** OF -260 **** ****** -JOURNAL- *********** * DATE RPR -05-1991 ***** TIME 16:14 ******* NO. COM PAGES DURATION X/R IDENTIFICATION DATE TIME DIAGNOSTIC 27 OK 03 00:02'19 XMT T 915679323 APR -05 16:12 840480280800 -GRAY,HARRIS&ROHINSON - -PANASONIC- *********************** - 1 407 244 5690- *********** J. CHARLES OKAY GORDON H. M1gR13 PIC MARO M. RO0.NSO1 PMILLII. q. FINCH PAMCLA O. PRICE JAMES P. PAGE. JR. ..LIP H. TR CES WILLIAM A. BOYLCS -HOMAB J. WILKES -NOMAS A. CLOUD BYRD F. MAq SMALL Jq. JMASON WILLI A.8.$ LEO P. POCK. JR. STEPHEN A. MILDER G. ROBERTSON GILD CHARLES W. SELL JACK A. KIR5CHENSAIIM LAMES W. PEEPLES III IORREST S. FIELDS. JR, GRAY, HABSSS & AoBINSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200 SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING GLASS BANK BUILDING 201 CAST PINC STREET SOS NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 3058 POST OFFICE BOX 320757 OHLAN00. FL 3280¢-3068 COCOA BEACH. FL 32932-0757 TELEPHONE (HOT) 8A3-eB30 TELEPHONE (407) 783-2218 1AX I-071 2AA-5590 FAX (AOT) 7e3-2297 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL PLEASE REPLY TO: Orlando APp-IL S 199 DAT THOMAS C. SHAW PAUL 1 MORRIS ALAN R. SUTTCRWORTH DEBORAH S. HERNANDEZ PAUL S. QUINN, JIM DAVID L SCHICK JACKN MCMULLEN ORLANDO L- EVORA SUSAN O TASSCLL F RC OCRICK W. RIC ... as RICHARD o SUR.. LORI R. BENTON ANTHONY , COTTER TRAC. A. BOROCRT JOHN B. SHOEMAKER LISA J. FRANK' MALCOLN R. 41RBCMC NBIIVM OI COUNSEL 'u EMBER OI HlW TORP W ORLI FAX COVER SHEET Please Note our New FAX # 407-244-5690 TO: Cii4} Rrtlpf&1 Rk(_p ab FAX #: FROM: (D YYl ALO t )p C/M # # OF PAGES 3 (including cover sheet) 467 7-'532-3 RE: 5 EgA-S i i A -/J L J A- rC S�"2Jc'lZ L� 62 ��"3l1 El f �p Lc`�45E _Dti.! VIER C) C,IJA-( {2.Yh q+/ B1-- WLLSS f o AI . This facsimile message may cootAin privileged and confidential infoz #a,Fcn intended only for the individual named above. If the reader of tihia message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, YOU are hereby notified that any review, disBe ination, dis rlbution or copying of this comeaa.F-atian i.s prohibited. If this comffi[+,cation was received in error, please imme iAtelt' notify na by telephone and return the original message to us at the address above via the O.S. Postal Service. Thank you. If any problems are encountered with this transmittal contact: J�FNET at extension -Af Z I -aP 21 '91 12:30 407 559 5570 P.5i6 ARD OF COUNTY COMMIS, 02VERS .11 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone:(407)567-8000 March 13, 1991 Honorable W. E. Cor City of Sebastian Post Office Box 127 Sebastian, FL 32958 - Dear Mayor Conyers: Re: no: 2241011 Approximately six years ago it became increasingly clear to the residents of the North County area and of the City of Sebastian that the public interest would be served by having public water and sewer. The County, through the efforts of Commissioner Scurlock and Utilities Director Terry Pinto, initiated discussions with private citizens who advanced $25 per person to fund a feasibility study to be performed by a consulting engineer. There were enough voluntary payments to fund the study, which indicated that it would be feasible to construct a public sewer system. The County presented these findings to the City of Sebastian, and after numerous public hearings the City entered into a long-term franchise with the County. The franchise was necessary for the County to have the authority to provide sewer service within the City limits, and for the County to be able to borrow the money to construct the system. The main security for the repayment of the debt used to construct the system was a voluntary lien given by property owners who reserved capacity in the system. At no time was anyone forced to join the system, and at no time did the County build capacity in excess of that necessary for the people who were paying for the system. As was made clear during the public hearings in Sebastian, the impact fees paid by these volunteers would pay only for the 'plant itself and for the main transmission system. The County and the City entered into another agreement which obligated the City Council to hold assessment hearings for individual line assessments to connect areas of the City to the main County -installed line. This would be an additional cost. How to conduct the hearing and what manner of assessing the people who would be paying for the connection line was always a matter within the discretion of the City Council. MCR 21 '91 12:31 407 559 5570 F.6i6 r 10**) Honorable W. E. Conyers, Mayor Page two City of Sebastian March 13, 1991 After completing the legal papers creating the franchise! . after eompleting.the.court action validating the County bond.issue, and after selling approximately $5.6 million in' Countybonds; 'the County undertook the employment of consulting engineers and contractors who recently completed the. plant and force main so that the plant is now ready to accept customers --from the individual connecting lines built under separate assessment programs. The County Commission became aware through articles in the Vero Beach Press Journal that some Sebastian residents were dissatisfied in -So a manner:.with :how :the County is proposing. connection of the customers to the main system and with the cost of the impact fee and service connections. . The County read in the newspaper that -the City authorized-tr, City Attorney to investigate employing an attorney with expertise in utility matters "to ' see if the City could legally revoke the County franchise. In response to the newspaper articles, Utilities Liaison Commissioner Don Scurlock and several staff members talked with you on the telephone to ensure that the newspaper article was correct. In that phone conversation, Commissioner Scurlock indicated that he would recommend to the full Board that. the County agree- to relinquish its franchise rights_ within: the City of Sebastian if fiiat *was what the City Council wished. At the March 5, 1991, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the Board unanimously approved that policy, asking only that the, City Council let the County know within 30 days of its decision, since the County is now in the process of hiring a consulting engineering firm to expand the North County wastewater treatment plant. If the City does remove itself from the County sewer program, it will no. longer be necessary to expand the sewer plant. The County's only interest from the beginning has been to assist the City of Sebastian and the residents of the North County area in getting the utility service that they requested. The County will cooperate with the City in whatever manner the City desires. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird Chairman RNB/Vk City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 March 19, 1990 I Mr. Terry Pinto Indian River County Utilities 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: North County Sewer Project Dear Terry: Indian River County has plans to install a force main and lift station on property owned by the City of Sebastian. The sewer main would be installed along the driveway to the City Golf Course and a lift station would be constructed near the parking lot. Since this driveway is not a publicly dedicated right-of- way, it technically would not qualify under the terms of the franchise granted to Indian River County as an easement. Therefore, an easement in favor of Indian River County would be necessary for the installation of these waste water facilities. The City of Sebastian wants to cooperate with Indian River County and it will be my recommendation to the City Council to grant an easement to you for nominal consideration (e.g. $10.00 and other valuable and good considerations). Will you prepare an appropriate legal instrument dedicating an easement from the City of Sebastian to Indian River County for utility purposes. Since this is on airport property, the City will need to request approval of the FAA. I also request, in addition to a metes and bounds legal description defining the easement that your surveyor submit a survey plat. Mr. Terry Pinto Indian River County Utilities March 19, 1990 Page #2 I would have no objections should your contractor wish to proceed in installing the improvements prior to finalizing the legal documents for the requisite utility easement. However, I must add a disclaimer that the City Council will make the ultimate decision and that I am in a position of merely making a recommendation to them. Should you have questions,will you please call? RSM/jmt cc: Sincerely, ` Robert S.. McClary City Manager Will E. Conyers, Mayor & Sebastian City Council Jo Anne Townsend, Assistant City Manager John Van Antwerp, Airport Manager Bill Vincent, Golf Course Business Manager David W. Fisher, Engineering/Public Works Director Charles I. Nash, City Attorney l BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407) 587-8000 April 7, 1989 #160 ERNESTINE PARK 1651 I�TH PLACE VERO BEACH FL 32960 Sl ncom Telephone: 224-1011 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 11 ��rP &)l 9 2)J3 SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -87 -25 -SC IMPACT FEE PREPAYMENT PARCEL I.D. NO.; 06 31 39 00002 0000 00004.0 Dear Property Owners: We are now ready to proceed with funding for the North County Regional Wastewater System. Prior to finalizing the financing for this project, we need to dete ne which property owners wish to prepay the Impact Fee a 1 250 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), or finance the fee o period with applicable interest. ,350 per ERU over a ten year Please respond May 8, 1989 whether you wish to prepay or fl the impact fee. wish to $1,250 er ERU will be due by June g prepay, your payment of e impact fee by that date, we will assume you9. Ifyou wishotootfiprea nancethe payment of interest. $1,350 per ERU for ten years at applicable If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call (407) 567-8000, extension 404. Sincerely, Ernestine W. Williams Manager of Project Administration Department of Utility Services EWW:h (HSEBPRE2.EWW) PARK -#160' BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS 1840 251h Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960 Telephone: (407) 567.8000 April 7, 1989 #76 ERNESTINE'PARK Suncom Telephone: 2244011 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Ssy piy b� 1651 11TH PLACE VERO BEACH FL 32960 '• SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -87 -25 -SC IMPACT FEE PREPAYMENT PARCEL 110. 31 30 39 00001 0000 00002.5 Dear Property Owners: We are now ready to proceed with funding for the North County Regional Wastewater System. Prior to finalizing the financing for this project, we need to determine which property owners wish to prepay the Impact Fee at $1 250 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), or finance the fee of 1,350 per ERU over a ten year period with applicable interest. Please respond by May 8, 1989 whether you wish -to prepay or finance the impact fee. If you wish to prepay, your payment of $1,250 per ERU will be due by June e, 1989. If you do not prepay the impact fee by that date, we will assume you wish to finance •---2:4Q-P435Wl - elf $1,350 per ERU for ten years at applicable interest. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call (407) 567-8000, extension 404. Sincerely, �n Ernestine W. Williams Manager of Project Administration Department of Utility Services EWW:h (11SEBPREP.EWW) PARK -076 jj i. yt7/ e?e,(f -'ex 2 3r. 2 slo ----------- 7 -7. 7e __3 _529 - 'o/ Oe- 9,--,, /3 Zito BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1,940 25111 Strccl. Vem Rrncll. 1•'lorlcla .729(;() Telephone: (407) 5678000 April 7, 1989 #160 ERNESTINE•PARK 1651 11TH PLACE VERO BEACH FL 32960 Suncom Telephone: 2241011 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED SUBJECT: 14ORTH COUNTY REGIONAL, WASTEWATER SYSTEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -87 -25 -SC IMPACT FEE PREPAYMENT PARCEL I.D. NO.: 06 31 39 00002 0000 00004.0 Dear Property Owners: We are now ready to proceed with funding for the North County Regional Wastewater System. Prior to finalizing the financing for this project, we need to d�tne which property owners wish to prepay the Impact Fee at per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), or finance the fee350 cr ERU over a ten Par period with applicable interest. —L25— Please y" Please respond CU ---y May g, 19gg whether you wish -to prepay or fi the impact fee I -f y 66 wish to prepay, your payment of $1,250 er ERU will be due by June 8, 1989. If you do not prepay e impact fee by that date, we will assume you wish to finance the payment of $1,350 per ERU for ten years at applicable interest. Tf you have any questions, please 567-8000, eXtension 404. Sincerely, J Ernestine W. Williams Manager of Project Administration Department of Utility Services EWW:h (HSEBPRE2.EWW) PARK -0160 do not hesitate to call (407) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Teleplmne: (407) 507-0000 February 3, 1989 ----------- ,ON •--..._. 31 30 34 00001 u000 00007.,5 ;hal -PAR K,E:PNFAT INL 1651 11111 PL VE:R11 11F.hC11 FL 3.2060 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM •SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN LIEU OF IMPACT FEES Dear Property Owner: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Sebastian, Florida (the "Council" and "City", respectively) will meet on February22nd 1989, at 7.00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at Sebastian FforinnT I Inose owners of property to be assessed Special Assessments in Lieu of Impact Fees ("Assessments") and any other interested persons. The City has approved certain improvements which consist of the acquisition and construction of alterations, extensions, and additions to the sanitary sewage collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal system facilities of Indian River County, Florida (the "County"), within the incorporated limits of the City, more particularly described in plans and specifications on file with the County (the "Project"). The Assessments are being made in connection with the Project, are being made only with the written consent of the owners of the properties to be assessed, and are in lieu of the impact fees otherwise imposed by the City. A description of each property to be assessed and the amount to be assessed to each property may be ascertained at the office of the City Clerk. The Assessments shall be paid in ten (10) equal annual installments together with interest Assessment at a rate not to exceed two percent (2%) above the interest rate on bonds to.be issued by the County in connection with the Assessments. If any installment is not paid when due, the entire outstanding amount of the Assessment, together with the accrued interest thereon and an 0C February 3, 1989 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN LIEU OF IMPACT FEES appropriate interest and/or prepayment charge, may be declared immediately due and payable. Any Assessment or installment thereof not paid when due shall be subject to a penalty at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or portion thereof until paid. The entire outstanding amount of any Assessment may be prepaid at any time provided that the accrued interest thereon and an appropriate interest and/or prepayment charge is paid together therewith. The Assessments shall be levied against the properties to be assessed on the basis of the number of Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) assigned to and reserved for each such property. Any lien upon an assessed property resulting from an Assessment shall be extinguished upon the recording in the Official Records of the County of an affidavit or affidavits executed by appropriate officials of the City and the County to the effect that the applicable Assessment has been paid in full or that sufficient security has been deposited with the City or the County, as applicable, in order to insure timely payment of such Assessment. In appropriate cases, particularly for large properties,;letters of credit or other security may be required in order to secure payment of the Assessment with respect to the property. At the above named date, time, and place, the Council will receive any complaints of interested persons as to the Project and the Assessments. After due consideration of any such complaints, the Council may take any action it finds to be just and right with respect to the Project and the Assessments. The Assessment is $1,350.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit. Our records show that you have reserved —L_ ERUs. If you wish to increase the reserved units, please let us know before the scheduled Public Hearing on February 22, 1989. You may contact this office at (407) 567-8000, extension 404. Sincerely, Terrance G. Pinto Director of Utility Services TGP: h (SEBNOTIC.EWW) -2- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 18.10 251A Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (3051 6670000 December 18, 1987 31 30 39 UDUJ)I 01JU0 wou2.5 PA11K, ERNE;STINL. 1651 11T11 Pie VERO BEACH He 32900 Dear Propeirty Owner: SEli LNIIS \1 $1,20 'I a 1 ... .. ..........ice Suncnm Telephone: 224 101 1 We are In the final stages of levying an assessment against your property for capacity you agreed to reser%e at the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. The enclosed formal document is for your review and outlines the terms and conditions under which you accept the capacity reservation. The form you signed before was only an expression of your Interest to participate; whereas, the enclosed form says "yes, I want to proceed.11 Please sign and return the document In the enc Ioseel, self-addressed envelope to the Indian River County UlIIIIy Services Department by December 31, 1987. Because of the legal requirements in setting up an assessment roll, you will not be eligible to participate in the proposed financing of your impact fees if the signed document is riot returned by December 31. If you have any questions regarding the document, please contact Jeff Barton at 567-8000, Ext. 458. Sincerely, 1�/j1''.11 // /(116_1 r,, TePrA' G. PInto, Director Utility Services Department Enclosures PB/WI( AARk r DISTRICT NUMBER LETTER OF INTENT NAME OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: r TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: PARCEL NUMBER OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: J(ilt'('�'�l � �� 'iO•S�i (J('l'<)) t��1C1("' Cmc' �C°��1 � � � S � 1 (.10o 1) ooco oo[,ral-(> I (WE) WILL COMMIT TO NUMBER OF ERUS ell SIGNATURE DATE _zz I CL(y Of SebastULn Deborah C. Kre9' IAN. FLGlly CoxPOST OFFICE BOX 127 ❑ SEB3A 158 53g0IDA 32958-0127 Gene Harrla TELEPt1ONE 51 Mayor ' luau 7. `i, l9kG !'rt' n:rty uw«r•r: disposal r' hear ;;nhaw;W" ? awai.Cerl ar..raSew�Lcorcidor. itn?lemcltt ' luu&i`lo«3 the U•• is abouL to S owners CuutlLY husi« o�S disl:cict co arty intlian Rive?- Coo«N r r«auber of property tltu Iaullity roc the NuLtlt book up to yStum ilea: bernt`L'11amit:rled then?jelves to study fur the salr�adY A feaslhiliLY r velopteit in in on. as an,( Sebastian avtail:a?1'' 1'urtS,ec cununen;ial le the System as Soun as i arc crquiccl If ,uiremeot iC wc: wish rt' at. I t limits. Th`: cel is uoc:esSaLy City rocm describes 'lltiS Facility Llr „r til:: �eu•':it.i.an uucJOS Ld (,liltlSa), I'hc Lha :irhaSti.an busi«eaa dist.cicc. pddil.lu«ul cunwti►ur,r, '' uivulu„t It,:sldcul i,cu uelrl'J sysC m is 1. C, br; r-:.Lr:udett Chu cu:. i•! fur. 711(1 muni 1.1 is tlta ineVitabl�«st how Eu dutcctl,t” tilt' L;ItI1S loc your Irni:cl i:; obvious aud`iloo a ounsiderat)le Chi:; p the?a i:: than later values that. w111 Lolluw, uu«ecLiOR «o;i rather euvia:o?:muotal bu«ettl of v trserviul; Yo`tc ineruaso i« pcupr:cty uu fur v'•luuCaril• lar health reasuus. Way be required to du ht:«elit. to Y whan you mtY t.o n Ituarantced «c at a Gime ,,:rSt/, you may bo. Y ullr culmaj C.meuL nut' i i l I,eL• liltll. IVIN fed of $1... ,lf L ,t tart to twenty year 1:�.,, r.u:+t our 1 ion. uVeC „u k' I u,C nn:, tr,,, a, at Y per Lod- y�eosed at. uu dr:lay, , :na be a' t „ynu:nC will be l,etr.r uuut(-np Ecus fr y rrnnt can• 1° hither rale:: Maiful.lrk jhpi.LL„Lrr"r• >roceed. e,lui L,:d al. Lin: Litt' :•sur'ntlat pro" may 1 tic: ur.,.'1 your prong ?t• cumtilnn:nl sn tl:.et. Lh;a . Me=srntl vnur ?rep►Y ort t►�'; enr.lnSud form • •."uLur .)ufl"cey ISactoo, �:;SL::LG:lI Uti..t..l:., luJian River County 0, ,US 175111urid«. 1 lilt Veru Leach, 'llw"K you. Siu�:rel} Yours, MUHICIPAI CODE CORPORATION Supplement Department PO Boz 2235 Tallahassee, FC 32316-2235 Code Supplement No. 20 02/08/90 He have received the following material. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Resolution No. R-87-6. 1 -800 -262 -CODE (National) CAP 1.800 -312 -CODE (Florida) MA U.S.POS iAG[ ,.� FEB -t%- I9 •�I: it i<` ;s> _I 5 '�f't. p. p;f ri • e � ; AZ: ` — � K TOi Ms. Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE City CIerV City of Sebastian PO Boz 780127 Sebastian, FC 32978 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 ` TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 I February 1, 1990 Robert Laslie VP - Supplements Municipal Code Corporation PO Box 2235 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Dear Mr. Laslie: Upon review of city files, it was discovered that the enclosed Resolution No. R-87-6, granting a water and sewer franchise to Indian River County, was never sent to you for codification. Please include in City Code of Ordinances, Appendix B -Franchises. Sincerely, Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE City Clerk KOH/sam 1 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' J 1840 25th Street, Veru Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407) 567-6000 January 25, 1990 Mr. Robert McCullum 501 Durant Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 RECEIVED L 9 6JO 1 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER PROJECT Dear Mr. McCullum: This letter is to respond to your inquiry to Chairman Eggert concerning the status of the North County Wastewater Project. The contracts have been awarded on the entire project. Notices to Proceed were issued on December 17, 1989. Construction time allowed for the project is 300 calendar days from the date of the Notice to Proceed. Actual construction was started within the first two weeks of January 1990. Please call 567-8000, Extension 458, assistance. Very truly yours, ,�Lw / Harry .E. Asher Assistant Director of Utility Services HEA:cew if I can be of further cc: The Honorable Carolyn K. Eggert Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Indian River County (WNCSTAT.HEA):cew City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 M E M O TO: Robert McClary City Manager FROM: Bruce Cooper Director of Community Developmwrt DATE: April 21, 1989 1-� L REE: North County Regional Waste Water System Indian River County has requested the City of Sebastian to respond by May 8, 1989, regarding the method of payment for the City's impact fee (ERU's) for the North County's waste water system. The City of Sebastian has voluntarily committed 14 ERU's (Equivalent Residential Units) for 6 properties the City of Sebastian owns, such as City Hall and the Golf Course. The City can either prepay the full amount of $17,500 (14 ERU x $1,250.00 per ERU) or finance an amount of $18,900.00 (14 x $1,350.00) over 10 years. The County will charge $100.00 over the prepaid amount of $1,250.00 per ERU plus 2% over their finance charge, to cover administrative costs'for the financing. Indian River County anticipates the financing to be completed within 90 days, at which time the interest will start to accrue, if the City elects to finance the impact fee. Please let me know how you wish to proceed with this matter. BC:jk r9nI> Telephone: (407) 567-8000 April 7, 1989 huARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Veru Beach, Florida 32960 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED #149 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY HALL, MAIN STREET SEBASTIAN FL 32958 a SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US-87-25—SC IMPACT FEE PREPAYMENT PARCEL I.D. NO.: 06 31 39 00000 0010 00014. Dear Property Owners: We are now ready to proceed with funding for the North County Regional Wastewater System. Prior to finalizing the financing for this project, we need to determine which property owners wish to prepay the Impact Fee at $1,250 per Equivalent Unit (ERU), or finance the fee of $1,350 pr1ERU overRastenntial year period with applicable interest. Please respond by May 8,.1989 whether you wish to prepay or finance the impact fee. If you wish to prepay, your payment of $1,250 per ERU will be due by June 8, 1989. If you do not prepay the impact fee by that date, we will assume you wish to finance the payment of $1,350 per ERU for ten years at applicable interest. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call (407) 567-8000, extension 404. Sincerely, Ernestine W. Williams Manager of Project Administration Department of Utility Services EWW:h (HSEBPRE2.EWW) SEBASTIAN -#149 TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 M E M O R A N D U M Ms. Ernestine Williams Manager, Project Administration Bruce Cooper /J�//r_ O Building Officia2yV Robb McClary City Manager September 30, 1988 ERU Attached are the application forms to represent the City of Sebastian's commitment to participate in the I.R.C. sewer project for all City owned properties that have improvements. Below is a list by name and tax parcel number and the estimate of ERU's: 1. 06 31 39 00005 0002 00001.0 City Hall 11,575 Sq.Ft. Council Chambers 3,360 Sq.Ft. Bldg. North of Council Chambers 3,360 Sq.Ft. Ambulance Building 2,100 Sq.Ft. TOTAL: 20,395 Sq.Ft. Divided by 3,000 = 6.7 or 7 ERU 2. 22 30 38 00001 0000 00000.1 Golf Course/Restaurant 3 ERU 3. 30 30 36 00001 0020 00001.0 Community Center 1 ERU 4. 06 31 39 00000 0060 00007.0 Yacht Club 1 ERU 5. 06 31 39 00011 0010 00001.0 Riverview Park 1 ERU 6. 06 31 39 00011 0010 00001.0 Library & Police Station 2 ERU TOTAL: 15 ERU BC/dhm nn ./ i-- THOMAS C. PALMER ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 145, 1627 U.S. HWY. #1, SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32958 305-589-7550 January 11, 1988 TO: L. Gene Harris, Mayor RE: Sewer Assessment for property on City Hall parcel of land. Bruce Cooper has calculated that the correct amount of the equivalent residential units (ERU's) for the City Hall, City Council Chamber build and rest rooms, the building North of the City Council Chambers, and the ambulance squad building is 6.67, rounded off to 7 ERU's. This equates to an assessment of $8,750.00. I phoned Mr. Jeff Barton at the County Offices and he advised me to change the numbers of the City's application and execute the form and return it to the County as amended. The forms are attached hereto for execution. Thomas C. Palmer encls: as stated City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ms. Ernestine Williams Manager, Project Administration L� FROM: Bruce Cooper Building Officia THROUGH: Robb McClary City Manager DATE: July 28, 1988 SUBJECT: ERU Attached are the application forms to represent the City of Sebastian's commitment to participate in the I.R.C. sewer project for all City owned properties that have improvements. Below is a list by name and tax parcel number and the estimate of ERU's: 1. 06 31 39 00005 0002 00001.0 City Hall 11,575 Sq.Ft. Council Chambers 3,360 Sq.Ft. Bldg. North of Council Chambers 3,360 Sq.Ft. Ambulance Building 2 100 S Ft TOTAL: 20,395 Sq.Ft. Divided by 3,000 = 6.7 or 7 ERU 2. 22 30 38 00001 0000 00000.1 Golf Course/Restaurant 3 ERU 3. 30 30 38 00001 0020 00001.0 Community Center 1 ERU 4. 06 31 39 00000 0060 00007.0 Yacht Club 1 ERU 5. 06 31 39 00011 0010 00001.0 Riverview Park 1 ERU 6. 06 31 39 00011 0010 00001.0 Library & Police Station 2 ERU BC/dhm TOTAL: 15 ERU `P •meq St City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 M E M 0 TO: Robert McClary City Manager FROM: Bruce Cooper j Building Office DATE: July 22, 1988 REF: Estimate of ERU Below would be the proposed ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit),for the County's Sewer Project for all City owned properties. City Hall 1st Floor 6400 sq.ft. Council Chambers 2nd Floor 5.175 sq.ft. Building North of Council Chambers 3360 3360 sq.ft. sq.ft. Ambulance Building 2100 sq.ft. TOTAL 20395 sq.ft. Divided by 3000 = 6.7 or 7 ERU Community Building 0 30 38' / 3 0 /. c 1 ERU Yacht Club G S ! 3Q o jpmo 7, 0 1 ERU Golf Course/Restaurant_2 z z_`Q ooLo 3 ERU Riverview Park ^ �I 3 i1 ERU i �• •• ( ° 70' ----TOTAL 13 ERU i BC/ldf 0 IGS 3/ 3 9 aomoo av e? 2 >;�. STEVEN LULICH ATTORNEY AT LAW LETTER OF COMMITMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN We (I), and undersigned whose mailing address is ❑ P.O. NOR 1390 Mo.Hlen, ►L 229WI390 (aos) Wasson the owners do herein commit ourselves to connect to the Indian River County sewer system when installed. The legal description* of our property is We (I) will commit to a total of Residential Units. DATE This Form Prepared By: STEVEN LULICH, ESQUIRE, (305) 589-5500 Chairman, Sebastian Economic Planning and Development Council ** Equivalent *If space provided is not sufficient, attach legal description. **Information required to fill in this blank: Call Ron Brooks at (305) 567-8000, ext. 461. Give him the number of Units you plan to build, or the zoning classification and number of units allowed to be built. He will be able to provide you with the Equivalent Residential Units. If you need the Zoning Classification and number of units allowed to be built on your land per acre, call the Planner of the Day at (305) 567-8000, ext. 259. You will need to tell him the number of acres you own to obtain the total number of units you are allowed to build on your land. Then call Ron Brooks. If you need further assistance in completing this form, please call Jeffrey Barton at (305) 567-8000. 1 THOMAS C. PALMER ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 145, 1627 U.S. HWY. 01, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 305-589-7550 December 11, 1987 TO: Mayor and City Councilmen -'f DEC t t 1987 �C rU'I 1 Re: Two resolutions proposed by Indian River County on City Council Agenda for December 16. Terry Pinto of Indian River County Utilities Department and County Attorney Charles Vitunac phoned me on the morning of Friday, December 11, to discuss the two resolutions mentioned above and that are in the back-up material for the meeting of the City Council of the 16th. Mr Vitunac and Mr. Pinto will both be out of town on the 16th and cannot be available for the City Council Meeting. If any one has any questions Mr. Pinto asked that anyone phone him of Monday or Tuesday at 567-8000 and he will be pleased to answer any questions anyone may have. Thomas C. Palmer �.rr BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHARLES P. VITUNAC 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 County Attorney K Telephone: (305) 567-8000 F, t�,� Suncom: 224.1425 BRUCE BARKETT Asst. County Attorney SHARON PHILLIPS BRENNAN Asst. County Attorney Nov !T i 7 .A. City Clerk Kathryn M. O'Halloran P.O. Box 780127 Sebastian, FL 32978-0127 i Re: North County Sewer\Psd��e%t Dear Ms. O'Halloran: As per your request, please find attached copies of copies of signed documents in connection with the referenced matter. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Sincerely, COUQ1NTTY/ ATTORNEY'S OFFICE C - 1 P "'U LK/J1 Lea R. Keller Enclosure City of Sebastian L. Gena Harris POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978-0127 Mayor TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 November 6, 1987 I Mr. Charles Vitunac County Attorney Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Vitunac: Kathryn M. O'Halloran . City Clark A check of our records reveals that we have never received a response to our letter to you dated January 23, 1987 - copy attached. Would you please send us a signed copy of each of the following documents: City of Sebastian Resolution No. R-87-6 - GRANTING TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY A WATER AND SEWER FRANCHISE IN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF SEBASTIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Thank you. Very truly yours, n Elizabeth Reid Administrative Secretary LR Enc. 1 Cil�l Y' Sebasttttlt L. Gene Harris POST OFFICE BOX 127 ❑ SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32958-0127 Mayor TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 January 23, 1987 7 Mr. Charles Vitunac County Attorney Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Vitunac: Kathryn M. Benjamin City Clark Enclosed are the following documents relative to Water 4nd/or Sewer Services which have been signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk: ORDINANCE NO. 0-87-01 (Copy) - RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF WATER AND/OR SEWER SERVICES TO THE CITY BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (Original) RESOLUTION NO. R-87-6 (Original)/=pGRA ING TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY A WATER AND SEWER FRANCHISE IN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF SEBASTIAN. RESOLUTION NO. R-87-7 (Copy) - RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERGOVERN- MENTAL AGREEMENT. 6gLLL 6'ic We would appreciate your returning copies to us of the two original documents when they have been properly signed. Very truly yours, Elizabeth Reid Deputy City Clerk LR Enc. J. CLINTON SCOTT' CHARLES L. SIL. K' HARVEY R. SCHNEIDER, P. A. LAWRENCE B. ABRAMS III' LEE ANN FIVEASH MARK L. KRALL ADAM G. HEFFNER BRADLEY J. GUNNISON- PAUL A. LUNDBERG' 'ALSO ADMITTED TO THE PENNSYLVANIA BAR Thomas C. Palmer, Esquire City Attorney City of Sebastian 1037 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 Dear Mr. Palmer: RHOADB & SINON ATTORNEYS AT LAW BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 SUITE 308 1200 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY TELEPHONE (305)395-5595 TELECOPIER (3031 393-9497 FILE NO. 1 January 19, 1987 BIB BEACHLANO BOULEVARD VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963 TELEPHONE 1305) 231-2523 410 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O. BOX 1146 HARRISBURG, PA 17106 TELEPHONE 1717) 233-5731 TELECOPIER (7171 232-1439 Enclosed please find the original and a blacklined copy of the Indian River County franchise documents which reflect the changes given to,us by Charles Vitunac. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, s 6 Sinon fL 2Jf�� y: Lee Ann Fiveash CC: Charles P. Vitunac, Esquire Enclosures ('41Y a/' sebash-MI L. Gene Harris POST OFFICE BOX 127 fl SEBASTIAN. FLORIDA 32868-0127 M.'.' TELEPHONE (306) 5BO.5330 January B, 19B7 I Mr. Terrnt Pinto 11f it it ies fteparrm,mt Indian Piver Cnuntq 1890 25th .Street V.•rn Oearh, Florida 72960 Pe,ir Mr, Pinto: Kathryn M. benlnnln City a.,w Pursuant tr, the rouurYl of Joseph Balyd at Nie .ip&rial Council Workshop Moot Lnl ort Januarq 7, w,- are enrinsiny the f,-,Ilr,wlny documents with the pr--vosed ,•h-nnlr•:i nbvlo bil the- r'nunril: Ordinance relarinq to the prnvisinn of water and/or sewer services to the City bq Indian River County, Florida Re-snlut inn grar:t iriq to Indian River County- Florida, a water abd >--wer franchise in the inrorpnrared limirs of Aehant inn. Flr,rnbr Rre;nlulinn approvim,t .:n int.•rynvrrrnmental agreement bq and between flit- f:itq and Indian River County, Florida relat inq to the pr; -vision of water and/nr sewer services It there are toq quest tons I.R Fnr, please do nor hesitate to call. Very truly yours, 1�a2r47k Kathryn M. Benjamin City Clerk CLr�) THOMAS C. PALMER ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 145,1MII MMERK1 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 305-589-7550 December 1, 1986 TO: Mayor and City Councilmen RE: North County Water & Sewer Service I Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith are the following proposed items: 1. A Resolution Granting a water and sewer franchise to Indian River County. 2. An Ordinance providing for water and sewer service, impact fees, special assessments, and authorizing certain interlocal agreements. 3. Resolution approving interlocal agreement. 4. Interlocal agreement. These papers are presently as submitted by the County to the City with one exception: I propose to add a new paragraph 9 to the Franchise Resolution entitled "Franchise Consideration" (see page 4 of Resolution) which adds a franchise fee payable to the city. If the Council desires to take any action on any of these matters on December 3rd the only action that could be taken would be a first reading on the proposed Ordinance and setting public hearings on the Ordinance and both Resolutions. The City needs to acquire from the County certain underlying County Ordinances relating to service and fees. I am going to obtain copies of same as soon as possible. Thomas C. Palmer Encl: Ordinance two resolutions one agreement �l November 20, 1988 TO: CAROL CARSWELL FROM: ELIZABETH REIDf �' For your records, this will confirm that the City Chuncil at their Regular Meeting on November 19 passed the following Motion: MOTION BY COUNCILMAN VALLONE, SECONDED BY MCCARTHY, TO TAKE FROM SURPLUS FUNDS THE SUM OF $39,507, FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 �. Telephone: (305) 587-8000 November 13, 1986 Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 1'11(' q2� 1 _g _ �iGV 1 11 19II5 ,i O Mayor Gene Harris 1• �� .�v; City of Sebastian PO Box 127 Sebastian, FL 32958 RE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER EXPANSION PROJECTS Dear Mayor Harris: Please allow me the opportunity to address the Sebastian Commission regarding the. Indian River County Water and Wastewater System Master Plan. Our consultants have outlined the proposed costs of expanding water and wastewater service to the Sebastian area as outlined below: Boyle Engineering. Inc. $23,373.00 water Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. 11.134.00 wastewater TOTAL WATER AND WASTEWATER COSTS $34,507.00 In the best interest of the City of Sebastian, I propose to outline the scope of work that will be performed associated with the costs outlined above. Please contact this office to schedule a time and date for this presentation. Should you have any questions please telephone 567-8000, extension 465. Sincerely, `l / vll�-jg/ l�?J' TERRANCE G. ZN 0 Director of Utility Services feel free to contact me at F MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • LAND PLANNERS Poet Office Box 1046 Sebastian. Florida 32968 13061 589-4800 September 23, 1986 Mr. Terrance G. Pinto, Director Indian River County Utilities Department Post Office Box 1750 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Notth County Subregional Sewer Feasibility Study and Report/Indian River County, Florida File #86004, Work Order #1046 Dear Terryt I am pleased to enclose nine (9) final signed and sealed copies of the referenced study and report, for your review, information and distribution. By copy of this letter, and in accordance with your request, I am also transmitting two (2) final signed and sealed copies of the referenced report to Mayor Harris in order that the City of Sebastian may familiarize themselves with the contents of the study and )report prior to the upcoming public meeting on September 25, 11986. I wish to express Commission for giving this study and report. EHM/pp my appreciation to you and the County our office the opportunity G prepare Beat regards, MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Earl H. Masteller, P.E. President enc / cayor Harris/City of Sebastian NORTH COUNTY SUBREGIONAL SEWER' FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 m MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. P. O. BOH 1045 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 SEPTEMBER, 1986 EARL H. MASTELLER, P.E. C3I �b TABLE OF CONTENTS Authorization ................................ 1' General Background ........................... 2 Need for Public Sewers ....................... 5 a Objectives ................................... Study Area...................................11 Proposed Sewage Collection/Conveyance and Treatment Facilities...................12 Coat Estimates...............................19 Phaae I Coat Estimate ........................20 Summary and Recommendations ..................21 Authorization This 'North County Subregional Sewer Feasibility and Report" has Study been prepared, and is presented, based on a continuation of Indian River County Work Aut*orization N4, dated March 12, 1986. The original Wor k Authorization called for a study and report to Bawer the Roseland area of Indian River County and portion& of the City of Sebastian, -In response to that Work Authorization, our offio• prepared, completed and submitted the "Roseland Area Sewer Feasibility Study and Report," dated May, 1986, to Indian River County. The Report was accepted by Indian River County and subsequently the Study area to be sewered was substantially expanded to the south. The County requested ,our office to revise and amend the original Roseland Area Feasibility Study and Report" to include the newlySewer study area.expanded area Our office made a comparison of the new study with the original Roseland Area and concluded that the revisions and amendments could not be properly addressed by simply revising the "Roseland Area Sewer Feaaibility Study and Report." Therefore, the "Roseland Area Sewer Feasibility - Study and Report" will remain in tact and we have prepared this new report entitled "North County Subregional Sewer Feasibility Study and Report," dated September, 1986. Much -1- Of the contents of the "Roseland Study and Report" will be used in this report. The "North County Subregional Sower Feasibility Study and Report" will cover a contiguous study dIroa generally bordered by the Sebastian River to the north, the FEC Railroad to the west, and the Pelican Pointe and Village of Lake Dolores development projects to the south. The report contains Exhibits which show Phase I service area limits; conceptual arterial "core" Bawer system layout; and the location of parcel numbers interested in connecting to sanitary sewers. The report also contains general background information regarding the County's ongoing water and Bawer programs; the need for and objectives of providing public sewer in the North County Subregional Area; a general description of the proposed arterial "core" public sewer system; a construction cost estimate and.recommendationa. General Background The Indian River County Commissioners, chrough its Utility Department, are moving forward with a progressive and well planned program of providing water and sanitary sewer facilities to the populated areas of Indian River County. About a year ago, a major water project was completed -2- 1 �1 involving the extension of 20" and 16" water lines from thevicinity of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue, generally west along Oslo Road and north along Kings Highway to Route 60, then west along Route 60 to its intersection With Intersate _. Route 95. The water project also involved the construction of a 750,000 gallon elevated water tank at the intersection of Kings Highway and Route 60. This I'major water project establishes the core of a water supply system for the Route 60 corridor of Indian River County, which is experiencing rapid growth. Subsequently, a major sewer project was constructed along the Route 60 corridor to furnish sewer service to this growth area. The sanitary sewer construction has been completed and primarily consists of an arterial or "core" system of pumping stations and force mains into which developers and existing development can connect. The sewer project also includes construction of a new 1.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant and effluent disposal facilities. These two major water and sewer projects are relevant to this study and report because they demonstrate that Indian River County has a proven track record of constructing projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. The same proven procedures used to construct the Route 60 projects are proposed for constructing the North County Subregional Sewer Project. -3- With regard to project financing, the Route 60 water and sewer projects were financed largely as the result of a financing partnership effort between Indian River County and private project developers who needed water and sewer facilities to make their projects viable. This arrangement has resulted in benefits to both Indian River County and the private developers. The County benefits by having the arterial water and sewer systems constructed at no additional cost to the existing cuatomsra of the utility systema, and the private developer benefits by having public water and sewer systems available for his project's use. The same partnership arrangement, with respect to financing between Indian River County and potential public sewer users in the North County Subregional area of Indian River County, is _ being proposed for this sewer project. As a matter of fact; the funding for both this and the previous "Roseland" sewer feasibility study and report has been generated through the use of a voluntary contribution of 025.00. per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) received by the County from many property owners interested in north County sewer service. The County has stressed that connection to the proposed sewer system will be voluntary and no one will be forced to connect, unless the lack of connection will result in a health problem. -4- It is anticipated that Indian River County will proceed with engineering and construction of the facilities deemed feasible as a result of the findings in this study and report through the use of the financing partnership between the County and private sector so successfully utilized on the two recent Route 60 corridor water and Dower projects. Need for Public Sewers The sanitary sewage needs of the North County Subregional service area are presently being met by the use Of scattered small package wastewater treatment planta and on-site septic systems. The use of package plants and septic Systems can be cost-effective and in harmony with the _ environment when located in rural areas with relatively loo Population densities. However, public sewers arc necesary in order to provide for protection of environmentally Sensitive resources and to sustain orderly growth of more populated areas. Since the early 1g80s, a growing number of civic leaders have been recognizing the need to provide public Sewers, particularly in specific areas of the north County and the City of Sebastian. The City of Sebastian has made repeated efforts to find ways of bringing about a City-wide public -5- sewer system without success. Since the area of need for public sewer does not respect political boundaries, it appears that the common need for public sewers is serving to form a partnership between Indian River County and the City Of Sebastian. First, let's discuss the need for 4 public sewer system in the North County Subregional Service Area of Indian River County as it relates to environmental considerations. The present discharge, either directly or indirectly, of package treatment. plant effluents and septic system effluents into the Indian River and Sebastian River must cease as soon as Possible. These two rivers are irreplacable treasures and amenities which make this area of Florida unique. They offer scenic beauty and recreational enjoyment. The present lack Of public sewers will not stop growth, but will cause continued increases in the pollution load discharged into the Sebastian and Indian Rivers. Since both of these bodies of water are Blow moving and have little flushing, they are prone to rapid pollution. The continued lack of public sewers will result in the destruction by pollution of these beautiful water amenities in the near future. The construction of a public sewer system which will intercept wastewater and stop pollution of the Sebastian and Indian Rivers is needed now. A second need for public sewers is created by the Planned growth for specific areas of the North County Subregional Service Area. A large portion of the land bordered by the Indian River on the east and the FEC Railroad on the west, and extending from the Sebastian River bridge south, is planned for various commercial uses, proper and s � orderly commercial development and growth can only occur if the infra -structure is in place to support it. One of the main elements of this infra -structure is the availability of a public sewer system. At present, the commercial node in Roseland at the intersection of U.S. Highway Ml and Roseland Road is growing rapidly even without the presence of public sewer. There are three (3) package plants in the immediate area of that commercial node and this, in itself, is evidence of the long over -due need for a public sewer system. It should also be recognized that there are some specific commercial enterprises which cannot exist without public sewers, such as; laundromata, car washes, large restaurants, and so forth. Therefore, public sewers are heeded in order to support balanced growth. Objectives The primary objective of this sews r feasibility study -7- and report is to establish a conceptual arterial "core" sewer System design which is cost-effective, environmentally sound, easily expanded, and acceptable to the permitting agencies. It must be understood that the proposed sewage collection and conveyance system has been conceptually designed to strategically locate and size primary pump stations and arterial force mains to serve the study area. Many property owners have shown support for this project by contributing $25.00 per equivalent residential unit (ERU) in order to finance .this and the previous "Roseland• feasibility study and report. The majority of these property owner's parcels are located within the proposed Phase I service area. A list of the parcel numbers, property owners, and the number of ERUs credited, based on the feasibility study fee paid, is included in the Appendix of this report under "Schedule 'A.'"• The location of these property parcels is shown on Exhibits ill through A5 which are included in the Appendix of this report. Subsequent to the completion of the "Roseland Area Sewer Feasibility Study and Report," and a public hearing in Sebastian early in May concerning the report, the City of Sebastian and Indian River County waged a campaign seeking additional support for this sewer project. From May to the present time, a large number of letters stating intent to -8- connect to the proposed sewer system have been received by Indian River County. The location of these properties, and number of ERUs associated with the properties, is the primary factor which has expanded the study area to the south and located the proposed wastewater treatment plant and disposal site to the west of the Whimpering Palms Mobile Home Park. Exhibits M1 through N5 included in the Appendix of this report show the North County Subregional Sewer Study Area for Phase I of the project, as well as the property parcel number locations. Schedule "B" in the Appendix of this report is a tabulation of parcel numbers, property owner names, total ERUs, and total ERUs included in the service area based on letters of intent received by Indian River County up to August 15, 1986. As can be seen by the Exhibits in the Appendix of thi's report, many of the parcel numbers are scattered with a good deal of area between them. This situation generally results in a very inefficient and costly sewer system design. It should be understood that the most coat-dffective sewer design results from serving the maximum number of possible sewer connections with the least length of sewer construction. A major objective of this sewer feasibility study and report is to design a conceptual arterial sewer system which -9- Will form the core of a permanent utility system as opposed to some interim system. The County wishes that any coat of capital construction will represent a true investment in its overall utility program. Therefore the conceptual engineering design will provide a core system which can be easily expanded as demand dictates and sized for the estimated ultimate buildout of the service area. As indicated previously in thio report, the objective of preventing environmental pollution is extremely important. There are sixteen (16) existing package wastewater treatment plants located in the study area. All of the package planta will be eliminated with the proposed project, with the exception of the River's Edge plant. These package plant locations are shown on Exhibits N1 through #5 included in the Appendix of this report, and the specifics of each plant are listed below: Capacity Name (MODS) Humana Hospital 0,030 ERUs Roseland Plaza 0.064 120.0 Riverwalk 0.020 256.0 Shady Rest 0.025 b0.0 E1 Capitan 0.060 100.0 Oyster Bay 0.015 250.0 Anchor Laundromat0.006 60.0 Sebastian Elam. 0.010 24,0 River's Edge 0.015 16.0 Aspen Whis Palms 0.040 60.0 Aspen Whis Plm Too 0,035 243'0 Breezy Village 0.015 242.0 New Horizons0.025 241.0 Vill/Lk Dolores 0.030 100.0 648,0 -10- Pelican Pointe 0.090 River Run 0.027 320.0 *Reflections 0.070 136.0 240.0 Total 0.577 3136.0 • Has no package plant - Pumps to GDU Plant In order to protect the environment, any Dower project should strive to eliminate as many of these sixteen (16) Package treatment plants as possible. In addition,, the objective of eliminating environmental pollution would dictate that public sewer serve the areas along Riverside Avenue ,in order to eliminate septic sewage from ultimately discharging into the Indian River. Finally, in line with the objective that a proposed wastewater collection system be designed as inexpensively as Possible with respect to its construction, the conceptual - design of the system will minimize crossings of the FEC Railroad and U.S. Highway N1. The conceptual engineering design will reflect an attempt to balance the minimum number Of pumping stations and force mains to serve the maximum amount of service area. . Study Area We have prepared five (5) - 24" x 36• sheets entitled "Exhibits" which are contained in the Appendix of this -11- report. These Exhibits use as a basis, aerial photographs taken late in 1985 at a scale of approximately 1" = 400'. All sheets can be fitted together to show the Study Area including a portion of the City of Sebastian. The Exhibits show the approximate location of each parcel number which has requested sewer service and has provided Indian River County a ` with a letter of intent up to August 15 1986. Also shown is the location of existing package wastewater treatment plants, and the proposed conceptual wastewater collection and conveyance systema. In order to determine the possible extent of the proposed conceptual gravity collection system with reasonable accuracy, spot elevations, based on U.S.C. & G. Datum, were determined by a surveyor throughout the study area. Proposed Sewage Collection/Conveyance and Treatment Facilities The Phase I service area, along with the•Proposed sewage collection and conveyance facilities, are shown on the five (5) Exhibits contained in the Appendix of this report. The proposed facilities have been engineered and laid out to address the objectives and needs stated in the previous sections of this report. -12- The Phase I service area is shown on the Exhibits. The service area covers approximately 2175 acres. If the total ERUa for the package plants (less River's Edge) are added to the total ERUs in the service area shown in •schedule 'g,•" the result is 4983 ERUs. Therefore, the Phase I service area contains a total of 4983 ERUs or 87% of the total ERUs which have expressed intent to connectto the proposed North County Subregional Sewer System as of August 15, 1986. The remaining 746 ERUs are not within the limits of the Phase I service - area primarily due to the fact that they are not close together and/or large enough to be cost-effective to sewer at this time. As can be seen on the Exhibits, the Phase I service area is bounded on the north by the Sebastian River, on the east by the Indian River, on the west by the FEC Railroad Tracks (except for the commercial center city area of the City of Sebastian), and on the south by the southern limits of the Pelican Pointe and Village of Lake Dolores developments. For the most part, the proposed collection and conveyance system consists of strategically located proposed Pumping stations and a series of force mains which vary in size from 6" in diameter to 16" in diameter. Several small sections of proposed gravity sewer are included in order to convey sewage from the existing Humana Hospital package plant -13- to pumping station 111, to convey sewage from the Roseland Plaza package plant to pumping station 112, and to make sewer service available and convey sewage from the portion of the City of Sebastian west of the FEC tracks to pumping station 113. A discussion of the proposed project components is presented as follows: a � Pumping Station #1 will serve a sub -area of approximately 291 acres and be located along Roseland Road. A section of gravity sewer will extend northward from pumping station' N1 to the Humana Hospital package treatment plant. The Riverwalk Shopping Center sewage will be directed to pumping station k1 and both the Humana and Riverwalk package plants would be phased out. Pumping station $1 would have a design capacity of approximately 600 gallons per minute, and discharge via a proposed 10" force main following the route as shown on the Exhibits. The 10" force main would pass by the Shady Rest package plant and the Shady Rest sewage would be pumped into the proposed 10" diameter force main thus allowing the phase out of the Shady Rest package plant. The proposed 10" force main would travel south along the west side of U.S. Highway 111, which would permit properties between U.S. Highway Al and the FEC Railroad to abandon their septic systems by installing small grinder pumps to pump their sewage into the proposed 10" force main, and 16" force -14- main from St. Sebastian Catholic Church south to the Whispering Palma Mobile Home Park. Pump station N2 services a sub -area of approximately 282 acres and would have a design capacity of approximately 600 gallons per minute. A section of gravity Bawer would extend north along Riverside Avenue and west along Roseland Read, and' provide for the connection of the Roseland Plaza sewer System and the phase out of the Roseland Plaza package plant. A 10• diameter force main would be construction south along Riverside Avenue, and sewage from E1 Capitan, Oyster Bay and the Anchor Laundromat would be pumped into the proposed 10" diameter force main thus allowing the phase out of these three package plants. Also, existing septic systema would be eliminated along Riverside Avenue by installing small grinder Pumps for discharge into the lo" force main. The 10• force main and the discharge from pumping Station Y3 would manifold into a 12• force main for connection to the 10• and 16• force main along the west side of U.S. Highway #1. Pumping station #3 would serve a sub -area of approximately 363 acres and have an approximate design capacity of 750 gallons per minute. A section of gravity sewer would extend westward from pumping station #3, crossing U.S. Highway •l and the FEC Railroad tracks, and terminating with a manhole in the general vicinity of Main Street and -15- Louisiana Avenue. It is anticipated that public and/or private development will collect and convey the sewage from the Sebastian City Hall area as well as the Sebastian Elemantary School and Orange Heights area, to the manhole provided at the intersection of Main Street and Louisiana Avenue. The sewage will then be conveyed to pumping station N3 via the gravity sewer and pumped south in the 16" diameter force main. a I Pumping station R4 serves a sub -area of approximately 102 acres and will have a rated capacity of approximately 220 gallons per minute. It is anticipated that public and/or Private, development will provide for the necessary gravity sewer extensions north and south of pumping station i4 for ultimate complete sewering of the area. Sewage from pumping station #4 will be discharged via a 6" force main west into the 16" diameter force main. The existing River Run pumping station will be retrofitted to serve a sub -area of approximately 54 acres and have a design capacity of approximately 180 gallons per minute. The River Run pumping station will discharge via a 6" diameter force main south, along the east side of U.S. Highway A1, and connect to the existing 6" force main which serves the Reflections project and presentlycroaaea U.S. Highway M1. The Reflections pumping station will serve a -16- sub -area of approximately 50 acres and be retrofitted to meet a design capacity of approximately 180 gallons per minute. The sewage from both the River Run pumping station and Reflections' pumping station will discharge into the 16" diameter force main along the west side of U.S. Highway ill. Thus, the River Run pumping station will allow the phase out of the existing River Run package plant. + The 16" force main along the went side of U.S. Highway k1 will turn west along the north boundary of the Whimpering Palms Mobile Home Park and permit the Whispering Palms sewage to be pumped into it, and the phase out of the Whimpering Palm wastewater treatment plant. The 16" force main then crosses under the FEC Railroad and terminates at the proposed wastewater treatment plant/effluent disposal site. The Exhibits show the Pelican Pointe pumping station to be retrofitted to serve a sub -area of approximately 80 acres and have a design capacity of approximately 300 gallons per minute. This will permit the phase out of the Pelican Pointe package plant. An 8" force main from the Pelican Pointe pumping station will travel north along the•east side of U.S. Highway #1 to Vickers Road and allow propertgaa between U.S. Highway #1 and the Indian River to connect to it by means of their own private pumping stations. The OR force main crosses U.S. Highway N1 and travels west along Vickers.Road -17- and allows the sewage from Whispering Palms "Too" to be pumped into it and the phase out of the Whispering Palma "Too" package plant. The 8" force main then crosses the FEC Railroad tracks where it connects to another 8" force main from the Village of Lake Dolores pumping station. The existing Village of Lake Dolores pumping station will be retrofitted to serve an area of approximately 150 acres and have a design capacity of approximately 350 gallons per minute. The existing Village of Lake Dolores package plant will be phased out and the Village of Lake Dolores pumping station will discharge via an 8" force main north along the west side of the FEC Railroad which will permit the Breezy Village sewage to be pumped into the 8" diameter force main and the phase out of the Breezy Village package plant. The 8" force main will then join with the 8" force main on Vickers Road and travel west in Vickers Road as a 12"• diameter force main turning north and into the proposed wastewater treatment plant/effluent disposal site. The sewage from the New Horizons Mobile Home Park w}11 be pumped into the 12" force main and the New Horizons L ckage plant phased out. The proposed wastewater treatment plant for Phase I will have a design capacity of 1,000,000 gallons per day and be designed as a secondary treatment plant. Indian River County COM is presently evaluating the site as shown on the Exhibit&. Appraisal reports are being prepared and an engineering study will be underway shortly to determine the effluent disposal capacity of the proposed site and the actual amount of land needed by the County to provide for the ultimate anticipated subregional capacity which may be required. For purposes of this study and report, we are assuming that effluent disposal will be by some means of rapid infiltration and that •only secondary treatment will be regired. We are, therefore, estimating that the first 1 MGD treatment plant and effluent disposal facility will require approximately 20 acres of land. However, we are anticipating the need for a total of 80 acres for the ultimate total plant capacity since this is the same area acquired by the County for the "West Subregional Plant." Cost Estimates yy �1 A cost estimate has been prepared for the proposed Phase I project as shown on the Exhibits and discussed in detail in this study and report. It should be understood that the cost estimate is prepared and presented for budget purposes and is subject to revision and refinement during the design stage of the project. -19- PHASE I PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Unit Total Item Description Units Cost Cost 1 Mobilization 1 LS 96,000 2 8" Dia. Gr. Sew. 2600 LF 20.00 52,000 3 10" Dia.Gr. Sew. 2300 LF 25.00 57,500 4 12" Dia. Gr. Sew. 800 LF 30.00 24,000 5 Manholes 24 1,200 28,800 6 Pump Stations 4 50,000 200,000 7 Retrofit Ex. PS 3 30,000 90,000 8 6" Dia. FM 2200 LF 8.00 17,600 -- 9 8" Dia. FM 7500 LF 11.0q 82,500 10 10" Dia. FM 20000 LF 13.00' 260,000 ` 11 12" Dia. FM 2500 LF 18.00 45,000 12 16" Dia. FM 16000 LF 25.00 400,000 13 Bore & Jack under U.S. #1 or FEC RR 750 LF 215.00 161,450 14 Seed & Mulch 36550 LF 0.45 16,450 15 Pvd Rd. Restor. 16700 LF 15.00 .250,500 16 1.0 MGD Secondary WWTP w/Rapid In- filtration Basins 1 LS 1,500,000 3,281,600 Subtotal of Construction Cost 83,281,600.00 10% Contingencies 328,160.00 Total Construction Cost 3;609,760.00 Engineering Design Fee 225,000.00 Land For Easements 50,000.00 Land For Plant/Diap. (80 Ac) 1,280,000.00 -TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: 85,164,760.00 • - Does not include any funds to cover interest during construction and/or financing expenses. As indicated previously in this report under the tabulation of ERUs, the Phase I service area contains 4983 ERUs. Based on the assumption that each one of these ERUa results in the payment of a 81,250.00 impact fee to the -20- County, the total revenues obtained for this project would be 96,228,750.00. This would result in an excess of revenues over expenses of approximately 41,063,990.00. Therefore, it appears that this project is very strong financially since there is a very comfortable margin of anticipated revenues over the total estimated project cost. I Summary and Recommendations This feasibility study and report for the North County Subregional Area of Indian River County has evaluated the possibility of constructing a public sanitary sewer system to be financed on the basis of proposed user financing and voluntary connection. Indian River County has a proven track record of constructing several recent water and sewer utility projects in this manner. The need for public sewers in the study a4d service area is stated in terms of environmental considerations and planned growth for specific areas of the North County and the City of Sebastian. Any proposed sewer eystem must be dasigned and constructed in a manner to satisfy these needs in addition to being cost-effective, environmentally sound, easily expanded and acceptable to permitting agencies. The proposed sewer project should also serve to eliminate all -21- possible existing package wastewater treatment plants and septic systems located within the service area. A thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the study and service area has been made using elevations obtained from field surveys for this project and recently prepared aerial photographs of the study and service area. Exhibits have _ been prepared and are contained in t�e appendix of this a report which show the results of our engineering evaluation and recommended sewer facilities. The proposed Phase I service area contains approximately 2175 acres and 4983 ERUs which represent over 85% of all property owners who submitted bitters of intent to Indian River County to connect to the proposed sewer system as of August 15, 1986. The proposed sewage collection conveyance and treatment system will ge=nerally consist of seven pumping stations, force mains sized from 6" to 16" in diameter, several short sections of gravity collection sewer, and a 1.0 MGD secondary wastewater treatment plant with effluent disposal by means of rapid infiltration. The total estimated project cost for the proposed project is 85,164,760.00 which includes 80 acres of land for the initial 1.0 MGD treatment plant and effluent disposal system and future plant expansion. The anticipated revenues from the 4983 ERUs exceed the total estimated project cost by 91,063,990.00 and it is, therefore, concluded -22- that the project is viable from a financial point of view. It is our recommendation that Indian River County and the City of Sebastian governing bodies review this 'North County Subregional Sewer Feasibility Study and Report.• A public meeting has been scheduled for 7:00 pm on September 25, 1986 in the City of Sebastian, in order to make the contents of this report known to the public and obtain the public's input. This study and report has found that it is viable from an engineering and financial point of view for Indian River County to provide for the construction of an arterial •core" sanitary sewer system with treatment and efflyant disposal i facilities to serve the North County Subregional service _ area. It is recommended that Indian River County proceed with engineering design and construction of this much .needed sanitary sewer project to serve the North County area, as soon as possible. -23- c SCHEDULE •A+ FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTORS TO REPORTS PARCEL ERU NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER CREDIT 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 23 25 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 38 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 S2 53 54 Michael Kinney C.B. Gray Ed Schlitt/Farber/Salach David Wu Jerald Strnad Jerald Strnad David Schwarz Bill Palmer Dave Fisher George Reeves Bob Palmer H.H. Floyd Mitchell Smith Glen Sellers Jerald Strnad Ed Schlitt Arthur Lemire Jean & Marilyn Tourniere Samuel Phillips Sembler & Sembler Charles Sembler Fred Mensing Louis Sinonye Clive Parker George Metcalf Michael Kenny/Fred Sockbeson Pat Lambert Patsy Harris Sebastian Chamber of Commerce William Mahoney Edra S. Young Florence M. Bennis Jon Holder/Pat Lambert Harry E. Beller Royce V. Braden Roger M. Skillman Orvis Coursey (Sptsmn Ldge) C. Neuberger Sebastian General/ Dr. Fischer Thomas Bauman 20.0 1.0 64.0 X51.0 24.0 25.0 57.0 24.0 20.0 1.0 4.0 10.0 176.0 32.0 20.0 96.0 2.0 6.4 120.0 7.0 87.0 8.0 10.0 50.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 40.0 1.0 1.0 140.0 1.0 SCHEDULE "B` SUMMARY OF TOTAL EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS (ERUS) INTENDING TO CONNECT TO SEWERS PARCEL TL TL ERUa IN NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER ERUS •SERVICE ARE 1 Kinney 20 20 2 Gray 1 1 3 Farber 64 64 6 Wu 58 58 H 7 Strnad 24 24 8 Strnad 25 25 9 Schwarz 57 57 10 Palmer 24 24 -- 13 Fisher 60 60 14 Reeves I 15 Noah's Ark 4 _ 16 Floyd 10 10 18 Sellers 32 32 19 Strnad 30 30 20 Strnad 52 52 21 Strnad 18 18 22 Schlitt 96 96 23 Lemire 2 25 Tourniere 7 7 28 Phillips 120 --- 29 Sembler 7 7 30 Sembler 87 __- 31 Mensing a --- 32 Simonye 10 33 Flood 11 11 34 Kashi Church 50 --- 35 Metcalf 1 38 Sockbeson 8 B 40 Lambert 1 42 Harris 1 43 Seb, Chamber 1 1 44 Mahoney 1 _. 45 Young 1 --- 46 Bennis 1 47 Lambert 1 1 48 Beller 1 1 _ 49 Braden 1 __ i PARCEL TL TL ERUs IN NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER ERUs SERVICE AREA 50 Skillman 242 242 51 Sportsman Lodge 1 52 Neuberger 1 1 --- 53 Seb. Gen, Partners 342 54 Baumann 1 55 Professional Title 1 1 57 Anchor Real Estate 1 1 1 58 Leiport I 59 Powell 2 _ 60 Heinicke 1 61 Dodge 1 1 64 Strnad 15 1 15 67 Women's Club 1 68 F1. Federal 1 1 69 Nixon (Dave's BBQ) 10 1 10 70 Feindt 1 71 Cumberland Farms 5 1 --- 72 Philipson 52 73 Gordanier 1 52 _ 74 Kelley 1 75 Olds & Smith 1 1 76 Slade 1 1 77 Velde 3 1 78 Lewis 22 3 22 79 Rudd 1 2 80 MacMillan 1 81 Havens 1 1 _ 82 Nash 1 83 Wheeler 1 1 &4 Miner/Conners 47 1 85 Conners 27 47 86 Miner/Conners 24 27 87 Peak & Hill 19 24 88 Peak & Hill 18 19 B9 Wheeler 1 18 90 Preuss 18 1 ' 91 Coursey 18 18 '92 Pucci 1 18 -93 Bova 1 -- 94 Pleiderer 1 95 Ripma 60 1 96 Philipson 10 60 97 Fischer 6 10 98 Fischer 3 6 99 Fischer 125 3 100 Fischer 31 125 102 Seb. Gen. Partners 18 31 103 Franke 12 18 12 1 PARCEL NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER TL TL ERUe IN ERUe SERVICE AREA 104 Underill 3 105 Garetto 26 3 107 Underill 1 26 108 Davis1 1 --- 109 Rennick 1 110 Stevenson 10 1 111 Smith 1 10 112 Smith 6 1 114 Humphrey 1 6 116 Sebastian Harbour 12 k' 1 t � 117 Calvin 1 a 12 118 Calvin 1 1 119 Cumming 2 1 120 Peltier 1 2 121 Grimes 30 1 122 Grimes 42 30 123 Grimes 9 42 124 Hambro 1 9 125 Incitco Realty 10 1 126 Incitco Realty 20 10 -- 127 Brock 1 128 Hatala 198 1 198 130 St. Sebastian Church 3 131 Keen's Food Town 3 3 132 Bullock 1 3 133 Cyphers I 1 134 Garceau 1 1 . 135 Saul 1 1 136 Seb. Exec. Bldg. 12 1 137 1st Nat'l (Lembo) 2 12 138 Gilliam 1 2 139 Lembo 1 1 140 Fisher I 1 141 Seb. Inlet Marine 15 1 142 Herrington/WalEord 6 15 143 Palauch6 3 144 Whitney 1 3 145 Tedori 1 146 Potter I 1 147 McManus 1 1 1 148 Richey 1 149 Sweck 1 1 151 Stickler 1 1 152 Duhigg 1 12 153 Hergenrother 2 154 Sembler 1 1 1 155 Garcia 1 156 Wittman/Rita 2 2 1 1 1 PARCEL TL TL ERUa IN NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER ERUs SERVICE AREA 157 Cossick 1 158 Zaleski/Kerr g 1 159 Rhodes 1 8 160 Thomas 1 1 161 Heinicke 1 1 162 Higgins 1 1 163 Johnson 3 1 164 Arnold 1 3 165 Cantrelle 3 1 166 Potter 1 3 N 1 167 Colletti 1 R 168 Cassel I 1 169 Clark I 172 Reeves 1 173 Taylor 1 1 174 Gath 2 1 175 Wall 1 2 176 Young 3 1 177 Miller 2 3 178 Viggiano 1 2 179 Green & Loreto 1 1 180 Clark I 1 181 Marcum 1 182 Garhart 1 1 183 Scheuler & Staley 2 2 184 Casaro 1 185 Vincent 2 186 Master 2 187 Ours 1 2 188 Altier 1 1 189 Fucci 4 1 _ 190 Llonch 1 191 Harless 3 1 192 Milam 1 3 193 Lapham 1 195 Wimbrow 11 1 196 Keen's Food Town 18 11 197 Storch 4 18 198 Scherrer 2 4 199 Waltermire 1 2 200 Buhr 1 202 Pennypacker 1 1 1 203 Day 1 204 Beckswith 1 1 -- 205 Tennyson 1 1 207 Allen 1 1 208 Llonch 2 2 ^1 PARCEL TL TL ERUs IN NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER ERUs IN SERVICE AREA 210 Wear 1 -- 211 Allen 1 -- 212 Benedetto/Thoren 1 1 213 Brock 1 1 214 Capella 1 1 215 Yannie 1 -- 216 Guthrie 1 1 217 Zi.olek 3 3 218 Fisher 1 1 219 King 1 -- 220 Fischer 1 1 221 Murch 1 1 222 Busch 1 1 223 Fey 1 -- 224 Williams 1 1 225 Privilega 1 1 227 Burns 2 2 228 Burns 1 1 229 Boswell 2 2 231 Hasko 1 -- 232 Brito 1 1 235 Sofie 1 1 236 Horutz 1 -- 237 Barber 3 -- 241 Salmela 1 1 TOTALS 2,593 1,907 •_ �, "Iv g3S0 : 6� i Jaa�yL et L 1ST" C ) I e5L�•1 ONX0 L)0 1 0 600 65 �1 66(L( W� o0001.0- DISTRICT'5- NUMBER�a„O LETTER OF INTENT i I NAME OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: City of Sebastian ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: 1229 Main St. P. O Box 127 Sebastian F1 32958 TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: 589-5230 PARCEL NUMBER OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: See the above two parcel numbers: ERU V/ a ar�oi 3t� nF yi � ERU J Parcel #32aMW�r 06 31 zg nnnnn nnin 00014 1 39 00005 0002 00001.0 - 8.28 2`� acres SS'J I (WE) WILL COMMIT TO oyi�`l-4 NUMBER OF ERUS Estimat d 60 SIGNATURE iR aNcc DATE _ 9 ►q gh COY E,.�•.t.rc troll"" w a r� t • r �. r� . fife, 0111101 Ast AMUM .i� � ,:�,� `',fir fAir�;lA�l�' .:�;•� ���� F r n ••V� ��•t ,•rte-•,� rt'. • �rr�Li,i..•� I� THOMAS C. PALMER ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 145,113d ggRER SEBASTLA.N FLORIDA 32958 305-589-7550 August 29, 1986 Charles Vitunac, Esq, County Attorney County Administration Building 1850 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 1 Re: City- County Wastewater Franchise Dear Charlie: I enclosea proposed draft of a Franchise Resolution of the City of Sebastian to accomodate the planned wastewater service ill the north county -city area. We will have to get together regarding the confines of the initial ill -city service territory. Do you have any information on what the Villages of Lake Delores intends to do regarding their long-range sewer plans? Very truly yours, Encl:Thomas C. Palmer proposed Franchise cc: Mayor Harris Hector Franco BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1890 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 567-6000 August 19, 1986 Mayor Gene Harris PO Box 127 Sebastian, FL 32958 RECEIVED SEP 1 2 1986 RE: WATER AND WASTEWATER EXPANSION Dear Gentlemen:. Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 Indian River County is in the process of updating and expanding there water and wastewater master plan to cover the entire County. We feel it would be in the best interest of the City of Sebastian if they were included in these plans. I have enclosed for your review and hopefully approval the scope of work along with the breakdown of cost. If you agree to fund Sebastians portion we will proceed immediately. The County Commission has already approved their portion of this work. Please feel free to contact this office for further information or service in regard to the water and wastewater expansion project. Sincerely, TERRp:I c G: PIAT' bP � Director of Utility Services BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 567-8000 July 21,1986 NOTICE: NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 Dear Property Owner: Indian River County is presently investigating the feasibility of developing a County maintained regional wastewater treatment system to serve your area. The plant will be initially designed and constructed to accommodate those property owners who are interested in participating in the development of the wastewater system. It is necessary that all interested parties respond as soon as possible by completing the enclosed Letter of Intent form. The current wastewater impact fee is $1,250.00 per ERU. An important factor to be considered is if you commit now, the cost per unit will be frozen and this fee may be assessed over a long period of time. If you decide to commit at a later date, the cost per unit may be at a higher rate and paid in one lump sum. To accurately calculate the volume of wastewater service needed in equivalent residential units (ERU), residential properties will use the number of units per acre allowed based upon the zoning of the property. To calculate commercial equivalent residential units the following formula is used: Square Footage of Property x .40 x .10 divided by 250 = Equivalent Residential Units To be eligible to participate in this program, complete the enclosed form and attach a copy of the property deed or legal description and the property parcel number. Your immediate response will ensure your required capacity in the wastewater plant. Please address all mail to: Indian River County Utilities 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ron Brooks , at 567-8000, extension 461. DISTRICT NUMBER LETTER OF INTENT NAME OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: I TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNER: PARCEL NUMBER OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: I (WE) WILL COMMIT TO NUMBER OF ERUS SIGNATURE DATE June 25, 1986 Dear Sebastian Property Owner: Indian River County is about to implement a long-awaited wastewater disposal facility for the North County business district along the U.Si 1 corridor. A feasibility study for the system has been funded by a number of property owners in Roseland and Sebastian who have already committed themselves to hook up to the system as soon as it is available. This facility is necessary if we wish to attract further commercial development in the Sebastian business district. Additional commitments are required if the system is to be extended the length of the Sebastian City limits. The requirement is for 700 more Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). The enclosed form describes how to determine the ERUs for your property. The environmental benefit of this project is obvious and so is the inevitable increase in property values that will follow. 'there is also a considerable cost benefit to you for voluntarily reserving your connection now rather than later - or at a time when you may be required to do so for health reasons: Your commitment now will entitle you to a guaranteed hook-up cost of $1,250 per ERU. This fee may be amortized, at your option, over a ten to twenty year period. If you delay, later hook-up fees may be assessed at higher rates and full up -front cash payment will be required at the time of application. We need your prompt commitment so that this essential project may proceed. Please send your reply on the enclosed form to: Jeffrey Barton, Assistant Utilities Director Indian River County P.O. Box 1750 Vero Beach, Florida, 32961 Thank you. S`iL/ncey/reedy yours, Lloyd Rondeau For the Sebastian Economic Planning and Development Committee l CDM Mvaonmenfal engepers. sC nlam, p/amem. & management c unanm June 4, 1986 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Terrance G'Pinto Director of Utilities Services Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: Indian River County Wastewater Master Plan Update Dear Mr. Pinto: 1. CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Fba Offca Boa 8626 2001 North-," 62nd S1ree1 Fon Lauderdale, Ronda 33310 305 7761731 RECEIVED SEP 1 8 1986 We are pleased to submit the attached budget proposal for the subject Project based upon our discussions held on May 9 and May 22, 1986. Thjs proposal'includes the updating of the existing Wastewater Master Plan for Indian River County. This proposal presents .in detail the following items: o Exhibit A - Scope of Work o Exhibit B - Project Schedule o Exhibit C - Project Labor Disaggregation o Exhibit D - Project Budget This project will utilize the following existing documents: 0 1985 Area -wide Wastewater Master Plan o 1986 Sludge Management Plan 0 1986 Septage Management Plan 0 1986 North Region Effluent Disposal Study o 1986 West Region Effluent Disposal Study We have estimated the duration of this project to be six months to produce a draft report. For the services under this proposal, our total fee is estimated at the upper limit amount of $86,000 and reflects the existing engineering documents referenced above. This total includes engineering fees of approximately $15,700 associated with the County's most northern section. We will not exceed the CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Mr. Terrance G. Pinto Page Two June 4, 1986 --------------------- upper limit amount unless we have obtained prior approval from the County. The work shall be done under our existing agreement with the County and shall be charged on an hourly basis. If you should have any questions, please contact our! office. Very truly yours, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Donald G. Munksgaard Associate DGM/in Attachment File: 0000-212-MS-INDRV Approved: . Lawrence Adams, Jr. Vice President 1 I. GENERAL EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK A Master Plan Update will be prepared to determine the required capital improvements for wastewater transmission, treatment, and disposal facilities in Indian River County for the planning period 1986-2005. The study area for the Plan shall be the entire Indian River County area exclusive of the franchise area served by the City of Vero Beach. The Plan will detail a county -wide approach that is cost-effective, environmentally sound, and implementable. Task 100 - Data Collection This task consists of obtaining background information relevant to the the project.. 101 Collect and review existing data on land use, zoning, soils, population, proposed developments, wastewater flows, and historical wastewater systems information. 102 Perform a detailed review of the 1985 Area -Wide Wastewater Master Plan. 103 Perform a detailed review of the County's 201 Plan. 104 Review existing regulatory agency permit and other relevant requirements for the study area. 105 Review hydrogeologic data. Task 200 - Existing Conditions This task evaluates the existing wastewater facilities located within the study area. 201 Discuss existing service areas, limits of the study area, and prepare graphics delineating boundaries. 202 Discuss the existing governmental jurisdictions within the study area/service areas. 203 Inventory the existing wastewater system and prepare planning level maps consisting of the following components: o Transmission mains 0 Treatment plants o Effluent disposal systems o Sludge disposal systems 204 Evaluate the condition of existing wastewater treatment and disposal facilities in terms of their ability to be integrated into a long-term program. 205 Determine grade classification of sludge generated from existing facilities based on Indian River County Sludge Management Plan. 1, 206 Determine septage generators based on Indian River County Septage Management Plan. 207 Evaluate the existing wastewater transmission main system in terms of both adequacy and operation. 208 Perform computerized hydraulic modeling of the County's existing pumping station and force main system. Task 300 - Future Conditions This task projects various items required for evaluating the long-term adequacy of existing facilities and timing of future capital improvement needs for the systems. 301 Discuss the basis of planning to include duration of the planning period. 302 Project population for each year through the end of the planning period based on population data supplied by Indian River County's Planning Department. 303 Analyze existing wastewater flow records to determine historical characteristics. 304 Perform a "desktop" evaluation of infiltration/inflow occurring in the existing collection system. 305 Develop design (peaking factors) criteria to be used in projection of wastewater flows. 306 Project average day, maximum month, and peak hour wastewater flows through the end of the planning period. 307 Project waste sludge production for average day and maximum month conditions based on the Indian River County Sludge Management Plan. 308 Project septage quantities based on Indian River County Septage Management Plan. Task 400 - Alternatives This task will involve the evaluation and selection of an optimum plan based upon a cost-effective analysis and noneconomic factors. 401 Develop design criteria for major capital components. 402 Develop cost curves for utilization in alternative evaluations. 403 Develop primary conceptual alternatives as follows: o Local Treatment - Continue with on-site or package treatment systems as presently exist in the County. o Subregionalization - Between four to seven subregional treatment systems would be evaluated. o Regionalization - Full regionalization would be developed and would consist of one to three treatment systems. 404 Develop a total of between 15 and 30 subalternatives within the primary conceptual alternatives and perform a subjective, numeric, screening process including •factors such as capital cost, operation and maintenance cost, regulatory agency requirements, reliability, flexibility, environmental, reuse water potential, and implement - ability. 405 Perform detailed cost-effective analysis based on life -cycle costs for the highest-ranking four to six subalternatives. 406 Perform noneconomic analysis for the selected subalternatives. 407 Select optimal plan which is most cost-effective, environmentally sound, and implementable. Task 500 - Recommended Improvements This task will develop the capital improvements required for the selected plan. 501 Identify improvements needed for transmission system based on a phased construction approach. 502 Identify treatment components required based on a phased construction approach. 503 Develop an effluent disposal program for the selected plan. 504 Develop sludge management program for the selected plan based on the Indian River County Sludge Management Plan. 505 Prepare cost estimates for the recommended improvements. Task 600 - Implementation Program This task addresses the capital improvement program and the financial plan to fund the necessary improvements. 601 Prepare a capital improvement program (CIP) for the planning period which shows the required timing of facilities and their planning level costs. 602 Evaluate adequacy of existing wastewater rate structure, including impact fees, to fund near-term improvements. 603 Evaluate alternative sources of financing such as existing funds on hand, contributions -in -aid -of -construction, grant funds, impact fees, and increased user charges to support additional debt. 604 Project type, level, and timing of additional financing required for the selected plan. 605 Estimate the impact on existing user charges. Task 700 - Report Preparation A draft report and final project report will be prepared and submitted to the County. The final report will be formally presented to the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. 701 Prepare a draft report and submit 5 copies to the County. 702 Prepare the final project report and submit 15 cDpies to the County. 703 Present the final project report to the Board of County Commissioners. II. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) The Quality Assurance/Quality Control aspect of this project is an integral part of all work performed by CDM. The QA/QC task includes several in-house reviews at various stages of the project. These reviews assure the high technical quality of the project by inclusion of senior -level staff in the review process. III. REVIEWS WITH CLIENT AND PROGRESS REPORTING This aspect of the project has a two -fold importance. Interaction between the County and CDM provides mutual feedback, identifies areas of concern, and resolves technical problems that might arise. Also, the County is kept informed as to the progress of the project. Task 800 - Client Reviews Four formal reviews will be held with the client at the following stages of the project: 801 25 percent completion. 802 50 percent completion. 803 75.percent completion. 804 Subsequent to County's review of draft report. Task 900 - Progress Reports Progress reports will be submitted in conjunction with monthly billings to the County. A-5 EXHIBIT B PROJECT SCHEDULE Z, 4c mi CL cc W //I"� r/ Q m LD �D h P N O_ X O� m n P K1 N Y W W 3 W � Q W 2 Q W o W J ¢ y = O F O X N Z o ; Z U j F J O a = W W U s O a G Z a = a W d a w U = N Q Q > w w = p p O O O O 00 w O EXHIBIT C PROJECT LABOR DISAGGREGATION EXHIBIT C PROJECT LABOR DISAGGREGATION TASK ENEV9 ENEV8 ENEW ENEV5 ENWR5 ENEV4 ENEV1 DNGN DFGN. AACT SEGN TOTAL I. GENERAL 101 Collect and Review Data - - 1 8 4 - 8 - - - 4 25 102 Review 1985 Master Plan - _ _ 4 1 103 Review 201 Plan - - - 4 4 - 4 - - - - 12 104 Review Regulatory Requirements - - - 4 105 Review Hydrogeologic Data - - 1 4 16 - _ _ _ _ - 21 201 Existing Service/ Study Area - 1 2 8 - - 4 2 8 - - 25 202 Existing Jurisdictions - 1 1 8 - - - - - - Y - 10 203 System Inventory - - 4 16 24 - 40 12 40 J - - 136 204 Evaluate Existing Treatment and Disposal Facilities - - 4 16 - - 8 - - - - 28 205 Determine Sludge Grade _ _ 1 2 - _ 4 EXHIBIT C PROJECT LABOR DISAGGREGATION Continued TASK ENEV9 ENEVB ENEV7 ENEV5 E_N_W_R5 E_N_E_V4 ENEV1 DNGN DFGN AACT SEGN TOTAL 206 Determine Septage Generators - - 1 2 - - 4 207 Evaluate Tranmission System - 1 4 12 40 - 16 - - - - 73 J 208 Perform Hydraulic Modeling - - 4 16 40 - 24 8 32 - - 124 301 Basis of Planning - 1 1 4 _ _ _ _ _ - - 6 302 Population Projections - 1 1 4 4 - 12 - - - - 22 303 Analyze Flow Records - - 2 4 4 - 16 - - - - 26 304 Evaluate Infiltration/Inflow - - 4 8 - - 8 - - - - 20 305 Develop Peaking 1 Factors - - 1 4 - - 4 306 Project Flows - _ 4 4 _ _ 8 _ _ _ _ 16 307 Project Sludge Production - - 1 2 - - 4 308 Project Septage Quantities _ _ 1 2 _ -4 502 Identify Treatment Component Improvements - - 12 - - - 24 - _ - - 36 503 Develop Effluent Disposal Program - 1 8 16 - _ 8 _ _ - 33 504 Develop Sludge Management Program - - 4 8 - - 8 - _ _ - 20 EXHIBIT C PROJECT LABOR DISAGGREGATION Continued TASK ENEV9 E1E18 ENEV7 ENEV5 ENWR5 ENEV4 ENEV1 DNGN DFGN AACT SEGN TOTAL 401 Develop Design Criteria - - 4 2 4 - 4 - _ - - 14 402 Develop Cost Curves _ _ 1 2 _ 32 24 - J - - - 59 403 Develop Primary Alternatives - 1 2 4 4 - 4 - - _ - 15 404 Develop Subalternatives - 1 8 24 16 - 32 _ _ - - 81 405 Cost-effective Analysis - 1 2 12 - 24 24 - _ - - 63 406 Noneconomic Analysis - 1 4 8 8 - 8 - - - - 29 407 Select Optimal Plan - - 2 4 4 - _ _ - - 10 501 Identify Transmission System Improvements - - 2 8 24 - _ _ _ _ - 34 J 502 Identify Treatment Component Improvements - - 12 - - - 24 - _ - - 36 503 Develop Effluent Disposal Program - 1 8 16 - _ 8 _ _ - 33 504 Develop Sludge Management Program - - 4 8 - - 8 - _ _ - 20 EXHIBIT C PROJECT LABORDISAGGREGATION Continued TASK ENEV9 ENEVB ENEV7 ENEV5 ENWR5 ENEV4 ENEV1 DNGN DFGN AACT SEGN TOTAL 505 Prepare Cost Estimates - - 1 2 - 32 - - _ - - 35 601 Prepare Capital j Improvement Program - 1 4 16 24 _ P4 _ - - - 69 602 Adequacy of Existing Rates - 2 2 24 - - 8 _ - _ - 36 603 Alternative Financing - 2 4 24 -. - 4 - - - - 34 604 Additional Financing - 2 2 24 - - - - - - - 28 605 Impact on User Charges - 2 2 16 - - 4 _ _ _ - 24 701 Prepare Draft Report -. 4 4 20 8 - 8 4 16 - - 80 144 702 Prepare Final Report - 2 4 16 8 - 8 - 8 - 40 86 703 Present Report to County Commission - 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - 16 ,T, J Q O O N O r'1 N N N � F- b ti C7 WZ C' 1 1 H I 1 r -I .y 1— U 1 I 1 1 1 .10-1 'ko-1 Z C7 2 O ZI O O D M N W co M C I Z 1 1 1 1 N W IT to C W u7 N WI C' C' C• C' C' 00 W Z W 01 co f` Z C' C' N 10 W M 00 Z q�r 1 � � CY cm 0 Z > W p d w C 3 3 3 cl) N> a N Q > N N N Y W > w CI a) y 0 O O 1= K Y O C L G fn K Y Y Y K l 1 c tz C N d G GI 0 ._ C INiI S Y 3 LLI U U U Y L U J Q H DY e0 O 1— \ W LO CD O In L L O Q C C7 N O O O O O co 00 CO 03 Ol I EXHIBIT D PROJECT BUDGET EXHIBIT D PROJECT BUDGET PROJECT: Indian River County Wastewater Master Plan Update PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Updating of the Wastewater Master Plan for all of Indian River County, excluding the service area of the City of Vero Beach. PROJECT REFERENCE: Agreement between Indian River County and Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. for General Consulting Services. PROJECT BUDGET: Total at Contract Category Hours Hourly Rates Senior Vice President (ENEV-9) 4 Vice President (ENEV-8) 45 Associate (ENEV-7) 136 Engineer (ENEV-5) 398 Hydraulic Engineer (ENWR-5) 257 Engineer (ENEV-4) 92 Junior Engineer (ENEV-1) 380 Designer (DNGN) 30 Drafter (DFGN) 108 Project Administrator (AACT) 16 Secretarial (SEGN) 144 Total Labor Costs 1,610 $80,400 Other Direct Costs: Graphics, printing, xeroxing 3,600 Computer 1,200 Word Processing 800 Total Other Direct Costs: 5,600 TOTAL ESTIMATE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES $86,000 D-1 cry A I��'--- e Boyle Engineerinq Corporation snOnsers Iplannersl surv¢uors 320 East South Street OrlaAde. Florida 32801-3515 3051425.1100 Mr. Terry Pinto, Utility Services Director April 18, 1986 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Addendum I/1/Expand Water System Master Plan Terry, we have reduced the budget estimate for Addendum #1 as a result of the negotiating session that I had with you and Doug Scurlock on April 15, 1986. Sebastian Area. The budget estimate for expanding the County's master plan into The Sebastian area is $50,265. The scope of work is summarized in my letter of April 15, 1986. The City's share of the budget estimate should be approximately 46.5°/x, or $23,373. This is based on the percentage of people that are projected to live in Sebastian in 2005, which is the design year for master planning purposes. See my April 15, 1986 letter for supporting data on the population projections. The County share should be approximately 53.5%, or $26,892. Vero Beach. I have talked with City staff and their water consultant to find out - about the water demand information that would be available for us to use on the Vero Beach portion of the project. From what I have heard, the City should be able to generate water demand projections for us to use, so I have eliminated the work tasks we had originally included for us to do the work. The budget estimate for the Vero Beach portion of the study is $19,119. Attached are three (3) copies of Addendum //1 which we have signed. Please have all copies signed, retain two for County files and return one to me. We look forward to working with the County on this next phase of the water system master plan. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORPATION tti lard o an, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Attachments OR-B99-197-00/lpm . 'Mr. Terry Pinto Page Two 1 1 April 15, 19116 approxiinately 11,721 people and within the existing unincorporated areas, 13,462 / people (See attached table showing population estimate by traffic analysis zones). / Each entity's prorated share of the planning cost would be as follows; City (11,721/11,721+13,462) x $56,168 = $26,152 County (13,452/11,721+13,462) x $56,188 = $30,036 Total 56,188 Vero Beach. The estimated cost to determine the feasibility of serving the City of Vero Beach is $22,204.00 (See page B-13 of Addendum). As part of this phase of tlm project, we will estimate future lyater demands within the Vero Beach study area; modify the computer model so that it can be used to analyze alternative transmission main layouts and interconnection locations between the City and County water systems; identify the supply, treatment, transmission system, storage and pumpinrl facilities that will be needed to supply the City in the future; estimate the cost of the proposed facilities and develop an implementation program; and revise the existing master plan report to incorporate our findings and +.recommendations for supplying water to Vero Beach. For the Vero Beach portion of the project, we have included in our budget time costs necessary to estimate future water demands within the City of Vero Beach. If IN - City already has, or can provide to us, estimates of future water demands for the 1990-2005 period disaggregated by traffic analysis zone or other suitable subareas within the City, Work Tasks 1604 - 1616 and 1620 - 1630 can be eliminated, resulting in a reduction in the cost for the Vero Beach portion of the project of $3121.00. Authorization of One Part of Project. In preparing the budget estimate, we have assumed that the County will authorize both the Sebastian and Vero Beach parts, or the Sebastian portion by itself. Because of overlap of some of the Work Tasks for each portion of the project, we cannot complete the Vero Beach porlion of the project by itself for the estimated budget cost shown in the Addendum. If the County elects to complete just the Vero Beach portion and not the Sebastian part, we would have to increase the costs presented in the Addendum for the Vero Beach portion of the project. F Please review the attached. If you have any questions or comments, please call. I will forward three signed copies qy the end of this week. We look forward to working with the County on this project. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION R chard J. Coen, P .E. Senior Civil Engineer Enclosure OR-B99-197-00/lpm Boyle enoineerinq Corporation J70 Ensf Smub Sham Wand.) fiurida 3;180 1 35 I5 cnapnc�,sq,�;,,,n,•rs., s. �•ru., W', 1, wir�rommuwrwrrww�sa�nwmw canmmtww:a�r�c+++en�rrrmu+a�ses�rttaawro ao��nah+are Mr. Terry Pinto, Utility Services Director April P% I":tr INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1040 25th Street Vero Beach, Fl- 32960 to for E Flinn into , Terry, enclosed is a copy of Addendiim No. 1 which covers (a) expansion or the water system master planning to include Lite Sebastian area, and (b) investigation of ll,r feasibility of the County supplying treated water to Lhe City of Vero Beach. The last page of the Addendum (B-13) summarizes the estimated cost for this project. Since the County will probably want to seek funding assistance for this project from the Cities of Sebastian and Vero Beach, we have separated the costs for the Sebastian and Vero Beach elements of the project. 4jo- ebastian Area. The estimated cost for expanding the County's water plan to include 14 ig8tr the Sebastian area isA-5648843B: The Sebastian area includes everything brtwern Wabasso Road, the north County line, Interstate 95 and the Indian River. As part of the project, we will rstimat.e the future water demands within the Sebnslinn arra: revise• the computer model to include the Sebastian area; analyze alternative• transmission main configurations Thal can be used Lo serve the arra in the, future: identify the water supply, LreaLmenL, storage and pumping facilities.that. will bo needed in the future; estimate Lhe costs for improvements and develop an implementation schedule; and revise the current master plan report to include the findings and recommendations for the Sebastian area. The master planning will cover the time period from 1986 to 2005. s The Sebastian area is comprised of the City of Sebastian and unincorporated areas. The master plan will benefit both the County and the City, so the cost of Lhe study may be split between the two entities. We feel that the cost should be prorated based on the currently estimated 2005 population expected to live within each entity's current boundaries. The 2005 populatiun will be used as a basis for determining the size of new faciliLies that will be needed Lo serve existing and future residents. It is customary Lo disl.ributc the planning costs for new facilities based on each entity's capacity requirements. Proral.inq cost based on land area would not be equitable because large areas with very lil.tle or no growth do not require a significant work effort during the planning process. Based on population growth projections prepared by the Cowily Planning Deparinuml, the projected 2005 population within Lhc existing Fxrbaslian city linrit.s will br a !.a � .. � _ +�' I � +.,�