08-06-1991 - Special/Public Hearing
......
....... ~
, ,
CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER
SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 6, 1991
Mayor Wessler called the Special Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in
the Edgewater community Center, for the purpose of considering
adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution. This is the final
hearing to establish assessments for wastewater collection and
treatment plant improvements in Florida Shores. The city Council
will consider issues of fairness and equity in establishing the
special assessments. The decision of the City Council shall be
final and may be appealed within twenty days following the date of
council action on the final assessment resolution.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Tanya Wessler
Councilman Kirk Jones
Councilperson NoraJane Gillespie
Councilman Michael Hays
Interim City Attorney Nikki Clayton
Acting City Manager Fred Munoz
city Clerk Susan Wadsworth
Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Note for the record: Attorney Clayton introduced Krista Storey,
who was appointed the new City Attorney effective September 16th.
Mayor Wessler explained the procedure to following this evening;
to begin with a presentation by Mr. Ron Ferland, City Consulting
Engineer, then general comments will be heard, finally discussions
on individual assessment problems. The people with particular
questions concerning their individual assessments are to fill out
orange cards and turn them in. Their names will be called.
A man from the audience shouted out that sixty or more people were
standing outside the building and they could not hear or see. At
this point there was much noise and confusion.
Attorney Clayton was given the floor.
importance of hearing the view of the public,
decision-making process. She asked if there
the city that can accommodate this number of
She emphasized the
which is part of the
is a location within
people.
The elementary school was suggested. Attorney Clayton suggested
the meeting could be adjourned and reconvene within a half an hour
at the other location, if this could be arranged. Another option
would be to inform the citizens outside the building that, even
though they can not hear the proceedings, if they fill out a card,
they will be heard tonight, or at any continuance that will be made
by the Council.
There was more noise and disturbance. Mayor Wessler called a
recess. Just a few minutes later, Mayor Wessler announced that
this meeting is being recessed and will reconvene at approximately
8:15 p.m. in the Edgewater Elementary School on Old County Road.
She gave directions to the school.
.-.,
...,
Reconvene 8:15 p.m. Edgewater Elementary School
ROLL CALL
Mayor Tanya Wessler
Councilman Kirk Jones
Councilperson Louise Martin
Councilperson NoraJane Gillespie
councilman Michael Hays
Interim City Attorney Nikki Clayton
Acting City Manager Fred Munoz
City Clerk Susan Wadsworth
Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Mayor Wessler asked Council for special consideration to waive the
notice that was put up at the Community Center and City Hall, the
notice was changed from 8:45 to 8:15, if there are no objections
we will get started now. There being no objections the
presentation began.
Mr. Ron Ferland explained that the sheets distributed to the public
are the same as the information he will be going over, so everyone
can follow along. (Copy on file in city Hall)
The three items within the CIP project being:
1) Wastewater Collection
2) Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion
3) Reclaimed Water Facilities
The purposes of the projects are:
1) Eliminate public health hazards caused by septic tank use with
poor soil conditions.
2) Upgrade treatment to advanced level to mitigate impact to Indian
River and allow for reclaimed water use. This means protection
to Class II - shellfish harvesting water. Provide 10%
wastewater effluent disposal by reclaimed water use, as
required
by City's CIP. This meets the recent legislative requirements
for discharge to the Indian River.
3) Provide additional treatment capacity to serve Florida Shores
and anticipated growth outside Florida Shores. This totals 2.25
million gallons a day, which is identified in the Edgewater 201
Facilities Plan as anticipated to cover a ten year growth
projection. Ten years down the road you will have to expand
the existing plant or build a new plant in some other location
to cover that additional flow.
The project costs were taken right from the State Revolving Loan
Agreement. The three areas are:
1) Collection system
2) Wastewater Treatment Plant
3) Reclaimed Water system
Mr. Fer land went over each 1 ine item for each proj ect subj ect
regarding:
1) Construction cost estimates
2) Administrative allowance
3) Design allowance
4) Construction management and resident inspector
5) Project performance certification
6) SRF audit
7) Loan reserve (15% of annual payment)
8) capitalized interest
9) FDER Administrat
ive fee (3 1/2% of 1992 SRF loan amount)
-2-
Council special Meeting
August 6, 1991
~
...,
Total project costs for the Collections System $17,092,721.
Total project costs for the Wastewater Treatment Plant $9,106,987.
Total project costs for Reclaim Water System $2,288,541.
Mr. Ferland stressed that these figures could be lower, depending
on the bids received. These are maximum estimates, and they show
the worst impact of what the expense of this could be. The
collection system for this project is the piping that's in Florida
Shores that is being installed in order to collect the wastewater
from the individual residence and convey it to the pump stations
and from the pump stations convey it to the wastewater treatment
plant. 100% of the collection system is going to be funded by
special assessment. The formula for figuring this was explained
and is included in the paperwork distributed; the estimated annual
payment per buildable lot will be $99.71 per year. The costs
related to the wastewater treatment plant were also explained
thoroughly by Mr. Ferland; the estimated annual cost will be $30.53
per year per equivalent parcel. The definition of an equivalent
parcel is the number of lots under single ownership which are
contiguous. If in the future, two of these lots are sold at the
time they are built on, an impact fee will have to be paid.
Originally the reclaimed water system was allocated under the same
formula as the wastewater treatment plant because the reclaimed
water distribution is the means of effluent disposal for the
wastewater plant. The fact that Florida Shores is receiving the
benefit of the reclaimed water; the facilities are being located
within that special assessment district, is simply a matter of
coincidence and it was not the reason for the 50% allocation. If
the reclaimed water system was located in another area, Florida
Shores would still be allocated to fund 50% of that program. The
City Council has taken action, however, instead of breaking this
out between special assessment and user fees, they want to take as
a concession to the Florida Shores area and put it in 100% user fee
funding, which is what is reflected on the assessments. Mr.
Ferland went over the funding breakdown for each project component.
The Assessment Method versus the Current Method:
Mr. Ferland explained that if you live outside Florida Shores and
you build a new residence, you pay an impact fee which covers
wastewater treatment, effluent disposal, and pump stations and
transmission systems. You would pay $1425.00 per residence plus
a connection fee of $150.00, total $1575.00. This collection is
made only from developed parcels and payment is made in full at
time of connection. The special assessment method as proposed is
$350.00 for wastewater treatment plant, pump station/transmission
$364.00 and effluent disposal (which has been eliminated now by
Council decision), total $904.00. This is approximately $500.00
less than the current payment method. The benefit of this method
is that collection is made from developed and undeveloped parcels
and payments can be made over time at 5 1/2% interest.
Cost impact to users in special assessment district:
The assumption is that 6,000 gallons a month is used and that the
residence has two equivalent lots. Fiscal year 1994 is the first
year everyone will be hooked on. The collection system assessment
lump sum will be $2,286.00. This could be paid over twenty years
@ $199.42 a year. Wastewater costs $350.00, or $30.53 a year.
User Fee $267.24 a year, and septic abandonment $605.00 total.
If everything is paid up front, it will cost $3,241.00 or over
twenty years $497.19 a year.
Mayor Wessler explained that before hearing from people with
individual assessment problems, the Council will hear general
comments and questions. In order for everyone to get a chance to
speak there will be a three minute time limit.
-3-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
-..
..."
Ben Vasauez. 1907 South Atlantic Avenue. New Smyrna Beach.
representina his mother-in-law at 2807 Needle Palm.
Mr. Vasquez read from Resolution 91-R-40 under C3, that all
objections to the adoption by the Council of the final resolution
shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk by the time
of such hearing. He asked if this is correct, what is the purpose
of all these people coming here tonight, if they have to file with
the City Clerk prior to the adjournment of this meeting?
Councilman Hays answered that there may be comments made tonight
that will weigh on the decisions made by this Council. Part of
what will make up the Council's minds about any changes that might
be made to the resolution may come from the public input tonight.
Mr. Vasquez added that no matter what is said here tonight, the
legality is going to be determined by the legal document that is
going to D.E.R. or any state agencies. He added that he was told
by Mr. Munoz that $13,580,000.00 worth of bonds that have been
issued have not been validated. State statute says that all bonds
in the State of Florida will be validated and that is for the
protection of the people.
Attorney Livermore, of Livermore Klein and Lott, answered the
comment about the validation of the bonds. He explained that the
bonds were not validated, nor do they have to be. The law
established validation procedures. The City has the option to use
the procedure. The City received advice from him that there were
no substantial questions to be determined, therefore, there was no
reason to go through the formal procedure of validation. This is
covered in Statute 75 of Florida Statutes.
At this time since Mr. Vasquez's time limit had run out, and
Council's desire was to hear from as many people as time allows,
he was asked to return to his seat. Mr. Bill Smith, 2629 Victory
Palm, offered his time to Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Vasquez continued with
his comments about the bonds that have been issued. He asked the
council, if they are going to borrow $26,000,000.00, would they
tell everyone where the money is coming from to pay for it.
Mayor Wessler stated she would repeat it, however, Mr. Ferland just
explained it thoroughly to everyone here. She added that the bonds
are for the Water Plant and they are paid through user fees and
water impact fees from the whole city. Florida Shores pays a
portion of the State Revolving Fund, but the bonds and the State
Revolving F
und are two separate things.
Mr. Vasquez contended this assessment program in Florida Shores has
been illegal from the start and they are creating a taxing district
and there are no caps to the special assessment program.
Georae Adams. 2021 victory Palm Drive
Asked what is going to happen ten years down the road if another
plant has to be built for further expansion?
Attorney Clayton answered that the special assessment can not be
imposed without going through the same procedure that has been
followed by the Council in the last several months. There is a
component in the user fee that is allocated for plant expansion and
it is anticipated that the growth will be funding the growth in the
future.
-4-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
"-"
....,
Marvin Miller. 12 Lee Drive
Asked what assessment he would be required to pay?
Mayor Wessler answered that he will be paying user fees. He paid
for his collection system when he bought his home. He will have
an increase in his water and sewer fees.
Stanlev Carlson. 1862 pine Tree Drive. a member of the citizens
Advisory council
Took the opportunity to tell Council what comments have been made
to him. He spoke with over 140 Florida Shores residents, a number
of whom did not know why they had 40 foot lots. He spoke of the
original intent for Florida Shores to be a large mobile home park.
Questions asked him were: How is the rest of Edgewater being
assessed? Are there other houses in Edgewater still on septic
tanks? How many are there, and what are they going to pay? What
assurance do we have there will be no new assessments? Comments
made to him were: I will have to sell. I can't sell, property
values have dropped. Mr. Carlson stated that 90% agree a sewer
system is needed, 10% were negative, 100% oppose the proposed
payment method. He asked that George Naill, as a representative
of the United Taxpayers, be given equal time as Mr. Ferland to give
a rebuttal presentation.
Georqe Naill. 1604 Royal Palm Drive. President of the United
Taxpayers of Edqewater
Stated this equalization board is a combination of a very difficult
process that will affect all the citizens of Edgewater. It will
improve the city by providing health, welfare and safety, as well
as insuring that the Indian River is protected. The process of how
the Capital Improvement Program will be financed has led to a
divided city. He expressed that this division is not a healthy
situation, people are being led to believe that the citizens of
Florida Shores want a free ride and this is false. The public has
been presented a very complex funding process that is not well
understood by a lot of the residents of the city. Florida Shores
does not want "a free lunch", what they want is fairness. He
explained that on several occasions the United Taxpayers have tried
to present the Council with a viable approach to solve this
problem, consequently the only resource is to petition the Board
of Equilization to consider an alternative method of assessing the
city's taxpayers for a system that will benefit the entire city.
To further compensate this debt service, the city public service
tax (utility service tax) would also be used. This process will
not increase the user rates, but require the management of this
city to realign their budget so as to insure expenditures meet
revenues, not the opposite. It was not until July 25, 1991 that
Mr. Ron Ferland prepared a memorandum citing that the united
Taxpayers' proposed wastewater funding program was a reasonable
approach. This Council did not consider his recommendation to
consider this program as an alternative approach. (Mr. Naill read
Mr. Ferland's letter into the record) Mr. Naill presented the
Council with a petition for fair and equitable treatment and
consider the proposed method of assessment. (Petition on file in
city Hall) The petition contains 2,128 signatures of which over
80% are registered voters. To summarize, the projection is if you
paid $1425.00 per parcel and your connection fee and the rest
through user fees, which will be at the same level as the rest of
the city, as well as the use of public service tax; the budget
would have to be realigned. Taxes are already scheduled to go up
anyway.
Mr. Ron Ferland rebutted that he did not receive the written
proposal from the U.T.E. until July 25th and he did not receive it
then from U.T.E. He received it from the State of Florida. He
emphasized the innuendoes of the attack on U.T.E. by the consultant
is not true, the innuendoes of saying it is not a fair proposal is
not true. This is not his decision to make; whether it is
equitable, is up to the Council.
-5-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
......
....."
Mr. Naill spoke again with regards to this proposal, explaining
this approach was presented at a united Taxpayers meeting at which
Mr. Ferland was present, as well as some of the Council members.
He agrees Mr. Ferland probably received his copy from the D.E.R.
because that was the last alternative they had to let D.E.R. know
there was another method which was not being considered. He added
that every time a presentation was made by Mr. Ferland, different
figures were shown to the public and the Council did nothing to
rectify this.
Mayor Wessler reminded the public that when this Council took
office Mr. Ferland gave a presentation and Council asked him to cut
it down because it was too much for the residents to afford. This
was change number one. There was another change two or three weeks
ago where the $190.00 was removed by the Council. This Council has
directed Mr. Ferland to make changes and they have consistently
been lowered.
Mr. Naill pointed out that the $190.00 for the wastewater reuse
distribution system is still in the assessment program for Florida
Shores according to Resolution 9l-R-46.
Attorney Clayton explained this is to reflect the fact that the
initial assessment resolution called for it to be included. This
is a consideration of the design of the program; modifications that
are going to be made will be attached in the final assessment
resolution. This is an amendment that you have heard tonight which
will be made.
Mr. Naill stated he wants it so noted that this is still in the
Resolution, based on that statement that it would be removed.
Mike Billick. 2528 Lime Tree Drive. Vice President of the united
Taxpayers
He is also speaking as a private citizen. He informed that copies
of their funding proposal were presented to the entire Council,
with the exception of the Mayor who was out of town. Every Council
member was briefed on the proposal (they should have furnished this
to Mr. Ferland). Some history, back in 1964 two sources were used
to fund the sewer plant and the collection system; utility services
taxes and user fees. Then later water user fees supplemented the
sewer system, even though Florida Shores residents did not have a
subsystem. We are not talking monies here, we are talking equity
and fairness, if that is how it was done before, why don't we do
it that way now? He explained that shifting of funds was done in
1988, where funds wee moved from utilities to general fund and then
utility taxes were raised. Regarding the two million dollars being
credited to Florida Shores, D.E.R. gave to the City of Edgewater,
this is a management decision. If we take the $2,000,000.00 ....
Florida Shores has 58% of the population, give us the 58% and give
the other people their percentage and we will all pay for the
wastewater treatment plant.
At this time there was much confusion and conversation throughout
the audience. People complained that Mr. Billick's time was up.
councilperson Gillespie asked that Mr. Billick be granted the same
amount of time that Mr. Vasquez had.
-6-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
.....
....,
Mr. Billick continued, questioning about the water plant use; why
is this not being assessed the same way? According to D.E.R. the
wastewater treatment plant and the reclaimed water system should
be paid by user fees because it is a user facility. If the vacant
lots in Florida Shores are going to be assessed, then every vacant
lot within the city should be assessed. Mr. Billick used
hypothetical paYment situations to explain to the people how the
user fee process works. His point being that it is not a fair
assessment when individuals in each phase of the project will be
paying different amounts. The exact figures are unclear. This
is going to be a new wastewater treatment plant; Mr. Ferland may
elude that it is or isn't an expansion, an upgrade, however, he is
on record as saying it is a new plant. Mr. Billick contended that
he has documentation to show that if Florida Shores were to keep
their septic tanks they would by 1995 have to build a new advanced
wastewater treatment plant and the other part of the city would
have to pay for the whole cost by themselves. So this tells you
they need Florida Shores to help pay for the wastewater treatment
plant.
At this time the Council and the audience requested that Mr.
Billick return to his seat. Mr. Billick wrapped up his comments
by saying that Mayor Mitchum stated that 70% of the population's
(tape unclear due to the noise factor) unsewered customers
subsidized the rate of 30% of the sewered customers and it was
$500,000.00 the year it was switched over. This was stated at a
Council meeting March 14, 1990. He also read a memo from Mr.
Wadsworth to Mr. Johnson, dated August 22, 1990 regarding the
separation of the water and sewer budget. In this memo the
statement is made that the water heavily subsidizes sewer
operations. He closed by saying this is a feasible proposal and
the Council can save time, money and be fair and equitable by
making a motion to instruct management and the consultant to use
the utility services taxes, sewer user fees and the special
assessment of $1425.00 in lieu of an impact fee as requested by
over 2,100 petitioners to pay for the new Edgewater Sanitary
System.
Councilperson Martin stated the project costs after the impact fees
is $8,220,000,plus. We allocated $4,110,000.00 as a credit and to
give due credit for use of the utility tax, etc. over the years
towards what you have paid against the old plant, we credited you
with $2,000,000.00. This more than covers the utility taxes
collected from you. If we took that back and gave it somewhere
else, your total assessment would be $4,110,000.00 instead of
$2,110,000.00.
Doris Hill. Lincoln Road
Took exception to some of the comments made...This does have to do
with money. She asked what her utility bill has to do with
someone's sewer system in Florida Shores? She tried to explain
that these people will be short changing themselves because what
they propose will cause everyone to pay for these people who own
vacant lots. They will not have to pay anything until they build
on those lots.
David Mitchum. 2946 Oranqe Tree Drive
Reminded everyone that there is no fool proof method of assessing
anything. Nothing is ever 100% fair. This Council has done the
most equitable thing they can do. He agreed that the utility tax
had been used to subsidize rates, but not to this extent. Mr.
Ferland has more than adequately made up for this in his
presentation. We have to do something, and we have to do it soon,
to coin a phrase, "just do it".
Mayor Wessler called a short recess.
-7-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
~
..,."
Reconvene
Ben Bartolotta. 2924 Sabal Palm Drive
His concern is the timing for this, due to the present economy.
Councilperson Gillespie explained that we are mandated by law by
1995 that we have to be off the septic tanks. If this had been
done when it should have been it would have cost a lot less. If we
wait much longer it will cost more.
Lee Chotas. representinq Florida Shores of Volusia Countv. Inc.
He is a private attorney from Orlando, his client owns eighty-one
buildable sites in Florida Shores. they support the construction
of a well considered sewer system, however, he would like to
compliment Mr. Naill and the united Taxpayers for their recommended
solution to the assessment. He introduced Mr. Paul Roper, an
appraiser with a firm in Orlando. He presented the Council with
Mr. Roper's qualifications. (Document on file in City Hall)
At this time Mr. Chotas addressed the following questions to Mr.
Roper regarding the current situation asking for his professional
point of view.
Are you acting as a special master in Orange County or any other
county in connection with determining the value of property for tax
assessing purposes?
Mr. Roper stated he is conducting assessment hearings in Osceola
County and Orange County, he also conducts the exemption hearings.
Have you visited the Florida Shores Subdivision and are you
familiar with the properties owned by Florida Shores or any other
properties in that area?
Mr. Roper stated he has visited the area.
Have you reviewed the assessment resolution, the assessment
ordinances, in relation to the special assessment on this property?
Mr. Roper stated he has.
Have you reviewed any appraisals concerning the properties in
Florida Shores as it may relate to Florida Shores of Volusia County
and perhaps indirectly give you indication as to the value of other
property in Florida Shores?
Mr. Roper stated he had the opportunity to review a complete
appraisal report on the Florida Shores properties. It was a
current appraisal prepared by Pomeroy Associates of Edgewater.
In your opinion, do any special benefits within the meaning of
Chapter 166 and/or Chapter 170 accrue to the Florida Shores
property which would cause the value of the property to increase
as a result of the expenditures program for the City of Edgewater
Wastewater CIP program?
Mr. Roper stated no, there are no special benefits afforded the
residents of Florida Shores Subdivision, however, there was no way
to establish the definition of special benefit versus the general
benefit concept. He continued to explain that general benefits
enhance the entire community.
What is going to happen to the value of this property if this
assessment scheme is put in place and those sewer systems are
constructed?
-8-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
.....,.
...."
Mr. Roper stated based on a four lot system, the present assessment
represents about 7% of the lot value, from what he has heard
tonight, it may be more like 26% of the lot value. Generally
speaking, you could incur a delayed marketing time due to the
property having to be priced higher. Because of the added burden
of ownership, the value of the property may decline.
At this time the audience insisted their time had run out. Council
discussed whether they were to be allowed more time.
Mr. Chotas stated that if they were not allowed more time, they
would be in a position of not having adequate time to respond to
comments that have been received, since it would not be on the
record, since you would not have a lot of documentation, were you
to go forward with this it would certainly raise questions of
fairness and equity.
Mayor Wessler ascertained that this man represents the people who
started development in Florida Shores.
Councilperson Gillespie suggested that he be allowed to finish up.
Mr. Chotas continued: (unclear due to noise factor)
of the assessment if you have a two lot site?
the effect
Mr. Roper stated the present impact on a two lot scenario is about
7% of the lot value and the total impact would be roughly 26% of
the lot value. The implication is that the in-home product would
have to be priced approximately $10,000.00 higher in order to
realize a profit ratio.
If property values decrease because a lot of folks put their homes
up for sale, what effect do you anticipate for advalorem tax
collections?
Mr. Roper stated if the county recognized the delay marketing time
and the lower property values, then the tax roles could be revised;
the assessments would go down, consequently ad-valorem tax revenues
would be depleted.
If the costs go up and the prices are increased, the absorption of
the lots must decrease, what's going to happen to the value of the
lots if absorption decreases?
Mr. Roper stated accordingly, the value decreases.
Mr. Chotas summarized by saying if this special assessment is
imposed there is no special benefit to these properties as measured
by value alone, the value will not increase, the value may very
well decrease over time and being no special benefit if a number
of homes are put on the market because they can not pay these
assessments, the resulting decline in ad-valorem taxes may even
approximate the amount you are raising in revenue by the special
assessment. The suggestion is that if there is no special benefit,
the city shoots itself in the foot by assessing the property by
special assessment because it lowers its ad-valorem taxes and
everybody has to pay more twice. If there is a special benefit, you
have no problem, in this case the expert says there is no special
benefit. The bottom line is that it is not in the City's best
interest nor is it in the property owners best interest.
-9-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
....,
...."
Pat Montrowl. 331 Schooner Avenue
She addressed a previous situation regarding pot holes in the
Florida Shores shopping center and what little concern was taken
by the Property Owners Association. She expressed her
understanding for those who can not afford this assessment,
however, she and her husband paid all the impact fees, etc. when
they moved here which totaled $7,256.28. Everyone should
understand that we must move forward with this program because you
will eventually have to do it and then you will pay a lot more.
John H. Monahan. Jr.. Vice President of Florida Shores of Volusia
County. Inc.. which was the oriqinal developer of Florida Shores.
As a matter of historical interest, to correct some of the remarks
made tonight...the reason the lots were divided into 40 foot lots,
was simply a marketing idea to advertise $10.00 down/$lO.OO a lot.
He also explained that at the time of the deplorable condition in
the shopping center, they did not own the property and he did exert
some pressure to get the repairs made. In regards to the present
subject...everyone seems to be blaming his company for not having
the sewer plant built a long time ago. Back when Florida Shores
was developed, septic tanks were acceptable, however, when the city
incorporated Florida Shores into the City, they promised to provide
the area with the services that the rest of the City had. He
supports the sewer system, but he also supports the position of the
united Taxpayers, which is this is not a special benefit of Florida
Shores. He apologized for the dry appraisal presentation, but
everybody in the City should be treated fairly.
Dominic Capria. 606 Topside Circle
Asked what happens if we go the way the united Taxpayers are
recommending, will the people who have paid impact fees already get
their money back? Where is the fairness? Let's get going with the
program.
Cliff Clark. 1818 Everqreen
Spoke of the lot prices changing over the years. He spoke of the
utility tax where in 1988 there was a surplus and it was
transferred over to the general fund; but a lot more credit was
given to Florida Shores in Mr. Munoz' report than was possible
because it was not developed that much then. He said the sewers
instead of the septic tanks will increase the value of the
property. He congratulated the Council for coming up with a pretty
good program.
Frank Hoffmeister. 2524 pine Tree Drive
Spoke of a friend who lives on Evergreen Drive; bought his house
from Perry Barrett. Whether he built on Pine Tree or Evergreen,
the house was the same price. The statement was made that the
builder absorbs an impact and special assessment fee; which he
passes on to the buyer. He would like to see this on record.
John smith. 1824 pine Tree Drive
Spoke about the reclaimed water,
that water will be contaminated.
contaminated water.
stating that within three years
His concern is the use of this
Georqe Lvnn. 2628 unity Tree Drive
Asked about updating the water lines. He suggested doing water,
sewer and everything at the same time.
Mayor Wessler explained that she has asked the consulting engineer
about the six inch water lines, and was told they would not be
necessary, however the Council did vote to put this in the planning
stages.
-10-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
.......
.....
David Mulner. 21 Travelers Palm
stated all of this stems back to Magnuson Corp. He complained
about the condition of the canals, etc. He wanted to know what is
going to be done about the connection fee charge?
Domonick Fazzone. 302 Paradise Lane
Stated this program started five years ago, Mr. Ferland has made
a number of presentations to the people. When this Council came
into office, the Mayor asked him to give the City a "Ford instead
of a Cadillac", they have been trying to do a job and do it right.
He has attended many meetings where they went through each and
every item trying to make this more affordable for the taxpayers.
He urged the people not to fight with each other; it is not this
council's fault, this has to be done. It is needed badly.
John Thomas. 2418 Juniper Drive
Asked questions of Mr. Ferland regarding the sewer system and the
line locations.
Mr. Ferland explained that each property owner will have a lateral
to connect to their home, which will connect to the middle of the
road; from the property line to the house is the individual's
responsibility. During construction, the contractor will try to
locate the laterals to accommodate each home owner's needs.
Mr. Ferland went over the build-out figures again for Mr. Thomas
and the growth anticipation. He is in agreement with Mr. Thomas'
comment that not much more than one half of the projected are
going to have to pay for this whole system for the entire Florida
Shores. He explained that the boundaries of the growth planning
are the current sewer boundaries (city limits).
Mr. Thomas questioned the minimum usage charge.
Mr. Ferland answered there will be a minimum bill, the rate
structure will be similar to the water bill, which is currently
about $7.00. For a 6,000 gallon customer, the water charge would
be approximately $17.74 and the wastewater charge would be
approximately $24.00 or $25.00 a month.
Mr. Thomas asked about the pumping stations and what areas they
will serve.
Mr. Ferland answered the pumping stations that are in the special
assessment district are devoted entirely at this point to serving
that particular district.
Mr. Ferland discussed the rates on a water/sewer bill with Mr.
Thomas. He also went over the desired effluent discharge
percentage into the Indian River, etc.
Mr. Thomas asked the Council why they feel the assessment for the
Florida Shores area is fair?
Councilperson Martin answered that Florida Shores is being supplied
with the sewer pipes and the hook ups so they can get rid of the
septic tanks. The rest of the City already has sewers and they
will be paying for the water plant and the wastewater treatment
plant.
-11-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
'-"'
...,
Councilman Jones answered that if the sewer lines were already in
front of the Florida Shores homes they would pay the $1425.00 to
hook up to those lines, but the pipes are not there and we have to
come up with the money to make that a reality. This is the initial
impact to the Florida Shores community. All other subdivisions
paid for these sewer lines when they came into the City. We are
trying to look at this in the best logical way to deal with this
health problem. It is a tremendous decision, determining what is
fair. He complimented the united Taxpayers for their hard work and
concern, however this planning has been going on for years and in
just the past three weeks they presented their plan for funding;
this is the final hour and a tough time to come up with a new plan.
At this time the audience insisted that Mr. Thomas return to his
seat. (The last comment made by him was unclear due to the noise
factor. )
Shirley Naill. 1604 Royal Palm
Stated that these people haye had the benefit of a sewer treatment
plant and now it is worn out and needs to be replaced, whether
Florida Shores comes on it or not. July 23, 1990 Mrs. Bennington
asked Mr. Ferland if the City could afford the plant on their own
and his answer was no. The user fees would be too high. You had
to include us to help pay for your sewer plant.
Joe Martin. Cherokee Ridqe
Asked if the line is put in front of him and he does not build on
his vacant lot what does he have to pay?
This question was not clear.
Mr. Ferland explained the question is: Under the current system if
they put the sewer line in front of your lot, and you don't build
on it what will you pay? He answered that Mr. Martin will pay
zero, because the impact fee will only be collected when he builds
on that lot. He will not pay any public services taxes because he
has no services on a vacant lot. He will pay no wastewater user
fees or water user fees. The only thing he may be paying is
property tax. Under the united Taxpayers proposal he would be
paying $1425.00 special assessment (we have to call it a special
assessment, it is not an impact fee, because you will be paying it
long before you build), then he will not pay anything when he
builds. Under the proposed system, he will pay the prorated share
of the wastewater collection system at 100 feet of frontage and one
equivalent residential unit for the wastewater treatment. If he
sells that lot they will have to pay whatever is left on the
assessment but if he has paid up front, they will pay nothing and
they hook up to the sewer.
Mr. Martin spoke of the figures given at a previous meeting, asking
if instead of crediting Florida Shores with the $2,000,000.00,
maybe people would feel better if we could come up with the exact
figure contributed and take the remainder of it and put it towards
something that would benefit the city as a whole.
Mayor Wessler stated this was discussed previously and it was
determined that if we did this and included the impact fees that
are on hand paid from the rest of the city, the assessment in
Florida Shores is going to go up.
-12-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
"'-"'
~
Henry Dardinski. 2704 Sabal Palm
Commented that finally Magnuson is going to pay for something. He
went on to speak of what the city got when they incorporated
Florida Shores, a development full of dirt roads, lakes, wells and
septic tanks. Magnuson should have paved the streets and made
other needed improvements. They want us to believe that Edgewater
assumed this obligation. Now Magnuson is going to pay their fair
share. What the Council is doing here today is going to improve
the value of your property.
Don Schmidt. 1723 Lime Tree Drive
Spoke to the Council about several comments that are always made
at the meetings. He supports the Council 110%, as a businessman
himself he does not envy the job they have. Mr. Ferland has been
around longer than he probably wants to be; we have paid that
company a whole lot of taxpayer's money, as well as the attorney;
we should take their advice. He expressed his sympathy for those
who can not afford the assessment, however, if they are homeowners
they must have something going for them. He thinks it is time we
all said we've got a decent system that has been worked on for five
or six years by two or three councils. Mr. Schmidt presented a
petition to the Council, supporting this project. He said they
have only worked on it a few days. (Petition on file in City Hall)
He added that he agrees with Mr. Mithcum's comments. Let just get
this done.
Dixie Carlson. 1862 Pine Tree Drive
Asked the Council if there would be consideration for concessions
in future years, as well as for the people who presently can not
afford this?
Councilperson Gillespie asked to answer this question. She
explained that after a meeting she had with United Way and Urban
Ministries, this Council needs a lot of education about just what
can be done regarding these hardships.
Gary Meyers. 3034 Orange Tree Drive
He purchased an 80 foot lot ten years ago with a house on it. This
was put in his wife's name. Later he bought three more lots, which
are in his name. Now he is getting two assessments. He does not
want to change his deeds. The three lots will not be built on; he
bought them so no one would build next to him. He would like the
$350.00 waived on one of these assessments. He added that as far
as the sewer is concerned, we should just go with it. with the
twenty years to pay it we should be able to afford it.
Attorney Clayton addressed this question, with an example of a
constituent in the City who has asked on several lots he owns, if
he could actually divide those lots up and get individual
assessments, because his judgement is that the $350.00 wastewater
treatment impact fee is going to be cheaper than the impact fee in
the future. The alternative is to think about the difference in
paying the impact fee now, or paying it in the future. She sees
no technical or legal problem with waiving this.
Councilperson Gillespie questioned granting this unless this
property is all put in both his and his wife's names.
Mr. Ferland explained, if this is granted, he would be reissued an
assessment showing zero. Then in the future if a building permit
was ever pulled he would be charged at that time for the wastewater
impact fee, at whatever the cost is.
Mayor Wessler asked Mr. Meyer if he understands and if he still
wants the Council to vote on this.
Councilman Hays reiterated Mr. Meyer's situation and asked if the
gentleman owning eighty-one lots wants the same deal, what will
make his request different?
-13-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
.......
~
Mr. Ferland explained that Florida Shores of Volusia County has 259
equivalent suspect lots. If all of his undeveloped parcels were
contiguous, it would have been treated as one equivalent
residential unit for the wastewater treatment capacity. He would
still have been charged by the lot for collection, like everybody
but he would have been charged one E.R.U.
Councilman Jones moved to waive the $350.00 as requested by Mr.
Meyers. Councilperson Martin seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED
4-1. Councilperson Gillespie vote NO.
Beth Bradlev. 3504 Manao Tree Drive
She has an assessment for four equivalent lots, 160
She only actually has 150.7 which is 9.3 feet less.
for consideration on her assessment.
foot frontage.
She is asking
Mr. Ferland went over the formula for dealing with this and he said
he has no problem with making adjustments like this, pointing out
that an adjustment will also have to be made to the adjacent
property raising that assessment.
Attorney Clayton took this opportunity to explain how proceedings
should go according to the final assessment resolution. The
minutes will reflect the adjustments that are voted on and when
they are verified, the minutes will be the final evidence of
equalization. Throughout the process, even after the adoption of
the final assessment resolution, the Council is authorized to make
corrections for errors in the assessment.
Councilperson Gillespie moved to accept Mr. Ferland's
recommendation for correction for both Mrs. Bradley's property and
the adjacent property. Councilperson Martin seconded the motion.
Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Ben Vasauez. for Bessie Trombetta. 2807 Needle Palm Drive
They are opposed to the wastewater treatment portion of his mother-
in-law's assessment. He opposes the entire assessment program
based on the fact that they were not granted the opportunity to
vote on this taxing district.
At this point Mayor Wessler called a short recess.
Reconvene.
Mr. Vasquez continued.
$350.00.
He is requesting the Council waive the
Councilman Hays asked Mr. Vasquez what special circumstance exists?
Mr. Vasquez stated he has no special circumstances, we feel we are
not being specially benefitted by this assessment.
Mayor Wessler asked for a motion. Councilperson Gillespie stated
if there is no special exception, it would come under the general
vote later. There was no motion made.
Norm Roberts. 423 North Riverside Drive
He has quite a few lots that are contiguous and he was only
assessed one time. He is requesting to be assessed separately for
each 80 foot lot, because he plans to develop these each as
individual parcels.
Attorney Clayton pointed out the difficulty here will be when and
how he sells his lots. For example, if he has an odd number of
lots and someone does not want to buy lots one and two, they want
lots two and three. The difficulty will be the record keeping of
what he had paid and how he sells the lots.
-14-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
......
....,
Mr. Roberts stated he would not sell the lots differently, and even
if he did, the City would be the winner because he will have over
paid.
Attorney Clayton stated the question is how the configuration of
the buildable lots are sold in the future. If they are subdivided
differently in the future and he is paying his assessments today,
it will cause some problem in our bookkeeping.
Mr. Roberts stated this could be taken care of at that time.
Attorney Clayton added that she thinks Mr. Roberts is taking a very
intelligent position, but she wants to make sure what is being done
is sensible from a legal standpoint.
Councilperson Martin moved to allow Mr. Roberts to pay the $350.00
in advance. Councilman Jones seconded the motion.
It was decided to let Mr. Ferland and Mr. Roberts work together on
this and come up with a precise recommendation to the Council.
The second and the motion were withdrawn.
Mr. Roberts warned the Council of a possible problem they are going
to come up against regarding the tapered lots in the back of
Florida Shores.
Mr. Ferland explained that this will all be dealt with as special
requests when it comes up.
Hank Dardinski. 2704 Sabal Palm Drive
Apologized to Mr. Monohan for his previous comments, stating that
this young man does not have anything to do with what happened in
1957.
Georqe Adams. 2021 victory Palm Drive
He has a financial hardship; as he is totally disabled. He lives
on Social Security with three young children.
Mayor Wessler explained they can not waive his assessment, it was
decided by the Council earlier to hold some special workshops to
get some information to help those who need it. He will receive
notification.
Simon Roper
A local builder, who does not Ii ve wi thin the city, but owns
property in the ci ty . He discussed property on Indian River
Boulevard where he lost footage with the four-laning of the road
by the State.
Mayor Wessler asked the attorney if the State will reimburse him
for the footage he loses due to their work?
Attorney Clayton ascertained that Mr. Roper has 160 feet on Orange
Street and 60 feet on the boulevard. She stated that she
understands the argument regarding the easement, but asked the
basis for any further argument beyond the thirteen or fifteen feet
width?
Mr. Roper explained 45 feet is the setback required by the City.
councilperson Gillespie asked the City Planner if it is correct
that he is losing 30 feet that the City is requiring him to set
back?
-15-
Council special Meeting
August 6, 1991
.......
....",
Mark Karet, City Planner, explained it is not land that he is
los ing , it is land that he can not bui ld a structure on. He
questioned whether this is a specific case or will we run into this
all along the boulevard?
The answer from Council was no, this will not be any different.
Mayor Wessler asked Mr. Roper for an exact footage that he is
requesting an exemption for.
Councilperson Gillespie moved to grant an exception for 15 feet.
There was no second to the motion.
Mayor Wessler read the following names into the record from whom
written requests for exceptions have been received: Mr. and Mrs.
Morin, Patricia Eriksen, Norm Roberts, Mr. Lawrence Durgin, Gerard
Faughnan, Evelyn Ballenger Durden, Anita Zamojcin, Rosalia App,
Regina McEvoy and Eleanor Pinder, Carl L. Anderson, Rachel and
Richard Deusmore, Joseph Voigt, victor Salvo, Phyllis Cremeans.
All of these requests will be handled by staff.
At this time Mr. Ferland returned with Mr. Roberts' request. He
stated there are three different cases. First, six contiguous
lots he was charged one E.R.U. of treatment plant capacity and he
is requesting to pay three R.R.U.s of treatment plant capacity.
This is Parcel #2, 27th and Guava.
Councilperson Martin moved to allow Mr.
E. R. U. s where he was only charged one,
Councilman Hays seconded the motion.
Councilperson Gillespie voted NO.
Roberts to pay three
which is Parcel #2.
Motion CARRIED 4-1.
Parcel #3, 2220 Hibiscus. There are four lots under one tax number
and the adjacent two lots under a different parcel number all owned
by the same two individuals. The four lot parcel already has a
building on it and it has one E. R. U. which is correct. The
adjacent two lots have zero E.R.U. and he would like to have one
E.R.U. assessed.
Councilperson Martin moved to allow Mr. Roberts to pay for one
R.R. U. on Parcel #3. Councilman Jones seconded the motion. Motion
CARRIED 5-0.
A parcel in Block 152, four lots that currently are assessed one
E.R.U. and he wants two E.R.U.s.
Councilperson Martin moved to allow Mr. Roberts to be assessed for
two E.R. U. s on this parcel where he was assessed one E.R. U.
Councilman Jones seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Parcel #1 is three different parcels. One parcel is a single lot
another parcel is three lots and the third parcel is four lots.
In other words, he has eight contiguous parcels, but they are
he Iter skelter. Mr. Ferland recommended the easiest way to handle
this would be for Mr. Roberts to redeed the eight parcels under
single parcels. When he gets it redeeded as eight parcels, then
the city could grant him four E.R.U.s for the eight parcels. The
motion would have to be contingent upon him fulfilling that
obligation.
Attorney Clayton explained that Mr. Roberts should agree to file
a corrected deed showing those parcels in single ownership, based
on this and a diagram of the lots to which we are allocating these
assessment units, subject to the corrected deed being filed within
the time for prepayment without interest or penalty accruing on any
special assessments, delivered to the City Clerk, examined by the
City Attorney for correctness then the adjustment will be made on
the final assessment role.
-16-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
....
....",
Councilperson Martin so moved.
motion.
councilman Jones seconded the
Attorney Clayton stated he will file a corrected deed forming a
single tax parcel on this last group of parcels, on which then will
be allocated four E.R.U.s
Motion CARRIED 3-2. Councilperson Gillespie and Councilman Hays
voted NO.
Attorney Clayton reminded Council that on the agenda is approval
of the engineer's plans, specifications, cost estimates, and any
amendments, confirmation of the initial assessment resolution, any
amendments to it, approval of the assessment roll, including the
method of assessment, and any amendments and establish of the
interest rate and the terms of prepayment. These items can be
taken one at a time.
Councilperson Gillespie moved that we remove from the assessment,
in all form, the effluent reuse. Councilman Hays seconded the
motion.
Attorney Clayton asked that the motion include that there will be
a charge made against the rates.
Councilperson Gillespie stated that it was never stipulated how we
would pay this, except that it would go city-wide.
Mr. Ferland reminded Council that it was stipulated that this would
go to user fees.
Councilperson Gillespie agreed and added that this is the
restatement of an original motion, to be placed to user fees, city-
wide. She does not understand why we have to restate all of this.
Attorney Clayton explained that the description of the project in
the initial assessment resolution is going to be amended by this
motion. This is the advertised time when the initial assessment
resolution will be amended. You are proposing to amend it by
deleting the reuse portion from the special assessment and to add
the cost of that program into the user fee rate base.
Councilperson Gillespie restated; as of this evening, we wish to
remove the $190.00 E.R.U. assessment for effluent reuse from the
Florida Shores special assessment district and place it city-wide
user fees. The second to this motion was made by Councilman Hays.
Councilman Jones asked if for the benefit of those not present at
the meeting where this discussion previously took place, would it
be explained again now.
Councilman Hays explained that the consensus was that the reuse
program provides a city-wide benef it, the benef it being, the
effluent return is a mechanism to dispose of the treated sewage of
the entire city.
Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Mayor Wessler stated the issue of the connection fee of $150.00 has
to be decided upon.
Councilman Hays moved that we adopt a policy regarding the $150.00
fee, that the fee be waived. Councilman Jones seconded the motion.
Councilman Jones suggested that this be amended to include ninety
days, to encourage people to hook up. In other words, they would
pay nothing if they hook up within the first ninety days.
-17-
Council special Meeting
August 6, 1991
.......
.....
councilman Hays stated that since we already have people hook up
within ninety days, this would be redundant.
Councilperson Gillespie pointed out this is for the special
assessment district.
councilman Hays amended his motion to include within ninety days.
Attorney Clayton questioned what source the connection fee will
come from?
Mr. Ferland explained a connection fee is $150.00 which is for the
service of a City employee to locate the lateral and dig it up so
that you can come to it. since the construction is being conducted
at the time it is done, the home owner is going to know where their
lateral is, it is already going to be dug up and it won't be a
necessary service. This is actually part of the total
construction.
Councilman Hays reiterated that this is a fee that will not be
charged because you will not be calling a City employee to locate
a line to do the necessary work on a typical hookup. He restated
his motion: to waive the sewer connection for all equivalent
parcels in the assessment district that connect to the wastewater
system within ninety days of being notified that service is
available. The motion was seconded by Councilman Jones. Motion
CARRIED 5-0.
Councilperson Gillespie moved that we remove the $371.00
transmission charge that is figured into the front foot assessment
for the Florida Shores special assessment district. councilman
Hays seconded the motion.
Councilman Hays stated anything in the project that benefits the
entire City, he does not feel should be part of the assessment,
such as the collection system, pumping stations.
Motion DIED 2-3. Councilman Jones, councilperson Martin and Mayor
Wessler voted NO.
Councilman Hays asked Mr. Ferland to explain how he calculated a
rate base versus impact fee, what portions of the rate are
contributable to the capital?
Mayor Wessler called a recess.
Reconvene.
Councilman Hays withdrew his last question.
Councilperson
of financing
seconded the
Councilperson
Gillespie moved to accept the united Taxpayers offer
for this system for assessment. Councilman Hays
motion. Motion DIED 2-3. Councilman Jones,
Martin and Mayor Wessler voted NO.
Councilperson Gillespie moved that we take out the $350.00 plant
share as unfair to the Florida Shores assessment area. Councilman
Hays seconded the motion.
Councilman Hays asked Mr. Ferland to take the floor, Councilperson
Gillespie asked him to prove to her that it is fair.
-18-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
.......,
~
Mr. Ferland stated the theory is that capital contribution for
wastewater treatment should be made by all people connecting to the
system. If you are outside the Florida Shores special assessment
district, you pay $1425.00 to cover wastewater treatment plant,
effluent disposal and pump station and transmission for your
capital contribution to the wastewater treatment system. Inside
Florida Shores because of the special assessment methodology that
we are using they are paying $904.00 in lieu of $1425.00 impact
fee. Actually, giving the motions that you have passed tonight,
it is $714.00 they are paying as their capital contribution to the
wastewater treatment plant. If you remove the $350.00 allocation
or capital contribution from people in Florida Shores, you are
removing that cost associated with 50% of the treatment plant that
has been assessed to the Florida shores district. If this happens,
then a vacant lot will be paying nothing for the capital cost
associated with those facilities until such time they build on that
lot and then when someone goes to build on the same lot outside
this district, they are paying $1425.00. This does not seem
equitable.
Councilperson Gillespie asked if the $350.00 was removed, they pay
the front foot assessment and then they would pay just like the
rest of the City ($1425.00) when they develop.
Mr. Ferland agreed with this as being totally equitable, however
in the long run, they would pay much more than is now figured.
They would pay the assessment plus the $1425.00 when developing.
Councilperson Gillespie pointed out that this is the only area to
pay the front foot assessment for sewer.
Mr. Ferland contended that where they are not paying for a front
foot assessment, they paid in terms of a higher lot cost. There
has been some amble justification in the City of Edgewater between
the cost of a lot sewered and the cost of a lot unsewered.
Councilman Hays asked what percentage of the wastewater treatment
plant is future growth? Anything that addresses future growth,
existing inside the City limits or inside the assessment area,
shouldn't that come back to a user fee rather than an assessment.
Mr. Ferland explained the replacement cost method which is used to
determine impact fees. He went over the user fees, and the pie
chart available. If you pullout and don't include a capital
contribution, then the vacant parcels pay nothing toward the
capital cost of that facility. All the existing users will have
to carry that additional cost for the vacant parcel owners, because
they won't be paying anything towards it other than ad valorem
taxes, you may pledge for the payment to make up the difference
that you won't collect from the assessment. If utility services
taxes are used, then those funds have to be made up, or the budget
has to be cut. The biggest payers of taxes will be paying the
disproportionate share and the undeveloped parcels are paying
nothing. For example, Coronado Paint Company would be paying for
a lot of sewer capacity which they won't be using. By having this
assessment you are requiring the undeveloped and developed parcels
pay the same amount. He told Council they could use the U.T.E.
proposal, however, he finds the same inequity; you may be able to
cut the budget. If you removed the lift station component, you
would be further reducing the amount of capital contribution which
is already much less than anyone outside the assessment district.
You would also be awarding more benefit to a six lot owner than a
two lot owner; the more lots you own, the more of a break you get.
Mayor Wessler restated the motion was to take out the $350.00.
Motion DIED 2-3. Councilman Jones, Councilperson Martin and Mayor
Wessler voted NO.
-19-
Council special Meeting
August 6, 1991
......,
...."
Councilperson Gillespie moved to allow Volusia County under FS197
to collect the sewer assessment. Councilperson Martin seconded the
motion.
Councilman Hays reminded Council when this was previously
discussed, we agreed that this would be within a reasonable dollar
amount.
Attorney Clayton suggested leaving it that you will have the County
collect the special assessment and between now and the time the
state Revolving Fund Loans are executed that number be verified.
This can be brought back to the Council for determination of being
reasonable. At that time you will be able to revise the final
assessment resolution in that regard and do it yourselves.
Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Attorney Clayton asked for determination on the prepaYment without
incurring any interest costs. The interest costs will probably
start accruing wi thin a month. She suggested a thirty day or
forty-five day period be established for people to prepay without
incurring any share of the financing or interest costs.
There was confusion about this being discussed previously.
Attorney Livermore explained the previous discussion compared to
this subject.
Attorney Clayton continued with her comments; that people may
prepay at any time without incurring obligations to capitalized
interest in phase one prior to the date of construction.
Mr. Ferland suggested a firm date to tie to. Tentatively on the
SRF loan applications, we have an award of construction contract
contemplated for the collection system, Phase I October 7, 1991.
If this date is acceptable, we could use it. The other date would
be the loan agreement date; this would be the best date to use.
Councilperson Martin moved to use the date of October 1, 1991 for
prepaYment, no capital interest, pay just the principal amount on
the loan. councilperson Gillespie seconded the motion, and asked
Mr. Ferland how much this is going to save an individual with an
80 foot parcel?
Mr. Ferland answered the approximate savings will be $147.00 for
two lots.
Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Attorney Clayton pointed out that the parcels that are paying a
special assessment for the wastewater treatment plant need to have
some certainty that they will not be required in the future to pay
impact fees for plant capacity. Although this has been discussed,
it does not appear in the resolution. She asked the Council's
opinion and suggested this be added to the final assessment
resolution.
Councilperson Gillespie moved that anyone paying the wastewater
plant assessment share at this time of the sum of $350.00 be
alleviated from any further charge of share on this wastewater
treatment plant. Councilman Jones seconded.
Mr. Ferland interjected that, for example if a person builds a
duplex on a parcel which he has paid one capacity, he then has to
pay another capacity.
-20-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
......
-...."t
Councilperson Gillespie asked if it would suffice if she amended
her motion to include, unless staff finds capacity has changed?
Attorney Clayton answered the intention should be that they will
be entitled to one E.R.U. residential capacity and will not pay an
impact fee in the future.
Councilperson Gillespie so amended her motion, and Councilman Jones
amended his second. Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Attorney Clayton informed Council that the final assessment
resolution does not have some of the appendices attached. The
appendices that are referred to talk abut the method of assessment.
If you approve the method of assessment that was adopted as an
amendment to the initial assessment resolution, that will be
attached to this final assessment resolution. You will also have
as attachments copies of the notice that has been mailed. Appendix
A is the description of the project, it's location in the district
which is already a matter of public record. Appendix B will be the
apportionment method which were previously adopted, except with
reference to effluent disposal. Appendix C will be the copy of the
notice that was mailed by the clerk.
Mayor Wessler read Resolution 9l-R-46
A Resolution of the city council of the city of Edqewater, Florida,
adopted as final assessment resolution, ratifyinq and confirminq
the creation of the Florida Shores improvement area special
assessment district, confirming the initial assessment resolution,
orderinq the acquisition and construction of a pro;ect consistinq
of construction of a wastewater collection system, includinq any
necessary road restoration and resurfacinq. a portion of an
advanced wastewater treatment plant. all within that portion of the
City of Edqewater, Florida included within the boundaries of the
Florida Shores improvement area. determining the cost of the
project and the cost to be paid by the city, determininq that
certain real property will be speciallY benefited by the
acquisition and construction of said pro;ect, establishinq the
assessment of the costs of the pro;ect aqainst the real property
that will be specially benefited: apl'rovinq the plans,
specifications and estimates of cost for such pro;ect and the final
assessment roll based upon the assessments: determininq and
providinq for the manner and method of collectinq such special
assessments to finance such pro;ect: and providinq an effective
date.
Attorney Clayton asked Mr. Ferland for the total final estimated
project cost for the district, so that these figures can be placed
in the resolution.
Mr. Ferland answered the total estimated proj ect cost will be
$28,488,250.00, $19,203,214.00 being the project cost to be funded
by special assessment.
Councilman Jones moved to adopt Resolution 91-R-46 as amended.
Councilperson Martin seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 4-1
Councilperson Gillespie voted NO.
The Council thanked Mrs. Kelly for opening the school for this
meeting. The audience gave her a round of applause.
Councilperson Gillespie moved to adjourn. Councilperson Martin sec
onded the motion. Meeting adjourned 1:35 a.m. (August 7, 1991)
Minutes submitted by:
Debbie Sigler
-21-
council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991
,r
......,
ATTEST:
"WI
COUNCILMAN - ZONE ;?:!;J/~) ~
'* A2M OM.;. ,;2;/1'191 ~.
Approved this c:? i' day of
~ ' 1991.
~..\ \!~
~ C ~ '1.'v,-,\~'b \ \~" '~~~Q --.-J
MAYOR '__j
-22-
Council Special Meeting
August 6, 1991