December 5, 1995 (s)
Dec 05 1995
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize the County Attorney to advertise an ordinance pursuant to Section 212.055, Florida Statutes, providing for the levy of a discretionary infrastructure sales surtax of one percent for a period of six months, commencing January 1, 1997; providing that the proceeds of said discretionary infrastructure sales surtax, and any interest accrued thereto, shall be expended within Brevard County, Florida, to finance, plan, acquire, construct and improve County jail facilities as defined and permitted in Section 212.055(2)(d), Florida Statutes and limited by this ordinance; providing for the ultimate distribution of proceeds to the County since only the County is currently authorized to operate a jail facility in Brevard County; providing for levy of surtax only upon approval by a majority vote of the qualified electors of Brevard County; deleting language on Page 3, Section 6, ?and (2) if the governing bodies of all municipalities (seated within the geographical boundaries of Brevard County) execute interlocal agreements?; providing for a special referendum on the issue to be held March 12, 1996; providing for publication of notice of referendum; authorizing the Brevard County Supervisor of Elections to properly conduct the election called for hereby; providing for ballot language; providing for severability; providing for repeal of inconsistent ordinances or resolutions; and providing for an effective date, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to direct the County Attorney to meet with the municipalities and explain to them that it is the Board?s desire to have the infrastructure surtax applied only to construction of the County?s jail facility and to enter into interlocal agreements, with the intention to have such referendum for the First Primary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Growth Management Director Sue Hann advised this is the second series of workshops on the CIP; and requested the Board?s guidance on any changes it would like to make on these items.
Chairman Cook stated whatever the Board votes to have included, actually the entire thing will come back to the Board for a final vote. He inquired what is that date; with Ms. Hann responding it will be sometime after the February 13, 1996 workshop.
Commissioner Ellis stated his concern is still with the Merritt Island reuse line; it is $1 million just to get it down the road; that does not hook anyone up; and the preliminary costs for the reuse line is $30 million.
Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated the Water Resources Department proposes 13 capital improvement projects over the next five years; these include projects that will expand the capacity of Mims Water Treatment Plant, rehabilitate the South Beaches two million-gallon Wastewater Treatment Plant, expand the treatment plant capacity and reuse system at the South-Central Regional Plant, expand reuse systems in Merritt Island and Mims, and provide renewal and replacement programs for all service areas. He advised six of these projects were initiated in prior years and require funding for completion; two are on-going programs that fund repair and replacement of existing facilities and provide major equipment; the other five projects will begin in fiscal year 1996 or 1997; four of these are concurrency projects; such projects are those which would add either treatment capacity or disposal capacity; and one project, which is the South Beaches Alternative Action Plan, is an unfunded project.
Water Resources Director Richard Martens stated with the exception of the Alternative Action Plan, all these projects are funded; there is current funding available for them; although the County has not finalized the issue, it is optimistic that the permit issues with the South Beaches Injection Well will be resolved; and that unfunded project will be eliminated completely. He noted he does not believe it is included in this year?s CIP; and staff should have that resolved within six months.
Chairman Cook stated that will save the County approximately $30 million; with Mr. Martens responding about half of that. Mr. Martens advised the reuse would be the substantial alternative to injection in the South Beaches; all of these projects will come back in accordance with BCC-25, the Acquisition and Procurement Policy; staff views this simply as a planning document; so for all the significant services, staff will be back to the Board for individual approval. He noted over the years, various boards have requested information and discussion about reclaimed water projects for both Merritt Island and the South Beaches; in September, the item staff brought to the Board was a Task Order with Camp, Dresser, McKee to prepare an application for the State; funding was in response to those wishes and desires of the previous boards to discuss this issue; and there has always been considerable discussion concerning the cost and benefit relationships of these projects.
Mr. Martens noted the State Revolving Loan Fund financing is the cheapest way to finance projects like this; prior to receiving that funding, there are certain steps the State requires the County to go through, modifying its facilities plan and developing a financial plan to show it can afford to make these improvements; and even if the County completed that loan application process and was accepted into the program by the State, there is no requirement on any given year to continue to participate. He stated he wants to make it clear that such application for funding would be a voluntary issue on the part of the Board year-by-year based on the overall impacts to the ratepayers to the cost benefit of doing the projects; he sent the Board a one-page summary of some of the issues discussed on reclaimed water for the South Beaches Service Area; almost everyone has an irrigation well and pays $1.00 a month for electricity; the cost of the well and pump replacement is amortized over 20 years; and it is approximately $5.00 to $7.00 per month for the long-term cost of irrigation supply. He noted for all practical purposes, people in the South Beaches do not irrigate with potable water; single-family water consumption is approximately 190 gallons per day on the average; Merritt Island has a different aquifer; its single-family potable water consumption runs about 230 gallons per day; and that is a five-year average.
Mr. Martens stated different families will irrigate different amounts at different times of the year; when looking at it merely from an economic standpoint, he would estimate that most people who irrigate with city water probably do not pay more than $200 a year for that irrigation; that varies based on the family size and how much they irrigate; smaller families are going to pay more for their irrigation than large families when they are using city water because their sewer bill is capped at 12,000 gallons a month; and larger families will use more of that 12,000 gallons a month for their inside water use and will not realize that savings. He noted given the discussion at the Board?s first workshop and hearing what has been said, staff has put the two North Merritt Island Reuse Projects in limbo and has not proceeded with them, knowing there is this issue; the County has not killed such projects completely; they are still listed; this is still the original CIP staff presented to the Board several months ago; and staff has administratively put those on hold.
Commissioner Ellis stated he has a question on the memorandum; on one part of it, it says financing the SRF totally from benefitted property fees would require a monthly fee of $14; and inquired who else would pay other than the benefitted properties. Mr. Martens responded there were actually two proposals under SRF to finance the improvements; one would be to just include it under the general bond indebtedness of the utility and spread those costs over all users of the system. Commissioner Ellis inquired would it be whether someone has to hook up or not; with Mr. Martens responding whether it is available or not. Mr. Martens advised that was the 3.2% rate increase; that is assuming there is no debt coverage potential in the current rates that any new debt would require a rate increase; and that is approximately $1.00 a month for the average customer. He noted there has also been considerable discussion that the benefitted parties pay for the funding of this project; and in order to do that, staff is estimating a service fee for reuse would have to increase from $5.00 a month up to $15.00 a month to meet that debt service. Commissioner Ellis stated only one-third of the customers on the sewer system are going to get hooked up to reuse; with Mr. Martens responding that is correct. Mr. Martens advised these projects are not intended, nor is there water available, to extend the reuse to all these people.
Chairman Cook stated if the people who are actually benefitting from it pay for it, then they would have to pay $15 a month; with Mr. Martens responding significantly more than they are currently paying. Mr. Martens stated those reclaimed water customers who did not have to separately pay for installation of the infrastructure in those subdivisions where reclaimed water lines were put in by the developer and included in the house and lot, love the program; and he has not had a single complaint on any issue from any residential reclaimed water customers. He noted staff has had several neighborhoods talk to it about the possibility of providing reclaimed water system through the Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) process; it is very similar to the benefitted properties paying their own way; staff has not had that level of support from those areas who have to pay for it themselves; and it has not done any yet simply because of that.
Commissioner Scarborough stated there is also the retrofit problem; with Mr. Martens responding the retrofit problem literally doubles the expense. Chairman Cook stated the streets are being ripped up in Rockledge; the people hate it and their lawns are being torn up; the streets should be repaved to make it right; for new development it is practical; but to go back and retrofit is not practical.
Commissioner Higgs inquired has staff run the numbers if the County went to a potable reuse plan and the cost to individuals is offset by the decrease in water costs; with Mr. Martens responding negatively. Commissioner Higgs stated her question has always been what if the County were to go to a potable reuse that people would pay; but the costs would be offset by their drinking water costs; the realization would be that the County would be providing drinking water; maybe everyone would not take it; but the County would have enough increased revenue so that the cost of doing the reuse, if it were potable, might be recovered over time.
Commissioner Ellis suggested the discussion of reuse lines be placed on the December 12, 1995 agenda; with Chairman Cook responding perhaps it can be discussed at the next CIP workshop.
Mr. Peffer inquired is the Board going to move forward with including everything but the reuse or everything but reuse on the South Beaches and Merritt Island. Chairman Cook responded the reuse issue needs to be brought back at a later date as there is still some question on it.
Mr. Martens stated the Merritt Island Barge Canal reclaimed water main crossing and the North Merritt Island reuse is excluded; and staff will come back and schedule another meeting to discuss all of the Merritt Island and South Beaches retrofit reuse issues at a future date.
Commissioner Higgs inquired about the South-Central 3.0 million gallon reuse system; with Mr. Martens responding it is an on-going project and is virtually completed.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to accept the Water Resources Department CIP minus the North Merritt Island and South Beaches reuse lines. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated the Solid Waste Management Department proposes 15 capital improvement projects, including a Countywide equipment renewal and replacement program; several of the projects are for improvements to the Central Disposal Facility; one project will develop a recycling facility to serve North Brevard; four projects are planned to improve the two existing transfer stations and site acquisition for a third transfer station to serve the south end of the County; stormwater improvements at the Sarno Landfill are a part of the implementation of the approved closure plan; and the development of a new South County processing and disposal facility is also included in the Capital Improvement Plan. He noted two of these projects are concurrency related; those would be projects that add landfill capacity; and all are presently under the CIP.
Solid Waste Management Director Richard Rabon stated in general, the projects are centered into two goals or objectives; one is that they provide either renewal or replacement of existing capital facilities designed to keep the system functional integrity intact; the other objective is to expand the capacity of the system generally to a 25-year period; and that has been the overall goal of the CIP in that regard. He advised in 1992, the Board adopted a rate philosophy to move away from debt financing as much as possible and move into cash financing of its CIP; the rate has generated a significant amount of reserves since that time; and that, coupled with a bond issue that was sold in 1993 of approximately $18 million, has provided sufficient funding to fully fund the CIP as it is presented here now. He stated the total cost of the CIP over the five-year period is estimated at approximately $61 million; and there is approximately $30 million in unrestricted reserves for the CIP at the current time and another $8 million in restricted reserves which are sinking funds for debt repayment and other bond reserve funds that are required by the bond covenants to be there.
Mr. Rabon provided handouts to the Board showing how the funds will look; stated there is a FY 96 listing of the expenditures; there is an accumulative for the remaining years through the year 2000; this gives the Board a year-to-year projection of it and splits it out over the five-year period; and there is also a chart showing what happens to the reserves over time. He stated on the bar graph for FY 96, there is the combination of the two numbers at the bottom of the page which is approximately $31 million in current reserves; it shows how these are projected to be spent; and it should correspond with the year-to-year expenditure table which was also provided to the Board. He noted some of the projects are currently under construction and others are not; however, the biggest one of all remains the addition of a facility that serves the south County service area; the original numbers in this particular CIP were based on the initial development of the current site; and should that change, then approximately half of this CIP or approximately $30 million is going to be distributed in a different manner, either through the payment of tipping fees over time or as the County would pay a contractor to construct on that site or some other site in Brevard County.
Chairman Cook noted this money was originally set aside to develop the Deseret property; with Mr. Rabon responding this CIP was put together with that in mind. Mr. Rabon advised the Board is looking at $30 million cash that will be available during this period for that purpose, if the County looks at an average tipping fee of approximately $35 per ton or a combination of transportation and tipping fees; if it was paying for an outside County disposal site at that rate, it would be spending it at a far less rate such as $7 million or $8 million a year in additional tipping fees; and that money could be used for some time. He stated this only goes for five years; there will be certain improvements beyond that period of time; but at the rate that this is generating in reserves, the County should be able to pay cash for it. He noted he does not see any real adjustment to these rates for some time to come.
Chairman Cook stated it is great to pay as you go; and it is saving the taxpayers millions of dollars in interest payments.
Mr. Rabon stated regarding the RFQ process, staff will be bringing the recommendation of the Selection Committee to the Board on December 12, 1995; there were 11 firms that submitted their qualifications; all but two qualified; and staff will be asking the Board?s approval of that selection and permission to issue the RFP to those qualified bidders. He explained the process of the Selection Committee and the various firms that submitted qualifications. He stated staff has the draft RFP prepared; it will distribute it to the vendors for comment; it will also send the Board the same copy it will be sending to the vendors for its review and comment as well; and staff will bring the entire RFP back to the Board with comments from the vendors and request permission to issue it on January 9, 1996. Mr. Rabon advised responses will be received by the first week of March, 1996; and if the Board selects a vendor, staff will begin negotiations and enter into a contract which could occur by May, 1996.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept the Solid Waste Management Department CIP. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated during the next five years, the Mosquito Control Department plans to replace a 30-year old helicopter and a 13-year old vehicle used for herbicide control; and it also will continue acquisition and restoration of mosquito control impoundments, and clean up contaminated sites at the Merritt Island and Melbourne Regional Airports which were previously used by the Department. He advised there are no concurrency projects in this CIP; and all projects are currently funded.
Chairman Cook inquired is any additional revenue required; with Mosquito Control Director Jim Hunt responding negatively. Chairman Cook inquired is the County replacing the helicopter because it is 30 years old. Mr. Hunt responded it is 30 years old; the helicopters are all built with a honeycomb; they are basically plastic throughout; and it gets to the point where it is structurally unsafe. He noted to do a fuselage on a helicopter is extremely expensive; and you can never get the money back out of it. Chairman Cook inquired what is the price for the new helicopter; with Mr. Hunt responding $700,000 and the County can sell the helicopter it has now for $300,000. Chairman Cook inquired if it is unsafe, why is the County selling it to someone else. Mr. Hunt responded it is not unsafe; someone can put the money back into it if they want to; and it is his opinion and experience that you get to a point with any type of vehicle, aircraft or whatever, that the money you put into it you can never get back out of it again. He noted it would cost the County over $300,000 cash to redo the helicopter. Chairman Cook stated obviously, the helicopter is good enough for someone to use. Mr. Peffer stated the value of the aircraft may also depend on the intensity of the use; and the County is using it everyday, whereas maybe a future buyer would not have an intense use for it. Chairman Cook stated his concern is the County is selling a vehicle that is structurally unsound; and he is not comfortable with doing that. Mr. Hunt advised the helicopter is not structurally unsound; the way the County uses aircraft and the way other people use aircraft when they fly from Point A to Point B is totally different; the County?s aircraft are always maxed out by weight and structural maneuver; and when it gets to a point where you have time required on the aircraft, structural stability, or the shell of the helicopter is actually soft, it is to the County?s standards and more beneficial to purchase another one rather than putting the money back into it and still have a 30-year old helicopter. Chairman Cook stated he can understand that; and inquired will the new helicopter go out to bid; with Mr. Hunt responding affirmatively.
Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept the Mosquito Control Department CIP. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated with regard to the Natural Resources Management Department, the capital improvements are all related to the EELS Program; funding for such Program is dependent on two major factors; one the County does not control; it is reimbursed by the State; the second part of the funding equation for capital is under the County?s control to a certain degree; and it is with respect to any future bonding the County would do. He noted the timing and amount of the additional bonding is critical when looking at capital revenue; the bonding decision also depends on the financial decision which the County is going to be facing in the coming months with regard to how much of the EELS millage does it want to commit for bonding compared to how much is already committed, and how much it might want to reduce the EELS millage and pick up another source of revenue in order to pay for the operation and maintenance, and administration of the Program.
Mr. Peffer stated the EELS staff and Selection Committee have drafted a financial plan which would address those issues; and it is prepared and ready for review by the County?s Finance Committee. He noted one of the issues on the table is to refinance the existing debt; the County also had accumulated reserves which could be used to help refinance that; so it is something that needs to be discussed with the Finance Committee; and a recommendation will be brought to the Board. He stated at this time, staff is not going to request the Board approve this capital plan as there are so many contingencies that are unknown; it has a financial plan it would like to take to the Finance Committee; it also has the draft of a maintenance management plan for the facilities acquired; and those two will work together to help determine what will need to be looked at in terms of future capital, and administrative and maintenance costs.
Chairman Cook stated the Board does need to take any action on this today; with Mr. Peffer responding staff does not feel it is appropriate to take any action at this time. Chairman Cook stated he still has concerns about the $850,000 and $85,000.
Dr. Duane DeFreese responded staff did that because it knew it was in this situation and did not want to come without a CIP; and the thought was to earmark the Enchanted Forest reimbursement for capital development and not land acquisition, with the idea that staff would have a reasonable time frame, come back and amend the numbers; it does not look at $850,000 as a reasonable number either; and it was just trying to earmark it. He stated staff?s fear was that without it, if land acquisition continued, it would watch those monies as they come in continually go for land acquisition and not to the Enchanted Forest or the Rockledge Sanctuary; so it earmarked it all to develop it and hopefully get the numbers; and he believes it can be done now. Dr. DeFreese noted staff has a very clear and decisive recommendation for the Finance Committee to look at; the Board will have the chance to review that; and the overall goal has always been to be able to project not only five years on a CIP, but through the 17 years remaining on this Program; so the Board gets a chance to see the ultimate end product of this Program and then gauge its decisions and responses in a broader framework than site by site and project by project; and it really sees a program vision.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to take no action on the Natural Resources Management Department CIP. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Cook advised Commissioner O?Brien?s mother is in critical condition which is the reason he was unable to attend today?s meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct the County Manager to reschedule the Scrub Jay Workshop, which is currently scheduled for December 8, 1995, if Commissioner O?Brien is unable to attend. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
ATTEST:
_________________________________
MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
_________________________
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)
Back to Index