Good morning. Tuesday, October 7th, 2025, regular border county commissioners meeting will now be called to order. We'll begin with a moment of silent reflection from the first responders and members of our armed forces. Commissioner Susan Adams
will deliver an invocation and I'll have the honor of leading us in the pledge. Please rise. Lord, as we come here today, excuse me. Dear Lord, as we come here today, please bless us with the patience
to make the decisions necessary for our community to have the conversations that are needed to make sure the work of our county is done, and to give us the guidance to move forward on the things that we need to do.
Please bless our first responders and members of our armed forces. And please, please dry the clouds up so we can get a little relief from the rain. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in
the pledge of allegiance to the greatest nation on earth, the United States of America, home of the for free because of the brave. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, liy for all. Thank you all. Good morning once again and we'll move on to any addition deletions to the agenda. Uh item 16 B5 is a scriven era
duplicate. So we'll be removing that item. The previous item reflects the same. Is there anything else? Administrator. Yes, Mr. Chair. I would like to remove item 9G
and item 9V and we'll bring those back after little further research. 9G golf 9V boy. Yes. Is there anything else? Move to approve as amended. Second. That's a motion by Commissioner
Moore, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Next item is a presentation proclamation recognizing the month of October as
cyber security awareness month in inner river county Florida. And we will have uh vice chairman law do the honors of presentation. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And we have members of our IT staff here. And if they would like to uh join the director
I tell you we've come a long ways uh Mr. chair from the old uh control alt delete days and and the days when we would call it and they would say uh unplug it and plug it back in in 30 seconds. We've come a long way. So
in 2006 we had uh one or two members of it. We have now have a full complement team. Right. So it is my honor to read this proclamation. Mr. chair recognizing the month of October 2025 as cyber security awareness month in Indian River County,
Florida. Whereas in 2004 through the collaborative efforts between the US Department of Homeland Security and the National Cyber Security Alliance, October was designated as National Cyber Security Awareness Month to provide Americans with resources to stay safe
online and raise awareness about the importance of cyber security. And whereas the rapid advancement of technology continues to benefit our county, providing countless opportunities for communication, business, and innovation, uh yet with the increasing use of
digital tools and systems comes the ever growing risk of cyber threats, including data breaches, identity theft, and cyber attacks, which can have a serious and far-reaching consequences. Whereas the 2025 campaign emphasizes building strong
level one cyber security habits such as identifying fishing attempts using strong authentication methods and securing networks to help every individual establish a sound foundation online today. And whereas by working
together to increase awareness of cyber security and cyber security best practices, our community can reduce risks, protect sensitive information, and promote a safer digital environment for all. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the board of county commissioners,
Indian River County, Florida, the month of October 2025, be designated as cyber security awareness month in Indian River County. and the board encourages all citizens to take action in improving cyber preparate
presentations adopted this seventh day of October 2025 and welcome to our IT uh and I will tell you it that IT department that all five of us are are kindly reminded every
other month or so to uh to take cyber security test uh which We all take that very seriously and you learn something uh every time we take those tests. So sir, thank you and welcome. Thank you. Just a for a few words if I
may uh chairman Flesher, commissioners, council, county administrator. Good morning. I just like to thank the team for being here this morning. As you can imagine, the effort that goes into cyber security and protecting our data, our assets, our network, our infrastructure, you name it, is a 247, 365day operation.
without these folks here doing the heavy lifting and whatnot, we'd be pretty much vulnerable. So, to your points, when it comes to cyber security awareness training, the whole point of this is to make sure that we educate not just our county employees, but our county as a whole. There's lots of opportunities here to make sure that we strengthen our
partnerships and our relationships with third parties, including the federal, state, and local governments uh that surround us. But more so we continue to push forward and do all that we can to make sure that our constituents are protected properly. And you mentioned
level one, you know, awareness and rail security. We want to continue our efforts to promote cyber security awareness and training. Uh we have some uh very creative ideas moving forward in the future that we'd like to implement uh working with the county administration. So uh is there anything
that my team would like to share? If not, I do want to recognize both of our cyber security IT professionals here. You have Rachel Miller and you also have Jason Maladano. So, uh these are the ones that really uh coordinate, collaborate, and get things done. So,
thank you all so much for this time. I shake hands and if we can take a picture, that'd be wonderful. Thank you. Bring everybody. Bring everybody up. Come on. That guy in the back there. Thank you.
How you doing? Good. Fellas. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There he is right there. There he is. The oldtimer. Hey, ah, he knows that. Thank you very much.
Thanks a lot. Thank you. Hanging out with all these smart people. Is always helping. What's up, buddy? How are you? [Music] Scott, [Music] maybe
You don't know how to center. You're right. Just think it all started with an olive typewriter. Thank you. Yep. All right. Next item on the agenda is a proclamation u in recognition of uh
domestic violence uh awareness month. U again a a few of us have uh responded to uh quite a few domestic violence scenarios. A domestic violence uh case um can only be met with a
negative outcome uh up to and including loss of relationship, loss of family, loss of family uh contact, um serious injury, death.
And when the uniform shows up, somebody's getting an unexpected vacation. There is no positive outcome for any domestic violence scenario. It always is a negative. And I only hope
that by presenting this proclamation that that sinks in so that we have less domestic violence. We hope and pray for no domestic violence, but unfortunately
things happen. The stresses of life cross the paths and the positive outcome that someone feels is necessary to commit an act of domestic violence does not exist.
Well, I'd like to present this. So, we'd like to uh come and receive this proclamation of the vulnerable team and we appreciate everything you do every day. This proclamation uh is as follows.
Whereas domestic violence is a serious widespread issue that affects individuals in every community regardless of age, race, income, or education level and leaves a lasting impact on survivors, families, and
communities. Whereas more than one in three women and one in four men in the United States have experienced physical violence threats or abuse from intimate partner during their lifetime. Whereas lingering health and economic
challenges and the continuing housing crisis have had their toll on mental health and increases in suicidal ideiation and deaths, substance use, household violence, food insecurity, and
more. Whereas the effects of domestic violence extend beyond the immediate harm that's caused to survivors impacting children, workplaces, health systems, and entire communities. Whereas safety, support,
solidarity is the theme of the 2025 domestic violence awareness month, uniting communities nationwide and here in the Treasure Coast in standing hashtag with survivors.
And whereas it is a vital recognized the the importance of safe space work to encourage the community members, employers, faith leaders, and civic organizations to take action by raising awareness, learning the signs of abuse,
and offering compassionate support to survivors. Now therefore be it proclaimed by the board of county commissioners of Indie River County, Florida that we recognize the October as domestic violence awareness month and encourage all
citizens to support safe space and honor the courage of survivors and commit to ending domestic violence. duly adopted the seventh day of October, 2025 and signed by all five county commissioners.
Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for this proclamation. On behalf or so, I'm Jennifer Fox, the CEO of Safe Space and on behalf of Safe Space and everyone standing here with me. Um, and with survivors of domestic violence, I want
to thank you for recognizing October as domestic violence awareness month. Um, this proclamation I think really does send a powerful message to uh survivors in our community that really says you're not alone. Domestic of abuse can be found in every
neighborhood, workplace, and school. And yet survivors do feel very alone. Every statistic represents a person, a parent, child, or a neighbor who deserves to be safe in their own home. Safe SpaceAC is the only state certified domestic violence center serving Martin, St.
Lucy, and Indian River County. And I just want to give a little bit of a snapshot. Um, our crisis hotline calls take on an average of 250 to 275 calls every month. Uh, last year we provided a
variety of services to 891 survivors of domestic violence. 165 of those were children. 378 people stayed in our safe homes. and we provided legal advocacy and
representation in court to 359 survivors in our community. So, we're talking about almost 900 people, almost 900 people that found us and 900 people that this community was able to support.
So, along with our theme of safety, support, and solidarity, I just wanted to remind us that everybody does have a role to play. Safety means making sure survivors have a place to turn 24 hours a day. Support means listening without judgment and
connecting friends, family, and colleagues to resources. Solidarity means standing together, wearing purple, raising awareness, and ensuring survivors know this communities with them. So, we want to invite the community throughout October to stand with us.
Thursday, October 16th is uh purple Thursday where we encourage everyone to wear purple. This is happening throughout the nation. Um we uh to wear purple with solidarity with survivors and you can post yourself wearing purple with the hashtag with survivors.
October 17th, we um will gather at the Toro Club in Port St. Lucy for our amethyst gala. This is our signature event that shines a light on survivor stories and then raises critical funds for these life- saving services. Uh Thursday, October 23rd, we're going
to host our day of giving, which is a communitywide day of generosity to support uh survivors here on the Treasure Coast. Um besides those uh monetary uh donations, we also do take inind donations. And we're currently in need of linens. I just wanted to um
highlight a lot of times we get asked what we need. So we need brand new bath towels and pillows, brand new twiniz bed sheets and comforters. Um those things are in really high demand. So to learn more about these events, this the
services we provide or any um other ways that you could help, please visit our website at safespacefl.org um or follow Safepace on social media. But thank you for using your platform to shine a light on this issue and for standing with safe space and with
survivors. Thank you. Thank you. And you mentioned uh something about uh helping out and and and the needs. Uh again, we uh keep the location under wraps. So, how can people
contact? uh there is a lot a lot of folks out there that would like to donate and uh oftent times we get phone calls on how do I get the safe space so can we facilitate uh a good contact? Yeah. Well, the website is the best
place to go, but calling our um administrative offices and then they can help find advocates that can meet people who want to give donations or people can bring things right to our administrative offices, but that is in Stewart. So, we usually have our outreach team help pick
up donations in this in this county. So somebody will come and yeah we can meet somewhere pick up get get those items that are very much needed. Yeah for the mission. Yep. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
Yes. Thank you so much. Stay where you are. Thank you. Little blue wax or something. Yeah. All right, we have a group of minutes to uh cover, so we'll do them individually.
Item uh 6A is the budget workshop meetings uh minutes for July 9th, 2025. Approve. Second. We have a motion by Vice Chairman Law, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor?
Opposed? Motion carries unanimously for the regular meeting minutes of July 15, 2025. Approve. Second. I have a motion by Vice Chairman Law, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor?
Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Uh the continuation of the budget workshop meeting for the minutes of August 11th, 2025. Approval. Second. That's a motion by Vice Chairman Law, seconded by myself. Any further
discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. And the special call comprehensive plan ear amendments meeting of August 12th, 2025.
Second. We have a motion by Vice Chairman Law, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We do have a rather lengthy event calendar. I uh direct the public to go
to the website. Uh actually looking up the events and activities in this county is an event in itself. Uh it is rather robust and thank you team for providing all of the great things for folks to do in Indian River County.
Uh we'll move on to the consent agenda. did have uh a couple of items that got pulled for a later date. Approve was amended. I'd like to pull a 9W.
Okay. Well, you have to you're you're going to your approval for now. 9W. Yes, sir. 9W whiskey. Okay. Anything else?
That would be the appropriate time. Yeah. Move approval as second. I have a motion by vice chairman law, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. I
think it's the rain. I think so. Yeah. 9W Whiskey, especially in Fels. I'll get Yes. Thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh 9W is the uh human services rental assistance program. And for those not
familiar with it, uh once a client meets all qualifications, the county pays 60% of their rent for one month up to $1,000 uh once per year. And in the last four years, the amount spent on that has
increased from about $80,000 to $151,000. Uh 72% of the clients uh served this year were new to the program while 28% were returning clients from the previous
year. And the only um comment or suggestion or or hope that I have is that um I would like to see the people who are firsttime applicants be served first. Um that's all if there's a way to do that. And I know that uh before COVID
there it was an 18month span and then during COVID it moved back to a 12-month span and I think you're increasing it again to an 18month. Is it possible to take firsttime applicants first given given that that changing span of time?
Hi, good morning. So nice to see all of you today. I'm Cindy Emerson. I oversee community services. One of the departments is human services. And yes, we have now moved to an 18-month wait before someone can apply again. If we hit the 12,500
cap for the month, for the following month, appointments will be for first come, um the firsttime clients will be prioritized for new appointments. So, we definitely recognize that we want to make sure our firsttime clients get
priority. It is on a monthly basis, so we do um a roll down each month. So, yes, we definitely took that into consideration. Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Absolutely. Cindy, can you um just provide the I know we talk about this at
Ahack, but can you just provide a little background as to why we're seeing kind of this increase? Like basically what's going on with some of our partner agencies in the community when they're funding? Yeah, unfortunately this year what we found is that two of our partner agencies have um lost funding or have
reduced funding significantly. funding will open up in January for our partner agencies, but at this point, we're one of the only um supports for people who may need rental assistance, and it is for our working residents here in Inora
County. That's part of the requirement for them to be able to receive assistance. But I can speak, one of our partner agencies lost $600,000 in preventative funding for housing. So, there's definitely a growing need here in Inu River County. As you're seeing in the last four years, we've we've been
tapped on more and more to help support keeping people housed right here, which is just much less expensive than rehousing. So, I think people what we hear every day is just a lot of gratitude to you for what you're doing to help keep our residents housed. Yeah. Thank you.
And a lot of that is um the federal funding that's just not coming down. So, correct. Um you know, being able to to assist where we can, I think, is is our role. So, I appreciate what you guys are doing and yes, definitely prioritizing um firsttime applicants uh is is what
we're doing. And then you're not a you can't reapply uh for that significant amount of times. Thank you for soldiering on in this time of uncertain funding, but I yeah, I'll move to move to approve. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Moore,
seconded by Commissioner Adams. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. With that, uh if anybody wishes to speak
on any agenda related item, uh and you don't anticipate being here when the actual item takes place, uh this would be the time and opportunity that's not withstanding the uh public items. Having
given an ample opportunity, we'll move on. And there are no constitutional um and governmental agencies. We can move on to uh item 11 in the public
items is the public hearing and that is going to be a quasi judicial item. So, we'll begin with uh the next item on the agenda is a request to reszone
approximately 9.24 acres from A1 to agricultural district to RM8 multi- family residential district. This is a quadial proceeding. The the parties of the proceeding are the Indie River
County and Laurel Holmes Incorporated, also known as the applicant. Before we begin, we need to move forward and I need to ask the commissioners to disclose any exporte communications,
site visits, independent investigations. We'll begin with the left. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I've known uh Peter and Dad Robinson since before I was elected to anything and uh we go to the same church. They go more often than
I do, full disclosure. But um they came to me and it was quite a while ago with uh just a concept basically um for affordable housing that they wanted to do. And I I was really delighted because
um they're known as highquality uh developers. They're local. they live here. They care about the community. Um there were no details at that time um that had been formalized. Uh there was I didn't conduct any independent
investigations and did not visit the site. Um I also had a conversation about a year ago I believe. Um but it was very conceptual at that time. They were just kind of looking at different things. So other than that, nothing. And I believe
I can still be impartial. Thank you. Somebody's got to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've never visited the site. I did have a conversation with the principles uh over a year ago.
I would say the same stuff. I had a conversation with the principles and that's as far as it went. Well, I could say that uh I know the applicants probably about 20 28 years
and uh I don't discuss uh quasi judicial actions. Um I none that I I recall. Thank you. I'd like to uh confirm that all the
commissioners can have an open mind and are able to base their decision on the evidence and presented and applicable law. Canon will Can and will. Canon will Canon will Canon will
at this time I need to open up the public hearing. Madame clerk, would you do the honors of swearing in anybody who anticipates that they may be speaking regarding this matter? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? At this time, we'll have a presentation by county staff. Good morning, Patrick. Good morning, commissioners. Uh, for the record, Patrick Murphy, chief of long range planning. Here to present this resoning PowerPoint presentation to you. Also like to point out in the audience
is the applicant's representative engineer. Descriptions and conditions. So, the area to be reszoned is approximately 9.24 acres. It's situated on the north side of 16th Street, approximately 600 ft west of 66th Avenue, and about a half
a mile east of 71st Avenue. It is located south of the Central Assembly of God Church about a half mile west of the Indian River State College and within one mile of the Indian River Mall to the northeast which is all located within the state road corridor 0 to 60 corridor.
Parcel is zone A1 agricultural district. The applicant is requesting to reszone this property to RM8 mult residential multiple family which allows a maximum of eight units per acre. uh purpose is to establish zoning consistent with the property's M1 medium density residential
one future land use designation. Property is bordered by RM6 zoning to the east and RM8 zoning to the west. To the south across 16th Street, the surrounding area consists of undeveloped parcels and single family lots all zoned A1. while to the north in the close
proximity uh to the regional commercial anchors along State Road 60 corridor. The future land use map. The subject parcel is bordered on three sides by M1 feature land use designations to the northeast and west. Across 16th Street
to the south is the AG1 agricultural one land use. This all the green on that map there is located outside the urban service area. On the north side of 16th Street, everything is in the urban service area. So you can see the distinction between the M1 and the AG1.
So taking a look at the A1 residential district, it's intended to provide areas for agricultural activities in a very low density residential development. Allows for single family residents at a maximum of one dwelling unit for 5 acres. A1 permits continued agricultural
use, including farm and citrus groves, as well as complimentary uses such as farmworker housing and specific institutional uses. And the table below you is a breakdown on the development standards. Looking at the RM8 district, it's intended to provide areas suitable for
medium density multiple family residential development. It allows diverse residential types including town homes, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, and even single family homes. RMA traditionally serves as a transitional zoning between single family residential neighborhoods and
more intensive commercial or industrial areas. At the table below shows the development standards for the RM8 district. Is the resoning request consistent with the M1 future land use designation? Yes, the property has an M1 designation. This
allows for residential development up to 8 units per acre. Reszoning to RM8 remains fully consistent with this land use classification. The property is located within the K Countyy's urban service area and the site provides suitable levels of inf infrastructure to support medium density
multif family development. It is positioned within the state road 60 quarter plan area and is deemed ideal for multif family residential uses. No future lenus amendment change is proposed or required as part of this request. So all resonings must be analyzed based
on chapter 902123. There are actually 11 criterion by which a resoning is evaluated. The first of which asks if the resoning is in conflict with any applicable portion of land development regulations. Staff found no uh conflicts with RM8.
Is it consistent with the comprehensive plan? Yes, we've established that we actually evaluated objectives one and two of the futuraneous element in addition to policies 1.13, 1.4, 1.43, and 2.2. All of these policies are established to promote combatible land
use arrangements and we it had met the test consistent with existing and proposed land land uses. The RM8 zoning is consistent with existing M1 and and no additional land use are needed. Is it compliance with adopted county thoroughfare plan? Property is located
north side of 16th Street which is a collector roadway. It's positioned half mile from 71st and is in keeping with thorough affair plan policies. Would the resoning generate traffic which would decrease level of
service standards that adopted. The traffic analysis was evaluated by our traffic engineering division has been accepted. There was no cause for concern. It would not increase the level of service adopted. When the uh site plan is actually submitted and reviewed,
a more intensive traffic analysis will be evaluated and look at the existing traffic patterns at that time. Is the zoning subject to change conditions that exist the warrant this amendment? The state road 60 corridor has experienced significant change within the Indian River Mall, Indian
River State College, and adjacent RM6 and RM8 developments. They all work to establish a more urbanized residential pattern. overall level of service dealing with sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, drainage, and recreation. Uh
these will all be evaluated when an actual site plan is reviewed, but at this time uh the analysis is that the applicant may be required to pay utility connection and customary fees and we will be looking at this much more intensively when the site plan is evaluated. Down below is a table that shows a breakdown of the existing
allowable densities. Right now under the A1, one unit could be developed. If this flips to RM8, the maximum of 73 units could be developed on the property. Continue on the analysis. Would the resoning result in significant adverse
impacts in the natural environment? The 9.24 acre site consists of previous farmland is currently undeveloped. An environmental analysis will be required when the site specific development proposal is determined. Would the resing result in the orderly and logical development pattern? The proposed
amendment does align with the comprehensive plan and the surrounding land uses. Is it on con in conflict with the public interest and in the harmony with the general purpose intent of land development regulations? Staff found no adverse impacts to the public welfare and finds that their request meets with
the purpose and intent of the LDRs. Last item, any other matters that may be deemed appropriate in review and consideration of the proposed amendment, such as police protection, fire protection, and emergency medical services. All concurrency mandated facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intensive use under
the proposed zoning district. In conclusion, the requested RMA zoning district is compatible with the surrounding area, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the county's adopted comprehensive plan. It is consistent with the county's LDRs. is deemed suitable for the subject property
and is supported by staff. I'd like to point out this also appeared before the planning and zoning commission who unanimously recommended the board uh approve this resoning and the applicant is in attendance for answer any questions above and beyond what I'll be answering for you.
With that, I conclude my presentation. Thank you, Patrick. There any questions of staff by the commissioners? No. There any questions of the applicant for that?
Now move to have a presentation by the applicant. Good morning. John Blum, engineer with Carter Associates, uh, representing Laurel Holmes. Also have with me today, uh, Peter and Deb Robinson and Joseph
Robinson with Laurel Holmes. Uh, so I have nothing more to present than what Patrick did. He did a good good job. Just hear if any questions. Thank you. Are there any uh questions by the
commissioners? No, sir. For the applicant, county staff. County staff rest. At this time, any input from the public? Is there any member of the public that
wish to speak on behalf? Having given the ample opportunity, we'll move on to final presentation or argument. Thank you. County staff.
Nothing else to add, sir. Rest by the applicant. At this time, I'd like to ensure that all documents, tangible evidence, uh, if any, have been admitted into evidence and are in the hands of the clerk.
Madame Clerk, at this time uh we'll notice that the uh county staff agenda materials and are automatically admitted to evidence unless there is any objections.
Now close the public hearing. Commissioners move to approve. We have a motion by Commissioner Mo, seconded by Vice Chairman Law. Any further discussion? All in favor? I
opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Congratulations. That was probably the shortest quis judicial hearing we have had. At this time,
we'll move on to public notice items. Would you like me to announce that, Mr. Chair? Um the next item is of just giving the public notice that there's going to be a joint public workshop on October 23rd at 6 PM between the board
of county commissioners and the planning and zoning commission to discuss the plan uh development review and approval process. I know that's something that's been requested. Thank you. We now move on to county administrator
items and that would be item 12A which is ratification of amendment of collective bargaining agreement between Indie River County and Teamsters Local 769 providing for general wage increase for
fiscal year 2025 2026 to 27. Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the county and the teamsters uh union number 769 have completed their negotiations under the wage reopeners for actually for the remaining remainder of the
contract which constitutes fiscal years 2526 and 2627 uh that's provided under the uh the collective bart agreement that will expire on September 30th, 2027. The teamsters have voted and approved the amendment and the amendment is being
presented to the county commission for ratification. Uh the essentially the the uh the agreement or the what was approved the amendment provides for a 4% general wage increase or $1 per hour whichever is
greater effective the full pay period October 2025 for and that would be as well the same for October 2026 4% general wage increase or $1 per hour whichever is greater. All other terms and conditions of the collective bargain agreement remain unchanged. I would like
to note that under the budgetary impact, it it uh it identifies there's a shortfall of $66,768 in the fiscal year 2526 budget and it initially states that we will be funding that from cash forward October 1st via
budget amendment. Uh I would like to share with the board that uh we have a commitment from all of our directors and the county administration that we'll we will accommodate and absorb those costs with our existing budget and not require any cash forward from the um from our
reserves. Uh additionally uh we are establishing the regular and non-union uh employees uh general wage increase the same for fiscal year 2526. With that, staff respectively request the board approve ratification of the
amendment to the collective bargain agreement between Indian River County and the Teamsters Union Local Union number 769 providing for general wage increases for fiscal years 2526 and 2627 and authorize the board chair to sign the amendment. That I'll return to the
board for any questions. And I'll tell you with the addition of the general or the regular non non-union employees, the $66,000 increases to $18,000. But again, uh there was unanimous um it was
unanimous among the directors administration that we will absorb those costs within our existing budgets. Thank you, sir. Sir, move approval. Second. We have a motion by vice chairman law, seconded by myself. Any further discussion?
All in favor? Opposed? Thought he had some. It's after. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. You have a little something now. Wait. Motion carries unanimously.
Mr. Chair, I just want to thank the board and I'd also like to thank our negotiating team uh primarily led by Mike Zitto, our deputy county administrator and Suzanne Bole and would also like to thank the members of Teamster, Steve Meyers, Dale Herbert and
all the the u the members of the team in coming to this agreement. We think it's fair and equitable and there is movement on both sides. So, I certainly appreciate everybody's efforts in this. So, thank you. And they're both right here. And can you guys come up a minute?
Suzanne Mike. Yeah. Refreshing. Is Darl here? I don't see here. Yes, sir. And I'll I'll I'll echo the county administrator's uh words,
but more importantly is the amount of meetings, conversations, redirection, understanding, exploration with dealing with the available uh budget and keep it within
the available budget and negotiating with and I want also thank Steve Meyers and his team as well. Uh it it is a time of understanding and I I want you to know that uh the both of you have uh
worked diligently to get us to this day and I wanted to publicly thank you. Thank you. Thank you sir. Credit goes out to teams as well as cooperative negotiation really facilitative as opposed to competitive to see what we can get on the table and agree to and that's where
we landed. So thank you very much. I wish all negotiations went. Yeah. The way this would. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is an executive session. We will have an executive session uh and
uh it will be uh attended uh by your entire board. the executive session to discuss the IIAFF negotiations, the rank and file unit. Um staff is scheduled in an executive session and this is allowed
under Florida State Statute 447.605 with the board to discuss negotiations with the IFFF uh for the rank and file unit. The meeting will last on be held on today's date. The meeting is exempt from
Florida State Statute 286.011 uh in the sunshine. The discussions are limited to matters related to the negotiations and members of the bargaining committee that will be present at the executive session will
include Suzanne Bole, director of human resources, Michael Zitto, deputy county administrator, David Johnson, director of emergency services, management and budget director, Kristen Daniels, labor attorney Benton Wood, and
county administrator John Titkanich and inclusive of all five county commissioners. It's anticipated the meeting will be about a half an hour and uh we can't be held to that as discussions uh arise but till then we
will now be moving forward and leaving the room and having our executive session. Please stay comfortable. Thank you. We'll now be reconvening. The executive session has concluded and we're all back
in order. Thank you for your patience and time. We'll now go on to departmental matters which is building and facility services item 13A1 which is transition custodial services and contracted services to
in-house operations. Probably need a staff member. Yeah, I'm looking for the they didn't get the message right. Let me just check the green room real quick. Yes. And with all that's do uh we as you all
you didn't anticipate when we would be arriving we estimate a half an hour but sometimes the talk continues. So, but thank you once again as uh the county administrator is uh seeking the staff
member to present. Thank you. And it's still good morning. Good afternoon, board. Good afternoon, chair. My name is Anthony Warren. I'm the director of building and facility services, and this um is for our
facilities management department, and we're proposing to transition our custodial services from contractor services to in-house operations following the termination of our CER
signature cleaning custodial service contract. Several other third-party custodial service companies were contracted were contacted to provide services to the county. All of these companies would be significantly more expensive than what
we have currently budget for the CER signature cleaning. In the interim, facilities management division utilize existing staff to complete in-house cleaning. After several discussions about the quality of custodial services
provided by the county by thirdparty companies and based on uh internal audit by the clerk of the court whereby Hasley intern audit director recommended that instead of using contracted custodial services the
county hire fulltime custodial employees. Staff is requesting to bring custodial services inhouse. This request aims to ensure adherence to employment standards with background checks and maintain a high level of service
customer service. While outsourcing provides basis coverage, it has resulted in um security concerns, insufficient background screening of employees, limited flexibility, additional um charges for special
projects, low quality of work, insufficient oversight of custodial staff and challenges um maintaining consistent accountability. The proposed request positions the county to deliver services excellence with greater accountability and
flexibility and will reduce budgetary expenses. We attached analysis um that shows our staffing structure um that includes salary benefits um total labor costs and additional equipment and
um operating supplies. The benefits of the in-house model, quality control, direct oversight ensures higher consistent standards, flexibility, scheduling priorities can be aligned with county needs,
accountability, and how staff take ownership as part of the county's team. workforce stability, investment in training and development um fosters retention. I'd like to note that um we've been getting um several compliments um using our current um
in-house um employees um and those are employees that we currently have on staff um and we'll like to um bring an additional staff on to cover us going forward instead of on a temporary basis. Well, I I have to say that the
adaptation it was under uh again an unusual circumstance that the transition was absolutely incredible. I mean, we didn't mind taking out the trash for a day or two, but when when staff stepped up, it was
almost as if there was another a new company intact operationally and knowing exactly what had to be done. So hats off to our team for organizing and and getting this done
so swiftly and and talking with the the staff members that are doing that. are customarily doing other things for the people of the county, for the county building in many other directions and they have a very deserve uh diverse
function uh that uh they were able to uh just muster up and get the job done and they're here every day at night, evening, afternoon, morning and I just
think this is a seamless Great. I agree. I'm John Evans. I'm facilities management and I totally agree with you, Mr. Chairman. The uh the crew that that came together and do the work are doing an outstanding job. They're working hard and they do take a lot more pride in in the building and
cleaning it up and and seeing what needs to be done. So, that's helping us for future needs as well for maintenance as well as um aesthetics and cleanliness of the buildings. So, thank you, sir. And it also is very I don't know about my colleagues, but it's nice to see the
uniform presence in in in the building. Yes. And people that know other uh duties in the building as far as for for door safety, building security uh as well. And uh again it's not just about the
performance of the duty but it's also the ability to uh do their other duties at the same time and uh I I think it gives you better control and better understanding and better performance.
Yep. I agree. That's all we have. I guess that's it. Yeah. You think that's it? It's covered. I think it's in. Thank you, sir. Anybody have any Yeah, Mr. Chair, they they did a great job. Great team.
You know, I I want to thank you very much. Um and I think the chair is quite correct. I I love seeing our own people in the building. Yes. Um if there's, you know, there's no further question, I'm happy to move to approve.
All right. Thank you. Any administrator? I just I just want to thank Anthony, Nancy. They worked together working with John Evans and Chad Chadwick Bacon. You know, Dr. Bacon put together the proposal to help us get here. Uh but it really was a collaborative team effort and they
responded expeditiously and they started talking about this, you know, concept, Anthony, Nancy, immediately, you know, even prior to the the u the report coming out. So, I appreciate their leadership and their and their help in all moving this
forward. I also believe there's another collateral gain here. Uh they're going to see things that they're uh in control of. They're going to see shortcomings, maybe perhaps something in the building
that would have to go through uh a job ticket that may go through a department. They're going to see it and I have hopes that maybe perhaps we'll have even a higher level of performance.
Yes. Because of their other duties and responsibilities. You're right. I think so too. I think it's a good move. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I would add that although
this increases our FTEES, it is a cost savings. Also, in the future, I would uh suggest that this could possibly be a career path. Uh we've all heard the stories about CEOs and CFOs that started in
similar positions. Uh and I think this is healthy for the agency, other opportunities. Look forward to those men and women succeeding. kind of like a reverse privatization. Bringing them in fold.
Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to second Commissioner. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Moss, Commissioner Adams. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed?
Sign of a good job when you get a 50. Thank you. Thank you. Well, move on. And now we have uh box and rack. Uh item 13H1, consideration for sale agreement for the
purchase of the 21.89 acre Hail Grove site through the Environmental Lands Actization Bond. And our team is here. Good man. Good morning, commissioners. Beth Pal, parks, recreation conservation
director. Uh, and we also have Wendy Swendell here. Uh so today uh we are following up with um the recommendation for the board to consider um both the Hail Grove as well as the Drance Place properties. Uh staff's recommendation uh
is uh to sorry wrong item here. um to request that you approve the Hail Grove contract agreement and authorize staff to proceed with due diligence period and close of the purchase. Now,
we are happy to uh go over any of the details of the Hail Grove uh as a refresher. We have also the Canva slide presentation that we presented at the last board meeting. Uh and that's at your uh request and discretion if you'd like for us to uh review that
information. You would like to review the information, Mr. Chair. The information on these items is in its own bound book. It is indeed and it was uh very exciting to read uh
how much the the bond funding will be going in a great direction. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I thank you. was thoroughly discussed at our last meeting as well as the sequential meetings. Uh and again,
it is doing what it's supposed to do in preserving uh particularly some of the uh parcels that are zoned for homes and I think it's a huge success for the county. We're in the right direction
that I move approval. Second. We have a motion by Vice Chairman Law, seconded by Commissioner Moss. Any further discussion? Mr. Chairman, I would just Yes, I for
all the conversations we had at EA everything else, but I don't know Wendy and Beth, can you kind of explain what the next step would be with additional funding? you know, what might it might be a little premature, but what
what's out there? What's what potential would be to to help with the cost of this? Because I think this is a great purchase, a great piece of property, and we just need to see what else we can do. So, speaking on behalf of both the Hail
Grove and the Durant Place property, which is the next uh agenda item, uh Wendy can speak to that because she's been having some conversations with St. John's already. Uh we have already started to look at different funding sources and also finding out uh you know
what the state of um Florida the funding right now is a little bit up in the air. So we we will we will be researching that. But in the meantime, Wendy uh has some conversations with St. John's on these properties. Well, we have been having some
preliminary discussions with St. John's about teaming on projects. So, they're looking towards the county to put forth some of the properties that are in particular adjacent to the lagoon, and this would be one where I think they would look at that. And as I mentioned in our prior meeting, um DOT is also interested in looking at some water
quality improvements for both this and the Durant parcel. So, there's definitely some opportunities out there and it's kind of a blank slate. Um ecologically, there's a lot that I think we can maximize out there similar to what we did at Jones's Pier. I think it's important to note that the
funding from St. John's, at least in these preliminary discussions, is not for acquisition, but it would be for the improvements, water quality improvements. Uh, so we'll be looking at other funding sources as we move through the due diligence period. Once we now start moving toward the acquisition, now
we can start researching some of the um acquisition uh partnerships that might be available. uh timely as it is, I'll be going to uh West Virginia next week uh to attend the National Habitat Conservation Planning um coalition's meeting. I'm going to be meeting up with
if you remember Trish Adams who used to work here, she's now the National HCP coordinator. So, we're going to take these opportunities whether it's through some of the resiliency conferences we attend, the National HCP conference. I'm going to be talking specifically with people about what kinds of funding
sources are available. The service in the past has had funding available uh particularly toward habitat conservation for listed species. So all of the properties that we're considering right now will all have some component of endangered or listed species or benefit
to endangered in spec uh listed species. So we'll be uh talking to our partners. We have relationships. The county has done an amazing job through the previous two bond referendums uh and through our active land management of being very successful at acquiring partnerships
whether it was through the state, the feds or even uh other uh organizations. So now that we know which properties we're looking at specifically, this gives us the opportunity to start looking at funding uh matches and sources that go with each of the
properties. So we look at it property by property uh because each of the funding sources you know have they have uh funds allocated for specific purpose. So in this case water quality is going to be a big component looking at the DOT ditch
and uh runoff coming out of the ditch is going to be something that we're looking at. We'll certainly work with Indian River Lagoon Council once we identify properties. It's been my goal for a very long time to work with the NEP and their uh grant writing team that they allocate
money every year and you great graciously approve money every year to the Indian River Lagoon Council. I would like to take advantage of the grant writing riders that they have available. This tees us up for a perfect opportunity to go to the Lagoon Council
and uh get assistance on the grant writing which would leverage and expedite that process even further. And one final thing, um this is just for us to enter the due diligence period. Um what we have anticipated is that when we bring this back for your to once the due
diligence period is complete and assuming that that comes back and there aren't any things that are unexpected, we would probably um look towards bringing back at least a very conceptual idea of what staff is thinking are possibilities. It's not that we can design anything at this point, but at
least give the commissioners and the public an idea to think of how we can maximize the use of this property. Thank you. You're welcome. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
All in favor? Opposed? Motion carried unanimously. We'll move on to item 13H2 which is consideration for the sale agreement for the purchase of 11.74 acre Durant Place site uh through the environmental lands
acquisition bond. Okay. Uh so this is a second uh the second parcel that's adjacent uh just north of the Hill Grove parcel. staff respectfully recommends that the board of county commissioners approve the durance place contract agreement and authorize staff to proceed with the due diligence period
and close of purchase. Um it's important to note that the due diligence on this parcel is set uh six set for 60 days after the execution of the agreement. Once again there's an abundance of information and pictorials as well.
You've done a fine job in ensuring that we were familiar Second. We have a motion by Vice Chairman Law, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you. Hey, two for two. Not bad. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Next item is uh in public works the rainree corners covert replacement item
13J1. Good morning Adam. Good morning honorable chair and commissioners. Ai Javeed public works director here to present on reintry corner request for emergency procurement of the the collapsing culvert because of
the recent rains. Uh if you recall back in August, you had approved the the initial uh funding for for moving forward with the assessment for the the culvert replacement at Rainree Corner. There's about 16 homes in this
neighborhood that will get affected, you know, if the pipe was to collapse. Obviously something else I want to point out is that you know when we came in August we identified that uh you know if we were to move forward with the new uh uh special assessment process that was
previously introduced by by the county attorney's office you know that process can take uh all the way up to December before you know we can move forward with the the spe with the special assessment process. But before that, what we wanted to do is see if the the commission would
allow us to move forward with the emergency procurement because again because of the recent rain events, you know, we run the risk of uh the pipe collapsing. It's a metal pipe about 60in pipe and this is the sole access for for the neighborhood. Something that I also
want to point out uh as it relates to our recent experience with the W's edge. This is a little different in the sense that all 16 residents that live in this neighborhood have already agreed that they are on board with paying the assessments and they had actually
already signed the memo or the letter that was submitted to the the county not that long ago. So with that, what I would like to do is uh ask for commissioner's uh blessings for move moving forward with the emergency procurement. The the cost right now
based on the engineering estimate is about 250,000. Again, I just want to also point out that this is just an engineering estimate. Once we get the actual bids or the the prop or the price proposal from
the the the contractors, you know, the price can go a little bit up or down, but 250,000 is the engineering estimate that we have at this time based on the engineering drawings. And with that, you know, we stand for any questions or any
feedback that the commission might have. Thank you. Any questions of that? This time would be approval. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Airman, second by myself. Any further discussion?
All in favor? Opposed. Motion carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Big project. Next item is uh utility services item 13
L1 which is the department of utility services recommendation for mandatory connection policy for water and sewer services. Good morning commissioner Sean Leki director department of utility services and with me is Howard Richards our
capital um capital program manager capital project manager. So, we have a presentation this morning and a couple of things that actually we have a couple of changes in what was provided with the the handout and the and the agenda. So, kind of bear with us. We'll try to point those out to you as we go through it.
Um, also what I would ask, we kind of have a little bit of a presentation, so I would ask if we can hold questions until the end. Um, and then we're happy to answer any questions we have, but we do have kind of an extensive presentation we'd like to go through today, kind of lay out where we are with this and and what we're asking. So with
that, we're going to kind of jump right in and and get things kicked off here. Oh, yep. So purpose presentation again, we're kind of requesting board approval for mandatory connection. And there's a number of other things that we're requesting along with that. Um and we'll
kind of get to that as we go through it. Um but we're going to talk a little bit about the regulatory drivers, kind of where we are and what's what's driving this. Um current conditions, where we are currently within the system. um septic to sewer program. Um so what we
are actually going to be requesting with respect to where we are within the septic to sewer program, what we've done, what we're in the process of doing and where we might go. Um a good portion of it going to be talking about the financials associated with this and and really what it costs for both the public infrastructure as well as the private
infrastructure. Um and then discuss a little bit about the alternative to connection to county sewer. Um which is the OSTDS and the enhanced nutrient removal system associated with that. And OSTDS is on-site septum septic or actually on-site sewer treatment and
disposal system is what OSTDS stands for. Um so house bill several years ago um the state legislature enacted House Bill 1379 andor Senate Bill 1632. Um those bills prohibit what we call
that OSTDS or new OSTDS within the BMAP which is basin management action pro plan or Indian River Lagoon Protection Program. Um for the most part we'll get into show you a map what those areas include. Um but for the most part the majority of the eastern part of Indian
River County is within the Indian River Lagoon's BMAP location. And so we're talking about prohibiting um new and for lack of a better word, AOSTDS is a septic system. Um it's just a fancy word for that. Um but it prohibits those
systems within the pro within that area. Um so it set key dates as of January 1st, 2024. Um new OSTDS or new septic systems must be this enhanced nutrient removal pro um system. Um so anything that's going in the ground new today. So if somebody's building a home and they
require a septic system within that BMAP are required to install this new enhanced nutrient removal system. Um they also said that by February 2nd 2026 and every two years thereafter we as a utility within the BMAP must provide FD with an update on the properties within
the um within the county or within that BMAT location that continue to be on OSTDS um where sewer is available but are not connected. So they we're required to identify those um homes or lots or parcels where there are structures that
could theoretically be connected to the sewer system but are not and continue to be on OSTDS. Every two years we have to provide that to um to FD. And then by July 1 of 2030, any property on an OSTS must connect to central sewer if it's
available um or upgrade to this enhanced nutrient removal system. Um and again that's by July 1st of 2030. So, kind of just to give you an idea of of what that BMAP looks like, you can kind of see here on the map that again the majority of of eastern part of the
county is within the the basin management action plan for the Indian River Lagoon. Um, we're in the central um Indian River Lagoon district. So, um but the majority of the county including areas even west of 95 are within that
BMAP area. And so again, anyone developing in those areas that is on um septic system and they're developing on a septic system today has to install a new enhanced nutrient removal system and by 2030 um would need to either connect a central sewer or um modify their
system to this enhanced nutrient removal system. Um so that the statutes go on and and actually this has been in statute for some time notification of OSTDS owners. So the statute says that no less than one year prior to sewer becoming available, owners will be
notified of the anticipated availability and requirement to connect. Um and so that notification can be through um email, through through mail, some way notifying them that hey sewer is available, you need to connect. Upon notification of sewer becoming
available, owners have basically 365 days to connect to central sewer. Um and then provide option to prepay the optitized value of the connection charges in equal monthly installments without interest for up to two years from initial notification. Um so that really allows them, hey, we're bringing
you sewer. If you're interested in starting to make payments on this, you can start to make payments on this the cost of this um connection. Um and that OSTs that need repair or modification um to function in a san marv available
within 90 days of notification. So right now if something is failing if someone's septic system is failing uh we are required to reach out and send them a notification that hey sewer if sewer is available that sewer is available and requiring you to connect in which you have only 90 days to connect in that
case. Um and in hardship cases they can extend request an additional 90 days for so up to basically six months for connection in those cases. Um and that's currently within state statute. Um just to kind of lay out a couple of other counties um and agencies
with mandatory connection policies. Um staff did do some digging and I I want to commend staff as I as we kind of go into this. Howard and his staff really have done a lot of research into this and I commend them for their efforts in putting all this together. But you know, here's listed a handful of other
counties and municipalities that have mandatory connection policies um and are really following the House bill and the Senate and the statutes that are in place today. Citrus County, City of Palm Bay, City of Manita Springs, Pasco County, Manatee County, and Nassau
County or Nassau County. Um and all are following that House Bill 1379, which is what we just currently laid out. I'm not going to kind of read through that again. um that is requiring mandatory connections um IRC policy. So sewer connections
require county water. So right now um the way our ordinance reads is that um if somebody is connecting to sewer, we require them to also have county water. And the reason being is we we only we build the sewer based off of the water usage. And if we don't have a way to
meter their water usage, it's hard for us to provide sewer. Now, there is a caveat to that that basically says if they are on a private well, they need to allow us to meter that private well and then we would base that sewer charge on their water usage from their private
well. Um, unfortunately, I don't know that that has ever really been followed. We have a number right now. Currently, we do have a number of what we call sewer only accounts. Um, and we don't we don't meter their wells. um we basically do an average and we've averaged that out and we basically charge them an
average and I think it's um four or 5,000 gallons is basically what we average and so that's what they're charged for sewer. Um so we don't necessarily follow that uh that you know water they need to have water but I think that was enacted before some
people so people had sewer before that was enacted. Um today what we are typically requiring is that if they're going to have sewer, they also have water. Um so and and there's it does allow us to do special assessments and get the property deemed to be especially
benefited by county improvements. Essentially, if we are going to go in and put in the public infrastructure, that essentially allows us to provide and issue them assessments in which the homeowners within that area would pay for that public infrastructure through a county assessment. Um and so that can
that assessment can then also be paid over time and I believe can be financed and we have financed that um over time and and we have done that in the past. And so kind of wanted to go through this
this um you know this table a little bit and kind of get into this because this is real key as we get into kind of the costs associated with this and the financial side of this. But just to kind of lay out a couple of these codes and again Howard has has got a a matrix
associated with a lot of this and so water account exists WAE is water account exists meaning we have an existing water account with us today. They are being provided water by the county. Um the other the next ones are water is available and a lateral exists. Essentially that means we've got the the
water there the meter the line the main is there a lateral from the main the main to the home actually exists. Um the next one is water is available there is no lateral. So while the water main is there there isn't an actual lateral that exists. Um and then obviously WNA is
water is not available. And on the sewer side um it's sewer available lateral exists. Um sewer available no lateral and then simply sewer is not available. again, meaning the public infrastructure. When we say it's not available, the public infrastructure is not actually in place and able to be
provided to that to that resident or that property. And that's key as we go through and you kind of look at this and that's really key as we look at the total parcels and what we're talking about and and the magnitude of what we're dealing with in the county. And I've I've mentioned this before, but if you look at the total taxable parcels,
and again, this was all done through GIS and GIS mapping. Um, but if you look at the total parcels within the county, we have roughly 68,374 parcels within the county. Um, within the urban service area, we roughly have about 63,749.
And of those, about 53,000 have a structure. Um, and so that gives you kind of an idea of what we're dealing with as far as the structures within the county. Um, the structures with no sewer are roughly 28,000. Um again, and that's
a rough number and those are numbers that we've come up with and assuming that roughly about 28,000 parcels within the county today do not have sewer available to them and fall into one of those those categories that we have had there. Whereas water is either available
or it's not available at all and then is sewer available. Um and what's the situation with their sewer? And so you kind of see that that top one is water is existing um and sewer is available and a lateral exists. And right now we only have about 15 parcels within the
county where that's the case. So that means they could relatively easily connect today because a lateral exists and they could go and connect to that. They already have a water account. Um and so we go from more from less complex to more complex to the very bottom where you have water not available and sewers
not available. So in other words, we would need to install both water infrastructure and sewer infrastructure to those to those parcels and able to provide them with sewage um today. So again, those totals you see equal that total number of 28,374
um but if you kind of focus on the on the top and I think we've got um a slide that kind of shows this those those first top where water is existing. So, we have an existing account and sewer is available and either the lateral exists or there's a sewer is available and no
lateral exists. We're roughly looking at about, you know, close to to 2,000 um homes or parcels where that would be the case. Um, and then if you look at that further, there most of some of those are are forest main and then some of them
are gravity. And so, we're going to kind of get into that a little bit as far as, you know, how easy is it for people to connect Um, and a key question that we're often asked is, do we have capacity? And so, as we talk about this, you know, what does that mean? So, laying out our capacities and our
existing capacities, if you look at that top line right now, we have about 12 million gallons a day of sewer capacity at all three of our facilities. So, we've got three wastewater treatment facilities. At all three of our facilities combined, we have about 12 million gallons a day. Um on the water
side we have roughly about 20 million gallons a day capacity at our two plants. So we have two plants one in north one in south. And so if you look at that and you think about 28,000 sewer connections require of those 28,000 if we were to connect all of them we would
also require another 6,000 or roughly 7,000 water accounts. Again if we're doing you know no sewer without water. Um as we would connect those 28,000 we would also have to provide water to another 6,000. So if you look at that, the increase in loading on that would
roughly be about five MG around five MGD for sewer and roughly about one and a half million gallons a day for water based off of those those accounts and those connections. So if you look at that based off of if you add that to our current flows, our current flows right now, our sewer is roughly around um you
know six six MGD. Um so you would end up around 10 MGD. Um and roughly we're around, you know, 11 MGD on water. We would be closer to 12 and a half um by adding the additional water accounts. And so we still have cap, you know, the
answer, the short answer to that question is yes, we have capacity. Um but that doesn't account for new growth, doesn't account for annexations, doesn't account for any potential expansions to the USB. um and would certainly require infrastructure improvements to to make
all that work. Um you know, if we have a lot of that growth up north, most of that pro um most of that flow right now is coming to our central plant. Our central plant is actually nearing capacity, we would need to do some things within our system to be able to accommodate that and and make sure that
we're able to move this the sewage around to to manage that more effectively and efficiently. So yes, we have capacity, but there's some things that need to be done um to to improve infrastructure and to handle that. Um you know, septic sewer program was
initiated in 2010 to 20 um 2011. In 2017, I know many of you have heard me talk about this. We had Schuli um do a report, Shaki, Bidd and Stoddard do a report for us that laid out, you know, all the septic systems within the county. And when they did that, they
they did it they broke it out into, you know, basically subdivisions and parcels within the county. And they had about 300 of those. And they prior prioritized the top 30 of those. And I think I've mentioned that to all of you before. They pri that report prioritized the top 30 based off of soil type, um proximity
to surface water, the population density, meaning how many homes could theoretically connect in that area, depth to groundwater, and age of the um the septic systems or OSTDS systems. um you know, based off of that top 30, they estimated about we could we would
connect about roughly 6,000 um septic systems with a potential reduction of about 103 um pounds per year. Um we are re-evaluating that. We are in the midst of our integrated water master plan with HDR and they are looking at that report. They're going to re-evaluate it and kind
of take a look at that and do we need to repp prioritize? Do we need to kind of move some things around and and look at that a little bit differently? So, we will be looking at that and potentially seeing a slight rep prioritization with that. But we did want to kind of lay out where we what we've done um with respect
to septic to sewer and and where we currently are. So, this map kind of lays out in the green are the projects that we have completed to date. Um so, a lot of it is in in within Wabaso. So, we've done Wabaso phase one, phase two, and phase three, both A and B. We've
completed those. We've completed both North Sebastian phase one and two. Again, that's kind of up in the northern part of the county, the green area. Um, and then we also completed Florabon Shores phase one, which you kind of see is a straw small strip there in the
middle. Um, we do have funding to complete Florabon Shores phase 2. We got grant funding to do Hobart Landing and Wobbaso Island. Um, we also got some grant funding now to complete the North Sebastian phase three and we are
working, as you all well know, with the city of Sebastian um, and the CRA there to install some infrastructure to allow the CRA to to and all the parcels within the CRA to connect to to sewer. So, those are the projects um, we have
ongoing now. Um, and you know what we wanted to point out uh as part of this too and and some of those projects are probably included in these numbers. Um, but again, if you're looking at the priorities, we're looking at ones those with water available. So again, water
available and the account is existing. Those are going to be our top priorities. And then the sewer is available and the lateral exists or the sewer is available and no lateral exists. And you can kind of see we break that down into force manses of 4 in um
and force mans greater than 6 in. And roughly um you know that equates to you know when you look at all the the the sewer available and water is available around 2600 um connections and we're going to kind of have to prioritize that and and when we say you know sewer is available in
some of those cases um we may have to evaluate that. I started kind of even looking at the map and I'll show you the map in a little bit. While it would appear that sewer is available, um there may be some challenges that prevent sewer from actually being available, i.e. a canal in the way. Um so it looks
like that when you do a GIS mapping, it shows that that sewer line abuts a home, but it doesn't say, hey, there's a there's a canal that's in the way and you have to cross that canal and that makes things more complex and more complicated. So we will have to do some evaluation of those, but generally speaking, you know, those are our top
priorities. And again, when you look at that, it goes from less complex to more complex and usually less less cost to more cost um when we kind of go in priority. Um and and again, what we're talking about with quick winds, we think, you know, those quick winds that
could relatively be done without a whole lot of extra work and a lot of um extra um you know, infrastructure, wouldn't need any require any additional infrastructure is around 600. um again give or take uh you know some evaluation there and again this is just some
general maps of the county to lay out um those areas where we've identified again this is based off of GIS mapping so these green areas have identified areas where they are budding sewer and theoretically sewer is available and so this is where sewer lines existing and
there's existing parcels and so you can kind of see there's some areas um up in Rosland and and North County Um, you know, there's there's, you know, line and I don't know if this will show up on doesn't show up on the screen, but if you can kind of look at the map in that one area where you see kind of the line
of homes um that's in Sebastian, you know, and looking at that one, while it looks like quick winds, unfortunately, that's where I was saying there's a canal there um between those homes. So, while some of the ones kind of on the south end may be able to be connected, um some of those homes along there due
to the due the the canal being between the water line sewer line and their homes, that connection is actually going to be a little bit more complex and and sewer may not actually technically be available in those cases. So, again, it would require us to do some evaluation um and looking at this as we kind of
look at these maps a little bit further and understanding what that means. But again, this is central part of the county. Again, you can kind of see generally those areas where um sewer is available and um could theoretically connect
and then again in South County. Um and again, we have to do some evaluation to understand these areas and and how easily could could sew or could be connected. And then to just give you an idea of where we are with those existing projects, um this kind of is a timeline.
Uh, Florabon Shores, we are out to bid, I believe, and we should have bids back soon on that. Uh, we have Hobart Landing, uh, that has actually already been awarded. Um, we have a design builder, we're working on contracting for that. So, we have a design build
contract that we're working on for that. Um, the Sebastian CRA, we are, you know, hoping to get that here started soon. Um, we're still waiting on materials and and things to come in to get that project started, but once that gets in, we hope to kind of get through that and get things moving pretty quickly and get
that done within the year. Um, Waso Island, uh, that that RFP should be out, RFQ should be out on the street here shortly. So, we hope to kind of get that process moving. Um, and then North Sebastian, uh, that grant we were just recently awarded. So again, once we get
WASO started, we should get that started um relatively soon thereafter. And just to point out that, you know, our plan and our hope is to try to get these all done um before 2030 um before that looming date so that those projects can all be done and the homes within those
areas could theoretically complete those connections before 2030 and before they would have to upgrade their their septic systems or their OSTDS systems um to the enhanced nutrient removal system. And with that, I am going to uh turn it over to Howard to kind of discuss some of the
financials and go through um some of the details of the financing associated with it. Thank you, Sean. So, to to get into cost, let me just kind of go over what the uh cost elements are. Uh when we talk about cost, we're including public
infrastructure. Public infrastructure includes the mains, the laterals and the lift stations associated with um sewer. Uh the private side connection, private side connect connection primarily includes uh uh permitting equipment. Uh
we are assuming that sewer connection is going to be a pressurized connection system uh across the county. Of course, when we get into it, we will be looking at uh gravity as an option as well. Uh but for the purpose of estimating the cost, we assume it's going to be
pressurized sewer. So that typically includes uh equipment that is on the private side. Um and and then and again there's labor and material associated with the installation of the equipment. Um the septic tank pumpout and
abandonment and property restorations are included on the private site connection. And then lastly, we have the customer service charges that includes impact fees, account deposits, meter charge for connecting water. Again,
everything to up to this point is based on current policy, which is no sewer without water. Um so there's meter charges involved and then there's account setup u comprising the customer service charges. So oftent times when we talk about public infrastructure, private infrastructure, we we you know
we get questions. What do you mean? What's a demarcation point? When you say pressurized versus gravity, what does it look like? So we've included uh included a few pictures here to help illustrate that. This first one here shows uh
gravity sewer connection gravity on on the property side uh and gravity in the in the in the rightway side. And this one kind of illustrates it in the middle there is um you'll see a white dash line which is typically the demarcation point
between the rightway and private property. Just on the edge on the public side there's a clean out which is typically the demarcation point where everything to the left in this picture would be the private side and everything to the right would be in the public
infrastructure. Uh this next picture here uh shows how gravity sewer uh transitions into force main. Um this is an a picture an example of um the collectors within the
neighborhood are gravity mains. Eventually they flow downhill until they get to a pump station which we call the lift station. From there it pumps into a force main to higher elevation or longer distances.
Uh this uh this next slide here shows a grinder station in a home. Uh typically the grinder station shows in the middle there is actually uh into the ground and that picture um to the top right shows
what the cover looks like. Everything is below ground and in this case the the grinder station which is on the private property side is actually a pressurized connection but it can pump into either a force main or a
gravity main. And in some cases where it's gravity main, if the house doesn't have a slope from the home to the gravity main, you may have to use a pump station similar to this. Uh this next one here shows what is called a step system. This is what the
city of um uh city of um Verb Beach uses extensively. It's called a septic tank with effluent pump. That's what step is. um fairly similar to a grinder except the solids are left behind and left to
decompose whereas the the liquid uh is is pumped off site into a sewer line and off to the treatment plant. Uh this last one here is an airvac system uh depicting a a vacuum sewer system. We do
have vacuum sewer systems in our in our system today in in the Rockidge area. is an older vintage style. Uh but they've come a long way and they've made significant improvements. Um we have recently visited vacuum sewer installations
uh in Florida and all the utilities. I mean they just swear by it. It's very easy to install and um it's within the options that we will evaluate in our subject to sew program. And then this this picture here shows some actual examples of projects we have
recently completed. Uh to the left uh is a picture of a lift station in the Wabasa area. Uh we have in the last few years transition to an above ground lift station where uh the m the maintainable type parts such as the valves, the check
valves and so on are above ground rather than below ground. Makes it easier for uh for maintenance. Uh so that's what's shown on the left. On the right is an example of a grinder station. Um typically all you see above ground is a
control panel uh which is on the side of the home. And then um on the left circle picture there is is a cover of the grinder station. And some residents even go as far as decorating it by placing you know this artificial rock over it. U
give it some decoration, some landscape. Uh so so now we're going to get into the crux of u of this presentation. How much does it cost? This was one of the key questions that we were asked to present today. Uh I'm going to show you a slide
here that has a lot of numbers. So I'll just take a few seconds to go through it real quick. Um the first number I want to point you to is the number at the very bottom uh which is 3.1 billion to3.69 billion. Uh this is the estimated
cost of what it would take to deliver um you know sewer to 28,000 um properties without sewer and another 6,000 properties um that that would require a reciprocal water connection in order to give them
sewer. Right? So this is under current policy. We're estimating this 3.3 to3.6 billion. Again, we've also organized the cost. Uh the rows coming down shows the three components of cost. The infrastructure, the private side connection, and customer service charge.
And each one separates out the water cost and the and the sewer cost. And then going from left to right, we go from the cheapest installation, so the less complex to the most install u the the highest investments that requires new infrastructure to be uh built on the
right. And the the last takeaway from this slide is to show the range of costs depending on what bucket you fit in, whether you already have sewer available, you have a water account, and all you need to do is connect to to sewer
versus um to the right where new infrastructure has to be built. And the cost here ranges anywhere from 18,000 to 31,000 on the low end uh to about 150,000 to $165,000
uh on the high end. And um there's a few things about the numbers here. For one, we're taking numbers from recently completed projects and two uh these numbers don't reflect the use of grant as yet. Again, this is the full cost is what we're trying to present here. Okay.
So that's the cost number. Now the other question we're asked to present is what can be done to reduce the cost. Well, we we already know we can we can leverage grants, right? And we'll do that where we can. But what are other things we can
do? The reason uh Sean went over those uh board current board policies is that what we're going to ask you to they have implications for what we're going to ask you to do, right? Number one, we're going to ask to suspend the no sewer without water policy. And on the on the
next slide, I'm going to show how these numbers I just presented to you are impacted by each of these actions. Right? We're going to ask you to suspend no sewer without water policy. Number two, we're going to ask you to wave the uh ex extension and connection charges
where sewer is available to existing structures only. Okay. And number three is waving the assessment of the IRC portion of the costs i.e. what grants do not cover to build new infrastructure.
And number four is to wave select permit fees uh for septic conversions. Um we the three fees we're talking about are the department of health, the department of utilities and the building department. Uh both the department of
utilities and department of health do agree that they will wave their fees for subject to sewer conversions uh with the department of health. Uh we have agreed that uh as long as the our utility inspectors do the inspections upon completion they will wave the fees. So
they've agreed to that the building department has declined to wave their fees. Um number five is um allowing the department of utilities to uh participate in the procurement of uh equipment of services for the private
site connections. Uh for one, we believe we can shortlist um plumber plumbing contracts and do pre-negotiated prices with them uh bringing down the labor costs by around you know 30 to 35% maybe as high as 40%. and also to leverage the
county's buying power to piggyback contracts. And I'll show you what the numbers uh turn out to be to piggyback existing contracts for equipments um right now. So those are the five things we're going to ask you to do. And um so
here's that table again with all the cost. And again if uh the first one is um is wave the um the no sewer we uh the no sewer without water policy which will impact those costs I have circled in
blue. The next one is um is waving the the uh the line extension and service fees um where it's already available. And the next one is waving the assessment charge of IRC's cost that goes into um building
new infrastructure. And this next one here is um wave in certain permit fees. Again, the Department of Utilities and and Department of Health will wave their permits. The department the building
department has declined um to do that. And this last one here is allow us to participate in the procurement of goods and services uh for the private side connection that we believe can lower the cost by as high as 40%.
So with those actions taken um this next slide is going to be the same table now as a proformer with those actions taken and this is what it looks like. Right? So the no with no sewer without no sewer
without water policy um waved means we can forego um the the water connection and just go straight to the sewer connection and that will drop those costs to zero. And so the the key takeaway from this slide is that notice
now how the uh the range of cost per property which is a third line from the bottom has drastically been reduced. Uh now we're we're at a cost of $9,000 to $17,000 on the low end to a cost of
11,000 19,000 11,000 to $19,000 on the high end. Significant reduction, right? If those actions are taken. However, notice I kept the last line, the total estimated cost of the buildout the same because even though we're taking these
actions and it may not be borne by the the property owners, those costs have to be borne elsewhere um or they do exist. So that is is not changing. So the the next question that we were asked is okay how much so for I just
answered how much will it cost? What can we do to reduce it? What are the options to pay for it? That's what this table is intended to to show. We found um well certainly there's a D grants, but the GE D grants will only pay for the public infrastructure. So we're we're
maximizing that to the extent that we can. Uh the clean water coalition has um has has is uh is very interested in working with us. They currently work with the city of Vera Beach and want to extend their program with us. We have
met with them and uh so they do have a program of grants where they will uh provide money to pay for the private side but they're income eligible. Uh the USDA section 504 housing repair loans
and grant program we've we've also identified as a program uh that can be used to pay for private infrastructure. Uh SIG is special interest group grants such as the land trust where they're targeting certain areas and they'll pay
for the grant uh they're they're not the grant they're they'll pay for the impact fees which they are doing for Hobart Landing and Waso Island. Um the CDBG CDBG grant community uh development block
grant program is a program we've identified but at this time would have to uh come up with a project a specific project um within an eligible area to be able to leverage that grant and the department of utilities would have to be the one to apply for that grant. U but
it's a potential SHIP is a is a program that will lend up to $20,000. However, SHIP now currently has a two to threeyear backlog just to even re review an application, let alone approving an application. So, that may not work
within the time frame that we're looking at. Just wanted to point that out. Self solar energy loan fund program is widely being used um within the state. Uh it's a very it's um it's a uh it's it's a um
it's it's a non-colateralized loan. So they don't they don't you don't put your house at risk to take out that loan. It is not based on on on credit score. Uh it is based on your ability to pay. So essentially if you have a job you can qualify for that. Very competitive
rates. In fact um it it it I mean they offer rates that are competitive with secured uh secured loans. and Martin County is using it extensively and they have met with us, we've met with them and we've worked out a framework of how we could work together to offer that
loan um to to properties to to pay for connection and of course IRC do offer financing of impact fees up to five years. We do offer uh financing for infrastructure as well, but again we're
going to leverage um uh grants to pay for that. So, with all of these programs here, um, the Economic Opportunity Council of Indian River County is sort of a one-stop shop place to get information on all of these programs, uh, right
here. So, I wanted to put that up there because it's it's really convenient u to try to navigate and they have access to other programs, too, that can help uh, with doing that. So lastly, um, as we met with
communities and we talk about septic to sewer and, um, and potential for mandatory connections, we do have some skeptics that say, "Hey, what's my alternative?" Uh, because if you're going to force me to connect, yeah, I'll just resist you and just go go to the
alternative. Well, we have these um three three systems that are approved by the state as alternative to connecting to sewer. First of all, if sewer is available to you, this is not going to be an option. Um
that's what we're asking you to to do. Uh but this is an option here called the um it's called the ingground nitrogen. No, I'm sorry. It's called the the uh the nitrogen reducing aerobic treatment
units. Plumbers call it aerobic system for short. Um it is approved by D as an as an enhanced nutrient reducing on-site treatment and disposal system option. Uh but it is not cheap. Currently, the cost
runs anywhere from for a new installation runs anywhere from 12,500 to $20,000 or for a retrofit 15,000 to 25,000. Notice a retrofit is more expensive. If you look at the picture on the right, it gives you an idea of how
huge the system is. And nine times out of 10, if not all the time, it requires replacing the drain field to put a system like this in. Uh, so that really drives up the cost. There is also an annual inspection and service
fee that runs between $1,200 and $2,000 and that does not include any repairs that may be required and it does take power. Um, so based on the numbers we just showed, if the board take the recommended actions, this is not going
to be a lowerc cost alternative. So to recap what we've asked for, so the staff report has these 11 items in it. However, we are we are removing three of them which is highlighted here. Uh so just running through them real quick. Uh
we're asking the board to adopt a mandatory connection policy in compliance with SB uh 1632 support negotiated costs under special circumstances i.e. uh policy 201108k offer a grace period for new homes built
with um ENR OSTDS's. Uh so for example before we construct sewer to to uh a property if they upgrade to the enhanced nutrient reducing system we're not going to force them to connect right away but offer
some kind of a grace period uh approve a flat rate or tiered billing in lie of metering private uh whales. Um that is just not a practice that utilities like to do uh although it's written into our policy. So we want to forgo that uh E is
to wave the assessments of property owners. The infrastructure costs not covered by grants. So the grants we currently have pay out to the tune of 75%. We have a 25% match. Current policy would require we assess that 25%. We're
asking you to wave that. Uh G, skip over H. We're not asking for that. G is to wave or reduce certain permit fees applicable to water and sewer. Allow us to wave the department of health permit fees and the department of utilities and
the building department has declined. Um item H is to endorse or promote third-party financing programs. I I mentioned the self program is a program that we would like to work with. Um item J is to authorize sending out mandatory
connection notices of course in coordination with outreach efforts. So that concludes our presentation and uh we are happy to take any questions. Have we lolled you to sleep yet? Mr. Vice Chair. Mr.
You guys want to put this? You're going to yield? I think this is a great point. I think it's necessary. All the reasons for it are spectacular to help the lagoon. I I can't see anything wrong with it
other than one thing and it's still there's a cost factor in it for some of these residents that even getting it down is still extremely high for some that's the part to overcome I think you know the public perception everything
else I think everybody wants to do their part it's just going to be the tough cell is going to be the cost and I mean it's just I know y'all are trying like heck to find grants find ways to get stuff done, find ways to lower their cost. I I think it's wonderful. I just
think that's going to be the the you know, you say, well, this we we pass mandatory connections, there goes the cost. It's protect the environment. I I I see no I can't say anything on the on the good on the
positive side. The negative side is still going to be we're gonna we're gonna be looking into it's going to be the cost factor. Do I have any suggestions or opinions on how to solve that today? No, I don't. But that's just then it's going to be
the tough cell. I don't know what else to say about that other than that. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. If you want Yeah, please go ahead. I I think we need to start at the top when we have this discussion and obviously the Florida legislature
directed this uh right particular action. Um in around a 100 days the 26 Florida session will begin. Uh one question I have for the administrator is uh our
lobbyist team and others. Uh I would suggest that this be uh a very high priority to start with. Uh that would be one. When we look at the costs that we're proposing and it and it's no reflection
on on the team that that put the numbers together, you are asking a tremendous amount of our residents. Again, not on on your behalf. That's the cost of doing business. The question, one of the questions, and I have a few
more after the discussion, Mr. chair. Um when we talk about the county uh financing it versus this being on their property taxes, those are two separate items. Correct. Yeah. This would not I mean the
assessment if we did an assessment would ultimately be on it's a nonadalorum tax, right? It would be on their tax bill um just like any other assessment that we do. So if we ended up having to do an assessment, it would be part of their their tax bill. And and what would be the plan if property
taxes are eliminated? This doesn't this wouldn't affect property tax wouldn't affect that? I mean, a property tax would not affect an assessment. Now, if they came and said they can't do assessments, I mean, that's a whole another story. I've heard some rumors about that. Um, but as far as you know, if they don't do property
tax, if we do an assessment, that's that's aside from property tax, but that carries with the property if the property is sold. Yes. So, in other words, there would be some type of cloud on that deed. Secondly, um
the 365 days that you're suggesting, where where did that number come from? It came from state statute. Okay. The state statute identifies that if we had notified them once we've notified them they have 365 days to connect. But is there anything in the statute
that that says when this body should uh commence that that clock? Sure. I just wanted to clarify that that we're sending two notices. The first notice for where we're building new
infrastructure. The first notice is a year ahead of when we anticipate to complete the project. And the second notice is when it becomes available. They have 365. So that gives a two-year period in which when we send the first notice, we have
to give them the option to pay in 24 months equal installments. Gotcha. So with with the session coming up, we know things uh are flexible in the session and
we don't know today what's going to happen in the session that starts January 13th until the end. So that could uh could dramatically change the direction that this body needs to make a decision on.
I think that's always an a risk that we run. I mean certainly I mean between now and 2030, you know, all bets are off of really what happens. Um but if if the legislature decides something different than than what's in in there currently,
certainly it changes the the outlook and and we may have to come back and and reapproach things slightly differently. I think what we're asking today is based off of what we know today um and the fact that we've gotten grants to move forward with certain projects um the
difficulty we have is some of those projects and even those grants require mandatory connections. So if we don't require people to connect it's it's hard to go and say hey we're going to spend all this this grant money to install the public infrastructure and then nobody
connects. And I think that we've the unfortunately um prior projects that happened. I think they funded prior projects where they funded projects and nobody connected. And you know that's that's a hard pill to swallow when you're going and spending millions of dollars to install public
infrastructure and no homes connect. Um you've done you've done no good. Um you've got infrastructure one that's sitting there not being utilized and then you have homes that are still on septic sink septic tanks. So you've not solved anything and they've spent a lot of money to do that. And so these grants
that we've actually received today, if we go and install that public infrastructure, those grants require us to connect the homes, right? Um so you know, if we've done that, unfortunately, we are we are committing to committing those homes to connecting to the system.
And I appreciate you being poised uh to do that and with the I suppose some of the expirations on the grants perhaps. Uh but for now, I'll yield my time, Mr. Sure. Mr. Chair, can I follow up a question? He had jump back. What um have we had any push back from
any of the residents on the projects that we've done or was it accepted like this is great? I mean, I would love to have sewer in my house. It's all about the cost. I think when I mean, is there push back? There's always a little bit of of kind of give and take. And I think when we've
and Howard can maybe attest to this too, when we've gone and and met particularly with like Hobart, um I think there's some skepticism, there's some concern, but when we lay it out that look, we're we're spending all this money that theoretically the only other way you get that is to do an assessment. And if you
did an assessment, that would be X amount of money that you're also having to spend, which is, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars potentially. And so we're saving them hundreds of thousands of dollars and allowing them the opportunity to connect. And if we
can do some of the things that we've talked about today, we're reducing their costs drastically um from what it could be. And I think they've they've they've been accepting of that um and see that there's benefit in that we've gone out and got grants and we're doing efforts to to bring them a cost of bringing the
infrastructure to them without them having to pay anything for that for that public infrastructure. thereby um reducing their cost significantly. And so I think there's there was you know and I think we even saw that even from some of the folks on Wabaso Island when we met with them. We have had public
meetings with both groups um and initial outreach and and effort with them and um I felt coming out of those meetings that there was a lot of positive energy from them and yes while there's cost they have to ex that they would have to spend theoretically as Howard pointed out
towards the end if they had to go to this enhanced nutrient removal system there's cost they have to spend there too. So, it's it's, you know, it's it's one cost or the other. It's it's, you know, six in one, one half dozen of another, and you're going to be stuck spending money one way or the other. And
in some cases, if we can reduce the cost, it's actually going to be cheaper for them to connect to to sewer than it would be for them to to modify their system. So, yeah. Well said. When we presented the numbers, we showed it to them in terms of um how much the
grant utilities uh and other subsidies compared to their portion of the cost for the private side connection which sometimes can run between three to five times as much. when they saw that it's like, "Oh, well,
if I'm getting this much, I don't mind, you know, paying for my my share for the private side connection." That's the kind of that's that's some of the sentiments we got. And I and I and I do want to caveat that, you know, that that might not necessarily be the the belief of everybody within the neighborhood, but I
certainly feel like some were were very open to that and understood that, you know, there was benefit that they would be getting and and some of the cost needed to be borne by them. Um, but we also understand that's why we've gone out and tried to find other programs to help, you know, fund, you know, that
private side connection because we know that's not the case for everybody. Um, so we need to provide options and we need to have those options available when we approach these homeowners um with that. So I have um I have several questions about
uh specific items. Um and I I was there by the way uh when the presentation was made to the Waso Homes near the environmental learning center and initially that you know nobody wants to spend money on this. It's like everybody
wants to do it. Everybody understands it needs to be done, but it's expensive. Really? I mean, you know, no matter how you look at it, so you're you're very diplomatic. You should run for office. Really? I don't do it. They were not happy. I'm going to tell
the tr I'm just going to tell the truth. They were not happy. Okay. But then when staff explained what it would have been without the grants, because they you had grants uh for that. when staff said well you know had not had it not been for the grants it would have been this amount
then everyone was a lot happier because it was a significant difference as as I recall I don't remember the exact number but it was it was significant uh so they they were happier then so my specific questions um I'm looking at D um approve
a flat rate or tiered billing in lie of metering private water supply so my understanding is that that the county was doing this. You came into this and this is the way it was being done. Um, do we have any idea or any way to
estimate what uh the lost revenues might be might be by this averaging? Is is there like any way to know? Can you even take a guess like are we even losing revenues a by averaging?
I you know we unfortunately I don't know that we really know. I mean there's we're not metering homes so we don't have know have know how much water they're using. I do actually think we use an average of 8,000 gallons and in some cases we're probably I mean I hate
to say it there might be overcharging in some cases we're undercharging and there's just no way to know. What we've basically used is an 88k um usage and that's what we've averaged and that's what we've used and and we don't know what we don't we don't meter their water. We haven't been able to get
in and meter their water. So we have no idea. Been doing this for decades, right? Like this is we've been doing it for a while the whole whole time when we have sewer only accounts. That's essentially what we've been doing. Okay. So there is no way even to guess. We're just Okay. So we unfortunately no.
We we don't know. Okay. Um e uh wave assessments of property owners the infrastructure costs not covered by grants. So, if we're waving assessments of the property owners, how how is that going to get paid? Like, what what fund
does that come out of? Is that does that get paid by everybody then? Like, you know, we're waving it for them, but we're spreading it out over everybody. It would come out of our rates and fees. Yep. Out of our capital improvement program. So, yeah, it would come out of the funding money that we receive from
other rateayers. Yeah. Because I I don't know if that's really fair. I mean, if if if we're w It sounds good to wave something. I mean, you know, I like it, but then when you think of what the consequences are, yeah, you're waving it for them, but you're spreading it out over everybody. I would want to maybe we already have
it. I don't know. Um see what the numbers are on that, you know, like what what what's how how much is it going to go up for everybody because uh specific uh households or specific neighborhoods are are not being assessed. And the last
one is maybe similar and that's G and that is wave or reduce uh IRC permit fees applicable to water and sewer connections. So maybe that's somewhere along the same line if you don't charge the individual households or
neighborhoods like where you know the money has to come from somewhere. So where how would we pay for that then? Is that similar? Aren't you spreading it out over every household? Then if it's similar that I mean we would be waving and the it's a utility
construction permit. So our fees are what we call utility construction permit. When they issue that there's a fee associated with that, we would be we' be waving that for septic to sewer conversion projects specifically. Um so if they needed and required a UCP, we
would wave that permit fee. Um, you know, certainly it's part of our fee structure and and it's something that we normally collect. Um, but we're we're looking for ways to try to minimize the cost for the homeowners um as we do these projects and and feel that that is
one of those things and and we've heard the term, hey, there needs to be skin in the game. And we're looking for ways that we can theoretically put skin in the game and and that was one of the ways that we could. This is amazing. By the way, I really commend you on the the depth at which you've pursued, you know, all these
different scenarios and the, you know, the dollar amounts. I mean, it's really an incredible uh amount of work and we know that we need the money, the funding from somewhere. It's just a matter of who pays what. And I would like to try to be
as fair as we can, you know, to everyone um to everyone in the county. And I know other juris helping those that need it. Um and I don't know that there's a way to balance that. And I know other jurisdictions have waved some of those fees as well. Um you
know the one thing that we won't wave are impact fees because those impact fees basically are someone's purchase into our capacity. Um and it helps us to build capacity as we go. So we're not waving certain fees, but there are certain fees that we feel we could wave. Do we um so do we know what the dollar
amounts are of what's being requested to be waved? We have uh was item E was waving assessments and item G was wave or reduced permit fees. So what was Yeah, the the assessments and and Howard we could go back and show you know show
that slide. Um could we look at the assessments are basically when we got the grants we we applied for basically 75% of the total estimated cost at the time. So, in other words, if we applied for $10 million, we got 7.5.
The rest of that would have to be, you know, you know, 2.5 is what we're asking to be waved. Um, so that's essentially part of what we're asking for is is we only got 75% of the expected and and at the time um estimated cost for those
projects. Um, so that's the 25% is what we're we're asking to be waved. Excuse me. And so what is a dollar amount? And if you were going to spread that over your customer base, what you know would each person be paying or each household I
should say approximately or or give? Do we have an idea? That's hard to say because you can't just take that number and divide it by the number of households because it's paid through fees and rates. We're essentially absorbing it. We are not being reimbursed for it. and
what we would do in the past like it like Roslin comes to mind because that's my closest frame of reference but whatever the assessment needed to be that wasn't covered by grants was divided upon upon the home owners in
within that project area in this case we wouldn't be dividing it between anybody would come out of our existing budget we would just absorb it correct as far as impact fees we cannot wave impact fees We pay impact fees.
We can pay them. The money has to come from somewhere. We're not recommending to wave. Otherwise, we have to change through public hearings and ordinance to reduce the impact fees. Impact fees don't go away. We can't wave them. It sounds nice, but they don't
disappear, right? Whatever they exist must be paid. And uh that means that this commission will be utilizing tax dollar to pay the impact fees to offset the value. Once again, a
very disingenuous act since the current rateayer is paying the freight twice. They've already paid if they've connected to sewer. Now all those rate payers will be paying once again. It's astronomical.
I'm sorry. Just the facts. I don't really understand what you're referring to, Commissioner Flesher, as far as paying twice if they've already paid. Are you referring to
the absorption of that cost? Absorption of cost. That's correct. That funding has to come from somewhere. when we wave fees, what we're doing is we're going to go into resources that has been collected from the current rateayers.
So, so just to clarify the impact fee fund um and clearly the utilities enterprise fund is going to have to go out to debt and we pledge the revenues all the revenues of the system for the purposes of debt. So the impact fees
I think there's substantial case law that you cannot wave them. Actually matter if you look at our current system we have a lower amount for that provides a public purpose as it relates to low income or affordable housing but you just can't arbitrarily wave them or
adjust them. So that's just for the impact fees. Now, the the other fees I think they're talking about is the public infrastructure fee or the public infrastructure costs, not so much touching on the impact fees. Am I correct? Correct. We're not we're not talking about waving impact fees.
I don't understand why we're even talking about impact fees because that's on the table. Yeah, we're we are not asking to wave impact fees. We we expect everybody to have to continue to pay their impact fees. What we're asking is to wave permit fees and connection fees. So there are fees
on what he's saying. I I want to on this the topic he's talking about permit fees. I do want to say I understand the Department of Health has agreed to wave theirs, but the reality is the Department of Health is operating under an inter agency agreement with FD
who has the responsibility. And if you recall two sessions ago, the legislature is trying to extract the Department of Health out of the process completely, either take it in by their region or have us do it. And there's an expectation that there's going to be a plan review fee. And I don't know if the
FD is going to be as magnanimous as the Department of Health because it's statutoily they are the agency task or the responsibility of managing the OSTDS program. So we just be want to be mindful of that. So we'd
be talking really about the utilities UCP fee only. I would just suggest if you go down that route, you just focus on that fee and that fee only. So if I if I could add something, the department the agreement with the department of health, their their fee is
to cover their inspection of the completion of after the septic is abandoned. Um they they go out and they do that for them to wave that fee. The inspection still has to be done. What we've agreed to is we will use our inspectors following their rules to do
the inspection. So that's that's a difference. So, and I'm not disagreeing with you, but I know that the I just I think we I know Kathy's back there, but we have actually FD has reached out to us because the reality is the legislature made it very
clear a couple years ago when they took the responsibility from the Department of Health to FD. FD told the the committees, "Yeah, no, we have enough people." And then they turn around the inter inter agency agreements with the department of health to do the plan review and the inspections. And they've
subsequently I think it was if not last year the year before they said listen you need to extricate you need to divide assets you need to take everything away and it needs to go to the EP. And now they are working around the state to contact jurisdictions to either take on
that responsibility or they're going to do it, it's my understanding, at the regional office level, which would really be problematic for us. So just I just want to for this discussion since there's unknown, I think we focus on the UCP fee and let that other one evolve
and we till we better understand that impact. I agree, John. Thanks for bringing that up. And I think yeah, I'm fine with all of it except the two uh points where we're waving things uh which was uh E and G,
wave assessments and wave or reduced permit fees because I I'd like to have more detail on that before I would feel comfortable um agreeing to that. And I guess I accept that we
don't know or can't know um the ramifications of the flat rate in lie of metering of private water that it's just been going on such a long time and we just you know accept it as is. Uh, I guess what it's too much of an effort to
find out or you think it's probably not worth it or we would have to meter the individual homes and we'd probably want to be metering them for at least a year before we have any kind of semblance of of what the average month would be. So, I mean, and that requires us to get into private homes and there's just a whole lot
there's a whole lot around it. So, well, but those flat rates are based on the average of existing homes of the same nature. Correct. It's just a we use 8,000 regardless of home size. So there's not, unfortunately, I don't know that we even look and say, "Hey, it's four bedrooms, five bedrooms. It's, you know,
I think we typically just use an 8,000 and and we can talk to Brian, but I think we when we're doing sewer only, it's just a flat 8,000 average fee." And again, in some cases, we're probably I mean, I hate to say this, there's probably a little bit of there we may be
overestimating. In some cases, we may be underestimating and and we just don't we don't have a way to know that. I doubt it's $3 billion. Yeah, I know. No, it's it's not wishful thinking. We don't have that many we don't have that many sewer only accounts.
So Sean, I know you have the priority the as it relates to the water available and the sewer and lateral, but I mean the from an implementation standpoint, we would be focused on those priority areas first and foremost that are
identified in the Schulky report. Is that correct? because we don't believe that that arguably has changed because the data was I mean it was about what water bodies are receiving have potential as far as bringing infrastructure. Yes, those quick winds were looking at where
infrastructure currently exists today. So they've got water existing and sewers theor again theoretically available. So we're not having to add infrastructure. The Shuli report was looking at primarily areas where infrastructure did not exist and we would be required to
come in and put in the infrastructure. So the Schuly report is somewhat separate. Shuly report kind of gets more into the priorities five, six and seven area where sewer does not exist. I'm following you. So, what I'm trying to tee this up to is the question that I
think Commissioner Moss has has expressed concern about waving assessments for property owners with the infrastructure costs not covered by grants for if we're going to focus after these ones where they exist to where infrastructure doesn't exist and we're
focused on the Schuli report because of the impact to the environment for those areas would it not make there's an environmental benefit or public purpose that could be argued for the, you know, of the county picking up the cost. Outside of that, I don't
know if that would be the same argument. I would just say that outside of those 30 plus areas, it 37 or 30 30 something like that. I mean, you you could argue that connecting anybody through this program is benefiting the environment, right? I mean, any any connection that we are are
making, we get credit through the BMAP. I mean it may vary from from household to household and parcel to parcel just because of location and proximity to lagoon. Um but theoretically any any septic tank that we can remove within
the BMAP is going to be a benefit to again theoretically a benefit to the environment. So, I think that's where we were looking at, you know, the idea of waving those um those co non grant-f funed costs
um and not doing assessments to those homeowners. For the sewer side, again, we're not even suggesting we do that necessarily for the water side. If we had to bring water, I think we would have to still probably do an assessment unless we could get grants. Um but if we
can get grants for the sewer side and typically unfortunately you know and I don't know if we could have gotten them 100% funded at the time it was you know you needed to have some inind contribution and so the inind
contribution was you know our 25% was what we consider an inind contribution and that inind contribution is a benefit to the environment and a benefit to the lagoon and the health of the lagoon. Thereby, we feel that that could be it is appropriate to spread that out over
the the rateayers of the county. So, thank you. Um, we have a policy that requires mandatory connection already, do we not? We just don't enforce it. The state statute's been in place and in
effect for a long time. We just haven't we haven't followed the sense where we've sent the letter saying it's available. you you need to connect because we did have mandatory requirements for the Rosland project as I recall new developments. We have people that haven't still
connected but I think we gave them like a fiveyear slight. Yeah, we did. Um and and there we actually had America infrastructure. So I always forget what the ARRA America's recovery and reinvestment act. Um, so we
had era funding to actually pay for the private side connection and we still had people not connect. And so unfortunately even some of these numbers that are up here, the 15 that we have um are actually associated with some of the projects that we've already completed. So some of those are actually within
Florivon Shores and some of those are actually within um within Rosland and you know they elected not to take advantage of that program and I I can't tell you why. um when funding was available, I I I'm not sure why people elected not to do it. Um but we did not
theoretically have mandatory connections. We basically gave them the option and said, "Here's funding available. Um and people, you know, for whatever reason, I don't know if they just figured they could not afford the monthly charge. Um they didn't want water." I I I'm not entirely sure why
they decided not to connect, but we had a handful. Um a majority of the the residents within Rosland connected. I want to say roughly 95% of the the residents connected, but we did have a handful that did not. And that was a project where we also I don't know if we actually negotiated the cost with some
of the private um companies in the area to do the private side connection, but we did have a list of kind of pre-qualified um well a company that was able to do that that kind of knew the parameters and I
believe because that was a big concern from the private side in that project. Who do we need to call? We don't even know how to do this. Um, and that seemed to work well and and take some of that angst away. So, I have no, you know, problem with trying to negotiate
something. If they want to use somebody from the list, great. And if they don't want to use somebody from the list, you know, but the private side connection, it's not just the connections, it's also if you have a subject tank, abandoning that septic tank and those types of things. Yeah. Um,
and the thought behind what we were suggesting there was if we can get pre-qualified firms that, you know, people would contact and they would still basically have their own contract with that pre-qualified firm, the pre-qualified firm would be guaranteed a
certain number of of connections and thereby bringing the cost down um for the resident, right? So we would work with them to negotiate lower costs that hey we're going to guarantee you we can't guarantee them anything but we would think that you would get you know at least a hundred connections over the
course of this time period um thereby if you can give us a reduced cost it reduced the cost to the homeowner certainly the homeowner I think in that case doesn't have to use that preferred if they wanted to go with somebody else you know they have a you know someone in their family or they know somebody that happens to be a plumber and they want to use them I mean there's nothing that
says they have to use that but we're trying to work out something where we would have um you know we'd go out for RFP, we'd have people give and we would negotiate costs with them to bring those costs down for for the homeowners. Um and likewise on the infrastructure as Howard mentioned,
Martin County and St. Lucy County have reached an agreement with a distributor for the E1 these grinder pumps where they get them out at a substantially reduced cost. And so what we would do is piggyback on that. We would purchase a large number of them ourselves and we
would in turn sell that to the contractor to the homeowner at a reduced cost. We wouldn't, you know, sell it and and make a profit. We basically sell it for what we purchased it for and that thereby reducing the cost. For instance, on the open market, an E1 grinder pump
cost five around $5,500. Under that piggyback contract, it cost around 3,200. So that's the thought process is we would somehow figure out a way to reduce those costs for the homeowners. Well, you know, I think one of the things we've heard since the legislation
has come down with the 2030 deadline is what are you guys doing to help us out as residents? Residents are concerned. They're concerned either about having to hook to sewer or having to transition to um the fancy septic tank. And there's a cost associated with that. there's
there's going to be and it's like this doomsday that we're marching towards without any kind of conversation about how to bring those costs down. And what I get a lot and I I'm assuming everybody else does is we'll look at Bvard County. They have a a program where they're help
paying. But then you go and you look at that program and your qualifications, it depends on how close you are to the lagoon and it's really basically on average between $6 and $1,200. It's it's it's a token when you're looking at a
$20,000 project. So, I like that we're having the conversation about what we can do to help offset the burden to the residents because I think that's what people are waiting to hear from like they're waiting to hear a plan. They they we haven't
there hasn't been any conversation around that. So, I appreciate trying to to do those different types of things. And I think even the little stuff when it all adds up to a larger pack package of savings. If you guys aren't comfortable with some of the waving of
of fees and assessments and we want to ask them to look back into that or get some more numbers or some other options, I I have no problem with that. Um but at the end of the day, the state is looking for each county,
municipality, each utility to in this in this BMAP situation to do something. So to not do anything and continuing to do status quo, not only are we not going to be able to avail ourselves of any kind of state grant funding because there's
mandatory requirements now in those or if you want to score high enough to actually get the grant, you need to have something that says everybody they're going the state money that's going to be spent is going to be used by people hooking up and going to solve what they're trying to solve in Tallahassee.
Um, so we're that's going to dry up if we don't do something in a continued status quo. Appropriations is going to dry up and quite frankly, we're not helping our residents by not coming up with a plan because now they're looking at having to
go back and and put in a new um a new septic system if we're not talking about how we can extend utilities. And that truly is going to be more expensive, especially as we get closer to 2030 because there's going to be a lack of resources because everybody's going to
be waiting till the last minute and now the price is going to double and triple. And every time we have this conversation, somebody says, "Well, we talked about this five or 10 years ago. I guess we should have done it then because it was cheaper." And every time we have the
conversation at that time, it seemed like a huge expense. But nothing is ever getting cheaper. Ever. I mean, you used to be able to get a piece of bubble gum for five cents. Now you can't get it for, you know, less than $5 half
the time. So, we can continue to ring our hands and and do nothing and the price will continue to increase and then we'll be up against the 2030 deadline or we can make some decisions and try to move forward and do something to try to
bring the cost down to the residents, but also try to be responsive and provide them with information. because it's not only about the cost. It's about providing the information on on what they reasonably need to do and what they should expect. Not everybody in this county, irregardless of what we decide
to do, is going to be required to hook up to sewer. They're just not. Some people are going to have to look at a new system. And some people are outside the BMAP and they're not going to have to do anything. And you know, God bless them. But I just think we this is a this
is a hard conversation, but we're going to have to come to some resolution on it. Now, I do really appreciate um the you guys trying to look into other financing options. I think one of the hardest things we come across with some
of this is I don't have $20,000 today. We have lower income populations. We have um cashstrapped residents and you know we the state is mandating us to do something. We're the
pass through but we're the ones that have to do it. So we're the ones that are going to that bear all the angsts from the residents. So if you can stretch that out over a longer period of time it makes it a little bit more affordable and palatable. Um, I know in the past we've kind of talked about not
wanting to get into the banking business, and that's not necessarily a conversation I want to have today, but the county can leverage a lot more than a a an individual homeowner. So, I'm not saying putting it on the tax
bill is necessarily the right thing, but there's other programs and processes out there that have been successful in other municipalities and and counties and states that I think we should be looking at even if it's something that's
different than what we do today because it might be something that's helpful to some of our residents and just having options for them to consider. Um, I think that is what our role is. If there's going to be a cost, our role is
to try to make that cost as bearable as possible and we don't have a lot of tools in that toolbox right now. So, I would definitely encourage more discussion along those lines. But I guess to summarize, at the end of day,
at the end of the day, we're going to have to do something because the more we talk about it, the closer we get to 2030 and the closer we get to not having very much time to figure anything out. So, Mr. Chair, can I just make a comment? Councelor,
I did want to let the board know that we do have mandatory connection language in chapter 2011 of our code where we can require someone to connect to our water or sewer and if they won't, we can do it ourselves and lean them. So, I mean,
obviously that presumes it's available. Um, but we we have that language on the books. We don't have to rely on state statute for that. I thought we did already have it on the books. I think we used it for some businesses in the past
for for some businesses and uh again a lot of the discussion today uh when we were dealing with um enhancement for underserved communities we use ship uh we made special arrangement arrangements
we shortened the time for uh commitments to the ship program uh we were able to work with the state Um, I this needs more work.
You know, you can heat and spin sugar enough to get cotton candy, but I I see nothing sweet from this. I I see bitterness and and and and cost factor, which is overwhelming. Uh we uh we're not done with the other
waste that we were dealing with, trash. Uh I I just don't know how much the citizens can bear at this point. We are in recovery.
We are not recovered. And and and I believe and I'm I'm talking about the people have to get up in the morning, get to work and and come home and figure out life with limited funds.
I I remember many years ago um I live in another jurisdiction, Sebastian. We're in the third phase of the uh of the water lines coming in and I remember seeing that bill
and it was overwhelming and they uh said, "Well, you you can do it. We have a a payment plan." We're talking about payments as some other methodology. Well, those payment plans uh I know what
we'll just we'll just do it. I just and it was a hardship thousands of dollars so I could have a water line that I didn't connect to. But it was mandatory.
I was told I have to have that pipe in in the lawn and it's a couple of lots. So we had to do it. It took a couple of years to recover from that and I believe this one is overwhelming.
And we could talk about wave and we can talk about uh broadening it out. The only excitable thing here is that we're getting closer to lagoon recovery, that we're moving forward like we're doing in
many other projects. This one's big and I don't know if the rateayer can accept the rate. It's it's just a very difficult pill to swallow. Difficult topic. Uh the the state has
made a requirement um similar to what they did with the recycling program. Does anybody recall what the the mandatory obligation was? And the excuse me 75%
75% and uh accolades to our team we were on the the top 2% of achieving that goal but we did not. There was no penalty applied if we did not. And we were at I
I don't know I I believe we're up at like 68%. It was an overwhelming number. And that was a few years ago. But then there was no penalty. They scrubbed it. I don't know what's
going to happen here, but I I believe the ask by the state the the tell to use your expression we've been volunttoled to do this to impart upon the taxpayers
the citizens who enjoy living here to this value. It's it's incredible. Now, let's not take it away. You guys did an excellent job. we sat in and you you briefed us all and uh overwhelmed at the amount of work that has to be done or
had to be done to get us here and yes we actually do understand all the letters on top and you well explained how we get there but we didn't really talk about where
are the citizens going to get the money. It it's just I think I I think it's the largest pill we've ever had to be asked to swallow and the citizens to asked to swallow. It's a prescribed
medication with no distribution. Well, I I can say two things. One, I want to correct something that on the subject on the sewer costs on the we do have a tiered rate and I apologize for misspeaking on that and thanks to my
staff for bringing this out to me. Brian um came and corrected. So for mobile homes the volume is 3,000 um gallons. So on average and we only have 42 accounts. Uh for single family less than 3500 it's 7,000. We have 112 accounts of those and
single family above 3500 it's 12,000. and we have seven accounts of those. Again, we have very few accounts. Um, and unfortunately there's just no way to know kind of where they are, but did want to correct that and thanks to Brian for bringing that out. Um, and I
certainly understand everybody's concern about the cost. Unfortunately, the costs are only going to continue to escalate. So the issue is is we do something now and we try to solve some of this as best we can or it's just going to continue to get
worse and worse and worse. And I want to, you know, going back to to even and I and I think Howard maybe spoke to this real briefly. If you look at the cost for going to this enhanced nutrient removal system and again I don't know where this is going to go come 2030 and
how this would even be enforced, but if you look at those costs, those are today's costs. And as that date gets closer and things get more and more and if it the date stays the same, those costs are just going to go up. And so we're talking, you know, to to retrofit,
I mean, new is expensive to retrofit 20 to $25,000. That's that's a huge expense. And so that's not something we're mandating. That's something that again the the state is mandating. And the state really is mandating mandatory connections. It's
not something the county is mandating. It's the state is mandating that. And you know, we're unable to get grants and we're unable if we don't if we don't do something on mandatory connections, we're going to have to give that money back. I mean, I'm going to be flat flat honest
with you. We will not be able to move forward with those grant projects if we do not figure out and if we don't have skin in the game, i.e. being willing to cover that additional 25% some way, whether it's an assessment to the homeowners, which just increases their
costs even more um or we absorb that somehow within our costs um as a utility, then we're we don't have those grants. I mean, I I and I don't mean to to put it out there bluntly, but that's the reality is we are not going those grants required us to do connections.
And if we don't have some means to do that, we are not eligible for those grants and they will come back and ask for that money back. So I think we need to be very conscientious of what we're what we have
agreed to do um in in acce and accepting some of this grant funding. Um but without that grant funding, none of these projects get done. Um, and so nobody connects and they're going to be stuck, you know, in installing an
enhanced nutrient removal system. And I think many people think that's a better option, but I can tell you that's not a cheaper option. And long term, it's probably not a cheaper option because there is a long-term going back, if you look at what he was putting up there, there's there's power associated with
it. It's not a high power, but there is power and it's no longer a passive. So right now, what we call septic systems are a passive system. sewage goes in, it sits there, it kind of gets eaten up and then that clear water floats to the top and eventually goes out into the leech
field. These systems are not that way. These enhanced neutral removal systems, they require they're like multiple stages. They require pumps, they require power, um, and in some cases may require media and that requires maintenance and so they require maintenance agreements. And as you can see, that maintenance
agreement costs anywhere from 1,200 to to $2,000 a year. Um, I can tell you they're not spending that in sewer costs a year if they were to connect to to county sewers. So, um, you know, ultimately I'm I'm going to sit here and stand and say our costs that we are
suggesting are going to be cheaper than if they had to go down that path. Again, I don't know where the state's going to go and how the state's going to mandate that and and what's going to happen come 2030, but I can tell you at some point something's going to happen and something's going to have to give. And
we believe what we're doing is a benefit not only to the citizens that are benefiting by connecting to the sewer, but are benefiting the Indian River Lagoon, the health of that lagoon, getting these communities and these these these places off of septic that
are right now sitting on the lagoon. Um, and you know, I believe are are are a direct benefit to enhancing the the health of lagoon. So, I mean, I'll I'll stop there and leave it at that. Mr. Chairman,
Sean, how how long let's say we approve this everything today. How long before it would before this would actually start as as to what you want to do and not every you're not doing everybody at once, right?
No, we laid that out on the on the on the schedule. I mean, we've got one right now, Floron Shores, that you know, we're trying to get construction going. We hope to get that construction actually started relatively soon. Howard can probably talk a little more about that. We've got the design build team
approved for Hobart Landing. Um, you know, as soon as we get that contract going, they'll start doing the design and looking at, you know, construction costs. Um, and then, you know, we've got the I believe the Wobbaso Island RFQ is
going out soon. Um, sounds like today. So, you know, that's going to be on the street. We'll select a contractor for that. Um the CRA, we're working with um Sebastian on the CRA to to do that work. I saw that. So all of that is hopefully again the
plan is to get all those done well ahead of 2030 to allow all those those residents to connect before that date um comes to fruition. I don't know, you know, at this point, you know, we we North, you know, North Sebastian is the
other one. I mean, that was the one we just got grant funding for last year. Um, so that one's, you know, lagging behind those others. I mean, that probably will probably get that RFP out maybe mid year next year. Um, with the hope of again trying to get that accomplished before 2030.
I don't know that if we were to get any additional grant funding, we would be actually able to get projects done in time before 2030 if we got grant funding this year, next year. I mean, we're talking five years now, six, four years almost before 2030 is looming. Um, you know, it takes time to get
projects done. It takes time to get procurement done. Um, I just don't know that, you know, I think what we've got in the hopper right now is likely what we're going to get done before 2030. Um, and that's the reality of what we're dealing with. And so, it's kind of my question. In other words,
so a neighborhood out on State Road 60 West that's still in the that's still in the map, my neighborhood off of 43rd Avenue. I mean, unless I got all my neighbors that came to you today say, "Hey, we want sewer in." I guess you could do it now. But if I, you know, I'm waiting to
get this notice from the county, we we're talking years, right, to get stuff done or stuff that's like absolutely we're talking a long time. I mean, again, where's funding going to come from? And and and there's two options. It's well I guess there's three
options theoretically through our fees and our rates and our and our straight structure through grants and and loans or loans um which we would have to pay back goes through grants or through assessments and the assessment is the
cost of installing all that public infrastructure is put back on the homeowner and the homeowner has to bore the entire cost. And so if you looked at that initial proforma that Howard had put together, as you get down in up in complexity and and infrastructure needs,
those costs range close to $100,000 to $150,000 for one person to pay for all of that. And so by applying for grants and getting grants, we're reducing that cost significantly because we're not having to assess those properties. Um but
without that, we don't have the funding. I mean either we we we go and we build the infrastructure and again that cost is borne by the entire community or we do assessments and you know the assessments are are a challenge because that's a huge cost and even if you
spread that out over co that's that's a mortgage for some people. Um $150,000 spread out over five years is you know a huge expense. So you know most people can't afford that if anybody can. So, um, you know, we've got grants and we've
gotten approval to move forward with those projects and we believe that the the offset and the inind contribution of that 25% from the county is is necessary to, you know, one to get the grant. It was part of the grant proposal. We had
to provide an inind contribution. that in kind contribution is that 25% that yes is is the county's contribution to that project. Um but that project ultimately benefits the community, the lagoon um and that economic driver for for the county. So,
so um so Sean, in the short term though, you're asking the board today to approve these in concept because they would still have to come back in the form of amendments to our existing ordinances or adopting a new ordinance that would, you
know, flush these out in more detail perhaps. Yes. I don't know that we need I mean, I guess that's a legal question. I don't know if we would need an ordinance to to do some of that. Um, we certainly would, I guess, if we were going to go down the path of, um, you
know, these these base charges, um, because the, you know, the way our ordinance reads now, we're supposed to be metering homes. But, um, I don't know that we need to change the ordinance for some of the other stuff. Um, we're just asking to wave,
you know, wave fees and and you know, I think and and I was looking at your um board item because I I see that I mean to me it seems like we're con their board would be conceptually approving these approaches and we would get an
opportunity to kind of shake out work with you on how they would be effect you know to look at all of our codes and our resolutions and make sure that we don't need to change something. I mean, to me, that's what I saw when I saw this item. So,
okay, Mr. Not trying to stop progress. Mr. Chair, could we also ask the Mr. Administrator to maybe draft a letter to our senator and our representative just so we can check the
box that in fact we had this discussion? This should definitely be a priority at legislative day. There you go. Come up to say, "Hey, what are we doing, Sean?" What I guess what I'm asking is not make an impact to make Not everybody in the county is going to
be done by 2030. They don't have to come up with the money in the next three to four years. A lot of them may have to, but some but the ones you have on the on the queue are going to keep you busy until then. Some people don't need to be concerned
about paying for this till 2035 or what's how does that work? No, I don't think sending out anything that says that. The way the legislation reads today, the people that are on septic systems within the BMAP, right,
theoretically by 2030, because that's the date that's out there today, by July 1st of 2030, right? either are going to have to connect or it's available modify their system to be an enhanced nutrient removal system. So they're either spending money to connect or
they're spending money to go to modify their system. So they're spending money one way or the other by 2030. Whether they're spending it to connect to sewer and central sewer or they're spending it to to modify their system with that
looming date, residents within the basin management action plan for the inter lagoon are going to be required to spend money one way or the other. Well, I'm just thinking logistically, and I could be wrong. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong.
you're going to be competing with everybody in the state for pipes for for materials for contractors to lay the pipes in the ground that need to be done or even if there's pipes there's still a lot of work to be done
when do people get their bill I guess am I making any sense in other words that's why I I I think the projects that we have in the hopper now are basically what we will get accomplished before 2030. Right. But what I don't believe that we will be able to
do any we won't be able to to to handle any additional projects to to to enable. So either we're we're dealing with the existing ones that that could connect today. So those projects are are again going to the that that proforma
the ones more complex that need infrastructure installed. That's what we're talking about with the grants. There are existing homeowners today that based off of existing infrastructure could connect. And so what we're asking is two things, which is allowing us to
basically require those who could connect today to connect by saying, "Hey, you have an existing infrastructure. You're budding a sewer line. You have water. You could connect today." And so we're asking to basically
say, "Look, you need to connect." And then the other part of that is we've got these grants, right, to to install the infrastructure that allows now those homeowners who, you know, today couldn't connect, but to connect now that they would connect. And
again, those five projects that we've got going on now, I believe are all that we're going to be able to accomplish come 2030. And so beyond that, if you don't have existing infrastructure or we're not doing a project, then yeah,
you you either work with your community and figure out your own assessment if you want. You you wait for the options or you move forward with enhanced nutrient removal system. That's the options available today. And the way the legislation is written today,
those are your options available. Um, and I mean I don't know how else to how else to put it. I mean, you you explained it. If there's if there's a connection right there, you're gonna we're saying you need to connect by 2030. And then we have to add in the cost of
the courthouse to house all the leans. Yeah. Uh, we we can't ignore the you you're talking about an impact of about $20,000 a house. We're I mean the thing is if they do have to do the enhanced neutral
removal system that we're that's not us. We have no involvement with that whatsoever and there's no financing options and there's no grant options and there's no any kind of any options at all with that. Right? That's totally on you and your plumbing provider.
So here's here's putting this into perspective. We think roughly with these new projects we will be able to connect what Howard about 260 260 homes and businesses with the CRA included in that number. And then you
have roughly as I mentioned up there earlier maybe another 600 that could connect today. So of the 28,000 by 2030 we roughly think we could connect maybe a thousand homes between now and 2030.
27,000 homes are going to need to go to an enhanced neutrient removal system and they're going to have to spend that money. That has nothing that has no bearing on the utility whatsoever. I mean that and probably doesn't have any bearing on on
you as commissioners other than your residents within the community are going to have to spend money. We're going to hear it. Um and so but that's a state mandate. So I don't you know that that date is looming again that that's a 2030 date and that's that's what we're trying to do is as
much as we can people who could connect today get them to connect and build the infrastructure to allow additional residents to connect and beyond that I mean our hands are tied and I again I don't know how that's
going to happen. I don't know what the state's going to do. I don't know what D is going to do and how they're going to handle that. But that's that's for them to determine not for for us to to be involved with that. So one option there's an option Sean mentioned briefly
um and that is for properties for example you know small communities or street of uh homes that's not going to have sewer available to them by the mandate and upgrading is
their only option. there's another option and that is for them to band together and serve as their own private developer and extend the sewer to them and um they could look at that and the average cost per property uh and compare
that to if they were to individually upgrade to the enhanced nutrient reducing system. Uh that is a potential uh option. uh they would just be serving as their own private developer extending the sewer main obviously would have to meet our standards and uh at the
completion of that project would be to turn the assets over to us can we make sure that we tell everybody this is a state mandate yeah how much clear on that.
Do you feel cooler, warmer? I mean, I this is a tremendous impact. I think the the idea and concept is absolutely fabulous. It's going to protect the lagoon and do what we need to do and get the BMAPs right, get the
nitrogen and phosphorus in order, all that sort of stuff. And I think it's needed. I'm a guy that that's a lagoon guy. Grew up on it, still go out in it. We need to do whatever we can. Plus, it's going to hurt. Plus, it's the environment. It's just about what I said at the beginning. It's just think that
we're going to get push back. Anybody else have any discussion for staff? If not, we do have a limited public due to weather and endurance, but you're here.
Would anyone like to speak uh on this uh great endeavor and topic? Thank you, Mr. Chair, vice chair, commissioners, county attorney, John, county administrator. Thank you. Great presentation. Sean Howard, you guys did a great job.
Um learning all of that stuff. Obviously, city of Sebastian is the home to about 10 to 11,000 of these septic tanks as you all are fully aware. Um just a couple things that I just wanted to bring you know note to they've mentioned it numerous times that we have an interlocal agreement for the
Sebastian CRA um that project to get done. A little bit of concern seeing the slide up here today and and seeing it in the packet slide 17 had the date pushed out to 2627 for construction. Um you all attended a groundbreaking a few weeks
ago in Sebastian. I think it was September 24th. Um, so we'd like to see kind of that ground actually breaking with with the project going forward here in the near future. Um, instead of seeing it kind of showing us it was on the graph in 26 and 2026 and 2027. Um,
so that's one concern that we have. Another that we have um, and this is more of a request and um, you know, I've had the discussion with Mr. Tanic quite a bit on this already um, comes down to in regards to the impact fees. So the city we were awarded an FD grant for
about $3.6 million to assist the private side infrastructure um on the CRA project. So with that, our plan is to obtain whatever is required for any easements, which I believe is going well. Um, with Sean's assistance and utilities department, our staff have
been working for any easements that we may need to obtain, but then to allow and facilitate our residents and property owners within the CRA um so that they have to pay as little as possible uh for this project. That's your goal in this and that's the city's
goal as well in this project. And with that, the only thing we we've kind of run into a little bit of a problem with is the impact fees. So, in our in our local agreement, um there was the waiver of the uh connection fees. Um and in looking at that, connection fees based
on the slides that were shown up here, it looks like connection fees actually cost more than impact fees. Um however, D grant will not pay the impact fee. So, our residents are we're waving a fee that D will cover which is the
connection fee. D will pay that portion and we're waving it with this agreement. However, they won't pay the impact fee which is going to require residents to have to pay the impact fee. So, knowing that we can't kind of eliminate the impact fee, what my request today is is
to continue to evaluate this and see if there's some creative way that we can look at this and and maybe the connection fee can offset the impact fee if that's possible or something of that nature because we know from the grant funding we can get the connection fee paid. We just can't get the impact fee
paid. So, if that was possible, then at the end of the day, um, if we were able to work something out and be creative with that, it would basically be zero cost to the property owners in the CRA, which would allow them all to facilitate the connection. Sean stated it very well that, you know, we are required to have
a certain percentage of connections within that area for the grant funding to be eligible. Um so we are going to be pushing once we kind of get the grant all the documents signed and everything finalized the city we will be taking ordinance to our council um to support
mandatory connection um to support the county's efforts for mandatory connection within the CRA obviously with the grant funding effect that'll help with that. So that's all I have. Thank you all for your support um and your partnership on the Sebastian uh CRA interlocal agreement and the connection
there in subject to sewer and uh we look forward to continuing to work with you all. Thank you. Ryan, you you just mentioned something about September. Well, we all got together and stood there and we were by the riverfront
and we we we took a picture with some shovels and there was a a backhole Uh behind us. Where is that now? The backho. It was a county backhoe, I believe.
Was it county backhoe? Yes, sir. Could is it in storage? Cuz I I just want to know why we all met. No, it's it's being utilized. It's it's something that we utilize every day. Oh, utilizing it there. That's We We're not utilizing it there yet. We
And I mentioned this early on. We are still waiting on infrastructure. We take that picture. We are still waiting on infrastructure to start doing the work. Um once we get the infrastructure be fully installed and I know Brian was concerned about what was in the the presentation. If you notice we did move that time up. Sorry, Brian.
The old the old presentation showed it um moved out a little bit, but we intend to get that started and have that project completed within the year. So, um you know, we're we we're we're ready to go. We just need to get the infrastructure and the and materials in place.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. When we all talked and and I believe uh John here. Yeah. John, when we talked and we went up to Sebastian and we had talked about this project, somebody was getting
the materials and somebody was providing labor and then I saw the equipment and that all went away. and and we talked about July one and then we had to move it a little bit. It's now October.
You mean to tell me that the backhoe did not pull any soil at all yet? It has not. No, we have not been able to do any work yet. And and we're talking about these kind of projects. I I'm at a loss for words. I thought that
we were we were going to be doing that. I was excited that day. Nice. What are they going to dig up and put in if they don't have the pipes to do it? I mean, they've ordered the infrastructure and the pipes. We've ordered, but we just haven't got it yet.
The ILA contemplated, I think, utilities starting to work on the project. enough. There was engineering and other stuff that needed to happen post the concept plan that was attached to the ILA and they've been coordinating back and forth
with uh the city of Sebastian also that we had to get to obtain the easements. I mean I think you just heard Brian saying they've been working together obviously we want to want they want to see it accelerated. Yes. And I Sean's just saying accelerated just start it. I don't know.
I we can't we can't start it without the materials to start it. You know, we don't you can't go dig a hole and then wait to have the pipe, you know, show up months later and install the pipe. So, I mean, once we get the materials, we intend to start. Well, I was told we ordered the
materials and we order the materials. I'm unfortunately I talked to Duke and one of my my managers earlier this week and we ordered the materials a long time ago. I'm not sure why we haven't gotten it if there's delays and and we're looking into that, but um we just haven't gotten the materials yet to
actually start the work and and we don't want to dig in advance of that. So, we're we're moving and we're progressing. Um and we continue to p pursue easements and and getting those in place. Um and there there are things that are being done to move the project forward, but we can't go and dig until
we actually have the materials to install. So, I I live up there. I've I've been looking for the backhoe for a while. You know, I just pass there every day. I I I know there's no activity. Okay. I I asked a question I knew the answer to.
But by the same token, u I if it is supply line related, if that's what that's what you're saying that that's the only thing that's holding this up, that's what's holding us up right now is not getting those pipes. We get those pipes, they're going to start trenching
out. Yeah. I've I've talked to staff and we intend to start start doing work once we get material and not beat it up just understood. But now and look at the scale that we're
talking about. Look at this is a handful of h buildings. Wow. Okay. Come on, Judy. One down. Wasn't sure we were finished. Kind of
stiff from sitting so long. And I'm also a little overwhelmed at the whole discussion. But I kept writing notes down that I'm just going to be disorganized and trying to mention to you. But one thing I did get a confirmation while I was sitting through
the meeting about the number of aerobic treatment units that have already been installed in Indian River County by the health department and it's about a thousand. So, there's been a thousand people whose
septic system has failed and when they go to apply for the permit with the health department, if sewer lines are not available, they have to fork out for these more expensive systems. Now, there was and I I just got this as an email and I don't know all the details, but I
think there's something about some of them were older and maybe not as effective as the new ones they recommend now. But regardless, the price is there. Um, so I know you guys don't like the word loan, but there are state revolving
funds that can help expedite this septic to sewer program should you feel like you need to move out into more areas more quickly and it could be paid back on taxes. Other areas have done that. The Lockxahhatchee River has had a
really um comprehensive program and they've gotten rid of all their septic systems and they charge the homeowners back at a low interest rate over 20 years. Just FYI. Um
I like the Sebastian project. The fact that it's cooperative between Sebastian and the county, you know, that both people got chunks of money and went in together. That's awesome. I think uh John's point about not losing sight of
which areas are the most important areas to connect like don't forget about the Bily Schuly Biddles Stoddard project and the fact that they prioritize the neighborhoods and Sean's doing that. He's addressing the priority
neighborhoods first and you know people can't connect if the line's not in the ground. Um, I just I really came here to tell you a little bit about the clean water coalition um, septic to sewer project that we're doing with the city
of Vero Beach and why it came about and I have information to share and I'll be glad to leave it with you. Um, if you don't want to hear about it, Joe, you could just say what? I don't know. You rolled your eyes. I thought maybe you weren't interested.
Okay. Um anyway, what what so this say that I was not interested. I just got that I saw your face. I just thought that was what you were telling me that you I'm spending too much time. No. Okay. Thank you. Um
the city of Euro Beach opted to go with the step system as was mentioned in the presentation and so uh Rob Bolton and I have to give a shout out to Keith Druit. Keith Druit's the vice president of clean water and he was really the brains
behind this because uh Rob Bolton you know got grant funding to run the step lines throughout the entire city and so the lines are in place well that's the first step in having people connect is first the lines have to be there so the lines are in
place for the step but even after this time I think they started in 2017 putting the lines in we only have a 50% connection rate in the city. And so, uh, Keith Druit's idea was that a lot of the
people that live within the city limits are lower income people and they really can't afford to connect. So, what are we going to do about that? So, we devised a program with the cooperation of uh the city through ordinance, by the way, um,
which provides an incentive program for low-income people to connect. And it's been a really interesting process working through this. We started it as a pilot project using private funding. So we got funding from Cleanwater Coalition, our donors, from the Indian
River Land Trust donors, from the Community Foundation donors, and we had the cooperation of the Economic Opportunities Council to screen our applicants to determine who was lowincome, no preferential treatment. They were
doing all the screening and the city of Vero Beach passed the necessary ordinances to give extra incentive to people who qualify for our program. So it resulted in what normally could be a
$15,000 connection for people if they qualify as low income. Now the cost is five uh $575 per year for 10 years.
So if you have questions about it, I'll be glad to answer. Otherwise, I'll pass out or leave these brochures and an explanation. But I think there are ways because it sounds like Can I walk and do this at the same time? Um it sounds like
it's reduced to five. Judy, you're saying it's reduced to 5 $75. Yep. I really was interested. I'm in pain right now. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate a copy.
Thank you. Yeah. is qualifiers. Excuse me. Um, and this is what's the qualifier on this? I'm sorry. What's the qualifications? Four times the federal poverty rate.
So it's basically about $90,000 for let me see two people about 90,000 and $130,000 for about for a four family household and this is one of the financing options Sean and Howard you guys were talking about under that slide correct?
Yeah but I want to make it plain that we do not have funding for county area yet our the funding that we have is promised. So, we would have to apply for additional grant funding if we were
going to do anything with this the county. But I just wanted to point this out to you because it can be done. You can find ways to help the people you're worried about, but then the people who have the money, because there's a whole
mess of people who have plenty of money and they're still not connecting because they don't want to. I flush the toilet, it goes away. You know, that's all they care. So, there's plenty of that. And there's also people who have investments, but
they don't want to sell their investments unless they're forced to. So, there are those situations where people who could afford it aren't connecting. And that mandatory policy would just make them get off their douff and do it. But then you need to have a
program that's going to help the people who can't afford it because otherwise um these these targeted people we're working with are defined by United Way as being uh asset limited
income challenged and employed and so Alice people f and we played with in the in the process of working through this grant with the city which has been a really interesting process. Well, first it was with the pilot program. We
first started at two times the federal poverty level and found that that was too restrictive. So we over time we bumped the level up our our qualification level. So now we're at four times the federal poverty level.
And that seems to be a good spot because we seem to be helping people who are like not just working people, but also retired people who've been in their house for 30 years or longer and their
um their income just couldn't cover it. They're living monthto month. So it's helping retired people and working people. And it's been an interesting process to you know encourage those people to get involved. And one thing
about it is you have to be positive about your program. You can't be negative about it. I mean here if you've got sewer available it's going to save you money. It's going to make your property values better. You know you're obvious you know
there's other ways to incentivize this too through other types of ordinances. You could pass an ordinance that says the septic system has to be connected upon the sale of a home. City of Vero Beach has that ordinance in place. So,
the realtors are getting it and there's money exchanging hands at the time of a sale of a home. And so, that's a time when these kinds of things can come into play a little better. So, those are just some examples. Happy to answer questions
if anybody has any. Otherwise, good luck. Thank you. Oh, but I I should explain though we started with a pilot program which you know was a short when we kind of were working out
the processes of how people would apply and so forth. Then we because we pro had a proven process you competitive bidding works you competitive bidding works this idea
about having you know qu contractors do competitive bidding um so anyway we were under budget so we haven't spent all the money so we got an extension on that grant and then in the meantime we applied for a second grant from the NEP
that is a federal program and it's just to help priority area people, lower income people. So, that one is in play now and um we have a year on that one. So, thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this? Commissioners, everybody's got their own microphone. I'm fine with everything except the wave assessments and wave fees and I just wanted to get more information on that.
Otherwise, I'm good with all of it. So, so would you like to ask them to come back with some more explanation and detail? Is that is that doable? Can we hear a little bit more? But everything else is fine today. I mean, I don't want to hold anything up, you know, the rest
of it. I don't want to hold up the rest of it. You're asking us to come back with with they uh the wave assessments of property owners and the waiver reduce. But what are we what would we come back? I mean, are we coming back with what the cost would be? I mean I can tell you
today that the 25% is roughly between the two projects or three projects is you know you know I I'll say that you know mission will cut we can come back with that I mean certainly we can come back I think what she's looking for is how
would it be absorbed within the budget and in the in the current funding like if you wave those what fund or what fund is being used to pay for them somebody's going to pay for it so we'll Yeah, we just can't print money. I And either can the citizens,
but but everything else is fine. I don't want to hold up the rest of it just for those two. How do we do that? So, yeah, we can approve it, I guess. And I heard the the county administrator and the the attorney saying today that
we're moving forward. We have eight points, but we're only moving forward on the plan, not the action. I think that's what I heard. with that. But that's how the CRA is going. So, um I I don't know. I I just
we move forward today. We're moving forward today. Regardless of how we colorize it, we're moving forward today in taking action and the cost to the citizens. Although it's been discussed that it will get
further higher later the more we delay it. um which I don't think we have a fear of uh the delay. Uh I don't know how we're making we're moving forward with something that is
not not a perfect plan not a it's very tough to digest and it's a high cost factor and I just don't think our citizens are able to absorb this. So what I hear and these were the the
ass that we had today. So what I hear was that you were asking or you were suggesting to approve everything without G and ENG the the two wave the two waiverss basically. So and that we would come back with more
information on those A is already done accordance it's we have that policy in the code. Oh A is done. It is I mean yeah a's kind of done in the sense that
we have mandatory connection requirements and the department can require it and it's supporting following through with the state mandate is essentially what we're asking. Yeah. So, so I mean the the vehicle is in our code already. We
wouldn't have to do anything. I guess it's G council. So blessing it the conveyances be because if if your septic fails, you have to connect if available. If if if if available available.
Absolutely. So it's not you aren't going to make someone something that's not available. It's compelling. It's not mandatory. It would only be mandatory if it was available. This mandatory is everybody's doing it. No,
no, no, no. This is only connecting if it's available. It's in this that's in the statutory language. They must connect to a central sewer system if available or the alternative is is the enhanced nutrient reduce OTC. We can't we can't force anybody to
connect that doesn't have sewer available. So, this would be if they have available. if if available and what is the definition of available, Sean? Good question. If it abuts the line and um and that's kind of what we had up on the map if you go back I mean those those
are the ones that we would have and so we would be looking at those that but either a force man or a gravity line um today and again we need to ground truth some of those. I mean, some of that is information through GIS. And so, I was mentioning before is we would need to go
through and determine really what's available. Um, and then we would we would do outreach. I mean, we're not going to do this without reaching out to the communities, reaching out to the homeowners, letting them know what we're doing, letting them understand the costs, and then once we've had that, you
know, we would send the letter basically saying you have a a year to connect. Um, so the definition of available is if it abuts a gravity or a force main line and the authorizing of sending out a mandatory connection notice in
coordination with outreach efforts. The outreach would happen first. So they're not going to blindly get a mandatory letter that says you got without any concept of what that is. and and this is not something that's mandatory for everybody within the
entirety of the county. That's not what this is, right? We would we would be doing outreach to those specifically that ab but align and let them know that hey, you currently abut a line. There's mandatory connections, what does that mean? What are the costs? Kind of what we've done with the the communities that
we're we're doing construction in or we're proposing to do construction in. It would be a similar type of a meeting. We'd hold a couple of of opportunities for people to come and meet with us and and lay out what that means to them. Um, so they're not just getting, as you say, they're not just getting a letter
blindly in the mail that says you have to connect. No, I I get it. It's it's not a blanket mandate. However, by 2030, all will be connected to sewer, but per the legislation state that everyone will
either be connected or they'll be using the hybrid system having gone right with that expense. Now, one minute. Uh, county administrator, uh, you just built a home, didn't you? Uh, not too long ago. Yes.
And you actually put in the hybrid system. I certainly uh the enhanced nutrient reduce. Yes. And and how what was the cost factor? That's with two mandatory inspections, too, right? Yeah, it's it's actually $1,200 and I think it's for two years uh is the
inspection fee and then there's an annual permit with I think with the health department, but I think the cost was about 16 grand. Okay. So same mandatory um you're going to be incurring that cost
or more infrastructure cost. Either way kind of sounds more than compelling. It sounds mandatory. Something's going to be done. You're going to be you're going to be spending at least $20,000
either way. It's your choice. How do you want to spend it? And if you spend it one way and then we have connection and that system fails, you're going to have to connect to the sewer as well. Okay. Remove your own septic tank. Then you got to remove the septic tank
or fill it in with sand or whatever. You got to You have to abandon. Yeah. It's going to cost more than what I did. I I had raw land. If it's PVC, it gets pulled. If it's cement, it gets filled or crushed. Right. Well, depending on the lot size,
you may have to completely remove it because I can tell you there's more cells required than what exists for a conventional system. And I have pump a pump my own mini pump station, if you will. Yeah, they're they're larger than the existing. And so if you're on a small
lot with the septic and leechfield, you're going to have to remove the existing one. You cannot abandon it. They won't have enough space to abandon it and put my drain fields much larger than my neighbors. And uh is that going to be an infrastructure cost or a homeowner
expense? That's a private it's a private homeowner cost. Yeah. And that is also the biohazard that might if they connect to us they have to abandon the existing septic tank and that usually includes you know busting in the lid, filling it with sand or or
some material and and you know covering it over. So blast it out to clean it up and then crush it and whatever process they use. Yep. Sounds like we're in for a big ride. It is what it is. So Sean just so if we
look at this list the the direction that you need on these recommendations that is you know to move forward it's B C D H G which is just the the IRC permits not
anybody else and then H well H is just endorsing you not and then but so it's really J. So BC DG J. Yes. And we will come back with something on
on E on E because that's the big ticket item there. So what we're hearing is uh I think Commissioner Moss was alluding to, you know, we wanted to remove certain things
uh from this for now. Uh what we're talking about is no no commitment action today but we want to have this come back with changes or no or just eliminate it and move forward.
Well, you want us to come back just come back with on item E the big issue the one about the 25 E only. Yes, please. Yes. So, so staff is requesting the recommendation would be to move forward
with or approve items B, C, D, G, and J and work with the county attorney's office and county administration to effectuate those changes as it relates to the any codes, resolutions, or whatever the case might be. Well stated John
good playbook Joe you have anything and I'll amend that by the way and e come back on the item for waving the assessments property and infrastructure covered up by grants. Yeah, I was I heard you. I
just reading over the Senate bill. Nobody did. House bill. I think the consideration of legislative session is important. And it says if central system sewer is available, property owners must connect.
He's reading what the state law says. That's what is that? I I didn't hear that's what we've been debating. I didn't hear it. It says right here. says, "Okay, John, will you restate?" That's what it says. Sure.
We're done debating it. That's what it says. If it's available, if it's available right there for you, you if available. Yeah. Right. And we've gone over the definition of available. And all we're talking about, which our county responsibility, is sewer connection. We
have nothing to do with whoever may have to put in a fancy system. So that's kind of where we are and we already have some mandatory language. So Sean can work with that. And what is So what is staff asking? Can you
summarize that? Staff is recommending that the board approve uh to move forward with items B, C, D, G, J. uh come back with E and work with the county attorney's office and county administration to effectuate those changes as it relates to ordinance
and ensuring consistency with resolutions and other policies. That I will be happy to make that motion. Thank you. Okay, I'll second it. We have a motion by Commissioner Adams,
seconded by Commissioner Moss. Any discussion? Is there is there any danger in waiting a 100 days and seeing how the session handles this? I mean, I don't I don't see the need to
wait a 100 days. I don't whatever they do. Well, this might change and you know, it might stop raining, but it's not looking like that's going to happen. But, okay, I just I don't see what it hurts us to
do this. And if it does change, we can always come back and readjust any of our ordinances like we do every year after legislative session. I'm just wondering too about the flip side. You know, do we when they go into session look bad because we haven't done anything
with this, we're doing something. you know, we can change it, we can amend it, uh, but we're we're doing something. And that was one of your points today, right? I mean, you know, we need to do something. Um, and that helps you in regard to obtaining funding, looking
into funding. You know, we've we've we've begun to move forward on this. And I, you know, I I I understand what you're saying. It's very awkward. Um, you know, it really is. I feel that way about it. That's why I want to discuss uh e a little more. But you know to
Susan's point, you know, I think we you know, we need to we just need to be moving forward. I don't think there there's a harm in moving forward. And there could be a harm in waiting a 100 days and that they look at us and say, "Well, they're not doing anything."
I I I just I I I I agree. I don't see what the um concern is not waiting to look at this current legislation to see if there's a change.
uh when you say uh if we're we're not doing something um every jurisdiction is dealing with this um it's we're not alone and it gets well discussed.
I I I think I think if we we move forward so that we're eligible for some grants, uh this all could be changed. Um I'm speaking on behalf of the the
homeowners, the residents. I mean, do you do you own a home in India River County? Yeah. I mean, that's what I want to know about. Um I I mean, you know, you're without discuss we're all impacted. They're all impacted. and it's tremendous.
But what we're doing today isn't going to preclude us in any way, shape, or form for advocating on a legislative level to either lessen some of those impacts. have a more reasonable discussion about what the true impacts
are of this financially to residents, asking the state, I mean, I think the governor put out last month that the state has record reserves. So maybe they can carve some of that out and create a grant process for the people that need
the new septic system since that's totally on the private side. And I think that's something that we totally should be advocating for and working on. If the state is sitting on that much money and they're asking for cities and counties to put some of our money back on the street, then maybe they can put some of
theirs back on the street and help out. That's where I feel like we need to be, but waiting to see what they're going to do. I I would agree that I don't think this precludes that. It's not going to hurt us. I think it it has the potential
because of the grants to hurt us that we might not be able to keep some of those grants and have to put them back. But I do completely agree that we need to be engaged all of us with the legislators this year because we we heard from them at the legislative lunchon that they
didn't really think that there was going to be any discussion on a state level about this whole process. And it's probably the one state issue that we hear the most about and get the most concerns about. And to all of y'all's points, we're going to be
the ones that are going to be run out of town, not not the state, even though this is coming down through us from the state. So, you know, I would I know this is part of all the legislative stuff that is being
talked about and all everybody's legislative packages. So, I don't think this precludes it. In fact, I think this whole conversation is an illustration of why all mun or all municipal and county governments need to be in Tallahassee talking about what they're hearing from
our residents. Perhaps my my level of uh risktaking is on the behalf of the citizens is far far less. I temper the expectations
of what can happen, what may happen, what might happen, and I feel very uncomfortable about gambling on the opportunity that might arise as opposed to will arise. So, with that in mind, um
I I I believe that we should yield to the legislation even though uh we're advised that it's probably not on the radar. Uh we're again we're not alone. There are many jurisdictions that are confronted with the same challenges and
the economy is what the economy is and the people having the ability to have to take this cash up front and you know treat it as uh just another cost of doing business.
Wedding cost, a mortgage cost, brand new car cost. It It's it's tremendous amount. It's a burden on our our citizens. I I I think we need to look at
a better solution code than what we have accepting today what it is. We're moving forward with the canvas. That's going to be a pretty tough painting to be able to hang on the wall. Thank you. Well, we've known this since 2023 that
this was coming. It's here. It's time to have a plan. It's time to be on the proactive side. It's time to let Sean and his crew get busy. It's it's it's for us to get with Tallahassee and get with the legislators and find out what's going on. I mean, we could we could beat
this horse to death, but we've known for two years this was coming. It's here. It's getting closer. It's we knew it was going to take time logistically to get this done. We don't have to be happy about it personally, but Tallahassy's told us we
had to do this. And I'm I mean I am just like y'all. I'm concerned about how much our residents have to pay. If we can if we can do what we can do and the state can finally realize that they have to pay for something, we'd be a lot better
off. So, I'll leave it with that. Mr. Chair, members of the board, the one thing I will add is I know two legislative delegations ago, we brought this up and and we were kind of advised that, you know, everybody's known this was coming. But I think now with the
information that's been presented, I mean, the big issue is the time frame, the deadline because because right now the deadline's there. I it by 2030, you know, if the sewer is available, you have to connect or you have to put the new system in. That's that's there. And
the other component was mentioned was it was highly unlikely at the time, at least thought that there was any potential state funding other than maybe additional uh septic sewer grants. But having a plan and having the ability of Sentuma moving forward and using maybe
this presentation with what you all approve along with what's happening out of the in integrated master plan I think the state one of the comments I heard they they want to see action on behalf of the communities and this is I think this is the foundation on which we can
build upon to make the case to maybe provide some relief in terms of that deadline especially for those communities that are working towards completing it Because Sean's comments earlier was with all the projects that we have right now, that's going to take us up to 2030, no new additional, and by
then we'll have a thousand homes. I mean, that's that's the message, the story that we need to be sharing with the legislature. We're working on this. We've got a plan. We've got various recommendations that we're adopting. But even with all that, we're going to get a thousand homes. So there's got at some
point, you know, there's got to be, you know, there's got to be some rationale injected in this deadline because it's just not it's just not feasible even if we had the half billion billion dollars to to move it forward
quicker than we can right now. I mean, we're still a year away from the minimum a year away from about a year away from the integrated master plan, you know, being completed. So it's it's not a it's not an overnight exercise you know engineering exercise it's very complex
there's modeling there's several factors that need to be assessed and so that's what we are doing that and I think this helps you know further tell our story to you know both our local legislators but the the delegation as you know the de delegation and others as well because I
agree we're not the only one facing this question becomes I mean I think the comment was made what have we done and I think this shows what we're doing. All right. Well, we have a motion by Commissioner Adams, second by
Commissioner Moss. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. I motion passes 3 to two with Vice Chairman Laura and myself dissenting.
Thank you all. Thank you. Let me take a brief recess. guys have been waiting the whole morning. It's just Yes. Well, you're great people. So,
sounds like Good work, man. Meeting will not be called back to order and we're on to county attorney matters. Uh item 14 a alpha which is the disposition of property requested to riverboat club POA
counselor. Good afternoon. Good afternoon commissioner Susan Prao, deputy county attorney on behalf of the county attorney's office. Yes, today um I'm bringing to you a proposal to dispose of some property. Um the request was made by the riverboat property owner
association. Um they are the property owner association or I should say their developer was the ones that initially uh transferred this property to us historically back in the plat um with some language some interesting language that it came with where it reserved to
itself um a right to construct docks and other water dependent amenities over and above the submerged lands within that area that was dedicated to us under the right of way um back in 1995 when this plat was recorded. Uh since then, as you
all are well aware, we have had a license agreement with the um property owners association that was entered into also in 1995. That uh license agreement was modified in 1999. Um and now here we are today and the
association um does pay us an an annual fee um if you will to kind of oversee. In essence, we're basically just the middleman and something that they are maintaining, keeping track of, and taking care of on their on their own. To my understanding,
they perform all the maintenance. They're the ones that own the dock facilities and own the everything that's there. Um, so the request was kind of for us to go ahead and relinquish this section of property. Um, not the road. It's just the little um area that abutts
the road, the actual submer it's some submerged land and the stuff that's there on the edge to them so that they can go ahead and be the rightful owner of it instead of having us in the middle as a middleman. Um I believe this would um bring several benefits to the county.
A I think I listed out in my staff report, it would also help alleviate some staff time that is spent on this um that could be spent on other items. um because the the fee that I believe is connect collected isn't sufficient to cover sometimes all the staff time that
has gone into this item. Um and also I think it would help them so that they could go ahead and keep uh their votes and their stuff up to date as they do themselves. Um the method in order to turn this over would be through our
actual code through chapter 106 which we adopted. um we adopted that pursuant to Florida statute 125.35. Um what it would require for us to do if the board chooses to move forward is to declare this little section of property
surplus um and then go ahead and transfer it via quick claim deed and approve the resolution that's been attached here too. Um, there was a copy of the plat that was attached here too for your reference and for your convenience so
you can see what it is that we are talking about as well as a quick claim deed in the resolution. Um, the the property owners association representatives are present and uh at this time I would like to ask that they come forward so that you can hear from
them if you have any questions from them. Thank you. I look forward to that opportunity as well. Please the board Good afternoon, gentlemen. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. Bob Webster and Chuck
Charles King. Thank you. Well, uh you you've been great stewards of your facility for many years. Uh there are some changes that have to be made to ensure that you continue to do so. Uh do you
have any comment today as far as uh the changes that are about to take place? I understand you've had communication with the attorney. No, we're just happy to get to this point like like you said for almost 30 years. I guess we've been doing what we
were supposed to do. I understand the the county not want to be in the dock leasing business. Um as you said, it's taken up a lot of time. probably worth much more than you've gotten from us.
And um we'd be happy to move forward and just take over the responsibility um and do what we've been doing and continue to do it. It's an important asset to our community. That's why we we
bought there and um we would appreciate it if we could just continue with our lives the way they they've been. And um we'll continue to do our duty as stewards of that area, you know.
Now, and uh once again, the the for counselor too as well, the structures will still be uh exposed to any of building requirements or structural application, renovation. Uh however, it will be privately owned.
We are releasing the uh the ownership. Uh the good people of Indian River County uh will not be in the leasing business. That's that's correct. So So currently we don't actually own the structures even on them. We just own the land that's
underneath. So yes, what we would essentially be doing is at least relinquishing the rights to the underlying land back to them. Luparian and mainland. Yes. Just that little sliver there on the mainland that's right next to the riparian area or the underlying water.
Yes, sir. Thank you. You gentlemen obviously ready for the challenge. Yeah. Outstanding. You want any comment? All sir. Now your copy is locked. That's good.
All right. Anybody have any questions? Yes. Um is it is it communal doc? I guess anyone in the POA can use the dock or docks. Is that correct? Yes, there's Yes, there's there's 20 houses in our community. Nine houses are
not on the water at all and they're each they each have a a space down there and then there's other homes that have spaces there, but it's a community dock where anybody could go on it. It's fenced in per our agreement with the
county. So only really homeowners or their guests are supposed to use the facility and that's how we've managed it. Okay, that sounds great. I mean, there haven't been problems um
with no neighbors among neighbors. Nice. Yeah, that's that's great. It's a tribute to you, I guess. Yeah, it's worked out good. And thank you for your time and effort on this. I know like a lot of times been spent. We appreciate it.
I'm happy to support it. I can't make a motion though. Mr. Chair, move to approve. Second. Do we have a motion in a second to support council's actions for these five gentlemen? Anything further?
No, sir. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Congratulations. It was worth the wait. Thank you, I guess.
All right. Next is uh 14B is an amendment number two to the service agreement for Southeast Florida Behavioral Health Network for administrative to opioid settlement proceeds. Thank you for coming up north.
Thanks for your patience. Yes. And and I'll just kick this off, Mr. Chair, if I may. This is just an amendment two to our uh agreement with Southeast Behavioral Health Network. Uh and they administer our opioid money,
and it would um so this is amendment two. We'd still have the same relationship with them, which we're required to have because of the size of our county. Um, and we're still paying them the 5% fee. Um, but there there is a new twist to it and I appreciate
Amanda weathering this whole meeting so she could uh be available and also Carrie from Thrive because there is a new process that they're working on through the public safety coordinating council where there will be new recipients for funding and I and I
wanted them to be able to explain that to you. Absolutely. Um what we're doing is we have released an uh request for applications that would allow um providers or um government entities within Indian River County or who
provide services within the Indian River County to apply for some of the opioid funds. Um they may have to meet several requirements. um they it what they are proposing must be approved as part of the opioid settlement agreement with the
state of Florida and it should it will be given priority if it meets the needs assessments that was completed a need that's within the needs assessment that was completed by thrive. So that was those were attachments that were included in the RFA and anybody who's
applying should be doing so within those limitations. Um our due date for that is October 10th. We've re received some um applications and we continue to answer questions and um you know to to make
ourselves available to anybody that has any questions who are looking to make a bid for some of the funding as of the funding that was previously approved. That is all in contracts. We got that all in the contracts. I I submitted a a report of the things that we have been
doing. I'm not sure if you all got to to see that, but um everyone that was previously approved, I think all of them still have funding that they haven't used. So, they're still we just have continued to roll over those agreements into the next
fiscal year to allow them to expend their approved amount of funding. And I wanted to just remind the board that um again this gets uh well discussed at public safety council as well. And uh uh just wanted to remind all that
uh without Southeast Behavioral uh we do not qualify for a lot of the funding. And in addition, this board has committed funding for additional resources so that Southeast Behavioral
can manage and work through all of the granting process. That's all correct. Yes. So, I do have a question about that grant process. Are you I mean, because who's making the decision on who's getting the grant
dollars? Because I was under the impression that those dollars while they are passing through you, they are coming to Indian River County. And so I had assumed that ultimately the public
safety council and our organization internally is who's making the determination on where those dollars are going. But hearing from you today, it sounds like you're the one at Southeast Behavioral Network is making those decisions.
The applications are going to be coming to us. We will be presenting to the treasure or not treasure Indian River opioid task force. they will be making the decisions and doing the numbers about who and then making that recommendation to the public safety coordinating council. Now, we will be
obviously anybody if there's somebody that Ann Burner, our CEO, says that we cannot contract with, that's something that we would have to deal with outside of that. But if it through the process, if they meet the requirements, they plan for a priority, they go before
the board, they get in the finalist, and that is the recommendation to support them, then yeah, I mean, that's going to come through the public safety coordinating council to the through the board. Okay. And then the be Well, I and I want clarification on this
point. I'm sorry to interrupt. Oh, go ahead, Commissioner. because and I appreciate you giving us the report and I included it so the board members would have it. So it basically says you'll lead the review and selection process for the next round of
funding recipients in partnership with the opioid task force and the finalists will be reported to the public safety coordinating council at the November 21st meeting and then in our new contract amendment it says that you will inform us of new recipients. So, I did I
did want to have this discussion because the way that I'm reading this is this this is a process that will not involve our board. Is that correct? I I think that the thought was that if the public safety coordinating council presented it to the board that there wouldn't be a
need for it to to necessarily be approved by the board if the public safety coordinating council approved the RFAS or whoever meet maybe there's five. I'm going to say there was five the first time. um say five this time and if that was the recommendation that that the recommendation would be made to the
the board was our understanding of it. So, if there's a need for um a different language to be adopted, that's something we can discuss. But from my understanding of it from our last public safety, now I wasn't there. I was just
advised, but um I wrote the RFA so that we could get it rolling because there was some concern that the money was just sitting there and not being put into place. So, we immediately took it into action because we don't want you to think that we're not doing something appropriately to get the RFA out. If
that is a misinterpretation, I would say then I just need clarity in that and that we can take it back. But I thought that the recommendation was that it would the anybody who qualified and met the requirements would go to the Treasure Coast Opioid Task Force and they would make the recommendations of
who would receive any of the funding dollars to the public safety coordinating council. Yeah. I just because my understanding from the beginning was you were basically the pass through for the money. The money had to go through you guys and that we were paying a percentage for
administration of that. But other than that, all the decisions were being made locally by the public safety coordinating council as far as how we wanted to invest our dollars in our community because it could possibly be different than what other communities
are investing their dollars in. So, I just wanted to seek clarification that that was the way everybody was interpreting it. And and basically, I guess to put it very bluntly, I just wanted to know who was driving the bus. like is it Indian River County and the public safety coordinating council or is
it Southeast Behavioral Network? Well, we're not finalizing any decisions without approval from the public safety coordinating council. Uh we haven't made and other than the approvals that you've already done and put into place, which that took us uh you know six, seven months to get put in place with just the
five current approved contracts. That takes time, right? Right. So, and those first five, I mean, I as I recall, that was kind of like we had we were under pressure to spend the money. So, we had to get something approved, but that wasn't
necessarily how we wanted to invest the money over the course of 20 years solely with exactly those groups. So, I just I just wanted clarification because, you know, there was the way it was written
seemed to kind of block in versus give the opportunity to to tweak as the needs of the community changed. Mr. Chair, I I just had one question and I don't know if it's your safety council
or Southeast who monitors the allocated dollars to make sure they are specifically uh fitted for opioid use. If you recall years ago, that's what this was designed for. There had to be an opioid element. And who who
polices the agencies to ensure that they're used for those? We are monitoring that. that that's what we're doing with that 5% admin fee. Um, initially when we set the contract up, we set the contract up just to to let
your county administer the dollars. Um, we we were just going to work with you, allow the public safety council to manage the money and and we were just going to make sure that it was kind of done and and anything that fell on us was completed. um you the board of
county commissioners made a recommendation that we administer the funding and that we make sure that everything is completed and then that's what we have taken on and that's what we're using that 5% admin fee for. So we're using that to monitor their one that the priorities that are required in the U opioid settlement agreement with
the state attorney's office is being completed and that that we're not using funding for anything outside of those approved priorities. Um, as well, if there's submitting of documentation, submitting of financial records, we are we're collecting that as we go. We wrote
all of our agreements for cost reimbursement. We're requiring them to submit that to us and we're uploading it into the ODMS system on a monthly or quarterly basis depending on what our agreement states with those individuals. So, we're monitoring that to make sure
that they're using that funding for the proper proper thing. So, Southeast Southeast is the uh uh administrative arm uh vetting all applications. Uh the presentations are done before the public safety council
and uh then distribution is coming to this commission uh for distribution. Okay. So you want the final approval to come before the board before anything. Well, that's how it has in the past.
Yes, that's how it was in the past. All right. It's not being um proposed that way and that's why I wanted that this board to make that decision which is I don't have a opinion about it. I just want the it to everybody to be clear
that as written this amendment it would not come to this board for decision. Correct. And in the past we did that we were against again we were about four months delayed to get the process completed
and we were at the the juncture of possibly losing the funding if we didn't move it forward and that's why we had to accelerate the process. process doesn't have to be accelerated and this is a
whole different entity and this is the funding is coming from a different arena. Yeah. I mean the the recommend I mean there's a chance that the recommendation could be that none of the applications
are appropriate. Uh there's a chance that all of the rec, you know, they could be priorities that are really good in the treasure crow opioid task, not treasure, I'm sorry I keep doing that. There's so many opioid task force, the Indian River opioid task force. That's why, you know, we want to work in
conjunction with them to make sure that any of the applications that are coming in, those are priorities are aligned with that needs assessment and what was identified as issues in right now affecting Indian River County. Now,
as an entity, we don't feel the need to push the entirety of the money that you have sitting out um into RFAS immediately because if you have as a county, you have long-term goals that you want to complete, my recommendation would be to hold some of that funding.
So, if there is a priority that uh I think one of the priorities was a centralized um stabilization unit, that's a very costly endeavor. Um, so if there's funding that needs to be withheld for something like that further on down the line, then that's, you know, a
recommendation that we think needs to be made as well and and we're willing to work with that. We we want to do what's right for Indian River County. We want to help you administer the fines and we want to bring the services to Indian River that are going to make um
effective um sorry the word is gone from me um an and effect to substance use and that whether maybe it's prevention and that starting
at a younger age we're going to get that out information out there. So maybe maybe that affects in the long run or maybe it's making some treatment available that's not available now. Um I think uh some of the funding that was just you I just approved through 19th
circuit they sent somebody to a 28 day residential program who didn't have insurance. That's the type of thing that we want to make sure is happening with this funding those approved uses and that's what we want to be seeing done with it. Um, but
I'm happy to answer. You know, we're we're fully transparent. There's nothing we have to hold back. We want to do what you want us to do with the funding, and we want to work with you to make sure that we're administering it in the way that you feel comfortable with.
Can I ask a question? Um, so the money comes to the county, Indian River County. It comes through us. It comes to us. Okay. Our allocation is provided to them for the purposes of administering it. Yes. Because we're the behavioral health
entity for this area. Our county is too small to be able to accept the funding. We voted on it last time or previously um where the money would be spent with what agencies. So are you saying that
that in the future we would not be voting on it? The board of county commissioners. The way we we interpreted it is that it was going to go to the public safety coordinating council. I'm not I'm not in favor of that. But then they report to us, right? I'm not but you're cutting that part out is
what I'm understanding. No. No. They would still be reporting to you. Um it would just be not that last time everybody came and brought the presentations to the board of county commissioners and then and then the board voted on who. So the
recommendations would be the ones that are brought to you not all of the proposals. So they would have to meet the criteria. They would have to do you know a certain degree. Then they would do a presentation. The presentation is going to be scored. If they get within
the realm the recom they would make the treasure coast opioid task force. Sorry I did it again. Indian River opioid task force would make the recommendation for we these meet the priorities. these are who we suggest should get the the
funding and they would bring that to the public safety coordinating council who would make the vote on it. So, but the notice of award would not happen until the board took the recommendation from the public safety council. I I don't have the dates in front of me.
So, um I'm I think we they're giving up control. That's how I understand it. That's what I wanted the board. County Commission's giving up control. I don't agree with that. I I just wanted the board to understand it should be handled like SESAC, TDC,
um what are the other boards that that make that vet grants. Yes. And then they make a recommendation. That recommendation comes to the county commission for final approval. The applicants don't come to us. They do all
the presentations at the committee level. the committee makes a recommendation. That recommendation comes to us and we have the final approval. That's how this should be set up. That's how I assumed it was set up, but what I'm hearing you say is that's not how it's set up. And that's
for me, I would like it set up that way if if moving forward. I just think we need to have some kind of oversight. We have a finite amount of money in 20 years and it's it's similar to every other committee and it's not that and
the public safety committee is fantastic and they should be the ones that are vetting these grants but they recommend to us and well agreed because at the public safety council they they do get challenged they do get scrutinized. Right. Okay. Oh,
so this is just a a a decision that we can change the date of when the notice happens to the community. Um there was no we were we set up the RFA in a way that we thought would be the easiest and the quickest based on dates that were given
to us. if if we can withhold that date, which initially I wanted to hold it out till like February because the way this would fall would allow the applications time to go to the opioid task force, time to go to public safety and then turn around and come to the board.
The way I the information that we were given initially, it was like you got to get this RFA out. We need to get the money out. So if that is not the case, then the only thing that would need to change within the RFA would just be the date of notice of approval and that
would allow it to come to the board. There'd be another line item under RFA finalist reported, but that would be recommended and then there'd be a line item under there um that just says board of county commissioner, right?
Approval, review and approval. Yes. And then the other question I have is so how often are you when you say monitoring what type of are they monthly are they quarterly reports? Um we're doing monthly invoices and with
the type of agreements that we set up with cost reimbursements. So anything that they submit to us we're looking at on a monthly basis. Now there are some providers who may not have an invoice on every single month. they may have more of a quarterly type of situation, but they still have to submit the required
documentation at that interval when they're requesting reimbursement. So, um, if if they whatever they're submitting and whatever interval they're submitting it at, that's when we're looking at it right then and there. We're not making any payments. So I mean are you but are you doing a report to
the public safety council saying this is what the application said they were going to do and on a monthly basis they're going to hit this many you know client touch points or they're going to have this these are the outputs that they're supposed to have and here's where they are measurable outcomes. Yeah the measurable outcomes are in
there we ask them to be prepared to present that to the public safety coordinating council and their agreements on a quarterly basis. Is it so is it possible that the I mean is the board interested in receiving that as a courtesy copy a copy of the quarterly reports?
Sure. Yes. Some are approved, some are declined and uh as far as uh and some actually were enhanced uh when there was an appeal for additional funding. Once again, councelor, this is
this is not regarding what is left in the next 17 years. This is the new new funding. Correct. Yes. Right. It would be Yes. I I just want that clarified because I think there's a perception that we're changing
everything and the existing program and the procedure is intact and that's the way that will be. This was for the additional funding opportunity that we would not qualify without
Southeast Behavioral. Right. So, um, Amanda explained, and I think I understand that you have under contract the the providers who are currently approved by the board and you're just and you're giving them their money and and they're still getting
their money and this would be new money. And what I would recommend based on what I'm hearing from the board is in the uh amendment number two that we kind of go back to the language that was in our prior amendment number one when we have
this attachment B that identifies who's going to get the money. It lists the one two three four five that that are currently still getting that money under your contract. And then I would recommend we change the language if the
board pleases to say if other if if other provided if other providers will be added to the list if needed other providers will be added to the list upon approval of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners because I think what that would do is mean that
you would go through this process this RFA. It would go to the public safety coordinating council for their recommendation, but ultimately it would come to this board for final approval. If that's what this board wants, that's how I would recommend that language be
changed if it's agreeable. It would may very much enhance the support of this and and that's how the language used to read. That's why I wanted to have this discussion because I just wanted the board and Southeast Behavioral to make
this decision about how new funding would be approved and if we have this language um it would be it would come to this board for final approval. I think I think everybody is right in what they're
saying about this because if I remember Dylan started this process and then Bill Draw kind of took it over. She was right. I think John was right in saying we weren't ready. We were going to lose the money if we did and there
were some issues. We turned to them and they they helped us out. But then part of that discussion if I remember was exactly what Commissioner Adams said that we had this discussion that basically is it would run like SESAC TDC
that the that the public the board the community what is the the board you said thank you public safety board I could was to make the decision and it was supposed to come to the board. I just don't know if that ever got done or got put in writing because we were in a
hurry to get take the money taken care of to figure out where it was going and get without these behavioral to make it happen on the initial. This is new money. This is some other stuff. So I I don't if I remember I don't want anybody to think that anything was done wrong or
that somebody was stepping out of their bounds. I just don't think it got done no that way. We brought it back to the the board for so that's so what you're saying counselor to me is what needs to be done that way that way it's clear
and I think then we'd have more satisfied customers up on the yeah the book stops here is that agreeable yeah that's agreeable I think that what our passage on that we thought we were just saying like in the future if anybody needs to be added to this we we will be adding to that but I don't think
we meant to to read that we wouldn't get the approval before adding it and and it was it was a change that I noticed when I got this new amendment. So, I just wanted to kind of flesh that out. Did we also request the quarterly reports that we can disseminate to the board?
Sure. Thank you. The report was really helpful. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. So, we're making that appropriate change. Yes. So you would be moving approval of this amendment too with that changed
language in attachment B that I just read. I'd be happy to make motion. Second. We have a motion in a second. Commissioner Adams myself. Any further discussion?
Second. Good. I'm good. Good. All right. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you for your patience.
Next item is a resolution authorizing capital improvement revenue bonds for the San Ridge Golf Club uh new clubhouse. Mr. Chair, somebody at somebody's podium. There you go. I I can kick this one off. Thank you, counselor.
Um, so as you know, we um you have uh awarded the bid for the construction of your Sandridge Golf Course new clubhouse, and you instructed staff to secure um construction bond financing. And that's what we've all been working
on here at the county together with your financial advisor, Mr. Joel Tindle who's in the audience over there and bond counsel who is available remotely. I know Mr. Alex Fiser is available if the board had questions about that. But
what's in front of you today is um this would be your last formal action on these bonds. This is the actually the resolution that authorizes uh the the capital improvement revenue bonds being issued. Attached to that
resolution is the details of um how it's going to be offered to the public, all the uh it will be sold by competitive sale, the disclosures. There's as you there's pretty thick packet here. Um and and all the details of how that bond
financing would work. Um I you know obviously there's experts here. If the board has questions about how the transaction will work, I know Mr. Zto um put together and worked with budget so you can see the budget impact and the
and how these bonds will be repaid. What you're basically doing here is covenanting covenanting to appropriate any nonadvalorum revenues necessary but the intention is that the proceeds from the golf course will pay that bond
payment because it looks like they're coming in pretty healthy. So, um, the board I well, you know, I suggest you have if you have questions for your experts here today or if not, uh, my recommendation is that you approve the
this resolution authorizing the capital improvement revenue bond series 2025. Thank you, council. Any questions of councel? Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to approval. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Adams,
seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Joel. Thank you. Great presentation. Um, now we're moving on to Well,
council. Uh, we're moving on to the special district boards and we're going to do solid waste disposal districts. Item 16B1 is approval for solid waste disposal district meeting minutes of June 17, 2025. Approval.
Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Adams, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. 16B2 is the approval of solid waste disposal district meeting minutes of July 1st, 2025.
Move approval. And we have a motion by Commissioner Adams, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Uh item 16B3 is approved to celebrate the scroll of the minutes of July 15,
2025. We have a motion by Commissioner Adams, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? I oppose. Motion carries unanimously 16B4, approval of solid waste disposal district special call meeting. Have approval.
Second. Motion by Commissioner Adams, seconded by myself. Any further discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Item 16B5 is approval of solid waste disposal district meeting minutes of July 15, 2025. That's a repeat.
We removed that at the beginning. That's correct. Um item 16B6 is work order number 24 by Kimly Horn for solid waste disposal district annual financial reports. Mr. Chair, this is always a fascinating
read every year. I will be more than happy to move approval. I thought you were going to read it. Yeah, it's it's the work order to do it. It's not done yet. I'm anticipating the anticipation. Thought you wanted to read it into record. Financial report. Why not?
Sure. Okay. So, I'll second that. All in favor? I oppose. Motion carries unanimously. And finally 16B7 is the change order number two by CK contractors and development CK for
automated scale lane project. Would does Hancha want to talk about it a little bit or we're good? I'm happy to move approval, but you're also welcome to say something. It's much needed and I know um a lot of the users
of the landfill are anxiously awaiting the completion of that project as I know you guys are too because it'll make life easier. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries unanimously.
At this time, is there any member of the public that would comment on any nonaggenda related items? Having given ample opportunity, seeing none, this meeting is adjourned.