SEBASTIAN — The Sebastian City Council again refused to sign an interlocal agreement with Indian River County that would require the City to pay more than $62,000 for design work on the North Sebastian Sewer Project.
Indian River County Utilities Director Vincent Burke addressed the Council, attempting to explain why the City was being asked to contribute funds for the $155,220 project.
At the Sept. 24 Council meeting, City staff had recommended approval of an interlocal agreement, which the County had already signed off on and forwarded to City Hall.
At that meeting, the County’s Project Engineer Earl Masteller reviewed the updated, long-stalled project. Council questioned the 40/60 cost-sharing split, when the City/County ERU split seemed more like 25 percent, and wondered whether the County would request a similar split in project construction costs.
But a more basic objection was, since the project would be carried out by the county, which owns the utility – why should Sebastian be asked to pay any part of the design cost, especially when none of the rest of the county sewer customers have been asked to do so?
Ultimately, Council requested that the County send someone who had some financial decision-making ability, to answer their questions. That didn’t happen.
Instead, the County sent Utilities Director Burke, who screened a series of figures indicating City and County ERU’s (Equivalent Residential Units) and cost per ERU with and without Sebastian participation. He told the Council that the County did not intend to request any funding for the construction costs.
Council member Andrea Coy stated that, while she has always supported the project itself, she is not in favor of supporting it with dollars.
“We have not seceded from the County,” Coy said. “We are a part of the county, the same as the unincorporated areas. We’ve paid impact fees since 1995. This is your franchise. We gave you the franchise.”
She suggested the County use some of the $14 million in collected franchise fees to pay for the project design work.
“Why are you asking us for $62,000 for something that belongs to you?” she asked. “We’re paying, and paying again.”
As he had done in September, Masteller noted that broadening the project from its original coverage area would result in a cost reduction for every property owner as well as render the entire project more cost efficient.
Masteller reiterated that there would be a far greater chance of obtaining vital matching grants if the applications included completed designs rather than simply a project plan.
He also said the City should sign the interlocal agreement soon so the grant application could be prepared by the first-of-the-year deadline.
“Time is of the essence,” Masteller said, later adding, “If you decide to wait, like you have for 20 years” the County could go ahead with the project, without Sebastian. Then, should the City decide to do the project at a later date, it could cost far more – roughly $11,000 per connection, compared to about $6,700 if included in the County project.
Coy asked Masteller if the County would really go ahead without Sebastian over $62,000, and said his words were beginning to sound like a threat.
Masteller said it wasn’t a threat, just statement of fact, and that the County could choose to drop Sebastian.
