By Mike Lednovich
Four city commissioners voted Tuesday to ignore the advice of their paid experts and lowered the capacity fee charged for new homes and business structures hooking up to the city stormwater system.
Mayor Bradley Bean, Vice Mayor David Sturges along with Commissioners Darron Ayscue and James Antun cast votes to lower the fee 9% to $3,000. A state stormwater expert hired by the city along with the city’s Stormwater Director Andre Desilet both supported raising the capacity fee to $10,040.
The higher capacity fees would have contributed to the city Utility Department paying off $2.1 million in debt that was used to maintain and expand the capacity of the water and sewer system. The higher fee would also contribute to replacement of the city’s lift stations, which are 40 years old and cost $300,000 each to replace.
The obligation to pay that debt and replace lift stations stays with city residents. “The current rate payers are subsidizing development,” said Commissioner Chip Ross, who opposed lowering the fee. “We hired an expert who has given us an opinion. Our own expert has given us an opinion. Either the current (city) users are going to pay more the future users are going to pay more. I think it makes it equitable that future users should pay.”
The capacity fee is a one-time charge to new residential and commercial buildings for connections to the water and sewer system. The fees are used to reimburse the Utility Department for the capital costs necessary to provide increased capacity to serve these new customers.
“I agree with this study and think Option B (the $10,040) fee represents the best for the long term health and viability of our utility. There’s always the option of phasing that increase in,” Desilet said.
In August, Florida Rural Water Association Consultant Katherine Van Zant told commissioners “What you’ve done with existing capacity fees since 2015, you’re not getting sufficient money for the (system) capacity that people are getting.”
Mayor Bean said “This initiation fee, they’re still going to pay $3,000 when they join the city. That’s four digits, that’s a lot of money. The proposal to make it $10,000, that is simply too much money, I would argue. For that reason I’m voting yes on Option A (the $3,000 fee).”
I’ll tell you what is “a lot of money”. My monthly water bill. This is beyond stupid.
To your point, the utility bill charges will only increase with this vote now that current users are on the hook for replacing 40 year old lift stations.
Water bills are ALREADY way too high … among the highest in the country. This action is not going to help but if anything will make it worse.
This is just unbelievable. There is no explanation that makes sense for voting to keep the city in debt and rejecting the logical way to raise necessary funds for the water/sewer system. Remember these decisions when the next election comes up. Thank you commissioner Ross for being the only voice of reason.
Do any of the respondents understand the difference between storm water and sewage? Storm water is rain run off into the river and ocean, It is a passive system unless you live below sea level. Sewage is an active system requiring lift stations (if you live in low areas) and treatment before it can be discharged into the river or ocean. One costs a great deal, the other not so much. Remember the water was running off the property, or percolating into the soil before the development. After the development, the water is running into retention ponds, percolating into the soil, and going into a pipe to the river or ocean. But it is the same amount of water. Storm water and Sewage is apple and oranges.
“That’s four digits”. Mayor Bean, you are a child! Your job is to provide and maintain the assets of the community. You are compromised and should resign.
Another giveaway to developers at our expense. You get who you vote for…
Wow! HRH King Bean strikes again…why hire experts to assess situations when you throw their advice out the window if it doesn’t coincide with your own personal plans….mind boggling.
Ignoring debt obligations and making current residents pay for future expansions and upgrades that will be needed due to new construction pressures on our existing infrastructure is fiscal mismanagement. Do you ignore the advice of your family doctor? Your lawyer? Your CPA? You would not manage your household and household budget this way. Why are you managing the city and its budget this way?
It’s never surprising that City Staff, who are professionals in their area, provide information that is completely disregarded by this Commission.
It’s disappointing that current residents will end up footing the cost to fix an old system of utilities. New residents make out like bandits and the developers and builders throw a party over their windfall profits. Very sad to see!
When outsiders consider moving to Fernandina, they’ll change their minds when they learn numbskulls run the city.
Mike,
You omitted a few important points in your discussion. The city can only charge fees as allowed by state law. State law never mentions or allows “capacity” fees. A municipality can’t just make up fees, they are properly called impact fees. Changing the name doesn’t make it lawful. So, let’s start using the proper name, “Impact Fees”.
I found it surprising, just a few days ago, you seemed to praise a city employee by sending a letter to the commission asking them to break the law. The letter seemed to openly advocate for breaking the state law and self indite. The request was for the city commissioners to use impact fees to pay off debt and for maintenance.
Now today “you” openly advocate using impact fees to pay off the city debt and for maintenance. I would remind all that what created this debt was the city over paying, by $13 million for a former public utility. Again, you seem to openly advocate breaking state law. As a former mayor, you know better. Except now, you can’t hide behind Ms Bach’s shady explanations.
The laws governing impact fees are not ambiguous. Impact fees are not to be used as tax revenue and if not needed for the lawful purpose they must be returned to the citizens who paid those fees. It is against state law to use impact fees for maintenance or to pay off debt. That is considered using impact fees as a de-facto tax, again, that is illegal. At least that’s what the state told the city when the city lost the suit.
I would praise you for one thing. At least you’re not hiding the proposed illegal behavior behind the city attorney. Now it’s in the open.
A few points to bring forward within your discussion:
Florida House bill 377/2021, Limits impact fee increases. No more than 25% over 2 annual increments. Between 25 and 50%- 4 annual increments. In no case more than 50%. Seems odd no one ever brought forward this fact.
Best,
Arte
The Florida Rural Water Association would know what “legal” capacity fees are allowable, as well as the City Attorney and the Utility Director. I am not advocating anything. I’m reporting the facts as discussed by city officials at their meeting. I did not “praise” the Utility Director for writing a letter. I reported he had written the letter and what his letter requested. Your points should be argued with the city not The Observer. When the Observer advocates a position it is identified clearly as “commentary” or “opinion.”
The authority for fees comes from the State of Florida, not Tammi Bach or the utility director. She has fabricated stories in front of you and you willfully went along. Not a good defense. I would strongly suggest it’s time to not hind behind Ms Bach. She has done her job well. She gives the commissioners and staff cover to hide behind. Do your own homework. Read the past and current suits. Everything stated is demonstrably accurate. Why would you not research on your own?…
Apologies, I didn’t answer the point you made directly. I agree, the City Attorney, Ms Bach does know what’s legal and what’s not. So then the question becomes, why does she knowingly support conducting illegal activity and setting the city up for suits?
Actually I think the problem here may be how the article was worded or how the various folks described the issue. Impact/capacity fees are supposed to be limited to what it costs for the utility to add capacity or accomodate expanded use of the utility … not to repair and maintain the existing facilities. But in all these numbers thrown around it isn’t clear exactly what that number should be. If you are charging the appropriate amount (and nothing less) than this will enable the City to use the rest of its money to address ongoing repairs and service the debt. If you aren’t … then the City has to use its regular money to perform these tasks AND provide for expanded service. A higher impact/capacity fee … as long as it is within legal limits and is at the highest level allowed … will promote the City’s ability to service the debt, etc. and perhaps this is what they intended to say. And if the fee has to be increased gradually as required by law and to avoid a shock to the system that would be appropriate. But I am at a complete loss as to why LOWERING the fee … which has not been increased for years so is clearly out of date and likely too low … makes any sense unless you are kissing up to builders and developers. This $3000 figure seems to have just been pulled out of somebody’s …..
Mike….I believe there is a minor disconnect with this piece you wrote and what actually was voted upon.
I believe the impact fee goes towards SANITARY sewers and water lookups….NOT storm water connections.
The impact of. New home on storm water drainage is diminimus….and storm water systems are generally set up and paid for in large blocks as areas are developed
Sanitary sewers, on the other hand, are impacted as each housing unit or commercial user is brought online.
Andre Desilet is the UTILITIES DIRECTOR. I don’t know, he may also still be the Stormwater Director as described in the article but his main job I believe is the Utilities Director. As pointed out by several … stormwater and sewer are two totally different things. I don’t know if these “capacity” fees apply to hooking up to the sewer system AND the stormwater system or just one or the other … but obviously they’ll have to hook up to both.