BY MARK SCHUMANN
Speaking at a meeting of the Democratic Women’s Club of Indian River Co. Saturday, Mayor Craig Fletcher told the group he would like to see a marina eventually built on the power plant site.
For months, Fletcher has maintained he does not want the land to be used for “just a park,” but rather would prefer to see it developed in a way that can “make money for the city.”
The Mayor did not elaborate on whether he envisions a private enterprise, or a city-owned marina competing with the existing municipal marina located just north of the Barber Bridge.
There has been speculation over the years that the power plant property could be combined with the wastewater treatment site to provide enough land for a marina and resort to be built in the heart of the city.
Dredging done years ago to accommodate barges makes the site uniquely suited for docking large yachts.
Even if the city were to lease the land to developers, or were to enter into a joint venture, any commercial use of the property would have to be approved by voters. Some have speculated that the “lease” referendum passed in 2011 might give the Council the authority to lease the land for commercial use once FPL turns the property back to the city.
City Attorney Wayne Coment said it would be his advice that the language of the 2011 referendum only narrowly authorized the lease of the power plant site for the purpose of facilitating the sale of the city’s electric system. Selling or leasing the land for some other public use once the power plant is decommissioned would, Coment said, require voter approval.
The proposed sale of Vero Electric calls for FPL to assume ownership of the power plant while leasing the underlying property for three to four years. Once FPL’s transmission line upgrades are completed, the power plant is to be decommissioned and the site turned back to the city.
Among the questions being raised about the proposed purchase and sale agreement is the question of why Fletcher, along with Councilmembers Tracy Carroll and Pilar Turner are set on giving FPL the 4.6-acre former postal annex site for a new substation, rather than letting the company have three to four acres of the land where the power plant no sits.
FPL has said it will cost some $7 million to build a new substation. That money is coming out of the city’s proceeds from the sale. In addition, the city will be giving up property appraised in 2006 at $4 million. More recent estimates of the value of the property range from $1 million to $2.5 million.
Certainly if the land is to be use for a park, a band shell, or some other public use, the city could do without the western most three to four acres.
Given the financial challenges the city will face once Vero Electric is sold, one could reasonably argue that the city would be better off pocketing more cash from the sale, while also retaining the former postal annex site for its long-term development value.
Even if the city is to give FPL the 4.6-acre site on the southwest corner of 17th Street and Indian River Blvd., might it not be prudent to require that the property revert to the city if FPL should ever determine the land is no longer needed for a substation for any other use associated with its primary business?
And what about the wastewater treatment plant property? Though the city’s water and sewer system is contributing some $1.7 million a year to the General Fund and is building reserves, Carroll and Turner seem determined to sell the system to the county.
They argue that the city should not be in the utility business, conveniently ignoring the fact that Indian River County Utilities is owned and operated by a government.
While the city’s water and sewer system is running at 75 percent capacity, the county’s system is just 40 percent utilized and is being operated at a loss. Last year alone, the county’s system ran $3 million in the red.
So why would Carroll and Turner be so adamant about turning over the city’s profitable water system? If their motivation isn’t simply to put the city is such a difficult financial position that it will have no choice but to be absorbed by the county, perhaps it has to do with making the land available for development.
Were the city ever to be absorbed by the county, the City Charter would no longer protect the land from commercial development without voter approval. Even if the city never faces disincorporation, the loss of revenue from both the electric system and the water and sewer system would create a strong incentive for city residents to agree to lease or sell the valuable, publically owned riverfront property.
If the city is to receive millions of dollars less in sale proceeds, and if it is to surrender the value of the former postal annex property, all in order to make the power plant site more attractive to commercial developers, that decision should be made by the public. At least it is a decision that should be made in the open.
The Council never formally instructed City Manager Jim O’Connor to negotiate a deal that will eventually render the power plant site cleared from corner to corner. Councilmen Jay Kramer and Richard Winger maintain they never expressed a reluctance to give FPL three to four acres of the power plant site, as opposed to turning over the former postal annex.
If O’Connor is following the direction of Council, it is not a direction that has been settled on in a public meeting. Rather, it appears to be a decision made behind closed doors.
The larger question isn’t so much with the wisdom or prudence of these decisions, but with the way they are being made. There is a missing public conversation about how valuable public property can best be used to the benefit of the community.
Indian River Guardian 
There is no doubt that public conversation is mising in all aspects of the city’s handling of the possible sale of the City of Vero beach utility responsibilities.
This issue of approval by the voters also mandates clarification. As things stand now, the ratepayers who have subsidized the City of Vero Beach utility operation for decades will not be allowed to vote on a referendum that will have a direct impact on their wallets. There is also the possibiity of maintaining a negative aspect on any future sale of real estates. This is because the high cost of the City of vero Beach utilities has a regative impactt on the ability to sell real estate on the south end of the barrier island.
It is the population that lives on the South end of the barrie island that use the Alma Lee Loy bridge the most. There is a need for clarification on this issue because these residents will have to deal with the increased traffic. that would result from building a marina.
Any public conservation should also include putting in plae a process where elected officials are not allowed to make a profit from the public official decisions.
It is perhaps also helpful to consider the fact that the city is carrying debt and is burdened with wholesale power contracts it took on, at least partly in order to be able to serve its 22,000 county customers. Having said that, there seems to be a growing consensus that the county customers need to be “set free,” as Glenn Heron and others put it. If the city had requested annexation before extending utility services to the south barrier island, which would have been a reasonable position to take, this conversation might not even be taking place.
There are at least three options here: a sale of the full system, a sale of just the county customers, or the formation of a utility authority. However the city goes about “unburdening” itself of it county customers is a decision for the city to make.
Finally, the next time you enjoy a performance at the Riverside Theatre of the Vero Beach Museum of Art, which are both built on land leased from the city for $1 a year, or the next time you visit a well-maintained city park, or enjoy a well-guarded city beach, consider the fact that 60 percent of those who take advantage of these city services do not live in the city and do not pay city taxes.
And the next time you wonder how the power plant and water treatment plant properties are to be developed, remember that though that decision may impact residents in the unincorporated area of the south barrier island, those residents to not pay city taxes and thus do not have a vote in these matters. Perhaps if you what a say in city matters you could petition to be annexed into the city.
Mark, good info and sharp thinking. I still don’t get the savvy of the c ity paying to move a perfectly good sub-statio from the SE corner of the intersection and then back to the to the NE at some later date. The only reason this makes any sense is to scam the taxpayers.
For ms. Lavkins…The barrier island folks would simply send a bill to a different place and then be under the normal FPL folks who are notorioujsly slow on repairs. Remember the storms of 2004! Also, the south barrier island folks freely useCity streets and facilitiesincluiding grocery stores, gasoline, medical, and and pay no taxes for this maintenance. With the price of realestate on the south barrier island starting at about $500K minimum, the electric becomes a small part of the over all deal. But I understand, It takes pennies to make dollars! Remember the City provided all the utilities to the South barrier island because I nduian River county was so poor they could not float a bo nd isse to do this.
Vero Beach took on this role so that the County could benefit through advalorem taxes, and they have! Electric, water and Sewer are done by the city under franchise contracts, all of which expire during thne next several years. this will be another political issue when the County will again plead “poor mouth” and not want to pay for the infrastructure which the citizens of Vero Beach paid for and benefitted from. This will guarantee to ns of i nk and newsprint for the good ol’s PJ which manages to kill off all competition!
WW
WW