In today’s budget workshop, the City Council rejected a proposal to reduce lifeguard protection at the city’s public beaches. Also turned back was a plan to cut from four to one the number of days each week the Royal Palm Pointe fountains will be open.
In reversing the two proposed budget cuts, the Council restored $25,000 in funding for lifeguards and $8,000 for the fountains.
Tabled was a decision on whether to continue providing $25,000 in water and electric utilities for the two Little League fields within the city. The Council chose to first write a letter to the County Commission seeking support. “I can tell you, you are not going to get it,” said Mayor Craig Fletcher.
A spokesman for the Little League estimated 70 percent of the youth participating in the program live outside the city limits.
In responding to the Council’s request to cut a total of 10.9 percent from the budget, Recreation Department Director Rob Slezak had originally proposed the elimination of four full time positions. With today’s Council decision not to reduce lifeguard hours, Slezak will be laying off one full time and one part time employee when the new budget goes into effect in October.
Indian River Guardian 
Just as 70% of the the young people are from outside the city, so is that close to the figure of the people whom use MacWilliams dog park and the boat ramps. Maybe we should start charging non-city residents for use of city facilities. John Wester
Good news about the lifeguards, can’t believe it was even on the table again, but good decision by the council. Let’s keep making wise decisions to keep our residents safe!
charge? I am a county resident while I don’t mind paying for the fountain and that should be a charged thing. but the beach? I haven’t been to Sebastian Inlet since they charged for parking.the city used to have parking meters at the post office, the original city hall with the firestation and pd in one, and at humistion beach. that was in the 60’s and the 70’s. may be that may have to come back. but it didn’t go to well then.
Thank you, John for saying this. Mr. O’connor said at the budget hearing that 60 to 70 percent of our Park use is by non-city residents.
The same percentage would be fair to assume for the recreation department in general, which the county once contributed to and then
rescinded some years ago. Downtown Friday, Sunset Saturday, Hibiscus Festival, Riverside Park Fireworks, and on and on. We pay equally for a sheriff’s department that provides us nothing. We also pay equally for all the County Parks that we never visit. Anyone from the city know where Hobart Park is? But the City is unfairly charging non-residents for power? Taxation without representation, they call it, yet the loudest guy on the Utility board is a county ratepayer, who shows up at every City meeting. I would say that the County residents have been getting over on us for years, I was one of them. Leading the argument for these county ratepayers is a guy who lives in St. Lucie County. Move the entire Little League to Hobart and South County Park
and let the entire cost be borne by the county and watch them scream.
Another solution, of course, would be for the County Commission to share in the cost of providing lifeguard protection for the public beaches in Vero Beach, which, are of course, also located with Indian River County. Unfortunately, at least for the present, Libertarians have local government by the throat and are attempting to choke the life out of it. The current County Commission has as a constricted and short-sighted view of what constitutes important/valuable/essential public services, and is in no way inclined to pay its fair share for anything.
Mark , I agree and I don’t have any problem with that. if they want to have fee for certain things such as pool usage and also that water park that’s fine.However. I don’t and I wouldn’t call the current leadership of Indian River County libertarian. a libertarian wouldn’t care about abortion and gay rights and so forth like the republicans do. a libertarian would argue with a humanist over the right to have proclamation. they tend to favor equal freedom for all. I have some of those leanings but not all.Likewise a true liberation doesn’t want government to support or spend money with business like zorc et all does. they prefer neutrality.neither help business nor harm. not always doable.
the county once did that with the firestations.that is when vero had its own fire fighters .
What is the source of the claim that 70% of young people live outside the city?
Charging for the use of the boat ramps is a guarantees means of eradicating tourist visits that support many local companies.
Before everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and charge county residents for the use of city services, it is important to remember that non-city residents have been subsidizing the city for decades with higher than necessary utility costs.
Decades ago the Seagrove community had a dispute over those who lived on the river side parking ona vacant property near the ocean. The proposal was made to no longer allow this. Thus, the river side community got their revenge by denying access to their tennis courts. Thus, it was a lose-lose situation because adults refused to act like adults. The developer who built Seagrove never anticipated a Hayfield and McCoy type of dispute from home owners over the amenties provided to attract potential buyers.
Specifically, a spokesperson for the Little League estimated that 70 percent of the youth participating in the two leagues playing at fields in Vero Beach are, in fact, county residents. So, are you saying it would be unreasonable for the County Commission to share in the cost of lighting these little league fields?
For as long as you have lived in a home on the south barrier island you have resided in an area, the development of which was only made possibly by the city’s willingness to provide utilities. At least to a point, expensive electricity is better than none at all.
For every year you have been a customers of Vero Electric, the city has taken from the electric system a direct transfer to its general fund of six percent of the gross billings of the electric system. That is very much like a six percent franchise fee.
Vero Electric’s rates are more than 6 percent above FPL, but that additional revenue is no going to subsides the city. Six percent is hardly an unreasonable return on investment. The claim that the city takes a windfall from the electric system to subsides the operation of the city is simply not true, because You, Glenn Heran and Dr. Faherty can repeat this charge until hell freezes over, but that doesn’t make it so.
I have no problem with the county paying to light the sports fields in the city when they are used by county residents. The issue is one of how to do it in an equitable fashion.
The developers of the South Beach area contributed far more revenue for the COVB than the modest investment made decades ago. The city did not provide the developers of the area any utility service out of any altruism.
If the use of the COVB electric system is indeed a franchise fee, then the monthly bill should state this.
I have never made the claim that the city will get a windfall from the sale of the utility. I only know that my only possible means of reducing my own monthly expenditure is by getting a different electrical provider. My friends who have much larger homes on the north end of the barrier island pay significantly less in utility costs than I do for my own very modest small square foot home. I would welcome the opportunity to not be fearful about opening my monthly electric bill. I don’t care if this outcome is achieved by the COVB or a corporate entity.
I made no mention of a windfall to the city from the sale. I said the annual transfer of six percent of gross metered billings does not represent a windfall.
It is interesting that you consider the cost of extending utilities to the south beach a “modest” investment. Do you even know the amount of the investment? In truth, the city is in its current predicament because it entered wholesale power agreements in order to be able to serve its county customers, which is why the city would be better off with a partial sale.
The arrangement for the city to serve the south barrier island with utilities was from the beginning seen as a win-win, but you seem to begrudge every dime of south beach month that has wound up in the city’s general fund. Lest you again suggest the entire city budget has for decades been born on the backs of south beach residents alone, I would remind you that the south island enclave accounts for no more than 3,000 households.