MARK SCHUMANN

Over opposition from Council members Harry Howle and Pilar Turner, the Vero Beach City Council voted 3-2 yesterday to continue studying the formation of a storm water utility authority.

The Council also approved Mayor Jay Kramer’s request to have legal counsel and consultants from the City meet with representatives of Indian River Shores to explain the City’s valuation of the likely cost of selling Vero Electric’s Shores customer base.

Also over opposition from Howle and Turner, the Council voted to appoint City Manager Jim O’Connor as the Vero Beach’s representative on the board of directors the Florida Municipal Power Agency.

The Council’s decision to continue studying the feasability of a storm water utility authority followed a lengthy discussion and public input, and was precipitated by a motion made by Howle that “any and all storm water projects be handled by Public Works and be funded by the general fund and its process.”

Howle’s motion was seconded by Turner.

Essentially, Howle and Turner argued a storm water utility would lead to a “regressive” tax and would result in the creation of a bureaucracy that would only grow over time.

Councilmen Winger, Old and Kramer opposed Howle’s motion, contending the City should complete the process of studying the best ways of funding projects to reduce polluted storm water runoff from further harming the Indian River Lagoon. All three councilmen also agreed any final decision should be put before voters in a referendum.

O’Connor explained the utility, if it is formed, will not require hiring additional staff. As they are now, storm water projects would continue to be handled by the Public Works Department, but would be funded, not out of the general fund, but through a special tax. The amount of that tax, and the structure of its assessment are what consultants are currently considering. Howle’s motion would have ended that process.

“We should finish the study,” Winger said, after offering a lengthly rebuttal to Howle’s arguments.

“The general fund budget is thin,” Winger said, adding, “If you take it (funding for storm water rejects) out of existing budget, you will have to have fewer lifeguards or fewer police. People will get hurt. I have had overwhelming numbers of people coming to me in favor of a storm water utility.”

Winger also pointed out that any such taxing authority could be established with a sunset clause providing for a date at which it would automatically expire without further authorization.

Old agreed, adding he thinks it will be best in the long run to fund storm water projects by taxing property owners, including non-profits, whose properties cause the most run off.  “Let’s complete the process and bring it to a referendum,” Old said.

“I don’t like paying higher taxes (property taxes) so large institutions don’t have to pay anything,” Kramer added.

Kramer said he believes it is “absolutely wrong” to let property owners with large paved and developed areas avoid much of the cost of dealing with the run off from their properties. “People who pollute the most should pay the most,” he said before voting with Old and Winger to continue the study.