HomeMy Public PortalAboutDraft Project Notice
Renee Basel
From:Susan Schoettle-Gumm <spgumm@mailmt.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2010 1:31 PM
To:Bill Thrasher; 'Danny Brannon'; 'rwganger'; 'Habib Isaac'; 'Lee Evett'
Subject:Draft Project Notice
Attachments:Purpose of this Notice -dpb (4) SPS COMMENTS.doc
To All – I ended up making more comments/edits than I expected. I really thought it was good – so my edits are related to
avoiding misunderstandings (how voting works) and clarifying some legal issues. Since I am coming in on this a bit later
than the rest of you, I may not know what you have previously discussed/decided. Please read my comments to see
questions where I did not make an edit.
I felt that the language on voting could be clearer so I made edits in several places. I know you probably don’t want to call
attention to possible non-payment of the assessments, but I think it is important to mention that the assessments will be
collected in the same manner as property taxes. So, I inserted a sentence on this.
The issue of financing costs needs to be discussed because it can have a significant effect on the final assessment rates as
well as the legal notification process. If the current project cost estimate does not include financing costs, then that needs
to be clearly stated to avoid accusations later of “You told me it was only going to cost ___.” Any increase in the
assessments due to financing costs will be apparent when property owners are noticed of the final assessment rate. If the
estimated assessments included in the ballot notices are less than the assessments ultimately noticed and imposed, the
Commission could be placed in a politically difficult position. (I assume that the ballot notices are not intended to serve as
the first class mail notices under Sec. 197.3632, F.S.) I understand that you are going to have a prepayment option, but I
would recommend that, if possible, all cost and assessment numbers presented at this point include estimated financing
costs. If you have already done this, great. If not, let’s discuss it.
I hope my comments/questions/edits are helpful. I will be available at 941-377-4948 most of the afternoon. If I don’t
answer, I may be on another call, so leave a message and I will call you back as soon as I can. Thanks, Susan
Susan Schoettle, PLLC
Phone 941-377-4948 Cell phone 941-320-3054 Fax 941-371-8317 E-mail spgumm@mailmt.com
This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It may contain information which is legally privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use, or any action or
reliance on this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (941-
377-4948) or by return e-mail and delete the message, along with any attachments.
1
Formatted: Justified
Purpose of this Notice: (Version 3)
Formatted: Left: 0.7", Right: 0.7", Top: 0.98", Bottom:
- To provide reliableactionable information to affected property owners within the Town of Gulf
Underground Utilities Project.
Stream regarding the proposed
0.98"
- To outline the method by which existing utility lines will be buried throughout the entire
east of the Intracoastal Waterway, the proposed use of a
boundaries of the Town located and
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5"
Special Assessment to finance the project.
To submit the proposed plan to a vote
- by all affected property owners, by means of a ballot
Formatted: Justified
enclosed with this mailing. The Town Commission has determined that the Underground Utilities
Project will be constructed only if a majority of the votes submitted are in favor of the project.
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5"
- If the Underground Utilities Project is implemented, the Town will pay for the project by
imposing special assessments on the annual property tax bill for every property.
Background:
Universal burial of overhead utility wiring has been considered by the Town of Gulf Stream for many
years. The subject overhead utilities primarily include those owned by Florida Power & Light Company,
Comcast Communications, and AT&T. Several developments led to renewed interest in the project.
Formatted: Justified
They include: (1) the cost and time involved in recovery from hurricanes Jeanne, Dennis, and Wilma; (2)
recent improvements in undergrounding technology; (3) current availability of substantial FP&L credits
for local governmenttown-wide undergrounding projects; and (4) the favorable impact of a weak
Commented \[SPS1\]:
Delete “town-wide” since project does not
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5"
include entire town?
economy on financing and construction costs.
Based upon the foregoing, the Town has carefully studied the cost and feasibility of undergrounding its
utilities. A plan has been developed. The Town Commission believes that residents and property owners
should have the opportunity to implement the plan if a majority of qualified voters affected property
owners choose to proceed.
The Benefits of Undergrounding
:
Formatted: Justified
Proponents of undergrounding claim that the project will likely more than pay for itself in increased
property values. While hopeful of this outcome, the Town justifies the project on known and
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5"
demonstrated benefits:
Improved Safety
- through elimination of potential for downed power and communication
lines.
Improved Reliability
- through a significant reduction in irritating and often costly power outages
Formatted: Justified
or island-related power surges.
Commented \[SPS2\]:
Will undergrounding really help w/ power
surges? If so, great – if not, should delete.
Faster Storm Recovery
- provided by enhanced switching capabilities and absence of downed
linesassociated with underground facilities.
Improved Neighborhood Aesthetics
- through the elimination of poles, overhead wires, and
excessive tree trimming necessary to “harden”for existing overhead systems.
(more information on reverse page)
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified
Scope of the Project:
The project, if approved by a majority of affected and voting property owners, would involve
burial of power lines, telephone lines, and television/computer cables on all public rights of way,
Commented \[SPS3\]:
Are fiber optics included in the term
“cable”?
and from street-to-meter connections servicing all residential and non-residential customers.
The project is expected to cost up to $4,650,000. This cost includes, but is not limited to,
Commented \[SPS4\]:
I recommend using the word “estimated”
here to build in a little flexibility
expenses for cost apportionment analysis the development and imposition of special assessments,
long-term financing, planning and engineering; obtaining permits; trenching, horizontal directional
Commented \[SPS5\]:
Need to make sure financing costs are
included in the assessment calculations also
drilling, installing new utility vaults, conduits and transformers, laying conduit lines into trenches,
switching services to underground systems; removing overhead poles and wires; and restoring
landscaping where necessary.
The overall cost also includes required property-specific improvements such as replacing service
laterals and overhead type meters. Not all properties will need such upgrades. Certain properties
have already undertaken the undergrounding of one or more of the utilities from the front-yard
right of way. As such, the cost for each property will be calculated on specific characteristics and
needs, and the assessment will be based upon both common and specific costs. Engineering for
each individual property installation will be conducted by a professional third-party consultant,
and assessments will follow objective criteria as required by Florida Statutes established Florida
legal requirements.
Assessment Proposed to be Levied on your Property:
The amount of the Assessment that is proposed to be levied for your property is specified on the
green Individual Assessment Ballot Base
that is included with this notice. Your property’s
Assessment Amount
represents your property’s specific share of common project costs for the
entire Gulf Stream barrier island and represents the cost of based on the specific special benefits
your property will receive in the areas of improved reliability, improved safety, and improved
Individual Assessment Amounts
aAesthetics.. The , if any, represent an engineering estimate for
the unique requirements to complete the underground service connections to your home in a safe
and satisfactory manner. The Town intends to collect the assessments on the annual property tax
bill and may enforce payment the same way as for property taxes. Please note that these proposed
Commented \[LRE6\]:
This vote is not required by statutes. The
assessments have been determined estimated prior to final bidding on all cost elements of the
Town can make a policy commitment that the assessment will not
exceed these stated costs. The only assessment variations will
project. Some minor deviations adjustments to the assessment imposed on your property may be
therefore be down and not up. Any increased costs will, however,
expected occur between the ballot vote and actual implementation.
have to be absorbed by the Town’s general revenue stream under
such a policy commitment.
Commented \[SPS7\]:
I agree w/ Lee’s comment. At this stage,
Timing and Duration:
it is a policy decision by the Town.
The project should commence within 6-12 months of voter property owner approval. The
Individual Property Assessment can be paid in part or in full without interest prior to financing the
project with a third party loan. Thereafter, assessments will be paid in ten annual installments
commencing November 2011. Annual assessments will appear as a non-ad valorem item on Palm
Beach County tax bills.