HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1979® � r
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1979
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO REACH,
FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1979, AT 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. PRESENT
WERE WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE LAY, VICE CHAIRMAN;
WILLARD W. SIEBERT, JR.; AND PATRICK B. LYONS. R. DON DEESON WAS
ABSENT DUE TO ILLNESS. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL NELSON, ASSISTANT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, .JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK,
ALSO ATTENDING THE MEETING WERE ENGINEERS JAMES PEINDORF
AND RALPH ENG, MEMERS OF THE JOINT VENTURE, VINCENT AMY, GEOLOGIST
OF GERAGHTY & MILLER, AND IRA MCALLISTER OF THE COUNTY UTILITY
DEPARTMENT.
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INTRODUCED GEORGE LINER,
THE NEW COUNTY UTILITY DIRECTOR.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND STATED THAT
IT IS HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING THE ENGINEERS' REPORT ON A
PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER TAXING DISTRICT AS SET OUT AND DISCUSSED
IN LETTERS DATED AUGUST 14, 1979, AND AUGUST 20, 1979, FROM THE
.JOINT VENTURE, AS FOLLOWS:
OCT 161979 ion:41 f 722
OCT 161979
A,�1 i7 "I1
A.
SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. R' 1c�L3
AND
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CY1co
(A JOINT VENTURE)
Project No. 6146
August 14, 1979
Mr. Jack G. Jennings
County Administrator
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
2145 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Subject: Engineer's Job No. 6146, South Tax District
Water System Improvements
Dear Mr. Jennings:
This letter is to provide you with a summary of my meetings (last two weeks)
with the FmHA officials and our meeting in your office on August 9, 1979.
FmHA has indicated that the maximum amount of grant funds available for the
South Tax District project will be about $300-500,000 for Fiscal Year 1979-80.
Our preliminary engineering report presented monthly cost analyses for various
amounts of grant funds, from no grant up to 75%_grant (maximum eligibility).
As shown in the attached summary, a grant in magnitude of $300-500,000 would
result in a minimal reduction in average monthly cost for the proposed 2,500
connections.
Based on the minimum grants available from FmHA $300-500,000, we have per-
formed additional evaluations to determine supplemental financings that could
be implemented to reduce the monthly user cost. The following alternatives
were evaluated:
1. Reduce the project size by deletion of certain water lines that are
used to provide fire protection flow only.
2. Reduce the project size by reducing the capacity of the treatment
plant to a level of 1,345 reserve connection capacity in lieu of 2,115 as
proposed.
3. Offsetting initial capital cost with a bond or escrowed security
deposit by developers for reserve capacity - based on cost per connection
basis.
REPLY TO:
( ) 3885 20TH STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 849
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
REPLY TO:
(XX 2002 N.W. 13TH STREET
SUITE 201
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32601
Mr. Jack G. Jennings
August 14, 1979
Page -two-
4. Offsetting initial capital cost with an impact fee and/or connection
charge for new connections.
5. Offsetting annual expenses with a utility tax liened on the water
system users.
6. Offsetting initial capital cost with a front foot assessment charge.
The following analyses are provided in reference to each of the above items:
Ref. Items 1 & 2 - The attached table shows the funding analysis for re-
ducing the system size to 1,345 reserve capacity as compared to the proposed
2,115 reserve capacity. The merit for reducing the system is shown in the
average monthly cost per 2,500 connections assuming no grant (reverse osmosis
system). The analysis is summarized as follows:
2.5 MGD Plant 2.5 MGD Plant 2.0 MGD Plant
With Fire Delete Fire Delete Fire
Protection Protection Protection
2,115 Reserve 2,115 Reserve 1,345 Reserve
Capacity Capacity- Capacity
Avg. Monthly Cost Per
2,500 Connections $ 24.97 $ 23.70 $ 22.17
Based on the magnitude of monthly cost required, the reduction in monthly
cost (about $1.77 to $2.80 per month) may be insignificant as the homeowner
may save more from lower fire insurance premiums (if area rating is reduced).
Furthermore, a reserve capacity reduction to 1,345 will mean higher costs in
the future to expand the plant due to inflation.
Ref. Item 3 - The effect on the average monthly cost by reserving connec-
tions by potential developers is illustrated with the following example:
Assuming 500 connections reservation, the cost per connection including the
existing 2,500 connections (total 3,000 connections) is about $2,049-$2,474
per connection (smallest project to largest). Using an average of -$2,250 per
connection, this would generate $1,125,000 for capital cost. Met result is
an average of $2.00 per month reduction in monthly cost -for 3,000 connections.
Ref. Item 4 - A potential of 478_ new residential connections was used in
the preliminary engineering report. Therefore, based on recovering the con-
nection cost of $200 per new connection, this would result in a reduction of
monthly cost of only $0.20 per month.
Ref. -Item 5 - This effect is also illustrated by the following example:
Assume the 2,500 connections utility cost is about $70 per month. Based on
a 5% utility tax levied, this would generate $3.50 per connection per month
or an amount of about $105,000 annually. This would result in a reduction of
$3.50 per month per connection on the water rates.
OCT 161979 soo.'�
� J
OCT 16 1979
Mr. Jack Jennings
August 14, 1979
Page -three-
Bou 41 �,,,E 727
Ref. Item 6 - A front foot assessment program is expected to be very dif-
ficult to implement. The offset in monthly cost is illustrated as follows:
There are about 180,000 feet of pipelines in the project. Assessable front
footage is about 234,000 feet at 65% of total length, both sides. Therefore,
at a rate of $1/front foot, this would generate $234,000 to offset initial
capital cost or an average of $0.50 reduction per month for 2,500 connections.
The items providing the most significant impact on the water rates would be
Item 3 - reserve connection, and Item 5 - utility tax. The utility tax
could be eliminated in the future after sufficient number of new connections
are added to the water system to offset the revenue generated by the utility
tax (about 600 connections).
We are prepared to meet with you and the Commissioners to further discuss our
most recent findings and our meetings with FmHA o We are aware of the Com-
missioners tight schedule, therefore, we are available upon immediate request.
Sincerely,
�'r
Ralph'E. Eng
For the Joint Venture
Attachment
cc: John Robbins
Jim Beindorf
Bill Weathers, FmHA
11
k
PROJECT COST AND FINANCING SUMMARY
INDIAN RIVER COUNT'! -SOUTH TAX DISTRICT
JOB NO. 6146
AUGUST 13, 1979
I. REVISED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR:
A. Delete Transmission Lines at Areas for Fire Protection Only
B. Delete Fire Hydrants From Area A. above.
C. Use PVC Pipe for 8", 10" and 12"
D. Reduce Escalation Factor to 15%
E. Evaluate Treatment Plant (Reverse Osmosis) Cost for 2.0 MGD/1345
Reserve Capacity
1. Transmission -Distribution
2. Treatment Plant and Well Field
Total Construction Cost
II. TOTAL PROJECT COST
1. Construction Cost
2. Technical Services @ 9.2%
3. Interim Financing @ 7%/6 mil.
4. Legal/Adm. @ 1%
5. Contingencies @ 5%
6. Escalation to 1981 @ 15%
Total Project Cost
0 -CT 161979
2.5
MGD Pit.
2.0
MGD Pit.
2115 Res. Cap.
1345
Res. Cap.
$
1,300,000
$
1,300,000
3,457,000
3,100,000
$
4,757,000
$
4,400,000
2.5
MGD Pit.
2.0
MGD Pit.
'2115
Res. Cap.
1345
Res. Cap.
$
4,757,000
$
4,400,000
437,000
405,000
420,000
420,000
48,000
44,000
238,000.
220,000
713,000
660,000
$
6,613,000
$
6,149,000
s
k
Boa 41 mE 728
1
1
1
III. MONTHLY COST ANALYSES
13
co
CD
Ca
M -
Fe
2.5
MGD-Plt/2115 Res. Cap.
2.0 MGD-P1t/1345 Res. Cap.
Grant
Grant
Grant
No
Grant
Grant
Grant
No
$1.0 Mil.
$500,000
$350,000
Grant
$1.0 Mil.
$500,000
$350,000
Grant
Total
Proj. Cost
6,613,000
6,613,000
6,613,000
6,613,000
6,149,000
6,149,000
6,149,000
6,149,000
Grant
Eligible
6,193,000
6,193,000
6,193,000
6,193,000
5,729,000
5,729,000
5,729,000
5,729,000
Assumed Grant
1,000,000
500,000
350,000
0
1,000,000
500,000
350,000
0
Loan
Amount
5,613,000
6,113,000
6,263,000
6,613,000
5,149,000
5,609,000
5,799,000
6,147,000
Annual
Expenses
A.
Debt Ser.
332,740
362,378
371,270.
392,018
305,232
3,348,872
343,764
3,645,512
B.
O/M
265,000
265,000
265,000
265,000
265,000
265,000
265,OGO
265,000
C.
10%
33,274
36,238
37,127
39,201
30,523
33,487
34,376
36,451
Total
631,014
663,616
673,397
696,219
600,755
633,359
643,140
665,963
Avg.
Mo. Cost/
2500
Connections
21.01
22.09
22:42
23.20
20.00
21.09
21.41
22.17
13
co
CD
Ca
M -
Fe
SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
AND
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
(A JOINT VENTURE)
Project No. 6146
STATUS REPORT
INDIAN RIVER -SOUTH TAX DISTRICT
J.N. -• 6146
AUGUST 20, 1979
The following have been accomplished since the Commission workshop session
of July 19, 1979
I. Ralph Eng has met with FmHA Officials and Mr. Jack G. Jennings
in reference to FmHA funding allocation for the project. See
Ralph_Eng`sletter to Jack Jennings on Aug. 14, 1979 for summary.
2. Delegation from County Commission has visited the water treatment
plants of Vero Beach and Cape Coral . ffiWhe .4+y ohs -
3. Remaining items to complete investigation:
a). Conference with DER on the level of water treatment
requirements.
b). Possible delegation visit to the City of Cocoa water
treatment plant.
Based on the development of item l., above, a meeting is scheduled with FmHA
officials on August 30, 1979 to further discuss funding allocations. Another
workshop session with the Commission is recommended after the August 30, 1979
meeting and completion of item 3. above. The purpose of this workshop will be
to review all data obtained and prepare a plan for implementation of the water
system improvements program
P[ Pf_Y 7r}.
7prH ;TPEE T
f+r; t r,p Frr_E 64% 849
OCT 161979
:Cr:_�
Y! SOC<' h,N, „ii f+ c• r: F. .
OCT 161979
f
CITY Or CAPE CORAL
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1977 - 1978
ANNUAL REPORT
JOHN M. LANE, UTILITIES DIRECTOR
EDWIN K. DELAVE, OPERATIONS MANAGED.
IMOF 41 omuF 731
INDEX
ADMINISTRATION
Customer Service Section
1
Salt Water Intrusion Section
2
WATER PRODUCTION
Reverse Osmosis Plant
3
Lime Softening Plant
5
Reverse Osmosis Plant & Lime Softening Plant
6
CONSTRUCTION/MAINTENANCE
Construction/Maintenance
7
Pipe Laying Section
8
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Main Plant
g
Package Plant ;161
10
Main Plant & Package Plant #f61
10
OCT 16 1979
�fl41 FAn 732.
OCT 161979
ADMINISTRATION
41 Pc -JE 733
Monthly Turn-offs
27142
Monthly Turn -ons
2,335
New Water Services - Betterment
765
433
New Water Services - Assessment
1,203
Total New Water Services
Total Water Accounts
9,758
"New Sewer Services - Betterment
219
'`New Sewer Services - Assessment
667
Total New Sewer'Services
2,953
8,461
Total Sewer Accounts
838.8 MG
Gallons Billed
Customer Complaints
335
Number of Regular Hours Worked
29,618.5
Number of Overtime Hours Worked
571.75
5/8" by 3/4" Meter Repairs
54
1
1" Meter Repairs
1 1/2" Meter Repairs
0
2
2" Meter Repairs
_
Meter Changed Out for Repair
14
-1-
=2-
OCT 161979 41' �
� J
ADMINISTRATION
SALT WATER INTkUSION SECTION
Number
of Domestic Well Permits Issued
318
Number
of Irrigation Well Permits Issued
288
Total
Number of Well Permits Issued
606
•
Number
of New Wells Inspected
221
*
Number
of New [,Tells Drilled
267
•
Water
Samples of Wells (Chlorides)
376
Number
of -Wells Plugged - 1977 - 1978
383
Total Number of Wells Plugged
440
x
Number
of Persons Contacted Re: Wells
288
*
Number
of Wells -to be Staked for Plugging
166
x
Number
of Wells Staked for Plugging
76
Number
of Regular Hours Worked
2,553.5
Number
of Overtime Hours Worked
0
Monthly
Operation Report was changed in April,
x978 to include
information
as shown with an asterisk, therefore only a 6 month
record
is available. '
=2-
OCT 161979 41' �
� J
OCT 161979
WATER PRODUCTION DIVISION
REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
41 PA-OE735
Finished Gallons Pumped to System
595.7
MG
Minimum Daily Pumped to System
.89
MG
Maximum Daily Pumped to System
2.36
MG
Average Daily Pumped to System
1.64
MG
Raw Water Pumped to Plant
1,098.8
MG
Average Chlorine Residual - PPM
1.8
Total Hardness - PPM
116
PH
8.5
Total Dissolved Solids - PPM
326
H2SO4 Acid Gallons per Year
56,318
@ 32G .
Total Cost per Year
$
18,021.00
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
3(,�
Caustic Soda Pounds per Year
6,494 _
@$1.01
Total Cost per Year
$
6,558.00
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
1.1(�
Sodium Hexametaphosphate Pounds per Year
$
19,994.00
@ 36.5G
Total Cost per Year
$
7,297.00
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
1.2G
Chlorine Pounds per Year
21,668
@ 7.7G
Total Cost per Year
$
1,168.00
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
- 20(,%
Total Chemical Costs
$
33,044.00
-3-
Reverse Osmosis Plant Continued
Electric per Year $156,829.00
Cost per 1,000 Gallons 26.3
Labor per Year $ 66,976.00
Man Hours - Regular 13,300
Man Hours - Overtime 215
Cost per 1,000 Gallons 11.2
Total Yearly Operating Costs $256,849.00
Total Cost per 1,000 Gallons 43.1
Annual Amortization Cost per 1,000 Gallons 42�
-4-
OCT 16 1979
afl0, 736
OCT 10 1979
WATER PRODUCTION DIVISION
LIME SOFTENING PLANT
Finished Gallons Pumped to System
Minimum Daily Pumped to System
Maximum Daily Pumped to System
Average Daily Pumped to System
Raw [dater Pumped to Plant
Average Chlorine Residual - PPM
Total Hardness - PPM
PH
Total Dissolved Solids - PPM
Lime Pounds per Year
Total Cost per Year
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
Wisprofloc Pounds per Year
Amerfloc Pounds per Year
Total Cost per Year
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
Chlorine Pounds per Year
Total Cost per Year
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
Total Chemical Costs
-5-
BOOK 41 Pact 737
450.7 MG
.76 MG
1.76 MG
1.24 MG
451.8 MG
1.4
158
8.9
392
698,960 @ 2.83G
$ 19,781.00
4.4�-
3,252 @ 83�
103 @$3.11
$ 2,802.00
.6�
53,280 @ 7.7G
$ 4,103.00
•9G
$ 26,685.00
OCT 161979
BOOK4f mn738
J
Lime Softening Plant Continued .
. .
E
Electric per Year
1
$ 25,685.00
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
5.7(,,
Laborer Year
P
$ 66,792.00 �
Man Hours - Regular
13,052
Man Hours - Overtime
100
Cost per 1,000 Gallons
14.8
Total Yearly Operating Costs
$119,162.00
�
�, Total Cost per 1,000 Gallons
26.4(
(Amortization Cost for Lime Plant
not included) --
e
REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT AND LIME
SOFTENING PLANT COMBINED
Total Yearly Raw Water
1,551 MG
Total Yearly Finished Water
1,046 MG
Average Cost per 1,000 Gallons
36�
Total Yearly Operating Costs
$376,11.00
OCT 161979
BOOK4f mn738
J
-I
OCT 16 1979 BOOK 41 ea,UF 739
CHAIRMAN WODTKE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE MET WITH THE
ENGINEERS LAST WEEK AND REVIEWED THEIR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING RE—
PORT, AND HE AND COMMISSIONER LYONS WENT TO CAPE CORAL AND VISITED
THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT THAT IS IN OPERATION THERE; HE, UNFORTUN—
ATELY, MISSED THE TRIP TO THE VERO BEACH LIME SOFTENER PLANT. THE
CHAIRMAN CONTINUED THAT AT THE REQUEST OF COMMISSIONER LYONS, WE
OBTAINED THE CITY OF CAPE CORAL ANNUAL REPORT FOR THEIR 1.977-78 OPERA—
TION WHICH CONTAINS A BREAKDOWN OF THE COSTS FOR THEIR REVERSE OSMO—
SIS PLANT AND THEIR LIME SOFTENER PLANT. CHAIRMAN WODTKE FELT IT
IS VERY INTERESTING TO SEE THAT THERE IS A 26.44 PER 1,000 GALLON
COST FOR THE LIME SOFTENER PLANT AND A 43.14 COST FOR THE REVERSE
OSMOSIS PLANT, BUT THE ELECTRICAL COST PER L000 GALLONS FOR OPERATING
THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT IS 204 LOWER SINCE IT REQUIRES A LESSER
AMOUNT OF ENERGY. THE CHAIRMAN FELT WE ARE NOW AT A POINT WHERE THE
BOARD NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE TYPE OF WATER WE ARE GOING TO BE USING
AND MAKE SOME AUTHORIZATION FOR TEST WELLS AND PROCEDURES TO MOVE
FORWARD. HE ASKED ENGINEER BEINDORF TO REVIEW THE SITUATION.
ENGINEER BEINDORF STATED WHAT WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW IS
HOW THE ECONOMICS OF THE PROGRAM CAN BE HANDLED — WHETHER IT IS
FEASIBLE, WHAT IT IS GOING TO COST, AND WHAT IT WILL COST THE USER.
MR. BEINDORF NOTED THAT WHATEVER THE BOARD DOES, WE ARE LOOKING AT
A TEST WELL PROGRAM WHICH WILL TAKE 4 TO 6 MONTHS AND DESIGN PRO—
CEDURES WHICH WILL BE SEVEN TO NINE MONTHS, OR ALMOST A YEAR BEFORE
A PROJECT COULD BE PUT OUT FOR BID. HE FELT WE SHOULD REVIEW THE
METHOD OF FUNDING AND TYPE OF TREATMENT, AND IF WE GET PAST THOSE
POINTS, THEN GET DOWN TO A TIME FRAME.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO ADDRESS THE
WELL PROBLEM IN THE MID FLORIDA AREA, AND THIS ALL TIES IN TOGETHER.
COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT
THE MID FLORIDA PROBLEM MIGHT NOT COME TO A HEAD AS QUICKLY AS WE
ANTICIPATE, AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD STAY WITH THE BASIC PROBLEM AND
THEN ADDRESS THE MID FLORIDA PROBLEM IF WE HAVE TO.
16
ENGINEER BEINDORF POINTED OUT THAT NO MATTER HOW WE G0,
WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FUNDING. HE ASKED RALPH ENG, WHO PREPARED
THE LETTER TO EXPLAIN THE FUNDING OPTIONS.
ENGINEER ENG INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HIS LETTER IS BASED
ON THE VISIT OF FMHA OFFICIAL, BILL WEATHERS, TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AND HIS REPORT THAT THE AMOUNT OF GRANT MONEY ALLOCATED FOR THE
COUNTY THIS YEAR WOULD BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $300,000. IN
EXPLANATION OF HOW THIS LEVEL OF FUNDING CAME ABOUT, MR. ENG NOTED
THAT WE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM TIE-IN TO VISTA
PROPERTIES THAT WAS BASED ON $500,000, AND THE AMOUNT OF THE GRANT
WAS $290,000. HE CONTINUED THAT EVEN TOWARD MID SUMMER, FmHA AL-
READY WAS ALLOCATING THEIR MONEY FOR THE YEAR ON A PRIORITY BASIS,
AND IF WE HADNIT SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION, WE MIGHT VERY WELL HAVE
GOTTEN NOTHING. MR. ENC NOTED THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION SUBMITTED
WAS FOR TEN MILLION, BUT FMHA DID NOT GET POSITIVE WORD THAT THE
PROJECT WOULD GO ON THIS YEAR, AND HE FELT IF THE COUNTY DOES NOT
DO ANYTHING FOR THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS, IT WILL BE DROPPED FROM THE
PRIORITY LIST ALTOGETHER. SINCE WE KNOW THAT IS ALL THE GRANT WE
HAVE, WE MUST CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES. WE CAN CUT DOWN ON THE
TOTAL PROJECT BY DECREASING CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND REDUCING SOME
OF THE LINE WORK OR BY REDUCING THE TREATMENT PLANT DOWN TO A MINIMUM
LEVEL OF RESERVE CAPACITY AND DELETING FIRE PROTECTION. MR. ENG
THEN REVIEWED THE"COMPARATIVE COSTS TO THE USER OF THE -VARIOUS
ALTERNATIVES AND DISCUSSED A POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF INSURANCE PREMI-
UMS IF THE FIRE PROTECTION WERE IMPLEMENTED. HE STATED THAT, IF AT
ALL POSSIBLE, THEY RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD RETAIN THE PLANT SIZE
AT THE LARGER 2.5 MGD CAPACITY.- ..
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF THAT WOULD SUPPLY ENOUGH
PRESSURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION, AND MR. ENG STATED THAT IT WOULD-BE
SUFFICIENT FOR THE ENTIRE AREA. -
DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON SIZE OF LINES, FIRE PROTECTION,
-ETC., AND ENGINEER BEINDORF NOTED THAT IF YOU DON T HAVE THE LARGER
-SYSTEM TO START WITH, YOU ARE PROBABLY NEVER GOING TO GET IT; HE
FELT THE FIRE FIGHTING CAPABILITY AND LARGER RESERVE CAPACITY IS
WARRANTED.
OCT 161979 17 BOOK 41 PAGE 740
� J
OCT 16 19 . 79 Boor 4 1 F,{aF 74i
RALPH ENG WENT ON TO DISCUS -S THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
ACCEPTABLE TO FMHA FOR A MEANS OF SUBSIDIZING THIS SYSTEM AS FOLLOWS:
(1) A BOND OR ESCROWED SECURITY DEPOSIT BY DEVELOPERS FOR RESERVE
CAPACITY; (2) AN IMPACT FEE AND/OR CONNECTION CHARGE FOR NEW CONNEC-
TIONS; (3) A UTILITY TAX ON THE WATER SYSTEM USERS; AND (4) A FRONT
FOOT ASSESSMENT CHARGE. MR. ENG THEN DISCUSSED THE INCOME THAT COULD
BE GENERATED BY EACH -OF THESE AND THE AFFECT ON THE USER RATE. HE
NOTED THAT THE FMHA WOULD ACCEPT THE UTILITY TAX AS A PLEDGE AND
WHEN THE SYSTEM BECAME SELF-SUFFICIENT, THEN THE UTILITY TAX WOULD
BE DELETED.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE COMMENTED THAT WITH THE FOUR OR FIVE UTILITY
COMPANIES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT (CUSTOMER SERVICE, VISTA PROPERTIES,
MID FLORIDA, ETC.,) WE HAVE 2,500 EXISTING CU-STOMERS. _HE ASKED HOW
MANY NEW CUSTOMERS WE COULD PICK UP,
MR. ENG ESTIMATED 478 AMONG HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT
IN THIS AREA,
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THERE IS TO BE A CHARGE FOR A
RESERVE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, WOULD YOU ALSO EXPECT THEM TO PAY A
$200.00 TIE-IN FEE, AND MR, ENG STATED THEY WOULD NOT; THAT THE
DEVELOPER WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING HIS INTERIOR SYSTEM.
ENGINEER BEINDORF DISCUSSED A TIME LIMIT FOR RESERVE
CAPACITY AND COMMENTED THAT YOU COULD TIE UP ALL YOUR WATER AND
NOT HAVE ANY CUSTOMERS. HE CONTINUED THAT IF TROPICAL GARDENS,
FRANK ZORC AND OTHERS WERE TO BUILD QUICKLY ENOUGH AND ALMOST USE
ALL OF YOUR CAPACITY, THEN YOUR COST PER CUSTOMER WOULD GO DOWN
DRAMATICALLY. HE EXPLAINED THAT WE ARE JUST TRYING TO FILL IN THE
INTERIM PERIOD, I.E., A UTILITY TAX IS AN INTERIM MEASURE TO REDUCE
RATES UNTIL YOU BUILD UP YOUR CUSTOMER LOAD,
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF A 2.5 MGD PLANT WILL HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO SERVE ALL THE AREA WE ARE CONSIDERING. HE NOTED WE
ALREADY HAVE 2.500 CUSTOMERS.
THE ENGINEERS FELT IT WILL BE CLOSE BUT INFORMED THE .BOARD
THAT THE 478 NEW CONNECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE 2,500 FIGURE. THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CUSTOMERS WHO COULD BE SERVICED BY A 2.5 MGP PLANT
WOULD BE ABOUT 4,400.
= 18
ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF PERHAPS A COMBINATION OF THE
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED COULD BE USED, AND MR. ENC AGREED
THAT COULD BE DONE AND PROCEEDED TO REVIEW THE AMOUNTS THE DIFFERENT
ALTERNATIVES WOULD GENERATE.
COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED MR, ENG IF THE PROPOSED UTILITY
TAX WOULD BE TAXING ALL THE UTILITIES THAT COME INTO A HOME, AND
MR. ENG STATED THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE EVERYTHING SUCH AS ELECTRICITY,
GAS, ETC.
COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF SUCH A TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE, AND
ATTORNEY COLLINS SAID IT WAS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CITY OF
VERO BEACH HAS A UTILITY TAX.
CONVERSATION CONTINUED ON THE ALTERNATIVES, AND ATTORNEY
COLLINS ASKED IF THE BOARD HAS TO DECIDE ON THIS RIGHT NOW.
MR. ENG FELT IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT, THE
COUNTY MUST INDICATE THAT THEY ARE READY TO DO SOMETHING.
COMMISISONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT WITH NO GRANT, IT IS
NECESSARY TO BORROW $6,613,000, AND WITH A MILLION DOLLAR GRANT,
YOU STILL NEED TO BORROW $5,000,000. WHEN YOU ADD IN THE DEBT RE-
SERVE, ETC., THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY 10%.
MR. ENG COMMENTED THAT THE FMHA STATES THE RATE YOU CHARGE
MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA..IT SERVES, AND THIS WILL BE A GUIDE-
LINE TO HOW MUCH TO SUBSIDIZE.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EQUALIZING
THE RATES COUNTYWIDE, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING THESE RATES DOWN.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED WHAT AFFECT 3,000 OR 3,500 CUSTOMERS
WOULD HAVE ON THE RATE STRUCTURE, AND MR. ENC STATED THAT THERE IS
ABOUT A $4.00 DIFFERENCE MONTHLY FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL 500 CONNECTIONS.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THE BOARD WERE TO MAKE A DECISION
NOW, WHAT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE.
MR. ENG STATED THAT TWO DECISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE: G) THAT
THE COMMISSION WILL ADOPT SOME METHOD OF FUNDING THE PROJECT AND (Z)
WHAT TREATMENT MODE THE COUNTY DESIRES FOR ITS WATER AND WHICH AQUIFER
THEY WILL DRAW FROM.
ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT MR. ENG WANTS A MOTION INDICATING
THAT THE COMMISSION WILL USE ONE OR ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED
FOR FUNDING THE PROJECT.
0 CT 161979 19 Q�� � �� X44
rp-
0 CT 16 1979 '
Rcl OF 41. ea,E 743
ON LOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO GO ON RECORD AS FINDING ONE
OR MORE OF THE METHODS OF FINANCING THE SOUTH COUNTY TAXING DIS-
TRICT WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1, AS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER
OF AUGUST 14, 1979, FROM RALPH ENG, FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE AND
AUTHORIZED MR. ENG TO CONTACT THE FMHA AND BEGIN PROCESSING OF THE
APPROPRIATE GRANT APPLICATION.
MR. ENG STATED THAT WE NOW NEED TO DISCUSS THE TREATMENT
PROCESS -AND THE AQUIFER FROM WHICH THE WATER CAN BE DRAWN. HE NOTED
THAT THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED IN DETAIL THE ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES OF THE SHALLOW AND DEEP WATER AQUIFER -S,
TOM TESSIER OF GERAGHTY & MILLER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT
HE*HAS VERIFIED THE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE"FIGURES SHOWN IN THE
REPORT FROM CAPE CORAL, AND THEY ARE AS CURRENT AND UP-TO-DATE AS
CAN BE ESTIMATED. HE STATED THAT HE WENT BACK AS FAR AS THE REVERSE
OSMOSIS PLANT GOES, AND THEIR COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN INCREASING SIG-
NIFICANTLY, WHICH LEADS HIM TO BELIEVE THEIR COST PROJECTIONS FOR
1979-80 WILL BE PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT THEY HAVE SHOWN.
COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE
WERE LOOKING AT THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT WAS BECAUSE OF THE WATER
QUALITY IN THE AREA AND THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHAT WATER STANDARDS
WILL BE IN THE FUTURE. THAT APPEARS TO BE THE GAMBLE AGAINST THE
POSSIBLE HIGHER COSTS OF THE REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM. HE CONTINUED
THAT WHAT CONCERNS HIM IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH ENERGY COSTS
WHICH MAY DOUBLE AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT OUR GAMBLE.
TOM TESSIER COMMENTED THAT THEY COMPARED MANPOWER, ELECTRI-
CAL AND CHEMICAL COSTS. HE NOTED THAT THE COSTS FOR LIME SOFTENING
ARE ENERGY BASED ALSO.
MR, ENG POINTED OUT THAT IT TAKES LESS PEOPLE TO OPERATE
A REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT. HE STATED THAT IF ENERGY COSTS SHOULD
DOUBLE, YOUR REVERSE OSMOSIS COSTS WILL NOT DOUBLE.
COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THE
DER WOULD LOOK MORE FAVORABLY ON A REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT, AND JOHN
ROBBINS STATED THAT THEY JUST INSIST THAT THE WATER MEET THE DRINK-
ING WATER STANDARDS.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WILL BE NEW
AND MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS.
JOHN ROBBINS TALKED ABOUT DISSOLVED SOLIDS, ETC., AND
SODIUM LIMITS FOR TREATMENT. HE NOTED THAT THE EPA ALREADY HAS
ADOPTED MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS THAN ARE ON THE BOOKS NOW. THE
ONLY PRESUMPTION THAT HAD AT THE TIME OF PREPARING THIS REPORT WAS
THE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS THAT WERE ON THE BOOKS, BUT HE STATED
THAT THEY D I D TRY TO ItCRYSTAL BALL 11 IT A BIT.
TOM TESSIER EXPLAINED THAT REVERSE OSMOSIS REMOVES 957 of
EVERYTHING IN THE WATER. IN THE LIME SOFTENING PROCESS, WHEN WATER
QUALITY REACHES A CERTAIN LEVEL, CHEMICALLY YOU ARE LIMITED TO THE
AMOUNT OF MATERIAL YOU CAN REMOVE FROM WATER.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED FOR AN EDUCATED GUESS AS TO
WHETHER IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THE STAND-
ARDS WITH EITHER TREATMENT PLANT,
TOM TESSIER PRESENTED FIGURES AND DISCUSSED THE TREATMENT
YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO TO MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS. HE STATED THE
INCOMING WATER IS IN THE 400-900 LEVEL FOR DISSOLVING SOLIDS, AND IF
IT GOES TO THE UPPER LIMITS, YOU WILL HAVE PROBLEMS MEETING THE DRINK-
ING WATER STANDARDS. HE NOTED THE CITY OF VERO BEACH IS LOOK AT 750-
800 PRESENTLY SO THEY ARE BORDERLINE RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER LOY FELT THAT BEING ABLE TO MEET THE STANDARDS
IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED AND WAS OF THE OPINION THIS WILL
TAKE US TO THE REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM, WHICH HE DID NOT FAVOR BUT
FELT WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE.
JOHN ROBBINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE BELIEVED THE
WATER QUALITY IS CHANGING FOR THE WORSE, THE FACT THAT THE AREA IS
RECHARGED BY DRAINAGE CANALS FED BY THE CITRUS COUNTRY INDICATES
WATER QUALITY PROBABLY WILL NOT IMPROVE, AND THAT IS WHY THEY RECOM-
MEND REVERSE OSMOSIS. THEY DO NOT WANT TO IMPLEMENT A PLANT THAT
- WILL HAVE TO HAVE MORE CAPITAL OUTLAY TO MEET STANDARDS WITHIN A
FEW YEARS.
_ 21
OCT 161979 BOOK 4PAGE 11%4
OCT 16 1979
. 1 w,)r 745
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED -IF WE REALLY NEED TO DISCUSS
THE MERITS OF THE DEEP WATER AQUIFER OR THE SHALLOW, AND MR.
BEINDORF STATED ONLY IF THE BOARD WISHED TO.
IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT WE WILL
HAVE TO GO TO REVERSE OSMOSIS AND THE DEEP WATER AQUIFER,
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT WAS CONCERNED THAT THE PROJECTED
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS THAT HAVE TO BE AMORTIZED MAY BE
FAR TOO LOW IF THE COST OF ENERGY DOUBLES.
.JOHN ROBBINS NOTED THAT IN DEVELOPING A METHOD OF PAYMENT
BACK, THEY TOOK -A LOOK AT THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ON THE
AVERAGE -DAY OF THE SYSTEM, AND EACH TIME YOU ADD A CONNECTION, YOU
HAVE EFFECTIVELY PUT MORE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS INTO THE
SYSTEM. HE STATED THAT WITH 2,500 CONNECTIONS, WE HAVE ENOUGH 0 M
MONEY SET ASIDE, AND AS THE RESERVE CONNECTIONS ARE USED UP, MORE
0 & M FUNDS ARE GENERATED,
CHAIRMAN WODTKE FELT THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT
REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANTS OF THIS SIZE ARE RELATIVELY NEW. NE NOTED
THAT THEY ONE THEY VISITED IN CAPE CORAL, WHICH HE BELIEVED WAS THE
FIRST ONE IN FLORIDA OF THAT MAGNITUDE, HAD SOME PROBLEMS.
.JOHN ROBBINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE IS A ONE MGD
REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT IN VENICE, FLORIDA, WHICH HAS BEEN IN OPERA-
TION FOR TEN YEARS.
RALPH ENG STATED THAT IF THIS REPORT HAD BEEN DONE FIVE
YEARS AGO, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RECOMMENDED REVERSE OSMOSIS, BUT
NOW THEY CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT SINCE THE TECHNOLOGY IS PRO-
GRESSING.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIOENR Loy, TO ADOPT THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY MUNICIPAL TAXING
DISTRICT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEREIN FOR THE REVERSE OSMOSIS
SYSTEM.
DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT GOING INTO TEST WELLS, AND RALPH
ENG FELT THAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO HAVE THEM PREPARE A SET OF
GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE TEST WELL PROGRAM FOR THEIR REVIEW
AND THEN WE CAN GET A PROPOSAL ON THE TEST WELL PROGRAM.
MR. TESSIER NOTED THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THEY ARE GOING.
TO HAVE TO DO IN THEIR INVENTORY IS DETERMINE HOW MANY OF THE EXIST-
ING WELLS ARE FLOWING WELLS AND HOW MANY HAVE PUMPS. HE CONTINUED
THAT PUMP WELLS WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED AS MUCH AS FLOWING WELLS.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THEY HAD INCLUDED ANY MONEY FOR
CAPPING WELLS, AND MR. LEINDORF STATED THAT THEY HAD NOT,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MR. ENG FELT THERE ARE TWO MAJOR ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED -
THE TEST WELL PROGRAM AND THE SEARCH FOR A TREATMENT PLANT SITE IN
THE AREA THEY HAVE DELINEATED IN THEIR REPORT. HE ASKED THAT THE
BOARD GIVE THEM AUTHORIZATION UNDER THEIR CONTRACT FOR ADDITIONAL
SERVICE TO CONTACT GERAGHTY & MILLER FOR A PROPOSAL FOR A TEST WELL
PROGRAM AND TO SEARCH FOR A LOCATION OF THE TREATMENT PLANT. HE
NOTED THAT BEFORE WE CAN HAVE A TEST WELL PROGRAM, THEY WOULD HAVE
TO KNOW PRETTY CLOSELY WHERE THE TREATMENT PLANT WILL GO. THIS
NEEDS TO GO HAND IN HAND.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE JOINT VENTURE TO DISCUSS
THE PROPOSED TEST WELL PROGRAM WITH GERAGHTY & MILLER AND OBTAIN
THEIR PROPOSAL AND TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS RECARD-
ING PLANT SITE LOCATIONS.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED
AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:45 O'CLOCK P.M.
ATTEST:
ji
CLERK
23
OCT 16 1979
c'
CHAIRMAN
�ooa 41 pact'1146
I