HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/5/1997MINUTES
ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, November 5,1997
9:00 a.m. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman (District 2)
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (District 4)
Fran B. Adams (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5)
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. Water, Wastewater and Sludge Rate Study, RFP No. 7069 -
Interviews in the following order:
Mr. Gerald C. Hartman, President - Hartman & Assoc., Inc. 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Michael E. Burton, President - Burton & Associates 10:00 a.m.
Mr. E. Lawrence Adams, Jr., Vice President -
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 11:00 a.m.
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING.
Boa 103 FCGE -399
Boa 103 PnE 4J
INDEX TO MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
NOVEMBER 5,1997
1. CALL TO ORDER .................................... .1-
2. WATER, WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE RATE STUDY, RFP
#7069 - INTERVIEWS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1-
2.A. HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC ................... -I -
2.B. BURTON& ASSOCIATES ........................ .15-
2. C. CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC ............... .29-
NOVEM BER 5, 1997®
November 5, 1997
SPECIAL MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 251h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, November 5, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman;
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Kenneth R. Macht; and Caroline D. Ginn.
Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order and handed each Commissioner an
Evaluation Sheet. She explained that after all 3 consultants have made their presentations,
the Commissioners should rate them 1, 2 or 3 and sign the Evaluation Sheets. The Chairman
will then add the ratings and the consultant with the lowest score will be chosen.
2. WATER, WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE RATE STUDY, RFP
#7069 - INTERVIEWS
Chairman Eggert then welcomed the consultants from Hartman and Associates.
2.A. HARTMAN& ASSOCIATES, INC
Gerald C. Hartman, P.E., President of Hartman & Associates, Inc., introduced
himself as one of several partners and stated that Hartman & Associates, Inc. has a public
domain software program which will be given to the County free of charge should their firm
be chosen.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
r
Cud, U r t. 4J2
Mr. Hartman then presented the following:
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-2-
Management Consulting Y.
• Utility Rate Studien y
• Strategic / Business Plans
Financial Planning-
Capital
lanningCapital Recovery And Funding Pjograms
Bond Feasibility Reports
Uniform Extension F`olicies`
Utility Agreements / Contracts
Annual Utility Repo s To Bond Holders
Assessment Programs t
rvidbs
Utility Acquisition, Mergers And TrAferT,
HAI Continuing
=,Miami - Dade WSD
— Indian River Shores
— Port St. Lucie
— Miramar
— Tamarac
Consult nt1Assr nr�a-e.nts
— Lak land - -�-
- Orange City
— Edgewater, ---
- Utilities:Corrimission,-City. of New
Smy na' Beach -i
— Orland — Pala kapF
— Da to Beach I — Fern ndina Beach
— Daytona Beach Shores — Flag er Ba''h T
— Bartonr` — Coc a Beach- _
t
- Sambe
t —Sunrise
— Palmi Bey_ < — Pasco Coun y
Putnam County-
Osceola
ounty-Osceola County
I
ming Consulting Clients
ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS
H.E. SCHMIDT, FR., P.E.
CUSTOMER ANALYSIS
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS,
COMPUTER MODELING
D.B. PARKER, M.B.A.
C.K. LEWIS
PRINCIPLE -IN -CHARGE
G.C. HARTMAN, P.E.
PROJECT MANAGER
M.H. ROCCA, C.M.C.
CAPITAL FACILITIES REVIEW,
CIP ANALYSIS, HISTORICAL
RATE ISSUES,
RATE STRUCTURING
JOHN A. ROBBINS, P.E.
CONSULTING ENGINEER
Jim
ERU ANALYSIS, ACCOUNTING AND
RATE DESIGN, BUDGETING ANALYSIS,
CUSTOMER IMPACT AND COMPUTER MODELING
COVERAGE ANALYSIS
R.C. COPELAND, M.B.A.
M.M. ELKALDI, C.P.A., M.B.A.
Key Project Team-TMemhers7l,7---�-.51-1.,
HartmanN4.
Rocca --
---G. bins
Years of Experience
20+
20
-�-'
--20�
Areas of Expertise Engineering,
Finance------Management,Finance
Designations, Certifications
P.E.
C.M.C.-----
---EnglineJring
P.EJ
Brief Experience Profiles
ERC Factor Analysis
X
X—,
X
Cost Of Service User Rate Studies
X
-X
X
Capital Charge Analysis
X
-- X
Capital Program Fun 'ng
Bond Feasibility R
tv fe
X
X
s
X
-X
X
Utility Expansion Po es 3,
X
X
Developer/interlocar-Agreements
X
X
1'.1.1--'211-1
X
Utility Policies, Standards, Proceeaurlls
X
X
Utility Acquisions/sfal -Up
Water, Sewer,
X
X
Reuse Master Planning
X
X
Capital lmprovemen4-,..
X
Water Quality Issues
X
Facility Design/Build k-.'.
X
X
Water And Sewer Treatment
X
A
X
Sludge Disroi-arl
X
X
Water Rec1amqtipqzkWNI11k.
X
X
Watdr/Sj?�Wr Wn
Wate -sLffi- -it
X
X
r plzr a*
ublic-Awarenes&-Programs
X
X
X -
X-
Key Project-Teanf Members
Years of Experience
Areas of Expertise
Designations, Certifications
Brief Experience Profiles
ERC Factor Analysis
Cost Of Service User Rate Studies
Capital Charge Analysis
Capital Program Fun 'ng
Bond Feasibility Re s
Utility Expansion es
Developerfinterlocal' A§reements,
Utility Policies, StaridArds, Procee,qu, s
� (_ 4.* . " U
Utility Acquisions/StaV-Up
Water, Sewer, Reuse Master Planning
Capital Improvement
Water Quality Issues
Facility Design/Build i k_
Water And Sewer Treatment
Sludge Dis losal'
Water Re�fpa I MM ROD PlI.F. Ii'
'Xn
Watd'r,/S!Pl P.. inkti,
I a it
a er, I
W t' 9
'o
ublic-Awareness-PrDgrems
Project Team
— Dania
— Sebastian
— Port St. Lucie
— Coral Springs
— Tama ac
4
— Mia Springs..
— Pal m-!-1 ay
—W e aim Bed'c
— De L d
�a.
R. Copeland
_M-E1ka1di------Schmidt
8+
X
Finance
XL_
Finance---
Engineering
M.B.A.
F_
-C.P.A.,M.B.A..
P.E.1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X_ X
Xf
X
Rate
— Clerni6nt--,,(
— ucKI
f%S
North"
Andy
X
X
X
T - r. -
St dy- Ex'pe'-r id nce--.'I;
— T rpon Springs
— Nap!es---
- Fngf.ewood Water District
—Green Cove-S-p'rings
— New, Rbrt`-Ridhey_
— Orange Cit
1 7
— Sanibel -
J 1-1
Edgewater
— Deerfield; 136ach l -
— Dunedin
Clay County--'-).
Lee County
ny More!
X
X
XL_
X
X
X
X
X
X1
X
X
X
it
X
X
X
Rate
— Clerni6nt--,,(
— ucKI
f%S
North"
Andy
X
X
X
T - r. -
St dy- Ex'pe'-r id nce--.'I;
— T rpon Springs
— Nap!es---
- Fngf.ewood Water District
—Green Cove-S-p'rings
— New, Rbrt`-Ridhey_
— Orange Cit
1 7
— Sanibel -
J 1-1
Edgewater
— Deerfield; 136ach l -
— Dunedin
Clay County--'-).
Lee County
ny More!
HAI Local
• Continuing Consultant
Experience,.
India River- Shores -_=
• City Of Sebastian Utility Aquisition -
• City Of Sebastian Rate Study
• City Of.Aebastian� Bond Feasibility Report
♦ 777
• City Of=Port Stf Ducie Utility A ui� tio` '
• City Of Port St. Lucie Rate Std - --- -
City Of 0.6rt St. -Lucie Capital Financing-
Ci
inancin -
Ci
i �U
4.0 MGD RO Plant Design / Build
o -,1 -0.0 -MGD)
_
hL_-- -
Y
John A. Robbins P.E. ocal
Experre`e
• Lived /Worked In Vero Beach For 20 Years" .__ -- _--- -- - -
• Past Indian River County Projects- (-1976-1983) -
- Indian River County 201 Facilitiesi.Plan= From- 1981 1o*1983ti
— Assisted Count In Organ /DJvelo i`ri A Count -Owned
Y 9 9 __ p- g., y
And Ope ted Water', And Sewer System
r.
— Master Pwlanning, Design, Constructio Mg ,! Start -Up Fo
South C 64 ty Water System Ejj
— Engineering /,Feasibility/ Desi n, South'6 - h Water Sy
g A
—' Utility Valera ion /-Acquisition Services For Cd my
— Speciol #ili#j nsultant To BOCC
i - Devel re ,fp cal -Water And Sewer Agreements ---_
_ . -- _ - -
Develo
• Initial S
• G rowt,
•
n.CoI U U x
I nue
Z
e�
ent,.Ot
Key Goals 0b'ectO es .Of- St.'Udy-,.',l
Rates Which Are Equitable Among AllUsers*.
Rat Which Fully Recover Co-st--Of -Service i F
Rate Which Provide Find dal, Stability
PlahWhich Provides For uture' xpa slons
pdel As Management Too Rate,*M. T 0 for- utu.re
Alternative Methods of ERU- Calculatibn
• Chapter 10D-6, Florida Admi'nistrativ'e-. Code
•
Chapter 25-30.055 Florida Aldministrative Code
(Stand rd AWWA/FPSC Meter. _�quivalent Factors
• Actual: ocal Customer Usa a Characteristics'
• Plumbing Fixture Units
tr ,
• BOCC ;Policy Decision
• Combinations Of The Above -
Sample Pr6jer t- Teams
ERU Factor Ex a fences-- � t-
• On-Goinkt-
-
S. ,-._.
g Assignme
Miramar
— Tamarac Impact Fee Study -
- Da is Rate Study _- f
• Pase Assignments.
—
ssignments-
- DeLand Rate'%Study
— Ne Port Richey Rate Study
— Port St.ucie Rate Study , 4
— Englewood Water District Rate Study r
t.
U iliJtommission, City of New Smyrna each
ity Authority
STUDY INPUT / OUTPUT
OTHER REVENUE SOURCES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
- Wholesale Revenue Ift INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,* -System Growth/ Expansion
- Miscellaneous GOALS & OBJECTIVES - Renewals & Replacements
- Equitable To All Users
CUSTOMER DATA - Cost Of Services
- Equitable ERU Assignment A,& - Financial Stability 44 OPERATING TRANSFERS
- Customer Classes
- Demand Characteristics
- Impact On Customers it
DEBT SERVICE
- Existing / Future Bonds
- Bond Covenants
- Administrative Allocation
- Transfers To General Fund
- Transfers To R&R
UTILITY EXPENDITURES
- Operating Expenses
- Regulatory Changes
COMPREHENSIVE FIVE YEAR
FINANCIAL / RATE PLAN
USER RATES & CHARGES
-Base Charges
- Usage Charges
- Billing Charges
- By Customer Class
CAPITAL FUNDING PLAN
- Impact (Capital) Charges
- By Customer Class
- Sources & Uses Of Funds
County
Utilities
Billing Data
Projected FY
1997 (1
Residential Class
Water
Sewer As
Sewer % Of Water
Average Bills
17,512
12,072 68.93%
Average ERUs
23,659
18,484 78.13%
Total Flow Billed (000s)
1,197,210
681,525 56.93%
Avg. Flow/ERU/Month
4,217
3,073 72.86%
Commercial Class
Average Bills
1,352
1,024
77.05%
Average ERUs
7,353
7,989
108.66%
Total Flow Billed (000s)
394,775
315,128
79.82%
Avg. Flow/ERU/Month
4,474
3,287
73.47%
Total Svstem
Average Bills
18,864
13,113
69.52%
Average ERUs
31 012
26,473
85.36%
Total Flow Billed (000s)
1,591,985
996,653
62.60%
Avg. Flow/ERU/Month
4,278
3,137
73.34%
(1) Amounts Shown Based On County's June 10, Monthly Sales Analysis
County Utilities Services FY 1998 Budget
Revenues
Amount
Expenses
Amount
Water Sales
$7,780,000
Water
1,534,000
Sewer
8,100,000
Operating / Salaries
$6,701,911
Septage/Sludge Disposal
83,000
Capital Outlay
100,000
Service Charges
600,000
Debt Services (I Only)
2,418,664
Interest Income
885,000
Total Water
$9,220,575
Miscellaneous
688,730
Sewer
$3,877,000
Less: 5% Est. Reciepts
($906,837)
Operating / Salaries
$6,191,290
Cash Forward
2,190,489
Capital Outlay
285,000
Debt Service (I Only)
1,834,877
Total Revenues
$19,420,382
Transfers Out
11,000
Total Sewer
$8,322,167
Sludge
Operating / Salaries
$574,912
Capital Outlay
0
Debt Services (I Only)
313,970
Total Sludge
$888,882
General Expenses
$1,373,758
Subtotal Expenses
$19,805,382
Less Capital Outlay
($385,000)
Total Expenses
$19,420,382
County Capital Improvements
(1998 - 2002)
Component
1998 1999
2000
2001
2002
TOTAL
Water System
1,534,000
0 2,300,000
0
270,000
4,104,000
Treatment
$1,280,000 $0
$2,310,000
$2,250,000
$375,000
$6,215,000
Trans./Distribution
1,534,000 1,185,000
3.765,000
1,627,000
2,002,000
10,113,000
Total Water System
$2,814,000 $1,185,000
$6,075,000
$3,877,000
$2,377,000
$16,328,000
Wastewater System
Treatment
$1,280,000
SO $0
$3,300,000
$3,300,000
S7,880,000
Tran./Collection
1,534,000
0 2,300,000
0
270,000
4,104,000
Effluent Disposal/Sludge
1,600,000
0 500,000
0
300,000
2,400,000
Total WW System
$4,414,000
SO $2,800,000
$3,300,000
$3,870,000
$14,384,000
Total Est. Projects 57,228,000 $1,185,000 $8,875,000 $7,177,000 $6,247,000 $30,712,000
Source: 1993 Master Plan. All Costs In 1993 Dollars.
Sample Water Rate Structure (1)
(1) Numbers Shown Are For Illustrative Purposes Only.
HAI Rate Model.
• User Friendly
• Comprehensive.-
• Tot y Dynamic
• Multi=Year Projection Peri ds I
-. -
• All "What If" Scenario
• Detailed And Summary� t
Schedules _w Y
{ r
ERU
Billing
Service
Usage Rates Per 1,000 Gallons
Customer Class
Factor
Charge/Month
Charge/Month
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
Single Family
1.00
$2.00
$5.00
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
Usage Block Ranges (Gal)
0-57000
5,001-15,000
15,001 -Up
Multi -Family
0.80
$2.00
$4.00
$1.00
51.20
$1.40
Usage Block Ranges (Gal)
0-4,000
4,001-12,000
12,001 -Up
Commercial / Irrigation
5/8" or 3/4"
1.00
$2.00
$5.00
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
ill
2.50
$2.00
$12.50
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
1/2"
5.00
$2.00
$25.00
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
2"
8.00
$2.00
$40.00
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
3"
16.00
$2.00
$8.00
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
4"
25.00
$2.00
$125.00
$1.00
$1.20
51.40
6„
50.00
$2.00
$250.00
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
8"
80.00
$2.00
$400.00
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
10"
115.00
$2.00
$575.00
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
Usage Block Ranges (Gal)
Varies Based On ERU
Factors
(1) Numbers Shown Are For Illustrative Purposes Only.
HAI Rate Model.
• User Friendly
• Comprehensive.-
• Tot y Dynamic
• Multi=Year Projection Peri ds I
-. -
• All "What If" Scenario
• Detailed And Summary� t
Schedules _w Y
{ r
WATER SYSTEM RESULTS
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS - FY 1997 COMPARISON
WATER SYSTEM
Geer RJgtkemmtt (10.76%)
O&M Eq -(51.79%)
Debt S -i. (37.45%)
PROXCIL/ NET FEWAL REQUIRVARIYI'E
WATER SYSII M -PY 19/7 THROUGH M1
oagm
FY 1997 PROJECTED USER RATES REVENUES
WATER SYSTEM
$5.000,000
n $4.000,000
$3,000.000
p $2.000,000
$].000.000
so
Custouw Clan
r 9.m.,o.�■eR`seslr ■1.�eu�1 r--�U...�._
T: b04E\P5I.1WATRPRFS.WB1
WATER SYSTEM
Proposed Existing
ASE MONTHLY CHARGE
Single Family (per ERC) $4.70 $5.85
Multi Family (per Unit) $3.34 $4.18
Non Residential (per ERC) $4.70 $5.85
IONTHLY BILLING CHARGE PER METER $1.15 $0.00
ALLONAGE RATES PER 1,000 GALLONS
BLOCK 1 (O THRU 5,000)
BLOCK 2 (S,001 THRU 12,000)
BLOCK 3 ( 12,001 and above)
FUTURE WATER RATE INCREASE
RSC3L YEARS 19M THROUGH LI01
n00f
i( UDni - _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _
t
00011
1991 19W 1000 iml
Yr
OPERATING RESULTS - FY 1997 To FY 2001
WATER SYSTEM
$4000.000
51.500.000
g$1.000,000
y :500.000
so
WA 4ZTRWATV0 4ZVCT1r114 DCCT TT TC
Y-
$2.66 $2.66
$3.18 $2.66
a'a asp. rnvJG�-tcv VJCJI RAllJ 9[EY CNUCJ vretan 1f/ toeY Ael
WASTEWATER SYSTEM WASTEWATER SYSTEM
nmo.9m a.en,9o9
sl,m®
s.m.® � s1.om.9ro
um9,9m _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = sn99.a99
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _�
s.mm
g smam
n � 1
OmmrCW Ya >m1
�rra-��a �✓.a
T'WME ,5LiwASTPREs.WBI
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-12-
04-No9-97
04 --97
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS - FY 1997
COMPARISON OF EXISTING & PROPOSED RATES
WASIEWATERSYSTEM
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
Proposed
Existing
BASE MONTHLY CHARGE
Single Family (per ERC) $10.05
$12.39
Multi Family (per Unit) $9.41
$11.18
oA9tFi9,a.,.s.91r,
Non Residential (per ERC) $19.30
$12.39
MONTHLY BILLING CHARGE PER METER $0.85
$0.00
GALLONAGE RATES PER 1,000 GALLONS
Single Family $5.22
Multi Family S5.22
$5.22
$5.60
PROJECTED NET FISCAL REQUIREMENTS
WASTEWATER SYSTEM - FY 1997 TR FY 2001
Non Residential $5.22
$6.69
FUTURE WASTEWATER RATE INCREASE
FISCAL YEARS 1998 THROUGH 2001
slgao9.ao9
II
K
fD
1991 19W 1999 21!100 3101
Y-
ow sw w m m
•�Y�a�.+sr�
a'a asp. rnvJG�-tcv VJCJI RAllJ 9[EY CNUCJ vretan 1f/ toeY Ael
WASTEWATER SYSTEM WASTEWATER SYSTEM
nmo.9m a.en,9o9
sl,m®
s.m.® � s1.om.9ro
um9,9m _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = sn99.a99
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _�
s.mm
g smam
n � 1
OmmrCW Ya >m1
�rra-��a �✓.a
T'WME ,5LiwASTPREs.WBI
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-12-
04-No9-97
04 --97
COMBINED WATER & WASTEWATER SYSTEMS RESULTS
OPERATING RESULTS - FY 1997 To FY 2001 PROPOSED BOND SIZE
WATER & WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
33.OWOW
'a SLm.000
um.ow sI3- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sumam
ISIAM.000 $10.000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sm.000
io
I9D'7 1999 ssA=,ow - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999
3000Y— 2001
soI9w 191
Fl1000 9001
wy—
WATER A WASTEWATER O&M EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE - EXISTING & PROPOSED
�
FISCAL YEA — FISCAL YEARS 1997-30111I
fraaw laws.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
D
twr
•
DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE - FY 1997.2"1 DM SERVICE COVERAGE - FY 1997-2001
Wrn*OUTWACIF
MI010f9LT RES
— ---------- ----
TUMEWSUWASTPRES.Will
04N-97
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
Fr
NCK t,
Chairman Eggert questioned whether a session with the public is included, and Mr.
Hartman responded that they would prefer to first have a workshop with the Board and then
make a presentation to the public.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether Mr. Hartman felt he had a real grasp of the
problems presented in the RFP, especially concerning the discriminatory rates between small
users.
Mr. Hartman stated his firm has a very good grasp of the problems presented and also
will include "lifeline" rates for individuals having a hard time in order that those who can't
pay their bills can at least have water and sewer.
County Attorney Vitunac questioned whether Mr. Hartman's firm has ever calculated
rates with a base facility charge directly related to volume, and Mr. Hartman responded they
have and have argued that calculation before the Florida Public Service Commission who
sets public policy.
County Attorney Vitunac then questioned whether Hartman & Associates, Inc. has
found mobile homes use less than 1 ERU compared to single-family dwellings.
Mr. Rocca answered that mobile homes and multi -family homes generally do use less
than 1 ERU compared to single-family dwellings and that mobile homes especially tend to
have more seasonality but are still existing and have a demand for available service. The
flow characteristics are usually less but this has to be annualized on an area -by -area basis.
Mr. Rocca continued that charges are based on demand but a lot of characteristics go
into identifying the costs that particular connections should pay relative to the County's
capital investment and other fixed costs which sometimes elevate base charges.
Chairman Eggert thanked the representatives and advised that, if the Board does not
come to a decision today, a decision will be made on Tuesday, November 18, 1997.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-14-
2B. BUR TON & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Michael E. Burton, President of Burton & Associates, made the following
presentation:
Presentation 'To f
The Board of County. Commissioners
Comporbon of YontlMy �M4 • AM Aft—.& .
Rwtl�.OYICX.bew•.-t1'XtN'YETERS t ',� '
itOt
nw _
,tw
i too
to
tw
to
to
' 1.000 10.000 16.000 50000
MOMMY Consumption
C.n..t Rtt.n.Mt. ■ N.n.tlw -
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
SUBMITTED BY:
BURTON & ASSOCIA TES
- Specialists in Water Resources £'conon:ics -
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
Boy/e Engineering Corporation
-15-0'--,r
c r `r 4
Fr_ I
Burton & Associates
Water Resources Economics Qualifications Summary
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-16-
Introduction
Burton & Associates is a leader in the State in water
resources economics, that is, water and waste-
water rate structure development, rate making,
utility financial planning, and the integration of
financial planning and rate making with the capital
planning process. Burton & Associates has
developed proprietary software specifically to
accomplish the integration of the financial planning
and rate making process with the capital planning
process.
Cost of Service/Rate Studies &
Financial Manaaement Programs
We regularly use our proprietary Funding Analysis
and Management System ( FAMS), in the conduct
of cost of service and rate studies. In the
development of rate programs, including the
development of fair and equitable rate structures,
FAMS allows 1) cost effective testing of "what-ir
scenarios regarding funding of alternative capital
requirements, 2) evaluation of alternative sources
and means of financing, and 3) development of
viable short term (five years) and long term (20+
years) financial management programs, including
a capital finance plan to provide adequate funding
to meet projected CIP requirements and a rate
plan to meet annual revenue requirements.
IMPORTANT - Rate structure changes
can be developed interactively with
customer impact assessment allowing
clear vision of the implications of rate
making decisions.
Interactive Decision Workshons
We use our FAMS automated model as a decision
support tool in the conduct of "real time" decision
workshops with utility staff, management and
elected officials. In these sessions, we use state of
the art automated presentation and analysis
technics to demonstrate, with the FAMS model "up
and running", the impact of various assumptions.
Through this interactive process, we are able to
assist in the develop of optimum solutions
regarding alternative capital improvement
programs, service delivery configurations, financing
sources, rates and charges and the impact of each
alternative scenario upon rate payers within various
classes of customers.
FUNDING ANALYSIS AND
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (FAMS) SCHEMATIC
WATER 18, SEWER SYSTEM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FIXED MGNTVILY C�� . EXISTING OPERATING RESERVES
CHARGES • - AVAILABLE
USER CHARGE REVENUES , EXISTING BOND PROCEEDS AVAILABLE
CGMMODLTY I•SPECFIC SERVICE CHARGE REVENUES . CURRENT PLEDGED REVENUE
CHARGES HDHSTRENGTNWASTEWATERSURCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
REVENUES OTHER CURRENT FUNDS INFORMATION
FIC SERVICEOTHER REVENUE SOURCES
CHARGES �) - UTEPAYMENT FEES
ETC. J
�-0ARTMENTAL �
•
• IMPACT FEES (BY SENEFR DISTRICTS)
BUDGETS
• SPECIAL ASSESSMENTRAXING DISTRICT
•GRANTS
SOCIAL
<==zII ASSESSMENTS
• DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS
INONRECT
• INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES
COST RATES
- PURCHASING. MOTOR POOL. DATA
REVENUES
PROCESSING, PERSONNEL. ETC
OTHER O d M
REIXIIREMENTS
INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION CHARGES
. CONTNGENCYREQUIREMENTSr}OLICES
EXCESS (DEFICIT) REVENUE AVAILABLE
BY YEAR DURING PLANING PERIOD
(UP TO W YEARS)
OPTIMUM BOND PROCEEDS SUPPORTED
BY PLEDGEABLE REVENUES
TOTAL FUNDS (DEFICIT) AVAILABLE BY
YEAR FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS
MOST AGGRESSIVE CAPTK PROJECTS
SCHEOULE POSSIBLE BASED UPON
ANNUAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AT GIVEN
LEVEL OF PROJECTED REVENUES
O d M COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
ANNUAL REVENUES REQUIRED TO FUND
O d M AND IDENTIFIED CAPITAL
PROJECTS COST
RFOURED ANNUAL INCREASE (DEFICIT) IN PROJECTED
REVENUES AND PROJECTED TOTAL COST PER
CUSTOMER/UNIT
ANNUAL REVENUE/FUNDING PLAN TO
GENERATE REQUIRED FUNDING IN
TERMS OF
- ANNUAL USER CHARGE REVENUE REOURED
AMOUNT d TUNG OF REOURED DEBT FUNDING
- PROJECTED UPACT FEE REVENUE
- SPECIALASSESSMENTS
- DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
PURPOSE OF THE RATE STUDY
SPECIAL
I WPACT
•
• IMPACT FEES (BY SENEFR DISTRICTS)
FEES
• SPECIAL ASSESSMENTRAXING DISTRICT
•GRANTS
SOCIAL
<==zII ASSESSMENTS
• STATE OR OTHER LOANS
' NTERGOVERMENTK REVENUES
TAXES
• DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
SPE//CUL gE/^VENUES=
rOTHER
SPECIAL
'V•OTH/ER
L f
REVENUES
USER CHARGES (RATE STUDY)
- ALLOCATION OF O&M AND CAPITAL COSTS
TO OPERATING FUNCTIONS d CUSTOMER
CLASSES
- FIXED MONTHLY CHARGES BY CUSTOMER CUSS
- COMMODITY CHARGES BY CUSTOMER CLASS
- SPECIFIC SERVICE CHARGES
HIGH STRENGTH WASTEWATER SURCHARGES
IMPACT FEES (IMPACT FEE STUDY)
LOAN PROGRAM SUPPORTABLE BY SYSTEM REVENUES
- REVENUE BONDS
- OTHER LOANS (FMHA STATE, ETC..)
MAIN EXTENSION'SPECVL ASSESSMENT POLICES
The purpose of the rate study is to review the County's data and rate structure, including
ERU assignment, and determine the equity and adequacy of the County's current rate
structure based upon the existing ERU assignments, and if inequity exists, develop an
adequate and equitable rate structure.
BACKGROUND
Presently, some of the largest residential developments to the County's water and sewer systems
contain pre -manufactured and mobile homes in adult communities. These residential units are
assigned I ERU. Representatives from some of these developments allege that their water
consumption is less than 1 ERU (250 gallons/day) and that the rate structure for pre-
manufactured/mobile homes should be based upon a lower ERU assignment. Currently the
County is following the guidelines of Chapter IOD -C Florida Administrative Code - "Standards
for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, May 14, 1996, Revisions" which estimate
mobile home park flows between 225 and 300 gallons per day.
EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE
•► The County funds water and sewer service with monthly service fees
(composed of base facility charges and volume charges) and impact fees to
new connections to the System.
•► Both revenue sources are charged based on an assignment of ERUs to each
customer.
•► Capital expansion has recently been funded by two bond issues (1993 Series
A&B, totaling $47.6 million and 1996 totaling $38.9 million).
M Revenue to retire debt service is from monthly service fees.
The County's existing rates and rate structure is depicted on the following pages.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
,� REOUREMENTS
DEPMTMENTAL CRa
ANALYSIS
PRIORITY OF PROJECTS
DATES PROJECTS ME REWIRED
PROJECT
PRK ITY
(PRIORTYOVERRIDE)
FUNDING RESTRICTIONS
LISTS
IXISTNG DEFICENCES VS. EXPANSION
O pES62ED
UTILITY ACOUISITDN ALTERNATIVES
PROJECT
USER CHARGES (RATE STUDY)
- ALLOCATION OF O&M AND CAPITAL COSTS
TO OPERATING FUNCTIONS d CUSTOMER
CLASSES
- FIXED MONTHLY CHARGES BY CUSTOMER CUSS
- COMMODITY CHARGES BY CUSTOMER CLASS
- SPECIFIC SERVICE CHARGES
HIGH STRENGTH WASTEWATER SURCHARGES
IMPACT FEES (IMPACT FEE STUDY)
LOAN PROGRAM SUPPORTABLE BY SYSTEM REVENUES
- REVENUE BONDS
- OTHER LOANS (FMHA STATE, ETC..)
MAIN EXTENSION'SPECVL ASSESSMENT POLICES
The purpose of the rate study is to review the County's data and rate structure, including
ERU assignment, and determine the equity and adequacy of the County's current rate
structure based upon the existing ERU assignments, and if inequity exists, develop an
adequate and equitable rate structure.
BACKGROUND
Presently, some of the largest residential developments to the County's water and sewer systems
contain pre -manufactured and mobile homes in adult communities. These residential units are
assigned I ERU. Representatives from some of these developments allege that their water
consumption is less than 1 ERU (250 gallons/day) and that the rate structure for pre-
manufactured/mobile homes should be based upon a lower ERU assignment. Currently the
County is following the guidelines of Chapter IOD -C Florida Administrative Code - "Standards
for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, May 14, 1996, Revisions" which estimate
mobile home park flows between 225 and 300 gallons per day.
EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE
•► The County funds water and sewer service with monthly service fees
(composed of base facility charges and volume charges) and impact fees to
new connections to the System.
•► Both revenue sources are charged based on an assignment of ERUs to each
customer.
•► Capital expansion has recently been funded by two bond issues (1993 Series
A&B, totaling $47.6 million and 1996 totaling $38.9 million).
M Revenue to retire debt service is from monthly service fees.
The County's existing rates and rate structure is depicted on the following pages.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS
MINIMUM
EQUIVALENT
RESIDENTIAL
UNIT DESIGNATIONS UNITS
1. Single Family Home (including modular and prefabricated) 1
2.
Private dwelling with rented rooms or boarding house 1
Each additional room available for rent over 3 1
3.
Apartment - Per Living Unit 1
4.
Hotel/Motel - Per Occupancy Unit 1
5.
Recreation Vehicle Park - Per vehicle space 1
6.
Condominium - Per Living Unit 1
7.
Mobile Home, Trailer - Per Living Unit 1
8.
Townhouse - Per Living Unit 1
9.
School - Per each 30 full time pupils & faculty 1
Per each 60 part time pupils & faculty (part time attendance less than 3.5 hours/day) 1
10.
Church - Per Each I
- With banquet facilities 2
11.
Club - Per Each 1
- With dining facilities 3
12.
Service Station - Without repair or maintenance service 1
- With repair or maintenance facilities 2
- With car wash per 300 gallons per day water use 1
13.
Restaurant - 1 to 50 seating capacity 3
- Each additional 15 seats or portion thereof 1
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-18-
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS - Cont
MINIMUM
EQUIVALENT
UNIT DESIGNATIONS
RESIDENTIALUNITS
14. Tavern - 1 to 50 seating capacity 3
- Each additional IS seats or portion thereof 1
15.
Laundry/Dry Cleaners - Per washing machine
1
16.
Supermarket - 1 to 3 water fixtures
1
- Per 3 water fixtures thereafter
1
17.
Commercial Business - Per first 2500 square feet
1
- Per each additional 5000 sq. ft, or part thereof
1
18.
Office Building - Per first 3000 square feet
1
- Per each additional 3000 sq. ft. or part thereof
1
19.
Nursing/Convalescent Home - Per 20 bed capacity
1
- For additional 10 staff or segment thereof
1
20.
Hospital - Per sed
.5
21.
Warehouse - Per 1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area or part thereof
1
22.
Industrial &
I
Manufacturing Plant - Without use of water for processing per 3,000 sq. ft.
gross area or for 5 employees, whichever is greater
23.
Industrial &
3
Manufacturing Plant - Using water for processing and/or discharge to wastewater
System shall be determined on an individual basis using 250
gallons per day on a monthly basis for the calculation of units
24. Barber Shop/Hair Dresser - 1 to 3 sinks 1
- Each additional sink 113
25. Separate Bathroom Facilities - 1
26. Establishments Requiring Service For Irrigation or Fire Service 1
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WATER & SEWER SYSTEM - GeneralInformation
WATER ERUs
Year
# of ERUs
Growth
1986
9,827
Soon to be connected to
1987
11,193
14%
1988
12,005
07%
1989
15,187
27%
1990
17,615
16%
1991
21,886
24%
1992
23,136
06%
1993
24,067
04%
1994
25,590
06%
1995
25,424
01%
SEWER ERUs
Year
# of ERUs
Growth
1986
8,824
Soon to be connected to
1987
9,339
06%
1988
9,552
02%
1989
13,618
43%
1990
16,874
24%
1991
22,574
34%
1992
24,172
07%
1993
24,505
01%
1994
24,999
02%
1995
25,424
02%
System Facilities
(1) South County Plant
(3) Nine Sewage Treatment Plants
Reverse Osmosis (RO.)
In Operation
Water Plant
Rated at 8.3 MGD
Soon to be connected to
In operation
4 regional plants
Xx--4 in opmWim 8 bdng erp.*4
(2) North County Plant
(4) Sludge/Septage Dewatering Plant
Reverse Osmosis (R.O.)
In Operation
Water Plant
Rated at 3 MGD
Under Cons",don
The County has agreements with various municipalities for wholesale water and sewer
services. The high volume customers include:
Hillage Green Disney's Vero Beach Resort Holiday Inn
ACTS, Inc. Indian River County Jail Inn Vero
Indian River Village Care Ctr.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-20-
4 440
Robert Lockridge, Vice President, reviewed the following:
Indian River County
Water Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
Indian River County
Water Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
IRea><�re�
{
e�Alf
Regr<irQs Modification
I
cF
,�{
ltd 0't�
F
Rate Structure Attributes'
by�di'
Yom* It
t'
9
Rate Structure Attributes
s
Ibe.:.aw b -- 0.t bR 1, 1072
!
The rates ctarged for irrigation systems shy be the standard usage rates.
¢illing.Charge $2.00 Per Account
'Agwaar urate metas are pemetea wr srgason wn reuryre an sour unpacn nse.
(AC wdl be applied lo each ba issued by
IVDe nwment for billing services.)
j
I
I
I
Water Service connection:
Base Facilities -Charge $9.20 Per ERU
I
i
Meter Size Connection Fee
ERU
(This charge shah apply to every future
and to each ERU reserved for (utwa use n a
i
548' $400.00
development. This "a, wia apply anal the teda
pemlarm disconnected from the system. For
l
1' $460.00
developments that have entered into an agreement
with the County for reserving capacl tune fee shag
$810.00
cunnrence upon certification M the Dept. mat
County trarsmissnon, collection. and disbtbution lines
i
{
> 1-142' Coat + Overhead
are ready for use. The County may charge less man
me standard fae until lines are ready for use.)
Water Impact Pee: $1,300 Per ERU
Where capacity s reserved but where does are nc $4.60 Per ERU
available, the Base Facilities Charge is
Deposits:
Volume Chage
I
R,q>.;.ad ..p,
A charge wid be imposed mat is directly related to
ilia volume of wafer consumed or sewage treated.
!
!
Residential & Commercial $50.00 Per ERU
0 to 3000 Gallons $1.75 Per 1000 Gallons
I
Hydrant Mater $345.00
3001 to 7000 Gallons $2.15 Per 1000 Gallons
I
Interest Rate Paid on Depostts 0.2083% Per Month
I
Over 7000 Gallons $2.55 Per 1000 Gallons
!
Excess Volurritiryarge
Greater than 13,000 Gallons $2.30 Per 1000 Gallons
rr tat+ery orarww ur.s w are. na.oxreorr of-sf I
I
Indian River County
Water Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
IRea><�re�
{
e�Alf
s t�todff�cation
,0, lot
01
cF
y';
�
.
Rate Structure Attributes'
F
�p
Water Irrigation Rates:
The rates ctarged for irrigation systems shy be the standard usage rates.
'Agwaar urate metas are pemetea wr srgason wn reuryre an sour unpacn nse.
I
I
I
Water Service connection:
i
Meter Size Connection Fee
i
548' $400.00
1' $460.00
$810.00
> 1-142' Coat + Overhead
Water Impact Pee: $1,300 Per ERU
Deposits:
I
R,q>.;.ad ..p,
Residential & Commercial $50.00 Per ERU
I
Hydrant Mater $345.00
Interest Rate Paid on Depostts 0.2083% Per Month
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
r
rA
Indian River County
Water Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
Rate Structure Attributes
Ql.r
�' 601
�.�4
�tl b00
F �+' + .►
Requires Alodification
ds
�g �p
Meter Installation Charge:
�0t�►
►�`
t to �d1p ai
4e
tj y d, '? efd"
C > St
AO ow q/
Cfe�
e�
Rate
�
Size Installation Charge
�� C' y :�' +_ .•°'�
+�y
M/sce aneous Charges:
T �
iMeter
_
5/8' $130.00 /install
_ Water Inspection Charge $25.00 Per Inspedicn
I
_ connect fTurwonf Charge
1' $200.00 /Install
`
thnsegnemre/iharheear/aaes $16.00 Per Connect
1-1n• $500.00 An tall
Ansr nonny lan4nas/ecurs $25.00 Per Conned
,
j
2' $630.00 [install
J
'
3' and larger cost Ph - Ovarteead
I
Lease Inspection $15.00 Per Reread/Insp.
Fire Hydrant Meter $25.00 [install
_ water Line Extension Fee $11.25 Per Foot
I
I
Meter Replacement Marge:
i
I
I
I
i
j
calls COs! Plus Chrorhoed
Meter Size Replacement Fee
=iieneml.Serrice
Ml ter Test
518' $100.00 /Install
Moter Size — Teat CharEe
1' $125.00 /Install
5111-- 1;20.00
1" $20.00
1-112' $300.00 /Install
1-L2• and larger Cost Oo 'meat
I
I
Y and larger Cost Pe» OverMed
Damage Repair 100+C:0ST+1)vhd
j
�
I
Line 1-3cation Cost 4 Cherheac
Meter Removal Charge:
j
_ Other Alis ellaneous C harcWs
Meter Size Removal Charge
Other mi::c. clrarl;a rndude epg ,Ing service charge suir
5/8' $30.00 /Install
-
i
i
I
1' $30.00 /Install
nrre rwt Inch"for this demoentrldon, I ut ester rrsiew-d.
1-1/2' and larger $40.00 /install
Indian River County
Water Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
----------------------
Jr
p�
��eires [�lodi icpfiun
�0t�►
►�`
t to �d1p ai
4e
tj y d, '? efd"
C > St
AO ow q/
Cfe�
e�
Rate
�
Structure Attributes
�� C' y :�' +_ .•°'�
+�y
M/sce aneous Charges:
T �
_
_' __
_ Water Inspection Charge $25.00 Per Inspedicn
I
_ connect fTurwonf Charge
thnsegnemre/iharheear/aaes $16.00 Per Connect
Ansr nonny lan4nas/ecurs $25.00 Per Conned
,
Meter R¢reads &
Lease Inspection $15.00 Per Reread/Insp.
_ water Line Extension Fee $11.25 Per Foot
_ Deliquency Clranw $2.00 Plus 1.5%/Month
i
j
calls COs! Plus Chrorhoed
=iieneml.Serrice
Ml ter Test
Moter Size — Teat CharEe
5111-- 1;20.00
1" $20.00
1-L2• and larger Cost Oo 'meat
I
I
Damage Repair 100+C:0ST+1)vhd
j
�
I
Line 1-3cation Cost 4 Cherheac
_ Other Alis ellaneous C harcWs
Other mi::c. clrarl;a rndude epg ,Ing service charge suir
as hydrant flow rzst daga arul fire prototion dmges which
i
nrre rwt Inch"for this demoentrldon, I ut ester rrsiew-d.
Source: Butyn s. Ammkitee
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-22-
Indian River County
Sewer Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
Indian River County
Sewer Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
I :
F,gitin- M-", ' kn
,�a
40
1AoeP
Q
`
sit D
Rate Structure Attributes
j F� Fs` 1 a�'� .•'
��
_
r' w9'�-
5t 40Q'�
�ylp
c�{ �b t r��
�te�
Rate Structure Attributes
j F'� F' 1 y �' �.
43
—_
Bulh ,Sewer Charge Per Month:
71,—,.- lona., f'caa•a„(,r r, 1ts2
�illing�hsirge =2.00 Per Account
allin"harge $2.00 Per Account
(A chage wa W applied to each hip issued by
tfxh Degaartrtent for tdkx
j
(A chage will b3 applied to each hit issued by
BaseFacilities-Charge 113.50 Par ERU
I
I
txrDatart.eamrt4ril;; >
(This crro�arrgga shatl map*s, tarry �wnnected ERU
and to 3artr ER J b ietnld rortubae cse baa
!
ease_faciili6e3_Ceharge $11.97 Per ERU
develq> ,L 11ss chance w X appy cntt the tom. is
(n* merrgge shat at)* b every =re;led ERU
and to aacF. ERJ received far tub" LW 111 a
pehnanently discor9sctd frrxn t;e system. Fx
develaxnenb that have 3nteZ ilio an acaeenem
!
develointes chischastewtlapplyrumthehail!!)'h
wnh t', Couftly fOr feSerV91g cap'cit the, *8 ."ball
'cit.
pemasntl/ snare tae system. Fx
W RNMf1Ce Up011 Ca19tC.ltdh by the hat
arxhy trer afhimior, caflectim. and dastrttubal liras
that sa
devea0xrleUs that have entered IhfA to aerealent
l
ant ready hx use. Ts Cxahtr rhey charge les;. that
cur statdad(er:untllinesarare[dytxuse.)
wbh tN) Count' fa reserving rapakil!yy the fee shat
I
Where carp:iict s mF ed tut where Isha; are n $6.75 Per ERU
I
c0ml"il Wal ceatncaatm DY the D3pt hat
Crony tray smbsaor, cotecbxh, grad daahtutlal teas
1
j
availatie, t s &;se Fad tee Charge k;
4
I
ani ready for use. This Cxmtr he,Y coags lass that
l
YoAlme -Ch a rqe
the statdad fee: unt 119x8 era ready tx we.)
A chanfe wit be imposed the. is calcwatal as 45%
of water tx, volume of water �urnsd.
i
WItarlicapacityisrsservedtutwnereliniaishen $5.99 Per ERU
0 to 10,000 Gallons $3.35 Per 1000 Gallons
j
"'imurn tr Risldentie Canatoeers
I
YQ�rne,-Charge
Ea(ces5-VQI(1Tt�harge
A chanle wit be irnli ext ft. is calculated ss 85%
Greater than 11,000 Gallons $4.45 Per 10(W Gallons
of watt r the: v0laane Of w.iter mrsurned.
I
Por sourly Orin, w:oe 9141 *W Rab Rr*ftn 9/-31
I
Per 1,000 Gels. Aletered
Indian River County
Sewer Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-23-
�e
Q� J"
h�uins rioc�i icalion
�ori
cpQi'
1ev Qt 0A
�Qi
r' w9'�-
5t 40Q'�
�ylp
c�{ �b t r��
�te�
Rate Structure Attributes
j F'� F' 1 y �' �.
43
—_
Bulh ,Sewer Charge Per Month:
71,—,.- lona., f'caa•a„(,r r, 1ts2
allin"harge $2.00 Per Account
j
(A chage will b3 applied to each hit issued by
I
I
txrDatart.eamrt4ril;; >
ease_faciili6e3_Ceharge $11.97 Per ERU
(n* merrgge shat at)* b every =re;led ERU
and to aacF. ERJ received far tub" LW 111 a
develointes chischastewtlapplyrumthehail!!)'h
pemasntl/ snare tae system. Fx
that sa
devea0xrleUs that have entered IhfA to aerealent
l
wbh tN) Count' fa reserving rapakil!yy the fee shat
I
c0ml"il Wal ceatncaatm DY the D3pt hat
Crony tray smbsaor, cotecbxh, grad daahtutlal teas
1
I
ani ready for use. This Cxmtr he,Y coags lass that
the statdad fee: unt 119x8 era ready tx we.)
i
WItarlicapacityisrsservedtutwnereliniaishen $5.99 Per ERU
YQ�rne,-Charge
A chanle wit be irnli ext ft. is calculated ss 85%
of watt r the: v0laane Of w.iter mrsurned.
Per 1,000 Gels. Aletered
wastewater Flow $3.19 Per 1000 Gallons
`
EXWWY0lUMV-Ch8rW
Grit aterthan 11,000 Gallons $4.45 Per 10(W Gallons
Chage tx badk u,WS -11, Will
M,lkw eh,:seeding ble, sun:hape
b w Mage caps:W reserved SY
bull, user fn eft metas a
7
Excises Sewage.Strength Gharae
!
Ee ual 10 CLIADrtar9 standard baa fa*ks and vohurx: Merges rrutltpatd by the
greater of hyo factors:
(1) Amohehf of astorler'e. awfago oahoentratlxa of 11009 in mgfi
divided fry 2:50, rens 1; x
,
(2) Amount 1 astomer't awfal corlCeftinstil cf ew;panded solids In mg i
drvkled I 750, rens t; x
I
I
Rx Cooky Ortlnaroe 911 all Rsb R9wautlon 9l-3/
I
!
I
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-23-
r
Indian River County
Sewer Utility
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
Sown: Burton 8. Amnckdes
Indian River County
Sludge Rates
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
Q�b��.ires
e
1�.i itat;on
41�
ools
��
9
ye CP
y
Rate Structure Attributes
F a� .•
a°
e' F`� �• ;
y�` �'
c pact Fee: --
Sewer Impact
�.12,796 Par
—
i
j
—
—
ChamP6r 1 000_Czallon;r $90.62
----
—
—
--
Miscellaneous Charges:
Charge Per Wetwn $7.39
I
j
_ .Sewer Tap Coat PIUS Overheid
Recortvnended rates assume dornesbc sludge
j
with acids corscentrations of between 1.5 and 2.0
Percent
_ Sewer Service Connection:
!
Costs incurred bN Casrty to sample, rngnvbr, aMror test
wastes al verity scuds metals of eb., a
I
i
I
F'esk'endsl 1300.00 Per Con wd
Comrnercfaf and Me- Cat plus Overhead
I
I
d to haeaeons,
additional cosh incurred s handle a dispose of writs wnh
Wel es
nigh rtretab cs a omen estic wash
i
FavaY Rcad Cub Cat Irhn WerhsEd
should be r
characteristics dddm to recovered flan ma users discharging
from th
the wastes in addition tome shove char9ea. I
I
I
I
Rate Par 10W gabn i oflow_or hgn wwt="ntrattotl.WtuOCiac€eRta¢e =
1200.00 Minlmunr
(((((MWI Proposed sludge - 17,500Y1000)'8.34y2000)* 253.38)+30.82
I
Road Jactlfg 6 BMW Cat Plus Overtmd
Rate Par Wet Ton oLl7w or high Wide_cancentMkA riudae_uLeWtage =
I
!
Gram Reshmi(Wr Cat Plus Orenwrd
(((((mgrs Proposed sludge - 17,500Y1.000.000)'$253.38)N.39
L'nauthonzed um aI Ftra lfydr.Ynb 1.115.00
Other 6 ExtreoMHw y SwAces Cat Phis Ovetl bill
j
_ Line Extension Fee
Math Fit Sarver 6 Sewer Lalsrnb
(GM R song eart orprolo" Wined} $15.77 Per Fool
_ Delinquency Charge $2.00 Plus 1.5'1IJMdntlt
_ General Service Calls Cat Phu Overho d
_ Other <tliscellaneous Charges
i
i
Or&m mitt. n;arf-es Ystludr evrairvrrina smtu diargrs j
not
or
I
iritaidfiiLiniieii,Yii'ii`fiii
I
ii
i
I
I
Sown: Burton 8. Amnckdes
Indian River County
Sludge Rates
Rate Structure Evaluation Matrix
Sonace: Burton 8 Assodatea
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-24-
e ubes Mocii kation
41�
a w
ye CP
y
Rate Structure Attributes
F a� .•
a°
j
ChamP6r 1 000_Czallon;r $90.62
Charge Per Wetwn $7.39
Recortvnended rates assume dornesbc sludge
j
with acids corscentrations of between 1.5 and 2.0
Percent
!
Costs incurred bN Casrty to sample, rngnvbr, aMror test
wastes al verity scuds metals of eb., a
I
i
I
I
I
d to haeaeons,
additional cosh incurred s handle a dispose of writs wnh
Wel es
nigh rtretab cs a omen estic wash
If
should be r
characteristics dddm to recovered flan ma users discharging
from th
the wastes in addition tome shove char9ea. I
I
I
Rate Par 10W gabn i oflow_or hgn wwt="ntrattotl.WtuOCiac€eRta¢e =
(((((MWI Proposed sludge - 17,500Y1000)'8.34y2000)* 253.38)+30.82
Rate Par Wet Ton oLl7w or high Wide_cancentMkA riudae_uLeWtage =
(((((mgrs Proposed sludge - 17,500Y1.000.000)'$253.38)N.39
Sonace: Burton 8 Assodatea
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-24-
OUR APPROACH
In order to address your specific requirements with regard to rate structure, specifically ERU
assignments for land uses, and the subsequent analyses that may be required, depending upon the
results of the rate structure analysis, our approach to this project will include three phases.
Phase I - Review Background Data and Evaluate the Fairness and Equitv of the County's
Current Equivalent Residential Unit (ERV) Land Use Assignment Chart
In Phase I, we will review relevant background information and data and will directly address
the County's concerns regarding the fairness and equity of the current ERU Land Use Assignment
Chart. Although we will review the process of determining appropriate ERU assignments in general
and for all land uses, we will specifically address the concerns regarding the allegation by certain per -
manufactured and mobile home customers that an ERU assignment of 1 ERU exceeds the ERU
assignment that would be justified by their water usage. We will base our conclusions and
recommendations upon analysis of usage by land use type within the County from County billing
records, authoritative research on ERU assignment and standards adopted and/or recommended by
agencies such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the State Health Department
and others identified during the course of the study.
Phase II - Develop a Conceptual Design of the Water and Wastewater Rate Systems
In Phase II, if authorized based upon the results of Phase I, we will develop a conceptual
design of the utility rate systems for the aforementioned County utilities. This conceptual design will
consist of 1) the conduct of a revenue sufficiency analysis and the development of a five year rate plan
and financial management program - including a borrowing program which will identify sizing, timing
and financing source of required borrowing, 2) an analysis of elements of the current water and
wastewater rate structures not evaluated in Phase I, and 3) development of recommendations as to
rate structure modifications to meet the County's objectives and comply with generally accepted rate
making practice.
We will develop a five year financial management program, rate plan and rate structure
recommendations using interactive work sessions with County staff in which we will examine the
impact of alternative scenarios upon key financial indicators by use of graphical representations
projected on a large screen from our computer rate models which will be up and running and upon
which we will conduct the alternatives analyses interactively with County staff.
Phase II can be completed quickly. Our approach focuses concentrated attention during
Phase II to 1) quickly integrate County staff into the process, 2) quickly determine the overall
financial outlook for the Utility, and 3) determine the goals and parameters for development of
specific rates and charges in Phase III.
Phase III - Conduct a Cost of Service Analysis and Calculate Rates and Fees
In Phase III, we will conduct a fully allocated cost of service and rate study to properly
identify and allocate costs (including indirect and interdepartmental costs), conduct a bill frequency
analysis to derive the necessary customer and billing data for rate computations and develop specific
rates, charges and impact fees for each utility integrated with a detailed customer impact analysis.
Rates and fees will be developed in accordance with the rate structure recommendations of Phases
I and II and a customer impact analysis will be performed simultaneously with rate calculations,
allowing us to include the County staff in interactive work sessions to calibrate cost allocation and
rate structure variables according to customer impact.
As in Phase II, in these work sessions, we will conduct alternative scenario analyses
interactively with County staff with our rate models up and running on the computer. This allows us
to develop final rates and fees that generate sufficient revenues, yet are structured so as to be sensitive
to the County's objectives with regard to customer impact. Customer impact will be examined for
each utility rate and for the combined impact of all subject utilities upon customers of varying sizes
and with various usage profiles within customer classes. Examples of two types of customer impact
analysis charts are presented on the following page.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-25- 0
J ,.
Burton & Associates
Indian River County
AND COLLECTION
Utilities Department Water, Wastewater & Sludge Rate Study
PROJECT CONCEPT
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
CAPITAL PROJECTS
o EFFLUENT REUSE R.were
m:
T�T�NT +T
SYS EMREOUW� I
NALYSIS OF ERU
7-s,NMENrToc LAND USE
UNRESTRICTED
CASH
gE�gyEg
TREATMENT PLANT
o WATER Fa: W.W. WeWwaW.
AND COLLECTION
0 WASTEWATER E6hrrq R.uy
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
o EFFLUENT REUSE R.were
o R&R Lw.: 0 AM E)pmw
Lep: E—" 0.0 S—
LW: New D.61 S—im
= ANNUAL NET CASH
=REQUMMENTS
ANNUAL-
FIV.E YEAR FINANCIAL
FIVE YEAR
FIVE YEAR
COST OF SERVICE &
RATE STRUCTURE
FULLY ALLOCATED
COST OF SERVICE STUDY
SPECIFIC NATES
CHARGES AND FEES IMPACT FEE UPDATE (II aOPlicadel
Clear Vision
The chart on the left examines the impact of two rate structure alternatives upon single
family customers at various identified levels of water usage. The chart on the right examines the
impact of the same two rate structure alternatives in terms of percentage increase in monthly bill
along a continuum of water usage from 0 to 95,000 gallons per month. This chart also shows the
percentage of customers at all levels of usage. This can be used to determine the percentage of
customers affected by each rate structure alternative at different levels of usage.
CWPW son 0(MbM* Bibs - Alt ANWrN6res
P,95dembd 0.0tann-W XYW METERS
$Z00
$175
S15D
i$ $125
4100
$75
>5D
so
1.000 66,1.Q..0�DD25,000.�0, 50,000
Strucwm L— 1 2
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-26-
AMUNnac CLO70MM
SB" X 3W METERS - WATER & SEWER
40% f?X 'am a6X 1 100%
3096 - MI eox
20% � o
x.
10%
096Dowru'7- v
0 6 /0 16 40 46 30 7610 46 W 16 6D 66 70 76 6D 66 60 96
KOK INFri
Interactive Graphical Displays
Finan dal Management Program Development
We typically present the results of our Financial Management Program Development
analyses by displaying key financial indicators in four quadrants of a colorful graphical display,
projected with our state-of-the-art monitor/projector during interactive client work sessions. An
example of such a display is presented below.
Snarres f Rate Increases
70.0%
is
O&M 10.0
(1)R&Rmcludes R&R 20.0% (1)
$ 1 million per year
line replacement program
In this display the upper left quadrant shows the required percentage rate increases required
in each year of a five year rate plan. This quadrant also shows a level rate plan which dampens rate
shock in any one year. The pie chart in the upper right quadrant shows the sources of the rate
increase. This gives insights into areas in which cost controls might reduce the required rate
increases. The chart in the lower right quadrant shows year end fund balances of unrestricted
reserves after funding eligible capital projects and R&R expenses, and the chart in the lower left
quadrant shows the bond issues necessary to fund the five year Capital Improvement Program.
Depending upon the specific circumstances of each client and the issues that are most critical
to the financial performance of the utility, other key financial indicators such as debt service
coverage, CII' funding sources, etc. can be displayed.
Burton & Associates, Inc. - Water Resources Economics Consultants
Mr. Burton advised that they would hold staff and Board interactive sessions.
Chairman Eggert questioned whether the computer software would be made available,
and Mr. Burton stated that their model is considered to be a consulting tool which they are
enhancing but they would work out something to allow the County to use it.
Commissioner Adams questioned whether the firm intends to maintain a local office,
and Mr. Burton responded that their main offices are in Jacksonville, with Mr. Lockridge
based in Orlando. They will not have an office in Indian River County.
County Attorney Vitunac questioned whether they have ever defined a rate study
depending on the actual volume of water usage, and Mr. Burton stated they have in the City
of Sarasota.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-27- ;-
300K 103 PnE 4/�6
Mr. Burton advised that some level of base charge is recommended in order to provide
fiscal security.
Mr. Lockridge stated that once the return of debt service is accomplished, then you
would no longer need to recover costs through a fixed charge.
Commissioner Adams commented that Florida Power does not charge for electric
service which is not used and expressed a desire to get to the point where charges would be
dependent upon usage.
Mr. Lockridge stated there is always the evaluation of revenue risk. If enough is kept
in reserve, then you can have a low charge and still handle peak demands.
Commissioner Ginn questioned provisions for a workshop with the public, and Mr.
Burton responded that they would make such a provision after meeting first with the Board
and staff.
Chairman Eggert thanked the representatives and advised that, if the Board does not
reach a decision today, a decision will be made on Tuesday, November 18, 1997.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-28-
2C CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC.
Mr. E. Lawrence Adams, Jr., P.E., Vice President of Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.,
introduced Daniel T. Anderson and thanked the Board for their time and attention.
Daniel T. Anderson, P.E., Project Manager, presented the following proposal:
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-29- i�" .,
Rate Making Principles
® Equity
® Revenue adequacy
® Economic efficiency
® Administrative simplicity
■ Compliance with legal constraints
Components of Existing Water Rate
Structure
■ Billing charge (fixed charge per account)
® Base facilities charge (fixed charge per ERU)
® Volume charge (charges per thousand gallons)
® Excess volume surcharge (charges per thousand
gallons)
Recovery of Costs
• Meter Reading
• Billing
Fixed Costs
Variable Costs
• Related
Billing Base Volume Excess
Charge Facilities Charge Volume
Charge Surchara
ERU Definition
® County's "ERU": ("Typical Residential Unit")
- 0 to 300 gallons per day on maximum day basis
- 0 to 250 gallons per day on maximum month
basis
® Advantages
- Reflects reasonable peaking factor relationships
- Important to have a flow definition for non-
residential customer classes
- May reflect County's own historical data
■ Disadvantages
- Flow equivalent appears low, especially when
compared with FPSC rules & Chapter 10D-6, FAC
- Combines average for single-family, multiple -
family, and mobile home/trailer
- Excess volume surcharge kicks in at 13,000 gals.
per month; however, since 1 ERU is defined as
7,600 gals./month, second ERU is "free" if using
maximum month basis
Rate Making Principles
Equity -
® Revenue adequacy -
® Economic efficiency -
® Administrative simplicity -
® Compliance with legal constraints
Key Issues
® ERU assignments
® Revenue stability (rate mix)
® Non -cost of service rate (septage/sludge)
® Adherence to rate making principles
® Public acceptance
Hypothetical Example of Statistical
Analysis Comparing Single Family and
Multi -Family
T
Multi -Family
Average
Consumption/Month/Dwelling Unit
Broward County, Florida
Historic Septage/Sludge Deliveries
2500
2000
rm-
0 1500
U)
1000
0
Y 500
El
S: OGS 0� �� y Q,Q P P: G`0
Project Approach
■ Partnership with the County and Public
■ Perform Data Review: Largely accomplished
■ Evaluate ERU assignments
■ Develop defendable rates and charges to meet
project objectives:
- Fair and reasonable rates
- Revenue adequacy
- Successful implementation
Ja 0 434
3
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-34-
I
Chairman Eggert questioned whether the proposal also includes at least one meeting
with the public, and Mr. Anderson advised they have estimated 72 hours for public
participation. They can have meetings with the public, with the Utilities Advisory
Committee, with staff, and before the Board and would defer to the Board in terms of any
mix of those meetings.
County Attorney Vitunac questioned whether they have ever done a study based on
a facility charge where the use is zero, and Mr. Anderson responded affirmatively although
that class still pays a base facility charge to cover any debt service.
Commissioner Adams commented that when you finish paying a mortgage, the
property is yours; whereas utility charges go on and on. Florida Power does not have a base
facility charge and she wondered at what point Camp Dresser and McKee would anticipate
that situation occurring for a utility.
Mr. Anderson answered that as a practical matter, it is a perpetual utility charge. The
County will be expending funds for expansion and incurring more indebtedness to be
recovered through a base facility charge which may diminish but will never completely go
away. The largest utility in Florida, Miami -Dade, is volume -based, but they have a full-time
rate specialist who predicts next year's consumption.
Chairman Eggert thanked the representatives and advised that, if a decision were not
reached today, a decision would be made on Tuesday, November 18, 1997.
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
�+
-35-
Chairman Eggert then asked the Commissioners to please write down their ratings for
the presentations and sign the rating sheets.
Totals
Chairman Eggert then announced the following results:
Hartman & Associates Burton & Associates
3
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
10
Camp Dresser & McKee
1
3
2
2
3
11
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
by Commissioner Tippin, the Board, by a 4-1 vote
(Commissioner Ginn opposed) approved the ratings and
selected Hartman and Associates as the consultant for
the Water, Wastewater and Sludge Rate Study, RFP
No. 7069.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
y {. Barton, erk
Minutes Approved: Wit' - 7
NOVEMBER 5, 1997
-36-
Carolyn K. agert, Chai