06-25-1992 Summary ReportThank you.
M E M O R A D U M
TO: John Drago, City Administrator
FROM: David Rivera, Acting County Manager
SUBJECT: Summary Report
DATE: June 25, 1992
Enclosed is a draft copy for technical review. Please return to me
any comments that you might have as soon as possible.
Prepared for:
[Preliminary Draft Not for Reproduction]
GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE REGIONAL
WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES AND FACILITIES
TO THE URBANIZED AREAS OF SOUTHERN OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
SUMMARY REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Okeechobee County, Board of
County Commissioners
PHASE I
By:
Nabors, Giblin Nickerson, P.A.
Barnett Bank Building, Suite 800
315 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Scope 2
Identification of the Study Area 4
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 7
Governance Alternatives 10
Governance Recommendation 18
Development of Local Consensus 19
Development of District Boundary Description 19
OVERVIEW OF PRESENT SERVICE TO STUDY AREA 22
Existing Infrastructure 24
Existing Customer Base 33
City Utility Revenue and Expenditures 34
Future Infrastructure 37
Water Service Options Evaluation 41
Debt Capacity Considerations 50
Summary of Overview 51
LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES 57
Ad Valorem Taxes 57
Special Assessments 61
Impact Fees 68
User Rates or Service Delivery Fees 70
GENERAL LAW REVENUE SOURCES 71
General Legislative Authorization Issues 71
Assistance of the South Florida Water Management District as
a Funding Conduit 73
PHASE II REQUIREMENTS 76
Scope of Work 76
Anticipated Schedule 77
Estimated Cost 77
APPENDIX A CITY WATER TREATMENT PROCESS
APPENDIX B LOCATION OF CITY WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE
APPENDIX C LAB RESULTS
APPENDIX D CONSENT ORDER BETWEEN CITY AND DER
APPENDIX E DEBT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F LAWS OF FLORIDA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(to come]
1
INTRODUCTION
This report (the "Phase I Report has been prepared for the
Okeechobee County Board of Commissioners (the "County by Nabors,
Giblin Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, (the "Firm to
review potential governance alternatives for the creation,
acquisition, construction and operation of a regional water and
wastewater utility system to serve urbanized areas within the
southern portion of Okeechobee County. This Phase I report
identifies governance alternatives for a regional utility system,
makes recommendations to the County Commission, provides an
overview of existing and future water and wastewater service along
the north shore of Lake Okeechobee and identifies certain typical
funding alternatives.
This report, prepared in conformance with our correspondence
to the County dated February 24, 1992, has been drafted to provide
assistance and advice to the County Commission in making a
determination of the feasibility of providing regional water
service to certain portions of the unincorporated area of
Okeechobee County and Glades County.
Although our endeavor was to initially concentrate on the
legal and limited financial aspects required to review, analyze,
implement a governing structure and ultimately finance the
provision of water treatment and distribution infrastructure, it
became apparent at the outset that consideration of the delivery
of regional wastewater treatment and transmission service to both
incorporated as well as portions of the unincorporated area was a
1
fundamental consideration. Accordingly, many aspects of our
analysis, out of practical necessity, took a more global view of
the provision of both water and sewer services in the entire
southern and more urbanized area of Okeechobee County.
After several discussions with County management in March, the
Firm decided not to formally engage the assistance of a
governmental consulting firm for completion of this Phase I Report.
The Firm has, however, received the gracious input and informal
analysis from several professionals, including but not limited to
representatives from the City of Okeechobee, the County, the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association and various citizens of
Okeechobee County.
Purpose and Scope
Pursuant to the terms of this engagement, the Firm has
reviewed an extensive list of reports and other written materials
including, but not limited to material provided by the City of
Okeechobee, the County, the Okeechobee Beach Water Association,
Inc., and the department of Environmental Regulation.
To further familiarize ourselves with the issues involved, we
also conducted a series of in- person and telephone interviews with
local officials and citizens to assist in determining the overall
needs of the community and the service objectives of the various
jurisdictions.
We have also briefly surveyed the two primary water service
delivery providers, the City of Okeechobee and the Okeechobee Beach
Water Association. Although there are at least 50 smaller package
2
water treatment plants and 22 package wastewater treatment plants
that may be affected by the provision of regional services, it was
determined not necessary to meet with these owners or operators at
this time to accomplish the overall objectives of this Phase I
report. Information received from the Florida Public Service
Commission indicates that the responsibility for regulating these
smaller water and sewer package plant operations has never been
transferred away from the County. These smaller providers will
require a significant amount of attention and consideration at a
later date from any central utility provider.
As a result of the Firm's requests for information and various
interviews it was relatively easy to identify the potential service
areas, both short and long term for the subject urbanized areas.
The difficulty arises in determining which portions of these areas
are best served by the City of Okeechobee, the Okeechobee Beach
Water Association or the County. Accordingly, it is premature and
would not be meaningful for us to develop a time line or critical
path for the creation of central utility system as part of this
Phase I Report.
We have also generally reviewed financing and debt capacity
considerations for the provision of water and sewer utilities as
they relate to the City of Okeechobee, the County, Okeechobee Beach
Water Association, and the more global approach of an overall
utility authority.
In keeping with the primary focus of this Phase I report,
after we collected information unique to Okeechobee County, we
3
conducted research to identify and assess governance alternatives
for the provision of central utilities and then analyzed various
options available to the community as a whole.
As a footnote to this introduction, it should be emphasized
that the regional approach taken by this Phase I Report became
quickly apparent to us when we conducted a series of in- person
interviews in Okeechobee. Such approach addresses the issues of
providing central water and sewer to not just the City of
Okeechobee, or the City's water service area, or the area served
by the Okeechobee Beach Water Association, but the entire urbanized
area around the northern rim of Lake Okeechobee. This area
comprises the economic and social hub of the "Okeechobee Community"
and as such its problems associated with water and sewer service
transcend artificial jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, its
solutions should also. This Phase I Report has been prepared with
that thought and direction in mind.
Identification of the Study Area
Okeechobee County is located on the north shore of Lake
Okeechobee. The City of Okeechobee is the county seat of
Okeechobee County and is the county's only incorporated area. The
City of Okeechobee is located approximately 60 miles northwest of
Palm Beach and 95 miles from Boca Raton at the crossroad of
highways U.S. 441, U.S. 90, and S.R. 70. The City is 31 miles
east of I -95 and the Florida Turnpike. Okeechobee County has
approximately 31,000 people, and the City of Okeechobee has
4
approximately 5,100 people. Most of the population in the County
resides relatively close to the lake .shore. Growth rates in
Okeechobee County are typically low and generally, the population
is not increasing as fast as the rest of the state The community
as a whole, including the incorporated area can be characterized
as relatively rural community with a significant increase in
seasonal traffic and population during the dry and more temperate
winter season. The rural character of the area lends itself to the
relatively modest housing and commercial development. The area's
economy is primarily dependent upon agricultural activities and
limited tourism, retirement and related support services. Table
1 shows the growth in population and housing units for the area,
with the Okeechobee Beach Water Association units shown separately.
Table 1. Population/Housing Units
city County OBWA
Year Pop. Units Pop. Units Pop. Units
1990 4937 1936 24739 11343 6484 2973
1995 5240 2055 30516 13998 7347 3390
2000 5536 2171 34115 15648 8564 3930
2005 5840 2290 36173 17225 We We
2010 6135 2406 39073 18606. n/a n/a
Estimates based on 2.18 persons per unit.
To assist in defining the boundaries of a potential water and
sewer utility service area certain information contained in the
Okeechobee County Property Appraiser's master appraisal file will
ultimately need to be extracted and reviewed for the contiguous
areas contained within the bounds of the area identified as "Urban
Residential Mixed Use," on the Okeechobee County Generalized
1 Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida Statistical
Abstract, page 47 (1991).
5
Conceptual Future Land Use Map (the "Study Area This area is
effectively the urbanized area of Southern Okeechobee County and
includes the City of Okeechobee. This Study Area, located on the
north shore of Lake Okeechobee, includes approximately 51 square
miles of property. Use of information from the Property Appraiser
files will be fundamental if future special assessments or taxes
are anticipated to be collected in the same manner as ad valorem
taxes are collected. The Study Area will need to be better defined
and described as certain policy decisions are made and cooperation
between the current jurisdictions and service providers evolves.
2 See Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan, Okeechobee County
Generalized Conceptual Future Land Use Map, Okeechobee County
Ordinance No. 92 -5.
6
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
A governing entity is needed to consolidate, refurbish, expand
and deliver water and wastewater utility services in the Study
Area. Such an entity will need to provide a conduit for funds (1)
to retire existing and future debt, (2) to pay for the operation
and maintenance deficiencies remaining after utilization of fair
and equitable rate revenues and (3) to generate revenues from new
users of a fair share basis. The creation of such a governance
entity is dependent on a resolution of numerous policy issues:
1. Is the governing body of the governing entity to include
elected or appointed officials or a combination of the two?
2. If the governing body is to be appointed, who makes the
appointments?
3. Is the annual budget of the governing entity subject to
approval by the City or the County, or both, and to what extent
does a requirement of County approval affect the county purpose
mi lage authority of the County?
Bess the taxing or revenue generating
Does the entity possess g g g
capacity to provide needed capital and annual operation and
maintenance costs?
To the extent ad valorem taxes are to be utilized as a funding
source, certain Florida constitutional and statutory constraints
should be noted.
Article VII, Section 9(b), the Florida Constitution, requires
special district ad valorem tax millage to be authorized by law and
approved "...by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds
7
therein not wholly exempt from taxation." Likewise, Article VII,
Section 12, the Florida Constitution, requires approval "...by vote
of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly
exempt from taxation..." prior to the issuance of any indebtedness
payable from ad valorem taxation that matures more than twelve
months after issuance. A discussion of the cases regarding
freeholder elections is included in this report under the caption
"LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES Ad Valorem Taxes."
If the status of a special district is classified under
Section 189.4035, Florida Statutes, as a "dependent" special
district, any authorized special district ad valorem millage is
aggregated with the countywide millage levied by the County within
a statutory 10 mill limitation for county purposes. Section
189.403(2) defines a special district as "dependent" if it meets
one of the following criteria: (1) its governing body is identical
to that of the County or the City; (2) all members of the governing
body are appointed by the County or the City; (3) the members of
its governing body can be removed during their unexpired term by
the County or the City; or (4) its budget requires approval of or
can be vetoed by the City or the County.
As discussed subsequently, to the extent the County levies
taxes within a municipal service taxing unit for a water and
wastewater utility system, the millage is included within the 10
mill limit for municipal purposes levied by the County within the
3
Section 200.001(8)(d) and Section 200.071, Florida Statutes.
8
unincorporated area. The level of millage levied within the
taxing unit boundaries would thus limit the ad valorem taxing
capacity of the County in the unincorporated areas since under such
constitutional and statutory millage limitations no one parcel of
property can bear ad valorem taxation in excess of 10 mills for
municipal purposes. In the event the boundaries of a municipal
service taxing unit includes municipal areas with the consent of
the City, the millage levied within the taxing unit would likewise
limit the ad valorem taxing capacity of the City.
Finally, it should be noted that Article VII, Section 2, the
Florida Constitution, requires all ad valorem taxation to be at a
uniform rate within each taxing unit. As a consequence of such
constitutional uniformity provision, a levy of ad valorem taxes is
limited to the following geographic areas: (i) the established
boundaries of a municipal service taxing unit; (ii) the entire
boundaries of the County or the City; or (iii) the boundaries of
a special district if the ad valorem millage is approved by the
electors. Such constitutional uniformity provisions apply to ad
valorem taxes only and are inapplicable to the imposition of
special assessments. The Florida case law criteria for the
imposition of special assessments is discussed subsequently.
4 Article VII, Section 9(b), the Florida Constitution; and
Section 200.071(3), Florida Statutes.
9
Governance Alternatives
There are several alternative governing entities that could
be created for the Study Area:
a municipal service benefit or taxing unit,r
a special district created by special act, Porstot
a special district created by general law,
implementation by County ordinance,
joint delivery of service by interlocal agreement, and
a special district created under home rule.
Municipal Service Benefit or Taxing Unit
Section 125.01(1)(q), Florida Statutes, authorizes the County
to create municipal service taxing or benefit units within all or
part of the unincorporated areas to provide "...water, wastewater
and sewage collection and disposal... and other essential
facilities and municipal services...". This section goes on to
provide that subject to the consent of the affected city, "given
either annually or for a term of years, the boundaries of a
municipal service taxing or benefit unit may include all or part
of the boundaries of a municipality in addition to all or part of
the unincorporated areas."
10
Section 125.01(1)(r) expressly states that there shall be no
referendum required for the levy by a county of ad valorem taxes
within a municipal service taxing unit. Section 125.01(2) provides
that the board of county commissioners shall be the governing body
of any municipal service taxing unit or benefit unit.
A municipal service taxing unit is not constitutionally or
functionally a special district. It is purely a mechanism by
which a county can fund a particular service from a levy of ad
valorem taxes not countywide but within all or a portion of the
unincorporated areas. It is a tax equity tool available to a board
of county commissioners within its legislative discretion to place
the burden of ad valorem taxes upon a geographic area less than
countywide to fund a particular service. In terms of function and'
accountability it is no different than any other revenue source
appropriated and budgeted by a county.
The distinction between a municipal service taxing unit and
municipal service benefit unit is that "benefit unit" is the
correct terminology when the mechanism used to fund the county
services is derived through service charges or special assessments
rather than taxes. Again, both units are similar in that a
municipal service benefit unit is a mechanism available to a board
of county commissioners to identify a precise geographic area in
the unincorporated area in which to impose such service charges and
special assessments and is not a special district in function or
status. The municipal service benefit unit is utilized within the
county budget to account for such special assessments and service
charges to insure that such funds are used to provide the county
services for which they were imposed.
5 Gallant v. Stephens, 358 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1978).
11
METHOD OF CREATION: By ordinance of the County, with
consent by ordinance by affected municipality if unincorporated
areas are included.
Special District Created by Special Act
Section 189.404, Florida Statutes, adopted under the
provisions of Article III, Section 11(a)(21), the Florida
Constitution, prohibits the creation of independent special
districts by special acts or general laws of local application
unless they conform to the stated statutory criteria and minimum
requirements. An "independent" special district is defined in
Section 187.403(3) as a special district that is not defined as
dependent under the criteria of Section 189.403(2). Section
189.4041 provides that the charter for the creation of a dependent
special district shall be adopted only by ordinance of a
county or municipal governing body having jurisdiction over the
area affected."
Except for the Section 189.404 criteria and minimum
requirements, a special act creating an independent special
6 Section 11(a)(21), Article III, the Florida Constitution,
prohibits a special law or general law of local application on:
any subject when prohibited by general law
passed by a three fifths vote of the
membership of each house. Such law may be
amended or repealed by like vote.
Historically, there has been a difference between the Florida House
of Representatives and the Florida Senate on the interpretation of
this constitutional provision. The House position is that a
special act passed by a "like vote" of three fifths repeals a
general law prohibition. The Senate position is that the general
law prohibition must be repealed by a three fifths vote prior to
the consideration of the inconsistent special act.
12
district can be uniquely crafted to provide the authority and
organizational structure desired. It should be noted that Chapter
189, Florida Statutes, provides the procedure, not the
authorization, for creating special districts. A special act
independent special district can authorize the levy of ad valorem
taxes within a stated millage cap subject to elector approval.
Article VII, Section 9(a), the Florida Constitution. However, it
should be clearly recognized that a special act cannot authorize
a special district to impose or levy any other tax. All forms of
taxation other than ad valorem taxes are preempted to the State
except as provided by general law.
A major disadvantage of a special act special district is that
any charter change requires a supplemental special act adopted by
the Florida Legislature.
METHOD OF CREATION: By special act approved by the
Okeechobee County Legislative Delegation and adopted by the Florida
Legislature.
Special District Created by General Law
The prohibited special law provisions of Article III, Section
11, the Florida Constitution, recognize a general law
classification of special districts in Section 11(b) as follows:
(b) In the enactment of general law on other
subjects, political subdivisions or other
governmental entities may be classified only
on a basis reasonably related to the subject
of the law.
7 Article VII, Sections 1(a) and 9(b), the Florida
Constitution.
13
Thus a general law may authorize the creation of a special district
to perform a specialized function. If applicable less than
statewide, the counties to which the general law special district
classification applies must be reasonably related to the subject
of the law or the nature of the special district.
Examples of general law special districts are juvenile welfare
independent special districts authorized under Section 125.901,
Florida Statutes; county health care special districts authorized
under Section 154.331, Florida Statutes; regional transportation
authority authorized under Section 163.567, Florida Statutes; and
regional water supply authorities created under Section 373.1962,
Florida Statutes.
The local mechanism creating the special district can be
individually tailored. Examples of local creation options are:
(i) ordinance adoption by County; (ii)ordinance adoption by County
with the consent of the City; or (iii) interlocal agreement between
the City and the County. Since the enabling act is a general law,
selected tax revenues could be included as local tax options of the
8 Unfortunately, Chapter 153, Part II, Florida Statutes, cited
as the County Water and Sewer District Law, was enacted well before
the 1968 Constitution. Chapter 153 does allow for the provision
of water and sewer to unincorporated areas, but does not appear to
provide viable general authority for creation of a special district
that could be tailored to local needs. Chapter 153 also appears
to have been overlooked by the Legislature when it passed Chapter
189, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Special District Accountability
Act of 1989. Use of Chapter 153 would require a legislative
amendment to include municipal areas and other changes to obtain
consistency with Chapter 189. Due to archaic language, Chapter 153
does not appear to be a viable governance alternative.
14
governing board of the special district or the creating general
purpose local government.
A major disadvantage of a general law special district is the
need for the adoption of a general act by the Florida Legislature.
In addition, because the impetus would be from Okeechobee County,
approval by the Okeechobee County Legislative Delegation would be
a practical requirement.
METHOD OF CREATION: By general act approved by the
Okeechobee County Legislative Delegation and adopted by the Florida
Legislature.
Implementation by County Ordinance
Article VIII, Section 1(f), the Florida Constitution, provides
that a non- charter county ordinance in conflict with a municipal
ordinance shall not be effective within the municipality to the
extent of such conflict. Okeechobee County is a non charter
county.
Under this power of self government the County could fund
utility improvements county -wide by the imposition of water and
wastewater capital and maintenance assessments by ordinance.
However, because of the preemptive power of the City to pass a
conflicting ordinance, such option is not practically or
financially feasible.
METHOD OF CREATION: By county ordinance.
15
Joint Delivery of Service by Interlocal Agreement
Part I, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, provides for
intergovernmental cooperation and the exercise of joint powers by
the City and the County through the execution of an interlocal
agreement. Section 163.01(5) enumerates the terms and conditions
of the interlocal agreement and specifically provides that such
agreement may provide for the creation of a separate legal entity.
Section 163.01(7)(a) also specifically provides that the interlocal
agreement may create "a separate legal or administrative entity to
administer" the agreement. However, Section 163.01(7)(c) limits
the power of any separate legal or administrative entity by
providing that such entity shall not possess the power to levy any
tax, issue any bonds, or obligate financially any participating
governmental unit. As a consequence, without additional
legislative authorization, the creation of a separate legal or
administrative entity by interlocal agreement is not a viable
option to construct and maintain a regional utility system.
An interlocal agreement is a viable option to obtain City
consent to the imposition of special assessments by the County
under the implementation by county ordinance option discussed
above. However, the presence of an interlocal agreement would not
eliminate the major disadvantage of the county ordinance option,
i.e., that the utility system becomes essentially a County project.
METHOD OF CREATION: By County ordinance and execution
of interlocal agreement between the City and the County.
16
Special District Created Under Home Rule
Section 125.01(5)(a) authorizes the County to create a special
district to include both incorporated and unincorporated areas
subject to the approval of the City. Once created, each special
district has the power to provide municipal services and facilities
"...from funds derived from service charges, special assessments,
or taxes within such district only."
The special district would be classified as "independent" or
"dependent" under Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, depending on the
governing board and budget adoption provisions provided in the
authorizing ordinance. Section 189.404(4)(b), Florida Statutes,
expressly recognizes that a county may create an independent
special district "...as otherwise authorized by general law."
Section 189.4041, Florida Statutes, provides that a charter for the
creation of a dependent special district shall be adopted only by
ordinance of a county or municipal governing body having
jurisdiction over the area affected.
Section 125.01(5)(b) requires that the governing body of the
special district be composed of county commissioners and further
provides that the governing board may include elected officials of
the affected municipality. The basis of governing board
apportionment is required to be established in the ordinance.
The major advantage of a home rule special district is the
retention of local control in the drafting of the initial charter
and any subsequent amendments. The statutory requirement that
members of the governing board are required to be county
17
commissioners and city council members may also be an advantage
under the current circumstances.
METHOD OF CREATION: By ordinance of the County consented
to by ordinance of the City.
Governance Recommendation
The recommended governing structure for a water and wastewater
utility system to serve the Study Area is a home rule special
district. A special district charter adopted by an ordinance
agreed to by both the City and the County will have broad
acceptability and will permit a locally designed charter with
flexibility for effective implementation. In addition, charter
provisions can be modified or amended and special district
boundaries realigned locally by ordinance when needed. A home rule
special district would also have the power to serve the eastern
reaches of Glades County, now served by the Okeechobee Beach Water
Association, via interlocal agreement.
It is anticipated that the statutory requirement that the
governing board be composed entirely of county commissioners and
city council members may not be acceptable. As a consequence, we
recommend that Section 125.01(5)(b), Florida Statutes, be amended
during the 1993 Regular Legislative Session to allow the members
of the governing board to be wholly or partially appointed by the
City or the County. In our judgment, such general law amendment
would not be controversial and is possible. Since the other viable
options of a special act or general law special district also
require legislative action, this need for legislative action is not
18
considered to be a major impediment. Because of the early start
of the 1993 Regular Legislative Session, the complexity of
obtaining approval of a special act or general law special district
is much greater; however, seeking a minor amendment to Section
125.01(5)(b) has a reasonable possibility of success.
In addition, relying upon an existing general law mechanism
for the creation of a special district also facilitates general law
authorization of a tax revenue source since the tax to be
authorized can be made available only to a special district created
under Section 125.01(5)(a), Florida Statutes, to provide utility
facilities.
Development of Local Consensus
It is of fundamental importance that the City, the County and
the Okeechobee Beach Water .Association agree in concept on
participation in a consolidation of facilities and services in the
Study Area. To that end it would be advisable to adopt a non-
binding agreement to identify and generally outline the financial
and policy details of consolidation. Such an endeavor would
require various community leaders and elected officials address the
issues involved in a statesmanlike manner and fashion an objective,
fair and viable resolution that serves the entire community, not
just one fraction or jurisdiction.
Development of District Boundary Description
In addition to the development of a local consensus,
implementation of any of the foregoing alternatives will require
development of a specific boundary description of the area to be
19
encompassed by the district. For purposes of this report, most
of the whole sections affected by the Study Area, comprising
approximately 51 square miles were identified.. The information
was compiled by reviewing the Okeechobee County Property
Appraiser's master appraisal file. Since distinguishing properties
within a specific section requires individual coding of the
designated parcels and computer manipulation of information, this
estimation is a very crude representation of the taxable value from
the 51 identified sections.
The delineation of actual district boundaries requires the
initial exercise of policy judgment by the City, County and
Okeechobee Beach Water Association. This report outlines the
general criteria to be applied and identifies relevant factors to
be considered. Upon receipt of further direction, specific
district boundaries can be delineated and parcels located in
sections partially within the district boundaries will be
individually coded to conform the Study Area to the actual district
boundaries.
The general criteria for the determination of district
boundaries is inclusion only of those properties which are expected
to be served by or otherwise benefit from the creation of a
regional utility system. Relevant factors for consideration
include:
the reasonably anticipated service area,
natural boundaries,
20
State, regional and local comprehensive plan
requirements, and
the extent of homogeneous land use.
The concept of homogeneous land use is intended to classify
properties with a common interest in the development and operation
of the regional utility system. The extent of homogenous land use
is now driven by local comprehensive plan requirements. This was
the primary factor in identifying the Study Area.
On the other hand, the anticipated service area will be driven
by the probable demands of any available State or federal funding.
It should come as no surprise that State or federal subsidization
will be required if central water and sewer is to be developed in
the Study Area. As well, if State or federal funds are available,
they will no doubt be tied a regional approach that leads to
sewering the Study Area in order to reduce pollution of Lake
Okeechobee and its tributaries.
The Study Area boundaries are intended to illustrate the
application of the factors described above and are not intended to
limit any policy judgment ultimately made by a home rule special
district. It is anticipated that a workshop -type session would be
conducted with the City, County and Okeechobee Beach Water
Association to discuss and determine, among other matters, the
actual district boundaries.
9 For this reason, the disparity in rates between incorporated
and unincorporated ratepayers and lack of governance participation
by the County Commission, we did not suggest Chapter 180, Florida
Statutes, as a viable governance alternative.
21
OVERVIEW OP PRESENT SERVICE TO STUDY AREA
In Okeechobee County, the provision of central water and
wastewater are critical issues requiring immediate and long term
attention. The majority of the population in Okeechobee County
is located along the north shore of Lake Okeechobee. The City of
Okeechobee is the single largest provider of potable water to the
1 See Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan, Okeechobee County
Ordinance No. 92 -5:
Potable Water and Sanitary Sever
Objective 83: Okeechobee County shall coordinate with providers
of public supply potable water and sanitary.sewer
facilities, and with appropriate state or regional
agencies, to: maximize the use of existing
facilities; coordinate the extension of facilities
in unincorporated areas of the County; and encourage
efficient patterns of development while discouraging
sprawl. [9,7
Policy S3.1: Okeechobee County shall continue coordinating with
the South Florida Water Management District and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to
complete an assessment of potable water and sanitary
sewer existing conditions and future needs in the
County. (9J 5.011(2) (c)3]
Policy S3.2: Okeechobee County shall continue working with the
City of Okeechobee to evaluate the feasibility of
establishing a utility authority which would be
responsible for meeting the potable water and
santiary sewer needs of southern Okeechobee County.
Feasibility shall be determined through ongoing
discussions with the City, as well with assistance
from the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and the South Florida Water Management
District and ongoing potable water and sanitary
sewer studies. If determined to be feasible, the
utility authority shall incorporate existing service
areas and coordinate the expansion of facilities,
including requiring that septic tanks along Lake
Okeechobee and Taylor Creek be replaced by
connection to existing or expanded public supply
sewage treatment facilities. (9J
22
Study Area. Limited central sewer service to this area is also
provided via the City of Okeechobee. The City sells bulk treated
water to the Okeechobee Beach Water Association, a not for profit
cooperative, which, in turn, resells it to a number of residential
customers located southeast of the City and toward the west along
the shoreline of Lake Okeechobee. The service area of the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association continues into a small portion
of the eastern edge of Glades County. Approximately thirty percent
(30 of the population served by the Okeechobee Beach Water
Association exists within Glades County. Plans are underway for
additional residential development in the Okeechobee Beach area.
To address the utility issues involved with added development
in the Beach area and the provision of regional utility services
and facilities, the City of Okeechobee, Okeechobee County, and the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association have held discussions concerning
the County initiating a water system, the City continuing to
provide service and expanding its existing capacity, the Okeechobee
Beach Water Association developing its own water treatment system,
and a multi -party utility authority that would transcend the
various jurisdictional boundaries. This section of the Phase I
report is intended to assist the community in evaluating and
analyzing (1) the existing infrastructure conditions and current
service being provided by the City of Okeechobee and the Okeechobee
Beach
Water Association, (2) the existing customer base, (3) City
utility revenues and expenditures, (4) identified future
infrastructure improvements necessary to meet service demands, (5)
23
an evaluation of operating data and potential options for water
service and (6) certain debt capacity considerations. This section
of the Phase I report is provided primarily as a tool to inform and
assist policy and decision makers in the Study Area.
An inventory of existing facilities has been compiled from
limited information provided by the City and the Okeechobee Beach
Water Association. Unfortunately, neither of theses utility
service providers could provide a "system map" of their respective
infrastructure systems. A review of past and projected budgets and
financial statements has also been performed, along with a review
of the monthly operating reports. The information analyzed was
derived from documentation and reports provided by the entities
involved and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
In some instances it was necessary to make assumptions. Such
assumptions can later be validated by other professionals.
Existing Infrastructure
The City of Okeechobee water system consists of a conventional
coagulation and sedimentation water treatment plant with lime
softening capabilities, two 250,000 gallon elevated tanks, a
500,000 gallon and a 1,000,000 gallon ground storage tank. The
water plant was originally constructed in 1925 and upgraded in 1958
and 1972 to provide larger pumps and include improved treatment
technologies.
The treatment process (See Appendix A) includes coagulation
and sedimentation with alum and powder- activated carbon addition,
lime softening (when necessary), rapid sand filtration, and
24
chlorination. Alum and powder- activated carbon are applied
directly into the discharge side of the raw water pipe as it enters
the coagulation and sedimentation basin. The coagulation and
sedimentation basin is a four -step process, with each sub -basin
providing additional treatment to the water. Settled sludge
accumulates predominately in the first two settling basins which
are cleaned manually every two to three weeks. Water routed from
the coagulation and sedimentation basin goes to the lime- softening
unit when necessary and then to the filters. Water comes off the
filters and goes into the ground storage reservoirs (clear wells).
Transfer pumps then pump from the clear wells into the system.
Chlorine is injected immediately after the water leaves the
transfer pumps from the clear well, and prior to entering the
distribution system.
The raw water supply for the City of Okeechobee Water Plant
is Lake Okeechobee, which is a shallow, 714 square -mile lake.
Because of the shallowness of the lake, the runoff from nearby
agricultural interests and the number of septic tanks located in
close proximity to the lake, impurities (most notably nitrogen and
phosphorus) exist within Lake Okeechobee. This provides an
environment conducive to the growth of algae blooms and lake
phytoplankton which can create treatment problems. High algae and
phytoplankton content may at times exert a negative influence on
the color and bacterial quality of the raw water and subsequently
provide difficulty in treatment. When this occurs, the City
25
backwashes the filters in order to ensure that no toxic algae enter
the distribution system.
Raw water is drawn from the intake structure from two 2,000
gpm turbine pumps (See Appendix B). Presently, the raw water
supply is throttled by valves at the raw water meter and adjusted
according to the need for raw water. Activated carbon has been
added to reduce the organic content, unpalatable taste and odors
within the lake water. Four disinfection by- products have been
detected within the finished water supply, the source of which is
not completely identified in the available City of Okeechobee
literature. These substances are (1) chloroform, (2)
bromodichloromethane, (3) dibromochloromethane, and (4) bromoform.
Each of these
Requirements,
result of the surface water
Appendix C for lab results).
from .04 to .075 mg per liter,
impurities, under the Secondary Drinking Water
should not be detectable and
are obviously the
source for the water system
Trihalomethanes in the system
Drinking Water Act requirements at this time, but does not
12 F1a. Admin. Code 17- 550.310(2)(c)(1992).
26
(see
vary
which is in accordance with the Safe
meet
with the proposed requirements of .05 mg per liter. To counteract
this, the City may consider the addition of ammonia to retard
trihalomethane formation.
1 1 Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring and Reporting, Fla.
Admin. Code 17 -550 (1992).
The City of Okeechobee Water Treatment Plant is under consent
order with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation due
to taste and odor problems with water from the City system (along
with chlorine residual problems). This problem stems primarily
from the surface water utilization of Lake Okeechobee. Lake
Okeechobee water is variable in quality, contains minerals, color
and turbidity as the result of runoff, algae and other chemicals
which tend to produce or contain taste and odor producing
substances. Open surface water tends to have a higher potential
for pollution than does groundwater.
The City had an existing consumptive use permit from the
South Florida Water Management District for 3.73 MGD of surface
water withdrawals from Lake Okeechobee. A second filing for a
consumptive use permit has been secured for seven shallow wells for
an average of 2.2 MGD from the wells, and 2.88 MGD from the surface
water source, with a combined withdrawal not to exceed 2.57 MGD
average, and a maximum of 3.47 MGD.
The City's water distribution system consists of 4 6 8
10 and 12 -inch water mains and a 24 -inch transmission pipeline
which are predominantly constructed of cast iron, PVC, and asbestos
cement pipe. The 24 -inch main extends from the water treatment
plant to an elevated storage tank located on Southwest 23rd Street.
The second elevated storage tank is located at City Hall and is
supplied by parallel 10- and 12 -inch water mains. Table 2 denotes
the materials utilized on the system. Of significant concern
13 See Appendix D Consent Order.
27
within the system is the cast iron pipe, of which there is 78,000
feet; the asbestos cement pipe of which there is over 30,000 feet;
and galvanized steel pipe of which there is 84,000 feet. This
comprises over half of the City's water distribution system which
has a total of only 314,000 feet of pipe.
Material
Abbreviations:
Table 2. Existing Mater Main Tabulation
Linear Feet of Mater Main With Respect to Pipe Diameter
2° 30 4° 6" 8" 10" 12"
AC 0 0 3,696 26,612 0 1,200 2,190
CI 2,192 2,505 5,162 58,972 16,962 1,390 875
DI 340 95 2,343 5,511 9,049 3,435 7,771
GS 84,247 0 30 0 0 0 0
PVC 79.097 7.324 35.572 35.572 ,25.952 0 568
Total by Size 165,876 9,924 46,803 179,683 51,963 6,025 11,404
AC Asbestos Cement Pipe
CI Cast Iron Pipe
DI Ductile Iron Pipe
GS Galvanized Steel Pipe
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe
The cast iron pipes on the system have been tested and found
to have very low C- factors. The C- factor is a measure of the
ability of water to flow freely through the pipe. A c- factor of
100 is marginally acceptable. C- factors on the cast iron pipes
between zero and 50 have been found. In addition, ductile iron
pipe over ten years old has been tested and found to have similar
substantard C- factor characteristics. This indicates that the
water in the system has a tendency to leave behind flow- inhibiting
deposits within the pipes, which requires regular cleaning. The
amount of pipe found with a C- factor of 100 indicates a significant
cleaning effort is required as well as potential replacement of
significant portions of the system.
28
29
Much of the cast iron pipe is older, indicating it may have
lead joints and, as such, may create problems for the City in
complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for lead.
Asbestos cement lines in many areas of the country are
expected to pose potential problems in the coming years. Asbestos
cement water lines tend to show some deterioration over time,
resulting in brittleness and a tendency for shear breaks when
disturbed. Direct tapping is not practical, as drilling into the
pipe walls for service lines creates hazards for employees. The
same is true for repair work on this type of water mains.
Galvanized steel water mains tend to last less than twenty
years. This has been demonstrated in other areas of Florida, where
the galvanized steel is exposed to soils or groundwater that is
acidic or saline. Galvanized steel water lines typically become
high- maintenance appurtenances as they age and need to be replaced.
In addition to the 84,000 feet galvanized steel water lines in the
City system, many of the City's existing service lines are likely
to be galvanized steel and use galvanized fittings which may
contribute to additional leak problems in the system.
Unfortunately, no information was provided concerning the
water loss on the City's water system which, under good engineering
principles, should be less than ten percent. No data on meters,
conditions, or the existence of the changeout program were
reviewed. An in depth analysis of such information would be
prudent.
14 Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g -6 (1988).
30
Part of the Department of Environmental Regulation Consent
Order, enter into by the City as previously noted, focused upon the
problem of low- chlorine residuals in various areas of the City's
water system. Florida's Drinking Water Standards require service
providers to maintain a chlorine residual in all parts of the
system at all times to prevent the growth of bacteria. Low
chlorine residuals can be attributed in part to the lack of
flushing of the system to eliminate stagnant water in the mains.
The algae bloom problem with the raw water drawn from Lake
Okeechobee, as was suggested in the engineer's report attached to
the Official Statement for the City of Okeechobee, Water and Sewer
Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1989, can also contribute
significantly to this problem.
The City of Okeechobee Wastewater Treatment Plant is located
on the north side of Cemetery Road. This plant was constructed in
1985 using a Marolf- designed contact stabilization plant. The
plant capacity is 0.6 MGD with an average daily flow of 300,000
gallons per day. This negative disparity is due to a functional
inability to properly dispose of wastewater effluentual points to
a need for the community as a whole to find a positive use for what
can be a valuable and useful by- product of a central sewer system.
The wastewater plant consists of a grit chamber with bar
screen, surge tank, lift station, pumps, contact aeration tank,
aerobic digester, clarifier, and chlorine contact chamber, from
which sewage is discharged to holding ponds and sprayed on 300
15 F1a. Admin. Code 17- 550.510(6)(d).
acres located at the plant site. This irrigation is controlled by
an irrigation pump station with three trailing spray guns. Sludge
from the digester is removed in liquid form and transported and
discharged to a permitted offsite location. The major measuring
device for wastewater at the plant is the V -notch weir located at
the effluent end of the chlorine contact chamber. A system to
measure flow depths over the weir is tied to a continuous flow
recorder and chart. Auxiliary power is available onsite, as are
a small office and laboratory. The suggestion exists in the
engineer's report contained in the Official Statement for the City
of Okeechobee Water and Sewer Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series
1989 that there may be some problems with groundwater on the
effluent irrigation sites, which may limit or prevent future spray
irrigation on the site. This was followed in the engineer's report
by a suggestion that a deep injection well may need to be
constructed for effluent disposal. A 1989 expansion to the
plant included filtration of chlorinated secondary treated effluent
utilizing a dual -media filter, with additional chlorination
following the filter, 61,000,000 gallons of unlined holding pond
storage, and a reclaimed water line to adjacent groves. Finally,
the City's 1989 bond issue was utilized to add a low -lift pump
station and drainage ditches to the spray field to prevent runoff
of the sprayed effluent to adjacent properties. This water is
returned to the onsite ponds.
The City's wastewater collection system consists of 6 8
10 12 and 15 -inch vitrified clay and PVC pipe. A substantial
31
increase to the number of connections that the City serves was
completed in 1988 as part of its Phase I sewer expansion. On this
Phase I project, the City encountered significant construction
management problems and engaged a contractor who appeared to lay
a significant portion of the pipe in this project with insufficient
slopes. The City's 1989 bond issue included work to correct and
repair some of these problems. There appear to be some
fluctuations in the flows generated by the system that would
indicate that some infiltration of the system is present. However,
no correlating rainfall information was provided.
The Okeechobee Beach Water Association system has little
available information. The system has two elevated storage tanks,
each with 75,000 gallons capacity located. at Buckhead Ridge and
Treasure Island. The system contains about 15 miles of 6- and
8 -inch "transmission" lines, and an unknown quantity of lines less
than 6 inches in diameter serving individual lots. All water
service is currently provided by the City of Okeechobee as a part
of a bulk water service agreement that expires in 1994. The system
appears to be in fair condition, but little information was
available for review in the preparation of this report.
The total value of the assets of the City's water and sewer
system is $7,441,576 according to the 1990 audit, with
contributions in aid of construction of $4,447,549, totalling a
system asset value of $11,889,125. However, debt on the system
16 F i nancial Statements and Accompanying Information, provided
by City of Okeechobee, p. 18 (1990).
32
is $9,552,283, leaving a net residual value on the system of
$2,336,842 when debt is deducted.
The Okeechobee Beach Water Association system has no debt.
The latest annual report lists the value of the assets of the
system at about $1,550,000, leaving a net residual value of about
$1,550,000. These crude valuations do not take into consideration
other positive or negative factors, such as a need to replace
deteriorated or unsafe pipe, additional infrastructure needs or the
ability or inability to raise rates to meet revenue needs.
Existing Customer Base
The City of Okeechobee water system presently serves 3,718
residential customers, 20 multi family connections, zero industrial
customers, and 762 commercial customers. Added to this are the
Okeechobee Beach Water •Association customers, including 2,973
residential customers and 178 commercial. customers. Nearly half
of the customers on the City system are located within the County,
but not within the Okeechobee Beach Water Association's water
distribution system service area. Table 3 shows existing and
17 Financial Statements and Accompanying Information, provided
by City of Okeechobee, p.. 20 (1990).
33
proposed customers for the City, County, and the Okeechobee Beach
Water Association for 1991 and 1994.
TABLE 3. WATER CUSTOMERS
Type City County OBWA
1991 1994 1991 1994 1991 1994
Single Family 1944 1981 1774 2000 2973 3285
Multi Family 9 n/a 11 n/a 0 0
Commercial 519 540 243 289 178 190
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 2472 2521 2028 2289 3151 3475
Gallons Used/Day
(000's) 574 587 451 511 *484 *527
(actual) 562 612
Rates 3.10+1.70/1000 3.88 +2.13/1000 8.00+3.00/1000
NOTES: Average low Single Family (City County) 5100 gal /mo
Single Family (OBWA) 3000 gal /mo
Multi Family Commercial
(City County) 17700 gal /mo
Multi Family Commercial
(OBWA) 31400 gal /mo
Total Plant Average Daily Flow 1991 1.59 MGD
1994 1.71 MGD
The City of Okeechobee sewer system only serves 1,387 City
customers and 589 County customers (a total of 1,976) but no
Okeechobee Beach Water Association customers.
City Utility Revenue and Expenditures
Tables 4 and 5 present the revenue and expenditures budgeted
for the City of Okeechobee water and sewer systems over the past
few years.
TABLE 4. CITY OF OSEECNOBEE REVENUESOn 000's)
Item/Year 1987 1988 1989 1990
User Fees (W S) 1417 1722 1697 2251
Interest Income 63 72 62 305
Impact Fees 112 91 212 417
Misc. 0 43 37 58
TOTAL 1592 1928 2008 3031
NOTE: Figures for FY 1991 were not made available by the City.
34
Table 5 also shows estimated future expenditure budgets.
TABLE 5. CITY OF OIEECHOBEE
EXPENDITURES
(in 000's)
Item/Year 1988 1989 1990 1991* 1992* 1993* 1994*
Personnel 541 582 615 650 685 710 745
Contract Serv. 41 54 56 63 70 76 82
Mtls Suppl 246 352 348 350 350 350 350
Utilities 131 137 127 135 135 135 135
Insurance 60 52 49 50 50 50 50
Repair Maint. 60 81 68 70 72 75 78
Admin. Suppl 19 25 23 23 24 25 26
Transf. to GF 48 48 48 48 48 48 48
Bad Debts 20 12 0 5 5 5 5
Debt Service 436 593 767 797 859 854 n/a
Legal Eng. 593 45 0 0 0 0 0
Misc. 2 25 8 10 10 10 10
Deprec. 281 306 311 320 340 360 380
TOTAL 2482 2312 2420 2521 2648 2698 n/a
Net Operating (32) 140 133 n/a n/a n/a n/a
NOTES: Projected, with no plant expansions
Arbitration Case settlement
This is not the usual procedure for public sector accounting.
This could be a Repair Replacement Fund, but the annual
audits do not indicate whether this is the case, or whether
this is an actual dollar expenditure.
Recent rate increases by the City have generated an influx of
monies for operations and to offset bond indebtedness incurred in
1987 and 1989 for the previous plant expansions and the City's
Phase I sewer area installation. Debt on the system currently is
$9,552,288. Unfortunately, the debt is not divided between water
and wastewater, which require assumptions to be made. The City's
1989 bond issue for $4.8 million was split $4.6 million for sewer,
the rest for water. The City of Okeechobee, Water and Sewer
Refunding and Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1987 refinanced
previous bond issues for which little information has been made
available. Based on the official statement, it appears that the
debt may be evenly split between water and wastewater (the 1972
35
FMHA issue appears to upgrade the City's water treatment plant,
while the 1983 issues are split between water and sewer). As such,
the debt on the water and wastewater systems, for the purpose of
clarity, is estimated as follows:
Water related debt $2,650,000
Sewer related debt $6,900,000
Total debt (water and sewer) $9,550,000
Table 6 compares monthly water utility bills for the City of
Okeechobee and some surrounding communities. Presently, the City's
rates appear in the middle of the spectrum. However, future
infrastructure requirements may cause the monthly bills to appear
significantly different were the City to incur the debt to make the
improvements. As well, increased principal payments on the City's
debt will also demand increased rate revenues.
TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF CITY MATER BILLS TO AREA SYSTEMS
System
Availability Per Gallon 5000 gal
Okeechobee 3.10 1.70 11.60
OBWA 8.00 2.00 /over 3000 12.00
Moore Haven 9.00 2.50 21.50
Sebring 7.10 1.77/1.45 over 3000 13.31
Clewiston 3.00 2.50 15.50
Belle Glade 8.61 1.87 14.22
South Bay 6.00 2.00 16.00
Pahokee 9.00 3.00 /over 3000 15.00
NOTE: Rate information from August 1991 Okeechobee Area
Water Sewer Task Force Final Report on Comparison Analysis
Water and Sewer Options, which was not reverified for this
report.
Based upon a review of the pledged security for the City's 1987
and 1989 bond issues and the City's rate structure, it appears
that a portion of the revenue necessary to cover city debt service
is being derived from charges to rate payers for operating, as
36
opposed to availability costs. Also, it appears that some
general fund monies are being used to offset debt service. The
net result of this latter point would result in city taxpayers
subsidizing the utility system rate payers with artificially lower
utility rates. Alternatively, this might be explained by the fact
that the City is depreciating its infrastructure; which is not a
customary practice on governmentally owned utility systems. If
either of these observations is correct, the City could be faced
with a future management problem due to a cash flow shortage, be
unable to make periodic repayment on the bonds and /or be faced
with an inability to meet operations costs, all due to a shortage
of utility rate revenues.
Future Infrastructure
The water and wastewater plants in the City of Okeechobee
will need expansion in the near future, as the units that can be
18 In a typical rate structure service availability costs are
made up of debt service, meter reading and billing and collection
costs. These are fixed costs which occur whether any water is used
or not. The other component of a typical rate structure is the
cost of operations which are composed of the cost to produce the
commodity or service and the maintenance of infrastructure.
Typically all rate payers pay the same availability charge or
portions of fixed costs and rate payers who use more water than
others pay a proportionately larger share of the cost of
operations. Shifting a portion of debt service from the fixed or
availability side of the rate equation to the operations cost side
does three things: (1) artificially lowers rates for small users
because they pay a disproportionately small share of debt service
costs, (2) shifts to larger users a disproportionately large share
of debt service costs and (3) creates a potential management
problem resulting from lack of funds from rate revenue to cover
debt service. This latter consequence would occur if larger users
were to significantly reduce consumption, resulting in a lack of
revenue to cover that portions of debt service cost inappropriately
charged as a part of operations costs.
37
S`
zi
1
38
served under current conditions are theoretically 11,850 and
2,400, respectively. Indications are that the City's water plant
may not be able to meet State and federal drinking water standards
at that level due to the quality of the lake water. On the
wastewater side, the estuary system and the lake itself may pose
problems for the future disposal of wastewater effluent. The
engineer's report attached to the City of Okeechobee, Water and
Sewer Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1989, noted that the
ultimate disposal for the wastewater effluent would be a deep
injection well. This is an extremely costly alternative; however,
it may lend itself to a number of potential benefits for the
provision of both water and wastewater. Unfortunately, two wells
(one for backup) would be required, each costing approximately
$2.5 million. All of the above points to a need for significant
revenue, which in turn makes significant rate increases for City
users inevitable.
According to the Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan, the
sanitary sewer use is estimated to be 130 gallons per capita per
day while the peak daily water demand for potable water is 114
f
gallons per capita per day. This is contrary to generally
accepted engineering standards, which indicate that the per capita
water usage should be higher than the per capita sewer demand. It
19 F1a. Admin. Code 17 -28 (1990) essentially requires that one
deepwell will not be permitted without another for back -up
purposes.
20 Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan, Policy S1.1,
Okeechobee County Ordinance No. 92 -5.
is suspected that this standard has been set to account for summer
infiltration into the area wastewater treatment plants. This is
an issue that needs to be reviewed and corrected on a
community -wide basis in order to protect groundwater supplies and
reduce wastewater treatment plant construction costs to area
residents.
In evaluating the future wastewater infrastructure, it should
be recognized that although the City of Okeechobee is a major
provider of sewer service in the Study Area, it is not the only
provider. A significant number of small package wastewater
treatment plants exist in the area surrounding the City of
Okeechobee. These package wastewater treatment plants may
constitute a health, safety, and welfare risk or an environmental
risk at some future point in time (if not already) The County
recently commissioned a study by Craig A. Smith Associates to
review the s service aspects of a regional county provider to
provide service to the outlying areas and to take these package
plants off line. As such, this Phase I Report will endeavor to
avoid duplicating the efforts of the Craig A. Smith report
relative to wastewater service.
The City of Okeechobee recently indicated that it is ready to
expand its water treatment plant. In 1994, the bulk water service
agreement with the Okeechobee Beach Water Association expires.
21 Draft- Okeechobee
Smith Associates, p.
22 Draft- Okeechobee
A. Smith Associates,
County Utility System
4 -70, September 1991.
County Utility System
September 1991.
39
prepared by Craig S.
prepared by Craig
This fact has opened discussions among the City, County, and
Okeechobee Beach Water Association concerning the best
alternatives to the provision of water service to the area. The
City, as the current water provider, appears desirous of
continuing that service. At some point there may be some
resistance from City voters to the issuance of debt in order to
provide additional capacity to County residents. This fact has
been realized by Okeechobee Beach Water Association which has
evaluated its •ability to, and appears poised to, embark on the
construction of its own water treatment plant.
The South Florida Water Management District has recognized
the need to plan, design and construct regional water and sewer
infrastructure in the Study Area and has agreed to incrementally
provide partial funding to explore and promote such activity
through the County in a performance based manner. This funding is
pursuant to 'a Cooperative Agreement between the South Florida
Water Management District and the County, dated April 9, 1992.
23 This funding Agreement provides for funds to be paid over
to the County upon the happening of specific events or the
provision of specific deliverables over a period of as long as
three Fiscal Years ending September 30, 1994. Although this
funding agreement is subject to revision and amendment the current
funding milestones are as follows: wastewater effluent disposal
site- specific study $50,000; preliminary wastewater collection
system design and cost estimate $125,000; wastewater system
financing plan- $75,000; design and permitting of the initial phase
of wastewater facilities $50,000; hydrogeologic study and test well
program for wellfield- $100,000; development of governance structure
to deliver utility facilities and services $50,000; preparation of
plans and receipt of permits to construct well field, tankage,
transmission and pumping appurtenances; preparation of plans and
receipt of permits to construct 1.5 MGD water treatment plant
$50,000 completion of wellfield, raw water storage facility,
transmission lines and appurtenances $500,000.
40
Water service Options Evaluation
The following options are provided to assist in the decision
making process.
In evaluating the various options, it is
important to note that both the County and the Okeechobee Beach
Water Association independently have more customers than the City
(see Table 3). For the purposes of comparison, Table 7 denotes
the value of the City and Okeechobee Beach Water Association
systems, while Table 8 illustrates initial construction cost
assumptions and operations assumptions for a water treatment
plant. These tables will be used in helping to develop the
potential options outlined in Table 9.
TABLE 7. SYSTEM VAUTATION
1. Value City system
Debt
Net
2. Value OBWA system
Debt
Net
11,880,000
9.550.000
2,330,000
1,550,000
-0-
1,550,000
NOTE: System valuations include both water and wastewater,
and are approximated for ease in comparison of options.
TABLE 8. ASSUMPTIONS FOR WATER PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND ANNUAL OPERATIONS
Construction Cost Assuptions
Cost of Water Plant per 1 MGD of
treatment capacity 1,500,000
Land (5 to 10 acres minimum) 250,000
Intake Structure (Lake water) 250,000
Welts (Per well at 500 gpm) 125,000
Storage Tanks (Per 100,000 gal) 100,000
41
TOTAL
Annual operations Assumptions
OPERATIONS COSTS CITY PLANT
(Water Only)
1991 1994
Personnel 350,000 435,000
Contractual Serv. 30,000 40,000
Maint Suppl 220,000 220,000
Utilities 75,000 75,000
Insurance 25,000 25,000
Repair Saint. 40,000 45,000
Admin. Suppl 10,000 15,000
Transf. to GF 24,000 24,000
Misc. 5,000 5,000
R &R (Deprec.) 130.000 140.000
909,000 1,024,000
OPERATIONS COSTS OBWA NEW PLANT
(Water only)
Chief Operator 37,000
5 Operators (5 2 27,000 /yr) 135,000
Utility Tech /Meter Reader 46,000
Utilities 75,000
Repair Maintenance 30,000
Contract Services (Lab) 30,000
System Maintenance 50,000
Administrative Costs 35,000
Miscellaneous Costs 25,000
Insurance 10,000
R &R 200.000
TOTAL 673,000
OPERATIONS COSTS COUNTY /AUTHORITY PLANT
(Water Only)
Chief Operator 37,000
5 Operators (5 9 27,000 /yr) 135,000
Utility Tech 46,000
Meter Reader 23,000
Billing 5,000
Utilities 75,000
Repair Maintenance 40,000
Contract Services (Lab) 30,000
System Maintenance 50,000
Administrative Costs 25,000
Miscellaneous Costs 25,000
Insurance 10,000
R &R 250.000
TOTAL 767,000
42
OPERATIONS COSTS COUNTY /AUTHORITY 2 PLANTS
(Water Only)
Personnel 630,000
Contract Services 40,000
Saint Suppt 270,000
Utilities 150,000
Insurance 25,000
Repair Saint 80,000
Miscellaneous Costs 25,000
R&R 390.000
TOTAL 1,610,000
Again for comparison, Table 9 briefly outlines each of
several options.
TABLE 9. DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS
OPTION:
A. Existing system is City operated 2.88 MGD plant with bulk sale to OBWA
B. City expands plant by 2.0 MGD and continues to serve all via contractual arrangement
C. City serves its current area, minus OBWA. OBWA purchases water from 2.0 MGD regional county
treatment plant, constructed by County
D. City provides its service area minus OBWA who builds own 1.0 MGD water treatment plant
E. County or authority operates existing City plant and builds new 2.0 MGD regional water
treatment plant interconnects same, purchases City system for net value, purchases OBWA
system for net value, and provides OBWA water like any other customer
F. County or authority operates existing City water plant, and expands same to 4.88 MGD on site,
thereby eliminating some costs, purchases City system for net value and purchases OBWA for
net value, treats all customers the same
G. County or authority operates existing City water plant, builds new plant that can be expanded,
interconnects systems, assumes City debt. City and OBWA give systems to authority
H. County or authority operates existing City water plant, expands it, and assumes City debt.
City and OBWA give systems to authority
Option A is the existing situation where the City is
operating a 2.8 MGD water treatment plant with a bulk sale of up
to 800,000 gallons per day to the Okeechobee Beach Water
Association. This option is shown for later comparative purposes.
43
Option B utilizes the expansion by the City of its plant
capacity by 2.0 MGD and assumes that contractual arrangements can
be negotiated to allow the City to continue to provide water
service to the Okeechobee Beach Water Association system. Without
the latter bulk service arrangement and the light of below average
growth in the community, it makes little sense for the City to
plan any expansions.
Option C assumes that the City continues to serve in its
current service area with its current water treatment plant,
excluding the Okeechobee Beach Water Association system. This
option assumes that the Okeechobee Beach Water Association
purchases water from a 2.0 MGD regional County water treatment
plant, constructed by the County utilizing the South Florida Water
Management District grant. The County would then continue to pick
up customers from this plant without deleting any of the City's
current service area.
Option D assumes the Okeechobee Beach Water Association
builds its own 1.0 MGD water treatment plant and services its
customers. The only problem with this option is that the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association is a private cooperative, and
the impetus behind construction of a new plant reasonably appears
to be land development- driven, leading to the question as to
whether or not the system might be abandoned at some point in the
future requiring operation by the general purpose government, the
County.
44
Options E, F, and G all assume that the County or a
multi -party authority provides water service to all of the
customers on a retail basis, at equivalent rates. These scenarios
are developed because a disparity exists in the current rate
structure among the three parties (County residents pay 1.25 times
City residents for the same service, and Okeechobee Beach Water
Association customers pay less than even City customers due to
their long term bulk service arrangement which is due to expire in
1994). All three options also assume that the County or a multi-
party authority assumes all current indebtedness on either the
City or Okeechobee Beach Water Association system. Options E and
F also assume that the City and the Okeechobee Beach Water
Association require that the County or an authority purchase their
systems for net value as a part of the initial setup of the
authority. The latter assumption significantly increases the
start -up costs and debt incurred on the regional system.
Option E assumes that the County builds a new 2.0 MGD
regional water treatment plant, interconnects same with the City's
plant, and operates both.
Option F assumes by the same methodology that the County or
a multi -party authority can expand the City's water plant onsite,
thereby eliminating some duplication in the operations costs.
Option G assumes the County or multi -party authority operates
two plants that are interconnected and a new plant that can be
expanded.
45
Option H is identical to Option G, except operating with one
expanded plant instead of two.
Table 10 indicates the cost of each of the above described
options, utilizing the assumptions made in Tables 7 and 8.
Obviously, the most expensive options appear to be those in which
the County or multi -party authority must purchase the City and
Okeechobee Beach Water Association water systems. However, it
must be remembered that the larger rate base helps to overcome its
apparent disparity.
TABLE 10. OPTIONS FOR WATER SERVICE -FOR USE AS A DECISION MAKING TOOL
Option A. Current Conditions No Growth (for comparison)
Option B.
City plant expended by 2.0 MGD 3,000,000
Wells 500.000
TOTAL 3,500,000
Option C.
County builds new plant at 2.0 MGD 3,000,000
Wells 500,000
Land 250,000
0.5 MG tank 500.000
TOTAL 4,250,000
Option D.
OBWA builds 1.0 MGD plant 1,500,000
Wells 375,000
Land/piping 250,000
(2 tanks owned by OBWA) 0
Clearwell 250.000
TOTAL 2,375,000
Option E.
OBWA system 1,600,000 C
City Net Value 2,400,000
Assune City Debt 2,650,000
New Plant Construction 4,250,000
Credit SFWMD Grant (1,500,000)
Reserve 10%
Issuance 4%
1,100,000
440.000
TOTAL 10,940,000
46
option F.
OBWA system 1,600,000
City Net Value 2,400,000
Assume City Debt 2,650,000
Ex. Plant Expansion 3,500,000
Credit SFHMD Grant (1,500,000)
Reserve 10% 1,010,000
Issuance 4% 410.000
TOTAL 10,070,000
Option G.
Assume City Debt 2,650,000
New Plant Construction 4,250,000
Credit SFIMD Grant (1,500,000)
Reserve 10% 630,000
Issuance 4% 250.000
TOTAL 6,280,000
Option H.
Assume City Debt 2,650,000
Ex. Plant Construction 3,500,000
Credit SFWMD Grant (1,500,000)
Reserve 10% 540,000
Issuance 4X 220.000
TOTAL 5,410,000
NOTE: Debt service assumed 8 7% over 30 years (.0814)
Table 11 summarizes the water debt obligations that each of
the parties would incur if the above options were pursued.
TABLE 11. WATER DEBT OBLIGATIONS
(in 000
Option City County OBWA
A. 2650 0 0
B. 6150 0 0
D. 2650 2750 0
D. 2650 0 2375
E. 0 10940 0
F. 0 10070 0
G. 0 6280 0
N. 0 5410 0
To further refine the cost to the consumer under each of the
options, a simplified rate study must be performed. Rate analyses
47
are best performed utilizing a conversion of the current meter
sizes to equivalent residential customers (ERC). This calculation
is relatively easy and assumes that a 5/8- by -3/4 -inch standard
meter is one ERC. Each meter size larger than the standard meter
has a multiple assigned to the number of connections. Table 12
illustrates how the number of meters as converted to ERCs were
developed. In 1990, the total ERCs served by the City was 7,185.
TABLE 12. EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CALCULATION (1991)
Meter Size
City County OBWA
Number /ERCs
5/8 x 3/4 1970/1970 1954/1954 2112/2112
1 58/ 116 31/ 62 16/ 32
1 -1/2 19/ 95 17/ 85 3/ 15
2 22/ 176 15/ 120 8/ 64
3 2/ 32 5/ 80 1/ 16
4 1/ 32 1/ 32 4/ 128
6 0/ 0 0/ 0 1/ 64
TOTAL ERCs 2421 2333 2431
ERCs all systems 7185
Based upon a determination of equivalent residential
customers or ERCs, a prorata share of the debt on the system can
be assigned to each user class. Table 13 indicates the amount of
debt that will be required to be secured for a standard
5/8- by -3/4 -inch meter customer (typical residential user).
TABLE 13. MONTHLY DEBT REQUIREMENT -BY OPTION
Option City County OBWA
A. 3.10 3.88 8.00*
B. 5.60 7.00 4.88
C. 3.43 4.12 7.67
D. 3.43 4.12 5.58
E. 10.33 10.33 10.33
F. 9.51 9.51 9.51
G. 5.92 5.92 5.92
N. 5.11 5.11 5.11
Okeechobee Beach Water Association residents get 3000 gallons
for the minimum rate.
48
Option A indicates the current rates on the system. In each
of the cases, the debt service required is higher than present,
given that some expansion must take place in order to continue to
provide sufficient quantities of water to the area.
Table 14 shows the per- thousand gallon cost for each of the
alternatives. Anytime more than one treatment plant is involved,
the operations costs increase. These costs are based upon current
and projected costs incurred by the City of Okeechobee as detailed
on Table 5 and assumed on Table 8.
TABLE 14. MONTHLY VARIABLE COST
(per 1000 gal)
Option City County OBWA
A. 1.70 2.12 3.00*
B. 1.54 1.93 3.00
C. 1.71 2.14 3.39
D. 1.71 2.14 2.97
E. 2.58 2.55 2.58
F. 1.64 1.64 1.64
G. 2.58 2.58 2.58
H. 1.64 1.64 1.64
NOTE: Cost per 1000 gallons above 3000
Table 15 illustrates a comparative monthly water rate under each
of the options. Under each option, there are different winners
and losers.
TABLE 15. COMPARABLE MONTHLY WATER RATES
(5000 gallon per month usage)
Option City County OBWA
A.* 11.60 14.53 14.00
B. 13.30 16.65 19.88
C. 11.98 14.82 24.62
D. 11.98 14.82 20.16
E. 23.23 23.23 23.23
F. 17.71 17.71 17.71
G. 18.82 18.82 18.82
H. 13.31 13.31 13.31
NOTE: *Current City Rates
49
No doubt other parties could create an endless options with
varying numbers. This analysis provides a glimpse into the future
and makes it rather obvious that the [conclusion].
Debt Capacity Considerations
In the State of Florida, the majority of large water and
sewer utilities (more than 3,000 connections) are owned by local
governments, as opposed to private for profit entities. Water and
sewer utilities are capital intensive, and therefore, the ability
of local governments to finance capital projects with.low interest
rate, tax exempt debt is a significant advantage of local
government ownership. Local government tax exempt debt issued in
order to finance utility projects carries extremely low interest
rates due to investors' perception that the security of water and
sewer debt is of the highest quality. The credit quality is high
because the debt is secured by water and sewer revenues which are
easy to forecast and represent payment for an essential service.
Both of these attributes: tax exemption and high quality credit
will be secured regardless of the governance alternative selected.
The City of Okeechobee has capitalized on the advantages
discussed above as demonstrated by the following summary of the
City's outstanding water and sewer debt.
Bond Issue
Water and Sewer, Series 1987
Water and Sewer, Series 1989
50
Range of
Amount Maturities of
Outstanding Interest Rates.
$4,745,000 1993 -6.0% to
2017 7.875%
$4,830,000 1994 -6.10% to
2015 7.125%
The Okeechobee Beach Water Association has no significant
debt outstanding.
Current market tax exempt interest rates are at a 14 year
low. These market conditions provide an excellent opportunity for
the community to consider more regional governance alternatives.
The analysis set forth as Appendix E, demonstrates that the City's
outstanding water and sewer debt could be refinanced, in the
current market, with no increase or even a small decrease in debt
service requirements (principal and interest payments). The
analysis is a refinancing analysis, and therefore, includes no
compensation in addition to the retirement of all outstanding
debt. We believe this financing plan could be implemented by
under regional governance structure adopted by the community at
least a "break even" level. Therefore, financing concerns should
not be significant in the selection of a governance alternative.
Other than the knowledge that refinancing the City's existing
water and sewer debt will not add to the cost of consolidating
local utilities, the selection of a governance alternative should
be based on other, more significant, issues addressed in this
Phase I Report.
Summary of Overview
This overview of service in the Study Area has been developed
to address certain issues involved with the provision of water and
wastewater service to the southern Okeechobee County area. The
analysis considered existing infrastructure, the present financial
picture, and a number of possible options. The "bottom line"
51
indications in Tables 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 must not be allowed to
totally drive any conclusions there are other less tangible
considerations. There are serious problems with the age and type
of infrastructure that exists on the City system, especially with
regard to the older cast iron, asbestos cement, and galvanized
steel water lines. It is anticipated that significant expense
will be incurred in the coming years to repair, maintain or
replace aging, dysfunctional or unsafe water distribution and
service lines.. The Okeechobee Beach Water Association system is
a small system, and small utility systems are generally not viable
for any length of time due to the regulatory requirements and the
increasingly extensive sampling and testing that must be
performed. In reviewing the present provider's financial picture,
it appears that the City of Okeechobee has only recently been able
to break even or show a surplus on its utility system, but
additional debt, aged infrastructure, present service demands or
the loss of the cash flow from Okeechobee Beach Water Association
may force significant rate increases in the future. Likewise, the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association, in building its own water
treatment plant, will ultimately have to face the prospect of
substantial rate increases.
If the community continues with the City as a sole provider
of water more than half of the City's rate payers will continue to
pay 25% more than the minority of the City resident customers.
If the Okeechobee Beach Water Association builds its own water
treatment plant, the City's rate base will shrink and the rates
52
charged by the City to its remaining customers will be sharply
adjusted upward to make up for the $200,000 per year that the
Okeechobee Beach Water Association pays under its bulk service
arrangement. Were the County to build the required infrastructure
for County residents and the Okeechobee Beach Water Association,
the rates in the City system would also increase for the same
reasons. In addition, it makes little sense to have two or three
entities in the water business in such a small area. Finally,
disjointed and competing water utility service will undoubtedly
lead to disjointed, inefficient and expensive delivery of
wastewater services. Such circumstances generally leads to the
proliferation of package wastewater treatment systems,
environmental degradation, regulatory scrutiny and, ultimately
building or use moratoriums.
As noted previously, the market for tax exempt interest rates
is at a 14 year low and the assumption of the City's existing
water and sewer debt in the worst case would only have a neutral
affect. A regional approach to providing water and wastewater
provides a larger and more credit worthy base than any other
approach. This larger, more credit worthy base in turn results in
lower costs and more stable rates to the entire community.
Finally, from a general financial view point, the larger
geographic area encompassed by the Study Area lends itself to
providing an assessment base to assist in financing
infrastructure. This facet may not generate the revenue to build
out the system, but will demonstrate to state and federal agencies
53
and the credit markets that the community (1) has put in place the
framework to obtain the best credit and lower cost of funds in the
event of any borrowing and (2) is poised to participate to the
best of community's ability.
The natural hesitance of the City to be a participant in a
County utility authority, or for competition in the provision of
potable water, is the loss of control and /or existing utility
customers. However, without a regional approach in place the
chances of obtaining State or federal subsidies for wastewater
infrastructure are for all practical purposes non- existent.
If the City of Okeechobee utility system was to be
transferred or contributed to a multi -party authority, City
residents would be assured of stable rates and the rates for all
customers in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas would
be equal. Such a regional scenario will significantly increase
the possibility of sewering the urbanized areas in the City and in
the unincorporated nearby areas. A regional approach brings with
it a viable opportunity to seek State or federal subsidy for the
community as a whole. Without a regional approach and outside
subsidy for the cost of needed capital infrastructure, commerce in
the whole community will suffer, service expansions will be
sporadic and inefficient and rates for everyone will be disparate
and much higher.
Table 15 is illustrative, and shows for policy making
purposes how the different governance alternatives are
significantly different cost -wise from each others. Additional
54
study beyond the scope of this Phase I report is necessary to
review the viability and continued utilization of portions of the
City utility system and to fine tune the selected option or
alternative. For example, Options B, F and H may not be possible
if significant room does not exist at the current water treatment
plant site to effect an expansion to that same plant and take
advantage of the savings that a one -plant scenario would provide.
From the standpoint of "what's best for whole community it
appears desirable to have one regional agency that provides
utility service to the limited number of customers that exists
within the Study Area. This alternative (1) takes advantage of
any economy of scale that can be derived, (2) will transcend
artificial boundaries within the community and (3) put the
community as a whole in the best position to seek subsidy from
State and federal sources. Given that under a consolidated
scenario there is little difference in the future rates, it is
recommended that a multi -party authority be developed to provide
for the water and wastewater utility service in the Study Area.24.
The most sensible approach in this regard appears to be one where
the City and the Okeechobee Beach Water Association contribute
their systems to the multi -party authority and the County
contributes its South Florida Water Management District grant and
bonding capacity. Over time, while the rates will never decline,
24 Providing representation and input from Okeechobee Beach
Water Association may need to come from legislative revisions to
general law, special law, or by agreement. See "GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE Governance Recommendation" herein.
55
the rates will likely be more stable than any of the other
options. The multi -party authority would have the responsibility
for maintaining and repairing the existing infrastructure and
providing infrastructure for future customers and to residents
currently on well service. Regionalized wastewater service,
generally in accordance with the County's wastewater recent study,
could be incorporated into the same multi -party authority to begin
the process of aggressively seeking of extending sewer to unserved
areas and toward replacing the package wastewater treatment plants
throughout the Study Area.
56
LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES
Ad Valorem Taxes
Ad valorem property taxes are an option to partially fund a
regional utility system. As of May, 1992, the real property in
the Study Area, including both residential and commercial
properties, had a combined ad valorem taxable value of
$400,150,070. Based upon this valuation, one mi11 of ad valorem
taxes within the Study Area would generate $400,150 of annual ad
valorem tax revenues. Ad valorem tax revenue generated in a
special taxing district would provide a reliable and easily
administered revenue source to partially fund the capital and
operating costs of a regional utility system. As discussed
subsequently, an election is required to impose ad valorem taxes
in a special taxing district.
Ad valorem taxes are value -based taxes on real and tangible
personal property. The Florida Constitution prohibits a local law
for the assessment and collection of taxes, so general law defines
the ad valorem tax base and provides for the annual collection of
ad valorem taxes by the tax collector in each county. The tax
liability of an individual property owner depends on two factors:
the parcel's taxable value and the millage rate applied by the
taxing unit. Florida law requires the property appraiser to
determine the taxable value of all property in the county by
25 One mill equals one one thousandth of a dollar. Section
192.001(10), Florida Statutes.
2 6 Article III, Section 11(a)(2), Florida Constitution.
57
appraising all parcels according to just or fair market value, and
by making adjustments for tax exemptions and classifications
authorized by the Florida Constitution and implemented by Florida
Statutes. The millage rates are established annually by the
local taxing authorities in accordance with procedures established
by general law. Property owners are sent a single ad valorem tax
notice each year that contains a bill for the millages levied by
all the taxing units. The millage rate levied within each unit
must be uniform.
There is no requirement that a taxpayer benefit from the
expenditure of tax revenue. The general rule is that the
questions of benefits and of unlawful burdens do not arise when
the tax is uniform, for a public purpose, and within the power of
the Legislature to prescribe. Limitations on the use of the ad
valorem revenue may be provided by law or in the charter
establishing the taxing district and are governed generally by the
public purpose requirement of the Florida Constitution.
A reasoned consideration of using ad valorem tax revenue from
the Study Area to partially fund a regional utility system through
27 Chapters 193 and 196, Florida Statutes.
28 Chapter 200, Florida Statutes.
29 Section 197.3635, Florida Statutes.
3 Article VII, Section 2, Florida Constitution.
31 Hunter v. Owens, 86 So. 839 (Fla. 1920); Jinkins v.
Entzminger, 135 So. 785 (Fla. 1931); Dressel v. Dade County, 226
So.2d 402 (Fla. 1969); and Tucker v. Underdown, 356 So.2d 251 (Fla.
1978).
58
a special taxing district vehicle must include consideration of
the referendum requirement. The imposition of ad valorem taxes by
any entity other than a county, municipality, school district or
water management district must be approved by the electorate.
Voters must also approve a pledge of ad valorem revenue for the
payment of indebtedness.
The Florida Constitution provides that special districts may
be authorized by law to levy ad valorem taxes but requires that
the rate of taxation be authorized by law approved by vote of
the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt
from taxation. Limiting the vote to owners of "freeholds," or
title holders of property, has been the subject of litigation. In
City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 90 S.Ct. 1990, 399 U.S. 204,
(1970), the United States Supreme Court invalidated a general
obligation bond referendum on equal protection grounds where the
electorate was limited to freeholders. The referendum was struck
down on the ground that the property owners' interest in the
outcome of the election was no more substantial than the interest
of the non property owners. However, the Court upheld a property
owner election against an equal protection challenge where the
purpose of the election was to elect a board of directors with
limited powers of government in Salver Land Co. v. Tulare Lake
Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S.419, 93 S.Ct 1224 (1974).
32 Article VII, Section 9(b), Florida Constitution.
33 Article VII, Section 12, Florida Constitution.
34 Article VII, Section 9(b), Florida Constitution.
59
The Supreme Court of Florida has followed the United States
Supreme Court opinions in interpreting the constitutional
provision regarding freeholder elections. In State v. Frontier
Acres Community Development District, 472 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1985),
the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 190.006, Florida
Statutes, which provides for voting on a one vote per -acre basis
for electing the board of directors of a community development
district. The court reasoned that a community development
district does not exercise general governmental functions and does
have a disproportionate effect on landowners within the district.
A special taxing district encompassing the Study Area would
perform functions similar to those of government, such as levying
property taxes, assessments, issuing bonds and providing water and
sewer services. Since the district encompasses residential as
well as commercial areas, a freeholder election is not a good
alternative as a court would undoubtably balance that fact against
the appropriateness of holding an election based on ownership of
land. The fragmented development of the Study Area makes it
distinct from the characteristics of a community development
district which typically has few owners of large tracts of
underdeveloped land. We believe that ad valorem taxes, in this
circumstance, is not a good alternative as the same revenue could
be created via a municipal service benefit unit without the need
for an election.
60
Special Assessments
General Description
Generally special assessments are "charges assessed against
the property of some particular locality because that property
derives some special benefit from the expenditure of the
money... As established by Florida case law, there are two
requirements for the imposition of a valid special assessment:
(i) the property assessed must derive a special benefit from the
improvement or service provided and (ii) the assessment must be
fairly and reasonably apportioned between the properties that
receive the special benefit. An assessment may provide funding
for either capital expenditures or the operational cost of
services, provided that the property which is subject to the
assessment derives a special benefit from the improvement or
service.
35 Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville, 91 So.
118, 121 (Fla. 1922) (quoting Page Jones on Taxation by
Assessment, Section 553, pp. 896, 897).
36 Special assessments are available under any of the
governance structures described in this report under the caption
"GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE Governance Alternatives." In addition to
other specific legislative authorization, Section 197.3631, Florida
Statutes, provides:
Section 197.3632 is additional authority for
local governments to impose and collect
special assessments supplemental to the home
rule powers pursuant to ss. 125.01 and 166.021
and Chapter 170, or any other law.
A local government is defined as a county, municipality, or
special district levying non -ad valorem assessments."
61
Special Benefit Requirement
The Florida Supreme Court has determined in Meyer v. City of
Oakland Park, 219 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1969) that the benefit required
for a valid special assessment consists of more than simply an
increase in market value but includes both potential increases in
value and the added use and enjoyment of the property. In Meyer,
the Court upheld a sewer assessment on both improved and
unimproved property, stating that the benefit need not be direct
or immediate but must be substantial, certain and capable of being
realized within a reasonable time. Nor must the benefit be
determined in relation to the existing use of the property. In
City of Hallandale v. Meekins, 237 So.2d 318 (4th DCA 1970),
aff'd, 245 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1971), the Court indicated that the
proper measure of benefits accruing to property from the assessed
improvement was not limited to the existing use of the property,
but extends to any future use which could reasonably be made.
Although the benefit derived need not be direct and
immediate, it must be special and peculiar to the property
assessed and not a general benefit to the entire community.
Services which are provided by a government may be essential to
the public welfare but not provide the special benefit necessary
for the imposition of a valid assessment. In Crowder v. Phillips,,
1 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1941), a special assessment for the
establishment and maintenance of a hospital was found to not
afford a special or peculiar benefit to the real property
assessed. The Court reasoned that a hospital provided benefits to
62
the entire community because of its availability to any person and
that no logical relationship existed between the construction and
maintenance of the hospital and the assessed property. In
Whisnant v. Stringfellow, 50 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1951), an assessment
for the county health unit was also held to be invalid in that it
benefited everyone in the county, regardless of their status as
property owners.
In Fire District No. 1 of Polk County v. Jenkins, 221 So.2d
740 (Fla. 1969), the Supreme Court found that necessary special
and peculiar benefits resulted from the levy of an assessment for
fire protection against mobile home rental spaces. The Court
found the presence of special and peculiar benefits from the
resulting decrease in insurance, protection of the public safety,
enhancement of business property and better service to tenants.
Other assessed services found to have provided the requisite
special benefit are garbage collection erosion control groin
systems sewer improvements"; and street improvements".
Generally, the governing authority levying the special
assessment must make a specific determination as to the special
benefit received by the property to be assessed. However, a
3 7 Charlotte County v. Fiske, 350 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
38 City of Treasure Island v. Strong, 215 So.2d 473 (Fla.
1968)
3 9 City of Hallandale v. Meekins, supra.
40A tlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville, supra,
and Bodner v. City of Coral Gables, 245 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1971).
41 City of Fort Myers v. State, 117 So. 97 (Fla. 1928).
63
specific finding by the governing body is not required in all
cases. When a particular improvement, by its nature, is designed
to afford special or peculiar benefits to property within the
proximity of the improvement, it is presumed that special or
peculiar benefits will accrue to the property. In City of
Treasure Island v. Strong, supra, the Supreme Court found that
special assessments levied for the construction of an erosion
control groin system were valid because the system would
inherently benefit the property it protected. Street improvements
and sanitary sewer systems have also been found to inherently
benefit abutting and other property. In City of Hallandale v.
Meekins, supra, the Court held that a sanitary sewer system is by
its nature designed essentially to afford special or peculiar
benefits to abutting or other property within the protective
proximity of the improvement. See also Bodner v. City of Coral
Gables, 245 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1971) where the court found that there
was no need for the city to make an express determination of
special benefits inuring to property assessed for street
improvements, as they were inherently beneficial.
Apportionment Requirement
Once a determination has been made that an assessed
improvement or service specially benefits the properties within a
district, then the assessment must be "fairly and reasonably
apportioned" among the benefited properties. The manner of the
apportionment of the assessment is immaterial and may vary
42 Parrish v. Hillsborough County, 123 So. 830 (Fla. 1929).
64
provided that the amount of assessment for each property does not
exceed the proportional benefits it receives as compared to other
properties.
In City of Fort Lauderdale v. Carter, 71 So.2d 260 (Fla.
1954), an assessment for garbage, waste and trash collection was
apportioned based upon the value of the property. The Court held
this assessment to be invalid in that apportioning on the basis of
value did not bear any reasonable relationship, to the services
provided. By comparison, the Court found in City of Naples v..
Moon, 269 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1972), that the levying of an assessment
for improved parking facilities was valid, because it set specific
guidelines to measure the benefits afforded to the property
assessed. The guidelines were "value of the property benefited,
relative floor space of each improved property, its kind,
susceptibility to improvement, and the maximum annual benefits to
be conferred thereon. 44 Examples of other methods of
apportionment which have been upheld are sewer improvements on a
square foot basis, street improvements on a lineal front foot
43 South Trail Fire Control District. Sarasota County v. State,
273 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1973).
44 City of Naples v. Moon, at 358.
45 Mever v. City of Oakland Park, supra.
65
basis and improvements benefitting downtown business properties
on an ad valorem basis in a downtown redevelopment scenario.
In determining the reasonableness of the apportionment, the
courts generally give deference to the legislative determination
of a local government. In Rosche v. City of Hollywood, 55 So.2d
909, 913 (Fla. 1952), the Florida Supreme Court stated:
The apportionment' of assessments is a
legislative function and if reasonable men
differ as to whether land assessed was
benefited by the local improvement the
determination as to such benefits of the city
officials must be sustained.
Subsequent case law continues to follow this rule, provided the
basis for apportionment has some logical relationship to the
benefit received.
Collection Alternatives
The traditional method of collecting special assessments is
similar that associated with mortgage loans. A notice of lien is
recorded in an amount equal to each property's total share of the
46 Bodner v. City of Coral Gables, supra.
47 C i ty of Boca Raton v. State of Florida, 17 Fla. L. Weekly
S142 (February 27, 1992). Caution should be used in relying upon
this decision to justify an apportionment of a special assessment
based on assessed value under differing facts. The project or
program to be provided with the special assessment proceeds must
be of a character or nature that the benefit to be received by the
assessed property is an economic benefit that can be apportioned
based upon the assessed value of the property. In most instances,
utilization solely of assessed value as the apportionment method
cannot be justified factually. See City of Naples v. Moon.
The City of Boca Raton opinion issued by the Florida Supreme Court
adopted substantial portions of the amicus brief prepared and filed
by Nabors, Giblin Nickerson, P.A., on behalf of the Florida
League of Cities.
66
capital cost. In the event of a non payment, the entire amount due
is accelerated and the assessment lien foreclosed. The credit
market does not view the traditional collection methodology with
great favor for two principal reasons: (i) it requires an
extraordinary exercise of political will to foreclose upon any
residential property and (ii) the foreclosure process is frequently
resisted, resulting in a protracted litigation prior to payment.
More recently, local governments (including special districts)
have been authorized to collect special assessments on the ad
valorem tax bill. This tax bill collection method is much more
highly favored by the credit market because the special assessments
are collected in the same manner as ad valorem taxes. No specific
enforcement action is required by the governmental unit that
imposed the assessment.
The statutory process for collecting a special assessment on
the ad valorem tax bill begins a year in advance of collection.
The first step is the adoption of a resolution indicating the
governmental unit's intent to use the method. The resolution must
be adopted after a public hearing noticed by publication four weeks
in advance. This resolution, which does not obligate the
governmental unit to use the method or impose a special assessment,
must be sent to the Tax Collector, the Property Appraiser and the
Department of Revenue by January 10. By June 1, the Property
Appraiser must provide to the County by list or by compatible
electronic media the legal description of the affected property and
48 Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes.
67
the names and addresses of the property owners. From this
information, the governmental unit prepares an assessment roll
which must be adopted at a public hearing prior to September 15.
The local government is required to publish notice of this hearing
and provide individual notices to the affected property owners by
first class mail. After the public hearing and the adoption of the
assessment roll, the assessment roll is certified to the Tax
Collector who includes the special assessment on the ad valorem
tax bill. The special assessments are then collected by the Tax
Collector in the same manner as ad valorem taxes, including the
sale of tax certificates in the event of nonpayment.
Impact Fees
General Description
Impact fees are charges imposed by local governments against
new development as a total or partial reimbursement for the cost
of additional facilities or services made necessary by the new
development. The function of impact fees is to regulate growth
by imposing on the newcomer, rather than the general public, the
cost of new facilities necessitated by his or her arrival. Impact
49 The general restrictions on the imposition of impact fees
have been developed from the following cases within the State of
Florida: Broward County v. Janis Development Corporation, 311
So.2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Contractors and Builders Association
of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1976);
Hollywood Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA
1983); Town of Longboat Key v. Lands End. Ltd., 433 So.2d 574
(Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Home Builders and Contractors Association of
Palm Beach County v. Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach
County, 446 So.2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); City of Ormond Beach.
et al. v. Volusia County, 383 So.2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); and
Seminole County v. City of Casselberry, 541 So.2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA
1989).
68
fees may be imposed by local government pursuant to its home rule
powers. Okeechobee County currently has the authority to impose
impact fees and the charter of a special district created jointly
by the County and the City pursuant to Section 125.01(5), Florida
Statutes, may contain the authority to impose impact fees. If the
governance alternative selected is a special district created by
the Legislature, the general or special act must include specific
authorization for the imposition of impact fees.
It may be desirable to impose impact fees upon development of
properties within the Study Area. If special assessments are
imposed on the vacant land in the Study Area to fund capital costs
of certain portions of a regional utility system, impact fees may
not be also be imposed to fund the same capital costs. To the
extent a special assessment is imposed on vacant land to apportion
the capital cost of creating and implementing a regional system
attributable'to the projected development on such vacant land, the
ability to additionally impose an impact fee is substantially
diminished.
Criteria to Impose Impact Fees
As interpreted by case law, a valid impact fee is required to
meet the following criteria:
(i) the fee is imposed to provide capital facilities
required to serve future development or new use and is not imposed
for operation and maintenance of such capital facilities;
69
(ii) there must be a rational nexus between the need for
the capital facilities and the growth development that bears the
burden of the impact fee;
(iii) there must be a rational nexus between the
expenditure of the impact fee revenue and the benefits received or
burden caused by the growth development;
(iv) the proceeds of the impact fee cannot exceed the
public facilities burden reasonably anticipated to be caused by
growth development; and
(v) the impact fee proceeds are to be held in trust to
be used exclusively to provide the growth necessitated capital
improvements.
An estimate of the revenue to be generated by an impact fee
against vacant land requires further study of the cost of the
projects and a decision on the methodology to be used in developing
an impact fee for a regional utility system.
User Rates or Service Delivery Fees
[to come]
70
GENERAL LAW REVENUE SOURCES
General Legislative Authorization Issues
Funding a regional utility system by a tax source other than
an ad valorem tax requires general law authority from the Florida
Legislature. The Florida Constitution provides that all forms of
taxation except ad valorem taxation are preempted to the State
except as provided by general law. The Florida Constitution
further provides that counties and municipalities shall, and
special districts may, be authorized by law to impose ad valorem
taxes and may be authorized by general law to impose other taxes.
In other words, authority to impose a non -ad valorem tax is
required to be provided by general law and may not be provided by
special act of the Legislature.
The legislation authorizing a tax source to fund a regional
utility system may provide for the imposition of the tax in a
variety of ways. The legislation may authorize the imposition of
the tax by any of the alternatives described in the section of this
report under the caption "GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE Governance
Alternatives." Our recommended alternative, a home rule special
district created by the County pursuant to Section 125.01(5),
Florida Statutes, could be authorized to levy the tax by general
law. Or the Legislature may impose the tax directly instead of
allowing a local entity to impose the tax.
5 Article VII, Section 1, Florida Constitution.
51 Article VII, Section 9, Florida Constitution.
71
Regardless of the alternative chosen for imposing the tax, the
legislation may limit the tax to the Study Area. Such a levy would
be of little consequence as the cost of needed infrastructure in
the Study Area far exceeds the community's reasonable ability to
produce sufficient revenue. However, the Legislature may by
general law authorize a tax in only one area of the state as long
as the classification of the area is reasonable and bears a
reasonable relationship to the purpose of the act. Such
authority has been relied upon by the Legislature in authorizing
Dade County alone among Florida counties to impose certain local
taxes, including a documentary stamp tax for affordable housing and
a convention development tax. The courts have upheld such
legislative authority. Another example of the Legislature
limiting the authority to impose a tax to a limited area is the one
cent high tourism impact tax on the tourist tax base authorized to
Orange County and Osceola County. Relying upon this authority to
make reasonable classifications, the potential for levying a tax
52
Article III, Section 11(b), Florida Constitution, provides:
In the enactment of general law on other
subjects, political subdivisions or other
governmental entities may be classified only
on a basis reasonably related to the subject
of the law.
53 Chapter 83 -220, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 84-
270, Laws of Florida; and Section 212.0305(4)(b), Florida Statutes.
54 See, Golden Nugget Group v. Metropolitan Dade County, 464
So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1985) and Thomas v. Department of Revenue, 466
So.2d 1069 (Fla. 1985).
55 Section 125.0104(3)(0), Florida Statutes.
72
within the South Florida Water Management District to assist in
cleaning up Lake Okeechobee should be fully explored.
Assistance of the South Florida Water Management District as a
Funding Conduit
The South Florida Water Management District is one of five
special taxing districts created in 1972 to manage water resources.
The South Florida Water Management District encompasses two major
basins, the Big Cypress Basin and the Okeechobee Basin. The South
Florida Water Management District is also, in essence, the
successor to the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control
District which was created in 1949 to serve as a local sponsor for
a massive, federally authorized flood control project intended to
temper the region's extremes of devastating hurricanes and
excessive dry spells.
Although flood control is a major concern, the South Florida
Water Management District's mission has evolved to address South
and Central Florida's changing water resource protection and
conservation needs. Major initiatives in this area are the
Kissimmee River restoration, the restoration of Lake Okeechobee and
the Everglades restoration.
These projects have had severe economic impacts upon the Study
Area. Conversely, the Study Area is affected by pollution in Lake
Okeechobee and in all probability septic and wastewater related
discharges from the Study Area are a significant contributor to
pollution of the lake and its tributaries.
73
The Legislature has recently recognized this dilemma and
authorized preferential assistance to areas like the Study Area.
At the same time the South Florida Water Management District has
also recognized the need to assist the region on the north shore
of Lake Okeechobee in moving forward with regionalized water and
sewer infrastructure. As well, the South Florida Water
Management District recently entered into a settlement stemming
from a Federal lawsuit charging that the State and the South
Florida Water Management District failed to protect Everglades
National Park and Loxahathee National Wildlife Refuge. The
settlement resulted from the change in the governor's office which
demonstrated an overriding commitment to the Everglades
restoration. This settlement and its ramifications have yet to be
completely finalized and determined. It is possible that the
federal government may also be a funding partner if regional
sewering of the Study Area meets the government's objective of
removing a source of pollution to Lake Okeechobee. In light of the
above, the South Florida Water Management District is a likely
candidate to serve as a funding source or conduit for other state
or federal funding.
For example the South Florida Water Management District is
authorized to levy 8 /10th of a mill and has only levied a little
under 6/10 of a mill for the last three years. With a taxable base
56 92 -132, §18, Laws of Florida See Appendix F.
57 Cooperative Funding Agreement between the South Florida
Water Management District and the County dated April 9, 1992; see
Note 23 supra.
74
throughout the district of roughly 215 billion dollars, a levy of
1 /50th of a mill would yield A governance
alternative for the entire Study Area, able to fairly and
efficiently provide water and sewer infrastructure to the entire
Study Area in a series of phases over a period of years would be
the most effective way to work with the South Florida Water
Management District and maximize cooperative intergovernmental
relationships and assistance to achieve the goals and objectives
of both entities.
As the consideration of a regional water and sewer service
provider evolves, so should the analysis of alternatives for
seeking assistance and cooperation from the South Florida Water
Management District.
75
PHASE II REQUIREMENTS
Scope of Work
Phase II consists of the tasks necessary to create a consensus
to develop the governance structure to provide a regional water and
wastewater utility system for the Study Area. Phase III would then
consist of the tasks necessary to create a regional governance
structure and develop appropriate revenue sources.
Task 1. Prepare a non binding interlocal agreement to provide an
immediate schedule and vehicle, through a series of local
workshops between the City, the County and the Okeechobee
Beach Water Association, to develop community consensus
which identifies and generally outlines the financial and
policy details of the consolidation of facilities and
services in the Study Area.
Task 2. Assist in determining specific boundaries of the area
encompassing the proposed special district and, if
needed, preparation of a Study Area database from the
Property Appraiser's records.
Task 3. Review the viability and refine the selected option for
the provision of regional water and wastewater services
to the Study Area.
Phase III
Task 1. If required, identify and seek legislative changes or
authorization from the Florida Legislature.
Task 2. Based upon the consensus developed in Phase II, prepare
the special district charter and necessary ordinances to
76
77
create the district and present same to the County, City
and Okeechobee Beach Water Association.
Task 3. Prepare and present binding agreements by and between the
City, County and Okeechobee Beach Water Association which
refine and implement the consensus developed in Phase II.
Task 4. Provide a Scope of Services to develop district revenue
options including ad valorem taxes and non -ad valorem
revenues such as special assessments, impact fees, user
fees and other sources of revenue.
Task 5. Identify list of policy decisions for the governing board
of the district that are necessary to finalize the
recommended funding mechanisms.
Task 6. Based on decisions made in developing a local consensus,
prepare a Phase III Summary Report of Recommendations to
include an implementation plan and actions and necessary
to' create a regional water and wastewater utility
governance structure.
Anticipated Schedule
For purposes of this report, it is assumed that Okeechobee
County desires to create a governance structure at the earliest
possible date. It is contemplated that the Phase II tasks would
be completed within 120 calendar days of receiving authorization
to proceed.
Estimated Cost
The cost of professional services associated with this project
is difficult to estimate with precision. The estimate submitted
as part of this report encompasses only the services to be provided
by Nabors, Giblin Nickerson, P.A. We have assumed 4 to 5
working group meetings and that the governing bodies of the
entities involved will meet, cooperate in a statesmanlike fashion
and make policy decisions on a timely basis. It is estimated that
the total Phase II fee for the Firm would range from to
and would be based on the following hourly rates:
Hourly Rates for the Firm
1. Firm principals: $150 per hour
2. Senior firm associates: $125 per hour
3. Firm Associates: $100 per hour
4. Legal Clerks: $50 per hour
In addition to the above hourly rates, the Firm would seek
reimbursement for actual costs incurred, such as photocopies, long
distance telephone charges, travel expenses and overnight delivery
services. Any travel expenses would be in accordance with Section
112.061, Florida Statutes. Time incurred in travel would be billed
at one -half the above specified hourly rates.
78
APPENDIX A
CITY WATER TREATMENT PROCESS
LIME SLUDGE
BASIN
BACK WASH
WATER BASIN
OVERFLOW
NEW SAND
FILTERS•(
1.5 mg.
CLEARW ELL
,TREATED WATER
(2.6 mgd.)
FILTER
SLUDGE
h .CHLORINE
_Sinn
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE
GENERAL PROCESS LVATER DIAGRAM
MAP 1
,,LIME SOFTENING 0.25 mg.
RAW WATER
2.88 mgd.)
APPENDIX B
LOCATION OF CITY WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE
i us. 8.11 L
.t$9Ii.
sett
M/
1.141•10
CITY OF
OKEECHOBEE
Intake Structure
for Water Plant
6
1
.•1
1
O.
i
.1
Kle.l•.••
•.w ttw•r_
I....
14,010.4
1
.1'•
t•
016$'11 t.«I•
IUCKHEAD RIDG
i
3
I
MAP 2I
0
II ..K
slit •r
4
2 j
T•— r- •r.• -......-r
/tt w0 1C
f
COU-I1 J
wwwlr
2
3 -2
9.
9
7
T
7
99
i
i
I•
1
9
9
i
Waage* /MS
•t
5•',•+ t ll• 1•11
•1•'.:.•.11 t7.•7 •.i •Il••:•••• 1 •71 •11'
1 L
1 i
70
9
9
9
10
38
Mme lc Liao
4 Area
9
9
9
y r
3
3
4
3
T
r Cs/
7
10
4
10
.1
APPENDIX C
LAB RESULTS
[to come]
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
1.
R -95%
TEL:1 813- 763 -9529 Jun 04 92 14:26 No.003 P.02
L
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION,
Complainant,
vs. ODIC Case No. 89 -0545
CITY OF OKI3BCHOBBE,
Respondent.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 403.121(2) and 120.57(3), Florida
Statutes (F.S.), and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 17- 103.110, this
Consent Agreement is entered into between the State of Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation Department") and CITY OF OK1?ECHOBBB ('Respondent
to reach settlement of certain matters at issue between the Department and
Respondent.
The Department finds and Respondent admits the following;
1. The Department is too. administrative agency of the State of Florida
which has the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403,
Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Florida Administrative
Code Chapter 17.4, 17550,17-555, 17460, and 17.602. The Department has
Jurisdiction over the matters addressed in this Consent Agreement.
2. Respondent is a person within the meaning of Section 403.031(5), F.S.
3. Respondent is the owner and operator of a drinking water system Imam
as the City of Okeechobee Water Treatment Plant "facility"). The facility is
Located adjacent to U.S. Highway 78 West, west of U.S. Highway 441, Okeechobee
County, Florida.
4. Inspections by Department personnel and review of Department records
for the facility have documented the following deficiencies since at least 1986;
a. maximum total raw water pumped exceeding the rated plant capacity
of 2.88 million gallons per day (MOD)
b, inadequate chlorine residuals in portions of the distribution
system.
c. poor filter media condition (cementing of media)
Item (b) has been partially addressed.
5. The deficiencies described in paragraph 4 of this Consent Agreement are
violations of Sections 403.161(1)(b) and 403.087(1), F.S., and of F.A.C. Rules
17- 550.510(6)(d) and 17- 555.350.
6. On May 9, 1988, Respondent submitted to the Department an application
for a permit to expand the existing facility. On December 27, 1989, tho
Department issued Permit Number WC-47- 149211 for expansion of the existing
facility. To date, no construction has been initiated under this permit.
7. On May 30, 1989, Respondent submitted to the Department an application
for a permit to construct a chloramine booster station and to change the point
of application of powdered activated carbon, On September 20, 1989, the
Department issued Permit Number WC- 47- 165527 for these modifications. The
modifications were based on recommendations in the engineering report dated
February, 1989 prepared by Broome Engineering, Inc. which addressed the issues
1 813 763 9529
0 6- 4 -92 02:25PM F002 #46
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY TEL:1- 813 763 -9529 Jun 04 92 14:27 No.003 P.03
modifications were based on recommendations in the engineering report dated
February, 1989 prepared by Broome Engineering, Inc. which addressed the issues
of low chlorine residuals, in the distribution system and taste and odor
problems. These modifications have been completed and approved for use by the
Department.
8. On November 5, 1990, Respondent submitted to the Department a
groundwater feasibility study dated October, 1990, prepared by Reese, Macon and
Associates, Inc.
9. On April 19, 1991, Respondent submitted to the Department an
application to modify the existing facility, including changes in the method of
pH adjustment, for further improvement of filter operation. On May 2, 1991,
Respondent submitted additional information to modify the application to include
modifications to expand and uprate the existing facility.
10. On April 19, 1991, Respondent submitted to the Department an
application for approval of the location of the weUs for the proposed
groundwater treatment facility.
11. The Department and Respondent met informally on numerous occasions,
most recently March 28, May 2, and May 10, 1991, to discuss the alleged
violations with a view toward their .resolution.
THEREFORE, having reached a resolution of these matters pursuant to F.A.C.
Rule 17.103.110(3), Respondent and the Department mutually agree and it is
ORDERED:
12. Within thirty (30) days of execution of this Consent Agreement,
Respondent shall pay the Department $1,000.00 for costs and expenses incurred by
the Department during the investigation of this matter and the preparation and
tracking of this Consent Agreement, Payment shall be made by cashiers check or
money order payable to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation" and mailed or delivered to the Department of Environmental
Regulation, Southeast District Office, 1900 South Congress Avenue, Suite A West
Palm Beach, Florida 33406.
13. Respondent Is presently monitoring for chlorine residual and
bacteriological contaminants on a weekly basis at Everglades Elementary School.
Respondent shall continue weekly monitoring until notified in writing by the
Department that the frequency of monitoring may be modified. In the event that
the chlorine residual is determined, by either Respondent or the Department, at
any time to be less than the minimum as required by PAC 17- 550,510(6)(d),
Respondent shall take steps to restore the residual to a minimum of 0.6 mg /1
total chlorine, within 24 hours of discovery.
V 14, Within 1S days of execution of this Consent Agreement, Respondent shall
submit to the Department a proposed timetable, including interim milestone
dates, for:
a. completion of the expansion and upratiag of the existing
facility, and
ix pilot testing, permitting, and construction of the new groundwater
treatment facility.
The timetable shall indicate .that the expansion of the existing facility
(.2)
R -95% 1 813 763 9529 06 -04 -92 02.25PM P003 #46
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY TEL
R -95%
Jun 04 92 14:27 No.003 P.04
shall be substantially completed within 195 days from issuance of the required
permit(s), and that construction of the groundwater facility shall begin no
]tor than April 1, 1992.
V 15. Within 75 days of execution of this Consent Agreement, Respondent shall
submit to the Department an engineering report addressing the problem of
inadequate chlorine residuals in the distribution system, in particular, at
Everglades Elementary School. The report shall contain recommendations for a
permanent solution of the problem. A proposed timetable for completion of the
modifications shall accompany the report.
16. The Department shall review the timetables submitted pursuant to
paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Consent Agreement. In the event modifications to
the proposed timetable(s) are deemed necessary by the Department, the Department
shall make written request to Respondent for such modifications. Within 15 days
of receipt of the Department's request, Respondent shall either revise the
timetable(s) accordingly and admit the final version in writing to the
Department, or submit a written objection to the roquost, including information
to Justify the Respondent's objection. If Respondent objects to the
Department's request to modifyythe timetable(s), the parties shall meet within
15 days of the Department's receipt of Respondent's written objection to
negotiate a mutually acceptable timetable. Both parties shall make a diligent
effort to reach an agreement. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement
within 7 days of meeting, the Department shall establish the final timetable,
taking into consideration all additional information provided by the Respondent.
Respondent shall be notified in writing of Department approval of the proposed
timetables. 0 Respondent objects to the Department's determination regarding
the timetable(s), Respondent may file a Petition for Formal or Informal
Administrative klearing Proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57, ES,, and
Chapters 17 -103 and 28.5, F.A.C. Respondent shall have the burden to establish
the inappropriateness of the Department's determination. The petition must
conform with the requirements of F.A.C. Rule 28- 5,210, and must be reclved. by
the Department's •Office of General Counsel, within 14 days after receipt of
notice from the Department of any determination Respondent wishes to challenge.
Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver by
Respondent of its right to request an administrative proceeding under Section
120.57, P.S. The Department's determination, upon expiration of the 14 day time
period if no petition is filed, or the Department's Final Order as a result of
the filing of a petition, shall be incorporated by reference into this Consent
Agreement and made a part of it. Ali other aspects or this. Consent Agreement
shall remain its full force and effect at all times. If Respondent seeks an
administrative proceeding pursuant to this paragraph, the Department may file
suit against Respondent in lieu of or in addition to holding the administrative
proceeding to obtain judicial resolution of all the issues unresolved at the
time of the request for administrative proceeding.
.17. The Department shall review the report submitted pursuant to paragraph
15 of this Consent Agreement. In the event additional information, modifications
or specifications are necessary for the Department to evaluate the report, the
(31
1 813 763 9529 06 -0(=92 02:25PM P004 as
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
1. (1
a.
1
R -95%
TEL
L
Jun 04 92 14:28 No.003 P.05
Department shall make written request to Respondent for such information.
Respondent shall accordingly submit the requested information hi writing to the
Department within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request. Respondent shall
be notifed ht writing of Department approval of the report.
18. In accordance with the timeframos in the timetable submitted pursuant
to paragraph 15 and approved by the Department pursuant to paragraph 16 of this
Consent Agreement, Respondent shall submit an application, together with any
required application fees, for any construction pormit(s) which may be required
for the modifications necessary to resolve the problem of inadequate chlorine
residuals in portions of the distribution system.
19. In accordance with the tlmeframes in the timetable submitted pursuant to
paragraph 14b and approved by the Department pursuant to paragraph 16 of this
Consent Agreement, Respondent shall submit an application, along with any
required application fees, for any construction permits) which may be required
for construction of the groundwater treatment facility.
20. me Department shall review the applications referenced in paragraphs 9,
10, 18, and 19 of this Consent Agreement. In the event additional information,
modifications or specifications are necessary to process the application(s), the
Department shall issue a written request for information (RFI) to Respondent for
such information. Respondent shall accordingly submit the requested information
in writing to the Department within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request.
Respondent shall provide all information requested in any additional RFIs issued
by the Department within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request.
21, Within 30 days of issuance of any required permit(5), or within 30 days
or receipt of written Department approval of the proposed modifications if no
permits are required, .Respondent shall commence the approved tasks. All work
shall be completed in' accordance with the time frames contained in the
timetables approved by the Department pursuant to paragraph 16 of this Consent
Agreement. If permits are required, Respondent shall submit to the Department an
engineer's Certification of Completion of Construction and record drawings as
verification of completion of the required tasks, and shall receive Department
clearance before putting the facilities into service. If no permits are
required, Respondent shall provide written verification that all tasks have been
completed within the time frames specified in the approved timetable.
22. Respondent shall•submit a status report to the Department, signed and
sealed by the engineer-of-record, certifying 25%, 50%, and 75% completion of
construction of the groundwater treatment facility. Bach status report shall be
due within 10'days of completion of the percentage of construction that is being
certified. The status reports shall also contain a general description of the
work completed since the last report, and the status of work in progress.
23, Upon execution of this Consent Agreement, issuance by the Department
of the permit to expand the existing facility, and certification by the
engineer -of- record for the subject expansion that the applicable contract has
been executed and work under that contract has begun, the Department shall
release the first of four equal allocations of the additional connections to be
served from the expansion of the existing facility. The second allocation shall
X41
1 813 763 9529 06-04 -92 02:25PM P005 #46
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY TEL:1- 813- 763 -9529 Jun 04 92 14:29 No.003 P.06
11
be released by the Department upon receipt of a completed satisfactory
groundwater pilot study. and certification by the engineer -of- record that the
expansion of the existing facility is 50% complete. Thelataelloettrinulall
be raleasedby,,, he be a e ns u on completion of the expansion and.uprating of
the i1 sing facility. The final a ocatCon sb 1rbe R leas+ed'by the Departmei r
upon receipt bf t1 a engineer-of-record's certification of 50% completion of
construction of the groundwater facility; provided the expansion and uprating of
the existing facility has been completed and that facility has been cleared for
service. Notwithstanding this schedule of allocations, if the existing facility
exceeds its rated capacity, no connections (now or previously approved) shall be
approved and /or activated until the Department releases sufficient additional
capacity to meet the exoeedance and to allow for further connections, unless the
exceedance is due to an abnormal occurrence which has been reported to the
Department pursuant to F.A.C. 17-602.360(1)(c). After the fourth allocation, no
additional capacity shall be made available until the groundwater facility has
been cleared for service.
24. Allocation shall be based on maximum daily Plows determined as
follows:
a. For those connections that normally require a Department general
permit, maximum daily flows shall be calculated at 350 gpd multiplied by a 1,5
peaking factor per equivalent residential connection (BRC). For lino extensions
to serve connections other than single family homes, such as a convenience
store, the calculation of maximum daily flows shall be based on an average daily
flow estimate provided by the design engineer and multiplied by a 13 peaking
factor. Ibis method of determining maximum daily flows is to be used only for
purposes of determining compliance with the tams of this Consent Agreement and
may not necessarily be applied to this facility under other circumstances or to
other facilities.
h. Far those connections that normally do not require a Department
general permit,. such as Will activities to existing water mains, Respondent
shall not be required to obtain Department approval prior to connection.
Respondent shall submit to the Department, on a monthly basis, a report listing
all new connections, excluding replacement connections (i.e., like -for -like
meter sizes), along with meter size, and length and diameter of the main
installed (excluding the service connection). The first report shall be due 30
days from the date of execution of this Consent Agreement. Successive reports
shall be due every 30 days for the following 5 months. Thereafter, a report
shall be due every 90 days, until the groundwater facility has been released for
service, unless this schedule is otherwise modified in writing by the
Department.
25, Within 30 days of execution of this Consent Agreement, Respondent
shall submit to the Department a copy of its current water conservation plan,
with specific details on how it shall be implemented and enforced.
26. Within 7 days of determining that the average daily flow at the
existing facility, as reported on the monthly operating report, is equal to or
exceeds 65% of the current. rated plant capacity, Respondent shall implement the
R ■9594 1 813 763 9529 06 -04 -92 02:25PM P006'$.
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
1. 11
TEL :1 -813- 763 -9529 Jun 04 92 14:30 No .003 P.07
0
water conservation measures as set forth in the water conservation plan. For
those months that water conservation measures are in effect, Respondent shall
submit a written report to the Department within 7 dads of the end of the
reporting month, indicating which water use restrictions are in effect, how the
restrictions are being enforced, and a list of violators, if applicable.
27. Respondent shall maintain all applicable records, submit completed
Monthly Operating Reports maintain an Operations Maintenance (0 do M)
log up-to -date and on site, and report any plant disruption to the Department
pursuant to F.A.C. Chapters 17.555 and 17.602.
28. The existing fadlity shall be operated in such a manner that the
maximum level of efficiency is maintained at all times. The personnel In charge
of the facility shall meet all requirements for operation, supervision, and /or
maintenance of the treatment facilities pursuant to F.A.C. Chapters 17 -555 and
17 -602.
(6
R -94% 1 813 763 9528
06 -04 -92 02:25PM P007 46
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
R -95%
TEL
Jun 04 92 14:30 No .003 P.08
29. Upon resolution of tie problem of inadequate chlorine residuals in
the distribution system, Department clearance of the modification to the
existing facility, and Department clearance of the groundwater treatment
facility, this Consent Agreement shall be deemed satisfied.
30, The Respondent agrees to pay the Department stipulated penalties In
the amount of $200.00 for each and every day Respondent fails to timely comply
with any of the requirements of paragraphs 17 and 20 of this Consent Agreement;
and $400.00 for each and every day Respondent fails to comply with any of the
requirements of paragraphs 12, 13, 14,15,16,18, 19, 21, 22, 24b, 2S, 26, 27,
28, 31, 32, and 36 of this Consent Agreement, including the interim milestone
dates contained in the timetables submitted to and reviewed by the Department
pursuant to paragraphs 14,15 and 16 of this Consent Agreement, unless the time
frames are otherwise extended by the Department. A separate stipulated penalty
shall be assessed for each violation of this Agreement. Within 30 days of
written demand from the Department, Respondent shall make payment of the
appropriate stipulated penalties to "The Department of Environmental
Regulation" by caslricr's ()heck or money order and shall include thereon the OQC
number assigned to this Consent Agreement and the notation "Pollution Recovery
Fund Payment shall be sent to the Department of $nvlronmcntal Regulation,
1900 South Congress Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33406. The Department may
make demands' for. payment at any time after violations occur. Nothing in this
paragraph shall prevent the Department from filing suit to specifically enforce
any of the terms of this Consent Agmement,
31, It any event occurs which causes delay, or the reasonable likelihood
of delay, in complying with the requirements of this Consent Agreement,
Respondent shall have the burden of proving that the delay was, or will be,
caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of Respondent and could
not have been, or cannot be, overcome by due diligence, Upon occurrence of an
event causing delay or upon becoming aware of a potential for delay, Respondent
shall promptly notify the Department orally and shall, within seven (7) days of
oral notification to the Department, notify the Department in writing of the
anticipated length and cause of the delay, the measures taken, or to be taken,
in prevent or minimize the delay, and the timetable by which Respondent intends
to implement these measures. If the delay or anticipated delay has been, or
will be, caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of Respondent,
the time for performance hereunder shall be extended for a period equal to the
agreed delay resulting from such dreumstances. Such agreement shall adopt all
reasonable measures necessary to avoid or minimize delay. Failure of Respondent
to timely comply with the notice requirements of this paragraph shall
constitute a waiver of Respondent's right to request an extension of time for
compliance with the requirements of this Consent Agreement.
32. Respondent shall publish the following notice in a newspaper of
general circulation in Okeechobee County, Florida. The notice shall be
published one time only within 10 days after execution of the Consent Agreement
by the Department.
(7)
1 813 763 9529.' U6 -04 -92 02:25PM P008 #46
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY
1.
R ■95%
TEL
rrJun 04 92 14:31 No .003 P.09
Q./
STATE OP FLORIDA DEPARTMBNTOP ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
NOTICE OF CONSENT AORBEMBNT
The Department Environmental Regulation gives notice of agency action of
entering into a Consent Agreement with the City of Okeechobee pursuant to Rule
17- 103.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. The Consent Agreement addresses
City of Okeechobee public water system deficiencies and the corrective actions
that are required to bring the system into compliance with Department rules and
regulations. The Consent Agreement to available for public inspection during
normal business hours, 8:00 am. to 5 :00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
legal holidays, at the Department of Environmental Regulation, 1900 South
Congress Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Persons whose substantial interests are affected by this Consent
Agreement have a right to.petitlon for an administrative hearing on the Consent
Agreement. The petition must contain the information set forth below and must
be filed (received) in the Department's Office of General Counsel, 2600 Blair
Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.2400, within 21 days of receipt of this
notice. A copy of the Petition must also be mailed at the time of filing to
the District Office named above at the address indicated. Failure to file a
petition within the 21 days constitutes a waiver of any right such person has
to an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, P.S.
The petition shall contain the following information: (a) The name,
address, and telephone number of each petitioner; the Department's
identification number for the Consent Agreement and the county in which the
subject matter or activity b located; (b) A statement of how and when each
petitioner received notice of the Consent Agreement: (c) A statement of how
each petitioner's substantial interests are affected by the Consent Agreement;
(d) A statement of the material facts disputed by petitioner, if any; (e) A
statement of facts which petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification
of the Consent Agreement; (f) A statement of which rules or statutes petltioi►er
contends require reversal or modification of the Consent Agreement; (g) A
statement of the relief sought by petitioner, stating precisely the action
petitioner wants the Department to take with respect w the Consent Agreement.
If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process is designed
to formulate agency action. Accordingly, the Department's final action may be
different from the position taken by it in this Notice. Persons whose
substantial interests will be effected by any decision of the Department with
regard to the subject Consent Agreement have the right to petition to become a
party to the proceeding. The petition must conform to the requirements
specified above and be filed (received) within 21 days of receipt of this
notice in the Office of General Counsel at the above address of the Department.
Failure to petition within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any
right such person has to request a hearing under Section 12057, F.S., and to
participate as a party to this proceeding. Any subsequent intervention will
only be at the approval of the presiding officer upon motion filed pursuant to
Rule 2a- 5207, F.A.C.
(.0)
1 813 763 9529 yr.li. 06-04 -92 02:25PM P009 #46
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY.
1 1%
R -95%
TEL :1 813 -763 -9529 Jun 04 92 14:32 No.003 P.10
s 6 :r 0 0*$0
33, Entry of this Consent Agreement does not relieve Respondent of the
need to comply with the applicable federal, state or local laws, regulations,
or ordinances.
34, The terms and conditions set forth in this Consent Agreement may be
enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 120.69 and
403.121, F.S. Failure to comply with the terms of this Consent Agreement shall
constitute a violation of Section 403.859, F.S.
35, Respondent is fully aware that a violation of the terms of this
Consent Agreement may result in the Department taking action pursuant to
Sections 403.121, 403,859, and 403.860, F,S, In the event it is necessary for
the Department to seek judicial enforcement of this Consent Agreement,
Respondent shall pay to the Department all investigative costs, court costs and
expenses, as will as a reasonable attorney's fee for obtaining judgment from
the Circuit Court.
36. Respondent shall allow all authorized representatives of the
Department access to the property at reasonable times for the purpose of
determining compliance with the terms of this Consent Agreement and the rules
of the Department.
37. All plans, applications, and information required by this Consent
Agreement to be submitted to tho Department should' be sent to the Department of
Environmental Regulation, 1900 South Congress Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida,
33406,
38. The Department hereby expressly reserves the right to initiate
appropriate legal action to prevent or prohibit any violations of applicable
statutes, or the rules promulgated thereunder that are not specifically
addressed by the terms of this Consent Agreement,
39. The Department, for and in consideration of the complete and timely
performance by Respondent of the obligations agreed to in this Consent
Agreement, hereby waives its right to seek judicial imposition of damages or
civil penalties for alleged violations outlined in this Consent Agreement.
Respondent waive its right to an administrative hearing pursuant to Section
12056, Florida Statutes, on the terms of this Consent Agreement. Respondent
acknowledges its right to appeal the terms of this Consent Agreement pursuant
to Section 120,68, F.S., but waives that right upon signing this Consent
Agreement.
40. The provisions of this Consent Agreement shall apply to and be
binding upon the parties, their officers, their director, agents, servants,
employees, successor, and assigns and all persons, firms, and corporations
acting under, through or for them and upon those persons, firms and
corporations in active concert or participation with them.
41. No modifications of the terms of this Consent Agreement shall be
effective until reduced to writing and executed by both Respondent and the
Department.
42, This Consent Agreement is the final agency action of the Department
pursuant to Section 120.69, F.S., and F.A.C. Rule 17.103.110(3). and it is
(9)
1 813 763 9529 06 -04 -92 02:25PM P010 #46
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY TEL :1-813-763-9529 Jun 04 92 14:32 No.003 P.11
Pa
R -94%
final and effective on the date filed with the Clerk of the Department unless a
Petition for Adininlstrative Hearing is pied in accordance with Chapter 120
F.S. Upon the timely filing of a petition. this Consent Agreement will not be
effective until further order of the Department.
Copies furnished to:
John Cook
John Drago
Susan Groover
JAMS Kirk
William Reese
William Zvara
Office of General Counsel, DER, Tallahassee
Okeechobee County Health Department
Potable Water Permitting, DER /WFB
'Wet Palm Beach DER Piless
ayor
City of Okeechobee
55 Southeast Third Avvuuo
Okeechobee, Florida 34974
DONE AND ORDERED this 2s day of
Esach, Florida.
STAIM OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
err 4 A
J. TT B •.NYON,
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Southeast Florida District
1900 South Congress Avenue, Suite A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
Telephone: 407/433 -2650
.00)
1991, in West Palm
1 813 763 9529 06 -04 -92 02:25PM P011 #46
APPENDIX E
DEBT ANALYSIS
REGIONAL UTILITY SYSTEM
CONSOLIDATION OF CITY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM ESCROW OF 1987 AND 1989 BONDS
Sources:
Uses:
Sources and Uses of Funds
Par Amdunt of Bonds
Less Original Issue Discount
Existing Sinking Fund Accruals
Existing Debt Service Reserve Account
6/10/1992
Schedule 1
10,375,000.00
438,987.50
Total Sources 10,813,987.50
Cost of Escrow 10,006,500.00
Underwriter's Discount and Costs of Issuance (2.5X) 259,375.00
Insurance Premium .45% total p&i 90,785.00
Transfer of Existing Debt Service Reserve 438,987.50
Debt Service Reserve Surety for balance of max. d/s (4X), 18,000.00
Contingency 340.00
Total Uses 10,813,987.50
Assumptions Used in Financing
(1) The dated and delivery date on the issue is 7/1/92.
(2) The 1987 bonds are paid thru an escrow which calls the bonds 1/1/97 iJ 102%
The 1989 bonds are paid thru an escrow which calls the bonds 1/1/2000 a 102%
(3) The 1992 issue is structured as level annual savings when compared to
the existing debt service.
(5) The savings are as follows:
Total Net Future Value Savings 163,541.88
Total Net Present Value Savings 91,665.01
Average Annual Savings 6,675.18
Savings to Bonds Refunded .960%
THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA
WATER AND SEWER REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1987
Schedule of outstanding Debt
Interest Calculation Date: 7/1/92
Schedule 2
Period Outstanding Annual
Ending Principal Rate Interest Total Total
1/ 1/93 75,000.00 6.000% 181,879.38 256,879.38 256,879.38
7/ 1/93 179,629.38 179,629.38
1/ 1/94 75,000.00 6.200% 179,629.38 254,629.38 434,258.75
7/ 1/94 177,304.38 177,304.38
1/ 1/95 80,000.00 6.400% 177,304.38 257,304.38 434,608.75
7/ 1/95 174,744.38 174,744.38
1/ 1/96 85,000.00 6.600% 174,744.38 259,744.38 434,488.75
7/ 1/96 171,939.38 171,939.38
1/ 1/97 95,000.00 6.800% 171,939.38 266,939.38 438,878.75
7/ 1/97 168,709.38 168,709.38
1/ 1/98 100,000.00 7.000% 168,709.38 268,709.38 437,418.75
7/ 1/98 165,209.38 165,209.38
1/ 1/99 105,000.00 7.200% 165,209.38 270,209.38 435,418.75
7/ 1/99 161,429.38 161,429.38
1/ 1/00 115,000.00 7.400% 161,429.38 276,429.38 437,858.75
7/ 1/00 157,174.38 157,174.38
1/ 1/01 120,000.00 7.500X 157,174.38 277,174.38 434,348.75
7/ 1/01 152,674.38 152,674.38
1/ 1/02 130,000.00 7.600% 152,674.38 282,674.38 435,348.75
7/ 1/02 147,734.38 147,734.38
1/ 1/03 140,000.00 7.750X 147,734.38 287,734.38 435,468.75
7/ 1/03 142,309.38 142,309.38
1/ 1/04 150,000.00 7.750% 142,309.38 292,309.38 434,618.75
7/ 1/04 136,496.88 136,496.88
1/ 1/05 165,000.00 7.750X 136,496.88 301,496.88 437,993.75
7/ 1/05 130,103.13 130,103.13
1/ 1/06 175,000.00 7.750% 130,103.13 305,103.13 435,206.25
7/ 1/06 123,321.88 123,321.88
1/ 1/07 190,000.00 7.750% 123,321.88 313,321.88 436,643.75
7/ 1/07 115,959.38 115,959.38
1/ 1/08 205,000.00 7.875% 115,959.38 320,959.38 436,918.75
7/ 1/08 107,887.50 107,887.50
1/ 1/09 220,000.00 7.875% 107,887.50 327,887.50 435,775.00
7/ 1/09 99,225.00 99,225.00
1/ 1/10 240,000.00 7.875% 99,225.00 339,225.00 438,450.00
7/ 1/10 89,775.00 89,775.00
1/ 1/11 255,000.00 7.875% 89,775.00 344,775.00 434,550.00
7/ 1/11 79,734.38 79,734.38
1/ 1/12 275,000.00 7.875% 79,734.38 354,734.38 434,468.75
7/ 1/12 68,906.25 68,906.25
1/ 1/13 300,000.00 7.875% 68,906.25 368,906.25 437,812.50
7/ 1/13 57,093.75 57,093.75
1/ 1/14 320,000.00 7.875% 57,093.75 377,093.75 434,187.50
7/ 1/14 44,493.75 44,493.75
1/ 1/15 350,000.00 7.875X 44,493.75 394,493.75 438,987.50
7/ 1/15 30,712.50 30,712.50
1/ 1/16 375,000.00 7.875X 30,712.50 405,712.50 436,425.00
7/ 1/16 15,946.88 15,946.88
1/ 1/17 405,000.00 7.875% 15,946.88 420,946.88 436,893.75
Total 4,745,000.00 5,978,908.13 10,723,908.13 10,723,908.13
THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1989
Schedule of Outstanding Debt
Interest Calculation Date: 7/1/92
Schedule 2-a
Period Outstanding Annual
Ending Principal Rate Interest Total Total
1/ 1/93 95,000.00 6.000% 165,257.50 260,257.50 260,257.50
7/ 1/93 162,407.50 162,407.50
1/ 1/94 100,000.00 6.100% 162,407.50 262,407.50 424,815.00
7/ 1/94 159,357.50 159,357.50
1/ 1/95 105,000.00 6.150% 159,357.50 264,357.50 423,715.00
7/ 1/95 156,128.75 156,128.75
1/ 1/96 115,000.00 6.200X 156,128.75 271,128.75 427,257.50
7/ 1/96 152,563.75 152,563.75
1/ 1/97 120,000.00 6.300X 152,563.75 272,563.75 425,127.50
7/ 1/97 148,783.75 148,783.75
1/ 1/98 130,000.00 6.350% 148,783.75 278,783.75 427,567.50
7/ 1/98 144,656.25 144,656.25
1/ 1/99 135,000.00 6.400% 144,656.25 279,656.25 424,312.50
7/ 1/99 140,336.25 140,336.25
1/ 1/00 145,000.00 6.500X 140,336.25 285,336.25 425,672.50
7/ 1/00 135,623.75 135,623.75
1/ 1/01 155,000.00 6.550X 135,623.75 290,623.75 426,247.50
7/ 1/01 130,547.50 130,547.50
1/ 1/02 165,000.00 6.650% 130,547.50 295,547.50 426,095.00
7/ 1/02 125,061.25 125,061.25
1/ 1/03 175,000.00 6.700X 125,061.25 300,061.25 425,122.50
7/ 1/03 119,198.75 119,198.75
1/ 1/04 190,000.00 6.750% 119,198.75 309,198.75 428,397.50
7/ 1/04 112,786.25 112,786.25
1/ 1/05 200,000.00 7.100% 112,786.25 312,786.25 425,572.50
7/ 1/05 105,686.25 105,686.25
1/ 1/06 215,000.00 7.100% 105,686.25 320,686.25 426,372.50
7/ 1/06 98,053.75 98,053.75
1/ 1/07 230,000.00 7.100% 98,053.75 328,053.75 426,107.50
7/ 1/07 89,888.75 89,888.75
1/ 1/08 250,000.00 7.100X 89,888.75 339,888.75 429,777.50
7/ 1/08 81,013.75 81,013.75
1/ 1/09 2 7.100% 81,013.75 346,013.75 427,027.50
7/ 1/09 71,606.25 71,606.25
1/ 1/10 285,000.00 7.125% 71,606.25 356,606.25 428,212.50
7/ 1/10 61,453.13 61,453.13
1/ 1/11 305,000.00 7.125% 61,453.13 366,453.13 427,906.25
7/ 1/11 50,587.50 50,587.50
1/ 1/12 325,000.00 7.125% 50,587.50 375,587.50 426,175.00
7/ 1/12 39,009.38 39,009.38
1/ 1/13 350,000.00 7.125X 39,009.38 389,009.38 428,018.75
7/ 1/13 26,540.63 26,540.63
1/ 1/14 375,000.00 7.125X 26,540.63 401,540.63 428,081.25
7/ 1/14 13,181.25 13,181.25
1/ 1/15 370,000.00 7.125% 13,181.25 383,181.25 396,362.50
7/ 1/15
1/ 1/16
7/ 1/16
1/ 1/17
Total 4,800,000.00 4,814,201.25 9,614,201.25 9,614,201.25
THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA
SCHEDULE OF COMBINED OUTSTANDING DEBT SERVICE
Interest Calculation Date: 7/1/92
Schedule 2 -b
Outstanding Outstanding Total Annual Total
Period 1987 1989 Outstanding Outstanding
Ending. Tax Debt Debt Debt Service Debt Service
1/ 1/93 256,879.38 260,257.50 517,136.88 517,136.88
7 1/93 179,629.38 162,407.50 342,036.88
1/ 1/94 254,629.38 262,407.50 517,036.88 859,073.75
7/ 1/94 177,304.38 159,357.50 336,661.88
1/ 1/95 257,304.38 264,357.50 521,661.88 858,323.75
7/ 1/95 174,744.38 156,128.75 330,873.13
•1/ 1/96 259,744.38 271,128.75 530,873.13 861,746.25
7/ 1/96 171,939.38 152,563.75 324,503.13
1/ 1/97 266,939.38 272,563.75 539,503.13 864,006.25
7/ 1/97 168,709.38 148,783.75 317,493.13
1/ 1/98 268,709.38 278,783.75 547,493.13 864,986.25
7/ 1/98 165,209.38 144,656.25 309,865.63
1/ 1/99 270,209.38 279,656.25 549,865.63 859,731.25
7/ 1/99 161,429.38 140,336.25 301,765.63
1/ 1/00 276,429.38 285,336.25 561,765.63 863,531.25
7/ 1 /00 157,174.38 135,623.75 292,798.13
1/ 1/01 277,174.38 290,623.75 567,798.13 860,596.25
7/ 1/01 152,674.38 130,547.50 283,221.88
1/ 1/02 282,674.38 295,547.50 578,221.88 861,443.75
7/ 1/02 147,734.38 125,061.25 272,795.63
1/ 1/03 287,734.38 300,061.25 587,795.63 860,591.25
7/ 1/03 142,309.38 119,198.75 261,508.13
1/ 1/04 292,309.38 309,198.75 601,508.13 863,016.25
7/ 1/04 136,496.88 112,786.25 249,283.13
1/ 1/05 301,496.88 312,786.25 614,283.13 863,566.25
7/ 1/05 130,103.13 105,686.25 235,789.38
1/ 1/06 305,103.13 320,686.25 625,789.38 861,578.75
7/ 1/06 123,321.88 98,053.75 221,375.63
1/ 1/07 313,321.88 328,053.75 641,375.63 862,751.25
7/ 1 /07 115,959.38 89,888.75 205,848.13
1/ 1/08 320,959.38 339,888.75 660,848.13 866,696.25
7/ 1/08 107,887.50 81,013.75 188,901.25
1/ 1/09 327,887.50 346,013.75 673,901.25 862,802.50
7/ 1/09 99,225.00 71,606.25 170,831.25
1/ 1/10 339,225.00 356,606.25 695,831.25 866,662.50
7/ 1/10 89,775.00 61,453.13 151,228.13
1/ 1/11 344,775.00 366,453.13 711,228.13 862,456.25
7/ 1/11 79,734.38 50,587.50 130,321.88
1/ 1/12 354,734.38 375,587.50 730,321.88 860,643.75
7/ 1/12 68,906.25 39,009.38 107,915.63
1/ 1/13 368,906.25 389,009.38 757,915.63 865,831.25
7/ 1/13 57,093.75 26,540.63 83,634.38
1/ 1/14 377,093.75 401,540.63 778,634.38 862,268.75
7/ 1/14 44,493.75 13,181.25 57,675.00
1/ 1/15 394,493.75 383,181.25 777,675.00 835,350.00
7/ 1/15 3b,712.50 30,712.50
1/ 1/16 405,712.50 405,712.50 436,425.00
7/ 1/16 15,946.88 15,946.88
1/ 1/17 420,946.88 420,946.88 436,893.75
Total 10,723,908.13 9,614,201.25 20,338,109.38 20,338,109.38
PRO -FORMA WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1992
Comparison of 1992 Pro -Forma Debt Service to 1987 and 1989 Debt Service
Schedule 4
Present Value Calculation Date: 7/1/92 Present Value
Difference
Period Outstanding Refunding Annual At Arb. Yield
Ending Debt Service Debt Service Difference Difference 6.460%
1/ 1/93 517,136.88 512,750.00 4,386.88 4,386.88 4,249.61
7/ 1/93 342,036.88 314,483.75 27,553.13 25,855.86
1/ 1/94 517,036.88 539,483.75 22,446.88) 5,106.25 20,405.07)
7/ 1/94 336,661.88 309,477.50 27,184.38 23,938.43
1/ 1/95 521,661.88 539,477.50 17,815.63) 9,368.75 15,197.47)
7/ 1/95 330,873.13 304,072.50 26,800.63 22,146.72
1/ 1/96 530,873.13 549,072.50 18,199.38) 8,601.25 14,568.50)
7/ 1/96 324,503.13 298,008.75 26,494.38 20,545.01
1/ 1/97 539,503.13 558,008.75 18,505.63) 7,988.75 13,901.14)
7/ 1/97 317,493.13 291,378.75 26,114.38 .19,002.92
1/ 1/98 547,493.13 566,378.75 18,885.63) 7,228.75 13,312.70)
7/ 1/98 309,865.63 284,091.25 25,774.38 17,600.18
1/ 1/99 549,865.63 569,091.25 19,225.63) 6,548.75 12,717.55)
7/ 1/99 301,765.63 276,253.75 25,511.88 16,347.80
1/ 1/00 561,765.63 581,253.75 19,488.13) 6,023.75 12,097.10)
7/ 1/00 292,798.13 267,561.25 25,236.88 15,175.42
1/ 1/01 567,798.13 587,561.25 19,763.13) 5,473.75 11,512.11)
7/ 1/01 283,221.88 258,281.25 24,940.63 14,073.45
1/ 1/02 578,221.88 598,281.25 20,059.38) 4,881.25 10,964.90)
7/ 1/02 272,795.63 248,251.25 24,544.38 12,996.71
1/ 1/03 587,795.63 603,251.25 15,455.63) 9,088.75 7,927.97)
7/ 1/03 261,508.13 237,601.25 23,906.88 11,879.34
1/ 1/04 601,508.13 617,601.25 16,093.13) 7,813.75 7,746.47)
7/;1/04 249,283.13 225,916.25 23,366.88 10,895.78
1/ 1/05 614,283.13 630,916.25 16,633.13) 6,733.75 7,513.21)
7/ 1/05 235,789.38 213,260.00 22,529.38 9,858.14
1/ 1/06 625,789.38 643,260.00 17,470.63) 5,058.75 7,405.40)
7/ 1/06 221,375.63 199,715.00 21,660.63 8,894.16
1/ 1/07 641,375.63 654,715.00 13,339.38) 8,321.25 5,305.96)
7/ 1/07 205,848.13 185,155.00 20,693.13 7,973.49
1/ 1/08 660,848.13 675,155.00 14,306.88) 6,386.25 5,340.24)
7/ 1/08 188,901.25 169,230.00 19,671.25 7,112.83
1/ 1/09 673,901.25 689,230.00 15,328.75) 4,342.50 5,369.22)
7/ 1/09 170,831.25 152,330.00 18,501.25 6,277.69
1/ 1/10 695,831.25 707,330.00 11,498.75) 7,002.50 3,779.58)
7/ 1/10 151,228.13 134,292.50 16,935.63 5,392.47
1/ 1/11 711,228.13 719,292.50 8,064.38) 8,871.25 2,487.43)
7/ 1/11 130,321.88 115,280.00 15,041.88 4,494.45
1/ 1/12 730,321.88 740,280.00 9,958.13) 5,083.75 2,882.35)
7/ 1/12 107,915.63 94,811.25 13,104.38 3,674.34
1/ 1/13 757,915.63 764,811.25 6,895.63) 6,208.75 1,872.97)
7/ 1/13 83,634.38 72,868.75 10,765.63 2,832.63
1/ 1/14 778,634.38 782,868.75 4,234.38) 6,531.25 1,079.28)
7/ 1/14 57,675.00 49,616.25 8,058.75 1,989.79
1/ 1/15 777,675.00 779,616.25 1,941.25) 6,117.50 464.32)
7/ 1/15 30,712.50 25,708.75 5,003.75 1,159.37
1/ 1/16 405,712.50 405,708.75 3.75 5,007.50 .84
7/ 1/16 15,946.88 13,263.75 2,683.13 583.39
1/ 1/17 420,946.88 418,263.75 2,683.13 5,366.25 565.13
Total 20,338,109.38 20,174,567.50 163,541.88
163,541.88 91,665.01
EXAMPLE OF REGIONAL UTILITY SYSTEM DEBT
PRO -FORMA WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1992
Schedule of Acquisition Debt Service
Interest Calculation Date: 7/1/92
Schedule 3
Period Annual
Ending Principal Rate Interest Total Total
1/ 1/93 195,000.00 3.350% 317,750.00 512,750.00 512,750.00
7/ 1/93 314,483.75 314,483.75
1/ 1/94 225,000.00 4.450% 314,483.75 539,483.75 853,967.50
7/ 1/94 309,477.50 309,477.50
1/ 1/95 230,000.00 4.700% 309,477.50 539,477.50 848,955.00
7/ 1/95 304,072.50 304,072.50
1/ 1/96 245,000.00 4.950% 304,072.50 549,072.50 853,145.00
7/ 1/96 298,008.75 298,008.75
1/ 1/97 260,000.00 5.100% 298,008.75 558,008.75 856,017.50
7/ 1/97 291,378.75 291,378.75
1/ 1/98 275,000.00 5.300% 291,378.75 566,378.75 857,757.50
7/ 1/98 284,091.25 284,091.25
1/ 1/99 285,000.00 5.500% 284,091.25 569,091.25 853,182.50
7/ 1/99 276,253.75 276,253.75
1/ 1/00 305,000.00 5.700% 276,253.75 581,253.75 857,507.50
7/ 1/00 267,561.25 267,561.25
1/ 1/01 320,000.00 5.800% 267,561.25 587,561.25 855,122.50
7/ 1/01 258,281.25 258,281.25
1/ 1/02 340,000.00 5.900% 258,281.25 598,281.25 856,562.50
7/ 1/02 248,251.25 248,251.25
1/ 1/03 355,000.00 6.000% 248,251.25 603,251.25 851,502.50
7/ 1/03 237,601.25 237,601.25
1/ 1/04 380,000.00 6.150% 237,601.25 617,601.25 855,202.50
7/ 1/04 225,916.25 225,916.25
1/ 1/05 405,000.00 6.250% 225,916.25 630,916.25 856,832.50
7/ 1/05 213,260.00 213,260.00
1/ 1/06 430,000.00 6.300% 213,260.00 643,260.00 856,520.00
7/ 1/06 199,715.00 199,715.00
1/ 1/07 455,000.00 6.400% 199,715.00 654,715.00 854,430.00
7/ 1/07 185,155.00 185,155.00
1/ 1/08 490,000.00 6.500% 185,155.00 675,155.00 860,310.00
7/ 1/08 169,230.00 169,230.00
1/ 1/09 520,000.00 6.500% 169,230.00 689,230.00 858,460.00
7/ 1/09 152,330.00 152,330.00
1/ 1/10 555,000.00 6.5007. 152,330.00 707,330.00 859,660.00
7/ 1/10 134,292.50 134,292.50
1/ 1/11 585,000.00 6.500% 134,292.50 719,292.50 853,585.00
7/ 1/11 115,280.00 115,280.00
1/ 1/12 625,000.00 6.550% 115,280.00 740,280.00 855,560.00
7/ 1/12 94,811.25 94,811.25
1/ 1/13 670,000.00 6.550% 94,811.25 764,811.25 859,622.50
7/ 1/13 72,868.75 72,868.75
1/ 1/14 710,000.00 6.550X 72,868.75 782,868.75 855,737.50
7/ 1/14 49,616.25 49,616.25
1/ 1/15 730,000.00 6.550% 49,616.25 779,616.25 829,232.50
7/ 1/15 25,708.75 25,708.75
1/ 1/16 380,000.00 6.550% 25,708.75 405,708.75 431,417.50
7/ 1/16 13,263.75 13,263.75
1/ 1/17 405,000.00 6.550% 13,263.75 418,263.75 431,527.50
Total 10,375,000.00 9,799,567.50 20,174,567.50 20,174,567.50
1
APPENDIX F
LAWS OF FLORIDA
1992 REGULAR SESSION Ch. :92-182
Section 18. (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to vigorously protect and restore the
environment of this state. However, the Legislature recognizes that in some instances
such protection and restoration efforts may adversely affect the local economy in certain,
areas and the present and future revenue sources of the local government in such areas.
Further, it is the intent of the Legislature to minimize such adverse economic impacts.
(2) To the greatest extent practicable, and where'consistent with criteria otherwise set
forth by law, a state agency which awards or' recommends any grant, loan, or other.
financial aid to municipalities or counties is encouraged'tb give preferential consideration
to municipalities or counties which have been adversely affected by an environmental
cleanup initiative conducted by a state or regional agency.